Work Programme
We have received a further paper from the clerk on the Audit Committee's forward work programme. Members will see that the paper provides details of on-going work.
Later today we will consider our draft report on the Scottish Further Education Funding Council. There has been no progress on our inquiry into the scrutiny of financial consequences of legislation, as I am still to meet the convener of the Procedures Committee. Once that meeting has taken place, I will report to this committee.
We have yet to publish our report on Scottish Enterprise and further on-going work on Scottish Enterprise is being carried out by Audit Scotland. It will be for us to determine at a future date whether we want to develop that.
The paper contains an outline of Audit Scotland's provisional work programme. Members can see that reports on Historic Scotland, local economic forums and business support services will be published soon. Various items are coming up. Until the reports are published, we cannot determine whether we want to report and to take evidence on them.
Appended to the paper is an outline of diary dates on which the committee will meet and of items that are likely to appear on our agenda. It has been confirmed that on 2 March we will receive evidence from Paul Grice on the SPCB's accounts. We will take evidence on the report "Overview of the National Health Service in Scotland" from Lothian NHS Board on 16 March and from Borders NHS Board and Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board on 30 March. There are already a substantial number of items on our agenda. Unlike other committees, we meet and are resourced to meet fortnightly rather than weekly. We need to bear in mind how evidence sessions can be scheduled into the time that is available to us.
The next item on our agenda also relates to the NHS. We need to decide whether we want to take evidence from Trevor Jones, the accountable officer for NHS Scotland. That further evidence session would be slotted in on one of the dates when we are due to meet. Given that we are taking evidence from the health boards on 16 and 30 March, it would be natural to hear from Trevor Jones in April or May, should we choose to take evidence from him.
Our agendas for future meetings are already beginning to fill up with evidence taking. I make the point to members that it is one thing to commission a report and to take evidence, but another to ensure that the clerks have the time to write up the evidence into reports so that we can publish them. We must always take account of that fact.
Those are my observations on the paper. I invite comments from members.
This was a while back, so correct me if I am wrong; I cannot remember whether I raised the issue in committee or in informal discussion, but I would welcome a discussion of the broader issues relating to the concept of best value and how that is working in organisations such as the Scottish Executive.
Okay. I propose to take comments from other members, and then we will try to resolve the issues that are raised.
Other than the issue of best value, the programme seems to be straightforward.
Are there any other comments?
It is probably inevitable that we will require Trevor Jones to come before us after we have heard from the NHS boards. We should take it as read that, on one of the dates that are given in the paper, part of the meeting will be such an evidence session. If we get answers during the NHS board evidence sessions to the questions that a lot of us want to be answered, I hope that that will lead to follow-on questions for Trevor Jones.
I am wary of our moving on to the next agenda item, but I recognise what you say. That is why I flagged that issue up. The approach that you outline seems logical.
I invite Caroline Gardner to contribute to the discussion on the forward work programme.
Caroline Gardner (Audit Scotland):
Thank you, convener.
I do not want to say much more about the items that are listed in the first appendix to the note on the committee forward work programme; they are included to give the committee a flavour of the reports that Audit Scotland will publish. As the convener has said, the question is how the committee can make best use of its time. I therefore suspect that some prioritising will have to be done in respect of the action that the committee chooses to take on some of the reports. The committee may want to note some of the reports and follow up progress on them later.
Rhona Brankin asked about the best-value agenda. We had hoped to make a presentation to the committee earlier in the session on best value in local government and across the public sector. The pressure of time caused by evidence taking and dealing with draft reports meant that we had to postpone the presentation, but it is still very much something that we would like to bring forward, as the committee's work programme allows.
We would also like to make time over the next couple of months for an informal discussion with the committee about the items that might come into our forward study programme. We are due to consult on that over late spring and summer. Obviously, it would be useful to have, at an early stage in the discussion, the views of committee members on items that we should consider for inclusion in that programme.
Thank you very much. Was that helpful with regard to best value, Rhona?
Yes.
