Audit Committee, 28 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Official Report 186KB pdf

---

Committee Debate

We move on to discuss what was item 6 on the agenda, on a possible committee debate in the Parliament. I will first make some comments on the subject while members find the papers that have been prepared on the matter.

Members will recall from our visit to Westminster and from those occasions on our away days when we have discussed issues surrounding our reports, some consideration has been given to how we might better discuss our reports once we have published them. During our visit, it was noted that, in general, there is no process at Westminster whereby every report is debated. However, members there will have a full day's debate on the findings of the Public Accounts Committee.

Having attended a number of meetings of the Conveners Group at which the subject of debates on committee reports have come up, I have noticed that those debate slots fill up until quite far into the future. Indeed, four slots were available before the Christmas recess, but two have already been taken. It struck me that it would be useful if we could clarify our position. Would it be to the committee's benefit if we were to have a committee debate? The suggestion in the paper that the clerks have prepared is not to the exclusion of any other subject for debate, if we felt that we wanted a committee debate.

In the past, the committee has not sought to have a debate on any of its reports. There are a variety of reasons for that. It might be that we will not seek a debate on any of our reports in future but, whether we approve or reject the proposal before us, it would be useful for me, as convener, to know whether the committee favours holding a debate in the chamber—albeit possibly not before Christmas, as time is running on and slots are being taken up. I presume that such a debate, during which we might present an annual report, would last an hour and a half or so. That would allow MSPs to pick up on different aspects of the reports that we have published and the work that we have done. As the paper outlines, it would be up to committee members to open and close the debate. Ministers would be able to make their own contributions, but of course they would not be held to account in relation to the findings of committee reports. That is a brief introduction as to why I felt it useful to have this item on the agenda.

I accept that the proposal has been discussed previously, but it was felt to be totally unworkable. Given that the committee's remit is organised around holding accountable officers to account, ministers who deal with policy matters could not respond to a debate. Having a debate would run contrary to the committee's remit.

If we were to have a debate, it would need to be limited to one of our reports. Most of our reports relate to a specific accountable officer, although responsibility was shared across several people in the case of our youth justice inquiry. It would be difficult for a minister to respond to a debate that dealt with more than one of our reports. I believe that we should not change our position on parliamentary debates.

I am afraid that I disagree with Margaret Jamieson. I think that the committee should have a higher profile. If it is possible to have a reasonable parliamentary debate on our work, we should have one. Surely if we were to lodge a motion in a form that allowed the Parliament simply to accept our reports, the debate could be limited to the subjects of the two or three amendments to the motion that might be lodged. Those amendments could be drafted so as to provide further debate on subjects that the committee had dealt with. I would have no objection to such a proposal. It would be precipitate to have a debate before Christmas, as we would need to consider carefully how the matter should be presented in the chamber, but I am disposed towards having a debate in the chamber on the work of the Audit Committee.

Given our discussions this morning, and given the subject of the discussion that we are about to have under the next agenda item, there are good reasons why the committee should have a debate. One of the biggest questions that the Parliament is grappling with is how policy is delivered effectively and how the approximately £25 billion of taxpayers' money that is the Scottish block can be put to best effect in implementing that policy. The fact that our committee is concerned with implementation rather than with policy provides us with a unique and incredibly useful role in fostering that debate about delivery and implementation. After all, we have agonised over those issues for hours on end over the past year, and we will no doubt continue to do so in the months and years to come. In the course of those deliberations, we have all developed our thinking and observations and we have amassed a great deal of insight spanning many aspects of Scotland's public services. At this juncture in the Parliament's development, it would be useful to take those insights into the chamber to share them with colleagues who could be given the opportunity to participate.

