Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much indeed.

On behalf of the committee, I thank Stephen Boyle and his team this morning—Antony Clark, Tricia Meldrum and Zoe McGuire—for keeping us informed and answering the questions that we put. We really appreciate your time and the work that you are doing.

I draw the public part of this morning’s committee to an end.

Yes, I think that that is so. You have mentioned on a number of occasions in this morning’s session the £1 billion announced over the summer, which is presumably a commitment by the Scottish Government to, at least for this parliamentary session, keep investing in mechanisms for closing the attainment gap. Is that additional money over and above the core funding for education delivered by local government?

Secondly—this has been a thread running through our conversations—this is not just about where things go wrong but where things go right. What sense do you get of a sharing of good practice—of things that work using this funding? There are clearly certain stipulations about what it can and cannot be spent on, which led to some very innovative ideas, especially in the early days of its introduction. Do you get a sense that there is collaboration and sharing of good practice and that if there is an additional £1 billion in the system it will be well spent, provide value for money and have the desired effect?

Thank you. I will bring Sharon Dowey back in, then, I think, Willie Coffey has a question on the area that Sharon Dowey will pursue.

Does Willie Coffey want to come in?

Good morning. I begin by welcoming everybody back after the summer recess. I remind you of the Parliament’s rules on social distancing and the requirement to wear a mask if you are moving around or entering or leaving the room.

I also begin the new session by reminding the committee that our task and our job is to be the people’s and Parliament’s guardians, when things go wrong to get to the bottom of it, when public money is wasted to hold people to account and when lessons need to be learned to follow up to make sure that they are. I see the committee as being a critical part of a healthy and functioning democracy, and I think that it is even more important in the months ahead, at a time when there is renewed pressure on our public services, burned-out national health service staff, a backlogged justice system and young people who have missed out on education, that we stand up and ensure that we are led by evidence and facts without fear or favour.

The first item on the agenda is a decision on whether to take item 3 in private. Do members agree to consider our work programme in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. That was a very helpful introduction to this morning’s session.

I will begin by reflecting on some of the lessons from the previous session. This is a new committee, but we need to understand where there are underlying issues of which we need to keep fully abreast. In looking at the legacy report of the previous committee, it struck me that it identified recurring themes that seemed to be common in instances in which organisations had not met the performance standards that were expected, or where something more fundamental had gone wrong. The previous committee spoke of

“leadership challenges, poor workforce planning, weak governance arrangements”

and failures—which were sometimes catastrophic—with information and communications technology projects. The committee also reflected on the absence of key data and the failure to properly measure outcomes.

Will you explain how you plan to keep abreast of those themes, and how you expect to be able to continue to explore them in the future work programme?

We have identified the need for follow-up instead of just having a one-day inquiry into an organisation’s performance before everyone moves on, and we are keen to work with you to ensure that we are regularly updated on progress that is being made.

We move to questions from Craig Hoy.

Yes. I was going to say that we should build that issue into our work programme and return to it, because it is clearly a matter of concern and interest. Auditor General, is there a register of public bodies in Scotland that take part, or that do not take part, in the national fraud initiative?

We are coming towards the end of the meeting. You talked about agility.

You have explained in your written report about the move towards blogs and briefings. In the past two decades, Audit Scotland has built up a powerful reputation for being authoritative and forensic, and for making evidence-led recommendations. How will you safeguard that reputation in a world of blogs and briefings? How do you see the mechanism for referring work to the committee working? Can you assure us that there will be ample opportunity for us to work with you and to scrutinise the issues that you uncover using those routes?

I turn to the main item of business, which is a chance for us to consider Audit Scotland’s strategic priorities and future work programme. I welcome our witnesses. We have with us Stephen Boyle, who is the Auditor General for Scotland, and via videolink, Mark Roberts, who is audit director at Audit Scotland.

Before I move to questions from the committee, I thank Stephen Boyle for providing a written report and ask him to give us a short presentation to outline the strategic priorities of Audit Scotland and its future work programme.