Scrutiny Improvement
Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by John Swinney on scrutiny improvement—changes to structures.
This Government's purpose is very clear: we want to create a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth.
In the current economic climate, it is more important than ever that all public services actively contribute towards that purpose. An example of how the Scottish Government, in partnership with local authorities and agencies, is focusing on that is the wide-ranging package of improvements announced last week to help Scotland's planning system support increased sustainable economic growth. This morning, I will set out a range of measures to ensure that scrutiny supports and encourages public bodies to improve the services that they provide to the citizens of Scotland.
The drive to reform scrutiny extends far beyond this Administration. I am grateful to the previous Administration for setting up the independent review of regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling of public services in Scotland under Professor Lorne Crerar, whose report was debated in the chamber last October. Members endorsed the review's main recommendations and there was cross-party agreement on the need to create a robust but proportionate scrutiny system.
Parliament and bodies accountable to Parliament form a crucial part of that system. I whole-heartedly welcome the interest shown by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in our plans and the Parliament's bold initiative to draw on the lessons of Crerar and important work by the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee in reviewing the bodies under its wing.
Developing policy to implement the Crerar review was a specific element of our concordat with local government. We have worked very closely with local government on this matter and members and officials of local authorities have been involved in all the key groups. I also thank the other bodies, including the scrutiny bodies, that have worked with us on this issue since January.
That said, I am determined to take us beyond principles to tangible action. We are making bold choices—the right choices—to deliver an effective and proportionate scrutiny system for Scotland.
Over the past 20 years or so, the public sector has grown in a piecemeal fashion. We are simplifying the vast range of delivery bodies; indeed, we have reduced the number of such organisations by seven. We also have a wide array of organisations that scrutinise service delivery. Although partnership working can go some way in jointly organising scrutiny, it cannot and should not be the only solution.
Our reform of the scrutiny system is a key strand of this Government's desire for a more simplified and coherent approach to public service delivery, including a much clearer role for public bodies. In doing that, we are streamlining decision making and increasing transparency; stopping activity that no longer contributes to the public purpose; and applying much tougher tests to the creation of new bodies. Moreover, just as we have formed a new relationship with local government, this Administration is redefining its relationship with Scotland's public organisations by moving to an outcome-based approach aligned with the national performance framework.
The Government wants to create not only a system of external scrutiny and complaints handing that emphasises excellence in delivery, but a culture of self-improvement within the delivery bodies, which, after all, know the people who use their services. Of course, some level of proportionate external scrutiny will always be necessary to provide independent assurance that services are well managed, safe and fit for purpose and that public money is being used properly.
In June, I committed ministers to a target of reducing scrutiny bodies by 25 per cent, which matches our broader commitment on public bodies. Today, I will set out not only how that commitment will be achieved but how we are making progress on changing how scrutiny is carried out through the work of the Accounts Commission and the action groups that we set up in January.
Since Professor Crerar published his review, much has been done. Back in March, I asked the Accounts Commission to find ways of reducing the burdens on local authorities through the better planning and scheduling of service inspections. I have recently received the commission's first progress report and it is clearly identifying real opportunities for co-ordinating work to reduce the burden of scrutiny on councils and to improve its impact and effectiveness. The Accounts Commission will continue to report regularly to ensure that real change is delivered on the ground.
In January, I announced the creation of five action groups to produce practical ways of implementing the Crerar recommendations. Four of the five groups have now reported and the fifth will report shortly. Although a formal response to those reports will be published in the near future, I can announce that we are accepting a number of key measures.
For a start, we endorse the vision of simple, user-friendly and broadly consistent complaints procedures across public services, with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman working with the public sector on designing and implementing them. We agree that local government complaints systems should be a priority for that new approach and that scrutiny bodies should work together and with councils to develop a proportionate and intelligence-led approach to scrutiny based on robust risk assessments. We will move to formalise the independence of bodies that scrutinise services to give the public assurance that their reports and findings are free not only from the influence of those delivering the services, but from political interference.
