Scottish Commission for Public Audit
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5626, in the name of Donald Gorrie, on behalf of the Procedures Committee and the Scottish Commission for Public Audit.
In case any member is confused, this debate is not on the issue about which the Procedures Committee wrote to the Presiding Officer to say that it was concerned that the Parliament will not get a chance to debate a major report that we produced. This debate is on a different issue. It is also important, but it is quite separate.
The Scottish Commission for Public Audit is a committee, in effect, that is made up of five members. It was established under the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 and it considers the activities of Audit Scotland from the Parliament's point of view to ensure that it uses its resources as well as possible. The convener of the commission, Margaret Jamieson, wrote to the Procedures Committee to say that she thought that the commission could be better recognised under the Parliament's rules. Technically, the commission is not a parliamentary committee, but it is an official committee and it is important that it gets its fair share of attention.
Many of our proposals will turn informal arrangements into formal arrangements in standing orders. I will describe the main items. Transcripts of the commission's proceedings should be published in the same way as are Official Reports of committee meetings. Such transcripts are produced informally at the moment, but we are saying that they should be enshrined in the rules.
Similarly, minutes—which are different from transcripts—should be published and the proceedings should be broadcast. Such publication and broadcasting can and do happen, but we will put it into standing orders that they will happen.
In addition, people should know about the commission's activities, so its meetings should be advertised in the Business Bulletin in the same way as are meetings of ordinary parliamentary committees. The commission's meetings will be mentioned in a separate space, but they will be duly advertised so that people who follow our activities carefully know that meetings are scheduled and can follow proceedings.
Those are the changes that will be made. They are encapsulated in less than a page of standing orders, which is not unduly onerous. What Margaret Jamieson has asked for the commission to have is reasonable and the committee readily accepted what was asked for. I hope that the Parliament accepts the changes as a sensible and non-controversial improvement in our rules.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Procedures Committee's 10th Report, 2006 (Session 2), Scottish Commission for Public Audit and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from the day after the Parliament is dissolved at the end of the current session.
I am glad that the Presiding Officer urged the Deputy Minister for Justice to hurry, because I am sure that some members have much to say on this matter—although I am not one of them.
The proposals that relate to the official report, the minutes and broadcasting are eminently sensible. We should make the work of an audit function as widely available and publicised as possible. I suspect that the broadband and internet facilities of Scotland will not be overloaded by people watching live broadcasts of the committee, but the opportunity should exist and people should know that that is available.
There is a contrast between this debate and yesterday's debate on a Standards and Public Appointments Committee report. Commenting on yesterday's debate, people outside the Parliament accused us of trying to hide our proceedings from the public and slipping things through on the quiet. The Procedures Committee's proposals are much more typical of what the Parliament is about. We are perhaps struggling to bring to an unwilling and uneager public all the minutiae of all our discussions—would that more people participated in them and noted what is going on, and would that more people even in the Parliament knew what the Scottish Commission for Public Audit is about.
I am glad to support the motion.
For Procedures Committee members, the subject has been one of the less exciting but more interesting issues that we have had to examine. I knew of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit's existence because, as a Conservative business manager some years ago, I once appointed Annabel Goldie to the commission.
People who are unaware of the commission's activities should be aware that it appears to audit the auditors. Perhaps that description is slightly excessive, but the commission certainly regulates the regulators. For that reason, it is important to remember that although the commission is not a committee of the Parliament, it is a committee that operates in the Parliament, and it has been lucky enough to benefit unofficially from many structures and facilities that are available in the Parliament.
The commission's convener proposed formalising the unofficial arrangements, to ensure that we can officially offer Parliament facilities—the use of the official report and the advertising of meetings in the Business Bulletin—and give the commission equal merit to other committees in the system for finding a room in which to hold meetings. That would be a great benefit to it, as I understand that it has sometimes struggled to find places to hold its meetings.
It is important to remember that the proposal is not to make the commission an official committee of the Parliament; it is simply to extend equal use of the Parliament's facilities to it. It is important for the commission to retain its independence from the Parliament because its independence is key if it is to be the regulator of the regulators or the auditor of the auditors. The proposals will give the commission the facilities it has asked for and will allow it to retain its important independent station in the Parliament's structure.
Margaret Smith is not here, so I call Margaret Jamieson.
I apologise for getting a bit excited about the possibility of being unable to speak in the debate.
We are debating an important issue. Many people think that only anoraks look at accounts and audits. As the convener of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, I assure members that I made representations to the Procedures Committee because we believed that the commission was not being recognised in the same way as other parliamentary committees.
