Merthi wrth i gyd, a gweld i'r gwasanaeth peth o feithio cyfans y Fhyddon Cyfansol y Pwblwyr, a re дрwgol Cymru eich Gweithgdraffi Gwyddon Cyfansol ar nifer y diolch.  Rhyw un astud o gyfansol y cyfansol yn ymddir hwn. Mae ydw i'n iddynt i ffasbodol aethwn i'r cyfansol perthegon yr unig. Item 2, Scotland Act 2016, Audit and Accountability Arrangements. We will now take evidence on the Scotland Act 2016 and those arrangements. I welcome Eleanor Ryan, director of financial strategy, Aileen Wright, head of corporate reporting, accountancy and governance, Andrew Chapman, team leader, fiscal delivery and constitutional change for all the Scottish Government. Caroline Gardner, Auditor General for Scotland and Mark Taylor, assistant director of Audits Scotland. I would like to invite an opening statement from Eleanor Ryan and then the Auditor General. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for inviting us to come and discuss this audit and accountability framework. I think that the clerk's note sets out a very clear account of the origin and history of the document. Some key principles for the audit and accountability framework were set out in the technical annex of the fiscal framework itself. Those were that audit arrangements should be efficient and effective, should avoid duplication and should not result in auditors becoming overburdened. We have had those principles in mind, as well as the more succinct principles set out by the Public Audit Committee, that the framework should be proportionate, transparent and robust. Those have informed our discussions with HM Treasury officials, which have resulted in the draft. We have also had very important input from Audit Scotland and the national audit office. It is really important to Scottish ministers that the Scottish Parliament through this committee has an opportunity to review and comment on the framework and help to shape it before a final version is agreed through the Joint Exchequer Committee. We are here today to look forward to discussing any points the committee wishes to raise. Thank you very much, Auditor General. Thank you, convener. I know that some people might see this morning's subject matter as a bit dry and technical, so I am grateful for the committee's interest and will do our best to set out for you why we think it matters. I will also briefly summarise my views on the draft, which is set out in the submission that you have before you. The committee knows very well the fundamental changes to Scotland's public finances that are coming through as a result of the Scotland Act 2016. A number of UK bodies now have an important role in functions that are central to the Scottish Parliament's responsibilities, including Scottish income tax, aspects of devolved social security, the AT assignment and the detailed operation of the fiscal framework that governs all of that. The Audit and Accountability Framework will determine the ability of the Scottish Parliament and its committees to scrutinise those areas, including how UK bodies report to the Scottish Parliament, how they respond to requests for information and evidence, and how that is underpinned by the audit process. Those are all likely to be critical areas for the Parliament's committees as they scrutinise the operation of the new powers. In my view, the draft framework has got some important strengths. It provides a reasonable basis for direct accountability of UK public bodies to the Scottish Parliament, where that is relevant, and it reinforces the role of independent public audit both in fully devolved areas and where UK bodies are involved. I have also highlighted some areas where I think it could be strengthened further to better support accountability to the Scottish Parliament, including the provisions for value for money audit in UK bodies that undertake devolved responsibilities. Ultimately, it is for the two Governments to agree on the arrangements that are put in place, but it is important that a committee to be able to contribute to those arrangements on behalf of the Parliament as a whole. Together with colleagues from the Government, we will do our best to help you with that. Several years, the committee has been interested in the arrangements between the devolved administration and the UK Government in terms of how to implement the various acts that have come in. In all that time, we have had reassurances that all was well and that it was going smoothly. This is the first time that we have had anything negative. Could there be an occasion previously where this could have been raised to us during the time that this was being negotiated so that the Public Orch Committee could have its input? The first thing to say is that I would not see this as being negative. I think that it is an important next step on the journey of fiscal devolution. At 2016, as this committee has considered several times, Scotland radically increases the financial powers of the Scottish Parliament. It increases the amount of revenue that is raised here in Scotland from about 10 per cent of what we spend to close to 50 per cent when it is fully in effect. It devolves about £3 billion worth of social security benefits. That is a big step change that is happening at the moment. The committee will recall that, in the first meeting of 2018, you had the reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General and myself about the Scottish rate of income tax. That was the last year in which the 10 pence rate was the power that is in place. We are now moving into a world where, effectively, all of income tax on earned income is within the gift of the Scottish Parliament plus VAT plus social security. I have said to the committee before that, in my view, the arrangements that we had in place for the 2012 act have served us well, but that step change means that it is time to reconsider how they need to develop. The structure off-frame work is the process by which that is happening. Unless I'm wrong, Eleanor Ryan was indicating that yourself, Auditor General, or Scotland had input into this document. Given the reservations that you have listed here, does that mean that you were overruled on that or that there was a disagreement on that? I wouldn't characterise it that way at all. I think that the primary discussions have been going on between Eleanor's colleagues in the Scottish Government and UK colleagues in Her Majesty's Treasury. Both of those parties have been discussing with their national auditors, Scottish Government with me as Auditor General for Scotland, Treasury with the Comptroller and Auditor General and the NAO. As I said in my submission and in my opening remarks, I think that there are some significant strengths. Many of our contributions have been taken on board. I think that we are in front of the committee this morning, so the committee has a chance to input its views and secondly, so that you can be aware of the areas where I think it could be strengthened further. I wouldn't want that to be taken as me sounding an alarm bell, but I think that the framework isn't fit for purpose. Some of the things that you see here are a bit more than asking for it to be strengthened. You're actually picking out some weaknesses here. I think that's important. Eleanor Ryan, you said that Auditor General Scotland was fully engaged in this. Why do we end up at this point with a document that the Auditor General has some issues with? I think that it's important to recognise that earlier drafts have really benefited hugely from the points that the Auditor General and her colleagues have raised. You have a much better draft framework at this point. This is a negotiation between two Governments involving two national audit bodies, so one individual set of views cannot necessarily change everything in the framework. We recognise several of the points that the Auditor General has raised, and we will very happily go back and represent those again in further discussion with the Treasury. There's no sense in which Scottish Government is trying to resist the points that Audit Scotland has raised. The points must have been raised before with the Treasury, presumably, and they must have disagreed? Some have, not necessarily all the points that the Auditor General has raised before. We're looking at the actual document itself. I must say that it would benefit from plain English. It's fairly obscure in places. Governments these days are supposedly trying to bring in documents that can be read and understood by the layman. I have to say that some bits of this are very close to gobbledook. However, we have what we have. I'd like to bring up just one or two specific points. On page 6 of the draft, item 4, the second paragraph about the secondary auditor ensuring that it's confirmed that the primary auditor's content for the work to be carried out, does that mean that the primary auditor has a veto if the secondary auditor feels that there is some examination or investigation that is required? Is there a mechanism to resolve that? We would expect that the primary auditor would take account of the views of both parliaments in setting out their programme of work and that there would be good co-operation between the two. Are there guidelines for that, or are you speculating? I think that that point is raised in the draft framework. If you feel that needs to be strengthened, that's another point that we can obviously take back. I'm trying to ask again whether there's something that will create a guideline for this or a mechanism for this, or whether it's simply you think that's the way it should be. I think that the other principal point is the independence of audit bodies, and there's something in the drafting that officials between the two Governments need to be careful of. We're drafting a framework. It's absolutely essential that it doesn't cut across the freedom of the audit bodies. The Auditor General may well have a view on that also. Which means that it would benefit from clarity. If I can just add to Eleanor's point, it's one of the areas where I do think that the framework could be strengthened to reflect the interests of this Parliament and the views that the predecessor committee has expressed. I think that while the National Audit Office, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I have every interest in making this work in practice, there are circumstances in which the requirement for the Comptroller and Auditor General to agree that I do some work in HMRC, for example, and for that body itself to agree could limit my rights of access. We will do our best to make it work, but I thought that it was worth flagging to the committee here that I think is more limited than the Parliament might ideally like. Taking the example that you've got there, if the National Audit decides to veto the work, that's it. I have no rights of access under the proposed framework except with for value for money auditing, performance auditing, with the agreement of the Comptroller and Auditor General and with the agreement of HMRC. Now, that has not been a problem so far. I think there are incentives in the system for the CNA, GNI to continue working well together to serve the interests and needs of both of our Parliaments, but I thought it was right to highlight to you that there is a potential limitation there on the extent to which I can provide assurance to this Parliament about the way that UK bodies like HMRC