Item 4 on the agenda concerns the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. Alison Coull is still with us and we are joined by Anne Peat. I commend to other officials the practice of lodging a report with the observation that the paper is self-explanatory. I hope that we will find that it is easy going. Does Alison Coull want to make any introductory comments?
Anne Peat will introduce the paper with a few comments.
I hope that the paper is self-explanatory. The proposal is to allow standing orders to provide the mechanism by which appointments are made to the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, to set out the procedure by which a member will be removed and to provide the means by which the SCPA can report to the Parliament. If the paper is approved, it is intended to bring draft rules before the committee later—I hope in the next month or so.
The committee has to take a view on some items. When we were discussing the paper in advance, we wondered to what extent the views of the Presiding Officer, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Parliamentary Bureau had been taken into account in framing the recommendations. Where there is a choice to be made, what is their view?
The convener of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit is Patricia Ferguson, who is a Deputy Presiding Officer. I am not aware that she has sought the views of the Presiding Officer.
Would it be reasonable to proceed by asking that the opinions on the matters of discretion be canvassed with those people before we make final recommendations? Is there a pressing time scale that requires an instant decision?
The time scale is not pressing. The Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 provides for the commission to consist of five members. There is one vacancy at the moment. We are looking to make a further appointment to the commission.
In regard to filling the vacancy, does the political spread of the appointees reflect the balance of parties in the Parliament? Is that the practice?
I am not aware that there is such a practice. The act does not make any specific provision.
Could we perhaps canvass views on whether that should be the case? If the proposal goes to the bureau, the business managers will have the opportunity to decide whether they want all the main parties to be represented. Perhaps that could be included in the consultation and be brought back to a further committee meeting.
It would be possible for the standing orders to cover that point. The present appointments are governed by a transitional order, so arrangements are already in existence. My paper is concerned with putting the formal basis for the appointments in standing orders, as was envisaged by the act.
Is it possible for the vacancy to be filled under the terms of the transitional order? Would it create any difficulties if the transitional order were used to fill the vacancy?
The vacancy can be filled under the transitional order.
I think that we are not hugely excited about this, but we would rather take the time to consult everybody, get it right and then instruct that the appropriate changes be made to standing orders.
I shall reveal my ignorance about these things. The paper mentions that the Westminster equivalent is the Public Accounts Commission, which consists mainly of various MPs. Does the Scottish Commission for Public Audit consist only of MSPs or does it also have professors of accountancy and local government chief financial officials and people like that?
The Scottish body consists only of MSPs. That is a requirement of the act.
So we are not talking about outside experts.
No.
Paragraph 8 says that it is desirable that individual elections should be avoided. In a democracy, elections are usually thought to be quite a good thing. What is the thinking behind that statement?
That relates to a situation in which the four names that have been proposed have been agreed to. It would seem to be a little bureaucratic to require there to be a separate vote for each person. However, that would not prevent an amendment being made to have an election for only one of the four names.
I am unhappy about giving powers of any description to the Parliamentary Bureau.
I noticed that—you have not hidden that very well.
Keith Raffan and Annabel Goldie are members. Andrew Welsh, because he is convener of the Audit Committee, is an ex officio member. The other member was Malcolm Chisholm, who stood down when he became a minister.
The dark secrets that people have, eh? That membership means that the group reflected the political balance of the Parliament reasonably closely as the extra place was given to the largest party and the other major parties were represented. The obvious course of action would be to install another Labour member in Malcolm Chisholm's place—although that makes us all, apart from Kenneth Macintosh, even less interested in the group.
Yes.
Will you also canvass the view of the convener of the Audit Committee? The matter would clearly be of interest to him, as one option that is being considered is that the convener of the Audit Committee should perform certain functions.
I think that that would be perfectly acceptable.
Previous
Standing Orders