Item 5 is external committee research. Members have received a paper from the clerk. As we enter the final year of the first session of our Parliament, members may consider this an appropriate time to take stock of what we have achieved. A useful start to such a process would be to compare ourselves with other audit committees internationally. The proposed research would enable us to do that. After three years of substantial and, I think, very successful work, it is time to take an objective look at our committee's practices and procedures within the UK, European and world auditing context, to ascertain ways in which we can further improve what we do.
I am not opposed to the research proposal. However, I am concerned about the time scale. If we ask for research to be completed by the end of 2002, I am not sure how in-depth it will be. I am also concerned about the ambition to hold a seminar prior to dissolution, when many people's minds may be somewhat distracted and focused on other things. I like the idea of holding a seminar—more than a civic participation event—because it could be very useful for the committee. However, we might be trying to do too much too quickly.
I take your point, but I am told that the Scottish Parliament information centre can complete the research. We have to lay down a reasonably strict timetable to ensure that we can do the work. There is no point in starting something that we cannot finish. SPICe assures me that the time scale is reasonable.
Can I make a suggestion? I would prefer to allow the research to be given a little longer and for the seminar to be held in the new Parliament. There will be a time when things are rather thin in the early months of the new Parliament and it would be better to hold the seminar then, rather than rushing it now.
I can understand the desire not to rush the research, but I think that it can be done within the time scale. The expertise is in the committee. I hope that we can put some of our ideas on record. We are passing on information to the new Parliament, to inform and help our successors.
Looking forward, I have concerns that the total remit of the committee should be re-examined. Perhaps that could be dealt with as part of the research. We must consider what limits were put on the scope of various committees in other Parliaments. We do not have the privilege of auditing every penny on which the Parliament votes. It is important that we set in context whether it is feasible to consider alternative arrangements for the Audit Committee and whether its powers should be extended. That should be part of the research into how other Parliaments do things—if they do things differently, we should know why. That will provide something for the new Parliament to discuss.
I take your point. We insist on best value from those who appear before us and we must also insist on that best value from our own conduct. I seek a decision in principle that we consider the research in a more detailed paper, including a timetable, to be considered at our next meeting. Is that agreed?
That would delay the research further. It will be the end of the month before we get it going.
Your point has been taken, Mr Raffan. Festina lente. We shall receive the more detailed paper at the next meeting.