are delivering significant devolved responsibilities on behalf of the Parliament. I don't doubt the goodwill on all sides to make this work, but surely there should be some sort of mechanism where one party can't just say no without there being some sort of a forum where that can be discussed at a higher level, surely? The current memorandum of understanding between me and the Comptroller and Auditor General does include a dispute resolution mechanism that effectively escalates it to the two of us to resolve it. Beyond that, the safeguard that's in place, I think, would be my ability to report to this Parliament that I felt there was a need for a particular piece of work to be carried out, that the CNAG didn't agree, or in fact that HMRC hadn't agreed and therefore I hadn't been able to do it. So there is a safeguard there in terms of public reporting. I don't think it's a do or die around the framework as it's currently drafted, but I do think it's something that the committee may wish to express its views on. If there's any sort of difference between this document and the document that you've negotiated with the NAO, which document prevails? There's no doubt that this framework agreed between ministers would be the starting point. So that would prevail? So any agreement that you have with the NAO would be subject to whatever terms are in this? I think that the next step would be once this framework is agreed between ministers, the memorandum of understanding between me and the CNAG would need to be updated to reflect this. So we would have in there again a process for agreeing differences of view between us. I think there would be no further option within that other than a safeguard of me being able to report to Parliament if I felt that there was work that I would like to do, that I wasn't able to do under the framework. Would there not be a benefit if your document was at least referenced in this document so that it has some validity in terms of what the ministers are agreeing and it's taken into account? I think that there might be merit in doing that and I'm just checking with Mark. I think that the existing agreement already includes a reference to the MOU. Mark, do you want to fill in the broad aspect of the agreement? The Audit and Accountability Framework is in front of you today that sets out provisions for different parties to put in writing the detailed arrangements that we have. If you like, there's a provision in the framework that says that ourselves and the National Audit Office can put in writing a memorandum of understanding. So there is a link to existing memorandum and its understanding and how it's referenced to the framework as it's set out in the draft. I think that Ian Gray wanted to develop this point specifically, so I'll bring Ian Gray in and come back to you. I wanted to ask the Auditor General a bit more about this issue around particularly the situation where the Scottish Government uses a UK public body and has no choice, and the obvious example is the Scottish rate of income tax. Just to try it right back to the Auditor General's introductory remarks, you made very clear the step change that was taken place between the 2012 current position and the new position just beginning. In paragraph 34 of your submission, Auditor General, you say that the draft framework does not significantly develop the Audit Model for Scottish Income Tax. Are you saying that we have this huge step change taking place and the framework does not recognise or reflect that in any way whatsoever? It's useful to have the chance to expand on this point. There are two dimensions to it. One is in relation to the financial audit of HMSE and within that, the collection of Scottish Income Tax in future. There are already within the accounting standards and the auditing standards well-developed arrangements for effectively a group auditor to place reliance on the work of the auditor of the bodies that make up that group and vice versa. Those arrangements are in place and work well. You have the mechanism in place by which the CNAG and the legislation report to this Parliament about the financial statements and I provide additional assurance, which tells you that I think that the work has covered the right issues and can place it into the Scottish context. I think that works well and I can't see good reasons for changing it. Where I think that the framework could be strengthened is in relation to performance and value for money audit, which could be looking at things like the efficiency with which the taxes are collected, the service provided to Scottish taxpayers, where at the moment I have no rights of access and this framework doesn't go very much further around that. I've said in evidence to this committee before that I think the step change we're seeing in the amount of fiscal responsibility this Parliament has means that that's worth reviewing and this doesn't move it very much further along the lines that Mr Beattie has expressed. That's what you mean in your submission in paragraph 28, when you say, in my view, broadening the provisions for access to UK bodies in these circumstances would strengthen the framework and better satisfy the needs that the Scottish Parliament has identified. I suppose that my question then is how that would happen and whether it's simply a matter of negotiation and agreement in the framework. Or if something more profound is required, because going back to paragraph 34, the next sentence reads, in my view, meeting the statutory requirements which were established in relation to the more limited powers in the 2012 act, which then, in my mind, begs the question, do you think there should have been statutory requirements in the 2016 act to cover the broader position but they're weren't? I don't think that's the case. I think there is scope in the ways that I've suggested in my submission to give more assurance to the Scottish Parliament about the audit work that's carried out of UK bodies. I think that the framework takes us a fair way along that road and I'm highlighting to you this particular question about the value for money audit. There clearly will be, in future, quite a range of different relationships between UK bodies and the Scottish Government and Scottish public bodies. The one that I'm highlighting for you is being potentially short of what this committee and the Parliament has expressed it would like is around the value for money audit responsibilities in relation to UK public bodies where the Scottish Government has had no choice but to use the services at HMRC. I'm still struggling to try and envisage what it is which would give you comfort that that access would be, in your view, sufficient in order to provide that comfort to us, I suppose, and to the Parliament. Is it a different section and an additional section—a change to one of the principles contained here—if it's not a change in statute? In some ways, it goes back to Mr Beattie's questions. The starting point for all of this is that the CNA, GNI, HMRC and the Scottish Government have got many incentives to make this work, but we want the framework to be designed to take account of problems that we haven't yet encountered.  The framework as it's currently drafted gives me access subject to the agreement of the Comptroller in order to general and of HMRC. Although we haven't encountered problems yet, it's possible to envisage situations where this Parliament might feel that it would like a piece of work doing that the CNA, GNI feels isn't necessary or more likely that the timing isn't right for, and at the moment there is effectively a veto around that. What would be required would be to remove that veto? The conditions, yes. I'll touch just briefly on a couple of points, but one comment that I would make about the paper overall is that, as a layman reading this, I would expect to see clarity and easy understanding. I don't see that. From that point of view, I believe that the document actually fails. I'll touch on a couple of points. On page 13 of the draft, second bullet point, how do you define a distinct and significant impact on devolved matters in Scotland? How do you define that? On point D at the top of the page. That's correct. Yes. The text that is there is the attempt to explain that. I understand from your question that you don't consider that a sufficiently clear definition. You've given one or two examples to immigration and so on, which have a distinct and significant effect on Scotland. Obviously, there are other things where there could be less ease of clarity as to whether they are having a significant impact and where that could become a contentious issue. There should be some definition, some way of understanding that. I would agree that the difficulty in writing a framework like that is trying to encompass all the different sorts of circumstances that might arise. Clearly, as you have said and simply, but at the same time in a comprehensive way. We can take away the point that we need to try to clarify that. I'm not sure if I, at the moment, see a way to make that absolutely precise. It's more having a process of how to define it rather than trying to define a list that will change over time anyway. The last thing that I'd like to raise is the same page. If you look under the heading of public bodies with more than one category of service delivery and look at the third paragraph, at the judgment of the relative accounting officer, how does that work? That sounds like the judgments are going to be made by the accounting officer where there's no appeal or no comeback. It sounds arbitrary. I would take that as relating to your same general point, which is how our disputes and disagreements or differences of opinion about how things should apply, how should they be resolved. We can certainly see if we can come up with a way of making that clearer. Again, about the warning to accounting officers that they should take particular care when responding to any recommendations of a devolved legislature or executive on reserved policy areas. Would recommendations and so on go to the accounting officer? What level are we talking about here in terms of, for example, if the Auditor General had a concern and she went to the accounting officer and the accounting officer said, no, that's a reserved matter. We're not going to get involved in that. Where is the process for that to be escalated if it's something that's important? What I'm looking for here in this document is clarity as to how, where there is a conflict, where there is a disagreement, how it's escalated and how it's resolved. I would say ultimately we have two parliaments who each have an interest. The document has been drafted between officials of the two governments, but I would certainly recognise the Scottish Parliament's interest and the UK Parliament's interest as primary here. I think that we're in the territory of how would one resolve a difference of opinion between two parliaments. We don't know if it would necessarily go to parliamentary level. I'm throwing this out to you that there is lack of clarity in this as to what happens. 