Public Audit Committee, 17 Dec 2008

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Official Report 121KB pdf

---

Review of SPCB-supported Bodies

Item 2 is consideration of correspondence from the convener of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee. I hope that members have had time to reflect on that. Are there any comments on whether the correspondence raises issues that are of specific interest to this committee? The matter seems fairly straightforward.

In the past, I have certainly raised informally with Audit Scotland issues to do with the operation of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. I am not sure that such issues are entirely a matter for this committee but, given this opportunity to comment on the bodies that are supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, it might be worth exploring briefly whether other committee members have concerns about how the commissioners operate.

We can certainly ask for comment. The review will look at the management and structures of SPCB-supported bodies rather than the detail of their work. Murdo Fraser has mentioned some of his concerns to me on previous occasions, but I am not sure that it would be entirely appropriate to consider those now. However, members might want to comment on issues to do with governance and how that might be strengthened. Do other members have any thoughts or comments?

I am not clear how this relates to the discussion about the position of the Auditor General for Scotland that the convener and I, and other members, had at the meeting of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. It is mentioned in the report, but I am not sure how the SPCB—all these initials—is picking it up.

It would be open to the committee to make specific comment about the role of the Auditor General and Audit Scotland. We have discussed the need to ensure independence of the audit function—that would be of primary concern. As George Foulkes has indicated, we expressed a view that linking up with other bodies should result in no diminution of that independence. Anything that is done should ensure that that is a central tenet. If the committee wishes, we could reinforce that view.

It would be helpful if we did. We had a long discussion on the matter at the SCPA. We discussed it with the Auditor General and recommended that, although the SPCB determines the terms and conditions of the appointment, the Auditor General must not just be independent and seen to be independent but be unable to be influenced from outside, either by members of the Scottish Parliament or, particularly, by members of the Government. If my recollection is right, the SCPA's recommendations underline that.

Do committee members generally agree with that point?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay, we will send a response to that effect.

Do members have any thoughts on Murdo Fraser's point about governance issues and other, broader aspects?

I am happy to take your advice on the matter, convener. It may not be appropriate to this item to pursue that further. I have made my views known.

Your concerns are about how the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman functions.

In effect, yes.

Is the SPCB suggesting some kind of bringing together of the responsibilities of the different ombudsmen, apart from the Auditor General, in order to try to streamline the system?

That could be an option. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has already indicated that he supports a bringing together of the administration of certain functions. That is a possible outcome. There may be some streamlining.

It is early days yet. As I understand it, the whole area has to be considered in detail by the new ad hoc committee. This might be the committee's last chance to submit a formal response, but I imagine that there will be opportunities for members to respond further down the road.

I agree with Murdo Fraser, but my only worry is that as the Public Audit Committee we do not necessarily have a locus for that. I feel strongly about one aspect of the issue, which relates to the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. After a complaint about me by a Scottish National Party researcher, the commissioner, Dr Dyer, had to undertake a huge inquiry, which I had to answer to.

In the end, Dr Dyer wrote to me to say that not only had this guy not provided sufficient evidence, he had provided no evidence. Dr Dyer spent hours and hours dealing with a mischievous request. That seems ridiculous.

I am not sure that that is a function of this inquiry or of this committee. Your points are on the record and we shall leave it at that.

Do we agree that the committee will respond in the terms discussed previously?

Members indicated agreement.