Seòmar agus comataidhean

Presumably, it is the case that some of that work is blended anyway, with some of it being done by external auditors and some by your staff. Do they work together in that way, or are they very distinct in that respect?

We look forward to seeing those savings on the balance sheet in due course.

My substantive question—I am sorry that I got sidetracked with some other questions, convener—is a specific one about the amount of money that is being paid in fees to external firms. That has increased considerably from just over £7 million to £8.1 million. Your annual report seems to suggest that that increase of more than £1 million is due to a lag in the completion of audits, if I interpret that correctly. You can correct me if I am wrong about that. However, the amount of audits that have been completed has marginally reduced by a couple of percentage points, so it does not seem to quite add up. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why there has been such an increase in the amount of money that is being paid to external companies.

Probably not that long.

That is great, and it is good news. That leads me sideways into another question, which is about your ways of working. The paragraph on that in the annual report is relatively short and does not really say much. We have had a lot of conversation about your high rent costs across your three offices, yet, post pandemic, you seem to be operating a much more hybrid model. Is there no way that you could reduce running costs rather than see them go up? They should surely be coming down.

I believe that you were here, David, for the earlier evidence session, so you will have followed that line of questioning. At any point when you were looking at the accounts, did any of the issues that we identified in relation to where there was quite large variance in the accounts raise questions?

I will refer to two examples that might help you come to an answer on this. The travel and subsistence budget went from £500,000 to the reported figure in the accounts of only £82,000, which raises the question of whether there was just a change in the way that things are reported—that is, whether the line that such things appear in has changed due to changes in accounting practices—or whether there has been a huge reduction in the forecast figure versus the used.

The depreciation figure almost doubled from £500,000 to £1 million. Did those things raise flags as you went through the accounts, and were there any conversations around them?

Are you generally content with the rationale and explanations that have been given, including what you have heard this morning?

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?