The key drivers behind the move to simplify the scrutiny landscape are obvious. First, we want to tackle the complexity of organisational structures. Working across structural boundaries can absorb a lot of time that could be spent on speaking directly and listening to and addressing the needs of citizens. Secondly, we want to achieve more outcome-focused, efficient and streamlined public services that provide better value for the public pound.
The changes affect 11 bodies with more than 950 staff and budgets amounting to £59 million. Under the plans, those 11 bodies will be reduced to five. To create a clearer system for handling complaints about public services, the Government would prefer to transfer functions in two areas—complaints about the water industry and complaints from prisoners—to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. One result of the streamlining of complaints handling would be the abolition of Waterwatch Scotland, whose complaints functions we would like to transfer to the SPSO. Consumer Focus Scotland, which already promotes customers' views on a range of public services, would represent water customers.
With regard to the Scottish Prisoner Complaints Commission, we would prefer to put its functions on a statutory footing for the first time and to make them part of the SPSO's revised functions. Both proposals are in line with the complaints action group's recommendation that the number of standalone complaints-handling bodies should be reduced to simplify the process and landscape for users.
However, as the SPSO is a parliamentary body, I recognise that it is not in the Government's gift to transfer functions to it. The Parliament's ad hoc committee, which will be convened by Trish Godman, will rightly want to consider the functions of the SPSO and other parliamentary bodies. We will put our proposals to the committee to allow members to consider how well they might fit with their wider considerations.
We are developing a more integrated role for the prison visiting committees that better reflects modern offender management structures and we are exploring the prospect of linking their functions with those of Her Majesty's prisons inspectorate for Scotland.
We will abolish the Scottish charity appeals panel and consult on where its functions might best sit. Although it is important for charities to have an accessible and cost-effective way of appealing the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator's decisions, the fact that only a very small number of appeals has been received suggests that that need not be provided by a specialist standalone body. We will publish a consultation paper on future options, but I assure the third sector that the SCAP will remain until a suitable recipient has been found for its work.
We intend to make major improvements to the scrutiny of health, social care and social work services. In future, there will be a single scrutiny body for health services; a single body for care and social work; and a single body concentrating on education and learning for children and other learners.
The new health scrutiny body will bring together the existing functions of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland and the Mental Welfare Commission; take on the scrutiny of independent health care, which at the moment is conducted by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care; and have new responsibilities for reviewing and inspecting performance on health care-acquired infections. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will make an announcement shortly on that very subject. The new body will ensure greater consistency of scrutiny.
The new health scrutiny body will not only ensure greater consistency of scrutiny, but will give the public a better understanding of standards of performance and delivery across a highly integrated universal public service. It will also put more of an emphasis on the health needs of vulnerable people, including older people, people with mental health problems and people with learning disabilities.
The single scrutiny body for care and social work will take on the functions of the Social Work Inspection Agency, the functions of the care commission—without its independent health care function—and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education's current responsibilities for the inspection of child protection and the integration of children's services.
The new body will consider the links in what should be a chain of support, from how the local authority performs its strategic social work functions right through to how services are delivered to individual citizens. HMIE will maintain its focus on raising educational standards, stimulating improvement and promoting self-evaluation while continuing to ensure that education services work with other services to support the development and wellbeing of all children in Scotland.
The health and social care proposals present a much simplified landscape that will focus on the needs of the individual service user, not the bureaucracies of organisational structures.
The changes that I have outlined affect the scrutiny bodies that report to Government. Parliament has its own commissioners and scrutiny bodies. We have undertaken positive dialogue with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, and I fully recognise that Parliament should play a leading role in considering its contribution towards improving scrutiny. I am pleased that the Parliament will be invited to consider the proposal to establish an ad hoc committee to consider its relationships with its bodies and how those can be improved, and I look forward to contributing towards its deliberations. Of course, all decisions on legislative change, irrespective of who sponsors the bodies, are clearly for the Parliament as a whole.
We intend to deliver the package of structural reform by 2011. I expect the changes that require legislation to be reflected in legislation that will be introduced next year, either in the public services reform (Scotland) bill, which is due to be introduced early next year, or in other legislation that is relevant to the policy area.
