Transcript Jūratės Končiuvienės pristatymas

Cooperation with the
Seimas Audit
Committee
Tomas Mackevičius
Deputy Auditor General
History
Before EU accession negotiations (2000–2002) the NAOL
was treated as a law-enforcement body
– Methods: revisions and inspections
– Sanctions: fines, deductions, penalties
– Fragmentary coverage
Developments:
– EU accession (Chapter 28)
– LNAO becomes a Supreme Audit Institution
– Public accountability framework – NAOL-AC-Auditees
2
Law on the State Control
The Seimas:
• appoints the Auditor General (five-year term);
• fixes and allocates the appropriations for the National Audit
Office budget;
• receives the outputs of the NAOL:
audit opinions on the government accounts;
financial (and compliance) audits
performance audits
the annual performance report of the NAOL
3
New Challenges
Public Accountability Cycle
• Recommendations instead of sanctions
• New channels of reporting
Systemic improvement
• How to ensure implementation without
applying direct sanctions?
• Development of the concept and
arrangements of the parliamentary control
4
Establishment of the Audit
Committee
• In September 2002 a Subcommittee on Audit was
established within the Committee on Budget and
Finance
• In December 2004 a Standing Seimas Committee on
Audit was established
• These are significant steps forward
5
Activities of the Audit
Committee (related to NAOL)
• consider NAOL public audit reports;
• prepare draft Seimas resolutions for implementation of audit
recommendations;
• co-ordinate
activities
Commissions;
of
Seimas
Committees
and
• carry out parliamentary scrutiny of the efficiency of the
implementation of the functions of the NAOL, the State
Property Fund, the Public Procurement Office;
• put forward proposals and recommendations relating to the
improvement of their activities,
• participate in the preparation of draft laws pertaining thereto;
6
The NAOL Annual Work
Programme
The NAOL shall annually establish the scope of the public audit
in the Annual Public Audit Programme
(Law on the State Control)
– The NAOL drafts the Annual Public Audit Programme.
– Audit Committee examines the Programme and presents
recommendations to the NAOL.
– Annual Public Audit Programme is ultimately approved by
the Auditor General.
The Seimas can require some audits which are not provided for
in the Annual Public Audit Programme by resolution.
7
Good Practice (NAOL)
Procedure of submitting Audit Reports and Opinions to the
Seimas Audit Committee (approved January 27, 2006)
NAOL submits:
all performance audit reports;
financial (regularity) audit reports and opinions when
qualified or adverse opinion, or disclaimer of opinion on
financial accounts is issued
no later than within 5 working days from processing public
audit documents
8
Good Practice (AC)
2 main stages of Audit Committee procedures:
• Hearings
•
(NAOL auditors present their findings and
recommendations; answer questions)
Consideration (auditee management asked
questions, provide explanations, submit action plan on
implementation of audit recommendations)
– AC adopts decision on the implementation of recommendations
• If necessary, additional consideration may take place
9
Good Practice (AC)
• The Audit Committee decides on which audit reports are
to be considered during its’ meetings;
• After considering audit reports the Audit Committee
passes a resolution concerning the NAOL
recommendations;
• Audit Committee can draft a Seimas resolution
concerning the implementation of the audit
recommendations.
10
Benefits achieved - Public
accountability cycle
• Better control of how taxpayers’ money used;
• Citizens influence
legislators.
government
spending
via
• NAOL audit findings are a foundation for effective
parliamentary control;
• Parliamentary
transparent;
control
is
more
efficient
and
• Seimas profile is raised by using its powers in
controlling the legality and reasonableness of
government spending
11
Next Steps
Further evolution of NAOL operational independence;
Increase efficiency of public accountability system
– develop roles and functions of each part of the
mechanism, including Min of Finance;
– improve procedures;
– strengthen internal communication, cooperation and
the unbiased engagement of MPs.
12
Conclusions
• Co-operation between the NAOL and Seimas Audit
Committee has future potential and should be developed.
• Auditors, MPs and audit clients should better understand
each others roles, needs and expectations.
• The mechanisms of this co-operation should be further
developed to become more clear and efficient.
• The SAI independence should be treated as a value per
se and respected by the Seimas and the Government.
• The focus needs to be on the outcomes of the public
accountability cycle – better value for money and delivery
of public services
13
Thank You!
14