Meeting of the Steering Committee
of INTOSAI Professional Standards Committee (PSC)
in Manama, Bahrain,23-24 April 2007

 Approved minutes

1. Opening of the meeting

Hassan Khlifa Al Jalahma, president of the National Audit Court of Bahrain, opened the meeting. He welcomed the delegates to the important meeting, and wished everyone a pleasant stay in Bahrain.

Bettina Jakobsen chaired the meeting and thanked the host for the generosity in hosting this important event and for the excellent preparations that had been done. She also forwarded the best regards from the PSC Chair, Auditor General Henrik Otbo. The Chair then welcomed the members of the steering committee and the observers from IFAC and the World Bank. The meeting would be very important to PSC as it would prepare the INCOSAI 2007 and plan for the term 2007-2010.

Approval of the Agenda

 Bettina Jakobsen presented the agenda. There were no comments to the agenda.

The agenda was approved.

Information from the Chair

Yvan Pedersen informed the delegates that the SAIs of France and Canada could unfortunately not attend the meeting. The SAI of France had forwarded a report on the project on transparency and accountability which was to be presented by Belgium. The SAI of Canada had forwarded a final proposal for ISSAI 10, Mexico Declaration on Independence, as well as a report from the subcommittee on independence, that would be presented by the PSC Chair. On another matter, the PSC Secretariat had forwarded the nomination of MS. Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada for the Ethics Board of IFAC (IESBA). The nomination had been unanimously supported by the Steering Committee members in December 2006. Further, the PSC Chair would contact the Chair of the INTOSAI Governing Board and the General Secretariat of INTOSAI in order to suggest that representatives from IAASB are invited to attend the INCOSAI. Finally, the recent UN/INTOSAI Symposium in Vienna decided to "propose to INTOSAI that it assigns responsibility for taking forward work on the measurement of the value and benefits of government audit to a new or existing group within INTOSAI, working in collaboration with key stakeholders such as the UN, World Bank and IDI".

2. Discussion on the results of the survey

Bettina Jakobsen introduced the item and said that it was very satisfying that so many SAI's had answered the survey. She thanked the SAI's of Bahrain, Canada and Portugal for translating the questionnaire into Arabic, French and Spanish. The survey provided important answers to questions that have been discussed by this committee at its previous meetings. It was noteworthy that INTOSAI's Auditing Standards are used by 3 out of 4 SAIs for auditing purposes. This was a high number considering that the extent to which SAIS have a need for international standards depends on the legal mandates and national context. The survey confirmed the need to strive for some kind of harmonization of standards - especially in the field of financial auditing, where IFAC's standards are widely used. The survey also provided the committee with a common understanding of the general differences between public and private sector auditing. It showed that there are very large national differences on these issues, that PSC will need to accommodate.

Yvan Pedersen presented the survey report and the conclusions that could be drawn by the steering committee in light of the answers. The survey had been answered by 100 SAIs, and all of INTOSAIs regional groupings were very well represented. The questionnaire was available in English, French, Spanish and Arabic. The survey thus reflects the voices of the entire INTOSAI community. The survey covered 3 main themes:

What standards and guidelines are used by SAIs?

With only very few exceptions all participating SAIs have answered that they use the present INTOSAI auditing standards in one way or another. The survey report therefore focused more narrowly by looking only at the answers regarding the 3 branches of auditing - financial auditing, compliance auditing and performance auditing. According to these answers 76 out of 100 SAIs use INTOSAI Auditing Standards, of which most use them for all 3 kinds of auditing tasks. 60 of the 100 SAI's use IFAC's standards for auditing tasks. The majority use these standards for financial auditing while fewer use them also in connection with compliance auditing or performance auditing. The report divides the SAIs into 4 groups: 21 use only INTOSAI auditing standards, 55 use INTOSAI auditing standards as well as IFAC standards, 5 use the IFAC standards and not INTOSAI standards, 19 do not use standards from any of these 2 sources in their auditing. The survey report also contained analyses of how much the standards were being used and how they were being used. Yvan Pedersen presented an additional analysis, which was not included in the draft report, showing that there were no clear differences in this respect between SAI's that do and SAIs that do not use IFAC standards in addition to INTOSAI Auditing Standards. In addition to INTOSAI and IFAC, a number of other sources provide standards used by SAIs. These include regional organizations and the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA).

What are the needs for audit guidance for the public sector?

This section of the questionnaire was a main result of the meeting in Yaoundé. A series of questions had been asked on the differences between SAI's and private sector auditing. These had been added at the request of certain steering committee members who saw the need to clarify the "dual approach" further. The survey had asked directly whether the SAIs approved the "dual approach". With the exception of 2 SAIs they all approved, although there are some differences as to how the SAIs think the approach can be translated into practice. There is also broad consensus among SAIs that there are some differences between public and private sector auditing and that there is therefore a need for special guidance for public sector auditing. Only 4 SAI answer that there are no such differences. The differences especially concern the general purpose of the audits, the nature of accounts and activities, the reporting procedure and auditor-auditee relationship. The mapping of these general differences between SAIs and the private audit sector was a difficult exercise and should be taken further by other means than a survey conducted by the individual subcommittees when drafting the guidelines.

How may INTOSAI's standards and guidelines be improved in the coming years?

This section of the survey was included to provide more specific information for the development of our working plan for 2007-2010. The answers reflect that there is a general need for INTOSAI guidelines. A large majority of SAIs indicated that guidelines should be elaborated. Only very few SAIs have answered that no guidelines were needed in any of the areas mentioned. So, also these answers strongly support the conclusion that there is a widespread need for INTOSAI guidelines. A roughly equal number indicated a need for further guidelines on financial auditing, compliance auditing, performance auditing and internal controls, respectively. Roughly the same number of SAIs found that the guidelines should be elaborated with regard to auditing methods, the process of planning and carrying out audits, documentation requirements and reporting. There was thus no general tendency in the answers that called for a prioritization of specific areas ahead of others.

Bettina Jakobsen said that the survey results were important to PSC's mandate for 2007-2010. Even though the answers did not give a very specific indication on what subjects to prioritize when drafting guidelines, they showed that there is a need for INTOSAI standards. There was a wide demand in the SAI community for implementation guidelines that are specific and usable for auditing tasks. It will be the task of the individual subcommittees to ensure that the guidelines are clear and reflect the similarities and differences between public and private sector auditing appropriately. The survey results were a very strong and positive encouragement to move on with the task of providing satisfying guidelines for financial, compliance and performance auditing. The yardstick by which the success of this committee will be measured within the INTOSAI community is, how far this task is completed by the end of the strategic plan in 2010.