The current operating procedures are inconsistent with the principles of the Parliament. As has been said, we do not have the opportunity to have Official Reports of our public proceedings published, we do not have a listing in the Business Bulletin, and our public sessions are not broadcast. Therefore, despite our best efforts, we cannot be open, accountable and transparent to members of the Scottish Parliament and—more important—to members of the public.
Some might argue that the commission should not be put on the same footing as other committees of the Parliament, as it was not established by the Scotland Act 1998, but we would challenge that argument. The SCPA was established by the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, which gave it powers to examine Audit Scotland's proposals for the use of resources and expenditure, and to report on those proposals to the Parliament; to appoint a qualified person to audit Audit Scotland's accounts; and to publish and lay before the Parliament a copy of Audit Scotland's accounts and the auditor's reports on them.
Members are aware of the work that Audit Scotland undertakes in the public sector. It is reported in a very public way. Sometimes, Audit Scotland is very critical of the public organisations it examines. We must ask ourselves why Audit Scotland and the SCPA should be treated differently. As the watchdog of the public watchdog, the SCPA thought that it must request equal treatment in order to reassure the public that Audit Scotland was being held to account as Audit Scotland holds others to account.
I ask members to support the motion.
We move to the winding-up speeches. Karen Gillon has seven minutes.
That is not funny.
Here we are again in the Scottish Parliament debating significant matters of great interest to the people of Scotland. Anybody who tries to argue that the Procedures Committee's work is not at the heart of devolution and that it does not express the will of the Scottish Parliament, which all members—
Will the member give way?
Happily.
Will the member comment on what the head commissioner—I assume that that is her title—said about the commission auditing the auditors? Yesterday, I replied to a constituent who had complained about the ombudsman. In effect, they asked whether we should set up a body to monitor the ombudsman. How far should we take the process? Should it go on until everyone on the commission is monitoring everyone else? Perhaps Karen Gillon might like to reflect on that in the five minutes that remain to her.
That is a very interesting point. There is always a balance to strike when deciding at what point a process should be ended. No matter what the outcome, there are always occasions when people will want to go further. It is important to draw a line in the sand and say, "This is the process in Scotland. This is the procedure we will go through" and, once we get to the point we have decided on, that is the end. People need to know when that point has been reached.
Auditing the auditors and ensuring their financial accountability is one thing, but the ombudsman is there to do a specific job and has a specific purpose. People will either be satisfied or dissatisfied with the outcome, but the process will be the process.
Is it not the case that the carefully considered point that we discussed at great length when we considered the report was that while we are extending the Parliament's facilities to the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, we are not taking any action that will interfere with its independence? The commission's independence ensures that we have some logical end to the process. There is therefore no argument that we should have someone to regulate the regulator who regulates the regulators.
That is an important point. We did consider it in some detail, so that we reached a balance between the independence of the commission, its public persona and accessibility to everyone.
Ultimately, it is for members of the Parliament, elected by the people of Scotland, to hold to account the organisations that we appoint and bring into being. We are held to account through the ballot box. We are responsible to the people of Scotland and we must take that responsibility seriously. So, when we set up bodies, agencies or ombudspeople, it is for the Parliament to monitor them effectively and take any necessary action if they are not fulfilling their responsibilities.
The commission fulfils a very important role. That is why it is important that its proceedings be made available on the public record. However, as Alex Johnstone rightly says, Parliament should not interfere with its independence.
I know that members will have read the report in some detail.
Will the member give way?
Mr Gallie is very welcome.
I recognise the importance of the issue and the expertise in our auditing systems that has been referred to. Given the fact that the European Union has failed to get its accounts audited for a number of years, does the member think that we could use our experience to give the EU a bit of a hand?
Miss Gillon, you have two minutes.
I apologise to Mr Gallie; I should have borrowed the earphones that he traditionally wears in the chamber—I could not hear the middle part of his intervention. I am grateful that he did not manage to mention the European Union in this very important debate, given that he will not be with us in the next session of Parliament.
He did.
That must be what I missed. It is an aspect of the Parliament that will be sadly lacking after 3 May because Mr Gallie will not be here.
Members are obviously aware of this issue and I am encouraged by their attendance in the chamber this evening. One thing that I am sure of is that if I am back in this place after 3 May I will not be the deputy convener of the Procedures Committee and I will not have to sum up these debates in which no member is remotely interested. [Laughter.] Donald Gorrie always manages to get the speaking notes and the first speech.
You have one minute more. [Laughter.]
Keep going.
Members must understand that to be confronted by a request from Margaret Jamieson—
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute. [Laughter.]
If a member is confronted with a request from Margaret Jamieson, they are not likely to say no. The Procedures Committee considered her request very carefully and came to the right conclusion, which is a positive conclusion for the Parliament and one that will serve us well as we enter our third session.
I commend the motion to Parliament and urge all members to support it.