Audit Committee, 10 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 10, 2002

Official Report 118KB pdf

---

Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees (Conference)

Item 4 is on the conference of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees. The committee must consider a proposed submission to the conveners liaison group on an invitation to the convener of the Audit Committee to attend the seventh biennial conference of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees.

The organisation was established by the audit and public accounts committees of the federal and state Parliaments of Australia, the Parliament of New Zealand and other Parliaments in the region to provide a forum for discussion and development of parliamentary scrutiny by audit and public accounts committees. The conference offers a valuable opportunity to continue the committee's policy of establishing good relations and sharing best practice with similar committees in the UK and abroad. It is hoped that the results of our commissioned research will be available for discussion with counterpart committees at the conference. I refer members to the clerk's paper on the proposed submission to the conveners liaison group regarding the invitation to the conference, which is in Melbourne in February 2003, and invite comments.

The conference is very brief and it is a long way to go. We are near the end of the parliamentary session and the committee may have a different convener after the election. The committee must be careful about how we spend money, particularly as we are so critical of others.

I have two questions. Why does the clerk have to go as well as the convener? What do you think you will get out of the conference? The committee must be careful and set an example.

An invitation has been received and I am in the committee's hands as to how to proceed.

You will hardly get over your jet-lag before the conference is over.

The council is 14 years old and committees of all the Australian states, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea are members of it. Two years ago, the Canadians and South Africans joined as associate members and the first item at the conference is on allowing them to become full members.

The conference is part and parcel of the process of considering good international practice and members will see from the clerk's report that various items are appropriate to our work. I am keen for the committee to remain in the mainstream of European practice and practice elsewhere. Networking and contacts would be among the benefits of attending, which should be compared with what happens with videoconferencing or other ways of keeping in touch. Specific items are relevant and the report will be relevant to future members of the committee. The clerk's job is to be part of that process.

I have nothing against the clerks; I am simply considering ways of saving money.

The reason for the clerk's going is that clerks continue while members and conveners can change. The conference would help to inform and educate our work. It is a great distance to travel, but I hope that the results will be worth while; otherwise, going to the conference would not be contemplated.

Conveners come and go and clerks do not go on for ever, but Auditors General tend to do so. It might be more sensible for the Auditor General to go with you.

That would be a matter for the Auditor General, if he would care to comment. Members know that we went to Europe and the Auditor General and Audit Scotland were well represented then. That has borne fruit in reports that the committee has considered.

A similar proposal came to the Finance Committee last week and I opposed it for a number of reasons. One reason is that we are at the end of the parliamentary session and it is up to members of the next Audit Committee to decide where they want to go. Any decisions that current committees make are not binding on committees after the election.

We are talking about a large amount of money at a time when some members of the public have a severe perception of the costs of running the Parliament. It is not an appropriate time to go to the conference. However, as a compromise, I accept the arguments in favour of the clerking team being represented in some way, albeit that they would not know at this stage what to look for on behalf of members of the next committee. The matter should be dealt with for the next conference in two years' time.

The difficulty in sending a clerking team only is that the clerks do not have the right to be represented. Conveners of audit and public accounts committees have been invited to take part in the conference—clerks would be there to report.

I will not argue against that. However, it is not an appropriate time to go.

Given that we have commissioned research by University College London on what happens in other legislative bodies, would it be more appropriate to think about where appropriate links and contacts might be once we have received that research? I do not have a problem with somebody travelling to a place if something productive comes out of it, but the research will give us a possible springboard for deciding who to link up with.

There is a difficulty in respect of registering for the conference. We must make up our minds now.

It would not be appropriate to go at this stage. Once we have received the research, we will be in a better position to think about where the best links are.

I am in the committee's hands.

Videoconferencing was mentioned. Is there any prospect of a videoconference? In the European Committee, we have used videoconferencing quite extensively to build up our links with the Flemish and Catalan Parliaments. It is a good way to be at the table and have discussions. Videoconferencing might not be possible in this case, but it might be useful to ask the question.

As I said, I am in the hands of the committee. It is clear that the consensus is against the proposal—I accept that. Not going will save me from getting jet-lag. However, I would say to future members of the Audit Committee that the conference will be very useful and recommend that someone should consider going to it to build up international contacts.

Members have asked questions and I am sceptical about the proposal, but we should have a formal vote. You said that the consensus is against the proposal; however, I am prepared to accept your judgment. I was just giving you a hard time. If you think that you will get something out of attending the conference, I do not want to destroy the possibility that you will.

We could vote to clarify matters. It is important that the committee reaches a decision. I would be the first to demand value for money.

The question is, that the committee agrees to seek the approval of the conveners liaison group for the convener and the clerk to attend the conference of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees to be held in Melbourne in February 2003. Are members agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

Against

Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab)
Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Margaret Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)

Abstentions

Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Mr Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 0, Against 4, Abstentions 2. The committee has therefore voted against the proposal.

Agenda item 5 will be taken in private.

Meeting continued in private until 15:08.