Seòmar agus comataidhean

Auditor General, this is not the first time that we have seen adverse comments about leadership in your reports. Leadership is mentioned in paragraph 20 of the briefing. You call for “stable and collaborative leadership”. That sounds like a fairly basic thing that we would expect to be in place.

You mention that councils and integration authorities are experiencing

“high turnover of senior staff”.

In the past, you have said that the situation is the same in the NHS. Why is there such a high turnover of senior staff across the public sector? Until a few years ago, generally speaking, that was not the case, so what has triggered the change?

I have one more thing to add before Antony Clark comes in.

I can understand there being an issue with stability if there is churn in the senior staff, which can create a vacuum until the person who moves in has got up to speed and got to grips with the job. What I do not understand is the lack of collaboration. Collaboration should be fundamental and embedded, regardless of stability. Why does that collaboration not exist?

I will come back to the issue of data in a second, but I am going to ask you an unfair question that you might or might not be able to answer. How significant is the difference in the quality of leadership in social care in the public sector versus that in the private sector, or is there no difference at all?

Thank you for that. I am sure that we will pursue issues with regard to collaboration and so on as we move forward.

Auditor General, you have correctly highlighted the question of data. It is not a new issue for the committee; in fact, I cannot remember you ever telling us that data collection in any particular area was exemplary or particularly good.

In paragraph 23 of the briefing, you say that there is

“No individual social care record in the same way that each member of society has an NHS record.”

Obviously, there are difficulties with comparisons in that respect. Moreover, there is

“No consistent method for recording unmet need”

and

“No coordinated approach to anticipating future demand for and costs of delivering services”,

which is pretty fundamental.

Are we saying that each individual area is collecting data in one form or another with a view to meeting that data need, but that they are not doing so on a basis that is comparable with how other areas are doing it, or are we saying that they are just not bothering?

I have a final question for the Auditor General. We are, quite correctly, considering a national care service, which, I hope, will provide a uniform standard of care across the whole of Scotland. Without the data, how successful can a national service be?

Who needs to knock heads together to make that happen?

I am very conscious that, as the Auditor General mentioned, the issue of local collaboration has been raised several times in Audit Scotland reports during my 11 years on this committee, yet nothing seems to progress. You say that some places are better than others, but all places should have a level of collaboration that achieves the outcomes that the Government and everyone else is seeking. What has to happen?

It cannot go on that Audit Scotland churns out reports saying that there is a lack of collaboration locally that is impairing progress. I say that it cannot go on like that, but it has done. How do we break that?

In your opening statement you mentioned, I think, that the 2024 target for completion of the land register will be met. Is that correct?

It sounds like a bit of a compromise. Clearly, the original target and delivery under it have changed. To me, the changes that you have made seem to be fundamental. It will take years longer to get all the benefits that were anticipated from completion of the land register, and we do not have a target for that. You hope that, by 2024, you will get some of the benefits, albeit that how that will be achieved seems in some ways to be a little vague. Has that been discussed with your sponsor department in the Scottish Government? Is there clarity on how things are going forward?

There is a bit of a question about that, but never mind. I will move on to something else.

You mentioned the loss of your financial reserve because, obviously, your status changed, so the difference between your fees and outgoings is now met by the Scottish Government. Obviously, there are additional costs even in achieving the more limited target for 2024 that you are looking at. Has the Scottish Government committed to funding that over the years?