���˿���

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.

Indeed. The independent review said that there was a huge level of consensus that a national care service was required to achieve consistency and quality. However, the Fraser of Allander Institute has said that the new system that is being developed is unlikely to be any better unless it is funded to be better.

There are real issues about the overall funding of the Scottish Parliament; we know what pressures we are under. Last week, we saw the Deputy First Minister reprofile some £70 million with regard to the policy. How likely is it that we will see the positive changes that you want? Can they happen without investing the sums of money that are required or without impacting on other services?

We all support the policy ambitions but let us look more at the finances of the proposal.

One of the issues that witnesses have brought to our attention is the scale of uncertainty about the costings. Last week, for example, the Fraser of Allander Institute said that one of its concerns was that there were no workings beneath the costs in the financial memorandum to show how the costs had been arrived at or why we had such a breadth of costs. The Auditor General for Scotland supported that point, too. We realise that there is uncertainty and that there will be secondary legislation, but it is a matter of concern that the financial memorandum, which is what we are taking evidence on, does not contain more detailed costings for delivering the care service.

I do not think that anyone would accuse you of making up your mind too early. People just want to ensure that the bill goes forward with solid financial foundations. That is the issue that I think we are grappling with. For example, there are a number of areas where the financial memorandum fails to give any indication at all of the likely scale of costs. Audit Scotland lists a number of areas where no indication of costs has been provided, and those are significant. They include

“the costs of any national care boards ... transition costs for Local Authorities and Health Boards, including double running ... the impact of changes to VAT treatment ... the impact of any changes to pension scheme arrangements and associated contribution costs arising from pay harmonisation/rationalisation ... the extent of potential changes to capital investment and maintenance costs ... the cost of the health and social care information scheme.”

There is also the issue of transfer of assets.

There are real issues on which more information could and should be forthcoming, surely, at this point.