AU/S3/07/5/A

AUDIT COMMITTEE

AGENDA

5TH Meeting, 2007 (Session 3)

24 October 2007

The Committee will meet at 10.30 am in Committee Room 2.

1. Declaration of interests: George Foulkes MSP and Sandra White MSP will be invited to declare any relevant interests.

2. Decisions on taking business in private: The Committee will consider whether to take agenda item 7 in private.

3. Police call management: The Committee will receive a briefing from the Auditor General for on his report entitled “Police call management, an initial review”. (AGS/2007/8).

4. Dealing with offending by young people: The Committee will consider a response from the Accountable Officer on the Auditor General for Scotland’s report entitled “Dealing with offending by young people”. (AGS/2007/4).

5. Community planning: The Committee will consider a response from the Accountable Officer on the Audit Committee’s 2nd report 2007 entitled “Community planning: an initial review”.

6. Independent funding review of free personal care: The Committee will consider a letter from Lord Sutherland regarding an independent funding review of the free personal care policy.

7. Consideration of approach: The Committee will consider its approach to the AGS reports entitled: “Police call management, an initial review”. (AGS/2007/8) and the “Edinburgh transport projects review” (AGS/2007/2).

Tracey Reilly Clerk to the Audit Committee, Room T3.60 Ext. 0131 348 5390, Email: [email protected]

AU/S3/07/5/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows:

Agenda Item 3 AGS report Police call maangement (AGS/2007/8) (previously AU/S3/07/5/1 circulated)

Cover note from AGS AU/S3/07/5/2

Agenda Item 4 Letter to Philip Rycroft Director General Education from Audit AU/S3/07/5/3 Committee Convener Letter to Audit Committee Convener from Philip Rycroft Director AU/S3/07/5/4 General Education

Agenda Item 5 Letter to Dr Andrew Goudie Director General Economy from Audit AU/S3/07/5/5 Committee Convener Letter to Audit Committee Convener from Dr Andrew Goudie AU/S3/07/5/6 Director General Economy

Agenda Item 6 Cover note from Clerk including Letter from Lord Sutherland AU/S3/07/5/7

Agenda Item 7 AGS report Edinburgh transport projects review (AGS/2007/2) AU/S3/07/5/8 (previously circulated)

AU/S3/07/5/2

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT AUDIT COMMITTEE

WEDNESDAY 24 October 2007

REPORT BY AUDITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND AND THE ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Police call management

How police manage calls plays a key role in effective crime management, and in ensuring public safety and the best use of police resources. Over the last four years all eight forces in Scotland have centralised their call management functions. This report looks at the recent changes in how Scottish police forces manage calls from the public and examines performance, costs, and the experiences of callers.

This is a joint report by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission reflecting the shared responsibility for police services between national and local government.

The police received a total of 5.8 million calls from the public during the last financial year, about 15,900 per day, and £45 million was spent managing these calls. The report states that only 13% of calls received by the police are 999’s, but up to half of these are not emergencies.

Overall people are satisfied when they call the police, more non-emergency calls are being answered than in the past, and more calls are being resolved without an officer having to visit. However, there was no national strategy when the new call management arrangements were being established, so structures and systems across the forces differ and there is a lack of comparable performance information. This makes it difficult for forces to demonstrate if they are achieving all the intended benefits from centralising their calls, or providing value for money. It also makes it difficult for police authorities and the Scottish Government to scrutinise police performance in managing calls effectively.

Key findings from the report include:

• Forces report more non-emergency calls are now being answered and more calls are being resolved without an officer having to attend.

• People are generally satisfied with the response they receive when they call the police, although they are less satisfied with the way they are kept informed about the issue they called about.

• Only 13% of the 5.8 million calls received by the police in 2006/07 were 999 calls. However, of those, up to 50% were not emergencies. While it is not yet possible to identify call types systematically, forces report that a significant proportion of these calls are not police business and should be directed to other organisations.

• Since 2001/02 there has been £30.1 million capital investment in the centralisation of police call management in Scotland, and £45 million was spent in 2006/07 managing calls to the police.

• Police authorities and the Scottish Executive (now ‘Scottish Government’) have had little direct involvement in the establishment or scrutiny of the new arrangements.

• Prior to restructuring it was not possible for forces to assess accurately the level of call demand, leading to underestimates being made about staffing requirements.