99 per cent, there's going to be no problem at all. It'll all be done amicably. There could be a real difference of opinion where, for example, the Auditor General felt that there was a real problem that had to be investigated and, for some reason, technical or otherwise, the accounting officer isn't going to engage. How do we resolve that? I think that that's a very fair challenge. I should say that I think in this Scottish Government's interest, Audit Scotland's interests and indeed the Scottish Parliament's interests are aligned. It's not in our interest as Scottish Government for Audit Scotland to be unable to carry out audit work that is considered necessary on any kind of devolved matter or any kind of matter that impinges on a devolved area of interest. It's not in our interest either that there should be some arbitrary decision taken that an accounting officer or anyone else is not willing to or a UK body is not willing to allow Audit Scotland to access. We recognise all those points. Some of them have been made in drafting before. I think that this conversation with the committee today will strengthen our hand to go back to try to reflect some of those points more strongly in the draft. Auditor General, do you think that the lack of clarity here is inevitable given the current devolution settlement and the powers that have come, but not all powers? Or do you think that there are areas of this that could be strengthened or clarified by the Scottish Government? It's a really good question, convener, and I think it's worth us all remembering the broad context is that the 1998 Scotland Act set a pretty clear devolution settlement. If a matter wasn't devolved, it was reserved, and you could draw a clear line between the two. We've now gradually, over the last 20 years, also moved towards a situation where that line is much more wavy down the middle, but control over income tax in Scotland on earned income belongs to this Parliament and to the Government, but under the legislation it has to be collected by HMRC. The social security benefits that have been devolved are quite clearly defined, but they interact with universal credit and the Government has choice about the extent to which it wants to use DWP to administer some of that. That line is much wavier, and I think that that inevitably brings some of the complexity that we're talking about here. In terms of the audit arrangements, which is my main interest in supporting the interests of this committee and this Parliament, I think that the framework goes most of the way to fulfilling what's required, and we've just highlighted the one area where I think that the Parliament's interests could be safeguarded further. I think that this section on page 13 that Mr Beattie's been referring to in some ways is the most difficult one. I think that for the first time this framework recognises that now many more UK public bodies have some degree of accountability to the Scottish Parliament for services that they provide that have got a significant relationship with the devolved responsibilities of the Parliament, but that will vary a great deal from case to case. I think that Ellen is right that there needs to be a bit of flexibility in there. I think that what this Parliament and the committee will be keen to ensure is that the interest is firmly registered and that it is scoped to develop and review the arrangements over time as they unfold. Thank you very much. Willie Coffey. Thank you very much, convener. We're clear to start with this. I remember when I was on the finance committee at the early stages of our consideration of SRIT, convener, and we discussed this exact issue about how Audit Scotland would interact with the NAO, then the memorand of understanding emerged. My impression was at that time that there was a sensible and working relationship, but I have to say now that I'm a wee bit more concerned that there isn't. When I look at your summary auditor general on page 2, it's quite worrying when you're saying things like there is no provision for me to be able to audit value for money in areas such as the administration of Scottish income tax and Ian Gray led on that discussion. It says just before that that, effectively, there's a veto by the controller of auditor general. If we can't audit what we think we should audit and we can't require the national audit office to come and talk to us, how on earth do we provide that scrutiny and accountability to the Scottish public? I'd start off by saying that I wouldn't want you to take the impression away that relationships between us are anything other than very professional, very cordial and very effective in my views. As I said earlier, I think what we're looking for is making sure that, if problems do emerge, there's a strong basis in the framework for resolving that and that this Parliament's interests are respected and reflected as far as possible. We've highlighted the one area, which is provisions for value for money audit in HMRC around income tax and potentially VAT in future. Our experience, your experience, I think, has been that the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team have been very willing to come to this committee to talk through the work that they've done and to take away suggestions for future work. In my view, we can make this framework work as it stands. I think it's worth you being aware of where I think the scope to strengthen it, not least so that in future, if you say, why can't you do that, I can tell you what the process is that we've been through. Secondly, as I say in my response, I think it's important that it is part of the review of the fiscal framework that's due to take place by 2022. By then, we'll have a bit more experience of how it's working. I may have brought to your attention areas where I think it would have been good to do some audit that I've not been able to or there may be areas that you would like to see audited that we've not been able to respond to. I think that what I'm doing is highlighting an area where I think it could be further strengthened not a fundamental concern about the framework as a whole. I mean, I have to be honest as well. I would have thought that these kind of agreements would have been enshrined in the first draft rather than as having taken you through a process of expressing concern about something as fundamental as this, because as we look slightly ahead to the future post Brexit, there are going to be a number of operational frameworks that we are led to believe. That will manage certain processes and devolved responsibilities that come back from Europe and so on and so forth. If this is the first example of an agreed framework, I'd be a little bit concerned, particularly if we are clearly saying that we do not have the powers that we think to enable us to audit and scrutinise functions carried out on our behalf. I'd be concerned about that. I'm very happy to. As I said in my previous response, this is an area where we would see the Scottish Government and Audit Scotland and the Scottish Parliament's interests as all aligned. We have obviously raised that point.  We will raise this point again and we will represent the views back from the Parliament. Given the quite reasonable strength of feeling about this, if the committee were particularly wanted to underline the point, the chief secretary has written to the convener to draw attention to the draft framework, it would perhaps be possible for the convener to consider writing directly to the chief secretary to the treasury to highlight any of these important concerns from the committee. On the main principles of the draft paragraph 3, it's about information sharing from what I can read there. It's quite difficult to understand the language here. If we request or require information, we're not allowed to. We've got to request it of our own Government to make a request of the other Government to then make a request of their public body. I mean, this is like building in red tape. Surely, to goodness, we don't want to agree to a process like that that makes it more difficult for a committee like this to obtain information on an issue such as the Scottish rate of income tax, for example? Again, I think that we would entirely agree. Why would we in Scottish Government wish the committee to have to ask us and then we have to go and ask someone else? Perhaps if what is provided does not meet the committee's needs, then we're acting as a go-between. We would be content, obviously, to have the provision for a direct contact, and it's another point that we can raise back again with. Why is this in there in this draft? It's so silly to have that in there. Surely we saw that that was ridiculous to have that kind of arrangement. Why is it in there? Well, not everyone necessarily has the same perspective. So this is not our perspective? Is this somebody else's? There are other parties to the drafting of this agreement. Can I have your opinion on that, please? It's primarily a matter for Scottish Government rather than for audit, but I think that in discussion with my team, our view is that that's an unnecessary step in the process. It should be possible for the Scottish Parliament to request information from a UK body that is significantly involved in delivering devolved services. Alex Neil That very specific point is buried in here as a suggestion, for example, that if this committee wanted information from HMRC, we would have got to go through the Scottish Government. Why? Much to add to my previous comment, Mr Neil, that there ought to be a provision to ask. I would regard that as absurd. We would go straight to the HMRC and we would expect them to respond to us in the same way that they would respond to the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons. In relation to devolved matters, absolutely, I think that that would be a sensible way of doing it. I think that we need to be very explicit about that. We need to explain to the reserve bodies that that's how we would intend to operate. We're not waiting on them telling us what we can and cannot do as a parliamentary committee. We'll tell them. I think that the only thing that I can add to that is that over the development of Scottish income tax powers, HMRC has been very willing to come to this committee to talk about progress. That's a change of attitude because I remember when HMRC wouldn't even come to a committee in the Scottish Parliament, so we have to build in a process. The people who came from HMRC, as you rightly say, Auditor General, were very co-operative, very cordial, same with the national audit office, the Auditor General from down south, the Comptroller and Auditor General were very pleasant, very co-operative and all the rest of it, but we cannot rely on the personality of the current office holder. We have to have a system that guarantees our rights as a Parliament and as a Scottish Government, no matter who's in office, either up here or down there. I think that that's why this framework matters. I only have a couple of follow-up questions based on the line of question that we've just had. Looking at the principles for accountability and devolution on page 10, there's a principle 5, which talks about a public body may provide, or let me change the emphasis, a public body may provide information, advice or reporting direct to the legislature of another jurisdiction voluntarily. When might it do that? Do you have any examples? I think I'm going to ask Andrew if he's got an example from the work that we've done on the drafting. So, of course, there's a range of work going on across Scottish Government in the context of drafting this framework as regards audit and accountability. Now, you