Brian Monteith: Partisan politics has no place in audit process

Published on Friday 24 September 2010 18:13

Politics is a less than hygienic business at the best of times but when the kitchen sink is suddenly tossed about one can only surmise that there must be an election in the offing.

That was the only conclusion I could make when I read that Alex Salmond had been invited to attend the Scottish Parliament's Public Audit Committee and, not surprisingly, had politely declined.

It was the fact that he had been asked at all that caught my eye, rather than the First Minister is playing hard to get. The committee appears to be trying to grandstand the First Minister.

As a former convener of the same committee I am aware of the often dull but worthy job of scrutinising public officials undertaken by this gathering of seven MSPs.

Note that I write "public officials" and not government ministers. This is intentional, for the Public Audit Committee derives a particular strength from the fact that rather than its playing the partisan game of taking a politician's scalp, a weighty consensus is developed that is all the more effective and parliament finds hard to ignore because of the objectivity and impartial nature of its deliberations.

If there is any committee in parliament where members leave their party hats behind them on entering it is the Public Audit Committee.

Allow the Public Audit Committee to behave like any other parliamentary committee, dominated by petty politics and personal publicity seeking and it will become less effective and strike less fear into the hearts of public officials. Suddenly they will have the excuse that they were victims of politicians looking out for the main chance rather than safeguarding the public purse.

The Public Audit Committee has, over the last 11 years, managed to make its objective scrutiny the most valuable currency in Holyrood; to turn itself into a political Punch and Judy show would debase its currency to that of Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic.

Quite properly it is looking into the losses of over 500,000 and debts of 675,000 run up during the Gathering - the key event of the Homecoming tourist promotion that Alex Salmond's government put so much store behind.In particular, an interest-free government loan to the Gathering of 180,000 to assist with anticipated cash-flow difficulties that became part of the company's debts, and for which evidence suggests was authorised by the First Minister's office, could be the subject of close questioning of the First Minister.

Fair enough, there is vital information to be brought into the public domain and the Public Audit Committee has the power to compel the First Minister to attend to give evidence; it should, however think twice before pressing its invitation and ask itself what would be gained by doing so and what might be lost?

As a supporter of the union I am no natural defender of Alex Salmond, or indeed of his government, but if there has been some wrongdoing then the Public Audit Committee will be able to get at the heart of it without the necessity of hauling the First Minister before it.

Indeed it is more likely to get at the truth without the political circus that his involvement will bring. For a start the co-operation of nationalist politicians that could otherwise be expected will surely dissolve in the process.

It will be perfectly clear from taking evidence from the accountable officer (the bureaucrat where the buck stops) for making the financial support available if mistakes have been made.

If that official believed that the financial support he or she was asked to provide was beyond the scope of what legislation allows then all that is necessary is for that accountable officer to write a letter to the Minister stating as much at the time of asking.

To draw the conclusion that an official was forced to go beyond available powers all the Public Audit Committee has to establish is if such a letter has been written - but if it has not then the scope of the committee's work must focus on the administrative performance rather than any political motivation.

To go beyond these parameters is to suggest that political axe-grinding is the motive for investigation and the good work and good name of the committee will be undermined. Grandstanding the Grand Master of Grandstanding that is the First Minister will only pull the committee down to the reputation of the Equal Opportunities or European committees. Worthless.

Rather than see the Public Audit Committee become a victim of petty point scoring we should hope its methods and procedures are spread into the other committees of the Scottish Parliament. Holyrood would gain from spending more of its time scrutinising and holding to account the faceless public agencies that otherwise report to ministers and are unaccountable in an arms length manner.

Over the last ten years the amount of public inspection in our lives has grown considerably.Agencies such as the Care Commission have been created while others such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education have become more influential; but who inspects the inspectors?

The way round this lacuna would be to make such public agencies report annually to a committee of the Scottish Parliament and have their activities probed with evidence invited and accepted from the public. Such an additional quality check against the power of bureaucratic force could only be healthy, especially as MSPs would be seeking justice rather than party advantage.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there has been maladministration in the assistance given during Homecoming then the Public Audit Committee is the forum to establish the facts and lay a report before parliament.

If, however, government officials did their job to the best of their ability and took the natural precautions to protect against public funds being misused - but the decision to spend funds was taken by Ministers for political calculation - then the paper trail will be self-evident and parliament can itself move a political motion of censure or no confidence in the minister concerned.

Having the First Minister give evidence to the Public Audit Committee is to politicise the parliament's police force and is a step to be resisted. l Brian Monteith is Policy Director of ThinkScotland.org and as an MSP was convener of the Audit Committee 2003-7.