Seòmar agus comataidhean

What are James Black’s reflections? To put a different spin on it, is there a need to go beyond challenge and make sure that the approach translates down to a more granular level? That might not be challenge, but perhaps just testing as we go on. We could be challenging at the macro level, but should we continue to test at a more detailed level?

I think that my line of questioning will touch on some of the issues that the convener has already mentioned. Broadly, based on the conversation that we have been having to date, I have questions around how people in Government understand the categories of decisions, how consistently those are approached and whether there are consistent methodologies.

On that first point, it struck me that, when we are asking people in Government—be they former ministers or officials—about how they understand decisions, they almost automatically and exclusively talk about policy. If pushed, they might start talking about financial decision making, and, if really pushed, they will start talking about delivery. I think that the focus is very much in that order, and what they are not volunteering at all, which is quite striking given recent events, is anything around commercial decision making.

Does that chime with your understanding of the focus, and do you think that there needs to be a recalibration of the different types? Are they the right categories, or are there others that we should be asking about? I ask Mark Taylor to respond first, because the question feels quite Audit Scotland-y.

I will come back to that issue, but I am interested in hearing from James Black. Does the Government have sufficient clarity on its categories of decision making?

I will come back to Ben Thurman, because I would like to put the question to him in a particular way. First, I ask Mark Taylor whether he has anything to add to that or any insights from his work at Audit Scotland.

I have one final question. Consistency in approach is one thing that needs to be examined. You have all discussed challenge, but I wonder whether it is being conceived of and captured in the right way. In our discussions with officials, it struck me that, when we asked them about it, they pointed towards the use of external people on programme boards. That sounded to me very much like challenge at a policy level rather than necessarily challenge at the level of granular assumptions.

That is certainly the case in comparison with my experience of the commercial world, where you build in challenge at that more granular level in order to ensure that the assumptions are correct, because, ultimately, that is what ensures that you have a robust business case. Is that a fair reflection? Is that backed up by your experience of looking at those situations in detail?

Thank you very much. I had better leave it there.

I will leave it there for now.

Professor Cairney, your last statement neatly summed up the subject that I am circling around. Your paper is really interesting and excellent, but I wonder whether the bit that I am interested in is actually the next tier down.

I was struck by the fact that everyone in the group that I was in framed every decision as being either policy driven or financially driven. My experience of effective organisations is that the really important bit is what happens in between. To my mind, policy, in a business context, is about strategy and overall direction, while what are critical are the frameworks for delivery and implementation. I had hoped that there would be some examination of the decision making beneath all that. In other words, once the policy has been set, framed and determined, how and by whom are decisions captured and structured at the next level down? After all, that is very often where policy fails.

Am I barking up the wrong tree, or is there something in that? Does that area need to be better defined? It seems that people out there want to talk about policy and finances and civil servants want to talk about policy and finances. Is there an issue around a lack of definition and clarity about those day-to-day management decisions?

To my mind, it is not necessarily about specialism; it is about who is responsible at what stage. There is a point at which we are all very clear about the framing of policy and its outcomes. Ultimately, the minister stands up in Parliament. That is relatively clear, but it is about the individual bits.

We are all trying to avoid specific examples, but there was a significant contract variation in the ferries contract that was documented by an email chain. That stands out as being not right—that is not how things would happen in a well-functioning private sector organisation. In the financial services sector, you would find yourself butting up against all sorts of regulatory rules if you did that.

The issue is perhaps more about how policy is monitored, but is there also a point about roles? There was an interesting bit in our discussion about accountable officers. Is how the civil service captures who is managing the in-flight policy based on role rather than structure or process? Is that an area that we need to probe at more?

And some of them are quite rusty.