Chamber and committees

I have received correspondence from a constituent who has had to borrow money from their children to have a hip operation. That is unacceptable, but surely you can understand why people are choosing to do that in very challenging circumstances.

Good morning, Mr Boyle. For clarity and to recap to some extent, from your perspective, does the yard have a viable future?

In relation to the chief executive’s bonus, the provision is that 40 per cent of base salary could potentially be granted as a bonus. You say that those negotiations are on-going, but what would cause there to be a delay? It would seem to be a relatively easy thing to benchmark. Is that the prevailing rate in the private sector? I recognise what you say about the need for there to be some consistency with the private sector. Should we read anything into the fact that that has not yet been agreed and that the outcome is somewhat delayed?

When they were asked about what has gone wrong and the shortcomings and misgivings, the Scottish Government and the former First Minister said that we should leave all that to one side because, ultimately, they have saved the yard and the jobs there. In light of what you have said, is it premature to say that the yard has a safe, long-term future?

When we visited the yard, some of the workers who had been there from the get-go said that, at various stages, they could liken the situation to a gravy train running through the middle of the yard, because the people who were doing the work were not necessarily being rewarded but, at various points, people in senior management certainly were. That gave us some cause for concern. Obviously, it appears that the issue of pay is now being addressed satisfactorily. Are there any other areas, such as expenses or the use of contractors or third-party agencies, that could give you cause for concern in the future or have you adequately looked into all other areas of potential expenditure?

Mr Coffey asked about the bonus payments. Paragraph 26 of the report confirms that the

“Framework Agreement includes an overall framework for pay”

but that that

“was not formally agreed until March 2022”,

which was obviously

“after bonus payments were approved.”

Given that FMPG came into public ownership in November 2019, why do you think that it took so long to establish that vital framework for pay?

Mr Boyle, you have mentioned that the language was somewhat opaque around the issue of the pay policy. You said that pay should be

“broadly consistent with the provisions of”

Scottish Government

“pay policy”,

and that

“Any significant deviations will require further approval.”

In February 2023, the Scottish Government provided clarification on those requirements. Can you provide further detail on what those clarifications were, and whether you are confident with the steps that the Scottish Government has subsequently taken?

Exhibit 2 of the report highlights the quite considerable increase in delayed discharges. Mr Clark, you identified that action needs to be taken now to remedy some of the issues. The problem of flow through the health service is down, in large part, to delayed discharges, which come down to capacity in the social care system. The Government has announced plans to purchase 600 interim care beds, with a 25 per cent uplift in the national care home contract rate. Have you calculated how sustainable and effective that relatively short-term intervention might be? Will it deliver value for money?

When we get the 2023 progress report, would it be prudent for us to press for greater transparency and more detail on what is actually being achieved?

Mr Kidd referred to the private sector and you mentioned that the evidence was anecdotal. There was the BBC “Disclosure” programme. Again, it was a survey, so we cannot necessarily put a lot of store by it. Nevertheless, it found that one in five people on NHS waiting lists had had some contact with the private sector over the past 12 months—it was something broadly of that order. Is it worth interrogating, perhaps, the size and the use of the private sector at the moment? Would that read through to some of the pressures that we see in the NHS?

I am thinking particularly?again, anecdotally?about my postbag, and this is probably true of colleagues’ postbags. Many people, when they have their first clinical appointment in relation to the treatment of orthopaedic issues or early-stage cataracts, are told, despite your saying that the NHS is open, that it will take three to five years for that treatment. They automatically pivot to the private sector if they can afford it and that obviously undermines the fundamental principles of the NHS.

I am concerned that, if there is a growth in people electing to do that for those specialisms, you might see staff drifting towards the private sector. While that may bring down waiting lists in some senses, it also means that those with the means or the borrowing capacity to do that will access healthcare far more quickly and will therefore not reach the same level of acuity as those who are not necessarily able to do that. Is it worth taking stock of whether there has been some shift to the private sector, because we will, at some point, undoubtedly have an issue in relation to the capacity of the NHS workforce and its waiting lists?