We move on to agenda item 4. We are running a little behind time because of the committee's keen interest in the foregoing items, so it would be helpful if we could pick up the pace a little on items 4 and 5.
I do not want to repeat too much of what I have said. Although I strongly endorse the direction of travel in the area, I note again that the pace of change is not fast enough. That is reinforced by some of the statistics that the department has shared with us in its response, for example some of the percentages that are given on e-referrals and e-discharges to select just a couple. When we originally considered the report, I spent some time looking in detail at what the Department of Health in England was doing in the area. The targets and levels of attainment are in excess of where we are in Scotland. We have to be willing to examine that and get behind why it is the case. There may be good reasons for it, but I am concerned. That is linked to the IT issues that I have mentioned.
I reinforce the two points made by Susan Deacon. The pace of change and the development of IT systems north of the border seem to be lagging well behind what is happening in England and Wales. Some of the information that we have been given reinforces that view. It is the common theme in a lot of the discussions about the health service.
The committee will not be surprised to hear that I am going to talk about alternative and complementary medicines. I remain surprised that the Scottish Executive does not have information about the range of homoeopathic and other complementary and alternative medicines that is available in Scotland. It states that some NHS regions provide homoeopathic treatments, but there is no attempt to understand whether users of the health service would find them beneficial. The health service has to make decisions about what is clinically safe—there is no doubt about that—but there is an increasing body of evidence on the effectiveness of alternative and complementary medicines. In Scotland, we are light years away from examining the potential benefits to patients and also the savings on conventional prescriptions.
I have an observation that ties in with one of Rhona Brankin's points. It would be extremely useful to know about the level of patient satisfaction with homoeopathic services.
Auditor General, do you have any comments to add on the Executive's response?
No.
Members have expressed their opinions about the Executive's response, but the question is how we take that forward. Members' expressions should be sufficient at this stage. It is up to members to take up any points individually but, as a committee, I suggest that we simply note the response. If the issues or related issues come before us again, we can raise our concerns. Is that agreed?