���˿���

It runs a bit deeper than that, does it not? Those things happened over a period of years during which you have not always been the director general responsible; I respect that. However, the criticisms by Audit Scotland go as far as to say that there was a complete absence of strategic intent or a performance management framework to make progress. Why on earth were those fundamental elements not put in place?

Please do.

Certainly—I will bring you back in a bit later on.

Director general, can I return us to the Audit Scotland report? Weak governance is one of the glaring failings that is highlighted in the report. Paragraph 24 talks about a proposal to alter the framework from there being a joint SFC and SDS skills committee to the creation of an Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board skills committee. However, the report tells us that

“this 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 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.”

Can you tell us why the ESSB did not seek to set up an alternative governance structure, and why the Scottish Government presided over such a situation?

The Auditor General was asked about that during the 10 February evidence session. He said:

“The pandemic is one factor, but it is not the sole factor. I draw the committee’s attention to exhibit 3 in the report, in which we track the chain of events dating back to 2016 and 2017”.—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 10 February 2022; c 12.]

Again, I make the point that we can accept that there will be errors from time to time, but there seems to be consistent error and failure to deliver in the alignment of skills. I have not even spoken about the appointment of a permanent skills alignment director, which was a pivotal role that was never properly filled.

Thank you very much. That concludes our questions for this session. I think I said at the start that it was a section 22 report. It was a section 23 report, but contained some trenchant criticism nonetheless. Sharon Dowey referred to the fact that this is apprenticeship week and there have been numerous references to last week’s publication of the national strategy for economic transformation, which said:

“A skilled population is fundamental to business productivity and economic prosperity.”

For those reasons it is important that we get these things right and we do not preside over some pretty fundamental—“systematic” is a word that has been used wisely this morning—failures.

The only other point I would make is that we will of course have an opportunity to look at the shared outcomes framework document in due course, and we shall do that. I am quite sure that the Auditor General will want to have a look at it as well. We will do that and we may well come back to you with further questions, Mr Griffin. That leads me to my final point: if we had known about the timing of this important document, which is absolutely central to the discussions that we have had this morning, we could have rescheduled this evidence session so that we could have taken full account of it. I hope that that is one of the things that you and your team will think about after leaving this meeting.

I will draw the public part of the meeting to a close and thank the director general for his evidence. I also thank Helena Gray and Adam Reid, and Helen Webster, who joined us online.

I will now invite Craig Hoy to ask questions.

Thank you—that is much appreciated.

Colin Beattie has a series of questions on leadership and culture and some of the other big issues that are raised in the briefing.

I see that Antony Clark wants to come in. Perhaps he will be able to answer Colin Beattie’s question.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the seventh meeting in 2022 of the Public Audit Committee. I remind members, witnesses and staff that social distancing rules are still in place. Please respect those and wear a face covering when moving around the room or entering or exiting the room. However, face coverings can be removed when you are seated at the table.

Under agenda item 1, the committee will decide whether to take agenda items 3 and 4 in private. Does the committee agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We have questions covering the range of issues that are raised in the briefing, which is extensive and raises matters of concern. Not least of those is the fact that about £5.2 billion of public expenditure is currently invested in social care, yet we have the issues of concern that the report highlights and draws us towards. You say that we have increasing demand and demographic changes, and that there is still a lot of unmet need.

I want to begin by looking at the sustainability of the social care system. You make it clear in the briefing that, although the Parliament in this session will legislate for the creation of a national care service, there is a degree of urgency around the action that is needed to tackle some of the unmet needs and some of the challenges that social care providers and the social care workforce face. In fact, at one point, your briefing says that the system is “near-crisis”. Is the Scottish Government putting sufficient resources into social care?