Chamber and committees

It is just that there is a variance of 15 per cent between what was approved at budget and what was spent, which is stark. I guess that I was trying to get under the skin of why the costs went up so much. I wondered whether some of the external firms charged higher rates or different multiples, such as double or triple time, in order to get work finished. I am a little further forward in understanding the 15 per cent figure, but I still do not fully understand it.

I understand, and I understand that this forum is probably not the place to go into policy matters, but I felt as though there was more to get out of you this morning. It sounds like the content of a good book—certainly one that I would read—so I hope that you write it.

Thank you for your forbearance, chair.

I accept the point that it is not the job of the auditor to assist the body in the preparation of accounts—and rightly so. That opens up questions that are perhaps more for the permanent secretary, for example on how the Government can support those bodies in preparing accounts, which would make your job 10 times easier.

My final question is directed towards the outgoing chair of the board. It would be remiss of me to let the evidence session end without referring back to your opening comments, which were quite stark. You made three specific points in your opening statement, but number 1 on that list was your wider analysis of the direction of travel of many of the public bodies that Audit Scotland audits. You used some interesting and specific phrases—quite stark ones—and I noted them down. I thought that you might want the chance to elaborate on your point before we end the session.

For example, you used the phrase

“business as usual is not an option”,

you talked about “radical” change and you said that certain things are “no longer sustainable” and so on. You clearly have your own personal views on that. In general, that is quite worrying language to hear. Could I give you the opportunity to share your thoughts on how you have come to these stark conclusions?

I have two supplementary questions. I will draw my line of questioning to a close by taking you right back to both of your opening statements. Auditor General, I will start with you. You mentioned something that I picked up in the opening pages of the annual report, which is the challenges that you face with other public bodies not preparing their accounts on time or properly. You expand on that quite eloquently on page 1. You seem to imply, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that many of the challenges that you face in concluding audits on time are a direct result of other public bodies—to use the phraseology in your report—facing

“significant disruption, including those who monitor and report on their own bodies’ spending.”

What is the issue, and how can we support those public bodies more?

I have no relevant interests to declare.

I understand. For clarity, there is a pension element to the proportionately higher increase for some of the senior directors and senior management, which accounts for that higher figure. Do you believe that the organisation acts as fairly and squarely as it can act across the board, with regard to pay rises?

Do you find that most of your staff come from other audit companies? Is there poaching between the public and private sectors in that regard, as we see in other areas of the public sector?

I presume that .you cover the costs of their training. You said that around half of those people stay in the business, but the other half presumably do not. What are the governance arrangements around the costs of training?

Do you get the impression that the issue is that the organisations in question simply do not have the capacity, or that they do not take the issue seriously enough? In some sectors, the delays are quite stark. Given that a huge amount of public money goes into those bodies, that raises eyebrows, if nothing else.

In the interest of time, we may need to move on, as other members have questions.