A recommendation from former auditor general Robert Black for an independent "Treasury-type" body to tackle wasteful spending and poor productivity in public services has been rejected by John Swinney, who said he had "no plans" to consider the proposal.
Black, one of Scotland's most distinguished public servants, has proposed the establishment of a Scottish Commission for Resources and Performance, modelled on Australia's Productivity Commission. The body, staffed with experienced senior public servants, academics, and business people and answerable to the Scottish Parliament, would scrutinise the cost, effectiveness and quality of outcomes from new and existing legislation.
"If public bodies knew that they were to come under the spotlight of the Commission they would be incentivised to improve their performance and cost information before the economists and performance auditors paid a visit," he claimed.
In his paper, a condensed version of which was favourably received last week by MSPs in the Scottish Parliament's local government committee, the former leader of Stirling and Tayside councils painted a gloomy picture of a looming crisis in Scotland's finances with shrinking budgets and growing liabilities resulting from an ageing population.
Though careful to praise the quality of Scotland's "leadership cadre", he highlighted a lack of "robust, systematic scrutiny of spending and performance" stemming from a decade of public spending growth.
Black also presented the independence debate as a distraction from the "urgent" task of putting Scotland's finances on a sustainable footing, claiming Scotland's financial problems would remain "under the status quo, more devolution or independence".
"Time is not on our side" he wrote. "The challenges are immediate and require an urgent response. We cannot afford to put this agenda to one side until 2014."
A spokesman for Finance Secretary John Swinney slapped down the proposal, saying there were no current plans to establish such a commission. He said: "There are already a range of mechanisms, such as the National Performance Framework and the NHS HEAT targets, to measure and drive improvement. These are supported by a scrutiny and inspection regime, including the Accounts Commission and the auditor general."
That directly contradicts the former auditor general's claim that existing bodies are inadequate to fulfil the "challenge function" of the proposed SCRP, as Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission are "retrospective and debarred from involvement in policy matters".
"Pressures on the cost side" highlighted by Black include a £5 billion backlog in infrastructure and health service maintenance, a £500 million increase in the cost of concessionary travel over 10 years, annual free personal care costs of £560m rising by about 15% each year, and prescribing costs which have more than doubled in a decade to £1.5 billion.
"Some estimates indicate that by 2030, an extra £3.5bn or so will have to be found to pay for health and social services for people over 65 if delivery systems remain as they are now," he said.
The SCRP proposal, detailed in a paper for the respected independent think tank the David Hume Institute, echoes one of the chief proposals of the Scottish Government's own Independent Budget Review (IBR).
The IBR report recommends "improv[ing] the quality, availability and application of evaluation, monitoring and reporting data in relation to the outcomes across the public sector to ensure that resources are applied to full benefit."
Published in July 2010 the IBR's recommendations – including a debate on ending universal services, also recommended by Black – were mostly shelved by the Scottish Government.
In a recent interview with Holyrood Magazine John Swinney said: "The IBR gave us more ideas than we required and we took on board some fairly brave stuff like pay constraint."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article