In the following discussion many members of the committee expressed satisfaction with the survey. Gert Jönsson noted that many SAIs had answered that they refer to INTOSAI Auditing Standards in their reporting, while slightly fewer had indicated that the standards are applied directly by auditors. If possible, it could be interesting to explore further what the reason of this difference could be. Kristoffer Blegvad said that the PSC Secretariat would continue to analyse the answers to try to shed more light on some of the questions arising from the report findings. Jens Gunvaldsen said that the results show that the work performed by the PSC is widely supported. Conducting the survey had also been useful in implementing the guidelines. It was important to consider how INTOSAI could further the implementation of guidelines in the individual SAIs. Kelly Ånerud said that it was important to look ahead and consider the implementation already when drafting the guidelines. Jeanette Franzel said that the trend of convergence in international standards was also likely to lead to an increased use of the ISSAIs. GAO was currently in the process of mapping the Yellow Book back to the INTOSAI Auditing Standards. Greg Schollum strongly endorsed the survey report and the oral presentation. He asked for the minutes to reflect that he found that the analysis made was excellent. Alfred Enoh asked if the survey reflected an interest among SAIs in guidance on corruption. Kristoffer Blegvad answered that 4 SAIs had suggested standards on fraud and corruption and 2 SAIs on forensic auditing. Yvan Pedersen said that implementation was important for INTOSAI and therefore also a task of other committees. PSC's role in this respect was primarily to develop ISSAIs and make them available in the framework at the ISSAI-website.

Alta Prinsloo complimented PSC on the survey. She found it satisfying that the survey confirmed IFAC as the relevant partner for PSC in developing financial auditing guidelines. IASSB is developing a strategy on implementation which may serve as a source of inspiration to the PSC. Due to the clarification project, many redrafted standards were currently in process. IAASB was therefore considering the need to allow the auditors as well as the SAIs time for implementation.

The steering committee approved the draft report and concluded that INTOSAI's auditing standards are widely used by SAIs, though in different ways and in combination with many other standards. The survey reflects a general alignment around the "dual approach" and confirms that IFAC is the relevant source to build on for the purpose of developing financial auditing guidelines. The INTOSAI community, however, also finds that there is a great need for additional auditing guidance developed for SAIs. It will therefore be an important challenge for PSC to clarify further in the ISSAIs, the similarities and differences in public and private sector auditing. To address the need for further guidelines, PSC should, until 2010, concentrate on completing the task of providing comprehensive guidelines for financial auditing, compliance auditing, performance auditing and internal control. The survey reflects no general wish for initiatives by PSC on new subjects at this point in time. The survey report will be distributed in English at INCOSAI 2007.

3. The proposal to INCOSAI on the ISSAI framework

Bettina Jakobsen said that the exposure draft approved by the steering Commitee had been sent to all INTOSAI members for commenting. The purpose of the item was to consider the outcome of the exposure process.

Kristoffer Blegvad presented the revised proposal that will be presented at INCOSAI 2007. A summary of the comments received was included in the meeting materials. The main changes in the new draft were:

 • The document stated more clearly that the content of existing documents was not changed. The framework thus maintains the existing hierarchy of 4 levels already present in the documents previously endorsed by INCOSAI.

• The classification principles now contained a definition of each of the 4 levels.

• Level 2 was to include The Mexico Declaration on Independence and other future documents with other names than "Code". It was therefore given the new heading "Prerequisites for the functioning of Supreme Audit Institutions" instead of "Codes for Supreme Audit Institutions".

• Preambles, or introductory remarks that do not serve a guidance purpose, may be omitted from the ISSAI-document. This information will be presented elsewhere at the www.issai.org.

• The PSC was given a mandate to maintain the www.issai.org  on a daily basis. Subcommittees and working groups are to forward new ISSAIs to the PSC Chair.

The SAI of UK had proposed to rename all 4 levels in the framework. The chair considered this a good suggestion but had not included it in the draft. The reason was that it implied that the general heading of level 3 would be "Auditing Standards" and that this name had already been considered and rejected, when the steering committee considered the first draft in May 2006.

The introduction by INCOSAI 2007 of the new framework and the names International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI) and INTOSAI Guidance on Good Governance (INTOSAI GOV) was an important decision. The INCOSAI also represented an important opportunity to promote awareness of the names and the ISSAI website. The members of the steering committee were strongly encouraged to use the new names as much as possible. It was especially important to use the ISSAI and INTOSAI GOV numbers in the documents that were to be approved by INCOSAI. They should be numbered in the title and references to other documents, e.g. the INTOSAI Auditing Standards, should preferably contain the ISSAI number.

Bettina Jakobsen said that based on the many supportive comments received, she was confident that PSC had achieved a result that will to the furthest extent possible accommodate all views within the INTOSAI community. There was widespread satisfaction with the idea of numbering the INTOSAI documents and making them available in a systematic order at the ISSAI-website.

Kristoffer Blegvad asked if there were any alternative suggestions regarding the heading of level 2. Bettina Jakobsen said that these could be provided in writing during the meeting. Following this procedure, Jeanette Franzel suggested "Principles of conduct for Supreme Audit Institutions". Alfred Enoh asked how well this proposal would accommodate the new Mexico Declaration. Having reflected upon the issue, all members of the Steering Committee agreed to the heading proposed in the draft.

Kelly Ånerud said that the Financial Auditing Guidelines planned by FAS to be included in level 4, also included some guidelines that would be based on IFAC's ISQC1 on audit quality. In IFAC's framework, the quality standards were placed at a higher level than the auditing standards. It could therefore be asked whether it was correct to include these as ISSAI 1001 and ISSAI 1220. Greg Schollum said the ISSAIs on audit quality should apply to all areas of auditing and not only financial auditing. He therefore proposed that the steering committee decided that the guidance on audit quality should belong to level 2 of the framework rather than level 4. Bettina Jakobsen asked how the Chair of FAS considered the issue. Jonas Hällström said that he saw no problems in this suggestion. The work already made by FAS in the field, would probably be of value when drafting these guidelines. Bettina Jakobsen suggested that a new project, as defined by the PSC terms of reference, was established in order to develop the proposed new ISSAIs on audit quality control.