I am persuaded that some of our reports should be debated. I understand Margaret Jamieson's concern that such a position could not be defended because we hold to account only accountable officers. However, rather than focus on accountability issues, our debate could focus on the general issues regarding the implementation of policy and the failure of policy delivery. Time after time, the key themes that we discussed this morning—such as a lack of information and the ability to monitor the impact of policies—arise in our reports. All those issues are important and should be raised in a proper debate in Parliament. The Minister for Finance and Public Services would be the person to respond to such a debate, as it could be argued that he is the minister who is responsible for improving policy delivery in a value-for-money way to ensure that we get good results.

Given the work that we do, we desperately need a chance to air these issues in parliamentary debates. I do not see any problem with that being done in a committee slot, as that tends to be the way in which committee debates work: reports are discussed and issues are raised.

I have always believed that, in its own quiet and effective way, the Audit Committee has been one of the most important committees in the Parliament. I am thinking of the range of topics that we deal with and the fact that we look at practical issues and for practical solutions. The committee has, rightly, never dealt in policy but has always sought to be factual and objective. In the past, our purpose has been to bring officials to account rather than to instigate debates; nonetheless, it would be wrong if we never applied for a committee debate slot. If the subject were proper and correct, it would be most useful for Parliament and would be a platform to enable Parliament to see the work of the committee. The committee tends to be taken for granted, but its work—especially the work of the independent public watchdog, Audit Scotland—is important. We should not say that we will never apply for such a slot, although we should choose the subject carefully.

I would be interested to hear what the convener or anybody else has to say about the paper's proposed discussion with the Executive. I am not sure how this links in with ministers. The whole issue of best value and the emerging ways in which best value is being implemented are hugely important, and I would welcome a debate that examined some of the broader issues around best value.

Before I sum up, I invite the Auditor General to add any comments or observations that he may have.

It goes without saying that it is entirely for the committee to dispose of its business as it wishes. However, it might help the committee if I flesh out for a second the thinking behind the submission that I made last year when the Procedures Committee was considering the application of the consultative steering group principles.

As Audit Scotland continuously raises its game—I hope that we are doing that to the satisfaction of the committee—through overview reporting, we find ourselves in a position where, from time to time, quite significant issues to do with the implementation of policy arise on which the committee might consider making a report to the Parliament, which could give rise to debate. Within this small country of ours, it is not unreasonable for members of Parliament to engage with ministers on how effectively policy is being implemented and whether changes need to be made to improve services in what one might call the systems of delivery. Such matters cannot always be addressed appropriately by the civil servant who is gives evidence to and engages with the committee.

I anticipate that, in the future, we will produce more and more reports like "Adapting to the future" in which we look at big issues of service delivery and which may well merit consideration in the wider Parliament.

Thank you. It strikes me that there is no need for us to try to run before we can walk or to press this issue by trying to act on it immediately.

The concerns that Margaret Jamieson raised at the outset were well made. She points out that a number of obstacles would have to be overcome before we could have reassurance about the outcome of the debate and what its purpose might be. Therefore, rather than seek to secure debating time, it might be more useful for us to treat the clerks' paper as a starter paper and to invite the clerks to explore with the Executive what parameters there might be that would allow a useful debate to take place. We can then revisit the issue to decide whether individual debates about reports or a debate about the general work of the committee might be productive. There are issues about who is accountable to whom and who can make certain comments.

In achieving a debate in the chamber, we want to end up not with a partisan debate but with a debate that adds to the process and allows members who are attending other committees or who are occupied with other business, but who normally take part in our affairs, to see the work that we do and make some contribution. If members agree, we can instruct the clerks to explore what other parameters there are and what obstacles we might have to overcome.

As well as looking into individual reports on general work, we might consider some of the key themes that keep recurring as a possible subject for debate on implementation.

Do you mean the availability of information, for example?

Yes—the general themes that are coming out about the need to improve the process of government, rather than an individual report. That is a legitimate subject for the committee to try to persuade the rest of the Parliament to take on board and run with. It is fundamental.

I see many heads nodding. With that, we conclude that agenda item. The clerks can prepare a further report to be brought before us, possibly early in the new year.