Item 5 is on visits to other legislatures. The paper that members have is self-explanatory. It starts from the basis that the previous Audit Committee intended to carry out a number of visits to see how other Parliaments and Assemblies in the United Kingdom operate in our subject area, but it was unable to do so due to pressure of work.
I am not sure whether anyone present will be able to answer my question, but how might that work fit in with the Parliament's thinking about how the committees and processes of the Parliament should work? Does anyone have any idea about the plans for monitoring the Parliament's performance? How might our visiting comparable bodies fit in with them?
I see our role as being to inform members. There is no doubt that other committees operate in different ways. We might decide that we are glad that we do not work in the same way as a certain committee or we might decide that we have something to learn. We will not know what the outcome will be before we undertake the visits; we should aim simply to test, for our benefit, whether we can improve our procedures or whether we are doing as well as we can.
I am happy to find the information that Rhona Brankin seeks, if that would be helpful. There are forums such as the Conveners Group, in which conveners are able to report back on visits and share practice to ensure that what one committee has learned is shared with other committees. There are also regular meetings between senior clerking officials in various Parliaments to allow experiences and processes to be shared. For example, there was a recent seminar of heads of committee offices that involved representatives from Northern Ireland, Westminster and the Greater London Authority.
I agree with what the convener said. I was a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee during the Parliament's first session, and our visits to Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales were illuminating as we were able to find out not only what we were doing wrong but what we were doing right. There might be an argument about whether seven members or three should go on the visits, but, in general, seeing how others operate is of great benefit.
I note that, while the previous committee agreed to the visits in principle, it visited only Westminster and not Northern Ireland or Wales. My personal preference is that, if we take the initiative forward—which I agree that we should do—our priority should be to visit our counterparts in Wales and Northern Ireland respectively. Not only do I suspect that we already know more about the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Accounts at Westminster than we do about comparable committees in the other bodies, but I think that it is important for us to forge links with the other devolved legislatures, which the previous committee did not manage to do.
I understand your point. As far as prioritisation is concerned, I suspect that a visit to Northern Ireland might take place last because of the Northern Irish elections and the need to wait for any comparable committee to be formulated. The Public Accounts Committee at Westminster operates so differently from our committee that it would be useful for members to learn about the system.
I support Susan Deacon's point. Our priority should be first to visit Wales and secondly to visit the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster.
I am happy for us to look at the variety of different arrangements that are in place, but we should do so in a structured way, so that we go with a clear idea about how we will compare the committees' different performances.
That is helpful. Do members agree to approve the paper? I suggest that we note that we want to organise the Cardiff visit first and I invite members to consider their diaries and tell the clerk—informally, outwith the committee meeting—which trips they are particularly interested in making and when they are likely to have windows of opportunity that would allow them to attend.
Given the time scale—I think that we are talking about scheduling the visits to take place from January—there is no need for any speed in getting organised. We need to ensure that we allocate sufficient time for members to indicate whether they can attend, rather than just give them three weeks' notice of meetings.
It would be difficult to shoehorn that in before the winter recess.
When the travelling arrangements are being drawn up and different modes of transport are being considered, time must be a factor in the equation. There is a degree of pressure from certain areas to use rail all the time. It would be useful to consider the time factor when we come to a decision.
Even Greens travel by air occasionally.
Not according to your business manager.
Robin Harper will be telling us next that he eats at McDonald's occasionally, too.
I suggest that we have a five-minute comfort break, so that members can go to the tea room if they like, before we move on to evidence taking.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—