already have work going on with regards to the Crown Estate. That was the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme, which began on 1 April 2017. You have the Railway Policing Bill, which is now an Act. It received Royal Assent in August 2016. You have the statutory arrangements in section 66 of the Scotland Act, which means that reserved bodies also lay their accounts with the Scottish Parliament. These are bodies such as Ofcom, Ofgem, the commissioner of the Northern Lighthouses, as for non-statutory provisions, which I believe is at the heart of your question, Mr Kerr. Of course, there's a range of work going on in social security at the minute in terms of concluding MOUs, in terms of concluding service level agreements, where we need DWP to carry out devolved activities on our behalf as part of the safe and secure transfer of social security powers. So, I suppose it's going to mean some, yes, there's a range of both non-statutory and statutory work between various policy leads in the UK Government and the Scottish Government, which is ongoing in the context of us drafting this order of accountability framework. That's helpful, thank you. Sticking with the clarity point that we've examined a few times, looking at the six principles, there are various terms spread throughout them, which will no doubt mean something to perhaps you, Chaps, but don't necessarily mean something to me or don't tightly mean something to me, like parliamentary bodies requesting legislature, an equivalent body, and even we could extend it, Colin Beattie talked earlier, about the distinct and significant impact. It doesn't really mean something, or it might mean something to you, but not to me. Will there ultimately be some kind of glossary, some kind of defined term section, which will clarify those sorts of issues? If you would find that helpful, I'm sure that that could be added. Andrew wants to say something about that, go on. So, we have tried to clarify some of the terminology up top in terms of, i.e. in the first section of the document, in terms of what accountability means, in terms of what service livery means, in terms of what a UK public body is, but certainly, as Alan Orr has said, we're here to listen today, this is a draft, it still needs to go to the John Xeca committee, which is the formal form of the UK government we have for agreeing these things. So, again, building on Mr Beattie's point, if a glossary of the terms would be helpful, then we are more than happy to provide that and further refine some of the wording and make it more accessible in what is quite a technical area, of course. My personal view with that is that that would be helpful. Before I read the framework, I was expecting a bit more of a legal document, and I don't know if that developed slightly on Liam Kerr's. Maybe we don't need the where-to-fars, the where-to-froms and clause 3C21, but it just needs a bit more structure and adding in the definitions and then looking at the terms that may be common in use but may not have an exact legal definition, which might slightly contradict the clarity aspect, but may make it easier in the long term to understand. I wanted to ask the Auditor General just a point where, if I understand it, there will be areas where you're relying on work done by the National Audit Office. Not quite in the sense, I think, you're asking the question. The arrangements that are in place around HMRC for the financial statements audit are very clear that the control and auditor general carries out that audit. He has statutory rights of access, which I don't have. Under the existing memorandum of understanding, when he reports on the Scottish rate of income tax, I provide an additional assurance report to Parliament, which provides assurance that I think that they've done the work according to the professional standards and in the right areas and can set it into context. I'm not taking reliance in quite that way. In that circumstance, would you have a discussion beforehand as to the level of work they would do? Mark, do you want to talk through how that's worked over the first three years? In terms of how that's worked, there's a conversation between ourselves and National Audit Office where they very much carry out the work. They're interested in our views and the sort of issues and risks that are important. The control and auditor general made a point to this committee that, from their perspective, that's a helpful process. He recognised that he would be very keen to make sure, when we'd suggested that they covered a certain area, that they did address that in the course of that work. In the UK context, the numbers might not be particularly material, but in the Scottish context, they could be very material. If they weren't using the right level of materiality, what could you do about it? Again, the way in which the system works at the moment is that we'd have a conversation through the course of the audit to make our views known. At the end of the process, the auditor generals had the opportunity to give to state our view, where we felt that they weren't using the, in those circumstances, they hadn't used the right level of materiality to be able to reflect Scottish interests. There is no process to resolve a disagreement there. That the process is, as Mark said, for me to report that formally to this Parliament. I don't audit HMRC's collection of taxes, and there are statutory restrictions on rights of access to HMRC. Because in your comments, you talk about agreeing approaches, discussing approaches, working together, but there doesn't seem to be a way to actually resolve that if they don't do the work that you want them to do, you could do anything about it. I think it's worth just taking a wee step back. The financial audit is governed by statute in the ways that I've described for good reason. There is a separate statement, an account of Scottish income tax, and in due course I'm assuming the assigned VAT revenues as well, which the CNAG audits in terms of the materiality that relates to that account, not lost within the overall revenues and much smaller expenditure of HMRC. So there are professional safeguards there. I think it is extremely unlikely that we would see circumstances where the Comptroller and Auditor General wants to be in a position where he was reporting on HMRC's activities, and I was reporting to this Parliament saying, I think that that work doesn't cover this Parliament's interests. In practice, I think that that's actually quite a strong safeguard. I think that we've heard comments from others that we're relying on how it is now and how the good relations are. You don't feel that there's a need to have some form of fallback position. I feel that much more strongly in relation to value for money audit than I do the collection of tax revenues because of the provisions that are already in place for separate tax accounts for those revenues. Can I just go back to the comment, I think, earlier about, and you can maybe remind me, we were talking about if the Auditor General disagreed with the accounting officer on an issue, or you relied on the accounting officer deciding that they wanted to take a suggestion or a recommendation. I think that you're referring to the question that Mr Beattie asked, which was about the accounting officer's decision about which accountability model they would apply. That's less likely to be in relation to one of my recommendations than simply in the operation of a UK body and the accountability relationships that it puts in place. But if there was some disagreement between you and an accounting officer, you would then just report it to us, the Parliament. I'm struggling to think of a situation where I would have a disagreement with an accounting officer of a UK body because I don't audit any of them. I would be much more likely to have... The situation is more plausible that I would have a disagreement with the CNAG about the need for a piece of value for money audit in a UK body rather than a disagreement directly with the accounting officer. There may be a question in there for the Scottish Government team about what happens if they disagree with the model that an accounting officer chooses to apply under the category of public bodies with more than one type of service delivery. I don't think that it's something that I'm likely to be to have a concern about from my perspective. I'll just ask a general question to the Scottish Government people here. Having come to this and seen it's been going on for a number of years, how long have you all been involved in it and have you been involved throughout? Throughout, yes. I have been involved since I came back into this role about a year ago and Andrew's similar time, I think. You're working involves from the start with Aileen. Can we just clarify your question, Mr Bowman? Is the moment involved in the preparation of this document? It talks about going back over a number of years and referring back to previous committee meetings in the Parliament. We are picking these up now. Some of us are new to this. I was just wondering if the Scottish Government officials have been involved throughout this process. Did you all answer there? I think so. Aileen, was Justin... had you finished? Yes, certainly since we have been drafting this framework document. Page 26 contains further information on model D and the flowchart says, Scottish MPs challenge on devolved impacts, but there's no explanation as to what this means. Can you tell me how it's decided whether a UK Government decision might have a distinct and significant impact on devolved matters in Scotland and also what the role for Scottish MPs is in this, if any? Andrew may wish to expand on this, but I read the Scottish MPs challenge on devolved impacts as the normal role that Scottish MPs would play if they felt that some matter that was under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament was very relevant to Scotland, they would raise that, they have their mechanisms to do so. Through questions in the House of Commons or the Scottish Fair Select Committee, just those existing mechanisms? Those existing mechanisms is how I read that. Was that correct, Andrew? Yes. Am I understanding? Do you want to say something, Willi? It's clearly through the Public Accounts Committee, the Westminster, to the positional way that it would have overall sight of this, as we do here, that it is represented in that. Thank you. Can I ask Eleanor Ryan? Are there any concerns that the Auditor General raises in her report that you disagree with? We have no fundamental disagreement with any of Audit Scotland's points. We will happily represent them yet again in the conversations with. With UK officials, but we recognise that Treasury officials are also in discussion with the National Audit Office, and there may well be comments from the Public Accounts Committee as well, so that the eventual framework is likely to be a compromise amongst all the points of view expressed. So, we're likely to see that Auditor General's concerns reflected in the next draft or final draft. I can undertake that we will feed them back and we will seek to have them reflected. I can't guarantee that that will be the outcome of the discussion. Do members have any further questions for our witnesses this morning? I thank you very much for your evidence. I now close the Audit Committee to the public session.


