Visits
Item 2 on our agenda is a discussion of committee visits. Members have received a paper that explains the history of visits by the Audit Committee to other audit bodies or audit-type committees in different Assemblies and Parliaments. The deputy convener, Andrew Welsh, who is a former convener of the committee, had experience in the previous session of visiting such bodies.
The purpose of the paper is to allow us to consider the possibility of a visit to another organisation—either a parliamentary committee or an audit institution—so that we may improve our working practice and learn lessons from others, not just specifically about financial audit but about the overall structures of audit. In the past, we have visited the National Assembly for Wales, the Westminster Parliament and institutions in Europe. Members will see from the paper that there is the possibility of further visits to those bodies. There is also the possibility of visits to Ireland or Denmark.
The purpose of visits is for us to examine institutions that work differently from us, so that we can see whether there are advantages to the way in which they work. It is fair to say that members found the only visit that the committee has made in this session to Westminster quite useful, as it enabled us to observe practice there. Consideration has been given at least to attempting to use some of the approaches that are taken at Westminster in our future work.
Originally, it was intended that the paper should be discussed at an away day, but the demands on our time are such that we do not have an opportunity to have an away day before the end of the parliamentary year. It will be possible for the committee to consider at its next away day a paper on further visits next year. However, I believed that it was important for me to bring this paper before the committee, so that if we wish to make a visit before the summer recess we can set that in train.
I invite comments from members and the Auditor General, so that I may gauge views before we reach any conclusion.
I would like the committee to be in the mainstream of developments, both national and international. The purpose of the visits that we made was to share ideas and methods and to seek out best practice, to see how that could benefit Scotland. We wanted to maintain lines of contact and communication with equivalent bodies elsewhere.
The earlier visits were the groundwork. We can now be more targeted. I look forward to the further paper that will be issued, but I am happy with the suggestion that we visit Denmark, for the reasons that are given in the paper. We have already made contact with our colleagues in Denmark. I hope that we will continue to be in communication with Westminster, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Parliament, so that we can have an exchange of ideas. I would like the committee to be at the cutting edge of the very latest developments in audit practice.
My only experience was of our visit to the Committee of Public Accounts at Westminster. I found it informative to hear about how the committee goes about its work. Given that the Copenhagen model is totally different from the model here, I question the value of a visit to Denmark. At this stage, it is unlikely that we will consider a major reform of how our committee works. I am inclined to take the view that a visit to the Dáil would give us an opportunity to re-examine the way in which we go about our work, because the Dáil operates the same basic set-up. That approach might enable us to improve what we do and how we do it under the model that we currently operate in the Scottish Parliament.
We should concentrate on learning lessons from other institutions that operate largely the same model that operates here and at Westminster. For that reason, on balance I come down in favour of our visiting the Dáil and seeing how it approaches its work. One slight criticism that could be made of Westminster is that the approach that is taken there involves grandstanding and running the rapier through the poor old accountable officer. I would be interested in seeing how the Irish system operates.
I fully accept where George Lyon is coming from. However, we can learn lessons from considering different models. The issue is not whether we should adopt those models. We should look at them to see whether they might assist us in the work we do. It is perhaps appropriate to consider Ireland, but I think that looking at models that are different would be of more use.
Do other members wish to comment?
Although I do not want to make myself unpopular with colleagues, I do not hanker after a look at yet more legislatures or equivalent committees in other legislatures. Rather, I would like the committee to have more time. We intended to spend time on this subject at our away day and, although I understand why that did not take place, I think that we need more time to reflect on where we are going within the Scottish context, given that Scottish devolution is still embryonic and has continued to evolve and develop, and that we have all learned along the way. It seems to put the cart before the horse to cast around, picking up ideas from elsewhere when we have had insufficient time to take stock of our experience. I accept that it is not necessarily an either/or question, but I would like to factor that point into the discussion.
It is an important thought. Would Mary Mulligan like to speak?
I suppose that I will have to now. I have some sympathy with what Susan Deacon has just said, but I think that we should never shy away from learning from others and looking at other ways of doing things. My preferred framework for achieving that should involve asking what we can learn, rather than just looking at those who are doing similar things and finding how we can improve on them. However, although that is my inclination at the moment, in many ways Susan has said what I was feeling in that I think that we need more time to develop what we are doing before we can learn new lessons. We need to find a balance.
Mr Robert Black (Auditor General for Scotland):
One or two comments might be helpful. I am sure the committee is absolutely right to be sensitive to the fact that different systems of government can create quite a different context within which a committee like this or other bodies operate. For example, Denmark is similar to Scotland in that it has a population of 5 million people and is almost an island off the north coast of Europe, and there is a lot of similarity in what one might call the underpinnings of how audit is carried out. For that reason, we find that speaking with the Danes at official level works very well and we have had some useful exchanges.
However, the public accounts committee of the Folketing is a different animal from the Audit Committee of this Parliament. As the clerk's note says, it is made up of appointed, paid members, a number of whom are not politicians but private citizens. I think that I am right in saying that that committee does not take evidence. It is much more of an oversight board that works with the Danish auditor general and can advise and instruct on the work that is undertaken. There may be an advantage to learning more about that process but, in many ways, the public accounts committee of the Folketing might have at least as much in common with the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, which Margaret Jamieson chairs, as it does with the Audit Committee.
If the committee was minded to take this further, it would not be difficult for us to produce a fuller note because we have contacts with other audit agencies. That might help the committee to decide whether it wants to take these matters further. The Dáil is also a different case because, self-evidently, it is the Parliament of a Republic where things are done rather differently from here. The judgment for the committee is whether the context is so different in the Dáil that there is little to be learned or whether, before the committee takes a final decision, a better understanding of the constitutional and government context might help. We can certainly provide the committee with short briefing notes on one or two of the other arrangements.
Thank you. After hearing what the Auditor General and members of the committee have said, I am happy to give my reaction. Although the Audit Committee looks into the efficient value-for-money behaviour of public bodies, that does not mean that we should shy away from going beyond our boundaries to find out what good practice is and what different practices exist.
Susan Deacon is right that devolution is at an embryonic stage. For me, that means that it is important for us to have sufficient time to consider the workings of the committee. However, we also need to draw on the experience of those who are in some respects ahead of the game to see whether there are areas—with regard to the scrutiny not just of financial audit but of government in the broadest sense—where we might, as parliamentarians, improve the development of the Parliament in its embryonic stage. Therefore, I make no apologies for putting this item on the agenda. It is important that we consider other audit models in other countries.
I am attracted more to looking at the Copenhagen model because it is so different from ours and I am curious to see to how much it differs, how it works and whether we can learn from its experience. However, I would be happy to take a further paper from Audit Scotland on that model and the model that operates in the Dáil, for members to consider further before we make any final decision. We can consider that paper at a later date. Meanwhile, we can also consider the suggestion that we draw up a paper for discussion during a future away day, when we can take the sufficient time that Susan Deacon says that we require to look not just at other aspects of our procedure but at other areas where we might learn more. Does that meet with the committee's agreement?
Members indicated agreement.
That is fine.