Question 118

Did a committee of the legislature examine the Audit Report on the annual budget produced by the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI)?
 * a. Yes, a committee examined the Audit Report on the annual budget within three months of its availability, and it published a report with findings and recommendations.
 * b. Yes, a committee examined the Audit Report on the annual budget within six months (but more than three months) of its availability, and it published a report with findings and recommendations.
 * c. Yes, a committee examined the Audit Report on the annual budget, but it did so after the report had been available for more than six months or it did not publish any report with findings and recommendations.
 * d. No, a committee did not examine the Audit Report on the annual budget.
 * e. Not applicable/other (please comment).

OBS Guidelines
Question 118 is about ex post oversight following the implementation of the budget. It probes whether a committee examined the Audit Report on the annual budget produced by the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI), and whether this resulted in an official report with findings and recommendations. A key issue is how soon after the SAI releases the report does it legislature review it. This question does not apply to the legislative scrutiny of in-year implementation of the Enacted Budget during the relevant budget execution period, which is assessed separately. Also, the question is asking specifically about the SAI’s annual report on the execution of the budget, not about other audit reports that the SAI may produce. (This is the Audit Report used for responding to Question 98.)

To answer “a,” a legislative committee must have examined the annual Audit Report within three months of it being released by the SAI, and then published a report (or reports) with findings and recommendations. (Note that the three-month period should only take into account time when the legislature is in session.)

Answer “b” applies when the committee examines it within six months of it being released (but more than three months), and then published a report with its findings and recommendations. Choose “c” if a committee examined the annual Audit Report more than six months after it became available or it did not publish any report with findings and recommendations. Answer “d” applies where no committee examined the annual Audit Report.

If the answer is “a” or “b,” please specify the name of the committee and when it reviewed the Audit Report, and provide a copy of its report(s). If the answer is “c,” please specify the name of the committee and when it reviewed budget implementation. Answers “a,” “b,” or “c” may be selected if the Audit Report is produced by the SAI but not made publicly available.

1) What if AR is not publicly available?
If the AR is produced for internal use only (IU): the legislature could discuss an AR that is IU, and then make that report public. So answers “a,” “b,” and “c” could apply, assuming that the AR is delivered to the legislature and a report is published.

If the AR is not produced at all, the only possible answer is “d.”

2) Fiscal year to use
What if the last time a parliamentary committee examined the AR was many years prior to the Survey year? Response : “d”. For example: Spain where the last time the committee examined the AR was 2012.

3) How detailed should the committee report be for an "a" answer?
In Moldova in OBS 2019, a committee examined the Audit Report and published this document. The document published is not solely about the committee’s examination of the Audit Report – it talks about a lot of other things and only makes a mention of the Audit Report at the end of pages 8 and 9. Despite the short nature of the relevant part of the report, since they do comment on the findings and provide some recommendations, this is sufficient for an "a" answer.