• Different structures, systems and recording practices make it difficult to draw a national picture of how many and what types of calls are received by the police, or to conclude

AU/S3/07/5/2

whether these calls are being managed efficiently and effectively or providing value for money.

The report sets out a total of 18 recommendations for the Scottish Government, police authorities and forces themselves. These are intended to improve the effectiveness of police call management in Scotland. The main recommendations are that:

• forces should work with the Scottish Government and the other emergency services to improve the public’s awareness of when to use the 999 service and what number to call in non-urgent situations;

• the Scottish Government should liaise with ACPOS, CoSLA , the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners’ Forum and other public services to look at options for providing easily accessible numbers for people to call in non-urgent situations;

• forces should ensure they have appropriate staffing resources to meet demand, and should assess and meet the training needs of call management staff;

• forces should improve the information collected about the full range of calls received to enable them to manage demand more effectively;

• the Scottish Government, forces and police authorities should agree a range of relevant performance indicators for police call management;

• the Scottish Government, ACPOS and the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners’ Forum should agree a national strategic approach for call management in Scotland and ensure effective scrutiny of these functions;

• the Scottish Government should clarify which policing decisions require a national strategic approach and how to strengthen accountability for these decisions.

AU/S3/07/5/3

Audit Committee Convener: Charlie Gordon MSP

c/- Room T.360 Philip Rycroft The Director-General Education EDINBURGH Scottish Government EH99 1SP 6th Floor Meridian Court Tel: (0131) 348 5236 G2 6AT (RNID Typetalk calls welcome) Fax: (0131) 348 5252 (Central) Textphone: (0131) 348 5415 [email protected]

13 September 2007

Dear Philip Rycroft,

AGS REPORT – DEALING WITH OFFENDING BY YOUNG PEOPLE

At its meeting on the 12 September 2007, the Audit Committee considered the Auditor General for Scotland’s report entitled “Dealing with offending by young people”. (AGS/2007/4).

The Committee agreed to write to you as the Accountable Officer to ascertain how the recommendations set out in the report will be taken forward. The Committee is specifically interested in when the revised Youth Justice strategy (which the Minister for Community Safety recently announced is being prepared) will be published, and how it will address the recommendations contained in Part 6. Recommendations Paragraph 88 – 92 (page 30-31).

I would be grateful for a response by Wednesday 17 October 2007. Please do let me know if this time frame presents you with any difficulties.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact the Clerk, Tracey Reilly on 0131 348 5236 or by email at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Charlie Gordon MSP Convener

Inc: AGS Report Dealing with offending by young people (AGS/2007/4) Director-General Education Philip Rycroft

T: 0141-242 5700 F: 0141-242 5477 E: philip.ry cro ft@ sco tland.gsi.gov.uk abcdefghijklmnopqrstu

Hugh Henry MSP Convener Audit Committee The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP

___

Our ref: B1566879 12 October 2007

Dear Mr Henry

AGS REPORT – DEALING WITH OFFENDING BY YOUNG PEOPLE

The previous Convener of the Audit Committee, Charlie Gordon MSP, wrote to me on 13 September to ask how the recommendations set out in the Auditor General for Scotland’s report entitled Dealing with offending by young people (AGS/2007/4) will be taken forward. I welcome the Audit Committee’s interest in this agenda.

In taking forward the youth justice agenda, Ministers have indicated a strong preference for embedding this within their broad preventative agenda for all young people at risk. This means increasing positive opportunities for all and strengthening early intervention. At the same time, Ministers are committed to building on the work to date on dealing appropriately and proportionately with the offending behaviour of the small minority of young people who disrupt our communities, including those who pose a high risk to themselves and/or others.

Ministers have also made a commitment to develop more effective performance management arrangements, which picks up on key issues raised in the AGS report around accountability. As a first step, they have decided to move on from the problematic persistent offender target and seek a more efficacious approach to measuring the impact of youth justice activities. At a national level, this will be developed in the context of the broader agreement with local government on high-level outcomes. Locally we will seek to support local arrangements that help agencies to better understand their performance and identify and address local needs to reduce offending behaviour.

We are currently in the process of developing a revised strategy to reflect this thinking. As some redirection of funds and new ways of working, both with the Scottish Government and locally, may be required, we need to ensue that our proposals fit within the context of the Strategic Spending Review and the ongoing work on outcome agreements. We are, of course, also considering the AGS report and its findings during this process and I would like to assure you that we intend to fully address the recommendations contained in the report.

