Seòmar agus comataidhean

Alex Thomas, I am particularly interested in the suggestion by the Institute for Government of a new statutory duty for the civil service to serve the public interest as well as the Government of the time.

That goes back to the exact point that you just made about countering the anti-democratic, deep-state argument in that regard. You said that the key would be parliamentary accountability. It sounds like you are essentially saying that the civil service should serve both the Government and the public through the Parliament. That leads to the question of what the civil service would be doing for and at the behest of the Parliament that the Government would not be asking of it.

Thank you very much. That is all from me, convener.

I again go back to one of John Mason’s earlier points. Dr Foster, in your written evidence you said that the Scottish Parliament is generally well regarded on public engagement. The flip side of that—and a point of criticism that is often levied both at members here and at the Scottish Government—is the length of time that it takes to make any particular decision or to deliver any particular policy in Scotland. Any piece of legislation will go through multiple consultations at Government level. It will then go through parliamentary consultation before it is considered by committees. That is not to mention co-design processes, which, for very good reason, are becoming more popular. However, in all sorts of areas of public policy those approaches are cumulatively leading to a lot of frustration about the length of time that it takes to deliver on issues that are not even vaguely politically contentious. There might be complete consensus in the Parliament on them, but it still takes us years longer to deliver on than either the public or we ourselves would want. That is in part—although not entirely—because of what has been referred to as “consultationitis”.

How do we wrestle with the tension between having thorough public engagement, which, by necessity, takes time, and delivering policies in the timescales that the public would expect of us and within which we would want to deliver?

I come back to one of John Mason’s latter points, on transparency. I will set the scene with an example. You might have seen that, a couple of months ago, there was a leak from a private conversation in which a senior NHS official suggested that in order to ease pressure on the health service we needed a two-tier service, with the wealthiest people paying for it, so that for some people it would no longer be free at the point of use.

The then health secretary, who is now the First Minister, had to immediately come out and say that there was no chance of that happening under this Government. However, there is a strong enough argument there to say that, given the pressure on the health service, senior officials should feel free—at least in a private space—to come up with whichever ideas they want, as long as there is sufficient accountability, and that, ultimately, it is for ministers to decide on them. In that case, that idea should never have flown.

My understanding of the argument on transparency that both of you propose is that whatever decision has been made needs to be correctly minuted and documented—the evidence base for it needs to be presented—but that we should not necessarily compel the civil service or our Government to publish what the alternative options were in each particular case. Every idea that is floated should not necessarily make its way into the public domain, because that would have a chilling effect. Is that a correct paraphrasing of your positions, or is a level of transparency required around proposals alternative to whichever one the Government eventually lands on?

Convener, I am substituting on the Parliamentary Bureau this morning, so I will have to leave in five minutes. It would be rude of me to get up and leave while people are answering my questions, so I am happy to let another colleague in at this point.

Thanks very much.

In the interests of time, I will roll a couple of questions into one. I am interested in your point that part of the role of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales is to foster bipartisanship in order to allow long-term thinking. You got the ball rolling on that agenda under a centre-right Government, but, for most of the time that the role has been bedding in, that has been under a centre-left Government and there might be a change of Government later this year. How durable is that agenda? Can it survive a change of Government? Has it become an established and agreed culture across the political spectrum in New Zealand, or is it ultimately dependent on the desires of a particular Prime Minister or Cabinet?

Secondly, you are trying to break down silos and take a more holistic approach to Government decision making. How well does that work with multiparty Government? I am somewhat familiar with your situation. It is a kind of multiparty Government, but your two Green ministers are in a bit of a silo, away from the Labour Cabinet. Does the breaking down of silos work when it involves crossing between the responsibilities of ministers who come from different parties and where trust might be more of an issue than it would be between ministers of the same party?

My second question was about multiparty Government. Your climate minister is a Green colleague of mine. I am aware that he is frustrated by trying to do the required cross-portfolio work on climate, because he sits in something of a silo compared to colleagues who have responsibility for agriculture or other matters. How does that approach fit with multiparty Government?

I am interested in getting a better understanding of some of the issues around transport. Claire Lunday and Kevin Northcott, when it comes to transporting young people to and from your facilities, who organises that? Do you provide any of your own transport services or do you contract third-party providers for transport?

Thank you. That is powerful evidence, and I am glad that you shared it with us.

On the specific recommendation about mandatory reporting of any incidents of restraint, I would be interested to hear thoughts on what route that mandatory reporting should take. Should it go from the provider to the local authority? Should the provider be mandated to report not just to the local authority but to the Care Inspectorate? Should there be mandatory reporting to the secure accommodation centre? Where should that sit? Should it rest with the individual institution concerned—in other words, the secure accommodation provider—or should it be at local authority or national level, or somewhere else that I have not thought of?