Standard of California, on behalf of independent chevron gas stations and standard stations throughout the West, invites you to let George do it. The Malignant Hearts, another adventure of George Valentine. Personal notice, dangerous my stock and trade. If you're getting your brains knocked out and they're just hanging on until the gong sounds, you got a job for me, George Valentine. Rightful details. Dear Mr. Valentine, how do you explain this in a man? At 38, he's retired. A millionaire yet he steals a trinket from a 5 and 10 cent store. Make sure he's caught and then merely laughs. He stands aside and lets his own father work as a night watchman. This man is my husband. And I love him for what he was before he changed. The thing of evil during the last year, I must find out what's happened to Walter. Won't you please come out to my home as soon as possible? And it's signed yours most urgently, Edna Pallister. Oh, you know, Bruxy, sometimes I think Lieutenant Riley is right. Well, you're exceptionally charitable today, George. Well, it does seem that all the characters from the lunatic fringe find their way to us. Yeah, I guess we just get all the breaks. But how do you account for a Walter Pallister? How do you account for a Walter Pallister? Well, given a minimum of human curiosity, Bruxy, that's the question we can't pass up.  It hardly seems necessary to tell you your husband needs a psychiatrist. Do you think I haven't tried that? Well, what happened? At the end of the interview, Walter gave the doctrine inferiority complex. You see, my husband is a very brilliant man. I'm sure there's another word for him. But as you said in your letter, you love him. For what he used to be, Mr. Valentine. Good and kind. All right, now okay. You implied there are other incidents besides the theft in the 5 and 10 and being the kind of son that's hardly a comfort to anybody in his old age. Mr. Valentine, I hardly know where to stop. Well, when did you first notice this change in your husband, Mrs. Pallister? Well, we're not overly religious. But we used to go to church every Sunday. And for no reason at all, there was that Sunday shortly after he retired. He dropped me off at the church and then he said loudly so everyone could hear. I'm going to put in a few rounds of golf and I'll see you later, darling, when you're through with your pagan rituals. Well, Mrs. Pallister, you might be attaching too much importance to that. He may not have been himself that morning and a lot of people skipped church once in a while. Yes, I know. I only mentioned it because that was the first time I noticed the change in Walter's character. Oh, I didn't know you had company, Mrs. Pallister. Well, you could have knocked Lucy. But what do you want? I know this isn't my day off, but I'm taking the afternoon off to go into town to do some shopping. Some personal shopping. Why do you take the trouble to announce it? Apparently, I have nothing to say about it. Well, you just thought you'd like to know. If you've got any complaints about me, you can take them to Mr. Pallister. I-I'm sorry for the interruption, Mr. Bellinson. You're, uh, maid? Yeah. Why don't I fire her? Sure. What's the matter? Is she under contract?  I can't. Walter again. How's that? He likes her here. Well, that's a real cozy arrangement. But being slightly feminine myself, you know what I do? Well, I- Oh, sorry, Mrs. Pallister. It's all right. All our friends talk about Walter and Lucy. He made sure they would. But you know she doesn't really mean anything to him. That's just one more thing I don't understand about him. You know, I'm beginning not to understand him at all. Yes, I know. It's not going to be easy to find a reason for anything my husband's done the last year. But if you see this house, now this whole estate trend, it's very beautiful. It's not very easy living in it. What does that mean? All this used to belong to my husband's partner and everything to him. But Walter decided that he wanted it and he got it. Even if it meant ruining a man so he'd have to sell it. Well, it seems your husband isn't going to be happy till he becomes Mr. Obnoxious of 1948. Mr. Valentine, there must be an explanation. And I owe it to Walter to find out what's happened. You've got to help me. You know, they don't make them like you very often, Mr. Obnoxious. I don't know exactly what I can do, but one thing is sure, I'll have to meet Mr. Pallister and talk to him. Where is he? Probably in the kennel. Down there in the caretaker's cottage. Sometimes it seems to me those vicious dogs are the only thing he cares about these days. I don't mean to be cynical, Mrs. Pallister, I don't know how to approach your husband. What do I say?  Just do what you can. Anyway, he's probably expecting you. You can be sure that Lucy was eavesdropping. Oh, well, in that case, Brooksy, I guess we can expect anything. I think they're coming after us. Hey, Pallister, just a minute. We want to talk to you. Come on. Get him. His throat, General. That's the boy.  No, you've got him, General. I'll shoot all three of them. All right, now back.  What have you done to General? He's my best dog. What have I done? Did you hear the man, Brooksy? Don't ever mind that. Are you all right, Donny? Okay. Except it feels strange standing around with one sleeve missing. Let me have that. Got it. Wait a minute. What? Now, you didn't have to do that, Pallister. The dog wasn't hurt. On the contrary, he was. I believe your name is Valentine. Oh, did Lucy give you my social security number 10? And you wanted to talk to me. I think we'll be much more comfortable back in the library. She's been on nerve by all the excitement. I can imagine. I insisted she take a sedative and lie down. Well, is there anything I can get you? But you could run out and buy Mr. Valentine a new suit. Okay, okay. That's our quota for small talk. Blended. Now, Mr. Pallister, I came right over as soon as I got your call. Ah, tell me in Haggerty.  Chief Haggerty. Where is this fellow you was telling me about? Uh-huh. I think he means me, Chief. Okay, Pallister, what's the payout this time? Haggerty. Although there's a sign down at the gate that distinctly says no trespassing and beware of dogs, this man invaded my property and deliberately killed one of my best house.  Now, young lady, there's no call for language like that. You'll find two bullets missing from his gun, Haggerty. It was a wanton killing of a defenseless creature. Oh, I don't know. I'll let him fight me first. What charges do you want to make against Mr. Pallister? Now, according to the book... Well, you know I'm generous to a fault, Chief. I just don't like to see the law flutters. How about a small fine? Anything you say, Mr. Pallister? That'll be $25, young teller. Now, wait a minute, look. And you can pay up right now because I'm the justice of the peace around here, too. Okay, okay. Oh, now I've seen everything. If he gives you any more trouble, Mr. Pallister, you let me know. I'll really make it tough for him. You and Napoleon, eh, Walter? Oh, Valentine, don't look so grim. Oh, that was beautiful. Can't you appreciate it? All right. Here's your $25. If you don't do something about him, George, I'm gonna turn into a great big tomboy. Are you through enjoying yourself, Pallister? Don't you see, Valentine? As the law would say, I perjured myself against you, and I got the biggest laugh I've had in a long time. And why? Go on. My wife hired you to delve into the aberrations of my twisted psyche. Well, I wanted to give you something to think about. I suppose you've had enough now? Uh-uh. The only reason I let you have your fun is that I've decided to go to work for Mr. Pallister, even though I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to do. Fine, fine. You mean you don't mind? On the contrary. Agreed with a possibility? In fact, I insist that you stay right on here as our guests. In fact, I wouldn't think of refusing such hospitality. Very well. Come along, Valentine. Let you have one of my suits. Oh. I believe Lucy is back now. She'll show you to your room, Miss Brooks. Oh, thanks. I think I'd feel a lot safer if I found it myself. Then we can get together here in the library again and go on with this fascinating inquiry as to why I'm such an unholy brute. The water's going to be down in a minute. You and Miss Brooks must leave. You've got to. Wait a minute. Why the turnabout, Mrs. Pallister? I should think you'd need us here. Look, he's capable of anything. After what happened today, I realize I have no right to ask anybody to share this with me. You might have been killed. And if I assure you we can take care of ourselves? You don't know him. He's so diabolically clever. I'll just have to make up my mind to leave him. Well, frankly, I can think of hard decisions to make. Now, you must go. I think he's planning something right now.  