Audit Committee, 14 Sep 2004
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Official Report
200KB pdf
Scottish Further Education Funding Council
Item 5 concerns the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. The committee is to consider a follow-up response to our fourth report, "Scottish Further Education Funding Council – Performance management of the further education sector in Scotland". Members have the response before them. The committee and Audit Scotland have carried out significant activity in the area over the years. Our report was published on 18 March and we considered a response from the Executive at our meeting on 8 June. Do members have any comments?
I have a couple of observations. Eddie Frizzell goes to great lengths to defend the current accountability of colleges, claiming that the funding council has a range of powers to influence how colleges account for the money that is spent. The evidence to the committee so far is that that does not seem to work terribly well.
On unit costs and financial performance indicators, Eddie Frizzell gives us a long explanation about how unit costs could be misused or misinterpreted because of the way in which they are presented. He goes on to state:
"unit costs would signpost the questions to be asked but would not necessarily themselves provide the answers."
At least it would be nice to be able to ask the questions. We are all grown up and adult enough to be able to draw out what the reasons might be for differing unit cost levels. That would add to the debate, rather than subtract from it.
Eddie Frizzell seems to be at pains to state that he wants to meet us informally to explain why we do not understand what is going on. That might be worth considering. I would also like to see what information the Executive has collected on unit costs and benchmarking. That would be useful and would reassure us that it is getting to grips with the subject. I do not know whether that could be done at a private informal meeting. I leave that to other committee members to decide.
I have some comments on your points, in particular on having an informal meeting. Members will recall that at one of our away days we took the view that it would be useful to discuss how we can improve dialogue with accountable officers. In an effort to do that, we intend to meet John Elvidge at some point. A letter to that effect has been drafted and will be sent to John Elvidge soon.
It is better that we follow that process of meeting the senior accountable officer to explore the mechanisms that might be put in place, rather than organise an informal meeting with an accountable officer at this stage, when we have not worked out what protocols might be most appropriate to protect the interests of the accountable officer as well as the legitimate interests of this committee, which is here to hold accountable officers to account. We might have a meeting in future, but perhaps not just yet, before we have exhausted our lines of inquiry on the best procedure.
If there are no other comments, I intend to draw a line at this stage, after I invite the Auditor General to give his view.
I have nothing to add.
Is there any future work on the further education sector that it might be worth letting the committee know about?
Yes. Our plan is that, in about 12 months' time, in late 2005, we will produce another round-up of what is happening in further education, considering both the financial performance of the colleges and the role of the funding council in pulling that together. That is our timescale for coming back to you with further work.
Thank you for that. I suggest that we note that response and draw a line under the agenda item. We may or may not revisit the issue of further education and the funding council at a later date. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.