³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

No, I do not think that there is. As this committee will be well aware, I take my responsibilities in this very seriously and questioned to the nth degree the officials who put together the financial memorandums and other documents. As I have said throughout, this financial memorandum covers the aspects that the bill covers.

I have never known Parliament to legislate for an IT system. As I am sure that every member is aware, an FM covers what is covered in the bill—that is what is covered by the financial memorandum.

No decision has been made on those things—they are on the table as part of the co-design process. I repeat what I said earlier to Mr Mason: we also have to take cognisance of where there is already good service delivery. Why would we make a change for change’s sake if there is already good service delivery?

We will keep an eye on this as we move forward, but I cannot reiterate enough that the statutory responsibility still rests with local government and that no decision has been taken by the Parliament to make any changes to that position. As the bill progresses, local government will remain statutorily responsible. I hope that, for reasons of good governance and stewardship and to ensure that people get things right for their citizens, local authorities will continue to recognise their statutory duty and to do their best in relation to service delivery for their constituents.

You are right to point out that this is not a new approach. We have used it previously and with some success for Social Security Scotland.

We have launched the co-design panels, and we are looking for partners to promote the sign-up of front-line staff to the lived experienced experts panel. To support that, the NCS programme will shortly advertise introductory seminars, which people will be able to sign up to online. There will also be co-designed training, which will be associated with a number of specific themes that we will send you more detail on.

With regard to timelines, we will write to you, convener. However, work will be on-going. We have got to get this right, and we have to continue to consult and co-design.

As for balancing the views of competing interests, we managed to do that fairly well with Social Security Scotland. Some of the folk whom we involved in co-designing that organisation are at the forefront of helping us with the national care co-design. I will put all that in more detail in writing to the committee. I have pages of notes before me, convener, but I am quite sure that you do not want to sit and listen to me for another hour.

My response is that, as I have said today, we will continue to update forecasts, business cases and everything else as we move forward. I reiterate the point that I have made again and again today: the financial memorandum covers what is in the bill. CIPFA, COSLA, SOLACE and others want answers to things that are not contained within the bill; they will get those answers, but they will have them after the co-design and when the business cases have been built up. I think that there is a big difference between what they want the financial memorandum to address and what is actually in the bill. As I have said, the financial memorandum covers what is in the bill.

Sometimes it is very difficult to build that evidence base. I gave the example about stepped-up and stepped-down care, but can I—or, indeed, those folk in Aberdeen—tell you in the here and now how many folk have been prevented from going into hospital? That is a very difficult thing to do. It is not so easy to work out what that stepping up has or has not done.

However, we know that the approach has been helpful for people. We can make the broad assumption—and it would not be far off the mark—that it has probably saved a lot of people from going in through the hospital front door. It is also one of the reasons for the lower number of delayed discharges in Aberdeen compared with many of our other cities. As I have said, these things are sometimes very difficult to measure, particularly in the short term, but the broad assumption that the approach has been helpful in keeping folk out of acute services would not be off the mark.

I am not afraid of pinching, stealing or plagiarising, Ms Callaghan. We will have a look at the dashboard that education is using and consider whether it would be useful to us as we move forward.

Gosh—I think that I have that number somewhere, but I am not sure that I can find it. [Interruption.] Oh! Ms Bell has the information—she is much more on the ball than I am.

The independent review of adult social care estimated that approximately 36,000 people who would benefit from access to social care support do not have access to it at the moment.

We have committed to enhancement by £800 million, but we have had no indication from the UK Treasury of what money we are likely to get as a result of the rise in national insurance. Ms Webber might be able to help the Scottish Government in that regard. If she has a word in Rishi Sunak’s shell-like so that we finally get some numbers out of him and find out how Scotland will benefit, I might be in a better position to answer her question. However, we have committed to the £800 million.