Agenda item 4 is on the paper that members have received regarding the joint reports by the Accounts Commission and the Auditor General for Scotland. I invite members to comment before I ask the Auditor General to make observations. The paper is fairly straightforward in relation to our proposed practice.
My only point relates to the previous item on "Dealing with offending by young people". The quality of the evidence that we took from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities was poor. I do not know whether that was because different people were involved, but given that the witnesses came from the same local authority, perhaps we were getting a local perspective rather than an all-Scotland perspective. It is appropriate that when we discuss joint reports, representatives from COSLA should be present to provide us with information.
It makes sense that if we are to avoid the difficulty of putting a particular council in the dock when they are not accountable to us, COSLA or other organisations that represent particular spheres or professions should be present. At the same time, those organisations have to ensure that they have adequate information to answer the probing questions that we will ask, so that we are satisfied that we are getting the national picture rather than the local detail.
It is appropriate for there to be a formal appearance by representatives of the Accounts Commission, but there is also merit in our having an informal discussion with them. Although it is important that they come before us and that what they say is recorded, it would also be appropriate at some juncture, such as during an away day, to have an informal discussion so that we can deal with matters privately as well as publicly.
That point was well made. The Accounts Commission attended our away day earlier this year, which was helpful. The paper recognises that there should be a formal process too. Maybe we have taken the informal process—because it was already in place—for granted, but I concur that we should formalise the informal part of the process. Do other members wish to comment? Auditor General, do you have any observations?
I will offer a thought on accountability, which is fundamental. The short paper is excellent, and captures very well at the bottom of the first page the fact that the accountable officers of bodies that are not local authorities are answerable to the Parliament. That is explicitly written into the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000. The Parliament recognised the distinct position of local government when it passed the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which imposed a duty of best value upon individual local authorities and arranged for the Accounts Commission to be the independent body that, in effect, was charged with challenging individual local authorities on their performance.
That point was well made. I agree with the Auditor General that the paper is useful. I put to the committee the following for agreement. First, in taking evidence from local authority representatives on joint reports, we will focus on local authorities on a national basis. That would make a great deal of sense. Secondly, we should put in place arrangements to enable the Accounts Commission to appear before the committee on a formal basis and, as Kenny MacAskill said, we should issue a standing invitation to the Accounts Commission, along with Audit Scotland, to our informal meetings or away days. We should write to the convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee, as well as to COSLA, to inform them that we are going to take the steps that I have outlined. Does that meet with the committee's agreement?