���˿���

I first want to follow on from some of the previous lines of questioning. An interesting point was made about public awareness of economic issues and the role of the Fiscal Commission. However, more fundamentally, I wonder whether we need people to understand how the fiscal framework works and, in particular, how block grant adjustment works. Frankly, I am not convinced that most people in the Parliament understand that. How possible is it to achieve that? The block grant adjustment is a very synthetic beast. It is not as simple as just counting up the tax receipts to find out how much money you have, as the UK Government does—it is a very hypothetical system. How do we improve awareness and understanding of that?

I do not want to concentrate on this but, to follow on from the convener’s line of questioning, do you accept that, as an office holder, you do not inherit all your predecessor’s knowledge and experience? It is not as though you are Dr Who. Do you accept that it is relevant to ask someone to come to the committee to ask about particular circumstances and their reflections on them?

For example, Mr Johnston, who is sitting next to you, has not always been in communities; he was previously in education and justice. If a particular decision had taken place regarding education, even though he is now working in communities, it would be relevant for us to ask him about that. I do not have anything particular in mind, but do you accept that it is sometimes relevant to ask previous office holders about their decisions and the experiences that they had while they were in office rather than the current incumbent?

I am sorry to interrupt, as I have no doubt that that is very important—in the information age, managing information is incredibly complicated, especially in organisations as large as the civil service—but the question is not about information; it is about ensuring that decision making is recorded correctly. The British civil service has a reputation for, and a heritage of, meticulous record keeping, which is about recording specific decisions—saying what was decided, by whom and when. That is what has gone wrong here.

I accept Mr Marks’s characterisation that there is a lot of documentation about the Ferguson Marine matter, but I have two specific questions. That variation was a clear material change to the contract, which would require not just a ministerial decision but for that specific decision to be documented. Indeed, in his evidence to the Public Audit Committee, Mr Boyle suggested that the Scottish public finance manual would require documentation of decision making, and there are questions about whether the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 and the civil service green book would also require such documentation.

First, do you accept that it was a critical decision that should have been documented? Secondly, do you accept that that might have been a legal requirement?

You have acknowledged that there is a requirement to consider what the legal requirements were. It might be not just merely “regrettable”; there might have been a legal requirement.

I have one final question—I thank colleagues for their forbearance. It strikes me that this is not necessarily an isolated matter. There are similar concerns around the processes and the decision making surrounding other commercial engagements that the Scottish Government has had. From the environmental clean-up indemnities that were extended for the Liberty Steel site to the guarantees that were provided for the Lochaber smelter, there have been a number of key decisions on which it is unclear both who made the decision and on what basis. There has been significant reluctance on the part of the Scottish Government and the Administration to reveal those things, even when they knew that they were likely to have to reveal them. The Financial Times has revealed the email trail regarding the smelter guarantees.

I am making a broader point about how decisions are being made, how they are recorded and the openness about them when people ask what records the Scottish Government holds.

Thank you. I will leave it there.

I do not know what you are implying.

From the bulk of what we have seen to date as regards how complaints are raised, progressed and investigated, the application of the ministerial code will determine the outcomes of any such process, which will be judged by the code. I note that the independent advisers on the ministerial code will come back within three months of the procedure’s publication. Will the Deputy First Minister clarify when that is likely to happen, even in broad terms?

More importantly, given the sensitivity of the matter and given that, as we discussed previously, it comes down to ministerial discretion—especially from the First Minister—to decide whether the code has been broken, what are the parameters of the review that James Hamilton and Dame Elish Angiolini are undertaking? Will it simply be about the formulation and content of the code or will they also examine its operation?

I agree with all that, but there will always be a tension when the questions are centred on the person who is also responsible for deciding whether the code has been broken or whether to apply it. From our previous discussion, I recognise the democratic reasons for that—I do—but there is a tension nonetheless. Is that an area for reflection by the independent advisers, and has there been any dialogue on that?

I have two broad areas of questions. One is about progress and the other is about some of the content of future work, especially on the ministerial code.

On progress, I note that briefings with ministers have taken place, and I wonder if you could elaborate on the form that those briefings took, and whether every minister has received a briefing. I assume that the procedure will be most relevant to those civil servants who have the closest contact with ministers.

On the wider piece of work on information and training, has there been prioritisation among more senior civil servants, such as at director general or director level, and in private offices? If so, what progress has been made with that sort of targeted training?

I note that part of the recommendations is that an induction or training session should be put in place for ministers. Has that been put together? Is it in place? If not, when will it be in place?