Whatever structural approach we adopt short of having a single scrutiny body—that proposal received little support when we debated the Crerar review last year—scrutiny bodies will need to work together across organisational boundaries to ensure that the needs of individuals and families are met. The work that the Accounts Commission is doing will play an important part in breaking down any barriers that exist.
Finally, there is a further change that will contribute towards our commitment to cut the number of public bodies by 25 per cent. The Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland Administration, which is currently an executive agency, will be merged into the core Scottish Government. That change will help in moving towards a new structure for the tribunal system in Scotland in the light of the Leggatt report and other reports.
The changes that I have outlined will benefit those who deliver services. Crucially, time will be freed up for the delivery and improvement of public services, which will benefit people who use them. Service providers will be responsible for the robust self-evaluation of their activities. A smaller number of scrutiny bodies should support that self-evaluation, but those scrutiny bodies should retain independence and the right to assess the effectiveness of how services are delivered and their quality. Complaints procedures will be simpler and more consistent throughout Scotland. Complaints will be handled better, at a more local level and in a more consistent way, and there will be fewer stages between when the complaint is made and its resolution.
We will work closely with scrutiny organisations to implement the reforms to ensure that they deliver clear benefits. In the short term, there may be some transitional costs as we move towards having a smaller number of scrutiny bodies, but those costs will be offset against savings over time. The savings will contribute to the efficiency gains that are required under the efficient government initiative from the bodies that are directly affected by the changes, and they will be available to support the improvement of services.
The size of the workforce involved in what has been a disproportionate external scrutiny system will diminish as we move to self-evaluation. We maintain our commitment to having no compulsory redundancies. The reduction in the workforce will be achieved through redeployment, natural wastage and, potentially, limited voluntary severance. We will also consider a staged transfer of resources closer to the delivery of services. We will engage with staff, trade unions, local government and other stakeholders to ensure that the changes are well designed and implemented.
Members of the public expect assurances that their services are efficient and fit for purpose, but they want teachers, care workers and other public sector workers to get on with delivering services rather than constantly preparing for the next inspector. I am committed to delivering a real reduction in scrutiny as part of the simplification of public service delivery. The package of measures that we have set in train today is a substantial start.
I am grateful to all our partners for the work that they have done to date. We need to be bold in taking forward the measures to deliver tangible change on the ground for the people of our country.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. Around 30 minutes are available for such questions. Not a huge number of members want to ask questions, so there is a little—I repeat: a little—flexibility in times.
I call Andy Kerr to ask the first question.
Thank you for that kind invitation, Presiding Officer.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement, much of the content of which I welcome, and for his acknowledgement of the work that was done by the previous Administration. I am sure that further details about the proposals will arise during parliamentary consideration of them and the work of the ad hoc committee. As the process develops, it will be interesting to find out whether the cabinet secretary's proposals comply with the recommendations on accountability and governance in paragraphs 10.10 and 10.11 of the Crerar review report, including recommendations 22 to 25. I am not sure that there is the clarity that we would expect at this point for us to examine the proposals.
One key Crerar principle is focusing on the public. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the public become central and involved in the new form of scrutiny so that that clear principle is followed?
The Crerar report states:
"the scrutiny bodies appear to have different levels of independence from government and … accountability across the scrutiny sector is neither transparent nor consistent."
With agencies, non-departmental public bodies and, of course, the SPSO retaining scrutiny functions, is the cabinet secretary convinced that he has addressed Professor Crerar's concern about that?
On local government, I note with interest the ideas about complaints systems at a local level. Is the cabinet secretary proposing a uniform and standard system at the local level to allow transparency across local authority areas, or will he allow individual local authorities to have their own systems that are in line with certain principles which are set out by him and the Parliament?
On unintended consequences, the Scottish health council performs a critical role, which is being subsumed within a bigger organisation. What assurance can the cabinet secretary give that that organisation's role, influence and importance will not be diminished?
Finally, how do the cabinet secretary's proposals fit with our next debate, on patients' rights proposals? There are linkages in that respect that have not been addressed in the statement or the associated documentation.
Mr Kerr mentions that supplementary information that goes into more detail than it was possible for me to go into in my 15-minute statement has been made available. I should have added that.
