By David Scott in Edinburgh
The Scottish Government has underlined its commitment to providing accurate information to MSPs after a damning parliamentary report on senior civil servants.
Holyrood’s high-powered public audit committee attacked mandarins for being ‘obstructive’ and giving incomplete or incorrect evidence during an inquiry. It was particularly critical of permanent secretary John Elvidge for giving some evidence that was ‘totally unacceptable’.
In a report on the inquiry into the extension of a £2.5bn rail franchise, the MSPs said the civil servants had been ‘obstructive’ and the committee had been frustrated at having to ‘prise’ out information.
Convener Hugh Henry said: ‘We consider it discourteous and obstructive that some of the evidence gathered during the course of this inquiry was made available only after repeated requests.
‘The committee also regrets that some information had to be corrected following further probing.’
A Scottish Government spokesman told Public Finance this week: ‘Our officials are absolutely clear about the importance of providing accurate information.
‘The issues raised by the committee were complex, and in some cases related to personal information, and officials will consider whether there are lessons that can be learned.’
Following their inquiry, the MSPs concluded that the Transport Scotland agency mishandled an alleged conflict of interest involving its director of finance and corporate services, Guy Houston, in November 2008. He resigned amid allegations relating to shares he held in FirstGroup, the parent company of First Scotrail, which was awarded an extension of the rail franchise.
The committee found that ‘wholly inaccurate information’ was given about meetings Houston attended while in his post at Transport Scotland.
It pointed out that Elvidge informed the committee that Houston had only attended meetings subsequent to the decision to extend the franchise.
The report added: ‘It subsequently came to light, after repeated probing on the part of the committee, that this was not the case. This is totally unacceptable.’
The Scottish Government has underlined its commitment to providing accurate information to MSPs after a damning parliamentary report on senior civil servants.
Holyrood’s high-powered public audit committee attacked mandarins for being ‘obstructive’ and giving incomplete or incorrect evidence during an inquiry. It was particularly critical of permanent secretary John Elvidge for giving some evidence that was ‘totally unacceptable’.
In a report on the inquiry into the extension of a £2.5bn rail franchise, the MSPs said the civil servants had been ‘obstructive’ and the committee had been frustrated at having to ‘prise’ out information.
Convener Hugh Henry said: ‘We consider it discourteous and obstructive that some of the evidence gathered during the course of this inquiry was made available only after repeated requests.
‘The committee also regrets that some information had to be corrected following further probing.’
A Scottish Government spokesman told Public Finance this week: ‘Our officials are absolutely clear about the importance of providing accurate information.
‘The issues raised by the committee were complex, and in some cases related to personal information, and officials will consider whether there are lessons that can be learned.’
Following their inquiry, the MSPs concluded that the Transport Scotland agency mishandled an alleged conflict of interest involving its director of finance and corporate services, Guy Houston, in November 2008. He resigned amid allegations relating to shares he held in FirstGroup, the parent company of First Scotrail, which was awarded an extension of the rail franchise.
The committee found that ‘wholly inaccurate information’ was given about meetings Houston attended while in his post at Transport Scotland.
It pointed out that Elvidge informed the committee that Houston had only attended meetings subsequent to the decision to extend the franchise.
The report added: ‘It subsequently came to light, after repeated probing on the part of the committee, that this was not the case. This is totally unacceptable.’
