Audit Committee, 30 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Official Report 329KB pdf

---

“Individual Learning Accounts in Scotland”

Item 4 on the agenda is consideration of the Executive response to the committee's report on individual learning accounts in Scotland. Members should have the appropriate document, which was sent to us by Eddie Frizzell. I invite the Auditor General to comment on the Executive response.

We have nothing to add at this stage.

While members examine the response, it is worth my reflecting on the extent to which the Executive has noted and accepted our recommendations. The main difference is to be found in relation to our recommendation that

"the Chief Executives of SAAS and SUfI and the Head of ETLLD should write to the Audit and Enterprise and Culture Committees to state that they are content"

that there are adequate checks to provide an assurance of accountability. In the main, the rest of the response seems to be favourable.

Is it not for us, rather than an official, to determine what we think is in the best interests of the Parliament and the people of Scotland? Eddie Frizzell has totally missed the point that we were trying to make about quality issues. He says:

"the Education Department's focus is solely on schools".

The issues of how services are delivered and added value appear to have been lost in the Executive response.

I agree with Margaret Jamieson. I am concerned about the reaction of the Department of Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning to the two issues that she has raised.

I, too, agree that it is for us to say what we feel. The committee has no difficulty in making suggestions. The Executive is saying that it thinks that relevant lines of accountability exist, but it is right and proper that we suggest additional checks, given that we are in an evolving situation and that devolution must be tried and tested so that we find new ways of having accountability. We are not in a static institutional situation. Our suggestion has merit.

Eddie Frizzell misses the point totally that we were examining the issue because the system failed. We are saying that we want to ensure that there are proper systems in place for the new scheme and that if the Executive adopts our recommendation, that will deal with some of the problems that were experienced. It is right for us to point out to Eddie Frizzell that he may be leaving himself wide open to something happening.

In the committee's view, would it be helpful if I drafted a letter to the department, setting out why we came to the conclusions that we reached, as a way of seeking closure on the matter?

This is a small point, but it is unfortunate for

"ILA-funded learners who would probably have undertaken learning without ILA support"

to be described as "deadweight".

That is an economic term that is often used, but I appreciate the point that Robin Harper makes about the use of the term with reference to groups of people.

With the committee's agreement, I will draft and circulate a letter setting out the points that members have made.

Agenda item 5 is an evidence-taking session on "Overview of the National Health Service in Scotland 2002/03". Before we start, we will have a short comfort break of five minutes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—