The next item on our agenda is a statement by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on committee-led inquiries, and I call on the Chair, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank you for the opportunity to speak today and to inform my fellow Assembly Members about the work of the Public Accounts Committee? As Members will be aware, the Public Accounts Committee is responsible for considering and investigating the value-for-money reports produced by the Auditor General for Wales. To date in this Assembly, we have already undertaken a number of inquiries based on these reports, including Kancoat and coastal flood and erosion, and we have a number of other inquiries scheduled, including income generation and charging and medicine management.

To complement this work, at the start of this Assembly, the committee decided to build on the innovative work of the Public Accounts Committee during the last Assembly, who introduced the concept of committee-led inquiries in the field of public accounts. So, as a committee, we agreed to develop an ambitious programme of inquiries to undertake during this Assembly, and we intend to place people firmly at the heart of each of our committee-led inquiries. This is, hopefully, a positive innovation, which will make the vital work of the Public Accounts Committee more comprehensible to everyone in Wales.

Firstly, we’ve agreed to undertake a thematic approach to our annual scrutiny of accounts, so, for example, for the 2015-16 accounts, we focused on educational bodies, which we found, in the main, to be in good order. We believe that taking a different theme for each year will add clarity for the public on this work. Although, in doing this, we may not always unearth any skeletons in the closets of organisations, but it has had a deterrent effect in ensuring that publicly funded organisations in Wales feel pressure at all levels to ensure taxpayers’ money is being spent in the most effective way possible. And, indeed, just this week, the committee agreed to call the National Library of Wales back in for account scrutiny in September, having considered the recent auditor general’s report on governance at the national library—particularly pertinent given the concerns the previous Public Accounts Committee raised about governance arrangements.

Our significant piece of committee-led work for the spring term is to consider the regulatory oversight of housing associations. We’re interested in this issue because housing associations receive significant amounts of public money, play an important role in combatting homelessness and contribute to the wider economy. The committee wants to make sure that the current regulatory arrangements are effective and efficient and that governance arrangements within the sector are robust. This is a timely piece of work, given the discussions around the classification of these important bodies by the Office for National Statistics. As a piece of work that has been driven by the committee, we’ve been able to put tenants at the heart of this inquiry, which is something the Welsh Government regulations aim to achieve. We have already held an engaging and informative stakeholder event with a range of tenants and will be issuing a survey tomorrow aimed at reaching as diverse an audience as possible. We have proactively engaged with relevant organisations to cascade the work of the committee and to establish an open dialogue with those stakeholders at all levels.

The committee has also begun to scope out our next piece of work looking at regional education consortia. Members may already have seen the useful memorandum prepared by the auditor general for the committee setting out the current position with the consortia. The committee have started to gather evidence for this and have just issued a joint survey with the Children, Young People and Education Committee—which is an innovative step in the hope of reducing consultation fatigue—to hear from teachers and professionals who’ve been impacted by the changes.

Finally, on the horizon, we are intending to do a substantial piece of work looking at the governance arrangements and support for looked-after children. We’ve identified four strands for this: expenditure and value for money of public services for looked-after children; value for money of the pupil deprivation grant for looked-after children; value for money and the effectiveness of current arrangements for foster placements; and the effectiveness of local authority corporate parenting arrangements. We will be approaching this as a rolling programme of work, playing on the power of persistence that we will not go away until we see some substantial improvements in how public money is spent in this area.

Although much of what I have outlined today about aiming to make our work more citizen focused may not be hugely innovative for the wider policy-based committees of the Assembly, it is a big step for a public accounts committee, and hopefully will help to engage people and increase understanding and awareness around our role as stewards of the public purse. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all Members to promote this work, in particular our surveys, and bring forward any areas you think the committee should consider in the future. Diolch yn fawr.

I very much welcome the statement by Nick Ramsay, and I congratulate him on the way he has chaired the committee over the last few months. Sometimes, though, the Public Accounts Committee feels a bit like a treadmill: the auditor general produces a report, we get a presentation, the Government civil servants and other witnesses come in, we produce a report, which is then sent off to the Government, which responds, and then we start again like some form of infinite computer loop. The opportunity for committee-led inquiries is a good one, and a very important one. I think the one thing that really is important is that we don’t duplicate what is being done by other committees. That is one of the problems of public accounts because it is so far ranging and can cover anything done by the Government, or by the Assembly. It can be able to do things, only to find that, at some later stage, another committee has started off doing exactly the same thing, or has planned to do such a thing. I think that it really is important that we have a system by which we ensure that, if some other committee is doing it, either the Public Accounts Committee takes the lead on it or the other committee takes the lead on it. But I don’t think we’ve got enough time or people in order to do something twice.

