Committee
Public Audit Committee, 23 Sep 2009
23 Sep 2009 · S3 · Public Audit Committee
Item of business
Public Audit Committee Report (Response)
“The First ScotRail passenger rail franchise”
I, too, welcome the general response. It is worth reiterating that the committee is not questioning whether the decision to extend the franchise was right or wrong. That is a separate issue.I am concerned about two things, which, I think, also concern the committee. One is the way in which we were misled by Malcolm Reed and John Elvidge on Guy Houston's involvement in crucial decisions. We were told that he was involved only peripherally in one meeting, but it later emerged under questioning that he was involved in many more meetings and that he had a direct financial interest. It still concerns me that a committee of the Parliament should have been misled by the permanent secretary of the Scottish Executive and the former head of Transport Scotland.Members have referred to the other matter that I am concerned about. Anne McLaughlin listed the reasons that Sir John Elvidge has given for not providing certain information. In spite of constant pressure from the committee, we have been refused any information about the arrangements and terms of leaving for Guy Houston, which we have pursued. When I specifically asked Sir John Elvidge about that matter in a committee meeting, he talked about the data protection legislation. Those who were members of the committee at the time may recall that I pressed him again and again on what part of the data protection legislation he was referring to. He still has not replied to my question.As Anne McLaughlin has pointed out, Sir John Elvidge has given us five reasons why he cannot give us the information. In my experience, someone who has a strong case or a clear reason for not doing something states it, justifies it and then stands by it. For example, they cite the relevant section of the Data Protection Act 1998 or whatever. However, someone who has a weak case tries to find all sorts of other ways of backing up their affirmations or attestations. That is what Sir John Elvidge has done in this response. He talks about "data protection legislation", but does not specify which. He refers to "Article 8 of ECHR". Every nutter who comes to see me tells me that in their case the European convention on human rights has been violated. The green ink brigade always quotes ECHR; this response refers to article 8 but does not say how it applies.Furthermore, what on earth is"the general law of confidentiality"?Does that exist? Is it part of Scots law or any other law? I do not know. Moreover, Sir John does not explain how "disclosure" would undermine"the effectiveness of … HR operations".The greatest reason is the fifth one, which is basically that he is not going to tell us because it is none of our business and has nothing to do with the committee's report.This is outrageous. Again and again the committee has asked the permanent secretary to provide information, and again and again he has refused to do so on spurious grounds. That is why I completely agree with Nicol Stephen, Murdo Fraser and you, convener, that we should pursue the issue.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Lab
We will now take items 4 and 10—the formal response from the accountable officer and the committee's considered approach—together.The response that we have r...
Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) (LD):
LD
I agree with that and welcome the response. All our recommendations have been accepted by the senior civil service and the Scottish Government, and we have r...
The Convener:
Lab
We will need to get officials to examine the matter. The e-mail exchange to which you refer is interesting, as senior management seems to have taken the view...
Nicol Stephen:
LD
There seems to be no process for checking the facts. I would have thought that the civil service might have taken steps to check the information that was pro...
Murdo Fraser:
Con
I agree with the points that Nicol Stephen has just made. The response from Sir John Elvidge is helpful and accepts all the committee's recommendations. Its ...
Nicol Stephen:
LD
Dismissive.
Murdo Fraser:
Con
As Nicol Stephen says, he was dismissive.It is excellent to see that the permanent secretary now accepts that our approach was correct and that the Governmen...
Anne McLaughlin:
SNP
Three members of the committee have said that they are concerned about information that we are not getting from Sir John Elvidge. In his letter, he says that...
The Convener:
Lab
There are two issues. We took legal advice from the Parliament's lawyers during our long deliberations on the report, and everything that we did was based on...
George Foulkes:
Lab
I, too, welcome the general response. It is worth reiterating that the committee is not questioning whether the decision to extend the franchise was right or...
Anne McLaughlin:
SNP
If the committee can compel Sir John Elvidge to give us this information, can we take legal advice on whether we can publish it? What if his own legal advice...
The Convener:
Lab
You have raised a number of different points. First, we cannot compel Sir John Elvidge to do anything. He is the permanent secretary. Indeed, one thing that ...
Bill Kidd:
SNP
I think that I read somewhere in the sheaves of paper that we have that Sir John Elvidge has said that he would be happy to appear before the committee again...
George Foulkes:
Lab
You would not be here without nuclear.
Bill Kidd:
SNP
I think it had more to do with my mother and father.
The Convener:
Lab
We will not get into a discussion about nuclear proliferation, thank you.
Willie Coffey:
SNP
It is clear from listening to the discussion this morning that there has been an element of rehashing of old arguments that we have already gone through pain...
The Convener:
Lab
I think that Willie Coffey is right. That is the issue on which we need to decide whether to take further action.We face a difficult question. Do we accept a...
Cathie Craigie:
Lab
As other members have done, I welcome Sir John Elvidge's acceptance of the committee's recommendations. I am particularly pleased that the Government accepts...
The Convener:
Lab
Perhaps the Auditor General will respond to the two points that Cathie Craigie has raised. Her second point was about the information that is presented to th...
Mr Black:
As members will recall, some time ago we produced "Review of major capital projects in Scotland—How government works", on which the committee took evidence. ...
The Convener:
Lab
We can return to that broader issue of the management of budgets later, but we will leave that for today. We can deal with that separately.Cathie Craigie's f...
Cathie Craigie:
Lab
That is another point that I wanted to make. From that paragraph, it looks as if the permanent secretary is trying to get a defence in earlier.
The Convener:
Lab
Sorry, were you referring to a different paragraph?
Cathie Craigie:
Lab
I was referring to a later paragraph over the page, which deals with the reporting process.
The Convener:
Lab
Is that paragraph 13?
Cathie Craigie:
Lab
Yes. However, I would also endorse the point that you make about paragraph 12. It is as if the permanent secretary is trying to get a kick in first.
The Convener:
Lab
Does Mr Black have any comments to make on paragraphs 12 and 13?
Mr Black:
As the committee will no doubt recall, colleagues and I were invited to provide specific information in response to that point at the meeting on 25 March. In...
The Convener:
Lab
The committee is on record as giving strong support to the work of the Audit Scotland team, and expressing some regret about the attitude that was taken by o...