We should be mindful of that issue. It would be appropriate, were we to do any work on best value, to have a background briefing in advance so that we can work out where we might go and how we might gather evidence. On Rhona Brankin's behalf, I will liaise with Audit Scotland on when we can schedule that briefing. I will bring the information before the committee to determine how we might place it on the agenda, if it is a matter that the committee wishes to follow up.
Although it is helpful that Caroline Gardner and the Audit Scotland team will be able to provide us with a briefing, the Accounts Commission must also be involved in the briefing, given its involvement in the process. The briefing does not need to take place on a day on which the committee usually meets, and there are spaces in the schedule that would allow us to accommodate such a briefing.
That is correct. We would look to involve the Accounts Commission. I agree that the briefing need not take place during a formal committee meeting; it could be done during an informal meeting. We must bear it in mind that, as some committee members are members of other committees, we must be flexible about the day on which we meet.
Where are we now in relation to visits to audit committees elsewhere? It seems to be some time since we decided to undertake those visits, but we have not had any information back to indicate when they are likely to take place.
I understand that we are in the process of tying up the visit to the National Assembly for Wales. I ask Shelagh McKinlay to comment on where we have got to with that.
Shelagh McKinlay (Clerk):
Further funding was approved by the last Conveners Group meeting. I apologise for the clerks not being in a position to get the papers to the previous meeting of the Conveners Group; that had a lot to do with the delay and was due to pressure of work.
Christine Lambourne has drawn up proposals for the visit to Wales; I think that they were sent to the convener only yesterday. One of the issues that we will ask members to take a view is whether they are terribly keen to tie that visit to a meeting of the Audit Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, because it meets only once a month. It might be just as beneficial to go on a day when that committee does not meet. Members of the committees could meet informally and see other business of the Assembly. Otherwise, it would be difficult to arrange a suitable date.
We have been looking at the upcoming work of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, again on the assumption that members would want the visit to coincide with a meeting of the PAC.
We are definitely pushing the matter forward much faster now; I apologise that it has taken so long.
Thank you. I confirm that last week we received approval for funding. I have not yet seen the paper on the proposed dates for the visit to the National Assembly for Wales.
I am happy to hear members' views on whether we should go on a day when the respective committees are meeting or whether we should go on any other day and arrange a meeting with members of those committees.
My opinion is that, in the case of the visit to Westminster, it would be of greater use to see the Public Accounts Committee in operation, whereas I am probably more relaxed about seeing the Audit Committee of the National Assembly for Wales in operation. We are more likely to be able to have an informal meeting with members of the Assembly's Audit Committee during which we can draw on their experience. I am happy to hear members' views before I get back to the clerks on the paper that they have sent me.
It would be ideal to see both committees in operation. The difficulty is whether we will be able to see the committees in operation and spend time with the committee members. That is the problem. We should prioritise spending time with members of the committees; if we can see the committees working as well, it would be ideal to combine the two.
The convener said that he was relaxed about going to the National Assembly for Wales when its Audit Committee was not meeting. I agree with that, as we could learn other things about the way in which the Assembly works. It would be exciting to see how the Assembly works, in addition to seeing how its Audit Committee works. One-to-one discussions with the members would be more productive.
I would be very interested to see the PAC at Westminster at work, because it operates in a different style.
It operates in a completely different style.
I would say that our position is essentially as Rhona Brankin has outlined it. We are naturally trying to arrange the visits in the best possible way, so that we can see the committees in operation and have time with the committee members. However, my fallback position is that we should see the PAC at Westminster in operation because it operates in such a different way from how we operate, whereas it is probably more important to have a meeting with members of the Audit Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, rather than have to fix our diary according to when that committee meets. The meetings of the PAC at Westminster are far more regular, therefore the arrangements for that visit can be more flexible.
I ought to record my apologies for my overheated and late appearance at the committee. I was listening to some children talk about the future of Edinburgh and lost track of time.
Your apologies are accepted.
As there are no other comments on the visits, I will endeavour to ensure that at our next meeting we will have finalised, or will be able to have a discussion on, our forthcoming visits to audit committees of various Parliaments.
In the meantime, we agree to note the report.