However, as highlighted by the Evans-Cunliffe Report, neither the computer system nor the paper files were adequate for this purpose. Furthermore, the Evans-Cunliffe Report stated that aspects of the running of the Medicines Division indicated a lack of effective oversight of the Division's work. We considered carefully whether the Medicines Directorate should be transferred from the DHSS, as has been suggested, into a Special Health Authority or other independent body, but we decided that the balance of advantage lies in keeping the Directorate within DHSS under special financial and managerial arrangements to promote a considerable degree of autonomy and flexibility, for example over pay for specialised posts. In summary the report emphasised that there was 'little criticism of the general concept and indeed of the correctness of decisions but considerable criticism of the operation of the system'. In terms of the staffing difficulties and the pressures of workload, the Cunliffe Report's findings were similar to, though less acute than, those on the human medicines side.
Strains are, however, evident and delays are increasing.
It is unlikely the present numbers will be able to cope with the future workload unless systems are developed to reduce that workload. . . . The problem with professional staffing detracts from the licensing operation. Operation of procedures falls short of effectiveness and would be further adversely affected by the future work load. Computing support is disastrously weak and the whole operation is under-resourced and ineffectively managed. Problems with the database and computing support, with the paper files and their management, overwork, ineffective management and complex structures each played a part in shaping the response, as we explain in the following chapters.