���˿���

Your first example about biodiversity is a classic example, because the data that you need will not exist until years from now. That might be slightly different from the business case for deciding on business rates or whatever, because that detail potentially exists, although you might not have it. In the case of biodiversity, the data that you need on which to base policy might not come for another five or 10 years. An example of that is moorlands—we were having that debate last year or the year before. To what extent is that a serious problem for the Government in devising policy? Effectively, there is nothing that it can do to get that data.

I will come to other two gentlemen, but first, when you say that there is a case for making better use of the existing data, what is it that acts as a barrier to doing that?

I do not think that there is much scope to be able to reduce costs. As you rightly say, if we want a world-class health service, costs are going to rise in that sector more than they will in the rest of the economy. That has been the nature of health service costs for a long time.

Is there scope for reform elsewhere, in the non-health, non-social security aspects of the economy, that could help us to make some savings?

Correct.

That would be very helpful. The convener has asked questions about the significant amounts of money that are being transferred between portfolios. If we are talking, on a longer-term basis, about a figure of £1.3 billion as a minimum—it could be more—that is a considerable amount of money. It is important to the Parliament, and certainly to this committee, that we know what the plans are for how that money will be deployed. If there are any delays in the process of the project, which is what is happening, that frees up money that could be spent on other things, which might address some of the constraints that we have before us. Could we get some more information on that?

Can you clarify whether there have been any conversations between you, John Swinney and civil servants who look after budgets on whether that is up for discussion as a major piece of money that can be deployed elsewhere?

That is helpful. You have made it clear that there has not been much discussion about the issue—certainly not with you and the cabinet secretary. I find that slightly strange, I have to say. The national care service was a flagship policy that the Scottish Government wanted to put in process, and it has fallen foul of at least four committees in the Parliament, which have very serious concerns; I think that another three committees are looking at it just now. There is clearly some concern about not just the general direction of the policy, but how it would be financed. Our job in this committee is to scrutinise the financial aspect.

We were told that a second, much more detailed—and, one would hope, more accurate—financial memorandum would be coming down the line fairly shortly. That was before the delay, and we are now left in a bit of an open space with regard to exactly what is happening. It would be helpful if we could get some clarity on all that.

I think that the convener made an extremely important point; namely, if there is X billion pounds to be spent on health, it is very important that we, and the public, know how much of that is spent directly in the health budget and how much of it will be spent on health in local government—or wherever it might be spent.

To pick up on a point that the minister made, it is the “why” that is important. If we really want to get clarity about what we are trying to do and measure the effectiveness of the spend, it is important that we understand who has spent the money and why they have been tasked with spending it. That is the clarity that we are looking for within budgets. I know that they are incredibly technical and complex, but it is about getting extra understanding.

It is to the benefit of everybody—including the Scottish Government—to know where money is being spent, by whom and why some of it goes to one channel and some goes to another. That is critical, and the convener was right to ask questions about it.

I have a few questions about the delay in the Parliament’s consideration of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, the stage 1 process on which we have been told in a letter will be extended up to 30 June.

When we received the initial financial memorandum on the bill, its projection was that the five-year spend on the service would be a minimum of £1.3 billion, and £95 million was set aside for the forthcoming financial year. However, in an answer to a question from my colleague Daniel Johnson, John Swinney seemed to imply that the figure of £95 million was not accurate and that the figure was likely to be nearer—I am quoting—“£50 million to £60 million”. Has any of that money been spent? If so, what has it been spent on?

The reason that I am asking is that the matter is crucial in terms of freeing up money that was going to be available for a project that has been delayed. The committee would strongly welcome clarity on exactly how much money has been already spent. I think that I am correct in saying that the implication was that some of it—whether it was up to £50 million or not—had already been spent. The committee would like to know how much of that money has been spent, what remains and whether that will have considerable implications for budgets that need to be planned ahead—in fact, as you have indicated, you are already planning ahead.

Can you provide the committee with clarity on that? We are very anxious that we get that clarity, because it is clear that there is money available.