Robert Devos referred to the comments to the exposure draft made by the SAI of Greece, which had called for a clarification that the INTOSAI GOVs was a separate category of documents that did not belong to level 4. The issue had been resolved satisfactorily in the new draft.

The steering committee approved of the proposed draft with the amendment that ISSAIs on audit quality control should be included under level 2. A new project was established and given the task of drafting a proposal for new ISSAIs on audit quality control for endorsement by 2010. The numbers ISSAI 40-49 was designated to the purpose. The ISSAIs should apply to financial auditing, compliance auditing and performance auditing and be applicable by all types of SAIs (including courts) for all auditing and reporting purposes including yearly audits for the purpose of issuing declarations as well as more extensive audit examinations for the purpose of issuing special reports to parliament. The project should coordinate with FAS, CAS and PAS in order to ensure clarity in relation to existing and future auditing guidelines. Following the "dual approach", the project should consider the possibilities of building on material from other standard setting bodies, including e.g. the ISQC, and consider whether this should take the form of a permanent cooperation as the ones established in the field of financial auditing guidelines and internal control. The SAI of New Zealand will chair the project.

4. Promoting the guidelines

Bettina Jakobsen said that the PSC Secretariat has, over the last year, received questions and comments regarding the role of PSC in connection with communication and the implementation of INTOSAI standards and guidelines. The paper prepared for this item should clarify the role of PSC and harmonize our expectations regarding the PSC mandate 2007-2010.

Yvan Pedersen presented the paper. Following the steering committee's meeting in Washington, the PSC Chair had reconsidered the issue in light of the new INTOSAI communication policy that has now been presented by the Goal liaison of goal 3, the SAI of India, and in light of the activities of the Capacity Building Committee. The division of tasks in INTOSAI meant that the PSC steering committee implementation would be a matter of making the guidelines available in a user-friendly form at www.issai.org as described in the paper on the framework. It would not bring any value also to write down this task in a plan. The SAI of Canada had agreed with the SAI of India that it will also be responsible for the communication plan developed by the Subcommittee on Independence. The paper therefore suggested that PSC should continue to promote the ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs on the internet and leave it to the subcommittees to decide if further implementation activities are useful at the present stage of development of guidelines within their field. It should be left to the subcommittees to asses whether they are so far in their work with guidelines that they also want to undertake tasks of implementation and communication e.g. through cooperation with goal 2 and 3. These initiatives could be taken by the subcommittees on the basis of their mandate and should not be subject to approval by the steering committee in a common implementation plan for PSC.

Ahmed Elkasmi said that the Capacity Building Committee was taking some initiatives on implementation together with the general secretariat and the Goal liaison of goal 2. Among other things, these included peer reviews and efforts to provide more support from experts on public auditing to the SAIs. It was important to involve IAASB as well as regional institutions in the efforts of PSC and CBC to ensure implementation of the standards. Robert Devos said that though he was not against the proposal, he wanted to underline the need to actively promote the ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs. INTOSAI needed to support the SAI use of its standards. The communication policy was only a very initial step as it contained no concrete initiatives. There was a need for concrete initiatives on communication and implementation. Jens Gunvaldsen said that it was important that the formal division of responsibilities did not hinder the initiatives needed. It was important to ensure strong lines of communication between the different committiess and bodies to ensure a strong coordinated implementation effort. He found that PSC's role could be to monitor the implementation. He suggested that PSC, at a later point in time, when the new guidelines had been available for some years, should try to make an assessment, e.g. a survey, in order to follow up on how well they were implemented by the SAIs. Alta Prinsloo said that implementation was very important and that PSC could probably take inspiration from IASSB's implementation activities. These included communication initiatives as well as monitoring the process of local implementation. Bettina Jakobsen said that the PSC could perhaps encourage the Goal liaison of goal 3 to assess the need for further communication initiatives. The PSC Chair would remember the proposal to monitor implementation and return to it when the time was right.

The steering committee concluded that the task of PSC is to develop ISSAIs and promote them through the ISSAI website. This ambitious task should be the prior concern of the PSC steering committee and subcommittees until 2010. If some subcommittees find that they have the time and resources to also provide support for implementation - for example by developing tutorial materials or communication plans - they are free to do so. As the ISSAI website is already established, there is at present no need for a common PSC implementation and communication plan.

5. Maintaining the ISSAIs after 2010

Bettina Jakobsen said that this issue was very important to the PSC Chair and the subcommittee chairs. Many SAIs have invested a lot of work in establishing the ISSAI framework and developing new ISSAIs to fill it in. By the end of the Strategic Plan in 2010, PSC is expected to complete a first full version with guidelines for financial auditing, compliance auditing as well as performance auditing. This would not be a "final version" but could very well be called a first "complete version" or a "version 1.0". It was important that this should be a lasting achievement. Auditing guidance could not just be posted on a website and left untouched for years. PSC would need a mechanism to ensure continued maintenance and improvement. As previously discussed in the committee, there was also a need to ensure clarity within the framework and avoid unwanted overlaps between documents. The draft mandate to be discussed under item 6 suggested that PSC was to prepare a decision on permanent maintenance of the set of ISSAIs. In preparation for the next term 2007-2010, the steering committee should therefore start considering the kind of solution needed to meet these challenges. There was not to be taken decision at this meeting on the specific solution, but the PSC Chair would like to seek the committee's advice on the issue. The PSC Chair had therefore prepared a discussion paper in cooperation with the Chair of FAS.

Gert Jönsson presented the considerations of FAS. The resources invested until 2010 have been estimated to a total of 30 million USD. The main costs were borne by the SAIs providing experts and back-office experts to participate in the IAASB task forces and to draft Practice Notes. After 2010, when the planned set of ISSAIs on financial auditing was finished, there would continue to be a flow of changes in the ISAs. It will therefore be a permanent and resource demanding task, if INTOSAI is to continue its participation in the drafting of the ISAs and the maintenance of the practice notes. The maintenance of auditing standards was a hard daily work that required a permanent specialized staff in order to ensure consistency and clarity. A subcommittee was not a suitable structure for this task. The PSC would therefore need to find another way of organizing the work from 2010. The Chairs of PSC and FAS therefore suggested that PSC asks the XIX INCOSAI in 2007 for a mandate to prepare a proposal for the Governing Board. The mandate should make it a clear ambition to establish a permanent organizational solution from 2010. The further details on the organizational structure, location financing and competencies of the new body should be considered afterwards. In 2008, the PSC steering committee should discuss in more detail the different options. It was very important that a new permanent process is fully operational from 2010.

