Public Spending Watchdog

The Accounts Commission - one of Scotland's public spending watchdogs - has asked for a further report on the retirement arrangements surrounding Strathclyde’s chief fire officer. 

Concerns were expressed late last year over the way the matter was dealt with by Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service - which is comprised of councillors from 12 different Scottish councils.

So the whole murky business is about to be put under the spotlight - and about time too, if you ask me.

Here's what I wrote about the affair last year.

Pants on Fire (23 December 2011)

I have been banging on for a long time about how final salary pensions in the public sector - operate in favour of senior officials and higher paid groups of staff.

During that time the conservative minds that dominate the trade unions these days - have remained largely silent.

For some reason they find it impossible to come out and speak the truth - that these final salary arrangements are a disgrace - and penalise the lower paid who subsidise their much better paid colleagues.

So the news today that Scotland's most senior fire chief was allowed to retire earlier this year - and is now being invited by his old employer to return to his post on full salary - comes as no surprise.

Strathclyde Fire and Rescue SFR) is responsible for this incredible 'revolving door' decision - which has now been referred to Scotland's public spending watchdog - Audit Scotland.

Apparently SFR allowed their chief fire officer - Brian Sweeney - to retired in the summer with a £500,000 payment - a decision that required special permission fire and rescue board - which is comprised of local councillors.

The Herald newspaper reports today on the views of a well-placed 'fire source' who said:

"It's outrageous he was allowed to retire, take his lump sum pension and walk back into the same job.

We were told he is back on a three-year contract, despite the fact we are moving to a single fire service for the whole country.

He has been allowed to access his pension at a time when our pensions and jobs are at risk."

Now the retired chief fire officer is a distinguished public servant with a long record of service - but what's that got to do with anything?

So are thousands of other council employees who are much less well paid - and who perform demanding and important jobs day in and day out.

The issue is why such a senior official should be allowed to have his cake and eat it - why did he want to and why was he allowed to retire - only to walk back into his job a few weeks later?

The external auditors for SFR - PriceWaterhouseCoopers - commented on the decision - in their annual audit as follows:

"The report comments on the board's governance and control procedures, advising that, in relation to the chief officer arrangements, the level of evidence made available does not readily support a best value decision concerning retirement, re-employment and the potential use of board funds to pay an unauthorised payment charge. However, no action related to this decision is included within the action plan.

The convener, on behalf of the board, has written to the Controller of Audit, disputing this conclusion and providing evidence that seeks to demonstrate the board acted responsibly and reasonably in this matter."

Elsewhere it emerged London Fire Brigade commissioner - Ron Dobson - had been allowed to retire, receiving an estimated £700,000 pay-off, before being re-employed into his old position, albeit on lower pay.

The point is that - on the one hand - the public is being told that certain groups of workers need to be allowed to retire earlier in others - because they work in stressful and dangerous jobs.

Yet on the other - here is evidence that people walk out the door - only to walk back in again a short time later - full of vim, vigour and energy.

Now you can't have it both ways.

And both the employers and trade unions should be ashamed of themselves - for propping up such a ridiculous system for so many years.