Public Audit Committee, 09 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Official Report 135KB pdf

---

Section 22 Report

---

“The 2007/2008 audit of Stow College”

Item 8 is consideration of the 2007-08 audit of Stow College. Again, we have correspondence from the accountable officer. There continue to be issues, but it looks as if the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is taking a close look at not only what happened at Stow but—usefully—the wider implications for all colleges. I welcome the letter from its chief executive to the principals of all the colleges across Scotland asking them to ensure that a number of things happen.

The paper demonstrates the worthwhile nature of some of our work. Following our investigation—which itself followed on from the Auditor General's audit of Stow College—we raised the relevant issues with the accountable officer. That led to the funding council taking action. I welcome that. It shows that the Public Audit Committee is listened to and that our work has some knock-on benefits across the public sector. I suggest that we note the report and keep an eye on the issue in future.

Okay.

Members may recollect the interesting visit from members of our equivalent committee in Denmark. We heard about how that committee works, including the method by which a number of committee members go into an institution together with the equivalent of the Auditor General's staff. They jointly examine the institution, take evidence on how money is being spent and make a report. At the time, we said that we might look at whether that method was an appropriate way for us to deal with major issues that arise from time to time. I am thinking of how we deal with worrying information about what is going on behind the scenes, which ought to be examined in detail. Stow College may not be the right example, but it prompted that recollection. How and when will we consider the suggestion that arose from the Danish visit?

Two separate issues are involved. The paper that is before us relates to Stow College. I am reluctant to say or do anything when an appeal is pending. I suggest that we note the paper.

On the wider issue of how the committee works, we would need to hold discussions in private on how we use our time. A number of suggestions have been made in the past in that regard. We would then need to look at what is possible under the rules that govern the operation of the committee, because some of what you suggest may involve issues of competence. We can put on the agenda of a future meeting consideration of the useful suggestions that have been made in the past on taking the work of the committee out of the Parliament.

Do members agree to note the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private until 11:10.