I know that we all have our own interests, and we all have our own past experiences, and I think it really is important that we give other Members, not on the committee, an opportunity to suggest committee-led inquiries. Perhaps the Chair can say how people can do that. I could probably keep it going with my own suggestions over the next five years, but I don’t think that I, or any other Member, no matter who they are or where they serve, have all the knowledge and experience or a monopoly on good ideas. I think that there should be an opportunity for any Member here to be able to suggest to the Public Accounts Committee an area where it would be beneficial for them to do a committee-led inquiry. We may, Chair—under your direction—not take it up, but I think Members throughout the Chamber should have the opportunity to be able to put forward suggestions, because they may well have a better suggestion than those of us on the committee. So, can you say how that can be carried out, so that Members can have an opportunity to put ideas forward for what we could look at?

Can I thank Mike Hedges for his warm words there? You are right; it does often feel like we are on a treadmill. I know that all of the committees of this Assembly have their work cut out, but I think it’s unusual for committees to change gear as much as we do, from area to area, and sometimes within the committee meeting; whether we’re looking at a health issue or looked-after children, as we will be doing, we are changing constantly. It’s been some years since I’ve been on the Public Accounts Committee as a normal member—if I can use that expression—back in 2008-09. Not that I’m abnormal now, of course, being the Chair, but, well, that’s for you to consider. It was 2008-09 and the committee has changed significantly since then. What’s still the same, of course, is that we’re an unusual committee because we do have the auditor general on board. We do have his advice, we do have his reports, but we do differ from public accounts committees elsewhere—and increasingly so—because we are looking to diversify our work, and not just to take forward the work of the auditor general, but also to take forward our own committee reports as well. On that point, Mike Hedges, I think you’re quite right: it’s not just for us within the committee to suggest that work; it is for other Assembly Members too. This is a forum today. I’m sure that when we bring forward other work, Members would like to bring forward their suggestions, even if it’s just by word of mouth. We are a listening and open committee, and we aim to be increasingly so.

I would thank you, Mike. I know that you’ve been on the committee for some time before me over recent years. I’m also on the Finance Committee with you, so I don’t get that much chance away from you, but you are always there for advice and support. At the start of this Assembly session, when the committee was re-established, we were dealing with lots of inquiries from the previous Public Accounts Committee, which I know did cause confusion, not just with me, but with newer members of the committee as well. We’re moving beyond that now. We are moving towards looking at new work brought forward by the auditor general and new work brought forward by Members as well. But I’m open to suggestions, so please feel free to approach me or other members of the committee at any point to suggest how you would like the Public Accounts Committee to move forward in future.

I’m really glad the Member has just said what he said. I’d like to pay tribute to Nick Ramsay that he chairs the committee in such an equitable way. I’d like to pay tribute to Mike as well, who does a great job on Petitions Committee—the quickest committee in the Senedd, I think. Very well chaired.

Moving on, if we look at what the Public Accounts Committee has been looking at with Kancoat, then we’re talking about very serious matters. I’d like the Senedd just to listen to the following in terms of questionable Government expenditure: Kancoat, £3.4 million; the Lisvane land deal, the taxpayer lost £39 million; Rhoose, the land there, we lost £7 million; OysterWorld, the games company, £1.4 million; two shops in Pontypridd, £1 million; Cardiff Aviation, it’s alleged that £1.5 million is owed in rent; and Kukd.com, well, all the payments from the Government have been suspended because the parent company is being investigated by HMRC for irregularities in its tax affairs. We had thousands of pounds spent on David Goldstone, the millionaire, to stay in the Hilton in Cardiff, and Ministers, when you answer questions about use of the ministerial car, this all adds up to just over £53 million. I think the former Minister should be brought before the Public Accounts Committee to answer for decisions made. And if the former Minister won’t come along, we should call the First Minister, who is ultimately responsible.

We need to get serious about ending financial waste in Wales, and I think the Public Accounts Committee is the perfect place to do that. So, I’d ask the Chair if he would accept my call to put to the committee the suggestion of a forensic—a forensic—investigation into all these matters, because Labour incompetence is endangering devolution, and we have to shed light on these matters and bring transparency. Thank you. Diolch.

I would agree with the opening of the Member’s comments there. We are an eclectic mix on the Public Accounts Committee. I chose my words carefully there. We do have a robust exchange of views. We work together where necessary, but also individuals have their own views. You are right as well, Neil, that this is a committee with an incredibly serious workload, a huge workload, looking at the value for money of public spend across a wide range of areas in Wales. We could probably meet—I’m not suggesting this, by the way—every day and still not have enough time to get through the workload involved.