Mr Kerr has pointed to a number of key issues. I assure him that we are coming from the same place. Simplifying the system of scrutiny to ensure that the interests of members of the public are absolutely central is at the heart of what the Government aims to do. Because of the system's complexity, it can often be difficult for interests of members of the public to be viewed as central. Organisational infrastructures rather than the concerns, or rather the legitimate interests, of members of the public can often predominate. I assure Mr Kerr that the interests of members of the public are central to the Government's approach, whether we are talking about organisations' accountability and governance arrangements, how we establish bodies, how bodies should relate to the Government or their freedom to express their views about the performance of public services. It is in nobody's interest to have organisations that are in any way hamstrung in their ability to express their views on service performance.
On complaints at local authority level, I referred in my statement to enabling the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to have a more active role in supporting the establishment of more consistent complaints systems that would meet clearer standards throughout the country. As Mr Kerr knows, local authorities are independently constituted bodies, so it would be for them to design the complaints-handling processes. However, I hope that we create a climate in which authorities feel well supported by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in securing that.
Mr Kerr made two points about unintended consequences. I am not sure that I follow his concern about the Scottish health council, but I will write to him on that if I feel that any issues need to be explored. On the connection to the next debate this morning, on patients' rights, I return to my first point that it is absolutely critical that we put the member of the public at the centre of the reform and our considerations. The debate on patients' rights strikes me as a perfect illustration of how the Government intends to do that.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement and the supporting document, which is helpful. For a brief moment, we thought that we had an inadvertent leak from the Government and got terribly excited about that, but we found nothing untoward in the document, which was most upsetting. The Conservatives welcome the broad thrust of the announcement, although we reserve the right to consider the detail when it is produced. We look forward to engaging on the implications of the Crerar recommendations on the parliamentary ombudsmen and commissioners.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the five action groups and said that the report from the fifth one is still to come. He also talked about a variety of statements that his colleagues will make. Can we assume that, with the exception of the fifth action group report and the content of those ministerial statements, we now in effect have the Government's broad approach to the Crerar report? Will he comment in more detail on the Government's assessment of the cost savings that will arise from the move to more proportionate scrutiny? Has any quantification been made of the benefits to service users and the organisations that are scrutinised?
I am amazed by the prospect of inadvertent leaks that can excite the Conservative party on a Thursday morning.
My statement and the subsequent announcements that the Government will make are the components of the Government's response to the Crerar report. As I said, the previous Administration established the Crerar review, which we welcomed and supported when in opposition. We have made progress on the recommendations. I acknowledge that, across the board, the Parliament needs to be comfortable on all the questions that we are exploring. The debate last year on the Crerar review, in essence, allowed Parliament to express its general views on the report and to give the Government guidance on how much parliamentary comfort there would be with our approach. That style lies at the heart of how the Government wants to take further action in relation to the Crerar review. I hope that we can work across the Parliament in doing that and in the legislative process for the forthcoming public services reform (Scotland) bill.
I cannot give Mr Brownlee an estimate of the cost savings, because it is difficult to quantify the benefits or the savings in management and staff time in local authorities. Frankly, authorities have been overburdened by inspectors turning up one after the other. The Accounts Commission has done a good job, in consort with Audit Scotland, in bringing together regulatory bodies to plan better the inspections that are undertaken at the corporate level in local authorities. We are seeing the fruits of that work in the way in which the process is organised—it is having a significant influence on the design of the best-value 2 approach, which will build on the best-value regime that was introduced into local government in the past. There will be cost savings. Savings will arise from the functions of the bodies to which I have referred, but there will also be consequential savings to local authorities, as the burden of inspection will be made more proportionate as a consequence of my announcements.
The cabinet secretary highlighted the fact that the Government asked the Accounts Commission to find ways in which to reduce the burden on local authorities through better planning and scheduling of service inspections. However, will the cabinet secretary confirm that all the 3,599 targets in the single outcome agreements with our local authorities have been signed off without any audit? How does that square with scrutiny improvement?
