Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome everybody back to this morning’s meeting of the Public Audit Committee. I am very pleased to say that agenda item 3 is further consideration of the Auditor General’s report on adult disability payment. I am particularly pleased to welcome to the committee Edel Harris, who is the former chair of the independent review of adult disability payment. Thank you for joining us—it is greatly appreciated.

We have some questions to put to you, but, before we get to those, I invite you to make a short opening statement to get us under way.

Graham Simpson will come in with some questions on that area shortly. I have one more question to ask before I bring him in—it is on a related area, but it looks at it from a slightly different angle.

In paragraph 20 of the report, you make the point that many of The Promise Scotland’s aims are to support longer-term change. On the other hand, the nature of these things is that there are often short-term projects and short-term imperatives. You identify that as a risk. The question that we, as the Public Audit Committee, have is, how is that risk being managed? Do you think that there is a danger of some of those longer-term structural changes, which are intended to be delivered by, at the outside, 2030, which is less than five years away, may be blown off course by shorter-term imperatives?

Thank you very much. I will now turn to Joe FitzPatrick to put some questions to you.

Thank you. I have a couple of final questions. The first question relates to something that you were speaking to Graham Simpson about, not in the last set of questions but in the ones before that. An argument has been paraded in Scotland that the reforms or even the removal of personal independence payment in England and Wales have had no effect in Scotland because we have adult disability payment. However, as you have explained, reforms to PIP have implications for Scotland because of the passporting issue that you have identified, the Barnett consequentials that would potentially result from such reforms and the way in which the fiscal framework operates, which means, in other words, that if the benefit bill in Scotland goes up, the financial settlement that comes through the formula goes down. Can you confirm your view that there is a direct relationship between what happens with the Timms review and what the consequences will be for recipients of adult disability payment in Scotland?

If you could have a look and get back to us in writing, that would be helpful.

I have one final question, which picks up on the theme of 15, as it is about paragraph 15 in your report, which made for interesting reading. You describe how, in 2020, an independent strategic adviser was appointed, presumably by the Scottish Government. In the following year, 2021, an oversight board was established and the independent strategic adviser was made the chair of that board. In 2022, the adviser was asked to step down as the chair, but it took over a year for that process to be completed. The adviser did not fully step down but became a co-chair, along with somebody else who was appointed as a co-chair.

You describe that in very diplomatic terms, but it looks like a very messy situation. It also conjures up questions about the point about clarity of roles and responsibilities. Is the independent strategic adviser an adviser to the Government, the oversight board or The Promise Scotland? Why was the decision taken that it was not appropriate for the person that held that role to continue as the chair of the oversight board? Why was there clearly some resistance to that from some quarters?

Thank you very much indeed for that opening statement.

When we took evidence from the Auditor General and his team on 1 October, he said some interesting things about where things were and what the Government’s response was to your review and your recommendations. We will get into questions about that, as well as costings, because, even though we are the Public Audit Committee, we think—as you do—that we are not concerned simply with the financial cost implications of the system; we want to look at how it is being run and whether it is producing the intended outcomes.

I invite Joe FitzPatrick to put some questions to you.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 29th meeting in 2025 of the Public Audit Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision for members of the committee on whether to take agenda items 4, 5, 6 and 7 in private. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Our second agenda item is consideration of the Audit Scotland report “Improving care experience: Delivering The Promise”. I am very pleased to welcome to the committee Stephen Boyle, the Auditor General. He is joined by Mark MacPherson, who is an audit director, and Claire Tennyson, who is an audit manager, both at Audit Scotland. We are also joined by Andrew Burns, who is the deputy chair of the Accounts Commission, because the report that we are considering has been produced jointly by Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission. Andrew Burns, you are very welcome.

I will start the proceedings by inviting the Auditor General to make a short opening statement, and then we will get to our questions.

Okay. Thank you. I now invite Graham Simpson to put some questions to you.

That is great, Joe—thank you very much. Yes, I invite the deputy convener, Jamie Greene, to put some questions to you on this and some other areas.