Meridian Court, 5 Cadogan Street, Glasgow G2 6AT www.scotland.gov.uk abcde abc a

I expect the product of this developmental work to made public before the end of this year and I will ensure that the Audit Committee is kept up to date with developments as we progress this work.

Yours sincerely

PHILIP RYCROFT

Meridian Court, 5 Cadogan Street, Glasgow G2 6AT www.scotland.gov.uk abcde abc a

Audit Committee Convener: Charlie Gordon MSP

Room T.360 Dr Andrew Goudie The Scottish Parliament Director General - Economy EDINBURGH Scottish Government EH99 1SP St Andrew’s House Regent Road Tel: (0131) 348 5236 Edinburgh (RNID Typetalk calls welcome) EH1 3DG Fax: (0131) 348 5252 (Central) Textphone: (0131) 348 5415 [email protected]

18 September 2007

Dear Dr Goudie,

AGS REPORT – COMMUNITY PLANNING

At its meeting on the 12 September 2007, the Audit Committee considered the Scottish Government’s response to the Auditor General for Scotland’s report entitled “Community planning - an initial review”.

The Committee was particularly keen to see an outcome based approach being adopted in relation to community planning. The Committee also agreed to write to you, as Accountable Officer, to raise a number of issues as follows:

• Are you able to place a timescale on the move to an outcomes-based approach in community planning? • Have you completed the “outcome option and choices” referred to in your response to Paragraph 42 of the report? • Has a report yet been made on the progress with reducing “the number of reports that community planning partners need to make to different Executive Departments” referred to in your response to para 18 of the report? • Will the statistical evidence necessary on which to base policy and programme decisions become available as more people gain Policy Delivery skills through new programmes of training?

I attach a copy of the official report for your information.

I would be grateful for a response by Wednesday 17 October 2007. Please do let me know if this time frame presents you with any difficulties.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact the Clerk, Tracey Reilly on 0131 348 5236 or by email at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Charlie Gordon MSP Convener EXTRACT OF OFFICIAL REPORT OF AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING 12 SEPTEMBER 2007 "Community planning: an initial review" 11:28 The Convener: The next item on our agenda is consideration of a response from the Scottish Government to the previous Audit Committee's second report of 2007, on "Community planning: an initial review". Willie Coffey: My experience over the past few years at local authority level, in East Ayrshire Council, has been that many of the documents relating to community planning, especially what we call regeneration outcome agreements, are very challenging and hard to understand. Many of them focus on the outputs that the local authority hopes to deliver, rather than on the outcomes that we hope it will achieve. Sometimes there is confusion between the two at local authority level. In any ROA, targets and outputs are set out clearly, but that tells us nothing about how effective and successful implementation has been. We must seek more clarity at local authority level and ask councils to do more work on outcomes, benefits and impact, rather than outputs. The Convener: Your point is well made. I am smiling at , because I remember a huge meeting with community representatives, when she was Deputy Minister for Communities and I was leader of , at which we tried to persuade people to become involved in the wonderful world of community planning in Glasgow. I will not say how I think people are getting on, but some documents and processes are bound to be challenging, in particular for community representatives. 11:30 Andrew Welsh: I have similar problems with the response. In paragraph 42 of its report, the committee said: "The move towards an outcome-based approach is overdue." The Executive has not accepted that, but its response to paragraph 42 contains phrases such as "moving towards", "work is in hand", "we intend to", "we are currently developing", "hope to implement shortly", and "working ... to explore". The word "developing" is used twice. The committee said that the approach is "overdue"—in other words, it thought that something should have been done. However, the response talks about intentions and work in progress. It does not say when an outcome-based approach will be in place, although "overdue" carries a sense of urgency. When will an outcome-based approach be

