Chamber and committees

Yes—the Public Audit Committee is indeed very interested in tackling digital exclusion.

I am conscious of the time, so I will bring in Stuart McMillan.

We have covered an awful lot of ground this morning. If the budget is passed in a few weeks, the NHS budget will rise to £21 billion, for which you, Caroline Lamb, will be the accountable officer. Because it constitutes 40 per cent of the entire Scottish budget, it is important that we, as the Public Audit Committee, scrutinise what you are doing and examine areas where things are not going quite as well as we would like.

There is also a great deal of public interest in health and social care, and I think the national health service remains probably the best-loved public institution that we have.

I thank Caroline Lamb, Alan Gray and John Burns very much for their time and co-operation this morning, in answering our questions.

Thank you very much for putting that on the record.

I turn to the review of actions since the previous report—“NHS in Scotland 2023”—was issued. Appendix 2 of the most recent report charts the progress that is being made since then. In broad terms, the Auditor General finds that some of the recommendations that were made last year are “In progress”. That includes the medium-term financial strategy, which the committee has been concerned about because of its delayed announcement; I think that we are now expecting to see it in spring this year. The Auditor General also notes that an update to the national workforce strategy is “In progress”, although he says that “no timeline is confirmed.” He then talks about “Limited progress” on a long-term vision, and says:

“The restated vision from the Scottish Government does not clearly set out national priorities or provide a framework for reform.”

I wonder whether you could comment on those areas.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the fourth meeting in 2025 of the Public Audit Committee. Agenda item 1 is to decide whether to take items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much indeed. I will move on and invite Graham Simpson to put questions to you.

Waiting like a coiled spring is the very patient deputy convener, Jamie Greene, who has some final questions to put to the witnesses. Thank you for your forbearance, Jamie.

Thank you very much, convener. I have no relevant interests to declare.

The committee welcomes that advance. Whether it meets the standard of transparency that we are looking for will depend on how much is redacted and how much you are able to share with us. We will see the outcomes in the course of the next few weeks, and I am sure that we will have further conversations with you about that.

I take you back to my initial question. I had an exchange with the First Minister about the transparency review at the Conveners Group in September, in which part of his response was, “Yes, we’re learning lessons from the Covid inquiry and so on.” Some of our concerns in this area stem from the ferries contracts—not only how those contracts were awarded, but the extent to which we were able to get to the bottom of how they were awarded and who was involved. The committee had concerns about whether proper recording of ministerial meetings took place. There were questions about whether special advisers constituted civil servants and where decisions were made. For example, the decisions to award the contract to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd and those on the two loans worth £45 million did not go to the Cabinet.

We thought that the transparency review would go much broader than the strategic commercial assets division. That is also what I took from what the First Minister said in the exchange that I had with him. Could you clarify that?

Thank you for clearing that up; it is helpful to get that on the record.

The committee identified a particular concern. During the course of the ferries inquiry, we uncovered the fact that Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd had been directed by the minister or ministers to award the contract to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd—as it was at the time—but that there is no public record of that. Therefore, one of the recommendations that this committee made was that, in instances in which there is a shareholder authorisation—that is, where the Government is the sole shareholder and overrides the board of a non-departmental public body—that should be a matter of record, just as a written authority is a matter of record. Mr Irwin has recently issued a second written authority on the construction of vessel 802—the Glen Rosa.

We think that there is an equivalence there. If the fact that a minister has overridden the judgment of a civil servant ought to be a matter of public record, the fact that a minister has overridden a judgement by the board of a non-departmental public body should also be recorded, in line with the rules that are set out in the Scottish public finance manual.

That is a very helpful answer.

The deputy convener has some other questions to put to you.