12-03-2012, 10:36 PM
I also can't understand the logic behind the proposed amendment (the up-front suggested additional para being the main culprit ... although I guess some of the various "normals" might go without affecting much); and I am concerned that it might undermine the whole point about having a last-stop appeal to a Standards Cee. The SC at present is already clearly required to act only when (any) independent local arbitration in Ayrshire, or elsewhere for that matter, has failed. So I wouldn't vote for this amendment, certainly as it stands. And if it affects CS's legal standing in regard to child protection, as it seems to do, according to Steve Mannion, who is answerable to the relevant public bodies on behalf of CS on this, I get very, very cold feet indeed.
I may be able to throw some light on the chance of independent audit and report to the Scottish Parliament on such matters (as I have occasionally managed such audits). The answer? Yes, financially the issue is very small fry and may ordinarily never attract the attention of the auditor unless there is some obvious public controversy on the policy issues involved. But, these things might nevertheless still come up occasionally as a small part of the annual audit plan, which changes annually, and is driven by wider policy issues rather than simply cost. The effective delivery of public policy, which is what the audit is ultimately about, isn't always linked to the expenditure of great wadges of £s. Indeed if such issues do come up, they are investigated very carefully, and if there is any doubt that a body in receipt of public funds is not acting in full accordance with the requirements of policy and the law, there will be stiff action.
Having said that, I'd add that in the normal course of events CS's main link remains with the specifc department in the Scottish Govt that disperse the grants. Here, keeping on the right side of these people, by ensuring that your body acts as squeekily clean as possible is very, very important. That has been done to date quietly in the background by the CS treasurer, in particular, who has acted with the utmost professionalism and tact for decades on this. My own gut feeling is that the grant-givers would not particularly like to see CS adopt the Ayrshire amendment, if only because it is very cloudy. Generally, in my experience, such grant-givers truly want to support "their" bodies (they have to fight for "you", and they mostly do, to maintain their budgets from annual attacks that all budget-holders face internally, as resorces are always scarce), but their patience can be snapped. It's difficult enough at the moment fighting to retain any grant at all. CS must be very careful here.
I may be able to throw some light on the chance of independent audit and report to the Scottish Parliament on such matters (as I have occasionally managed such audits). The answer? Yes, financially the issue is very small fry and may ordinarily never attract the attention of the auditor unless there is some obvious public controversy on the policy issues involved. But, these things might nevertheless still come up occasionally as a small part of the annual audit plan, which changes annually, and is driven by wider policy issues rather than simply cost. The effective delivery of public policy, which is what the audit is ultimately about, isn't always linked to the expenditure of great wadges of £s. Indeed if such issues do come up, they are investigated very carefully, and if there is any doubt that a body in receipt of public funds is not acting in full accordance with the requirements of policy and the law, there will be stiff action.
Having said that, I'd add that in the normal course of events CS's main link remains with the specifc department in the Scottish Govt that disperse the grants. Here, keeping on the right side of these people, by ensuring that your body acts as squeekily clean as possible is very, very important. That has been done to date quietly in the background by the CS treasurer, in particular, who has acted with the utmost professionalism and tact for decades on this. My own gut feeling is that the grant-givers would not particularly like to see CS adopt the Ayrshire amendment, if only because it is very cloudy. Generally, in my experience, such grant-givers truly want to support "their" bodies (they have to fight for "you", and they mostly do, to maintain their budgets from annual attacks that all budget-holders face internally, as resorces are always scarce), but their patience can be snapped. It's difficult enough at the moment fighting to retain any grant at all. CS must be very careful here.