“The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service”
Agenda item 5 is consideration of a written submission from the Scottish Government on the Auditor General for Scotland’s report, “The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service”. Members may recall that we noted the AGS’s report at a previous evidence session in May. The submission was in response to the follow-up to the committee’s questions. Do colleagues have questions or comments?
Sorry—it is me again. I highlighted the recruitment of retained firefighters. I appreciate that that is not a big issue in Glasgow, Edinburgh or other big cities, but the recruitment of retained firefighters is essential to having a fit-for-purpose fire and rescue service in the Highlands and Islands. Paul Johnston’s letter from the Scottish Government makes no mention of and gives no commitment on the recruitment of retained firefighters. I want to put it on the record that I hope that we will get an update from Alasdair Hay or Pat Watters. I think that such an update was promised towards the end of the year. I would like to think that the accountable officer is on board in relation to those concerns.
I will pick up on Mary Scanlon’s comments. It is not an issue only in the Highlands and Islands—every rural community is dependent on volunteer firefighters. I share her concern, as we need to keep an eye on the issue across the whole fire service.
Subject to the comments that have been made, do we agree to note the submission?
Members indicated agreement.
“Scotland’s colleges 2015”
We move on to agenda item 6. We have received written submissions from the Scottish Government, the SFC and Audit Scotland on the Auditor General for Scotland’s report, “Scotland’s colleges 2015”. The draft report that we will consider under item 8 takes the responses into account. Do members have any comments or questions on the responses?
Sorry—it is me again. A couple of figures jumped out at me. I am very pleased to see that the colleges have increased—although it is only a slight increase—the number of students from deprived backgrounds. We have to welcome that. However, I am shocked that the figures for the Highlands and Islands indicate that only 4 per cent of students come from the 10 per cent most deprived areas, whereas the figure for Forth Valley indicates that 27.9 per cent of students come from those areas. Why can some colleges do so well in opening opportunities to students from deprived backgrounds and others do so badly?
My other point relates to Audit Scotland’s submission. It states that 23 members of staff left North Highland College through compulsory redundancies and that there were also some compulsory redundancies at Fife College. We have been told constantly since the mergers in 2013 that there were no compulsory redundancies. I wanted to note that point and put it on the record.
I echo Mary Scanlon’s comments on the issue that she has highlighted. Is it worth trying to do some work on why there are such wide differences in the figures in annex A of the SFC’s submission? I would just like to understand the reasons for those differences—I am not being critical of anybody. One can understand that there are very small numbers in very small places, so I do not want us to worry about the 0.0s that occasionally creep in, but the figure in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire is only 5 per cent, whereas the figure for Glasgow Kelvin College is 35 per cent. I would like to understand that difference. What is hiding behind that? Is there something else that we should be teasing out?
How do we wish to take forward the issues that colleagues have raised?
Is there a mechanism for looking at variation? In addition to reporting the numbers, does the SFC go in and investigate outliers? Does it do funnel plots and say, “Here are the outliers. Why is the figure for Glasgow Kelvin College 35 per cent? What is it doing right? How has it overcome the barriers?” On the other hand, does the SFC investigate what efforts the colleges that are at zero, 0.4 per cent or whatever are making? Can we ask the SFC whether there is such a mechanism?
I suggest that the clerk takes on board the points that have been raised and that we go back to seek further clarity on them before we come back to the committee on the issue. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
As previously agreed, we will move into private session for agenda items 7 and 8.
10:36 Meeting continued in private until 12:12.Previous
Section 22 Reports