Official Report 135KB pdf
“Police call management”
We come to item 5. Members have before them correspondence from the accountable officer in respect of the committee's report "Police call management". Are there any comments?
I want to sing my old song about attendance times at non-emergency calls. The pattern across the forces in Scotland shows that attendance times are a wee bit inconsistent. I keep stressing that, and will continue to do so until we get an indication that some reporting will be done, either within the forces or as part of the standardised reporting framework that is under way. I am a wee bit concerned, because the times seem so inconsistent. In fact, one or two of the pieces of information do not tell us anything about non-emergency attendance times and how they are produced and reported, even within the forces concerned. I am a wee bit disappointed by the progress that has been made on that. I seek advice from colleagues as to how we can push this a bit further so that things happen more quickly.
Does Mr Black have any comments?
No. The report that we produced on police systems is now of some age. We can add very little that is helpful to the committee at this stage.
Okay. We have Willie Coffey's comments on record. We have to decide whether just to note the response, to refer the matter to the Justice Committee for its information or to go back to the accountable officer for more information. I am not sure that going back to the accountable officer will tell us that much more at this stage. I suggest that we note the report and refer it to the Justice Committee.
We must ensure that the issue does not drop off the radar. The time taken by the police to attend non-emergency calls is an important issue that many constituents raise with me. It is an issue of great concern to my constituents and, I am sure, to others throughout Scotland.
We could perhaps ask for information on non-emergency calls to go into the Government's 2010 progress report. Is it a sufficiently live issue for the police boards? Presumably, they have had the matter on their own agendas. Do we know whether it has been discussed at each of the police boards?
I am sorry—I do not have that information, but we can certainly find out more.
To take an example, Central Scotland Police does not record attendance times at non-emergency calls at all. We have been discussing the issue for a long time now. We understand that there is a framework in place to develop an indicator at a national level.
As well as referring the report to the Justice Committee, why do we not circulate copies of the response from Robert Gordon to all MSPs for their interest? If there are any local issues that they wish to pursue with their respective boards, they may do so. Is that okay?
Members indicated agreement.
“Major Capital Projects”
Item 6 is on the report "Major Capital Projects". We have correspondence from the accountable officer. A fairly large list of projects has been identified. The decisions that require to be made will be very much influenced by what happens in the forthcoming budget, when there will be major challenges. I invite contributions from members before I invite Audit Scotland to comment.
Nowhere in the progress report before us is it mentioned where the money is coming from to fund each project. Why is that?
There is nothing on that in the response from the accountable officer, but we have had a look at the list of projects. I will be able to give some figures in a moment.
That is the $64,000 question—or perhaps $64 billion question. Annex A says at the beginning:
It is each project with a value that is greater than £50 million.
I see. But the total will come to billions of pounds.
Up to around £10 billion or £11 billion is included in the list.
The list is incomplete, however. It is not meaningless, but it is not very helpful if we do not know, in each case, how the project will be funded. The information has been provided by the permanent secretary, has it? It is not from Audit Scotland. Is it possible for Audit Scotland to report to us at some point on how each project is to be funded? How can we establish that?
As I am sure the committee will remember, we have a commitment in the programme to revisit the theme of the management of major capital projects next year. As you indicated in your opening remarks, convener, the situation will change: very soon, we will hear the Government's announcement on the budget. Within the reasonably near future, I imagine, issues around some major projects where there is not a funding commitment will become clearer.
The list in annex A is a useful one to which Audit Scotland can give significant scrutiny. For example, from the figures in the "Estimated Capital Value" column, one can see that some of these significant projects have not had a cost update for a number of years—some costs are at 2003 values and others are at projected 2012 outturn values. In a sense, we are comparing apples and pears; the cost figures in that column are not consistent and therefore not directly comparable. As has been said, the list now includes projects that will be funded through a public-private partnership approach, traditional capital spend projects and projects that are being funded on a wing and a prayer.
For the moment, there is not much more that we can do until we get the results of Audit Scotland's further work on the matter and see the outcome of the budget discussions. Do members agree to note the paper?
Members indicated agreement.
Next
Section 23 Report