Audit Committee (Title and Remit)
Item 5 is consideration of the title and remit of the Audit Committee. The clerks have helpfully prepared a paper on the issue. It arose from the legacy paper that was prepared by our predecessor committee, which recommended a change of name and a fairly technical change to the committee's remit.
George Foulkes asked for this item to be put on the agenda. George, do you want to say anything?
The legacy paper was very interesting reading, and not just on the committee's title. Our predecessors made several helpful suggestions about the way in which the committee operates.
My preference is for the committee to be named the public accounts committee, but that might be too Westminster oriented for us. In Commonwealth Parliaments around the world, similar committees to this one are called public accounts committees. That title gives a much better indication of what we do. When people think about audit, they think of something very technical being carried out by chartered accountants, such as checking figures to ensure that they are accurate—I intend no disrespect to chartered accountants, or actuaries, even. That is an important part of the work of Audit Scotland, which I have come to respect greatly.
I have also come to realise, however, that this committee does a lot more than technical checking, in terms of value for money and a range of other aspects. It would reflect better the work of the committee if we considered the legacy paper's proposal. If changing the committee's name to the public accounts committee would be going a bit too far, "public audit committee", as suggested in the clerk's paper, is a reasonable compromise that I would go along with.
The term "public accounts committee" is recognised in the zeitgeist; people are familiar with the concept. If we are going to change the committee's name, we should seriously consider changing it to the public accounts committee rather than the public audit committee. However, I am happy to hear members' views. Would the former convener like to make a contribution?
The Westminster system is very different from the committee system in this Parliament. We are more effective and efficient, and our committees have wider powers than Westminster committees.
The Audit Committee's unique relationship with Audit Scotland benefits the Scottish public, whom we serve. We are fortunate to have Audit Scotland reports as the basis of our activities and, during previous sessions of Parliament, positive benefits accrued in sharpening up and improving the systems of the bodies that Audit Scotland has investigated. The big problem is that if you mention audit, people's eyes glaze over; the Finance Committee has the same problem. However, those committees are at the heart of ensuring good value for money and it is important that that is recognised.
I have no problem with calling this the public audit committee, but I seek assurance on the record from the convener that none of the changes will alter or affect the role and remit of any other Scottish Parliament committee.
We can confirm that. We would not be altering in any way the committee's role and remit. The clerk's paper contains a proposal to make what is a fairly technical adjustment to the committee's remit to clarify the fact that the committee can consider wider public audit policy matters, which is what we—and the predecessor committee—have been doing in practice. Changing the committee's name will have no other effect on the committee's role and there is no question of it treading on the toes of the Finance Committee or of any other parliamentary committee.
It is important to make that clear.
If the name "public audit committee" will give the public a clearer indication of what the committee does, we should adopt it, because the committee's role and activities should gain wider publicity and be better understood by the public. The committee can be proud of what it has done over previous sessions and in the present session.
You would prefer "public audit committee" to "public accounts committee".
Yes.
Do any other members have a view?
In a nutshell, I am quite happy with the present title. If we were to call the committee the "public accounts committee", we would make it sound as if we were getting into financial matters, because the word "accounts" is more of an accountant's term. Given that we represent the public, just adding "public" in front of the committee's name will not bring any great benefits. Audit Scotland already exists. If we changed our name, would Audit Scotland have to change its name? I honestly think that it is quite clear what we do. "Audit" is a strong word and I see no benefit in putting "public" in front of it.
I am quite relaxed about the title, although I do not think that including the word "public" in it would give it any more pizzazz. Andrew Welsh mentioned the possibility of straying into matters of policy, which I would not favour. One of the advantages of the committee is that it is highly apolitical and is not a forum for re-enacting debates that take place elsewhere. That is a useful distinction between our committee and other committees and it gives it its strength. I would not like us to stray into debating issues of policy in the wider sense. I hope that we can obtain clarification that that will not be the case.
I will let Tracey Reilly come in at this point.
The proposed name change is strictly a matter of clarification. There is no intention to change the way in which the committee operates or its procedures.
A particularly narrow reading of the committee's remit might suggest that the committee could examine audit policy only in relation to a document that had been formally laid before the Parliament. In the purely hypothetical situation in which the Government decided to consider amendments to the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 and consulted thereon, the committee would not strictly be within its rights to examine that consultation because it would not be a laid document.
Through the proposed change, we aim to capture such situations. We do not want to change the way in which the committee operates. Our intention is purely to enable the committee to examine issues of policy that pertain to its remit, not wider policy matters, which the subject committees rightly look at.
I fully accept what Tracey Reilly said; she put the case for the change succinctly.
When you tell people that you are a member of the Audit Committee, initially their eyes glaze over, but after a while Audit Scotland will be mentioned. Retaining the word "audit" in the committee's title will ensure that there continues to be a good tie-in with the work of Audit Scotland. I am keen to keep "audit" in the committee's name.
I agree with Willie Coffey that putting "public" in front of the present name will not give it any more pizzazz. "Audit Committee" is quite a succinct title, so that would be my preference.
George, do you want to reintroduce some pizzazz?
I am a pizzazz expert.
Like the convener, if we were starting from scratch, my preference would be to call the committee the public accounts committee, which name is used not just at Westminster, but in many Commonwealth countries, as I said earlier.
However, I am also a member of that highly distinguished body, the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, which had a meeting last Wednesday at which Mr Black reported to us on some of the extremely impressive work that is being done by the Auditor General in developing countries, where public accounts committees are being set up and public audit work is being encouraged.
The examples of the Scottish Parliament and Westminster are being followed. The set-up that exists in London with the National Audit Office is similar to the one that exists here with Audit Scotland.
Since that other organisation is called the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, the proposed new name for this committee would be consistent—I go along with the idea of keeping the word "audit" in it. The clerk's report to the committee contains a good compromise.
Does George Foulkes know what the situation is in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands?
Is that within your sphere of knowledge, George?
Yes, it is. Have we got an hour?
No.
The situation in those places is interesting. Because of their interest in issues relating to tax havens and the development of offshore finance, public accounts and public audit is even more important to them than it is in other parts of Britain. I could go on at length, if you want.
Please do not.
Auditor General, do you have anything that you want to contribute?
I encourage the committee to consider the recommended change of name, for the reasons that have been given.
I go around the country a lot and, when we speak to people—from overseas and elsewhere—who do not know our system, the word "public" helps to make clear the fact that our purpose relates to accountability to the public for the use of resources. As the paper states quite clearly, the nuance of the title "Audit Committee" suggests that the committee is concerned with the Scottish Parliament's internal resources. Therefore, I think that the new title will strengthen the committee. The resonance with the title of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit is helpful. The change will simplify the situation for people and increase their understanding of the role of the committee. I encourage the committee to go in that direction.
There are different opinions around the table, but this is hardly the most crucial issue that the committee will be required to address. Is there a general feeling—with the exception of Jim Hume, who is dissenting—that we should use the word "public" in our title?
My dissent is not that strong.
Obviously, it is not an issue that we want to divide over. Do we agree to propose to the Standards and Public Appointments Committee that we change the committee's name to the public audit committee and that we clarify the remit of the committee to address the point that Tracey Reilly mentioned earlier, about the consideration of wider public audit policy matters?
Members indicated agreement.
We will now move into private session.
Meeting continued in private until 11:39.