Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 5 March 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2072 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of UHI Perth”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

Who was asking questions of whom throughout the process is ground that has been covered already. However, given that the funding would have come primarily via a third party—in this case, the Funding Council—it strikes me as particularly unusual that it would have signed off the release of those funds to a body that had not presented financial accounts to it. That seems to me quite unusual. Is that what has driven your report—the unusualness of that situation?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of UHI Perth”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

In what was a relatively small organisation.

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of UHI Perth”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

In this case, would it not have been a primary function of the board to say to the organisation, “Have you prepared a budget for this financial year?” If the answer to that question was no, what on earth was the board doing?

Public Audit Committee

“Our impact: Monitoring and evaluation report 2025”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

Thank you for your report. I can see that you have sent somebody on a course on how to do lots of bar charts and pie charts. However, they were not all clear to me in setting out how you report data. I will go to the beginning of the report and to the high-level exhibit 6. Over the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, the data set that you used to produce the report covers 11 performance audits, which made 63 recommendations, and 235 annual audits, which made a total of 949 recommendations across the two years. Is that correct?

Public Audit Committee

“Our impact: Monitoring and evaluation report 2025”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

I was trying to get my head round the bigger picture. The report goes into quite granular detail on the different types of recommendations and the various stages that they are at, if you can work out what the dark blue and the light blue shading mean. However, once I have got over that, there is still a point that I am trying to get my head around. Taking the 2023-24 year, because it had the higher number of annual audits of public bodies, and the 459 recommendations that came out of all those reports, I simply want a top line. Of those 459, how many to date are fully implemented, how many are in progress and how many have not been touched at all? I could not find that information in any of the bar charts. If it is there, please point me to it.

Public Audit Committee

“Our impact: Monitoring and evaluation report 2025”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

That is helpful—thank you. On performance audits, in paragraph 36, you state:

“We do not currently have systems in place to follow-up recommendations made in national reports to all local authorities or multiple bodies.”

The term “follow-up” is a bit vague. What do you mean by that?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of UHI Perth”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

In your experience, is it okay for an organisation to say that it is spending more money than it has? That is just being honest, is it not?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2023/24 audit of UHI Perth”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

My understanding is that the root factors of the deficit stemmed from three particular areas. The first related to negotiating pay settlements as part of national bargaining, which obviously had a knock-on effect locally. Secondly, there were issues relating to the Air Service Training scheme, which I will ask about separately, because that was another interesting development.

The third reason for the deficit was a drop in student numbers—the difference between the projected number of full-time equivalent students and the actual number of students who took up courses. While you were speaking, I had a look at the college’s course brochure. One could do a wide and varied range of courses, covering further education and higher education. Was there any feedback on why the number of actual students was so much lower than the number that had been forecasted?

Public Audit Committee

“Our impact: Monitoring and evaluation report 2025”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

As a member of the Public Audit Committee, I am looking for trends and patterns. There is a broadly similar number of bodies and recommendations, but is there a pattern of fewer or more recommendations being implemented in the early stage or in the long term, or in those that are just completely ignored? We make a big deal of the 93 per cent figure. Public bodies sit where you are sitting now and say, “Yes, we accept the recommendations of the report,” but those are just words. It is about how many of those actually translate into action. We have a bigger remit. You have no statutory duty to follow up on the recommendations or any locus in that respect, but we do, so that is the sort of data that I need to see the direction of travel.

Public Audit Committee

“Our impact: Monitoring and evaluation report 2025”

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Jamie Greene

Do you think that Audit Scotland gives enough cognisance to some of the factors that may explain why audited bodies have been unable to implement recommendations? There are a number of external factors. Your recommendations talk a lot about financial sustainability and workforce issues, but there is also a wider regulatory and legislative environment that these bodies are working in, which is outside of their control. Do you think that your focus is too much on whether a body did or did not deliver on the recommendations and does not acknowledge that, even if they wanted to deliver on them, it might be impossible for them to do so?