Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is certainly not my experience and it is not the practice that I see in place at all.

You have heard some of the detail around why it is important to record decisions and improvements are being made in the recording of decisions and how they have been reached. I hope that what you have heard here today gives you some reassurance around that.

I see where you are getting to. Clearly, we need to guard against that, but any organisation that we fund is funded in order to carry out particular tasks. It would have applied for funding on the basis of meeting Scottish Government objectives that were set out. Where the Scottish Government is taking policy decisions and consulting, we would look at what organisations were saying in the round, alongside all the other organisations, whether we fund them or not. My expectation would be that there is no hierarchy of importance of an organisation’s views on a subject that in any way correlates to whether it is being funded. It is important that we make that distinction. Organisations are, as I say, funded to carry out particular tasks, so that distinction is important.

The processes are the processes, and the minutes are now part of—

Of course it is our expectation of every minister and every cabinet secretary—absolutely.

There were advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages was around the content of the census and being able to carry it out according to when we felt was the best time. The disadvantage was the UK-wide publicity around the census. I will bring the permanent secretary in on some of the detail around that, but such judgments will be made by looking at the pros and cons and whether it is the best thing to do. Clearly, the most important thing with the census is to have a return at a level that is reliable. That is the top thing.

Of course, ministers have supported all the improvements that have been made and that you have just heard the detail of. In my inbox, I regularly have minutes that have come through rapidly, not just of meetings with external organisations but of meetings with officials around decision making, all of which have been recorded. Everything is minuted, which is how it should be. If you are asking me whether that has always been the case, the answer is no. You have just heard why the improvements were put in place—it was because of concerns such as the one that you have just highlighted. Apart from anything else, it is extremely helpful for ministers to have those minutes, because it enables them to refer back.

They were not in place to the extent that they are now. We have heard about the changes that have been made. Minutes are now required and are taken in every single one of those circumstances. As I say, the minutes of every meeting that I have had pop up in my inbox—

The permanent secretary can come back in in a minute, but I want to be clear about two points. At the top level, the EQIA looked at the impact on women and girls. During the consultation and my discussions with a range of organisations, that issue was raised and was recorded as having been raised. The matter was clearly raised during the debate that then ensued. The Parliament tried to navigate its way through all those difficult issues to come to a consensus and conclusion. None of that was easy and, when I met you, Michelle, we had long discussions and many issues were raised at that stage. Trying to bring all that together and marshal it to a point at which the Parliament could make a decision was quite difficult. I would say that the Parliament made the right decision. I know that you disagree with that, but ultimately, the Parliament had to make the decision based on all the evidence that was in front of it and that is where the Parliament landed.

Let me comment on the ferries, before we move on to the census. The section 22 report was hugely important and a number of changes flowed from it, not least to do with the governance arrangements at Ferguson Marine. There has been a huge difference. The permanent secretary can go into more detail if required, but there has been a complete overhaul of the governance arrangements, which flowed from that report. It was important that that happened at speed—as it did. It was not a case of saying that lessons would be learned at some point in the future. It was a very rapid response with improved governance arrangements in rapid time.

The Scottish Government made the decision to carry out the census in a different way, which led to some challenges around the participation rate. The work that was undertaken—at speed—to address some of that in order to get the figure up worked, and the figure became one that could then be relied on in terms of the census return.

It would be a strange situation if a Government did not learn lessons. Even when things go well and they are not on a list about which people say, “What about this and what about that?”—even when delivery is good—there are always lessons to be learned about how things might be improved.

I will bring in the permanent secretary in a minute. I would hope that they are not reluctant to do so, because critical advice that could sway a decision really ought to be in there. I guess that you are getting at the question of whether full, frank and free advice becomes compromised if civil servants think that they will be hauled in front of a committee and made to answer for it a couple of years down the line, because the advice did not work out as had been planned. I hope that that is not the case because, ultimately, ministers rely on an honest picture, warts and all, rather than something that is refined because the civil servants think that it will sit easier with ministers. My starting point is that I would prefer the warts-and-all advice.