³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Well, you just gave a good example. In the transport budget, specific changes have been made that you had thought might be included but which did not have to be. It would be helpful to know what the other ones were.

Right, and that comes to the total of £191 million—

It is just that, if somebody genuinely has not engaged in the activities of which they have been accused, it is good for the public to know why it was a wrong accusation. It helps that person to move on, rather than just to be named and it stated that a complaint was made against them but was not upheld. That leaves just a bit of doubt in the mind of that person.

On that same point, am I right that the procedure that would be followed is very similar to that of the Ethical Standards Commissioner in that, if a complaint is made about somebody, the commissioner is duty bound to find out whether the complaint should proceed by contacting the person and asking for evidence and by asking for evidence from the complainant? It is then the commissioner’s judgment whether it should become a formal complaint. Is that pretty much the same procedure that you are asking for?

Yes, I very much do. I do not doubt that there will be conversations—of course there will be—but, as a committee and as a Parliament, it is our duty to scrutinise any piece of legislation but particularly any sizeable piece of legislation. We must be clear in our minds about the financial memorandum that accompanies that legislation. I think that I can safely say that, irrespective of what we think about the bill, the committee has concerns because of a lot of the evidence that has been provided to us in the past three weeks.

That evidence says that what is before Parliament is not sufficient for the level of scrutiny that is required in order for us to decide whether the bill can progress in its current state or whether we need a completely different approach. Do you accept that the concern is sufficient, particularly among those who are trying to scrutinise the financial memorandum, to cause you to pause the bill until there is more detail?

Minister, I have to say that it is the weakest financial memorandum that I have seen in all my time in the Parliament, and that includes the financial memorandums for various pieces of major legislation. What would you say in answer to those witnesses who have told us that, for some of the projected additional costs that the bill would give rise to, they have had to ask civil servants for further detail, because such detail has not been presented to them as they have sought to establish their projections from the financial memorandum?

Minister, let me try this from another angle. You have persistently said that the bill is about people.

Minister, in last Wednesday’s national care service debate, you said that, should the bill pass, it will involve a huge change to social services, and you have just repeated that comment. In that debate, you also said that you were keen to set out the principles and that those ought to be heavily scrutinised. You cited financial sustainability as a key principle.

How are we supposed to engage in that scrutiny if we do not have anything like the detail that we need in the financial memorandum, for the reasons that Michelle Thomson and the convener have cited? I think that you have to admit that many stakeholders are deeply unhappy that they do not have the relevant detail to undertake sufficient scrutiny.

Mr Stewart, I do not think that it is simply a case of having conversations. The committee is asking for, and the Parliament will ask for, further detail. I completely understand that you could never put out a full set of estimates, but too many people—whether witnesses who have given evidence to us or those who have produced commentaries on the bill—have made it clear that it is extremely difficult to provide the best forecast of costs, because the Scottish Government has not provided sufficient detail.

That makes it very difficult for us to carry out scrutiny, the importance of which you raised in last week’s debate in Parliament, when you set out the laudable aims of the bill. You made it clear that our job is to scrutinise the bill, and you are right about that. Forgive me for saying so again, but we cannot do that unless there is adequate information on which to base the scrutiny. Do you accept that?

I understand that, but to ensure that we deliver first-class services for people, we need to have some structures. The Scottish Government is proposing that a structure that is vastly different from the existing one should be put in place. That may have merit but, for us to be persuaded of that merit, it is surely incumbent on the Scottish Government to set out as much detail as it possibly can to help us along the way and to persuade us that the change that it wants to make is not only desirable, based on the laudable aims that you have set out, but that it is actually workable and deliverable. At the moment, far too many people around the country are telling us that they have serious concerns about what they will be asked to do to make that work and about whether the costs are applicable.

Do you at least accept that there is genuine concern and that that is another reason why the bill should be paused for the time being?