The outcome agreements are focused on providing the clearest possible illustration to members of the public in individual localities of what they should expect their local authorities to achieve as a consequence of service planning, service delivery and public expenditure in each area. The single outcome agreements crystallise very clearly what local authorities aim to do in individual localities and they are a significant improvement in transparency and openness. They are public documents that are available for scrutiny. Members of the public can examine the contents of the single outcome agreements to determine whether authorities have made progress in achieving the aims and objectives. Mr Rumbles should be assured that there is a much greater degree of transparency and scrutiny.
A significant amount of audit activity is undertaken routinely in every local authority in the country. Mr Rumbles will see that the work that is done in the best-value 2 regime will continue to build on the clear lessons and benefits of the best-value system that the previous Administration introduced. As a consequence, public service will improve into the bargain.
Will the cabinet secretary spell out a little further how the proposals sit alongside the wider simplification programme on which the Government has embarked?
Earlier this year, the First Minister made a statement to Parliament that set out the Government's approach on the simplification of public bodies. The various steps that were set out in that statement are now being delivered actively. The public service reform (Scotland) bill, which will be introduced to Parliament in the spring, will give further details and Parliament will have the opportunity to consider those propositions. In our agenda, the improvement in scrutiny sits comfortably with the improvement in the organisation of public bodies.
I generally welcome the cabinet secretary's statement, which is a positive step in the right direction. However, I have three specific points about the new health scrutiny body. First, I return to Andy Kerr's point about the status of the new bodies, because I am not clear that we got an answer on that. The supplementary information does not tell me whether the bodies are to be agencies, non-departmental public bodies or a mixture. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that it is essential that the bodies are independent of ministers and free from political interference.
My second point is about the health scrutiny body's role in the inspection of performance on health care-acquired infections. Will the body operate and report on a hospital-by-hospital basis? Will it deal with health care-acquired infections in care homes? That is an area of substantial and growing concern and I am worried about overlap with the other new body that the Government is to set up, which will be an amalgamation of the care commission and the SWIA.
Finally, I have a question about self-evaluation. Although I understand absolutely the merit in that approach, and although Professor Crerar commended it in his report, equally I am clear that self-evaluation is not enough. Argyll and Clyde NHS Board had two successive self-evaluations of its compliance with its HAI targets. It failed twice and no action was taken at a hospital level. We know the results of that. Does the cabinet secretary agree that self-assessment needs to be backed by monitoring and that strong action is needed at the hospital level to correct the systems failure that resulted in so many patients dying of Clostridium difficile at the Vale of Leven hospital?
The status of the new bodies is not confirmed in the statement and there will be further discussion about that point. It is a material point for consideration in the parliamentary process. I commented that we want to ensure that the bodies are free from political interference, so I hope that that gives Jackie Baillie some comfort on the Government's thinking about their status.
Whether there will be hospital-by-hospital reporting will be considered as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing sets out her points in greater detail. We must ensure that the regime is applied effectively across hospitals and care homes.
Jackie Baillie's last point gets to the nub of the issue. It is a serious issue. On the one hand, there will be, and we all know of, examples of unacceptable performance in the public service; on the other hand, there will be examples of supremely effective public service performance. The Parliament will be asked to consider whether it is appropriate to apply the same regime to the elements of the public services that perform poorly and the parts that perform exceptionally. That is where proportionate scrutiny comes into focus. I accept that that is a question for the Parliament to consider, which is why I have gone to such lengths to ensure that we have a broad spectrum of agreement about the point.
I hope that, in the course of considering the issues, we will be able to reassure members. I instinctively think it inappropriate to use a one-size-fits-all inspection regime when we know that some elements of the public services are performing well and, therefore, do not require to be inspected as frequently as others. I readily concede that there is a danger of deterioration in performance within public service organisations, so we need a mechanism that can identify that deterioration and intervene to protect the public interest.
I hope that that is helpful in explaining some of the Government's thinking. The Parliament must be engaged on the issue to ensure that we are comfortable about moving to a more proportionate regime that is driven by self-evaluation rather than comprehensive, one-size-fits-all inspection and scrutiny.
