Auditor General for Scotland Reports (Responses)
“A performance overview of sport in Scotland”
On item 5, we have received a response from the accountable officer to the Auditor General's report. Are there any comments?
Paragraph 7 of the response states:
"There is evidence that Active Schools is making a contribution to helping pupils meet the recommended daily activity levels of 60 minutes accumulated activity per day".
Where is that evidence? What does "making a contribution" actually mean? What exactly is the £12 million each year producing? The response refers to "making a contribution" rather than delivering, so I would like a better idea of what is being delivered.
Some of the wording in the responses appears to be positive, but is in fact vague. Paragraph 15 states:
"Although there has been no follow up survey, we have evidence of progress."
"Evidence of progress" can mean a lot or a little. There has been no follow-up survey, and only one example has been chosen for illustration. I would like an explanation of that situation. Similarly, in paragraph 17 we are given no explanation of the low participation in the west of Scotland because officials do not currently have one. I would like them to get one.
I would like clarification on those points because such comments can be slipped into letters, but I do not like the vagueness in the language: either the officials know or do not know.
We will follow through on Andrew Welsh's comments, and we will reflect again once we have a response to them.
“Police call management—An initial review”
Do members have any questions or comments to make on the reply from Robert Gordon?
I want to make two points. First, the reply on the single non-emergency number is totally unsatisfactory, particularly the paragraph that states:
"This is a complex area, and we shall continue to monitor the developments … We will carefully consider the business case for a Scottish pilot".
In other words, they are going to do absolutely—I cannot swear, can I?—nothing. I do not know whether it was Tracey Reilly who circulated to members the interesting article entitled "Don't keep us hanging on!" which shows that Chicago got moving on a single non-emergency number because there was someone there with some initiative instead of a civil servant who sits on his behind all the time. If I were a Scottish nationalist—heaven forbid—I would think that that is one area in which Scotland could lead the way and show what can be done. Pilot schemes are already under way in five English areas. Instead of monitoring those schemes, why are we not taking the lead? Scotland is a clearly identifiable area in which such work could be carried out effectively. All we need is someone in the Scottish Government with some initiative and get up and go to get things moving. We should pursue the matter.
I completely agree with George Foulkes. The response on the single non-emergency number is extremely disappointing. Robert Gordon basically says that a single non-emergency number is a good idea, but it would be too difficult to establish one, so nothing will be done. We need to press people to pursue the matter more vigorously.
The committee's first question to Robert Gordon was on police response times for attendance at various incidents. The paragraph in his reply entitled "Performance Indicators on response times" is a wee bit woolly; it uses phrases such as:
"without diminishing the momentum behind the move towards meaningful national reporting".
The public need something better than that. We need to be clearer about whether and when the police can report to the public, how the police perform in getting to incidents that the public call about, and whether the police do not get to such incidents. Those are important aspects, so I hope that such matters will be addressed in the reporting standard that will come to us next year. We must make progress.
The reply boils down to a no. However, as I found out this week, it can be impossible to contact the police by telephone. That is the reality for our citizens, so we must get the problem addressed properly.
Perhaps we should ask for a further response in the light of Willie Coffey's comments. We can also make it clear that we are dissatisfied with the response on the single non-emergency number and that we will reflect on how we can progress that matter by inviting others to the committee or by working with other parliamentary committees. We will not let the issue drop; we will return to it.
The issue to do with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has profound implications. Robert Gordon's letter states:
"The Scottish Government routinely engages with ACPOS along with other stakeholders".
ACPOS is a company limited by guarantee, and, as the letter says,
"The appointment of Directors is a matter for ACPOS itself",
which is hugely significant. All the individuals concerned are of the highest integrity and competence, and I would not wish to cast aspersions on them.
However, I think that there is an issue with structures and accountability, because it is clear that the local authorities, the police boards and Government ministers have no control over a private company. How do we effect accountability? It is not good enough to say that ACPOS, unlike the chief constables, is not part of the tripartite relationship, but to accept that the Scottish Government routinely engages with ACPOS. The issue needs to be examined further.
That was the second point that I intended to raise. I agree with the convener 100 per cent. The memorandum of understanding says that
"Scottish Ministers will pay grant to ACPOS",
and that the organisation's annual report and accounts go to Companies House.
There is a related matter that I wanted to ask the Auditor General about, which relates to both ACPOS and the Scottish Police Services Authority. The SPSA gets grant in aid of £83.6 million. I presume that the Auditor General has responsibility for keeping an eye on that, but does he have any responsibility for keeping an eye on the money that ACPOS gets from the Scottish Government?
Lord Foulkes is correct. I have to arrange for the audit of the SPSA, just as I do for other public bodies, but because ACPOS is a company limited by guarantee, it is not possible for me to be its auditor. The memorandum of understanding says:
"the Auditor General for Scotland shall … have rights of access during the course of its Appropriation Account reviews or for the purposes of value for money studies."
I think that that implies that through the audit of central Government finances, it would be possible for people working on my behalf to examine the money that is spent in the form of the grant aid that is provided to ACPOS as a company. To give you an idea of the level of spend, I understand that in 2007-08 the Scottish Government provided about £338,000 in direct funding to ACPOS. Funding of that order of magnitude is comparatively small, certainly in comparison with the amount of funding that the SPSA receives.
I suggest that we take up with the accountable officer the matter that Willie Coffey raised and that we go back to the accountable officer on the non-emergency phone number, which we should also ask the minister to reflect on, given that it will ultimately be a political decision. We could ask the minister to comment on the relationship between the private limited company and the Government before we reflect on what we should do.
I declare an interest as a member of Lothian and Borders police board. I, too, am not happy about the lack of urgency in Robert Gordon's response. Paragraph 3 of his letter states:
"It is currently not feasible to report meaningfully on a consistent basis".
However, given that police boards report on the response to non-emergency calls in some shape or form, it would be possible for us to be reported to. It would be up to us to decide whether the reporting was meaningful or consistent.
I presume that we will have to reply to the invitation to visit the Fife Constabulary contact centre that Robert Gordon has issued to us; perhaps we have already done that.
I have visited the centre. If anyone else wishes to visit it that would be fine, but I am not sure that I would necessarily wish to arrange a committee visit. If individual members wish to visit the centre, they are free to do so. We will reply accordingly.
I would like to jump back to the SPSA, which I understand is now running forensic services for the police. That has resulted in a £4 million reduction in the grant to Lothian and Borders Police. I have had a complaint from a constituent about a DNA test not being carried out on the ground of cost. If such decisions are starting to be made, it might be necessary to examine the services that the SPSA provides. What would be the mechanism for doing that?
That is a separate issue and something that George Foulkes will need to pursue as an elected member; there might well be issues for you to take up with the Justice Committee. We could go into that legitimately only in response to something that Audit Scotland and the Auditor General have done.
We can look at that in our summer reading for our future programme, I guess.
Okay. We can agree to what has been suggested and move on.
“Overview of Scotland's health and NHS performance in 2006/07”
Members have seen the response from the accountable officer. Are there any comments or questions?
The NHS is developing a national database and looking for a pilot project. Is there any timetable attached to that? The letter says that a data-collecting form is being piloted and a system developed to look more closely at drugs-related deaths through a standard national database, but there is no indication about a timetable.
Okay. We can question that.
As there is nothing else, we will ask for that information and then come back to the subject.