Chamber and committees

That is diplomatic.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has done a substantial bit of work on the issue of the ageing population across the industrialised economies. Its reports show that the approach that has been taken in countries that have undertaken reform—notably Japan, the Netherlands and Finland—involves enhancing the powers at a municipal level for configuring and delivering social care services. It strikes me that the bill is taking the opposite approach, and is going up a layer. Has it been explained to you why the Scottish Government is taking a centralising approach, rather than pushing the powers further down? What do you think is the appropriate level for the decisions to be taken?

Mark, do you agree with my interpretation of the numbers? What are Audit Scotland’s thoughts on the transparency? Audit Scotland is the expert in looking at management information and whether decisions are being made in a robust and repeatable manner. Does the presentation of information that we have lend itself to that sort of decision making?

I am about to put that question to Hannah Tweed and Ralph Roberts, because I do not think that we have had a proper explanation of why this is being done and what the benefits will be.

On that key question about aspects that might incur costs that are not fully worked through, we recently received an interesting paper from the Scottish Fiscal Commission on Scotland’s demographics, in which the SFC says that the proportion of people in Scotland who are over 65 will rise from 20 per cent today to 32 per cent in 2072. If we set aside some of the detail about models of care and service provision, it strikes me that the biggest cost driver will be demand and that the demographics will be the single biggest driver of demand. There will be a very substantial increase in demand. Have the demographics been properly explored? The 3 per cent figure seems to cover everything—service improvement and demographics. Is that figure sufficient? Am I right to place emphasis on that issue? Will 3 per cent cover everything?

I begin with questions to Emma Congreve and Mark Taylor.

Emma, you have just said that you think that the Government has been transparent, but it strikes me that it has been transparent only after you asked questions on what is set out in the financial memorandum. I find it difficult to understand what the numbers are telling me. Given that you have asked for clarity, can you say whether there is sufficient clarity in what is published for us to commit to something that potentially allows ministers to create significant financial liabilities for the Government?

I thank the Fraser of Allander Institute for its summary tables, which I find easier to follow than the ones in the memorandum. In relation to how to understand the numbers, is it correct to say that the £527 million is a recurring cost for the additional resource and effort required in running the system? Is it also correct to say that, at the high end of the estimates, the establishment phase involves £300 million of non-recurring or one-off costs?

The other key point is that it is assumed that £8.9 billion of identified costs in social care will just carry over to the new regime and there will be no savings. It is assumed that all the administrative costs will need to continue, and that there will be all the additional costs. Is that the right approach?

Do we have enough transparency? Is the documentation sufficient to make that sort of decision? Is that the right way to interpret the numbers?

So in order to understand the numbers and financial implications of what is involved in setting up the new organisation, you needed to, in your words, find “the right officials” and ask them the right questions. Would all 129 MSPs in the Parliament necessarily know to do that? We are being asked to approve the bill on the basis of the documentation, not conversations with officials.

Mark Taylor, do you agree? Is there sufficient clarity on the impact of demographics?

Mark Taylor and Emma Congreve have talked about the lack of clarity around why what is proposed will improve things. Hannah Tweed and Ralph Roberts, could you elaborate on that? Currently, decisions around social care services are being made by local authorities and health boards separately and collectively through integration joint boards. The implication is that we need an independent decision maker that is separate from local authorities and health boards—if that is not the implication, I do not know how to interpret the Government’s plans. Do you think that that is the problem? Do we need an independent decision maker of that sort?

You are correct. I might have phrased my question unfairly, so I will put it another way. Is the problem about where we are making decisions? If we are going to spend £500 million on improving social care, does there need to be a separate decision-making body or do you think that we should look elsewhere for the solution?

Ralph Roberts, do you agree with what Hannah Tweed has said about reflecting the voices of users? Do you think that there has been sufficient analysis of international comparisons with regard to what has been done elsewhere, what works and what the dynamics are?