Chamber
Plenary, 15 Mar 2007
15 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Commission for Public Audit
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 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.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
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...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
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 concer...
Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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—alth...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
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 Scotti...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
Margaret Smith is not here, so I call Margaret Jamieson.
Margaret Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab):
Lab
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...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
We move to the winding-up speeches. Karen Gillon has seven minutes.
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
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...
Alasdair Morgan:
SNP
Will the member give way?
Karen Gillon:
Lab
Happily.
Alasdair Morgan:
SNP
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 t...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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, ther...
Alex Johnstone:
Con
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 Pa...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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 an...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Will the member give way?
Karen Gillon:
Lab
Mr Gallie is very welcome.
Phil Gallie:
Con
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 faile...
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
Miss Gillon, you have two minutes.
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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 interventio...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
He did.
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
You have one minute more. Laughter.
Margaret Jamieson:
Lab
Keep going.
Karen Gillon:
Lab
Members must understand that to be confronted by a request from Margaret Jamieson—
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Karen Gillon:
Lab
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 co...