Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am confused by the figures, too, and I will ask one more question about them. I note, for example, that in the line entitled “Employability”, there is a pressure reduction of £53 million. Where did that £53 million appear at the start of the year? Where was that money budgeted?

Thank you for that clarification.

My next question is on the reaching 100 per cent—R100—project. Obviously there will have been some funding changes in that respect, given the £16 million capital saving on digital projects. What impact will that have on the R100 project? Will it delay the project further?

Is that because there are none in progress or none in progress that would—

Okay.

Thanks for that clarification.

Good morning, minister. I will continue with questions on the process that Daniel Johnson talked about.

In our evidence sessions during the past few weeks, SOLACE, COSLA, CIPFA, the NHS, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and trade unions have all condemned the approach that has been taken. It sounds like the process has been rushed in this way because there was a commitment to introduce a bill in the first year of this session of Parliament. Is that correct?

Just now, however, we are writing a blank cheque, because we do not know what is coming further down the line.

None of those groups came to us and said that there should be no change at all. I cannot remember that being said at all. They all said that they accepted change; however, they were protesting against the fact that the bill that has been brought forward has no detail for them to get behind—or not get behind.

Unite the union said:

“The Scottish Government could not have drafted a more incomprehensible, incoherent and dreadful Bill. The plans to transfer services, people and property from local authorities to the Scottish Government are a recipe for disaster and represent an all-out assault on local democracy.”

Do you not accept that the lack of detail is causing those concerns for many organisations across Scotland?

Do you not admit that the process that you have followed has caused all that uncertainty? If you had done it the other way round and had the co-design first and then the bill, there would be less uncertainty for groups such as Unite the union.

I will move on to my next point. We mentioned standing orders earlier. According to rule 9.3 of the Parliament’s standing orders, a financial memorandum should set out the

“best estimates of the costs, savings, and changes to revenues to which the provisions of the Bill would give rise”.

We heard earlier that this financial memorandum seems to have more financial holes than a sieve. Is there a possibility that you are breaking the Parliament’s own rules here?