Procedures Committee, 26 Nov 2002
Meeting date: Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Official Report
319KB pdf
Audit Committee Remit
We move to item 2, which is flashed in my folder by a pale green marker, followed by a brief report. I am happy to have Andrew Welsh MSP address the committee.
I am accompanied by Shelagh McKinlay, clerk to the Audit Committee.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to attend the committee meeting this morning, and to explain the Audit Committee's request to amend its remit. Members will have before them a paper that sets out the background to the request in some depth, but I thought that it might be helpful to make a few opening remarks—I emphasise that it will be a few.
Under its current remit, the Audit Committee may consider and report on any report laid before the Parliament by the Auditor General for Scotland. However, the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 does not give the Auditor General any formal laying powers in relation to his economy, efficiency and effectiveness reports. Therefore, as its remit stands, properly, the Audit Committee should not consider Auditor General for Scotland reports of that type. Those reports constitute the main vehicle by which the Parliament can investigate and secure the proper use of public resources. Therefore, it is imperative that the Audit Committee is empowered to consider them.
To rectify the situation, it is suggested that standing orders be amended to allow the committee to consider
"any report laid before or made to the Parliament by the Auditor General for Scotland".
I emphasise that, if the change is agreed to, it will not result in any change in the Audit Committee's practice. The amendment is a technical one that would simply ensure that standing orders properly support the policy intention of the Parliament in relation to the operation of the Audit Committee.
Finally, I inform members of the Procedures Committee that the Parliament's legal staff have agreed to the proposed change. The Auditor General is content and the Executive has been informed of the proposal and has expressed no concerns.
The matter is technical and I appreciate the committee's assistance in ensuring a correct solution.
The significant part for members of the Procedures Committee is at the end of paragraph 13 of the report, where the rule change is set out. As members will see, the proposal is to add the words "or made to". The fact that there is a difference between reports laid and reports made deserves a diary piece.
We would hate to think that anything important might appear in a report made that, not being able to be laid, fell outwith the Audit Committee's remit. If we include "made" along with laid we will be in a position to empower the Audit Committee to deal with reports that are made and laid. That is an important factor in its ability to scrutinise reports. I hope that we can agree the change to standing orders.
The change is worth a diary piece if it improves economy, effectiveness and efficiency.
Do I understand from this that the Audit Committee is only responsive? If the Audit Committee thinks that a certain area—for example, the work of the Procedures Committee—needs auditing, can it invite the Auditor General to audit it? Can the committee set up an audit inquiry, or does it merely scrutinise carefully other people's audit inquiries?
The work of the Audit Committee is based on the Auditor General for Scotland's reports, but we agree to the Auditor General's work programme at the start of each year so our committee can make recommendations. The Auditor General for Scotland is rightly completely independent but, if we ask, he is usually reasonably willing to assist us. We have not yet been turned down.
Do we agree the proposed recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
That has made Andrew Welsh's day.
At the start of the meeting, I neglected to say for the record that we had an apology from Ken Macintosh, who expected that he might not be able to be in attendance. I overlooked that.