You're hardly an appetizing sight, my dear as a hostess. Well, I... I was only... I said go upstairs. Hey, wait a minute. Let us go, Pallister. Or I'll have to take this little game off the drawing room level. Oh, sorry. Now, darling, will you go and see about dinner? Well, did you have a chance to look around? Did you notice this little Hindu idol in the corner, for instance? It's the ugliest thing I've ever seen. It's been a constant source of inspiration to me. Those tentacles, you see, are the forces of evil, reaching out, claiming everything. Uh-huh. A big one? Oh, nothing. You know, Valentine, it was a melancholy thought to find out that at 38, I'd been successful, vastly successful, at everything I put my mind to. Poor you. Oh, you're quite right. All the zest, the challenge, is gone. I can understand the fits of depression Alexander the Great had when he found out he'd conquer the world and there was nothing else left. Well, would it be impolite if I said I was hungry? Forgive me, Miss Brooks. I'll see what the delay is. Oh, boy. Well, if he isn't mad, what's the pattern for all this? Whatever Pallister's got must be contagious. What are you mumbling about? See, he isn't going about this haphazardly. He's got a goal, there's a method of pattern. Oh, George, he's the grown-up addition of the kid next door used to tear the wings off butterfly. Uh-huh, nothing so simple, Angel. But how about this for a weird notion? Pust is out to break every law, man-made or moral, that he can think of one by one and with great fanfare. He prefers having somebody know what he's doing so he can get a real kick out of getting away with it. Oh, it's a weirdie, all right, but I don't understand. Pallister is not just a pex-bed boy. He imagines himself an undersized Superman. He stole from the 5 and 10, and the Pallister name saved him from any embarrassment. All right. All right, he wanted this estate, so he ruined his partner to get it. He turned the dogs on us, and I paid a fine. Yeah. Yeah, and look what he's doing to his father. Yeah, Bruxy, every decency, one by one. That benighted character thinks that's the one way he can really prove his power. Yeah, but even so, I don't see what we can do to help poor Mrs. Pallister. Bruxy, we've got to do something. What do you mean, George? A man-like Pallister never stops, but he brings things to a logical conclusion. And you can see him driving toward it now. Huh? I told you, Bruxy, he's out to break every law. And I don't think he'll be satisfied until he's committed murder. We'll return to tonight's adventure of George Valentine in just a moment. Meanwhile, if your car misbehaves in city traffic, acts like it had about as much get-up-and-go as a snail, there are two things you can do. One, you can just steal yourself to impatient horns and stony stairs. But a happier way out is the second one. Just switch to Chevron Supreme Gasoline. For special blending agents in this premium quality gasoline, assure speedy pick-up-and-stop-and-go traffic. And they give your car all the go-ahead it needs when the lights flash green. Chevron Supreme's blended, too, for that extra power your car needs on hills. Another thing, it's climate tailored to bring out your car's pep and power in each different altitude and temperature zone. So wherever you go in the West, rely on Chevron Supreme for smoother performance. Independent Chevron gas stations and standard stations are proud to offer you this great premium quality gasoline. No wonder they say, and mean, we'll take better care of your car. And now, back to tonight's adventure of George Valentine. Walter Palister, a success at everything he touches, has focused his dark, brooding mind at what he considers the supreme proof of his power. He's determined to deliberately break every law and get away with it. So far, only George and Bruxy have succeeded in guessing what he's doing, and you can't help feeling that he won't rest until he's committed murder, all of which doesn't make breakfast if the Palister home a very festive occasion. Let's see, Valentine, you and Miss Brooks have been with us more than 12 hours now. I'm afraid it's been very dull. Oh, I can remember more boring occasions. For instance, the time I got my hand caught in a meat grinder.  Please, Ed, enough. Since everyone is so glum, Miss Brooks, let's see if I can make you laugh. Well, the only place I'm tickish is on the bottom of my feet. A droll thought just occurred to me. Imagine the noble Sir Gallowhead going out to slay the fire-breathing dragon, and suddenly finding himself with a rubber spear. Ha-ha!  Ha-ha, very funny. I think all of us have finished. Wait, I have an idea how to liven up things. Why don't we all pack up and finish Constance for a couple of days? Skiing, little shooting. Oh, Lucy, come on in here. Walter, this really isn't the time. Your husband seems to have made of his mind, Mrs. Palastor, so there couldn't be a better time. Did you call me, Walt? Mr. Palastor? Get upstairs and start packing. We're going on a little vacation, and you're coming along too, Lucy. Oh, I just know we'll have loads of fun. Go on, Edna. Why don't you go along with Mrs. Palastor, Brooksine? I can dig up a pair of red flammals. Ah, tell me, friend, what is it you can do on the snowy slopes of Wisconsin that you can't do in this house? Just a notion. I haven't been up to the lodge in two years. You know, the last time I was up there, I brought down a running rabbit at 100 yards with a 22. That's perfect shooting.  Do I get on your nerves? Which one of us is it going to be? Have you decided? What are you talking about?  Ah... Well, what do you know? I guess I've underrated you, Valentine. But you won't get away with it, Palastor. So finally I've met someone with perception enough to see the reasoning behind my little game. Heaven knows I've given enough clues. I made it obvious what I was doing. You know, there's never yet been a Superman who hasn't stubbed his toe trying to do what you're doing. Which makes the game all the more exhilarating. Especially now that you know that you can't do anything about it. You're sure? If you went to the police, they'd laugh at you. Of course, the simplest thing you could do would be to, uh, bow out a picture. Oh, no, no. That might deprive you of some of that exhilaration you were talking about. The appreciative audience. Good. Then you'd better run along and pack, too. Oh, Valentine. Don't forget to include your rubber spear. What do you think of Lucy, everybody? She's beginning to ski like a champion. Oh, and only in three days, mind you. Oh, I knew this was going to be loads of fun. I'm doing pretty well myself. Only three days, and I can stand up on these things. That's funny, Brooks. See, that's never the way I find you. Miss Brooks hasn't had the advantage of Walter's undivided attention. Come on, Lucy. Before we