Col 76 implemented? I would be happier if the response had given a timescale for action. Mary Mulligan: I am encouraged to comment by the convener's remarks— The Convener: You rose to the bait. Mary Mulligan: I remember that meeting vividly. Our views on community planning were well received in Glasgow. I agree completely with Willie Coffey and Andrew Welsh. We should look for outcomes, and timescales should be attached to work in progress. I was involved in the production of the previous Audit Committee's report, and committee members were encouraged by the people involved in community planning who came to speak to us. There is a lot of optimism about what can be done and we have talked a lot about how interagency working can improve services for people in our communities. I am a little less encouraged by what the Executive's response tells us about how it supports the work that is going on in communities. I would have liked a more positive response. However, as we said during our discussion under the previous item, there has been a change in Administration and I am interested in what progress will be made. I am not sure that the committee would derive any benefit from responding to what is now an out-of-date response. I hope that the Audit Committee will keep the issue on its agenda, because in future we might want to consider what progress has been made, in particular on the two issues that have been raised, but also on support for community planning in general. The Convener: I might regret having provoked Mary Mulligan into commenting, because she appears to have provoked other members into re-entering the discussion. Dr Simpson: I do not disagree with members' comments about the need to move to an outcome-based approach—there is clearly such a need. However, I make two cautionary points. First, if the outcomes do not emerge from people's normal work— in other words, if trying to determine what happens represents an additional load—a whole new level of audit must be put in place. Unless information systems are robust and continue to be so, so that outcomes emerge from people's processes, it is difficult to identify outcomes. Secondly, I am disturbed by the lack of prioritisation in the seven bullet points in the response to paragraph 42, all of which refer to development, discussion and exploration. According to the response, a range of high-level outcome options are being explored with ministers "to inform their choices for the forthcoming Strategic Spending Review",

Col 77 but it does not say what stage those explorations have reached. I would have thought that the information should be published by now—perhaps it has been. We should be getting it now. It is the only response that has a date on it, and we should be seeing the work now. It should be being explored and open for discussion now, and the other points should be prioritised. Stuart McMillan: Page 6 of the response refers to the recommendation in paragraph 18 of our report to "reduce the number of reports that community planning partners need to make to different Executive Departments." I take that to mean cutting down some of the bureaucracy. The Executive response states: "Progress is being made across the Executive and we will report this to the incoming administration." If there has been a report, I would be keen to find out what it says and what progress has been made. Andrew Welsh: Let me say to Mary Mulligan that it is a new Administration but they are the same civil service advisers. The Convener: You are not getting your excuses in, are you? Andrew Welsh: Yes. At paragraph 18(2) of our report, we said that the Executive should "build skills and capacity among staff to better support those organisations tasked with delivering services". The Executive has agreed with that, but it says only that there are training programmes for staff in developing and implementing public policy and that "Further work is under way" on a "project to clarify the skills required for Policy Delivery and to embed them in the annual Performance Appraisal process." The Executive also refers to "the Scottish Leadership Foundation to deliver a joint programme of Change Management training", which is great, but elsewhere we are told about a lack of statistical evidence on which to base policy and programme decisions. In other words, we are about to get the skills but the information is not there. We all want to see joined-up government. Although the Executive has agreed with the committee's point of view, I do not see any implementation of that agreement, and I am concerned about the gap. It is good to see that training is being done, but the civil service can act only on the basis of accurate information.

Col 78 The Convener: The points are all very well made, and we will decide on them in a moment or two. If there are no more points from members, I will ask Mr Black to comment. Mr Black: I have just a quick comment that might be helpful. The original Audit Scotland report was an ambitious piece of work, as some committee members might recall, and the committee took extensive evidence. It is at least encouraging that the Executive has responded to the recommendations. The report was difficult to produce because we found it so difficult to answer the basic question: what impact is community planning having on the quality of services that people receive? The answer was that we could find little evidence at that stage, in part due to the fact that community planning is at an early stage. However, we have given a commitment that we will revisit it at some point in the future, and the Accounts Commission has signed up to that as well. We will need to get a clear focus on what impact community planning is having on the quality of services that people receive. We will do our best, but I suspect that it will not be easy, for all the usual reasons about the quality of available information. The Convener: Colleagues, there are three options open to us: we could note the response; we could correspond with the Government or Executive on the issues that members have raised; or we could request an update, which does not apply in this instance. Do members want to note the report, having heard Mr Black say that he and the Accounts Commission will revisit the subject at some point in the future? Alternatively, do we want to raise particular queries in the form of a letter signed off by me on the committee's behalf? Andrew Welsh: I have not raised the issues lightly, nor was I making an attack of any kind on the civil service. I raised specific points about good government and the response to the committee's well-thought-through report, based on research and findings by Audit Scotland. In the end, what we share with the Executive and civil service is that we want to deliver for the people of Scotland, and I would like a response on the specific points about how that will come about. The Convener: Fair enough. I do not think that the committee should divide on whether to note the response or raise some points in correspondence. All the points that members have made—there may be others—will be written up by the clerks and we will draft a letter that I will send on the committee's behalf. Are members happy with that? Members indicated agreement.

