Audit Committee, 27 Jun 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Official Report 201KB pdf

---

Audit Scotland (Work Programme)

Under item 5, we will consider Audit Scotland's forward work programme and I understand that Caroline Gardner will brief us. I propose that we should take a more formal approach than before and that this topic should be on the agenda at future meetings. We will therefore not have to exhaust the topic today.

Over the summer, the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission will consult jointly on Audit Scotland's programme of work for the national performance audit studies. Committee members have received a final draft of the paper that will go out to the bodies that we audit and to the whole range of our stakeholders. This meeting offers us the chance to discuss the paper with the Audit Committee, which is one of our most important partners.

We have tried to make the most of our unique position in Scottish public services—we look across the range of bodies that spend public money and provide public services. We have tried to take advantage of ways in which we can look through the system. For example, we can look at the Scottish Executive Health Department, at the health boards and at the organisations that spend money, but we can also look across the way, at local government and the other partners who are involved in providing public services.

The consultation paper sets out a long list of potential topics. I should stress that there are more topics than we will be able to work on. Rather than representing something close to the programme that we will finally adopt, the list presents a real choice. We will use the views that come back to us from the consultation to decide which of the topics should form the basis of our programme of work over the next couple of years. Feedback from the Audit Committee will be important, so we were keen to give members time to consider how the topics on the list fit in with the committee's interests and priorities, and how they link back to the work that it has done over the past three years.

The proposed topics, which have been influenced by current policy developments, focus on areas of high public expenditure and areas in which major change is either expected or under way. We will take particular account of the views and interests of service users; in other words, we will step away from the organisations that provide the services and move towards the people who use and rely on those services. Their views should be at the heart of our programme of work.

We have taken full account of the programmes of work of our partners in the scrutiny world—the other inspectorates and so on. At the end of the consultation exercise, we will seek opportunities to agree with them the programme of work.

We are committed to demonstrating the impact of our work in ensuring improved quality and efficiency in public services. In each of the studies in the paper, we have tried to suggest what we think the improvements to come out of the work will be. We will build on those suggestions as the programme is agreed.

I am pleased to have had the chance to bring the paper to the committee's attention, and I hope that we can engage in a dialogue with you over the summer and into September when business resumes.

The report is quite full. When we have considered such reports in the past, we have given an informal response. Partly, that has been because the committee did not want to appear to be directing the Auditor General—which, of course, it is not our business to do. We are beginning to come to the end of the work of this committee, and there is continuing consideration of the relationships between committees and of committees' accountability to the Parliament. It would therefore be worth while if the committee were to take a more formal approach this time. We have received a report and we should put our thoughts down on paper. Those thoughts will be our response to the consultation. That would be helpful for the committee, because it would show the strong relationship that we have with the Auditor General and the Audit Scotland work programme.

I am relaxed about members asking any questions that they might have, but I seek their support on my proposal that the committee should make a more formal response to such things in the future and that we should put this item back on the agenda at a later date. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a question on the proposed study topic "Support to Students", which is a topical issue. Student support covers a wide range of issues, but the proposal focuses very much on student loans, which are now only part of the support that is provided to students. For example, the forthcoming changes to fees will have an impact on Scottish students who study in England because they will incur more debt and will need access to more loans to pay those fees. Also, consideration should be given to how the bursary system has worked in providing support to students from poorer backgrounds. Why will the proposed study be limited, on the face of it at least, simply to student loans when significant numbers of students—including both my sons, who will probably go to university this year—will not have access to student loans? There are much wider issues about student support and whether we are getting it right.

That is a good question. Throughout the programme, we have tried to strike a balance between topics in significant areas of public policy—such as supporting people, free personal care and how legal aid supports the justice system—in which studies would be drawn quite widely and other areas in which studies would be much more focused in their application. For the proposed study topic, we have drawn the boundaries quite narrowly around the changes that are being introduced in the administration of the student loans system. We will welcome the views of the Audit Committee and other stakeholders on whether the time is right to step back and take a look at the wider questions surrounding support to students or whether we should keep the focus narrow and concentrate at this stage on the administration of the system. We need to make the right decision on the scope and timing of the studies.

I seek clarification on the proposed study topic "Reducing Re-offending". Would such a study consider both those who are given short sentences and those who are given longer sentences? The two groups face different issues, in that those who are given a four-month sentence may well be able to take steps to ensure that the house in which they are currently a tenant remains theirs until their release, whereas those who are serving 10 years would not be able to do that. Can we get a wee bit more information on that?

Another aspect that I would draw to Audit Scotland's attention—I think that this is a matter of concern to all MSPs—is how the drug and alcohol action teams administer methadone programmes and how those programmes are linked to issues such as reoffending, mental health and associated areas.

The thinking behind including that topic is that we are aware that we have produced several reports—for example, on youth justice and, last year, on prison programmes that are aimed at addressing offending behaviour—that have considered parts of the issue of reoffending, but we have not taken a step back to look at the bigger picture. If a topic that is identified in the draft work programme makes it to the final work programme, the next step will be to do a scoping exercise to ensure that we can look at enough of the system to be able to get to the causes of problems. The topic needs to be manageable, but we need to know that information is available for us to produce something. Those comments are very helpful. We will talk to the committee further about the scope of the study if it goes forward to the final work programme.

I was the convener of the committee that scrutinised the bill that became the long and important Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and I think that all of us have the sense that although mental health is talked about as a clinical priority, it continues to be a Cinderella service. Even some of the changes that the Parliament has made to improve some services—I am thinking about—

Services for young people.

I am thinking in particular of services for young people; I thank Margaret Jamieson for that.

The Parliament added measures such as mother and baby units because a gap and a need were perceived on such matters. How will you decide on the focus on a client group or condition in that wide-ranging subject? You could consider whether issues that were highlighted in fairly new legislation have followed through into improvements on the ground. Susan Deacon raised that idea when she talked about the difference between the vision and the implementation. My anecdotal feedback on services for young people, for example, is that changes have not happened and funding has not appeared. I am interested to know how you will focus on such an important but wide-ranging topic.

Thank you for that helpful suggestion. The Accounts Commission examined mental health services in the late 1990s before Audit Scotland was established and the Auditor General was appointed. At that stage, we considered primarily services for adults with long-term mental health problems who need contact with services over a long time if they are to avoid long-term admission to hospital or repeated admissions. We are aware that the needs of different groups of people are different, whether we are talking about child and adolescent mental health services, older people or adults with less serious but still debilitating conditions.

If the study proceeds, one task will be to scope it appropriately so that we consider the big questions but have something that is manageable. One way into that may be to consider the recommendations that Parliament made and how they have been turned into practical services on the ground.

Members have no further questions on agenda item 5, so I thank Caroline Gardner for that briefing. We shall pull together a paper for the committee to discuss and submit as a consultation response.