Decision on Taking Business in Private
Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Public Audit Committee. I ask members of the public, committee members and anyone else present to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off. We are joined by a photographer who is taking pictures for the Parliament’s annual report; he will probably take a few shots at the start of the meeting and then leave us to it.
I welcome from Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission Bob Black, John Baillie, Barbara Hurst and Cathy MacGregor, who will brief us on a section 23 report—“Commissioning social care”—and a couple of other agenda items.
First, I ask the committee to agree to take in private items 5 and 6, to allow us to decide how to take forward work on the “Commissioning social care” report. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Before we carry on, convener, I should declare an interest as a member of North Lanarkshire Council.
Thank you for that.
Convener, I would like to say something before we move to item 2. I appreciate that I am a very new member of the committee but I note that, last week, the Accounts Commission published a report on the Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service that I think was the most critical I have ever seen. I had thought that the committee would get the report and look into the matter but I was quite shocked to find that the Parliament does not scrutinise Accounts Commission reports. I am not sure why that is—perhaps those who have been committee members for longer will say something about that—but I simply point out that the report criticised the leadership; said that 35 stations were not up to standard; and had things to say about investment in equipment and information technology. That is not new information, but worst of all the report said that firefighters on the front line—in other words, the people who put their lives on the line for us—were not fully trained or fully equipped.
As an MSP, I am shocked that the Parliament is not allowed to scrutinise or demonstrate any responsibility for one of our emergency services. I appreciate that many of the committee’s members are councillors and that responsibility for the matter lies with local government. However, as far as I am aware, the fire service receives part—if not 50 per cent—of its funding from the Government; it is an emergency service but, despite the fact that this is the most critical report that I have seen in 13 years, it will receive no parliamentary scrutiny. I have received very helpful advice from the clerk but I simply repeat that I was shocked to find that we are not allowed to pursue the matter. I just wanted to get my comments on the record and to seek members’ views.
Thank you. Before I respond, does anyone wish to comment?
Just as Mark Griffin declared his interest in a local authority, I should declare an interest as a member of the City of Edinburgh Council.
I will have to do the same, then.
I suppose that we had all better declare our interests.
Indeed. When Mr Griffin was making his declaration, it crossed my mind that he might not be the only one who should do so.
Can I respond to the issue raised by Mary Scanlon, convener?
Yes, but we seem to be doing the declaration of interests first.
I, too, declare an interest in that respect.
I was taken by surprise by Mary Scanlon’s comments. Where will anyone get an opportunity to carry out the scrutiny that she has suggested is required?
Correct me if I am wrong but, as a previous member of Strathclyde Fire and Rescue board, I assume that scrutiny will be carried out by the local fire board members. I certainly know that, when I was part of the board, such issues were taken very seriously.
Last week, I discussed this matter with members of the trade union, who were visiting Parliament. They said that they have been bringing these particular issues to the attention of the leadership of Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service for five years now. I acknowledge George Adam’s point but I am concerned that, despite their doing their level best to bring these issues to management’s attention, the unions have still been ignored. I realise that some measures have been put in place but the report is shocking and as a parliamentarian I regret that I have to say to the firefighters, “I’m sorry but I can’t do anything about this except try to raise it at First Minister’s questions”.
I thank Mary Scanlon for raising the issue and Willie Coffey and George Adam for their comments.
After Mary Scanlon expressed to me her concern that we would not look at the issue, I sought advice on the matter and was told that, given its remit, the committee cannot scrutinise Accounts Commission reports such as the best-value audit of Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service. The report is neither laid in Parliament nor falls within the Auditor General for Scotland’s remit. As the position is enshrined in statute, it is somewhat stronger than a convention. My layperson’s understanding of that advice is that, in essence, the police and fire and rescue services are considered to be part of local government and therefore, as Mr Adam indicated, they are accountable to local government, the boards and joint boards and elected members.
That said, as someone who is even newer to the committee than Mary Scanlon, I, too, was quite astonished to see the report and realise that the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee would not be able to consider it. Like her, I think that this is one of the worst best-value reports that I have ever seen. Although accountability might lie with the fire board, any reading of the report makes it clear that a great deal of the criticism is directed at that very board and its leadership. I guess that the additional scrutiny from the Accounts Commission is the issue at play.
Mr Coffey asked where scrutiny would take place. Having sought advice, I have no satisfactory answer to that. I imagine that the issue could be raised in Parliament by asking ministerial questions, or the Local Government and Regeneration Committee could find some way of considering it. However, none of that would be a formal part of the best-value scrutiny process. Given that some of the funding for Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service—I do not know the exact figure, but it must be about 50 per cent—comes from central Government, I find it curious that, according to the advice that I have received, the committee cannot consider the report. I assume that the situation will change when the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill goes through and the single police service and fire and rescue service are created.
We have to leave the matter there, but I am grateful to Mary Scanlon for raising the issue and allowing us to clarify things.
We are now eight minutes into the meeting. I wonder whether, if such issues are to be brought to the committee’s attention in future, it might be helpful to inform other members about them. I had no idea that Mary Scanlon was going to bring the matter to the table.
Mrs Scanlon had asked for clarification, but I take the point.
That would be helpful.
Let us now move back to our agenda.