The subcommittee discussed the questions raised by the paper. Greg Schollum agreed that it was very important to ensure that the investment made in developing ISSAIs was not lost. When discussing how a permanent body could be established, it would also be important to consider the role of the PSC and its subcommittees after 2010. Jeanette Franzel said that there might be differences between the situation of FAS and some of the other subcommittees. At some point in the process it might be useful to let each subcommittee give a suggestion on how the issues raised in the paper should be solved. Kelly Ånerud said the solution should preferably combine permanent resources dedicated to drafting the ISSAIs with a strong relation to stakeholders. A new and more flexible involvement of SAIs would be needed. In addition to involving the INTOSAI community, it was important to maintain close contact with IFAC and IIA. Robert Devos noted that the paper did not mention the INTOSAI GOVs. He asked the PSC Secretariat to ensure that the meeting papers mentioned the INTOSAI GOVs, when relevant. The Subcommittee on Internal Control Standards had not yet considered whether the INTOSAI GOVs should be included in the new mechanism for maintenance suggested by the paper.

On the basis of the discussion, the PSC Chair will consult with the General Secretariat, INTOSAI's Strategic Director and the Finance and Administration Committee.

6. Proposal on a mandate for PSC for 2007-2010

Yvan Pedersen presented the draft mandate. The PSC Chair had in January called for contributions from all subcommittees and had in March circulated a consolidated draft for comments in the Steering Committee. The draft now presented reflected the contributions received, although contributions from some subcommittees were still outstanding. The draft implied that PSC would ask INCOSAI for approval of an overall mandate and a set of strategic goals. The mandate would be to develop and promote ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs by providing practical guidance on financial audit, compliance audit, performance audit and other areas of importance to SAIs. As decided in May 2006, PSC will take a dual approach when developing ISSAIs. PSC would have the next 3 years to achieve the ambitions of the strategic plan. Until 2010, PSC would be in a phase of development. By 2010, PSC should be ready to enter into a phase of maintenance. The goals reflected that the steering committee and subcommittees should consider 2010 to be an important deadline, by which a first complete set of ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs should be reached. There would be improvements and further elaborations to be done also after 2010 in the new structure discussed under item 6. But at this point in time, the steering committee and PSC subcommittees should not plan to develop new ISSAIs or INTOSAI GOVs unless they can be finalized for endorsement at INCOSAI in 2010. The overall strategic goals therefore concentrated on the activities of developing guidance and promoting the ISSAI and INTOSAI GOVs through www.issai.org , while other activities were to be described in the sections on each subcommittee.

The steering committee considered the wording of the mandate and discussed each of the strategic goals. Jeanette Franzel said that the wording ‘a complete set of guidelines' in the strategic goals might be misleading since it could suggest that no further improvements could be made after 2010. She suggested the word "comprehensive" instead. Roberto Tarallo advised that the word "complete" could also sound a little too self-contained. Robert Devos found that the ambition of the subcommittee on internal control to develop a web based collection of tools should also be reflected in PSC's strategic goal. Jeanette Franzel found the wording ‘permanent organisation of the continous updating and improvement of the set of ISSAIs' too inflexible and suggested ‘mandate' instead of ‘organisation' Gert Jönsson said that essentially it should not be subcommittees. He would therefore prefer permanent ‘staff' or ‘resources'. Alta Prinsloo advised that the changes in the ISAs were likely to be extensive. Experts would be required to ensure maintenance of the ISSAIs. Jens Gunvaldsen said that this was a requirement for a new process and at this stage, it would be wise to apply a flexible wording. Greg Schollum proposed "permanent mandate and structure' and the steering committee agreed on this solution. Greg Schollum said that there was a need to harmonise the sections on the individual subcommittees and suggested the section on CAS as the model.

The subcommittee approved the general mandate and strategic goals with the discussed amendments. The subcommittees should reconsider the wording of their own contributions to the mandate in light of the discussions under item 8,9, 10, 13 and 14. The final consolidated version of the mandate should be approved by a written procedure.

7. Fiscal sustainability - the role of SAIs in this context

Ernesto Da Cunha presented the goal liaisons considerations. The goal liason had forwarded a paper on the issue for consideration in PSC. The chair had therefore invited him to give a presentation to the steering committee. Fiscal sustainability and financial stability is an increasing concern shared among most states and accounting and auditing institutions. On the one hand, demographic and other trends imply growing financial needs, but on the other hand, states cannot afford increasing tax revenues. States cannot bear high levels of indebtedness jeopardizing economic growth. In many countries, the financial sources for funding social programmes and pension systems are now hitting the ceilings. Competitive pressure from globalisation and increased international regulation have challenged governments to adopt innovative approaches. Fiscal sustainability was therefore a new challenge to SAIs. Regardless of their individual mandates and modus operandi, the role of SAIs in modern states must be foreseen to increasingly concern fiscal sustainability. It could be considered to include in SAIs' mandate, statements on fiscal sustainability and how to address it. It would need to be settled under what terms the analysis of fiscal sustainability should be carried out by SAIs and how findings should be reported. Fiscal sustainability of states is already being submitted for international evaluations in the context of the EU Stability and Growth Pact, donor conditionality and structural adjustment agreements with the World Bank and IMF. These requirements would influence the task of SAIs. The purpose of the presentation was to raise a discussion in the committee on whether the matter could in the future be reflected in the ISSAIs.

The steering committee discussed the matter. Roberto Tarallo said that this was a cutting edge issue. He found it encouraging that these important matters were discussed by PSC and that the presentation was a very good starting point. It should be recognized that many of the questions asked would be very challenging and would require a lot of work and time, if INTOSAI was to address them all. Jeanette Franzel said that it was an important concern and it should continue to be discussed in INTOSAI. It was complicated and perhaps too ambitious to approach in terms of standards. GAO had experience with developing an opinion on fiscal sustainability on consolidated accounts, and had found this very challenging. Gert Jönsson said standards were not yet feasible at this stage. It should be realised that the national differences in this field would be very difficult to accommodate. Yvan Pedersen said that many of the concerns raised in the presentation would be further discussed at INCOSAI 2007, since Theme 1 will concern public debt. In light of these discussions, it could afterwards be assessed how to approach the issue. Greg Schollum found the trend important to monitor and thanked the goal liason for bringing the matter up.

The steering committee concluded that the possibility of issuing ISSAIs on fiscal sustainability should not at present be further pursued. In light of the discussions of theme 1 at INCOSAI 2007, the committee will consider if such an initiative should be taken at a later stage.

