A COSTLY pension deal for Scotland's top fire chief has been criticised by public spending watchdogs.
Brian Sweeney retired last year as Firemaster at Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, collecting a lump sum pension payment. However, he was re-hired a month later in the same £150,000-a-year job, landing council taxpayers with a potential bill of more than £200,000.
A report by Audit Scotland has now said the deal "would not meet the public's expectations of what is an acceptable use of public funds".
Under rules recently introduced, in certain circumstances such as early retirement, chief officers and boards could be liable to pay "unauthorised payment charges" to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. In Mr Sweeney's case the amount owed to HMRC was £206,000.
Following a seven-month probe, Audit Scotland has found that members of the Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Board were not given sufficient information about the cost implications of Mr Sweeney's deal when they met to approve it.
Financial advice from the board treasurer at the time was "inadequate" and failure to consider alternatives to the deal meant "the decision-making process is weakened significantly by the lack of a clear business and financial case being set out for members".
It claims that while there is no evidence Mr Sweeney influenced the decision, he was present at the meeting where the retirement and re-employment were approved and that "arrangements to ensure the independence of the chief officer from the process were poor".
Defending their actions, the Fire Board said the arrangement saved the public purse in excess of £240,000, that the charge may not have to be paid if challenged and that as yet no money had been paid to HMRC.
In his report to the Accounts Commission, which will meet on Thursday to consider what to do, Audit Scotland's Controller of Audit, Fraser McKinlay, said: "No business case is set out in the report for members to consider the options and the financial policy and management implications of these. Through the additional work, I have not found evidence the board discussed these alternative options at its meeting in April 2011.
"The lack of a robust report and lack of advisory support to the board affects the standard of scrutiny and challenge from members."
Strathclyde Fire and Rescue has set aside £236,000 to pay the charge, which would normally be paid by the officer involved. This arrangement will now allow him to collect a full pension at the age of 55.
SNP MSP Stewart Maxwell, who previously worked for Strathclyde Fire and Rescue, said: "I welcome this report and the findings it has arrived at. It raises questions about how this situation was able to come about in the first place. I am writing to Finance Secretary John Swinney to see what steps the Scottish Government will put in place to prevent any repeat of this situation."
Scottish Conservative justice spokesman David McLetchie said: "It seems extraordinary that suitable planning for a senior officer who gives two years' notice of his retirement was not put in place. Instead, the board has signed up to an agreement which is going to cost the public purse more than £200,000."
Labour's justice spokesman, Lewis Macdonald, said: "Scottish Labour expressed our concerns by seeking to amend the legislation that created the Single Fire and Rescue Service to prevent this happening. The SNP voted our proposal down. Public money must always be used with great care and despite assurances given to Parliament by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, there is nothing to prevent this happening again."
Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Board chairman Councillor Brian Wallace said: "I would strongly refute the conclusion that Best Value was not obtained or considered in the decision to provide for the potential unauthorised payment charge."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article