Director-General Econom y and Chief Econom ic Adviser Dr Andrew Goudie

T: 0131-244 7937 E: DGEconom y@ scotland.gsi.gov.uk abcdefghijklmnopqrstu

Hugh Henry MSP Convener Audit Committee Room T.360 Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP

___

17 October 2007

Dear Mr Henry

AGS REPORT – COMMUNITY PLANNING

I am replying to the letter from the previous Convener raising a number of issues in relation to the Scottish Government’s response to the Committee’s report ‘Community Planning: An Initial Review’.

The Audit Committee’s report was made under the tenure of the previous administration. Consequently, my response to the report, which was sent to the Committee on 27 March 2007, reflected the polices and priorities of that administration. Following the election in May, we now have a new administration with its own policies and priorities and you will appreciate that in the context of the Committee’s report, I am responding in relation to these rather than the actions of the previous government.

Are you able to place a timescale on the move to an outcomes-based approach in community planning?

The new Scottish Government recognises the value of an outcome based approach to the delivery of public services. Therefore, it is working towards putting in place outline Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) with all 32 local authorities by April 2008 with a further commitment to develop and implement full SOAs on a phased basis from 2008/09. A set of foundations for implementing SOAs will be required, and this is likely to include criteria such as Best Value, effective partnership working, transparent reporting and public engagement. The role of Community Planning partnerships will be crucial to the delivery of an outcomes based approach and we are engaging with representatives from Community Planning Partnerships as we develop this work. Further details of this approach will be published in November as part of the Strategic Spending Review 2007.

Have you completed the “outcome option and choices” referred to in your response to Paragraph 42 of the report?

The ‘outcome option and choices’ in paragraph 42 refers to high level strategic outcomes.

The Scottish Government is taking forward its commitment to establish simpler, smaller government removing unnecessary duplication and establishing structures that can support and drive the delivery of joined-up strategic outcomes. For example, it has already reduced the number of Scottish Ministers and Government Departments to align with collective responsibility for achieving its purpose and five Strategic Objectives.

The development of an outcome based approach for national and local government will be crucial elements of this way of working. Choices and options were considered over the summer as part of this work. Details of the shape and content of an outcomes framework to support this approach, including the relationship with local government, will be published as part of the Strategic Spending Review 2007 in November.

Has a report yet been made on the progress with reducing “the number of reports that community planning partners need to make to different Executive Departments” referred to in your response to para 18 of the report?

The Scottish Government has invested a great deal of effort in examining the situation relating to the collection of data, of all types, from all our stakeholders, including Community Planning Partnerships. This has not only been as a result of the AGS Report but wider corporate considerations engendered by, amongst other things, our response to the external “Taking Stock” Review.

Since our response, the Report of the Independent Review of regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling of public services in Scotland, under Professor Crerar, has been published and debated in Parliament. This is currently being considered, prior to a formal response from the Scottish Government. This complementary work has given further valuable evidence for us to consider, not solely on its own topic of scrutiny, but also to integrate the thematic issues it raises into the wider work of the Scottish Government.

As stated above, the intention is to implement Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) on a phased basis from April 2008. The implementation plans will include the corresponding plans to replace current reporting obligations with ones which are required by an outcomes-based approach. Performance reporting requirements for local government will be defined by the proposed new performance framework for local government (referred to in my original response).

Will the statistical evidence necessary on which to base policy and programme decisions become available as more people gain Policy Delivery skills through new programmes of training?

A programme of work is underway across Scottish Government Analytical Services to strengthen the evidence base for policy and to increase its impact on policy and programme decisions. This includes improvements to Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics and in the quality of survey and administrative data, work to develop longitudinal data sources, and improvements in our capacity to access external policy-relevant evidence through knowledge transfer activities. This work includes the data improvements necessary for the Government's outcome-focused performance framework. It should be emphasised that there has been a large increase in the amount of Scottish Government information made

available to Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) particularly at small area level and considerable work undertaken with CPPs to increase awareness and address new issues. However, it is recognised that for both CPPs and Scottish Government more work needs to be done on the evidence base concerning the relationship between inputs, outputs and outcomes.

