Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 3 March 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2072 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Delayed discharges: A symptom of the challenges facing health and social care” and “Community health and social care: Performance 2025”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

That is clearly an issue. That is a cohort of people who are stuck for quite a long time—sometimes months. We have heard some horrible anecdotes.

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Delayed discharges: A symptom of the challenges facing health and social care” and “Community health and social care: Performance 2025”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

How many staff hours are lost to managing patients who are medically fit to leave hospital but are still having to be cared for in a hospital environment?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Delayed discharges: A symptom of the challenges facing health and social care” and “Community health and social care: Performance 2025”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

Can you give me an example?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Delayed discharges: A symptom of the challenges facing health and social care” and “Community health and social care: Performance 2025”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

Finally, has the Scottish Government or the NHS done any holistic analysis of increased mortality rates as a result of delayed discharge, or indeed, additional harm caused to patients as a result of delayed discharge? If not, why not?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

Section 22 Report: “The 2024/25 audit of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

I am playing devil’s advocate, because I do not have a view on the SPPA’s efficacy or otherwise, but the body has a lot of money and people. It has hired 100 additional staff, which begs the question of how many staff it had in the first place. Yesterday’s letter said that that is an increase of 30 per cent, so let us assume that it had 300 to 350 staff as a baseline. The addition of 100 staff means that it has around 400 to 450 staff, which is a massive jump for an agency in a single year.

Looking at SPPA’s budget, I see that it has been given around £123 million, presumably of public money, by the Scottish Government over four years—that includes the coming financial year—just to administer the pension scheme before a single penny of pension is paid. Is that unusual? Is it proportionate?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

Section 22 Report: “The 2024/25 audit of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

A lot of ground has been covered, so I will keep it brief. Auditor General, have you had a chance to review the letter from the SPPA to Kenneth Gibson, which Mr Simpson just referred to, and the letter from Ivan McKee, the minister, to Kenneth Gibson? I appreciate that both are dated as having been sent yesterday. Has Audit Scotland had a chance to briefly look at them before today’s session?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

Section 22 Report: “The 2024/25 audit of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

Okay. What do you make of them?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

“Delayed discharges: A symptom of the challenges facing health and social care” and “Community health and social care: Performance 2025”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

Let me rephrase my question: who is not spending their money wisely? Which bit of the system is not as productive as it could be?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

Section 22 Report: “The 2024/25 audit of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

I have had a chance to read the other letter from the minister to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which was, literally, thrust under our noses at the beginning of the meeting. It is quite short, and I was quite struck by the tone. It seems very different from and perhaps less contrite than the other letter. The first two pages are essentially a veritable “Why? This isn’t my fault. It’s not the Scottish Government’s fault. This is the UK Government’s fault.” I have no interest in the politics of all of this, but the minister makes some points that I thought you might reflect on, Auditor General.

On the first page, the minister says that the whole issue extends from the fact that the UK Government

“did not understand the complexity of the remedy”

and had set an unrealistic timeframe.

Three specific accusations are made. First, the UK Government should not have made the changes in the first place, because they were not compliant with the European convention on human rights. Secondly, not enough work was done to identify what timeframes would be needed for the remedy, so the deadlines were completely unrealistic. Thirdly, the UK Government was supposed to issue guidance to various public agencies, but the guidance arrived after the deadlines had passed. Those are quite profound criticisms of the UK Government by another Government. Do you have any thoughts or reflections on that?

Public Audit Committee [Draft]

Section 22 Report: “The 2024/25 audit of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency”

Meeting date: 18 February 2026

Jamie Greene

The agency alludes to automation in its response, and it seems to have made quite a lot of progress in that regard. We can ask these questions when its representatives come before us, of course, but there is one phrase that the agency used that I quite liked: it stated that it wants

“to get it right first time”.

It will have to spend a bit of time on the calculators and on working out how to remedy. Once that is done, however, the automation of the process can allow the agency to rattle through the case backlog. I assume that that is what it is saying to us, reading between the lines. Is that not a good thing? Would you not want to spend a bit more time setting up those processes—presumably with some manual oversight and intervention—before then reaching the point at which you were comfortable that accurate figures were coming out the other end of the machine? I am sure that the last thing that the agency wants—given the context of Mr Beattie’s line of questioning—is to get through the process quickly and produce wrong information, so that people get statements that are over, under or wildly different. It is hard to criticise the agency for its approach.