Okay, going back to your basic points there, you’ve mentioned Kancoat, and I mentioned it in my opening statement. We know there have been issues there. What I would say, as you know, is that the Public Accounts Committee, in terms of its operation, is primarily concerned with the operational decisions of Government, which is why we take evidence from a wide range of officials, right up to and including the Permanent Secretary—the last Permanent Secretary, and the new Permanent Secretary will be coming in in the near future. That’s our standard practice. Now, we can of course call anyone, but I would have to say that we would have to be clear, there would have to be a clear indication in the evidence we receive from the officials, operationally, that calling particularly an ex-Minister would be beneficial to our inquiries. You clearly believe that evidence we’ve taken to date does warrant that. Witnesses are, of course, a matter for the committee as a whole to consider, and I think it would be breaking with precedent for me or any other Member in this Plenary to say that that should happen. So, this is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, and you know that, Neil McEvoy. If you want to bring that request to the committee, we will all consider it and I’m sure we will make a considered response. But I would say that, in the first instance, we are responsible for scrutinising the officials. We’re not a subject committee, we’re not looking at policy; we’re looking at operational activity. In that sense, you would have to have very clear evidence that we were calling in witnesses for the right reasons. But, as I say, it’s a matter for the committee to consider and not a matter for this Plenary.

As one of the longest serving members of this committee, for the last 10 years to be precise, and after 45 years as an accountant in public practice, I know a little bit about figure work. Neil McEvoy just wanted to know about financial irregularity. We’ve got to look into the Wales Audit Office’s reports. I agree with you that a forensic examination should be done by that department, and then they could give us the report. There is no reason why not, if anybody does a bad job, either political or financial. If Tony Blair can go to the House of Commons accounts committee to explain to the MPs why he went to Iraq, why can’t some Assembly Members who made some wrong financial decisions come to our committee to give answers?

I would like to thank Nick Ramsay for his statement and congratulate him on his distinguished chairmanship of the committee. One of the strengths of the Public Accounts Committee is that we are able to initiate our own inquiries, alongside the work of the Wales Audit Office. So, may I ask how you see the work of the Public Accounts Committee developing in future, with particular reference to the relationship between the committee and the audit office? That’s what I’m interested to know.

Thank you, Oscar, and thank you for your warm words. It’s been a pleasure working with you on the committee over the last few months as well. I don’t think that was a request for us to call Tony Blair to the Welsh Public Accounts Committee—at least I’m not taking it as such—but I take your point. The point is, as a committee, we are free to make requests to any members of the public to come and speak to the committee if we believe that the evidence justifies it. It is a big workload and often the evidence that we receive does lead us to take evidence from witnesses we didn’t consider initially. But as I say, we have to be evidence based in that respect.

In terms of your key question, you kind of answered it yourself in the question. We have a balance to be struck between considering the Wales Audit Office’s work on the one hand and now conducting our own Member-led inquiries. I know that, in this Assembly certainly, many members of the committee are eager for us to carry out our own inquiries, and not just short, sharp inquiries. In terms of looked-after children, which I know Lee Waters has been particularly interested in, in making sure that we do a medium- or long-term piece of work that doesn’t just get forgotten on a dusty shelf a year or two years afterwards, but that we do mean business and we are going to revisit that issue in the future to make sure that things have improved, because that’s too important an area. It’s one example of an area that’s too important for us not to revisit and make sure that they are listening to our requests.

I would say, finally, in terms of your question, it’s for me as the Chair, with your assistance of course as members, to make sure that I do get that balance right. And I’m sure that if I don’t get it right at any point you’ll be the first—well, you are the first to tell me, I know that, so I probably don’t need to mention that. Or I shouldn’t remind him. So, I will continue to endeavour to do that. But do not be afraid to tell me if you feel I’m getting the balance wrong, because I’m only human.

I declare my interest as the Chair of the ministerial advisory group on outcomes for children. Can I welcome the decision of the Public Accounts Committee to carry out a comprehensive piece of work on services for looked-after children? I think this will help the ministerial advisory group in its work to advise on how a national plan and programme can be developed, with the aim of producing the best quality services for looked-after children anywhere in the UK or even further afield. So, I do look forward to following your deliberations.

Just as you were saying on the work you’ve done on housing—that you wanted tenants to be key to the inquiry—I think it’s very important that you are able to engage with looked-after children and care leavers in particular, either through direct evidence or outreach methods in terms of gathering evidence. There are organisations like Voices from Care and Children in Wales that can advise on this, because I think it would be an outstanding opportunity for their voice to be heard directly.

I know you have a long-standing interest in terms of looked-after children. I thought that that would come up, so I brought down some of the figures for that, and just looking through them, we intend to scrutinise the overall cost and the value for money of the range of services aimed at improving outcomes for looked-after children. But this is such a huge area that, over, I would say years, not even months, but over that period, we’re going to return to this. We’re going to look at all aspects of this, from the value for money aspect to corporate parenting. As a former county councillor, I know very well the important role that county councillors across Wales have played, and will play, in the role of corporate parenting.

