Auditor General for Scotland Reports (Responses)
We are running 15 to 20 minutes behind our planned timing.
Item 5 is consideration of responses to five reports by the Auditor General for Scotland. For the benefit of those who are attending or listening to our meeting, I should explain that the committee decided that, rather than hold inquiries into the five reports, it would be better to write to the relevant Scottish Executive departments and ask for their responses. We made that decision partly because the committee is coming to an end due to the forthcoming dissolution of Parliament and partly because we thought that the approach would encourage a quicker response.
The five reports are "Informed to care: Managing IT to deliver information in the NHS in Scotland", "Catering for patients: A follow-up report", "Overview of the financial performance of the NHS in Scotland 2005/06", "The Efficient Government Initiative: A progress report", and "The 2005/06 Audit of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency".
We will consider the responses to the reports one by one but, in the interests of time, if members have no comments on a report, we will not discuss it; we will simply say that we welcome the response.
The first report is "Informed to care: Managing IT to deliver information in the NHS in Scotland".
I am conscious that I missed the meeting at which the committee considered the report in detail, but I read it at the time and I have refreshed my recollection of it.
I read the Executive's response. I am looking for colleagues or Audit Scotland to disabuse me of the most tremendous sense of groundhog day. I have read the words so often that I feel I could paper the walls with them. I do not know how many e-health strategies there have been in the past decade. I know that there has been progress, but I am firmly of the view that the pace of change in the field is like that—I do not know how that will be captured in the Official Report, by the way.
A steep curve.
The pace of change is like that, but the pace of change in the NHS in Scotland is—
Less steep.
Thank you, convener.
Everything I read in the response confirms that view.
I do not know whether Audit Scotland is in a position to comment, but I have a specific question. The response is a lengthy document about revised governance structures. I know that Audit Scotland picked up on the governance structures and I appreciate that the Executive has responded directly to that, but another tremendously elaborate process and structure is being put in place to manage Information Technology.
I would like to know the specific background, qualifications and experience of the various people who are heading up the work. Do they have experience of managing major IT projects or are they generic, generalist civil servants? I would like to hear an assessment from Audit Scotland—in so far as it feels able to provide one—of whether the work will get us to the next stage or whether, in two or three years' time, another committee will be reading the same words but with the names of the projects, initiatives, strategies and structures updated.
For the past decade we have been able to go to almost any part of the developed world and stick a card in an automated teller machine in the wall and get access to our bank account, but patients' records still cannot be accessed if they move around different parts of the national health service in Scotland. That is not acceptable.
I just do not feel that there has been the required pace of change. I am happy to be disabused of that feeling, but I would like to know specifically who is heading up the revised governance structures—I do not want to know their names, but I do want to know about their skills, qualifications and experience. I would also be interested to know about the relationship between the various IT suppliers.
Do members want to make any other points on the IT report before I invite Audit Scotland to comment?
Given what we complained about before, it is refreshing that every committee conclusion or recommendation has been agreed.
They are not committee conclusions. The report is by the Auditor General.
I beg your pardon. I withdraw the reference. The Scottish Executive response to the report includes statements such as:
"Boards will be so required. … This is now being implemented. … This approach has been adopted. … Revised governance arrangements have been the subject of wide consultation and have met with acceptance."
That is somewhat refreshing, given earlier responses that we have considered.
I acknowledge and appreciate the concerns that Susan Deacon expressed about the response. I am not sure that Audit Scotland or I can help you much more at this stage, because we are not in a position to anticipate how the new structures and arrangements will work in practice. The Audit Committee might want to bear that in mind and, in future, invite the accountable officer to describe how the governance and management structures are operating. This is all new and current and I am not sure that we can help much more.
Would we invite the principal accountable officer to do that?
The relevant person would be the accountable officer of the Health Department. The principal accountable officer is Sir John Elvidge.
I acknowledge what Susan Deacon said. We were conscious throughout the audit and drafting of the report that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It was like trying to audit a moveable feast, because the systems were still being put in place. We are not going to walk away from this area. We have regular meetings with all the auditors in the health service and it is clear that information management is a high-risk area throughout it. We will keep the matter under serious review.
Thank you.
The next response to consider is that on "Catering for patients: A follow-up report". There are no comments from members or from the Auditor General, so we will simply note the response.
The third response is to "Overview of the financial performance of the NHS in Scotland 2005/06". There are no comments from members. Auditor General, do you have any comments?
No.
We note the response.
The fourth response is to "The Efficient Government Initiative: A Progress Report". We received quite a detailed response from John Elvidge. There are no comments from members. Auditor General, do you wish to comment?
No.
Again, we note the response.
Finally, we come to the response from Dr Andrew Goudie, head of department, on "The 2005/06 Audit of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency". Members will recall that we were concerned about some health and safety issues, but we have received a fulsome response that covers other areas too. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Do you wish to add anything, Auditor General?
I will make a brief general comment. We endorse what Andrew Goudie says about the position on the key point—the extent to which health and safety policy can be assessed. There seems to be a difference of opinion between Pinsent Masons and the Scottish Executive procurement directorate, but no party is in a position to determine what a court would find on the issue. Dr Goudie also says that
"the difference of opinion on this point was not regarded as having any bearing on the validity of the overall conclusions".
That is true—there were other factors that had to be taken into account.
Another issue of concern was the extent to which experience could be taken into account. The letter is right to say that it is entirely appropriate for experience to be taken into account at the selection stage, but not at the final stage of choosing the contractor.
That covers all five of the responses. Does the committee agree to note the responses?
Members indicated agreement.
Before we move into private session, I return to item 1 on the agenda. The clerk has reminded me that consideration of our draft annual report will be on the agenda of the committee's next meeting. It would be useful for us to agree now, rather than at that meeting, to consider the report in private. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Having tidied up that matter, I suspend the meeting, which will reconvene in private session. I ask members to be back by 11.15.
Meeting suspended until 11:25 and thereafter continued in private until 13:35.