8. Report and proposals from FAS

Bettina Jakobsen said that the PSC Terms of Reference state that draft outputs of a purely technical character are not to be formally approved by the committee. The exception was made, because it was foreseen that it would not be feasible to have a detailed hearing and approval by the committee of each of the Practice Notes developed by FAS. That approval is delegated to the subcommittee in order to make the cooperation with IFAC work. The subcommittee could of course discuss the overall lines of the work presented by FAS.

Jonas Hällström presented the report, draft mandate and draft ISSAI from FAS. FAS expected to present 13 ISSAIs for endorsement at INCOSAI. The practice note for ISSAI 1230 was already approved by the Governing Board. 9 practice notes were presented in drafts for the information of the PSC steering committee, and 4 more were expected to be finalised before INCOSAI. In addition, FAS would present the introduction to the Financial Audit Guidelines (ISSAI 1000) in a draft version. There were at present 5 IAASB Task Forces with INTOSAI representatives. The funding from the World Bank has been reduced by USD 30,000. FAS has introduced the new concept of a "SWAT" in addition to the Practice Note task forces. The SWAT will consist of 4 experts and a representative from the project secretariat. 2-3 additional back-office experts will support the group. The SWAT team will have an initial meeting for 1 full week supported by the FAS secretariat which will also undertake the drafting. With this organisation, Exposure Drafts can be provided within 3-4 months. The SWAT-model will be suited for standards, which are central and need to be considered together with other ISSAIs. FAS had been in very close co-operation with the CAS Secretariat in order to align the drafts of the 2 committees. FAS had established a Compliance Audit Reference Group which has actively supported CAS. In addition FAS has a Court of Accounts Expert Group that is not fully staffed, but which has provided very useful information. A Clarity Reference Group has provided the IAASB with input for all redrafted ISAs. A new Work Plan for FAS 2008-2010 will be developed in June 2007.

Alfred Enoh said that it had previously been agreed that a project application was to be forwarded to the African Development Bank's audit trust fund. He enquired why this had not been done. Jonas Hällström answered that he would clarify the matter. Jens Gunvaldsen thanked for the close cooperation between FAS and CAS which had been very useful. Jeanette Franzel congratulated FAS on the accomplishments so far and said that the SWAT approach had proved to be very good.

The steering committee approved that the 13 ISSAIs could be presented for endorsement at INCOSAI as planned by FAS.

9. Report and proposals from CAS

Jens Gunvaldsen presented the report and draft mandate for CAS together with the draft ISSAI on compliance auditing. CAS aimed at providing guidance for audits of financial statements including concerns that public funds are used for the intended purposes, and that principles of sound management are followed in the execution of the budgets. The harmonization of public and private standards on auditing of financial statements had limits. Where tasks are the same, standards should be the same. Where tasks differ, standards should differ. There had been grave concern that the extended perspective would vanish, as INTOSAI adopts standards from IFAC as a basis for ISSAIs on audit of financial statements. FAS and CAS had coordinated their efforts so that FAS influences the private sector standards and develops Practice Notes to the ISAs, and CAS develops further guidance on compliance audit from a top down perspective. Together, the ISSAIs 1000-1999 on financial auditing and the draft ISSAI on compliance audit would provide public sector auditors with a complete set of guidelines for audits of financial statements. The proposed draft was inspired by the structure of ISAs and the principles from the IAASB Clarity project. It would contain cross-references to relevant ISSAIs on financial auditing. The IAASB framework concerned assurance of information. The objective of auditing, as defined in ISA 200, is to enable the auditor to express an opinion on whether the financial statements are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with an applicable financial reporting framework. By contrast, the objective of compliance auditing is to report to the legislature and/or other bodies whether the audited entity carries out its activities in compliance with relevant laws and parliamentary decisions and intentions. For SAIs of the court type, the task would be to pass a judgement on the entity's compliance. Some main challenges in drafting the guidelines were that it is often difficult to establish suitable audit criteria for budgetary intentions and premises, norms and standards for sound management may be documented in only fragmentary ways, the scope and characteristics of compliance audit may involve broader or specific competences, the assessments of materiality may include complex considerations of context, size and nature and reporting requirements may vary considerably among SAIs. In the next term, CAS would continue its close cooperation with FAS to ensure a consistent message in the ISSAIs and avoid unnecessary overlaps. The aim should be adaptation to the IAASB framework, including addressing particular public sector concerns. A broad collection of examples and practices from SAIs would be brought together in order to elaborate the planned application material. Jens Gunvaldsen asked for comments to the draft ISSAI.

In the discussion of the ISSAI, many members of the steering committee expressed concern that the draft presented would be relevant only to limited aspects of the tasks of compliance auditing. Roberto Tarallo advised that although it was correct that some compliance auditing tasks of SAIs were linked to audits of financial statements, PSC should remember that compliance auditing tasks were often undertaken under other circumstances. Questions on compliance with laws and parliamentary decisions often concerned the result of the operations of the public entities. Compliance auditing did not only concern legality of account transactions. Ernesto Da Cunha said that the draft ISSAI would be relevant to the Anglo-Saxon model, but would be of limited relevance to the rest of the world. Compliance auditing did not necessarily take the financial statements as a starting point, but could also be a separate engagement to issue a special report. Further, the draft did not reflect the special role of auditing courts very well. Alta Prinsloo advised that it was important to be able to trace the level of assurance. In IAASB's framework, the key question is whether there is material misstatement in the information presented by the management of the audited entity. It was a challenge to ensure that it could be determined, when the auditor had performed the work required to express an opinion. She recognised that the challenge was the wider purpose of SAI compliance auditing. However, in the draft ISSAI, it appeared that among the auditor's duties is the establishment of audit criteria. In her view, it was essential to auditing that management provided the statement and was responsible for the identification of the applicable criteria with which the statement should conform. According to the IAASB framework, the auditor should not be responsible for that. Ahmed Elkasmi said that the section on page 15 on Court of Accounts should be developed. The SAI of Morocco performed extensive audit examinations on compliance as well as financial statements audits. Alfred Enho said that compliance auditing was important to the SAIs and found that more guidance, than currently contained in the draft, would be needed.

