Seòmar agus comataidhean

If you have not done any economic modelling, how do you know that that statement is true?

And that is a cost.

That leads me on to the second question that I mentioned in my opening remarks, which is whether we can afford the running costs of a national care service. I have already highlighted the example of staff availability and, arguably, skills availability in the staff to run it. I would like to hear your reflections on that.

The other point that that raises relates to the prevention strategy. It would be interesting to work out how you arrived at your 1 per cent basis and what that will mean in terms of savings. I am still quite uncertain about that, because you are going to have to make efficiencies over what we are currently delivering. That is the whole point of this—I get that—but can you help me to understand the prevention strategy a bit more and how it pertains to costs and benefits?

One of the challenges here is to ensure that, in the bill itself, there is a delicate balancing of the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused. Having that as a necessity as part of a risk-based approach would go some way to doing that, although, as you concede, it might not be perfect. Am I correct that your point is that it should be intrinsic to the bill?

On a point of clarity for me, while I accept what the minister is saying about the ambiguity in the context of amendment 189 itself, has she done any further thinking on the principle of the victim’s right to be kept informed, particularly for a very traumatic thing, as is done in other areas? Is she therefore suggesting that further consideration will be given to that principle in time for stage 3, or is the Government discounting the principle altogether?

I have been called a lot of things on this committee, convener.

I want to follow up on the points that Liz Smith has been making. What she was trying to flesh out is also a concern of mine. I can see that you have done a huge amount of work since we last met, and I absolutely give you credit for that. However, this talks to a question about the co-design process, and it mirrors our concerns as a finance committee about the extent to which we can be confident that the end cost will bear some relation to the start cost, accepting that the end cost is never accurate. That is the only point when your costings can be accurate—I understand all that.

As we move to stage 2 and amendments, that will be done by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, so this committee will not undertake financial scrutiny of them or have oversight. Also, as the co-design process carries on and further business cases are developed, that will incur costs. I accept what you are saying about their being framed, but that will still introduce further costs over which we will have no oversight, over a 10-year period.

You have clearly done a huge amount of good work, and I am not saying that I am against a co-design process because of the issues that have been brought out today. However, I am saying that, as it stands, I cannot be confident that we as a finance committee have any sense of the ultimate cost. From a parliamentary perspective, against a backdrop of huge challenges around public sector funding, that is a concern. Do you accept the framing that I have set out and the rationale that I have given?

So, in other words, it will not take any longer than the time for which you have already costed.

What happens if someone comes up with a really good idea that you have not yet thought of?

Sorry to interrupt. What you are articulating increases my confidence level that you have taken on board what we said before. Those are all examples showing that, but the issue is the basis on which you will proceed. To go back to Liz Smith’s point, even from a well-estimated framing, the continued co-design means that there is the significant potential for cost overrun, unless you have us breathing down your necks saying, “You said this. It’s going to be that.” I have heard a million times, in another life, people saying, “We thought it was going to be A plus C plus E, but, actually, the person over there has made a very good point about G”, after which they go away and look at it again.

That is the critical risk factor for the costs that you are outlining. I have seen that kind of situation in private industry, where people have taken the approach that you are, which is a function of complexity. They have said, “Right. There’s going to be a fixed budget. That is it; end of.” Then, as managers come in and change, they might entertain the idea that option E looks quite interesting, but that approach would require them to de-scope and take things out because of the fixed budget.

Ultimately, despite my crediting you with doing all that work, we have no control over the end cost. Therefore, perhaps the question is whether anybody has said that, allowing for an inflationary uplift, which we cannot control, and potentially for other variables, they will put a fixed cost on that. For me, that would be the real test of how much extra work you have done.

Yes, I am talking about the investment time. That is the activity where significant costs are often incurred. For example, if people are doing a good job, taking in soundings from other elements and there are multiple stakeholders with whom changes need to be worked through, it can incur a real on-going cost. If you are operating to a fixed budget, there will be a sharpness to that, but if there is no fixed budget line, that will not be the case.