Chamber and committees

Thank you for that helpful opening statement. We will focus on the financial rather than the policy aspects, but I first commend you on the scope and scale of the bill and the ambitions behind it. I realise how difficult it is to put together a member’s bill on an issue as challenging as this. Having read your financial memorandum again last night, I have to say that the word “challenging” comes up in almost every paragraph. You also alluded to that in your opening statement, when you talked about the issues of data and so on.

We have to look at the financial implications of the bill and, in particular, the best estimates that you have put forward, which suggest a low cost of perhaps £28.5 million to just more than £38 million a year. You have talked about how that will be distributed, and we will, no doubt, get on to savings at some point. However, the submissions that we have received are fairly universal in terms of their concern regarding the overall costs.

In no particular order—except that this is the order in which we were presented with them—Glasgow City Council said:

“We do not believe that the impact of this Bill is fully captured within the FM. The current residential rehabilitation services would require significant capital investment to expand the existing infrastructure, including in patient detox beds.”

You go on to mention the Scottish Government’s ambition to increase the number of beds to 651 next year, so there is an aspect of that. However, the Glasgow City Council submission also goes on to state:

“The Bill assume that decisions are made solely by health professionals, which is not the case in GHSCP – these decisions are made as part of a wider multi disciplinary team. We believe these costs are therefore significantly underestimated.”

I could also quote from the submissions from the North Ayrshire alcohol and drug partnership or the Fife health and social care partnership—generally speaking, they all said much the same thing in their submissions. I wonder whether we could open with that issue. I take on board what you said about available data, but, even given that, it seems to be a case of erring on the side of optimism with regard to the costings.

I will address the tipping point issue, which you have mentioned twice. In paragraph 14 of its submission, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities says:

“it is not practical nor feasible to assume the organisations we represent will be able to fund the initial predicted uptake in service provision.”

Although there might be savings further down the line—I would not want to dispute that—the issue is about how far down the line those savings would be and what resources are available to deliver the provisions of the bill. A bill of this importance and magnitude must work from the day that it comes into effect. We do not want people to turn up for services if the required facilities are not there, and if the staff are not trained and the support is not available.

COSLA also said:

“The ‘Spend to Save’ model as outlined above does not truly reflect the ongoing, lifelong model of care needed for patients who present through ADPs. Therefore, costs do not accurately reflect the delivery of care in reality.”

Although there might be some savings, COSLA does not necessarily agree with what Ms Black has said.

COSLA went on to say:

“It is difficult to quantify the estimated costs and savings for LAs given the lack of consideration for the essential direct and indirect services provided by LAs to the benefit of ADPs throughout the FM.”

COSLA is obviously concerned that the FM has been weighted very heavily towards health boards. It is saying that, even if there are savings down the line, it does not necessarily agree that they will be quite as high as is being suggested. However, there is the initial cost, which we, as a committee, and the Government would have to address.

One could say exactly the same of the current service delivery. If a person is treated effectively, repeat visits will not be required. The issue is about how the bill would make a difference. Fife health and social care partnership said that it is concerned about the omission of support costs from the financial memorandum. Its submission states that the

“Costs of complementary support to sustain long-term recovery including psychological therapy, psychosocial support and community and residential rehabilitation that may be of benefit to those requesting treatment is not reflected in the Financial Memorandum.”

Thank you for that opening statement. Do you really think that, if you were to put the tax on inert waste up by £1 you would have vast numbers of lorries charging over the border in order to avoid tax? Given what it costs to ship such material, including the cost of fuel, payment for the driver and depreciation of the value of the lorry, that is kind of nonsense, is it not? I can understand the argument about non-inert waste, but it seems a bit bizarre that this tax has been devolved for umpteen years without there being a penny differential and that we still get a ludicrous statement every year about inert waste tourism. Surely we can think up our own tax for that. If it cost a fiver, we could make an extra few bob for the Scottish Government and there would not be a queue of trucks at Berwick trying to dump waste in Northumberland.

Are you suggesting that I should put that directly to the First Minister when he comes to the Conveners Group in a week or two?

Indeed. I call Liz Smith.

That approach would not have to be taken every year, but it would be useful for organisations that have been around for decades.

Incidentally, to jump back a bit, I worked out, while we were having this discussion, that the £490,000 that will be saved by ministerial salary sacrifice in the next financial year is less than the money from putting £1 on 600,000 tonnes of inert waste for a year. I just want to provide that perspective.

Agenda item 5 involves formal consideration of the motion on the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-16547.

Motion moved,

That the Finance and Public Administration Committee recommends that the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (Part 2 Further Extension) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Ivan McKee]

Motion agreed to.

In the social justice portfolio, an extra £117.8 million has had to be allocated. I realise that that is demand led, but it seems that child disability payments are particularly high, at some £67.9 million, which is well over half of that figure. Is there any reason why there seems to have been an underestimate of what the portfolio was likely to need?