I, too, broadly welcome much of the cabinet secretary's statement, quite near the end of which he said that complaints would be handled better, more locally and more consistently. From what he said, I can see how they will be handled more consistently, but it is not immediately obvious to me how they will be handled more locally. Will he elaborate on that point?
I am sure that we all agree that, if the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has to address a complaint, we have reached a pretty unacceptable point in the relationship between a member of the public and a public body. The impetus of what I announced is to put in place the responsibility that lay at the heart of the Crerar report: ensuring that organisations take responsibility for addressing examples of poor performance long before a member of the public feels the need to go to the ombudsman.
If organisations had a more consistent approach towards local handling of complaints about poor performance and were more engaged in addressing the concerns of members of the public and finding solutions locally, perhaps there would not be significant increases in the ombudsman's caseload and perhaps some of the complaints would not be so intractable or difficult to resolve once they got to the ombudsman. The key lesson of the Crerar report was that if complaints can be handled quickly at a local level by the people who deliver the services, we will improve the position for members of the public and reduce the time and energy that the public services must devote to resolving complaints but should devote to ensuring better-quality public services.
What solutions does the minister envisage for charities that need to appeal OSCR decisions, given that he has decided to eliminate the Scottish charity appeals panel?
We have taken the view that the Scottish charity appeals panel is not required simply because it has not had to consider any cases so far and we feel that there is an opportunity to handle its work more efficiently. The Minister for Community Safety will consult on that. I would not want to prejudge the outcome of that consultation, but the third sector and charity sector will be able to participate fully in it.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement and his emphasis on a consumer-focused approach. Many people have talked that talk; let us hope that we are more successful in achieving it this time.
I note the proposal for a single scrutiny body for health. Will the cabinet secretary expand on his proposals for complaint handling within the health service? In my experience, it is unbelievably difficult for members of the public to pursue meaningful complaints about the health service. Often, they try to pursue them after emotionally trying experiences. They find that very difficult and, all too often, give up because of the complexities of the system that they encounter. It is vital that one outcome of the cabinet secretary's proposals be that members of the public find it easier to pursue a complaint—not out of vindictiveness but to ensure that others do not, in future, experience what they have experienced. Will he give us a bit more information on how his proposals will assist in that effort?
Mr McCabe was the minister who initiated the Crerar review and did a great deal to advance many of the issues that the Government is now taking forward. I warmly welcome the work that he undertook. It sparked the debate and, through the Crerar report, gave the Government a resource that could advance the scrutiny agenda when it came to office.
I agree with Mr McCabe's view that the individual must be at the centre of the process. If somebody has had an unfortunate and unacceptable experience, the public services must adequately address and respond to their complaint. In my experience, it is difficult for such a complaint to find a straightforward route through the system, and I reassure Mr McCabe that the individual's interests will be at the heart of the process.
I repeat the point that I made to Mr Kerr on the debate that will follow this item of business. We are putting greater emphasis on patients' rights and on ensuring that patients are satisfactorily supported through the challenges that they face. The interests of members of the public who may have had bad experiences will be at the heart of the proposals that we introduce as we design the new bodies and encourage the creation of a new ethos within them. As they are established, the bodies will take those considerations forward.
Having sought over three decades to bring greater public and parliamentary accountability to quangos, I congratulate the minister on his statement and actions. In light of the decision to abolish Waterwatch Scotland, how will he ensure effective customer representation in the water industry, particularly in rural areas?
There is a clear distinction between handling complaints about the water industry—the Government has decided that that task should be transferred to the SPSO, subject to parliamentary consent—and the articulation of the consumer interest, which we want to be part of the work of Consumer Focus Scotland, which is already involved in the articulation and representation of consumers' concerns across Scotland on what they can expect from the public services.
Mr Welsh has raised a serious point. He and I represent adjoining constituencies with similar communities, so the importance of ensuring that people in rural areas can express their views and aspirations about public services is something about which I am deeply concerned. The issues that Mr Welsh raised will be at the heart of the arrangements and remit for Consumer Focus Scotland that we will encourage.
I am grateful to members for endeavouring to take up the full 30 minutes that was available. We have not quite made it, but we move to the next item of business. I will allow a wee while for members to change seats.