Chamber and committees

Minister, you said that, in essence, there is transparency because people can contact you or your officials. I want to clarify that. We have to go on what is a matter of public record and, although I accept that that is a valuable element of scrutiny for us, public scrutiny and accountability are critical, too. Do you accept that, if people need to make direct contact—which I assume that the public cannot—the committee can go on only what is a matter of public record? We cannot rely on private conversations, such as the one that the Fraser of Allander Institute has had to rely on.

Minister, you have been at pains to point out that, in essence, the detail of service delivery will be subject to the co-design phase. Fine—let us park that for a moment.

Can I raise some points of clarification? You said at the beginning that the point and purpose of the bill was standardisation and accountability. For clarity’s sake, it is not just about those two elements, is it? It is also about commissioning, rather importantly. The purpose of the bill is to set up the national apparatus to make possible, and to nationalise, centralised commissioning. Is that correct?

Secondly, you are saying that, notwithstanding the points around what costs may arise from service delivery or additional services, the costs for setting up that national apparatus are all contained in the financial memorandum.

Are those points correct?

Okay—correct me.

I am sorry if people thought that I was putting words in the minister’s mouth. I believe that the words that the minister used were that he “could not conceive of a situation where there would be more care boards than IJBs.” I was merely making the inference that—

I was not getting at cost overruns. Without plucking numbers out of the air, I was just giving what I thought were fair and recent comparators.

Coming up a layer, will IT be an important element and is it likely to be a substantial cost component of what is finally delivered?

Looking at the overall business case, we are talking about a set-up cost for the national apparatus of £500 million-plus. At the moment, that does not include IT or a number of other items. Will that cost be recouped in benefits? Currently, £7 billion is spent on social care and £8.9 billion on community health. Will this drive benefits and efficiency on the current footprint, excluding improvements or increases in the standards of care? In terms of the as-is—the baseline business case—will that cost be recouped, or will it be additional? Do you expect costs to go up or down on the basis of the planned investment?

Why not?

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?