���˿���

Thank you for those helpful answers.

Ms Congreve, in your written submission, you raise concerns about the use of data. For example, you say that the financial memorandum states that some of the estimates of inflation are taken from the Office for National Statistics but that you understood them to be from the Bank of England. Have you had that issue clarified with the Scottish Government? Have you asked the Government why it did not use the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts and, if so, did you get any clarity on that?

Mr Mason cited the example of college regionalisation, which represented a substantial change to the college sector. I also remember the passage of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which was a huge bill. At the beginning of those processes, there were issues with the accuracy of the financial memorandums to the bills. Such substantial pieces of legislation take a lot of time to go through Parliament. In addition, at this time cost inflation is rising substantially, which will affect the financial memorandum, over time.

The setting up of a national care service is a huge policy change. I will not argue about the merits and demerits of that policy change, but the financial memorandum that accompanies it is really important. I feel that, at the moment, we are not in a position to make a very good judgment, because we do not have enough information.

Do you accept that we have moved too quickly? Obviously, you have to take evidence from stakeholders who will be on the front line in delivering what will, in effect, be a new system. Would it have been better to take a slightly different approach to designing the bill so that we had a more substantial financial memorandum with greater detail than we have at present?

That was helpful.

I put on the record similar concerns to those that my three colleagues have spoken about so far. The financial memorandum is an important part of any bill or legislation, and it is important that, when we pass bills, they are good law. Good law has certain principles—namely, it has to have clarity of purpose, it has to be understood and it has to be workable, but it also has to have a strong evidence base. Although we are considering only the financial memorandum and not the wider policy commitments, the committee is struggling with the lack of an evidence base.

You have just given an answer to Michelle Thomson that makes it clear that work is being done on an on-going basis and that the information will be updated. Our problem is that we have to scrutinise the financial memorandum. Do you accept the criticism that has been levelled at you by the people who will give evidence later this morning and others who have provided written submissions? The convener described it as “excoriating” criticism. Do you accept that those people have a point and that there is not enough information for them to make a value judgment about how to proceed?

I understand fully why people might wish to see a policy change—you are right that a lot of people would like change in delivery of health and social care and how it is organised. However, this is about the procedure and how the change can best be put into practice. The stakeholders who are giving evidence to you and the committee are not comfortable with the process, in which they are, in effect, being left in the dark when it comes to many of the costs, which have not been laid out. Do you accept that that criticism must be addressed?

Ms Wearing, you made an interesting point about IJBs in response to an earlier question from Michelle Thomson. You said that you felt that there was scope for improvement. What did you mean by that, given the role that IJBs have in the context of care? Would that have any financial implications?

Given the concerns that you rightly have about the proposed changes, do you think that there are changes that could be made to the IJB system that would help us to achieve the aims and objectives that everyone wants to achieve, but without having to go through the major overhaul that is proposed in the bill?

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I put it on record that I understand and accept that your job is much more difficult because of the difficulties that have been introduced by the Westminster Government, particularly with regard to the forecast. I absolutely understand why you prefaced your remarks with reference to that.

In the debate on the Scottish Government’s programme for government at the start of this session, you mentioned two interesting things to me, namely that the Scottish Government is challenged with trying to improve economic growth, particularly by increasing productivity, and that you feel that the size of the Scottish working population in relation to total population is a major problem—I think that those were the words that you used. That latter point has been a focus of the Scottish Fiscal Commission for some years now.

Notwithstanding all the challenges that we face, could you say something about your economic plan to try to develop issues relating to growth? What will the Scottish Government prioritise in trying to improve our economic growth and our productivity?

I was interested in what you said in response to Mr Greer about the need for a grown-up discussion in Parliament about what we bring in through revenue and what we spend. I do not think that there is any doubt that increasing transparency and accountability in this Parliament is essential. I think that it was two weeks ago that we had witnesses in the committee who were very keen on that idea.

In fact, a couple of the witnesses were suggesting that we should have a finance bill to enhance that process and I am interested to hear your views on that. It comes on the back of the national performance framework, which is obviously centre stage to the Scottish Government’s delivery. We have had a lot of debates about how easy it is to measure the outcomes when you have specific policies within the national performance framework. How easy is that process? Are you minded to be fairly favourable towards the idea of a finance bill that could help to enhance scrutiny and openness?