Finance Committee, 03 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 3, 2002

Official Report 89KB pdf

---

Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees Conference

Item 4 is about the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees conference. The clerk will say a few words.

The invitation for the convener to attend the conference came out of the blue a few weeks ago. I must say that I was not aware that there was such a thing as the ACPAC, but the conference programme that is set out has a lot of interest for the committee, given its on-going work.

We have drafted a paper for the consideration of the conveners liaison group, but we want the committee's view on whether to proceed. The CLG decides all such matters, because it holds the overall budgets. The CLG is also aware of what other committees are planning, so it could take a strategic view on the application if the committee was minded to become involved in the conference. Having had initial discussions with the clerk to the CLG, I have been advised that money is available in the budget to be used before the end of the year, so in that sense, there is no budgetary problem. However, whether it is worth while for the committee to become involved is a matter only for the committee.

I am not trying to be a killjoy, but I do not see the justification for spending such an amount. The justification that is given in the paper is that the conference would allow us to examine how other people do things. We need to remember that the committee has previously conducted exercises with people on the other side of the world via teleconferencing. In that way, we were able to push the subject that the committee wanted to examine rather than sit in the background at someone else's conference. We were able to tell the person at the other side what we wanted to know and we had a chance to discuss the issue. We could easily do that from the Parliament.

I would not worry about being a killjoy. The idea of travelling to and from Australia within five days is not the most exciting prospect.

I think that the conference would be a useful event for the Finance Committee convener to attend. From the committee's budgetary discussions over the past three and a half years, it is quite clear that the way in which the Scottish Parliament does certain things is at the leading edge of how some public accounts issues are dealt with. It would be useful to engage with others internationally to see what we could learn from them about how we can continue to develop our processes.

For example, from our discussions on outcome budgeting, it is clear that we are to a certain extent feeling our way forward. It would be useful to exchange experiences with others who are slightly further forward on this road. That was why we spoke to the New Zealanders, who have also given much consideration to outcome budgeting.

I am all in favour of using teleconferencing and other electronic means wherever they are appropriate and useful, but there are occasions on which it is useful to have more in-depth, face-to-face meetings. I suggest that the convener should attend the conference.

How does the convener feel? I have no strong feelings about whether he should attend the conference. Travelling there and back within a week would be a pretty punishing schedule, but if the convener feels that his attendance would be worth while, I will certainly not oppose it.

There are two issues. As Elaine Thomson mentioned, the topic of outcomes and output that the conference will consider is important. Even from my reading of today's committee papers, I can see that that is an important area for the committee as we try to drive forward the issue of outcome and output budgeting. Important information might come from attending such a conference.

We should also consider the representative role. The committee's report on private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships, which is being debated in the Parliament this week, is an important document and it is important that we can go and talk about the work of the committee and represent the work of the Parliament. There is a dual role to be considered. Unless the convener feels that the schedule would be overly punishing, I think that our representation would be worth while because it would promote the work of the committee and of the Parliament.

If I may add some information, Australia is at the cutting edge of such reforms and is one of the world's leading countries for such innovation. There is a lot of academic interest in Australian practice.

I have spoken at a world conference that was organised in Australia and it was, without doubt, the best organised conference that I have ever attended. In part because Australia is so far away, the conference organisers really wanted to impress delegates. The conference included important sessions that were useful and workmanlike in comparison to those at some conferences that I have attended. If the committee thinks that his attendance would be valuable, I would encourage the convener to attend.

If the committee decides that the convener should go, he should also look seriously at the arrangements for the conference fringes, where one can gather a lot of information. The one thing that I learned in my previous brief incarnation was that going to see things rather than just reading about them on paper or having a telephone conversation about them can alter one's view substantially. The convener's attendance at the conference might also be useful in terms of his ability to share with us his experience.

If the committee is minded in principle that I should attend, I will examine the schedule to see what is happening in Parliament at that time. I want to get a feel for how business will work out before I make a final decision. Are members okay with that?

I presume that the suggestion is that the committee should approve the convener's attendance at the conference, but leave him the discretion to decide whether to go.

The committee could approve the decision in principle, but if I decide that I do not want to attend, the opportunity to attend could perhaps be left open to another committee member. I would rather take time to consider the work schedule before making a final decision.

I have made my point. I remain unconvinced that attendance at the conference would, at this stage of the Parliament's life, contribute more than would the whole committee's being involved in a teleconferencing exercise, such as the successful one that we had with the New Zealanders and with others from other parts of the world.

I do not know how we should do this. We could take a decision in principle. Alternatively, I will be happy to defer the decision. Perhaps I could consult committee members by correspondence over the next few days once I have had a chance to see what might come up.

Would that give us enough time to decide? When is the next committee meeting scheduled for?

The next meeting is on 17 December, which is the same day as the CLG meets. We would need to provide the CLG with a paper before that date, so we must either decide now or, as the convener said, by correspondence in the next few days.

I do not see how we can decide by correspondence. We need to decide now or not at all.

I do not feel that I am in a position to make a decision. I would rather just leave the matter and step back from it than decide just now.

For consideration of item 5, which concerns our draft report on the draft budget, we move into private session. I ask members of the press and public to leave.

Meeting continued in private until 12:32.