Training and development of staff within the Skills for Success framework is important in developing the skills and competencies to promote better use of evidence in policy formulation and delivery rather than itself increasing the availability of the statistical evidence base. For policy staff, this is supplemented by specific training through the Better Policy Making programme. For analysts, work is underway to improve the coherence of competency frameworks and training provision in order to enhance both specialist and generic skills required to increase the impact of evidence and analysis on policy and programme decisions.

ANDREW GOUDIE

AU/S3/07/5/7

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Subject: Letter from Lord Sutherland: Independent funding review of free personal care

Meeting No: 5

Meeting Date: 24 October 2007

Author: Note from the Clerk

INTRODUCTION

1. The Convener has received the attached letter from Lord Sutherland, Chair of the Independent funding review of free personal care. The letter invites the Committee to offer views on the key issues the review should consider by Friday 9 November.

2. The Independent funding review is examining the financial allocations and distribution of resources of the Government’s free personal care policy and the long term sustainability of the policy. The full terms of reference for the review are outlined in the attached letter. The Review Group’s final conclusions are due to be submitted to the Scottish Government by the end of March 2008.

3. Audit Scotland is due to publish a report on free personal and nursing care in January 2008. The report will examine the implementation and the financial implications of the free personal care policy. The report will also assess the impact of the policy on older people, carers, local authorities and NHS Scotland. Members should note that the Sutherland review will not seek to duplicate this work and that the review team will maintain links with the Audit Scotland study team. Members have been supplied with a copy of the project brief for the Audit Scotland report.

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT ON COMMUNITY CARE

4. The previous Audit Committee considered the issue of free personal and nursing care in the Audit Committee's 2nd report 2005, report on community care. The Committee’s report contained a number of key findings and recommendations which are summarised below.

5. The Committee noted a number of issues regarding the implementation of the free personal and nursing care scheme:

• The Committee considered that the short timescale for the introduction of free personal care, coupled with the lack of robust information, was likely to have undermined SEHD’s ability to cost the policy accurately. • While recognising the complexity of separately identifying local authority expenditure on free personal care prior to the

1 AU/S3/07/5/7

implementation of the free personal care policy, the Committee noted that it was extremely regrettable that SEHD was not able to show local authority spending on care prior to implementation of the Bill. Given the limits of the information supplied by councils, the cost of the policy remained unclear. • The Committee was concerned to note that SEHD undertook no systematic risk assessment on the consequences of preparing inaccurate estimates. Projection of a range of estimates would have been better than a single estimate given the uncertainty involved. • The Committee also expressed a number of concerns regarding whether sufficient progress was being made on joint working between government departments and local authorities.

6. The Committee made recommendations regarding the financial planning for free personal care:

• The Committee considered that SEHD had failed to monitor the actual costs of the free personal care policy following implementation. • The Committee was concerned that a number of councils were providing no information at all, or estimates. The Committee considered this to be an unacceptable position, and were concerned that SEHD had continued to accept this. The Committee believed that local authorities should be able to show their spending on care. • The Committee recommended that SEHD, together with councils, put in place measures to ensure that all councils provide accurate data as and when it is required; and that information on the older population should be used to plan and deliver services so there is confidence that service delivery will meet needs, and that financial allocations to councils are appropriate. • The Committee recommended that SEHD should review the cost of implementation of the policy, to ensure that future cost projections for were based on accurate information, and that financial allocations to councils could be matched with need.

7. The Committee also made recommendations relating to evaluating the impact of the free personal care policy: • To assess the impact of the policy and forecast future expenditure the Committee agreed that a more detailed review was needed which should involve looking at the numbers receiving this service, how it has affected their quality of life and the cost of the policy. • When implementing a new policy the Committee recommended that comprehensive criteria to assess the impact of that policy should be put in place at the outset, to allow the policies impact to be measured. • In assessing the impact of the policy on people who are receiving care, the Committee recommended that SEHD should use updated demographic information as it becomes available. This would allow SEHD to be in a position to update the assumptions underpinning the costs of free personal care when demographic projections change.

