���˿���

One of the difficulties is that, according to COSLA, SOLACE, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountability and so on, the consultation came out without any prior discussion and, as a result, they were caught on the hop. Moreover, it came out over the summer when they were trying to prioritise recovery from Covid, and they also felt that the consultation period was only the standard one when, with something of such magnitude, they should have been given a lot more time to develop and discuss issues with the Scottish Government and to present more detailed responses.

Only 3 per cent inflation is built into the financial memorandum but, as we know, the rate of inflation is already 10 per cent, and you indicated to the committee this morning that the Scottish Government intends to fully fund the bill and those changes. Will it be fully funded at the prevailing rate of inflation, and what do you think the impact will be on other local government services?

There seems to be a contradiction with the resource spending review that we had in May, because there is going to be a flat financial cash settlement but, with inflation at 10 per cent, that means significant reductions in service delivery and staff numbers, yet we are going to have this service that is apparently going to deliver more effectively for more people. There may be some savings, but initially there will be significant costs in setting up this apparatus. Is the Scottish Government committed to inflation proofing the bill?

Yes, but the current rate of inflation is 10 per cent. The point of my question was whether the bill will be inflation proofed. There is not much point in saying that we will deliver the funding for the bill if, at the end of the day, the reality of inflation is not reflected in that. Inflation was at 6.2 or 6.3 per cent, and it is now 10 per cent. We are already building that in and, as I have mentioned, the Deputy First Minister had to make a difficult decision with regard to the funding of the bill only last week. How can we be sure that we end up with a service that is delivered in the way that the Scottish Government and service users want?

It has been a long session, minister. In time-honoured fashion, though, I will finish up with a couple more questions. I have many—

—but to spare you and the committee, I will just ask a couple for clarification.

Co-design has been mentioned on many occasions. In her evidence, Donna Bell said:

“The approach has been almost universally welcomed by people who want to be involved in shaping the national care service and the delivery of services that they use now or are likely to use in the future. That was reinforced at the national care service forum a few weeks ago.”

She also said:

“The bill sets out a framework for change. The detail relies very much on co-design—co-design with people with lived experience of, and people who deliver, community health and care support. Our partners and stakeholders will also play a vital role in that co-design.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 25 October 2022; c 2, 6.]

I have two questions in relation to that. First, what is the timescale for the delivery of co-design?

Secondly, as you have mentioned, a plethora of individuals and partners will be involved in this work. However, the unions and organisations such as COSLA have already claimed that engagement has not been what they would have anticipated it to be. How do we ensure that we do end up not with something to which the saying “A camel is a horse designed by a committee” would apply but with something that works? How do you weigh up what stakeholders say? How do you balance the experience of a care user and the institutional experience of an organisation such as COSLA in order to get this right? I realise that such an approach was used successfully in the development of Social Security Scotland.

In short, what is the timescale for delivery, and how do we balance the competing interests that we have discussed?

I am sure that you have, minister. I understand that the stage 1 debate on the bill will be on 17 March 2023, so we will be keen to see what progress you have made before then.

Thank you very much for your evidence today. I also thank your colleagues Fiona Bennett and Donna Bell.

That ends the public part of our meeting. Under the next item on our agenda, we will consider in private the evidence that we have received today, and I suspend the meeting until 11:55 to allow the witnesses to leave.

Good morning, and welcome to the 27th meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The first item on our agenda is an evidence session on the financial memorandum to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill.

I welcome to the meeting Mark Taylor, audit director at Audit Scotland; Emma Congreve, knowledge exchange fellow at the Fraser of Allander Institute; Hannah Tweed, senior policy officer at the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, which will be referred to throughout this morning’s session as the alliance; and Ralph Roberts, chief executive of NHS Borders, NHS Scotland. I thank all the witnesses for joining us and for their written submissions, which we obviously have questions about.

We will move straight to questions. I will kick off with a question for Mark Taylor. I would like an explanation of what you mean by the word “significant”. In your submission, you say:

“there is likely to be a significant degree of variation in the treatment of central support service costs and other ‘overheads’.”

You talk about “significant” this and “significant” that. I would like to better gauge what you are talking about. For example, you refer to

“the significant amount of uncertainty set out in the financial memorandum”.

Can you give a bit more information about what you mean by that?

My only concern is about the range of numbers. Obviously, “significant” means different things to different people, so I just wanted to see whether I could pin you down a bit more on that.

Hannah Tweed, in your submission, you suggest that

“the financial memorandum does not provide sufficient detail on funding plans to assure the sector of sufficient investment to see the proposals implemented—particularly given the significant impact of the cost of living crisis on the third and independent sectors, as evidenced by recent work by SCVO.”

Obviously, you, too, have significant concerns. If there is a shortfall in relation to what the financial memorandum hopes to deliver, do you have any idea of what that shortfall might be?

I have been very neglectful this morning. I have not given the apologies from my colleagues John Mason and Ross Greer. They are coming to the meeting, but they have, unfortunately, been held up by train difficulties on their way through from Glasgow. I apologise for not saying that earlier on.

Emma Congreve mentioned a gap. NHS Scotland said in its submission:

“There is no detail about which community and mental health services were included within the financial memorandum.”

Therefore, that is a gap that concerns it.