Kristoffer Blegvad said that the advantage of the new framework was that all guidance on compliance auditing did not need to be contained in one single document. All the numbers from ISSAI 4000 to 4999 were designated to compliance auditing. It would be helpful not to think in terms of large comprehensive documents. Instead the guidelines could consist of several more limited documents, which would give PSC and CAS a greater flexibility. If the steering committee considered the draft presented useful for some purposes, but in need of supplementing, the appropriate solution would be to pass the draft ISSAI, but classify it as a guideline of a limited scope. The plans for more comprehensive guidance could be decided in the mandate and work plan. Jeanette Franzel and Ernesto Da Cunha suggested that a clear division was made between compliance auditing in relation to financial statements and other elements in financial auditing. Both would be relevant. Alta Prinsloo advised that PSC would first complete the present draft concerning financial statements. Greg Schollum suggested that the application material planned by CAS may not be so important. In light of the discussion, CAS might need to concentrate on developing new more comprehensive guidance on compliance auditing.

Monika Gonzalez-Koss said that it was important to be aware of the procedure for publication and distribution of committee products described in the INTOSAI Handbook (Chapter V). Upon approval by PSC the subcommittee chairs must circulate an exposure draft to all INTOSAI members. At INCOSAI the final document to be endorsed should be made available in the 5 INTOSAI languages in the prescribed INTOSAI format. A sufficient number of copies should be sent to the hosts in Mexico in due time before the congress. This procedure applied to ISSAIs, INTOSAI GOVs and other products, which are to become official INTOSAI documents.

Jens Gunvaldsen summarised the discussion and thanked for the many comments. He had concluded from the discussion that CAS should clarify that the ISSAI concerned compliance auditing in relation to financial statements only. CAS would contact the SAI of Portugal to obtain more advice regarding compliance auditing by courts of auditors. He also thought some work would be needed to clarify the criteria and define reasonable assurance with greater clarity. The chair of CAS would also suggest to the subcommittee that it considers how the planning for 2010 should be revised in light of the discussion.

Bettina Jakobsen suggested that in light of the comments, the draft ISSAI should be classified as ISSAI 4100 and a new more general guideline (ISSAI 4000) should be planned for 2010. If ISSAI 4000 could be based on the introduction of the present draft and the issue paper previously presented by CAS, it would perhaps be possible to present a first draft already at INCOSAI 2007. It should be clarified in the title and introduction that ISSAI 4100 was not intended to cover compliance audit in general, but only concerned additional tasks performed in connection with audit of financial statements.

The steering committee concluded that CAS should amend its proposal in order to present it to INCOSAI for endorsement as ISSAI 4100 on compliance auditing aspects in relation to audits of financial statements. A new general introduction on compliance auditing is to be developed as ISSAI 4000 and CAS should by 2010 provide further guidelines on the compliance auditing tasks of SAIs not covered by ISSAI 4100.

10. Report and proposals from PAS

Omir Lavinas presented the report from PAS. The situation of PAS was different than the situation of FAS and CAS, since a set of implementation guidelines for performance auditing (ISSAI 3000) was already endorsed in 2004. The subcommittee chair had consulted with IDI on performance audit training to asses. how the guidelines could be used in the training and how PAS could assist. PAS was also considering if there was a need for additional guidance on "smaller scale" performance auditing tasks. The ISSAI 3000 mainly concerned extensive audits for the purpose of issuing a special report. The intention was to make an assessment of the needs through consultations with IDI, as well as members of the subcommittee. A more detailed work program was to be developed at a later stage.

Abdelhakim Ben Lazreg said that IDI has used the INTOSAI Implementation Guidelines for Performance Auditing (ISSAI 3000) as reference material in its course design. The IDI has recently developed a new Strategic Plan 2007-2012, which has a more comprehensive capacity building scope than the previous strategic plan. Training is no longer conducted as a stand alone activity, but may be one of several components in a capacity building programme. IDI will during 2007 carry out a comprehensive needs assessment for future capacity building interventions in some INTOSAI regions. The future programmes will depend on the results of the needs assessments. IDI will share the results related to performance auditing with PAS. Greg Schollum asked how the PAS Chair perceived the question of whether PAS should work on updating or supplementing the performance auditing guidelines or only work in the field of implementation. Omir Lavinas answered that the work on implementation would be based on the ISSAI 3000. It was to be decided, through the process described. whether it would be useful and achievable to make some kind of supplementary guidelines on "smaller scale" performance auditing tasks. Jens Gunvaldsen said that it appeared from Alta Prinsloo's presentation (item 11) that IASSB was considering whether it would launch a project on performance auditing. He encouraged PAS to follow this development. Omir Lavinas said that PAS would take this into account. Gert Jönsson said that he agreed that it would be wise to also work in the field of guidelines.

The mandate and work plan of all subcommittees including the list of new ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs planned for 2010 will be approved by the steering committee by a written procedure.

11. Presentation from IFAC/IAASB

Bettina Jakobsen thanked Alta Prinsloo for taking initiative to make this presentation in order to inform the steering committee of the activities of IFAC. It was useful to use such occasions also for sharing information on the activities and considerations of our various organizations.

Alta Prinsloo gave a presentation on the structure of IFAC, the results of IFAC's survey and the present strategic considerations of IAASB. The clarity project would reach its end in 2008 or 2009. Afterwards, IAASB would have a more open agenda. She therefore asked for input from the INTOSAI community on the priorities to be set. The survey had resulted in a list of recommendations to IAASB, which could also serve as inspiration to PSC. To increase awareness and assist the implementation of ISAs, it was recommended to make a communication plan, to establish a "silent" period where no new ISAs would become effective, to work out implementation guidance to the ISAs on small and medium sized enterprises, as well as emerging economies and specific industries, and to make a post-implementation review of clarity redrafted ISAs. It was also recommended to redraft the general standards on review and other assurance engagements (ISREs, ISAEs and ISRSs) in "clarity style" and develop more operational standards on certain assurance engagements such as sustainability reports or reporting on internal control. Further, it was recommended to develop a conceptual framework that would ensure more consistent language in the standards.