2 AU/S3/07/5/7

RECOMMENDATION

8. The Committee is asked to: • Note the letter from Lord Sutherland; • Make any suggestions for key issues the review should consider; and • Agree, given the timescale for making the response, that any letter should be signed off by the Convener in association with the clerks.

3 INDEPENDENT FUNDING REVIEW OF FREE PERSONAL CARE CHAIR - LORD SUTHERLAND OF HOUNDWOOD

Hugh Henry MSP Lord Sutherland Convener c/o Rhona Dubery Audit Committee Independent Funding Review of Free The Scottish Parliament Personal & Nursing Care Holyrood Area 2.ER EDINBURGH St Andrew's House EH99 1SP EDINBURGH EHI IDG

e-mail: [email protected]

8 October 2007

Dear Convener,

INDEPENDENT FUNDING REVIEW OF FREE PERSONAL CARE

As you may be aware, Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing has invited me to lead an independent review of the financial allocations and distribution of resources to support the implementation of the Government's free personal care policy. A copy of the terms of reference and a list of the members of the Review Group are attached. The Review Group has met twice to-date and has been asked to submit its final conclusions to the Scottish Government by the end of March 2008.

I have already written to local authority Chief Executives and to other stakeholders who gave evidence in the 2006 Health Committee Care Inquiry seeking their views on how the Group might move forward in tackling this high profile and challenging issue, within its agreed terms of reference. There has of course been a good deal of research/review activity in this area, including the Care Inquiry of last year and the current Audit Scotland Study and the Independent Review will drawn on those and all other relevant work.

I am writing to draw the Committee's attention to the Independent Review and to give members of the Committee the opportunity to offer views on the key issues should they wish to contribute. The Review Group is presently engaged in establishing a coherent and credible understanding of the financial circumstances and impact of the Scottish Government's free personal care policy. Weare not seeking to duplicate the Audit Scotland work and are interested in a more qualitative input focussing on the wider impact free personal care has had across social care, local authority, health and housing support finances and on the quality and effectiveness of overall services provided to older people in need and other vulnerable groups.

1 I would be very happy to take on board any views the Committee may wish to offer on how the Review Group might best move forward and make its contribution in considering this high profile and challenging issue, within its agreed terms of reference.

If the Committee would like to contribute to the Review, can I ask that you send views to Rhona Dubery, Secretary to the Independent Review at the above address (e-mail [email protected], Tel: 0131 244 2456), by Friday, 9 November. If you have any questions about this request or about the Independent Review more generally, please contact feel ftee to contact Rhona at any time.

Thank you, in anticipation, for your assistance with the work of the independent Review Group. I have written in similar terms to the Conveners of the Parliament's Finance Committee and Health & Sport Committee.

Yours sincerely

LORD SUTHERLAND

2 INDEPENDENT FUNDING REVIEW OF FREE PERSONAL & NURSING CARE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The independent review will examine:

• The total level of resources available to Scottish local authorities for the implementation of Free Personal and Nursing Care (FPNC) since the policy was introduced, including:-

The resources available for the provision of personal care at home without charge to certain people prior to the introduction of the policy, and

The extra resources provided when the policy was implemented.

• The distribution of the total FPNC resources amongst local authorities through the GAB mechanism;

• The impact of the withdrawal of attendance allowance to pensioners in receipt of FPNC on the financial balance between the Scottish Government and the UK Government; and

• The long term sustainability ofthe FPNC policy.

The review will give the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing a note on its initial discussions by end-September and will submit a full report by March 2008.

In its work, the review is to make the maximum use of information already available, in particular, and insofar as they may be relevant:-

• The report of the Health Committee's Care Inquiry, published in June 2006, and the Scottish Executive's response; • The Evaluation of Free Personal Care, published in February 2007, and the Scottish Executive's response; • The work ofthe Care Costs Sub-group; and • Recent research findings.

The review is also to maintain links with any study which Audit Scotland may be conducting into FPNC at the same time.

MEMBERSHIP OF REVIEW GROUP

Lord Sutherland of Hound wood (Chair) Professor David Bell, Head of the Department of Economics at the University of Stirling Jim Dickie, former Director of Social Work for North Lanarkshire Council Anne Jarvie CBE, former Chief Nursing Officer for Scotland Rory Mair, Chief Executive of COLSA Mary Marshall OBE, former Director of the Dementia Services Development Centre

3