成人快手

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 18 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1222 contributions

|

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

The committee鈥檚 concern is to assess that with more certainty. As the convener said in his questions, we need much greater clarity about the nature of the costs that will be involved in implementing the bill. That is the central issue. There might be lots of good things about it鈥擨 am not taking sides on whether it is good or bad鈥攂ut the principal role of the committee is to understand what the future costs will be and, therefore, how accurate the new financial memorandum is. We have considerable difficulty with that because of the uncertainty that is unfolding from quite a lot of your answers this morning. We simply do not know some of those things. Do you accept that?

11:00  

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

But what do you think the on-going discussions on co-design will be about if there are no suggestions of further substantial changes?

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

I understand that. The key point here, in relation to what you have just said, is that how the bill is implemented surely has a direct relationship to cost.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

But those are not related to future co-design.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

I will leave it there, convener.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

Did that decision to re-engage largely come from concerns over costs, or did other factors require that re-engagement?

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

That is helpful鈥攊n a way.

Co-design can, in principle, have a strong case behind it, as you are engaging with the stakeholders who are collectively making representations to the Government about what the right process might be, but do you accept that, because that process is on-going, it is exceptionally difficult to come to any accurate assessment of what the costs are going to be?

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

But is it not the case that co-design is on-going?

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

So, if co-design is on-going, and if further representations are made to the Scottish Government about possible changes, does that not have implications for future costs?

Finance and Public Administration Committee

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill: Financial Memorandum

Meeting date: 23 January 2024

Liz Smith

Sorry, but can we go back a little bit? In effect, you are saying that, up until this point, the co-design has made the Government have a bit of a rethink about the bill. It has made three substantial changes, two of which involve reducing the costs, in that there will be no transfer of local authority staff or assets and no new care boards. That saves a lot of costs. Should co-design be on-going, and should the outcome of the further co-design be that more substantial changes are suggested, does that not have implications for the costs?