leave, you're going to be able to ski down the whole north run right from the top of the hill to the road. You really think I could, Walter? I better go in and see about lunch. It's obvious Lucy isn't going to have time to prepare it. Well, I'll be in a minute to help you, Mrs. Callister. George, be a good guy and kiss me, will you? Oh, no fear if I have to be good. Thanks. Now, would you mind saying something funny? No, what's the matter? Aren't you scared? You bet I'm scared. Man gives me the willies, like a shadow on us all the time. Yeah, he makes me feel like a boy scout, and I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do. He probably has it all planned. He could be any one of us. Yeah, depending on which one suits his vanity. You had even a small guess what he's up to. Oh, Bruxy, I can't follow Callister around like a bloodhound. All I can do is keep my eyes open and try to keep one step ahead of him. Horrible to think he might be able to kill and get away with it. Just the way he has with everything else. I'm not worried now about his getting away with it. But how to get him from committing murder. You can't stop me, Mr. Valentine. We're going to get him out of here. We're going to get him out of here. You can't stop me, Mr. Valentine.  I'm not going to let you do it, Lucy. What right of you to tell me what to do? Lucy, Valentine may be right. It is a little dangerous. I don't care. I'm going to do it. I'll show you how good I am, Walter. Just watch me. I have to stand here in the road all day. What's the matter with that girl? Why doesn't she stop? Don't be impatient, my dear. Have we got everything in the station wagon? Oh, come to think of it, there's a lot of skis down by the mailbox. I'll be right back. I see Lucy up there now. It's about time. Here she comes. Oh, look at her. She's really showing off, isn't she? Oh, God. Oh, George, you've got to admit she's pretty good. Look at her pick-up speed. Well, anyway, she got by the first turn. Well, now all she has to do is make that last turn around the tree, and it'll be easy going down to the road. Yeah, yeah, that's all she's got to do. Ah! What? Nothing, George. The tree! Get up there. Not that it'll do any good. Oh, it's horrible. She smashed right into the tree. Oh, George. Why didn't she listen to us, Valentine? You know she wouldn't listen, Palastair. You had her all hopped up about making that run. You know that one slip taking that turn and Lucy'd be a cheek saw puzzle for the undertaker. It was an accident. As much of an accident as this. Oh, Mr. Valentine, don't. I hope that made you feel better, Sir Gallagher. But it doesn't change the fact that it was an accident. Well, sorry to take so long getting back here from the mortuary, but I don't think I'll have to detain you folk much longer here. Well, hardly worried about that at a time like this, Sheriff. And the coroner just had to take one look at the poor girl. It was too bad. And that's that, eh, Sheriff? Yeah, that's right, Mr. Valentine. Now, if a few people will just sign this paper as witnesses to the accident, they will satisfy the state of Minnesota and they will satisfy me. Here, Mrs. Palester, if you will be kind enough. Yes. Oh, Sheriff. Yes, sir. You said the coroner just had to take one look at Lucy. George, that's what I said. I'm sure he's not too busy to take a second look. With me. I'll have my fingers crossed till you get back, George. Till you get back? Why, we were just sitting here waiting to leave. Sorry, Superman, you'll just have to go on sitting and wait. It was a natural mistake, Mr. Valentine. After what happened, I just assumed that... Don't take it too hard, Coroner. At first, I assumed the same thing, too. Why, did you want me to stop by the mailbox, Valentine? Nobody's leaving any mail this time of day? What I'm looking for, Sheriff, was left much earlier. But it's got to be around here in the snow somewhere, Sheriff. Oh, this is a mighty lot of snow. Look ahead. That's it, a high-powered 22. I can't believe it. You mean... You're talking about a man who's perfect at everything. He can bring a running rabbit down at 100 yards. Since you all seem so incredulous, I'll skip right down to the words of one syllable department. Doesn't matter. Walter, I won't believe it. You couldn't have done it. Thank you, Edna. There you are, Valentine. I'm vindicated. I should have known you wouldn't leave anything to chance Palestine.  Wouldn't that be rather hard to prove? Around the curve of the road, we couldn't see you. But you were there all right, this rifle in hand. You had a bead on Lucy every second. When she came to that curve by the tree, you let her have it. But, George, we didn't hear a shot. A silencer took care of that miss. And a telescopic sight brought Lucy as close as a floating duck in a shooting gallery. Walter, why? Walter, why? You wouldn't understand, my dear, even if I told you. The whole magnificent concept would be too big for your mind. I don't know what he's talking about. Well, it doesn't matter, Sheriff. Only the facts matter now. Palestine.  Yes. And another fact. You're going to pay for it with your life. Oh, no. What's he laughing at? Walter! Oh, that's where you're wrong, Valentine.  I'm going to go right on living, even though it may be in jail for a while. Oh, how do you figure that? Well, didn't you know? There's no capital punishment in the state of Wisconsin. Oh, you're so right, palister, as always. But you're in the sovereign state of Minnesota. Why didn't you hear the sheriff say that before? What? What did you say? Explain it to him, Sheriff, as you explained it to me. Well, folks have been disputing this little corner of the state for years now. Had a special referendum last election. We decided we want to be in Minnesota. You're lying. Oh, you're making all this up. You can't do this. And in Minnesota, palister, they have capital punishment. Oh, it's good to get back to the office. I don't think I'll ever get warm again. You'll thaw out, Angel. You'll thaw out. So let's get busy and see what mail's piled up, huh? Okay. Hey, what is this, sarcasm? What do you mean? A circular. Look. Spend your honeymoon in Paradise Valley. Have fun in this winter wonderland. Skiing, ice skating, tobogganing. Oh, no. Oh, no honeymoon? Well, I'd rather skip the honeymoon if it means winter sports.  Highly recommended. Oh, darling, you're wonderful. Well, if that's the case, we could even go to the North Pole. If you're looking for ways to cut corners that will make your budget go further, listen to this. It's a statement by Mr. O. C. Blackburn of Van Nuys, California, who uses compounded RPM motor oil in his car. He says, quote, I use RPM for economy. RPM, I know, reduces wear, lengthens engine life, and lowers repair cost on my car. Unquote. And like thousands of other Western motorists, you'll find you can make car operation a more thrifty deal when you rely on RPM motor oil. How does RPM do it?  So for real economy, why not start tomorrow? Get a crankcase drain and a refill with RPM motor oil. Get it at any standard station or independent chevron gas station, where they say, and mean, we'll take better care of your car. Next week, when you tune our way for another adventure of George Valentine, you'll find George studying a new letter that has just reached him. Dear Mr. Valentine, a man should be able to do anything to hold the woman he loves. But I'm not strong enough. I need your help desperately. I should be at your office in the morning to tell you the whole story. Yours truly, Bruno Terrell. Next week, a new case for George, the fabulous Fatso. Tonight's adventure of George Valentine has been brought to you by Standard of California, on behalf of independent chevron gas stations and standard stations throughout the West. Let George do it. Stars Robert Bailey is George with Francis Robertson as player.


