Item 4 is on the long-term work programme. Members should have a copy of it before them. The deputy auditor general for Scotland, Caroline Gardner, is with us today. I invite her to outline the contents of the programme to the committee.
This is the first time that the committee has seen our proposals for a future work programme. Until now, the work that members have seen has been the result of issues such as the national health service in Tayside, or Moray College, or of work that was started under the previous audit arrangement of the Accounts Commission for Scotland and the National Audit Office—before the Auditor General's post was established and Audit Scotland was set up to provide services to him.
How did you decide on the new projects and the areas on which further scoping is required? Did you use the feedback that you got from the stakeholders or were they suggested by Audit Scotland?
There is a balance. We consulted our stakeholders because we are keen to know what people who work in the services and set policy think. We also asked organisations such as the Scottish Consumer Council for their views. However, that is not the only basis on which we made our decisions: issues such as early retirement will not have been given a high rating by people working in councils but it is an area that we believe it important to consider.
Special educational needs can be seen as a cross-border issue as, since the change in local authority structures, a number of local authorities collaborate on the issue. In my part of Scotland, there is considerable concern about the variation in special educational needs provision. As well as the cross-border issues, there are cross-cutting issues. I do not expect to see that in the paper before us, of course. Numerous items that might be included are not in the paper—drug misuse, for example, on which the Scottish Executive has made significant announcements of additional money in the past year. There is concern about how that money is to be spent and how an equality of service can be delivered throughout the country. Those are the kinds of cross-cutting issues—which is the trendy term of the moment—and cross-border issues that you are focusing on.
Absolutely. For the first time there is an audit body that is able to look across councils, the health service, the Scottish Executive and its agencies. We have tried to consider the areas that were not easy to get at before, because they often account for a lot of money and have a substantial impact on the people who are affected by their services. We are keen to build into the approach to each study a demonstration of variation between areas, because that often suggests where there is room for improvement. People who are not doing as well may have good reasons for their poorer performance, but they may have room to raise their game and reach the level that is being achieved by the best. We would always build in that cross-boundary comparison, as well as cross-cutting in a single area.
I have a question about the new projects, particularly those that are joint studies. I have an interest in special educational needs. With whom will that study be jointly carried out?
I should have made that clear. We are proposing that the joint studies be done by Audit Scotland for both the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission. The Accounts Commission still has responsibility for the audit of local authorities. By making them joint agreed studies, we can consider the local authority role alongside what is happening with health services, psychology provision, for example, and any other local partners. The same applies to the report on youth justice. We can include the council dimension, rather than have to consider the policy or the Scottish Court Service exclusively.
Was that informed by submissions that you received, perhaps from the voluntary sector, in response to your consultation document?
We had some response from those groups, who suggested that it would be a worthwhile study, but we were particularly interested in the presumption for mainstreaming in special educational needs. It may well be possible to provide a good quality of service to those children in mainstream schools, but it certainly needs careful planning and perhaps additional resources. We are interested in how that is being balanced to ensure that children's needs are being met in mainstream schooling.
I am happy to hear that that is the basis from which you are considering the issue. Much as mainstreaming is a laudable desire in certain areas, the implications in other areas, where mainstreaming is simply not applicable in terms of cost, for example, would be interesting to know.
The committee has had a trailer of forthcoming attractions. I thank Audit Scotland for a comprehensive and detailed report, covering a range of topics from the NHS to education, housing and the environment, in addition to specific topics yet to come. On behalf of the Parliament and the people, we wish you well in your work.