Audit Committee, 12 Sep 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

“Relocation of Scottish Executive departments, agencies and NDPBs”

Under item 5, the committee will consider a response from the Scottish Government to the previous Audit Committee's report entitled "Relocation of Scottish Executive departments, agencies and NDPBs".

The item is on the agenda to allow members to consider the Scottish Government's response to the report that was published by the previous Audit Committee. Its purpose is to invite comments from members and Audit Scotland and to allow the committee to reach agreement on any action that it wants to take.

I draw members' attention to one aspect of the report. On page 15 of the Government's response, which is contained in paper AU/S3/07/3/4, the use of written authorities is discussed. The Government agreed that, when the committee and the Auditor General receive a written authority, it should be

"accompanied by an explanation from the Accountable Officer of his grounds for requesting a written authority."

Recently, we received a written authority relating to prisons from the Scottish Prison Service, but it appears that we did not receive an accompanying explanation. Therefore, with the committee's permission, I will write back and follow up that matter.

We should agree to that, as a new procedure was recently agreed. We might as well try to enforce it from day one.

I have a question.

Is it on the broader issue?

Yes. I am happy that the Executive agreed with the committee about certain things, but its replies tend not to say terribly much, although they can be beautifully written. For example, on page 1 of its reply, it states in response to paragraph 27 of the committee's report:

"There is potential to improve the definition of success … This is being taken forward through the development of a consistent evaluation framework for all relocations."

No timescale is given. It is good that action is being taken, but it would help if a timescale for implementation of that framework were attached.

Paragraph 47 of the committee's report recommended that

"Where relocation is pursued despite higher redundancy costs, the reasons for this must be clearly articulated."

The Executive agreed with that, but I look forward to hearing such reasons. There was an earlier example of our not getting the explanation that we asked for.

In paragraph 50, the committee said:

"It is unacceptable that the Executive has failed to give a clear explanation of the reasons behind each choice of location, despite giving an undertaking to Parliament to do so."

The Executive rejects that conclusion and states:

"The Executive has set out a clear explanation of all location decisions in line with its commitment to Parliament."

Has it? Where is the explanation? I would like to be enlightened on that point. We get beautifully sculpted, well-written documents, but they do not always take us forward. We are seeking action on these matters.

Are you suggesting that Sir Humphrey lives on, even in post-devolution Scotland?

No, convener—I would not dare.

I am in general agreement with the points that Andrew Welsh has made. There are a number of ways in which the Executive response is unsatisfactory. In particular, there is a lack of suitably robust evidence and reasoning that would make its rejection of some of the committee's recommendations stack up. However, is it worth the committee spending a lot of time pursuing the matter, given that there has been a change in Administration since the response was produced, and given that there may be a change in relocation policy? I understand that the Finance Committee is looking at the issue. If we decided to pursue it, would we not be duplicating what is happening elsewhere?

Your last point is very apposite. Andrew Welsh is the convener of the Finance Committee. Given that that committee intends to consider the issue on a six-monthly basis, I assume that Andrew Welsh is not proposing that the Audit Committee should do any more than note it at this stage.

I was raising a general issue that we have come across time and again. We all seek sharper government—action and clearly defined goals. We have seen in previous reports what a lack of such goals can lead to. I have always had a general problem with Executive responses. I would like carefully thought-through recommendations to be seen to be acted on or for us to be given a clear statement of why that cannot happen. Government should be about action.

As members have nothing further to say, I ask the Auditor General to comment.

Thank you for that opportunity, convener, but I have nothing to add.

The issues that have arisen will clearly be pursued in another place, not least by Andrew Welsh. At this stage, we will note the report.

Thank you, convener.