Hey guys, so it's been a while since I did an HIV doctor visit. That's because I haven't been here in a while. My last appointment was I believe June or July of this year and I didn't go because I was dealing with anxiety and depression and I just wasn't in a mental space to take care of myself in that way. Doing a lot better now. So this is my first doctor's appointment I think in a year which is supposed to be every six months. So I'm back here and for those of you who are new to my channel and new to my content, I do this for all of my doctor's visits so that you can see that an HIV doctor's visit is a relatively painless experience. It's not scary. It's not some mysterious, weird, terrifying experience for those of us in the HIV community. It can be just like any other doctor's appointment with a couple extra questions. So stick around. Here we go. Hello, sir. Hey, how are you? Good, how are you? Good. Happy. It's Tuesday today. It is. It is. It's good that I'm vlogging by the way. Oh, camera's on. Hello. Hi. So how are you doing? I'm good. How are you? Good. You know, it's Tuesday. So we're here. I work from home today so it's better than Monday. I know. I missed the telehealth work from home days. They were nice. We were back full force. I saw you before but I don't think so. No, we've never been before. This is the first time. I'm Kevin. Hi. How are you? How are you? So we're just doing the follow-up today, right? Just regular follow-up. That is correct. I missed my last one. I think it was June or July. Okay. But everything's going okay. Victoria will be fine. No issues. Do you have any content to speak in? No. You can see the show. Do you want anything? No. A lot of work. What do you do for work? I work with my parents at their manufacturing plant. Oh, nice. Okay. And then I also do HIV advocacy content creation. So I'll talk to, like, AHA if I partner with them. Oh, exactly. Okay, so I'll head to them. And then, yeah, AKLA and stuff. I actually was like almost full, full time doing content creation right after the pandemic. And then... The pandemic. And then I kind of... Can't justify. My parents were there ready to, like, coach me. They've been wanting me to work for them for a while. For a while. And it was the time that they took you. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And we'll just do routine lab stuff, right? Everything else okay? No other issues? Can I also get my ears cleaned today? Sure. Like a lot of wax? Typically. Oh, this one is okay. The other ear is fine, especially your left ear. I have a feeling. Are you doing the injectables? We did start doing the injectables. I was at... I'm just asking because I've been updated on that. Yeah. I mean, it's good, right? It's... I think it's a little hard, I mean, to... Is it the logistics of scheduling? Yeah. I mean, it takes a lot of manpower to do it. I think it's also...  And for me to want to take a shot every month, they'd have to come to the clinic every month is would be a lot for me. Yeah. Because it's like, you can't give it to yourself at home, right? So you have to take it. That's kind of my... So for me, I'm just like, I'd rather take a pill every day than, you know, have to come into the clinic. Next year, it's supposedly going to be approved for two months, every two months. So that'd be a little more probable. Yeah. I mean, so I think it's great if people want it and there's a lot of reasons for people. I mean, I think it's a... For the real... The true person who really needs it, I think it's a very specific person, right? I think it's a person who does not... Doesn't miss appointments, right? Because you don't want someone who misses meds and misses appointments because, you know, you can become resistant to these shots, right? So... And... But, you know, someone who misses... There has trouble taking their meds or misses their meds. I think it's a great, great option, right?  And that's pretty psychologically. Psychologically, it's helpful. And I think it's great. And some people just take a lot of pills too. And they just want to reduce their pill burden by, you know, one. And that's helpful too. So I mean, I think it's great. I think, too, there's... I mean, for HIV meds, right, there's a lot of really great things coming down the line, right? I think when it goes to two months, I think it's going to be very big. You know, it's going to be approved for PrEP too, I think next year. Oh, cool. You know, there's going to... There's a couple meds coming down that'll be like, maybe Q, every twice a year, injectables, you know? And that will... Now we're talking. Yeah, and that's like a game-changing thing. I think that's really... Like, for me, that's something I would want to do. For sure. But yeah, so I mean, I would say it's a certain type of patient who wants the injectable. And I think it's great for people at works, right? We're kind of moving towards two-drug therapy, right? And send three. You know, I think people are becoming more uncomfortable, you know, suppressing people in two-drugs versus three, if it's the right two-drugs. What's the name of the injectable? Or is there multiple? So there's only one right now, right? That's approved. And that's Kevinuva. So Kevinuva's the injectable. So when that consists of two drugs, right? One's a capytegra beer and the other one's E-durant, you know? So an integracein and an RTI. So, but they... I'm not like, I know what you're talking about. Oh, not to you. Yeah, okay. So it's two classes of drugs, right? So one, one that's in Victoria, basically, right? And another one that is... was a drug that was in Odesi, right? So that was... Then they can combine. So it's two shots. It's in the... It's a lot of fluid, especially the first dose. It'll be a lot of fluid. So it's like three CCs, three MLs on each side, for the first dose. For me, it's two, so that's less. So it's not for everybody. Sometimes it hurts. It supposedly gets better as people get the shots. It doesn't hurt as much. But for every two months, it's always going to be three CCs of fluid. Yeah, no, it's great. It's great drugs, but we're doing really exciting time for HIV. All right. Well, so let us... You got your food shot. Thank you. And... Getting my booster. Getting your booster. Great. Like a week. And we will just do your blood work today. And I sent all your refills to Premiere. Excellent. All right. Well, it was a pleasure meeting you. You too. So just hang here, and I'll send Julie in, and then you can get out of here. Okay. Oh, let me put the gear irrigation in. Then there'll be, you know, a few minutes. I've got the drops in and stuff. Okay? All right. All right. So hang here. It's nice meeting you. You too. Okay. Bye, Ray. You don't work too hard this weekend. All right, guys. So that was that. As you can see, pain-free, relatively easy. I really like it at APLA because their doctor's appointments are very personal, as you can see. They really want to know how you're doing, not just medically, but also in life in general, and ask those key questions that make you feel like you're not just a number, but natural patient. So now someone's going to come and clean out this ear. This is the one that always typically gets backed up and then draw some blood. I already did my urine earlier because when I got here, I really had to go to the bathroom. So got that out of the way, and then I'll be done. All right. So here we go. Which ear was it again? This one. Okay. Get it started. Drops. Yeah. People always ask me, like, what are they doing with your ear? What is that? We'll say that. Like just people commenting. Oh, really? Yeah.  Yeah. Oh, okay, nice. I know I have my little, I do a little bit of tube seven right now. I called her because she was very scrawny, very tiny, and I'm like, child, you need to eat more. And COVID hit and all of a sudden she went from an extra small to a 10, 12 when she's seven. Oh. Yeah. So I'm like, God, COVID hits you hard. She's healthy now? Yes, she is. She's thick. She's a big bone. I wanted her to gain some weight, but not that much. No, it's like getting physical again. Oh, yeah. That's the hard part for them because they have gymnastics and they have cheer. Oh, nice. Yeah. That's good. They didn't want to do exercise no more because they were so like, used to the whole year that they were out of sports and stuff. Yeah. A lot of their back, it's like, I'm tired. Do they enjoy it? Yeah, they do. They actually like more gymnastics than cheer. Is it different dealing with COVID? Yes, it is. We used to see, I think, more patients before COVID. Because you're limiting it or they're just not coming? So I know that they were limiting it at first. Now we're just kind of opening it all up, even Saturday. Yeah, they're doing two Saturdays now. We're going back to the same routine as we were before. It's good because I think we all need it.  You can have me help her today. I'm going to have you hold on to this and you could go ahead and remove the mask from one side because it is going to get wet. Just hold it on really tight here. Tilt this way. Which way? This way, towards me. Let me know if at any point I'm hurting you. Okay. Coming up. All ready? Usually it's really stubborn. That was probably the maximum pressure I can get. I think we might be done. Yeah? Oh, I hope so. That looks disgusting. Oh, you're clear? Yes, that's worth it. Yeah, here. I'm getting real personal. I don't know. I'm going to dump this over here. I did it when I got here. Okay, awesome. Thank you so much. All right, bye.


The police command in Canada State has assured residents of the state of safety before, during and after the Supreme Court judgment on the governorship election. Commissioner of Police, Mr. Usaini Goumel, gave the assurance shortly after meeting with Heads of Security agencies in Canada. We have consulted with the government in various order, His Excellency has made several statements that, not possible, prefer to abide by the outcome of the decision of the court. And those opposition too have also made their mind that as a party, they will not support anybody taking law into his hands or breaking the existing laws or going in and rampaging any kind of stretch. So I think the situation we are likely to have tomorrow is just to do these individuals, miscreant, who do those who want to take advantage of the court.