We move to item 3. We are considering a response from the Scottish Executive to a report by the Auditor General for Scotland on the 2001 and 2002 water authority audits. Members might recall that the Auditor General briefed the committee on the report on 7 January. The committee agreed to write to the Executive seeking information on some of the points that were raised in our report. We now have the Executive's response to our request for information.
There is an interesting point on page 2 of the response. Concern is expressed about the collection rates of water and sewerage charges, which are still falling behind the rate for comparable water companies in England and Wales. It would be helpful if the Executive gave a little more detail about its thinking and mentioned recommendations that it might have to improve the rates.
We raised with the Executive the point that Scottish Water does not pursue the collection rates individually, but leaves that up to individual councils, although it is Scottish Water's responsibility. That is one of the points that we identified in the report, but it appears to have been ignored.
I refer to the point—at the top of page 2 of the response—about efficiency savings' having been made largely through there being better trained staff. I would like that to be elaborated on. There seems to have been quite a dramatic loss of staff—the figure was about 600. I would like to know from what areas those staff were lost. One would expect the number of administration staff to be reduced, but I would be concerned if there was a dramatic reduction of staff in the field.
I note the on-going reorganisation and modernisation of the business with regard to achieving levels of efficiency, the monitoring that is taking place and the action on the level of outstanding debt. No time scale is given for the agreements with the local authorities and there is no indication of how far the process has developed; I would certainly like to hear about that. I note Keith Raffan's comment about staff and I suggest that we write to the Executive seeking further information on those specific points. Is that agreed?
The clerk has reminded me, as usual, that we asked about the Executive's role. I notice that in responding to us the Executive has talked about everything but its role. I seek the committee's agreement that we write to the Executive to seek information on its action regarding the matters. Is that agreed?
We should remind ourselves that the exchange so far has related to the last few of the old water authorities. I have had a conversation with the people at Scottish Water, alerting them to the committee's concerns about the matters to which members have referred, and I have advised them that in the first-year audit of Scottish Water, I expect the appointed auditor to return to those issues, so that I may in turn report to the Audit Committee about the performance of Scottish Water in its first year.
The Auditor General is suggesting that the process be allowed to develop and that Scottish Water will be the subject of a future report. Do you think that it would be premature to write now?
That is entirely for the committee to decide. You might wish to take it into account that we will be returning to these issues soon.
My comments stand, regardless of the action that will be taken by the Auditor General, because we are looking for an Executive view on how certain issues might be dealt with. The Executive is ultimately responsible for water services—there is no ducking out of that. We must still pursue the Executive's viewpoints, on which I would like clarification.
Is that course of action agreed?
I agree with that course of action. The second and third paragraphs of the Executive response restate the responsibilities of the Executive and Scottish Water. However, there is no mention of the water industry commissioner. Perhaps the letter should set out the relationships in that respect, because at the moment such a short commentary is not really helpful to anyone who does not already know about them. The information should be expanded just a little bit.
Again, it might be helpful to remind the committee that my report contains a section that describes those relationships. That text was cleared with the relevant people at accountable officer level.
The two actions could be complementary. We could raise the committee's immediate questions with the Executive and receive responses to them, and our successors will have the benefit of the Auditor General's more detailed report. Are members agreed?
We look forward to the Auditor General's future report.