The committee discussed the priorities of IAASB. Jens Gunvaldsen said that after a period of shock, the auditing industry was now probably shifting its attention back to assurance services. He encouraged IASSB to support this development, e.g. by initiatives on implementation. Alta Prinsloo answered that a survey on implementation should wait some years to allow the industry time to absorb the many revisions of ISAs, resulting from the clarity project. Kelly Ånerud advised that the public sector perspectives in the ISA 200-series should be given high priority. Roberto Tarallo advised that fraud and corruption should also be prioritised. Alta Prinsloo answered that these issues belonged to ISA 240, where they should be highlighted in the ISA and Practice note. Alta Prinsloo said the ISAE 3000 concerning assurance of information from management (other than financial statements) was used in Australia as a framework for performance auditing and compliance auditing. Jens Gunvaldsen said that very few SAIs perceive the ISAE 3000 to be an alternative to the INTOSAI Auditing Standards. He found it interesting though to consider how the IFAC-INTOSAI cooperation in this field could be extended. Alta Prinsloo said that the ISAE was a generic standard, designed to apply to all kinds of assurance tasks. It was therefore bound to be rather abstract. The IAASB framework concerned only tasks of assurance of information presented by the audited entity. Performance auditing was one of the topics on the list of possible new IAASB initiatives. IAASB realised, however, that it does not have the expertise required in the field of public sector compliance auditing and performance auditing. This expertise would have to be provided by the INTOSAI community. Jeanette Franzel said that the SAI of USA made use of private auditors for oversight tasks on compliance and performance. She also suggested that it could be useful to have a closer cooperation on IFAC's ethics standards. Alta Prinsloo said that it could be considered if the MoU should be extended also to ethics standards. Meanwhile, she encouraged the SAIs to comment on the exposure drafts.

12. Report and proposals from the SC on SAI Independence

The chair presented the report and the proposed draft on behalf of the subcommittee chair, the SAI of Canada (absent). The proposed charter had been discussed previously in the steering committee and had now been in exposure draft. The title would be "ISSAI 10 - Mexico Declaration on Independence". The 3 other documents included in the meeting materials were already approved, but had now been classified into the framework. The communication policy also developed was to be carried through by the goal 3 liaison, the SAI of India. The subcommittee would be dissolved at INCOSAI.

Alta Prinsloo said that in IFAC's experience it could be unclear whether sentences starting with ‘should' or sentences in simple present tense were to be understood as the strongest form. IFAC was therefore abolishing the use of "should". She advised that PSC do the same.

The steering committee warmly congratulated the subcommittee and especially the SAI of Canada on the achievement. The proposed ISSAI 10 was approved with no amendment.

13. Report and proposals from the SC on Internal Control

Ignace Desomer presented the activity report and a proposed INTOSAI GOV. The subcommittee had met in the Sultanate of Oman in January and decided to create an electronic platform with existing internal control tools and guidance on good governance as foreseen by the decision of INCOSAI in 2004. The chair will send a letter to all INTOSAI members to collect existing tools and make them available at PSC's website. The platform was a result of the combined survey on the development of internal control tools and aspects of good governance. The aim of the survey had been to promote the implementation and the auditing of internal control systems. 55 INTOSAI members (30%) had responded. Over 65 % indicated that their respective governments are at stage 3 or 4 of internal control maturity, as defined by the questionnaire. The respondents to the survey generally indicated a need for internal control tools (e.g. general implementation guidebooks and checklists). Many SAIs stated, however, that they have certain tools already available in their countries. Another task discussed was the further elaboration of the guidelines. Already during the preparation of the draft INTOSAI GOV now presented, many SAIs had insisted that they should pay extra attention to internal audits and to the relation between internal and external audit. Another wish regarded the examination of the relation between the new COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework and the INTOSAI GOV guidelines to check whether the guidelines should be supplemented with an explanatory document. In line with the dual approach, the development of guidance would build on a permanent cooperation with the International Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA).

Greg Schollum said that he liked the idea of an electronic platform. He asked what processes were foreseen in order to ensure clarity and consistence in the materials. Robert Devos answered that the idea was to make a range of materials available. This would include tools for self-assessment, developed by the SAI of the Netherlands, which could be used to assess the level of internal controls. Ahmed Ibrahim Al Baluchi asked if the proposed numbering of the draft as INTOSAI GOV 9130 was correct, since the document was an updating of the existing guidelines and should rather replace them. Ignace Desomer answered that the subcommittee chair would consider the numbering.

The steering committee approved the draft for a new INTOSAI GOV. The subcommittee chair will coordinate with the PSC Secretariat to decide on the numbering and clarify whether the document replaces any of the existing INTOSAI GOVs.

14. Report from Subcommittee on Accounting and reporting

Jeanette Franzel presented the report and a proposed text on the committee for the mandate. The subcommittee would continue to contribute to IFAC International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) through active involvement as an observer and by encouraging SAIs to provide comments on exposure drafts directly to the IPSASB. The subcommittee would prepare periodic reports to the INTOSAI membership on the activities.

Jens Gunvaldsen said that the transition from cash based to accrual based accounting was a general trend in many countries. It was an important issue that could not be regarded as technical, but had political implications too. It also posed the risk of raising the costs of accounting disproportionately if the standards applied were not adapted to public sector needs. He encouraged the subcommittee to consider if a more active approach on these issues could be taken. Bettina Jakobsen said that in the experience of Denmark, the transition to accrual based budgeting and accounting was a challenge for the administrative authorities as well as the SAI. She found it could be a good idea to address the issue at some point in the future. Jeanette Franzel said that the subcommittee has foreseen that it would be relevant to make an assessment after 2010 on whether the accounting standards were being used by the SAIs. Greg Schollum said that it might be useful to include the INTOSAI GOVs on accounting under the new review mechanism that was planned to be established by PSC by 2010. Kelly Ånerud said that accounting was a priority in IFAC's strategic plan, and a more active approach by INTOSAI was therefore required.

15. Project on transparency and accountability

Ignace Desomer presented the progress report on behalf of the project chair, the SAI of France (absent). The report included a draft set of principles. These were based on a search on the internet for mandates and procedures of SAIs as well as draft principles that had previously been discussed by the steering committee at its meetings in Oslo, Washington and Yaoundé. The project chair found that in order to reach the goal of presenting a set of draft principles for INCOSAI 2007, the project group would need to be extended.

Klaus-Henning Busse said that the new principles on transparency and accountability represented one of the most important initiatives taken by the strategic plan and they were mentioned explicitly under goal 1. He was concerned about the progress and had therefore previously written to the PSC Chair on the matter. Bettina Jakobsen said that there would be no value in discussing the progress of the preparations for INCOSAI 2007, when the project chair was absent. The PSC Chair was confident that the project would be completed in due time before the INCOSAI 2010, which was the deadline of the strategic plan. She suggested that the PSC Secretariat would meet with the project chair to discuss the plans for finalizing the project.

