Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

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

Criathragan 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 5 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3464 contributions

|

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “NHS in Scotland 2022”

Meeting date: 4 May 2023

Richard Leonard

We have been told a few times that the report is from a moment in time, but it came out in February, and we are now in May, so it was not that long ago. Before I bring in Sharon Dowey, can I just ask whether you are planning to revisit the NHS recovery plan, which is one of the headline recommendations in the Auditor General’s report?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “NHS in Scotland 2022”

Meeting date: 4 May 2023

Richard Leonard

I presume, however, that you agree with the recommendation in the report that the Scottish Government and NHS boards need to work “more collaboratively” in the future.

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “NHS in Scotland 2022”

Meeting date: 4 May 2023

Richard Leonard

I will bring in Craig Hoy in a second. We have spoken about the number of GPs, and about recruitment and retention and so on. Last year, the committee was quite exercised by the broader picture of GP data, which we took up with you in correspondence. I can characterise it as follows: on the one hand, we have GPs saying, “We’re seeing more patients than ever”, and, on the other hand, our postbags are full of correspondence from people saying, “I can’t get an appointment with a GP.” We were quite keen to have transparency on that. We certainly corresponded about an oversight group that you had put together that was, I think, an attempt to get into the granular detail. Can you update us on that work?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “NHS in Scotland 2022”

Meeting date: 4 May 2023

Richard Leonard

I am sorry to labour the point, but what is the budget, for example, for the Larbert site? What is the budget for the NHS Golden Jubilee site? Where do they now sit?

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “NHS in Scotland 2022”

Meeting date: 4 May 2023

Richard Leonard

The financial memorandum has been questioned by the Auditor General, and it was also questioned pretty heavily by the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which told you that you needed to go back and do your sums again and come back with a revised financial memorandum. I cannot remember a time when it was necessary for a Government department to revise its financial memorandum because it was seen to be so out of sync with what people estimated the costs would be. Do you feel embarrassed about that?

09:30  

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “NHS in Scotland 2022”

Meeting date: 4 May 2023

Richard Leonard

You accept, though, that there has been a delay.

Public Audit Committee

Section 23 Report: “NHS in Scotland 2022”

Meeting date: 4 May 2023

Richard Leonard

I am sure that the Auditor General was not suggesting “a dry annual report”, but was, rather, suggesting something that would be informative and would help people to understand the progress that has been made. We have highlighted some of the areas where we have concerns, but as you said at the start, some extremely critical work is going on—thanks, not least, to the workforce. The committee adds our thanks to yours to the staff who do such incredible work and provide services day in, day out and night in, night out.

On that note, I close this morning’s session. Caroline Lamb, Richard McCallum and John Burns, thank you for your input, which has been very useful. You said that you might get back to us with a bit more detail on some areas; that would be most welcome.

10:34 Meeting continued in private until 10:59.  

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2021/22 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 27 April 2023

Richard Leonard

You used—advisedly—the word “reviews”, plural. It is a little bit confusing, and perhaps in the realm of bewildering, that there could be more than one review with, presumably, broadly similar terms of reference. Aspects such as a business plan for the yard, what can be done to give it a sustainable future and what the market looks like are, presumably, part of the research that an organisation such as FMI would carry out. Why would there not be just one review to be signed off by both FMPG and the Scottish Government?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2021/22 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 27 April 2023

Richard Leonard

Thank you very much. I will begin by going back to what has been a recurring theme in relation to the delivery of those two vessels, which is cost overruns. In particular, I want to ask about paragraph 13 of the report, in which you draw attention to the fact that, during October to mid-December 2022, Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow made expenditure commitments of between £10 million and £15 million more than the Scottish Government had allocated. I guess the obvious question is: how could that be? Was it appropriate, and where was the sponsorship team of the Scottish Government during that?

Public Audit Committee

Section 22 Report: “The 2021/22 audit of Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow (Holdings) Limited”

Meeting date: 27 April 2023

Richard Leonard

Auditor General, you spoke about ambiguity and the framework agreement not being as clear as it might have been. How should the sponsorship team’s relationship with an NDPB such as this be, when presumably not insubstantial amounts of public money—£10 to £15 million—need to be committed? Does it come as a letter of comfort at the end of the process or should there not be some kind of prior sign-off by the sponsorship team or the minister or whoever to allow the expenditure to be committed? We have heard that before in other circumstances around the contract.