Departmental Select Committees

The idea of departmental select committees in the House of Commons was floated as long ago as the Haldane Report in 1918 and periodically mooted by figures from both left and right as varied as Amery and Laski in the inter‐war years. It was raised again during the wartime investigations of the Machinery of Government committee, only to be shot down by the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Edward Bridges, on the grounds that it would constrain the frankness with which the Civil Service could advise ministers. Departmental select committees were not to be introduced until 1979. Ten years ago the Institute of Contemporary British History organised a symposium to review their progress. On 31 January 1996 in committee room 10 at the House of Commons the ICBH, in conjunction with the Hansard Society, held another seminar to re‐examine the development of the departmental select committee system, its successes and failings. It was chaired by George Cunningham (Labour MP 1970–82, SDP MP 1982–83). The principal participants were Sir Peter Kemp (Deputy Secretary, Treasury 1983–88, Next Steps Project Manager, Cabinet Office, 1988–92), Douglas Millar (Clerk of Select Committees, House of Commons since 1994), Dr Ann Robinson (author of Parliament and Public Spending, head of the policy unit at the Institute of Directors [IOD], 1989–95 and Director‐General of the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd since 1995), Robert Sheldon (Labour MP since 1964, Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1974–75, member of the Public Accounts Committee [PAC] 1965–70 and 1975–79 and chairman since 1983, member, Public Expenditure Committee 1972–74, and member of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee [TCSC] 1979–81) and Sandy Walkington (head of corporate affairs at BT [British Telecom] plc), with further contributions from Peter Riddell (assistant editor: politics, The Times, since 1993), Chloe Miller, Sean McDougall, Tim King and Chris Stevens.

The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons

This chapter evaluates the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the House of Commons in light of recent changes to public audit and broader changes across United Kingdom governance. Structural and organisational features are analysed, as are working practices and relationships. The analyses confirm that the PAC remains a key oversight tool to Parliament and that its profile has increased under the leadership of its first directly-elected Chair. Heightened visibility contains risks for a non-partisan committee and the National Audit Office acts as a shield to deflect criticism. Traditional variables used to measure the impact of the PAC are likely to understate the committee’s actual influence.

Strengthening PACs in small Parliaments: perspectives from the Caribbean

Recent efforts to strengthen the oversight capacity of the Parliaments of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have paid particular attention to the public accounts committee (PAC). This chapter provides an analysis of the PACs in both countries. The committees have some similar features in terms of mandate and composition, but both have struggled to be effective, partly because of the difficulties in developing functioning committees in small jurisdictions and partly because of an unhelpful external context. Progress has been made in developing the internal environment of the PACs, but producing and demonstrating significant outputs and outcomes remain a major challenge.

Audit Tendering in the UK: A Review of Stakeholders’ Views

This study reports the results of a content analysis of the comment letters sent to the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC), in response to its consultation document on the 2012 revisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code, concerning the proposal for mandatory audit tendering. The results indicate a general support for the FRC’s proposals with a number of key concerns related to audit quality, auditor independence and audit cost. There is also clear conflict of interests among some stakeholder groups such as audit firms and companies on one side and institutional investors on the other side. There is evidence of conflict of interest between Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms. Implications for future consultations and legislations are also discussed.

Exploring Auditors’ Perceptions of the Usage and Importance of Audit Information Technology

This study provides novel evidence on the extent to which auditors perceive the usage and importance of audit technology in an emerging market. It explores the types of audit technology tools used and factors influencing the use of these; it tests the association between the perceived use and importance of the tools and firm-specific/ auditor-specific characteristics. Using interviews and questionnaires from auditors at Big 4 and international non-Big 4 audit firms, the findings reflect the highly perceived importance of using audit technology in technical and administrative procedures, specifically to assess risk. We find that the perceived use and importance of audit technology is relatively higher for those in Big 4 firms, with less years of auditor experience and higher auditor technology expertise, and those in management positions. The results provide policy makers with guidance on the opportunities and challenges of using information technology in the audit process.