Audit Committee, 27 Jun 2006
Meeting date: Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Official Report
201KB pdf
Scottish Executive (Progress Report on Committee's Recommendations)
Item 6 is consideration of a paper on the Scottish Executive's progress report on the committee's recommendations. I will explain the purpose of the paper. Members may recall that at our away day in October 2005, the committee discussed strengthening our arrangements for the Executive's periodic progress report on implementing the committee's accepted recommendations. Our concern was that we received too many responses or that we had recommended so much that eliciting a response was problematic. Because so many responses were required, they tended to be provided at the end of a parliamentary session, when we have little time to react. We want to distil that and to track the response to, and progress on, the most important recommendations.
The paper represents the beginning of that process. In table 1, the clerks have put together the strongest recommendations. Annex B provides a fuller list for members to refer to in case they feel that any recommendation has been missed out.
In paragraphs 9 to 11, I propose that we send the Executive the key recommendations in table 1 and that we consider whether to take oral evidence when we have the Executive's response, in an attempt to bring forward the process before the committee finishes its business at the end of the parliamentary session. We should seek the Executive's response to a smaller number of recommendations, so that we can begin to consider the effect that the committee has had.
Paragraph 9 mentions the committee's capacity to consider cross-cutting themes. When we write reports we consider particular issues, but the committee has published 20 reports in the second session of the Parliament, from which a number of themes have emerged. An individual department's accountable officer cannot deal with such matters, but the Executive's principal accountable officer might be able to do so on everyone's behalf. We should consider the matter, which is important. I invite members' comments before I ask the committee to take any decisions.
I welcome such an approach. It would be sensible to focus on the matters that the convener identified. We could probably reduce even further the key areas that we want to pursue.
In the context of our discussion about culture and practice in community planning, it is important that we try to practise what we preach. We should be sure that our questions and follow-up work will add value to the decision-making process and not prevent people from getting on with making improvements. Sometimes we do not explicitly ask ourselves about that. In that context, I wonder about the value of the detailed follow-up information on the NHS consultant contract, which was circulated recently; we should consider how much time and public money is tied up—and what the opportunity cost is—when people have to respond to our requests for information.
An awful lot of the responses that the Executive provides to us are process oriented. To be fair, that is perhaps because our questions are process oriented. We must try to strike a balance and elicit more from the Executive and other public bodies on the practical improvements that have been made as a consequence of what has been done, rather than just information about documents, meetings and reviews—I am not quite sure how we achieve that other than by constantly making the point.
Again, in the context of our earlier discussion, we should try to put more emphasis on culture change, rather than restrict our questions to structure and process. Such an approach might help to elicit a different balance of responses and—I hope—might even influence practice. I make no comment on the convener's specific recommendations, but I wanted to feed in my thoughts about our overall approach.
That is helpful. In the light of Susan Deacon's comments, I am open to changes being made to table 1. Given that this is our last meeting before the summer recess, I suggest that members tell the clerks if they think that any points in the table are superfluous or less important than others. The clerk will bring those comments to my attention and we can take out those points and provide a more focused document. I am quite relaxed about doing that, because we should acknowledge that some recommendations have a higher priority.
On paragraph 9, does the committee agree to discuss with the Executive—through the clerks in the first instance—a mechanism for pursuing themes that have arisen, as opposed to the recommendations themselves?
Members indicated agreement.
On paragraph 10, does the committee agree to send the paper to the Executive and request a response? Members should give the clerk their suggested amendments to the paper by the end of the week.
Members indicated agreement.
On paragraph 11, do members agree to discuss the Executive's response at a future meeting and to decide whether to take evidence on the progress that is being made?
Members indicated agreement.
That deals with the paper, which offers a useful way of enabling the committee to show whether and how it has added value to the work of Audit Scotland.
That ends our business in public. I thank everyone for contributing to a productive meeting.
Meeting suspended until 11:34 and thereafter continued in private until 12:00.