Seòmar agus comataidhean

If they think that they have something additional to say and want to come in, I am keen to hear their views. They do not, so I will move on.

I was also particularly struck by the strand of the skills alignment strategy relating to the appointment of a skills alignment director, which was a senior position. I will look again at the chronology—outlined in exhibit 3—after the rather dysfunctional episode with the skills committee. In February 2018, recruitment began for a skills alignment director. There was then a gap from February until October that year, when an interim director was appointed. In March 2019, the interim skills alignment director’s term ended. There was then another gap until August that year, when the permanent position was filled.

I do not know whether Gordon Smail is in a position to explain that or whether the Auditor General wants to have a go. Efficiency and effectiveness are cornerstones of what we are looking at, but the recruitment process, which was seen to be a key strategic part of driving the agenda forward, seems to have been highly inefficient. On top of that, it was decided later, after the permanent skills alignment director had left, that the post was surplus to requirements. Could you explain that for us?

Can you confirm that the position was originally advertised and the recruitment process begun to appoint a permanent skills alignment director in February 2018 but the position was permanently filled only in August the following year? That is a huge gap between the intent to recruit somebody to that critical position at what I presume was a critical time and somebody finally being permanently recruited.

Okay. I observe that there are huge gaps from the date of the post originally being advertised and it finally being filled permanently. However, there are also gaps in the coverage provided by an interim director or interim directors—I do not know whether it was one person or more. There were large spaces of time when there was nobody in post carrying out that function, which was seen to be pivotal to the delivery of the Scottish Government strategy.

Willie Coffey has at least one question that follows up that line of inquiry.

That is much appreciated. We will go straight to questions.

We want to explore a couple of other areas before we finish this evidence-taking session. I was struck by the following heading in the report:

“Staff capacity constraints within the SFC created tensions between the agencies”,

and I note that those constraints in the Funding Council were highlighted to the skills alignment joint programme board in February 2020. Who is represented on the board, and was any action taken at the time? What is your view of a situation in which there is an atmosphere of tension between two agencies, both of which are supposed to be serving the public interest?

Craig Hoy has a number of questions.

Agenda item 2 is an evidence-taking session with the Auditor General for Scotland and members of the Audit Scotland team on the report “Planning for skills”, which was published just a couple of weeks ago. I once again welcome Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General for Scotland, who joins us in the committee room. We are joined online by Gordon Smail, audit director; Rebecca Seidel, senior manager; and Douglas Black, audit manager in performance audit and best value.

We have a considerable number of questions to ask about the report, but first I ask the Auditor General to make introductory remarks.

Thank you, Mr Smail. That was helpful.

Another aspect that is covered in the report, with regard to the skills alignment action plan, or strategy, is the skills committee. Someone coming to the issue for the first time might be a little confused about the skills committee. That is because, as I understand it, there was a proposal to convert the joint Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland skills committee to a skills committee of the enterprise and skills strategic board. The report is quite illuminating on that, and says that the conversion

“did not happen because of the statutory requirement for the existing committee to be chaired by a SFC board member. No alternative governance structure was introduced at ESSB level, and the joint SFC and SDS Skills Committee has not met since August 2017.”

The report was written in November 2021. It goes on to say:

“The SFC consolidated the Joint Skills Committee with another of its committees, which has since become the SFC’s Skills, Access, Enhancement and Learning Committee. SDS does not sit on this committee.”

That raises a host of questions, one of which is this: why did the enterprise and skills strategic board not seek to set up an alternative governance structure to allow the establishment of a proper co-operative and collaborative skills committee in which both organisations could have engaged?

That is fine. That would be helpful for us in navigating the myriad of organisations, committees and boards that are supposed to be working together to further the skills alignment agenda, but are not in all cases doing so.

A proposal to increase the funding to the Scottish Funding Council and the advanced learning and science directorate in 2022-23 was also mentioned in the report. Is that money that has been ring fenced to boost the skills alignment agenda or is it additional funding that will be given to the directorate and the agency?