Audit Committee, 26 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Official Report 104KB pdf

---

Visits

Agenda item 2 is to discuss committee visits, about which we had a discussion at the previous committee meeting when we agreed that a paper with further suggestions should be prepared. That paper has now been circulated. I open discussion on the paper by saying that I do not believe that the committee should go beyond Europe at present. A visit to Denmark or the Republic of Ireland would be adequate if we are to try to find out how other countries' audit systems work. It might be that in the future, having benefited from that experience, we could then look further afield and discuss at further meetings where we might go. Although the background information on Australia that is provided in the paper is useful, at present we should focus on the Republic of Ireland or Denmark. I am happy to hear others' views.

At the previous meeting, it was made clear that other committee members and I want to gain from such visits. We have looked at models that are similar to our committee and we now have an opportunity to look at other countries that do things slightly differently so that we can learn from them. The model that is now up and running in Denmark is of interest, particularly in the light of the work that we do with the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. We would get a double hit if we were to visit Denmark.

I agree with the convener's views and believe that we can learn from Denmark and, possibly, the Republic of Ireland. That is what we should consider. What is the timescale for deciding our visit? It is suggested in the paper that there might be a visit before the summer recess, but that otherwise we should leave it until September.

If the committee makes a decision today, we can make a proposal to the next meeting of the Conveners Group in May and get a decision that would probably still allow us to go before the end of June—in other words, in the current parliamentary year. That would depend, of course, on the hosts being able to receive us—indeed, that applies to any proposal. If we do not make a decision today or if the hosts are not able to receive us before the end of June, we are probably looking at going in September.

I agree with Margaret Jamieson that the point of the visit is to gain information that would be helpful. I thought that the Danish model was interesting because it is quite different and involves people who are not politicians. I am curious about how we can encourage more people to see the benefits of the audit process. How can we get people to discover the work that this committee does and how it can bring about change for the better in our society? I am interested in the Danish model because it engages more people in the audit process. We might be able to learn from that to help to improve value for money in our public services.

On timing and the summer recess, given that most of us will be elsewhere in July, there is a possibility that we could make arrangements for a visit in late August, if that provides further leeway.

We can begin to look at the timescale more informally once the clerks have the authority to start moving the process forward and to seek dates for committee members' availability.

I make an addendum to my comments on this matter at the previous meeting. In planning the timescale for this work, we should give an assurance that we will build in an appropriate debriefing opportunity and a chance to reflect, because I am not convinced that that happened fully after our meeting with the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster. That happened informally and although I do not suggest that there has not been some element of learning and sharing of ideas, as I said at the previous meeting, we need to carve out some space in which to draw our thoughts together, not just from our experience elsewhere, but from our experience here.

Margaret Jamieson can keep us right as a member of the previous Audit Committee, but I understand that that committee carried out comparative research and it might be—I apologise if this is the case—that that was previously circulated to us. It is important to feed that into the melting pot. I would find it interesting to revisit that matter.

I agree. Such is the nature of the committee's agenda that there has not been a great deal of opportunity to put such an item on the agenda formally because of the amount of work in our fortnightly cycle. What tends to happen is that discussion takes place afterwards at our away days. At the very least, such discussion should take place at away days, and if there is a possibility of having such a discussion or presenting a paper more formally, that should be done. However, that will depend on the amount of business that the formal agenda requires us to undertake. I agree with what Susan Deacon said and believe that it should be a prerequisite that we at least have a paper that comes out of any meetings. That should be part of the proposal.

I welcome Andrew Welsh, who has just arrived. I gave your apologies not knowing how long you would be or when you would be going to the SPCB meeting. I presume that you are going after this meeting.

I am indeed. I apologise for my late arrival.

That is fine.

In light of our previous discussion, I seek the committee's agreement for us to go to Denmark as long as we can be hosted there and as long as, when we return, we produce a paper that allows us to discuss what we can gain from the Danish system. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.