But, always, all of this, we are not—. I must stress, we are not a subject committee; we are always looking at this from a value for money for the taxpayer viewpoint. That doesn’t mean that we do not have an interest in the policies that are being employed, because sometimes it is very difficult to separate the policy aspect from the value for money aspect. So, all that comes into it, but we are, first and foremost, looking at are we getting value for money. And is the system transparent? Are people getting what they deserve? Are looked-after children in Wales really getting the sort of service that they deserve?

The evidence to date—. I think the auditor general looked at this in early 2015, I think it was—the evidence then was that a lot of progress had been made, but, as is often the case, more could be done, and particularly in the area of mental health issues for looked-after children. And more than 8 per cent of looked-after children were diagnosed as having a mental health problem, nearly 6 per cent of looked-after children had substance misuse problems, nearly 13 per cent of LACs had a disability. Now, of course, there are proportions of people in the general population who have that, but they don’t often reach those figures across the board so consistently. So, there is a lot of work to be done here, and I look forward to working with my members on the committee to ensure that we do that as speedily and as efficiently as a committee as possible. Because, at the end of the day, that’s what we’re all about.

I take being a member of the Public Accounts Committee very seriously. I think it is one of the key committees in any parliament, and I think it’s imperative it doesn’t become a circus. I have no problem following any evidence and in holding Governments to account with rigour. But that requires all Members to take the committee seriously, to engage in its work, to read the voluminous papers in advance, to engage with the evidence—not to spend the whole committee meeting tapping away at their iPhones and then lobbing in some partisan-fuelled conspiracy theory. Because that, I think, brings the work of the committee into disrepute. When there is evidence, we must follow it, and we should be ruthless about pursuing it, and all members of the committee are prepared to do that.

The litany of allegations Neil McEvoy mentioned earlier—which is not the first time he’s mentioned them—are issues being looked at by the committee, and will be looked at by the committee. There’s nobody on that committee who is not of the same mind and wants to get to the root of it. But constantly suggesting there’s some great party-political conspiracy theory behind every poor judgment or questionable case isn’t particularly helpful, nor is conducting themselves during meetings by tweeting every time they see something they think will get them a headline, or taking photographs of restricted papers and putting them on Twitter—it doesn’t help the cause and the integrity of the Public Accounts Committee.

I echo the comments of David Melding and Nick Ramsay that one of the key issues we want to look at over the coming months is outcomes for looked-after children. I’m hoping that we will be innovative in following the example set by the culture committee, in consulting the public on our terms of reference to make sure we are shining the light in the correct places, and that we show some consistency in coming back to this issue. Because the data, as David Melding and Nick Ramsay have intimated, are stubborn—stubbornly poor. And that’s the sort of work I think the public accounts should be doing, rather than chasing cheap headlines. Thank you.

Answer.

I’m about to. As you can see, Members, we are a committee of robust members, and robust views, and when we agree and when we work as a team, actually, I think we’re at our best, because, believe me, the Members on the Public Accounts Committee in this Assembly really do know their own minds. I would say in terms of—. I quite agree with you about tweeting, and in fact we did have that discussion, and I think probably other committees have had that discussion as well during this Assembly. I don’t think it’s helpful that, during a committee, whether that’s in the private or the public session, tweets go out before the committee as a whole has had an ability to consider the evidence. Often, in this Chamber, as the Presiding Officer knows from her experience, we can have robust debates, and you do get partisanness, or however you call it; of course you do. But the committee is not there for the same purpose entirely that this Chamber is. It isn’t there purely for us to make party-political points. Of course, Neil McEvoy can make party-political points, you can make party-political points, I can as well, but, at the end of the day, does that help the operation of that committee? Does that help us within the remit of that committee to hold those organisations to account? I don’t think it does. And I think that we need to remember what this Assembly is all about, why we got elected to it. There is a time for us to take each other on, but there’s also a time for us to work together to take on vested interests wherever they might be, in whatever sector they might be. And that’s the job I mean to get on with.

So, I have no problem with Members tweeting their thoughts once committee meetings have finished, and they wouldn’t listen to me if I told them not to. I don’t tweet as much as most. But I think, yes, this is a really serious job, this is a really serious committee. I’m delighted to have every member of the committee working with me. Let’s move this forward. We are a team. Let’s just get to where we want to go. We all want to go to a place where we are ensuring value for money and efficiency for the taxpayer. Many of us choose different roads to get there, but, at the end of the day, we’re going to get there, and, before Mark Isherwood starts going on about co-production, I will finish my comments.

Thank you very much to the committee Chair for his words and his statement.