However, the audit report from 2018-19 refers to a census recovery plan, and that was two or three years before the expected date for carrying out the census. Is it not fair to say that there were underlying problems, even before the pandemic struck?

That is helpful. I will move on. We will return to some of the themes of staffing and support, and some of the implications of the delay.

The delay has meant that data will be delayed in reaching public sector planners—the people responsible for delivering services. The census is in no small measure designed to inform decision making about those services. Have you assessed the impact of the delay on the planning decisions that public authorities will need to make?

That would be helpful. A word that we have, quite understandably and rightly, heard an awful lot over the past few years is “unprecedented”, but in a sense the census is not unprecedented. You would therefore have thought that, as a result of previous exercises, people would have known it to be good practice to include representatives from the ONS, most obviously, but also NISRA on any kind of programme oversight board.

I want to go back to the significant line of questioning that Mr Beattie pursued about whether NRS was refused access to HMRC or DWP data and whether that was requested. Dharshi Santhakumaran said that the ONS had such access because it started earlier to put together data-sharing agreements with those bodies, and she said that NRS is starting to do that. The question arises of why NRS did not start to make such agreements at the same time as the ONS, as a matter of good practice. Will we have in place, in time for the census in March 2022, data-sharing agreements that will allow the enrichment of the data that is collected through digital and other means as a result of the exercise that will take place in March?

Yes, that point is well made.

I will conclude by quoting the final paragraph of the section 22 report that came out 10 days ago and which we are discussing this morning. It says:

“significant risks remain”

in the delivery of the 2022 census

“and it is of the utmost importance that NRS continues to monitor and manage them. NRS should also ensure that it continues to act on the outstanding TAF/Gateway review recommendations. I expect the auditor to continue to monitor NRS’s progress with delivering the census programme and its management of ongoing financial pressures.”

The committee would welcome an update on that monitoring work. Is it your intention to produce a follow-up report for Parliament so that we can return to the issue in the future?

We cannot hear you at the moment, Mr Samson. We will try to fix that. I am afraid that you might have to start again. [Interruption.] No, we are still not able to hear you.

Craig, do you want to press on with a supplementary, or do you want to move to your next question? Perhaps the Auditor General wants to come back in.

Dharshi Santhakumaran wants to give us a bit more detail.

Agenda item 3 is an evidence-taking session on the Audit Scotland report on NHS National Services Scotland and, in particular, the “Personal protective equipment” report.

All our witnesses are joining us online this morning. I welcome from NHS National Services Scotland Mary Morgan, chief executive; Carolyn Low, director of finance; and Gordon Beattie, director of national procurement. I also welcome Caroline Lamb, chief executive, NHS Scotland, who is accompanied by Richard McCallum, director of health finance and governance, Scottish Government.

As you are all joining us virtually this morning, I suggest that, if you want to come in at any point, you put an R in the chat box. I also point out that you do not have to push your own mute and unmute button—broadcasting will do that for you.

Our time is necessarily limited, and I know that Mary Morgan and Caroline Lamb want to lead off with statements. If you want to bring in anyone to bolster, substantiate or develop any of your responses, please encourage them to do so straight after you finish.

Without further ado, I invite Mary Morgan to make a short opening statement.

Good morning, Mr Mathieson and Mr Barron. I apologise for being so late and am sorry that I missed your answers to the earlier questions.

The committee wanted to look at business planning, which was highlighted in the Audit Scotland report. A medium-term financial plan was put together. Where do you stand with that and what steps have you taken to improve the financial situation of the commission?

You had my heart beating there. [Laughter.]

The next question is for both witnesses. When I read the report, one of the things that stood out was that there was a failure to properly involve the commission in setting the budget in the year that is under review in the Audit Scotland report. Mr Mathieson, before you became convener of the commission, you were the chair of the commission’s audit and finance committee—