We move to the second item on the agenda. We have received correspondence in relation to the Executive's response to our report on the "Overview of the National Health Service in Scotland 2000/01". Members will recall that, for the first time in three and half years, the Executive had rejected a recommendation in one of our reports. At the time, I undertook to write to the head of the health department, Mr Trevor Jones, to seek clarification, because members felt that there had been a misunderstanding by the Executive about the recommendation in question.
Mr Jones's reply accepting our recommendation is brief. That is fine. However, my only concern is that it also lacks clarification. He does not actually repeat that the health department will develop
The point is well taken. That said, although I do not want to pre-empt any items that might come up during this meeting, it might well be that Mr Jones will appear before the committee. We can draw the matter to his attention at that time. If members have no other comments, I will move on.
Because this area is causing concern, most of the accounts that have been submitted to Parliament are qualified. I am quite sure that the matter will come up in the Auditor General for Scotland's next overview report.
With the agreement of Mr Owen, we should copy the letter to the CSA, saying that it is a matter for concern and that we will follow it up the next time. The CSA should be aware that such serious and important points have been made.
I am anxious that the committee should not be used as a conduit for interest groups that are in regular contact with the CSA. Instead, the matter should form part of the dialogue that we have recommended should take place between the authorities involved. We have placed the SPGC's letter on record and our concern has been noted.
It is not a question of the committee being a conduit—it is a question of being fair. We were obviously going to follow up the point at some stage. It is just as well that the CSA should be made aware of it now.
After recently discussing the matter with some of the officers of the SPGC, I assure the committee that the council has made all its representations clear to the CSA and to the chief pharmacist in the health department. I agree with other members that the matter is causing a lot of unrest; indeed, the difficulty in question might arise in other parts of the NHS. Like general practitioners and dentists, pharmacists are contractors to the NHS. The committee must ensure that there are robust systems of making payments to contractors to the health service, particularly those who are under a regular contractual obligation to deliver front-line primary care services. We would be wise to take advice from the Auditor General on how we can regularly check that proper development is taking place.
I will note that and will report back to the committee in the future.
I am in the committee's hands. Do members agree to note the SPGC's letter and the fact that it will form part of Audit Scotland's on-going overview, which will come before us at some point?
As we agreed at the previous committee meeting, we will now move into private session.
Meeting continued in private until 14:17.
Previous
Interests