Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much for that opening statement, Stephen. As you will understand, we have a number of questions on everything from the implications of the Sturrock report and the progress that has been made in addressing the issues identified in it to the funding formula and the recurring challenges faced by a health board that is operating in the most rural part of Scotland and delivering services that need to be accessible, as far as possible, to the population that it serves.

I will start by turning to paragraph 14, which is on page 5 of the report. It reminds us that NHS Highland moved down from level 4 to level 3 in the escalation framework. At face value, that is a positive development. Will you summarise the improvements that have been made, as you understand it, which have led to the de-escalation of the health board’s status? In so doing, will you give any assessment that you have of whether the board is moving in the direction of going down from level 3 to level 2? Are there still bigger challenges to overcome? I ask Stephen Boyle to open up on the evidence on that.

Thank you very much for the opening statement. I have a couple of questions to ask, before I invite questions from other members of the committee.

It is worth recapping where things were back in 2018-19. The conclusions of the 2018-19 report spoke about

“ineffective leadership, inadequate workforce planning, a lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities and poor relationships and organisational culture”,

which existed to such an extent that, in giving evidence to the Public Audit Committee’s predecessor committee, the auditor said:

“In terms of the findings and recommendations, I cannot think of another report that has raised such serious issues during my time in this role.”—[Official Report, Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, 16 January 2020; c 21.]

That is a pretty damning indictment of how things were.

When we turn to the report that has just been published, we see that there appears to have been a considerable turnaround. My first question is this: what has been the catalyst for such a transformative difference in the organisation?

Openness and transparency were previously identified as issues back in 2018-19, so that is a continuing area of interest for us.

My final question goes back to the 72 actions that came out of the recommendations, which the Auditor General mentioned. Of the 72, 71 have been implemented. However, the nature of the beast that is the Public Audit Committee being what it is, I want to ask about the 72nd action, which has not so far been implemented. Can someone explain why there has been a hold-up with it? Is it simply a matter of timing; is it contingent on other issues? What is the reason? I ask so that we have a better understanding of the outstanding action.

We have more questions on engagement, which will come up later in the evidence session. Colin Beattie has questions about board scrutiny.

We want to further interrogate the board’s financial position in terms of not only its management but its sustainability.

There is mention in the report of an “improvement plan steering group”. Is the expectation that it will continue for some time or is it also a time-limited part of the organisation’s work? I invite Pat to reply. We can then widen the question out, if other people have comments.

Thanks, Craig. Pat, it would be useful if we could get that information, which would aid us in our consideration of the report.

Before I move on, I have something else to raise in this area. The Auditor General mentioned exhibit 1—the organisational chart—as something for us to have a look at. Mention has been made of the important additional resource that has now been put into the organisation through the appointment of a head of communications and promotions. When I look at the organisational chart, however, I see a chief executive, below which is a director of Gaelic education, a director of language planning and community developments, and a head of finance and corporate services. I do not see a head of communications and promotions. Are they not at the same level? Are they not part of that more senior executive management team?

It might be worth giving some reflection to that.

Sharon Dowey has a number of questions on roles and responsibilities stemming from the previous report and the latest report.

Willie Coffey has some questions that explore some of those areas further, in the context of openness and transparency. Over to you, Willie.

I am bound to reflect on the evidence that there has been a lot of controversy in the Highlands about the centralisation of services. So, when Joanne Brown speaks about service redesign, the question that many people in the Highlands will ask is, to what extent is that clinically led and to what extent is that financially led? It may not be for the Auditor General to offer commentary on that, but any reflections that you or Joanne can make would be useful in getting the inside track on what is pushing those changes.