Chamber and committees

You referred to this a few minutes ago. Do you have a view on the target of a 90 per cent return rate as set against the backdrop of there having been a 97 per cent return rate in the other parts of the UK? Does not that target lack ambition, when other parts of the UK managed, in a digital first census, to achieve return rates of 97 per cent 12 months earlier? Why was the ambition only to get a 90 per cent return rate?

We are agreed on that, too. Thank you.

The return rates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were, from memory, about 97 per cent. Did their census coverage survey focus on the reasons why 3 per cent did not respond or did it have a wider role to play in giving more qualitative information about the census returns?

That would be useful.

I will move on to another area on which we want to challenge you a little. On page 6, paragraph 10 summarises the net increase that you are looking for. Roughly £563,000 is the net additional figure that you are looking for in uplift from the Parliament. By my calculations, about half of that is as a result of an increase in funding support to the Accounts Commission. Could you maybe elaborate on why that significant increase is there?

I presume that there is currently a resource in Audit Scotland—that is where the post has resided, although I do not know what the current configuration is.

Can I move on to another area that we want to ask about? Reference is made in the proposal to efficiency improvements. In paragraph 19 on page 8, the proposal says:

“Action has already been implemented to secure efficiency improvements in the delivery of audit work, particularly in relation to financial statements audits.”

Will you describe some of the features of those efficiency improvements and how they relate to the fees charged to the bodies that are being audited?

Okay—thanks.

To go back to my original question on the controller of audit post, that was housed inside Audit Scotland’s budget, and it will now be transferred to the Accounts Commission. You are asking us for a net increase, which in part is constituted by the additional cost of that salary. Is that not simply an internal transfer from a salary ascribed to Audit Scotland that will now in future, if the budget is passed, be ascribed to the Accounts Commission?

I have one final question as a follow-up to that. Do you do anything to incentivise the audited bodies to help you to carry out a more efficient audit of their work?

How much of that £250,000 goes into the salary of the new controller of audit and how much goes into other areas of expenditure?