Jeanette Franzel offered that the SAI of USA would be willing to join the project group. Ignace Desomer said that the SAI of Belgium would continue to participate. Kelly Ånerud said that rather than ‘best practice' it would be useful to collect examples of ‘good practice'.

The steering committee concluded that the PSC Chair was to consult with the project chair on the progress. The committee approved that draft principles may be presented in English for information at INCOSAI.

16. Work plan for PSC 2007-2010

Kristoffer Blegvad presented a draft for the consolidated work plan of PSC for 2007-2010. The purpose of the work plan was to present the planning of PSC on the development of new ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs that were to be added to the framework in 2010. The numbering and title of the documents should appear from the plan as well as the milestones to be met before the Governing Board meetings in November 2008 and 2009. The PSC also needed to establish the final list of ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs that will be submitted for endorsement at INCOSAI 2007.

The working plan and list of documents will be circulated for approval together with the mandate.

17. Memorandum of Understanding with the IIA

Robert Devos presented the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and gave a summary of the process leading to the draft. Following the steering committee meeting in Washington in May 2006, where IIA had participated, IIA had sent an e-mail expressing its wish to establish a formal cooperation. The PSC Chair asked the chair of the subcommittee on internal control to draft a memorandum of understanding. In October the subcommittee chair learned that the president of IIA had a meeting with the secretary general of INTOSAI. On that occasion, he reiterated the importance of a strong working collaboration and relationship between INTOSAI and IIA. The PSC Chair was informed by the Secretary General that INTOSAI was looking forward to a close cooperation with IIA. A draft MoU between PSC and IIA had been discussed by the Governing Board in Mexico in November 2006, and INTOSAI's General Secretary had advised the PSC Chair that the MoU should be concluded. The final draft had been approved by the subcommittee on internal control standards at its meeting in Oman in January 2007. The subcommittee had greatly appreciated the expertise and quality of the work of IIA, and the 26 SAIs assembled in Oman had endorsed the memorandum with enthusiasm. The MoU was an important milestone and essential to the subcommittee's planning for the coming years. However, the INTOSAI General Secretary had in letter of 22 March 2007 informed the chair of the subcommittee on internal control standards that the MoU was no longer appropriate and desirable since IIA was to become an associate member of INTOSAI. It had now been agreed with the General Secretariat that the MoU with IIA could be concluded by the Subcommittee Chair instead of the PSC Chair. Further, the wording of article 3 of the MoU was to be changed so it reads "[...] can circulate in advance for review [...]" instead of "[...] will circulate in advance for review [...]".

Kelly Ånerud said she was surprised to read the General Secretary's letter of 22 March 2007 and asked if the General Secretariat would explain its reasoning. Monika Gonzalez-Koss explained that the Finance and Administration Committee had in March decided on the list of associate members. Though the list was subject to approval by Governing Board, it was now very certain that IIA would become associate member. The General Secretariat had reasoned that a MoU with PSC would be superficial in light of the associate membership of IIA. Alta Prinsloo said that IFAC would recommend a MoU between PSC and IIA. She underlined that a MoU expressed a mutual commitment and implied that both organisations were represented in each other's decision making bodies. She did not find that the associate membership could replace a MoU.

The subcommittee discussed how the matter could best be solved. Jeanette Franzel compared the MoU with IFAC. She found that a MoU concluded at PSC level implied that a wider cooperation was foreseen in the future. Jens Gunvaldsen wanted the content of the MoU with IIA to be broader than in the draft and not limited to internal control standards. Greg Schollum pointed to quality control as a likely new area of cooperation with IIA. Gert Jönsson said that FAS was very comfortable with the present MoU with IFAC which reflected a deep and long term commitment on both parties. Bettina Jakobsen summarised the discussion and said that all members of the steering committee favoured a MoU concluded by PSC with IIA. The PSC Chair would therefore consult with the General Secretary in order to find a solution to the questions of formality arising from the new status of IIA as an associate member. The Chair would seek a swift solution in line with the views expressed.

The Steering Committee concluded that it strongly confirms its desire to create a cooperation process that will enable PSC and IIA to benefit from their respective work and involvement. The committee encouraged PSC to enter into a MoU with IIA and asked the Chair to consult with the General Secretary on the matter. After the meeting, the MoU has been approved by the steering committee by a written procedure.

18. Reporting at the INCOSAI 2007

 Yvan Pedersen presented the paper on INCOSAI 2007. The procedure for reporting would be the same as at the Governing Board meetings. There should therefore be only one report for PSC which should cover all subcommittees. The PSC Secretariat would ask for contributions to the report. The PSC Chair and goal liason were to meet in May to discuss the organisation of the PSC meeting and other PSC activities in connection with INCOSAI.

Kristoffer Blegvad said that the subcommittees should remember to arrange for translations of the ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs to all official INTOSAI languages. He thanked the SAIs of Belgium and Brasil who had promised to assist with the translation of the proposal establishing the framework. He asked the Secretariat General if there would be a general solution for translations into German, as this had previously been a problem. Monika Gonzalez-Koss said she would consider what could be done. Jens Gunvaldsen said that a more general solution should be established. CAS were planning to use the process of FAS. Jonas Hällström explained that FAS would make use of a translation firm, but would have the translations validated in the subcommittee. The process would reduce the risk of mistranslations. Bettina Jakobsen said that the PSC Chair would consider Jens Gunvaldsen's proposal in connection with the considerations on establishing a permanent maintenance process.

The steering committee concluded that PSC should present one common report at INCOSAI. The subcommittee chairs would be invited to give the oral presentation on the subcommittee's achievements. The presentations for the meeting of PSC (main committee) in connection with INCOSAI are to be coordinated by the PSC Chair and goal liaison. INCOSAI should be used to promote www.issai.org  and the ISSAIs and INTOSAI GOVs.

19. Next meeting

Dong Dasheng said that he was very much looking forward to receiving the PSC in China in the autumn of 2008. He asked if 3 days in mid-/late September in Beijing would be appropriate. Bettina Jakobsen thanked the SAI of China for their offer to host the meeting.

The PSC Steering committee will meet in September 2008 (Beijing), April/May 2009 (host awaiting confirmation) and April/May 2010 (Copenhagen).

20. Any other business

 (None)

21. Closing remarks

Ahmed Ibrahim Al Baluchi closed the meeting. It had been a great pleasure hosting the meeting and the time spent with the steering committee members would remain a cherished memory.

Bettina Jakobsen thanked the hosts for the absolutely perfect organisation of the meeting.