Seòmar agus comataidhean

Ralph, you state in your submission:

“The purpose of creating the NCS is to improve the delivery of community health and social care together. The clear definition of community health is not evident within the Bill and therefore it is significantly more challenging to understand the financial implications on services and costs.”

What impact might that have?

That concludes questions from members. I have a few to wind up with.

The first is a follow-up to Douglas Lumsden’s point. The briefing by the Scottish Parliament information centre says:

“The stated purpose of the Bill is to improve the quality and consistency of social services in Scotland.”

From our discussion today, it seems like you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Surely, if there are issues of consistency and quality, as you have just touched on in your answer to Douglas, they should be addressed directly. Who has the problems of quality and consistency? Name and shame them. Would it not be easier just to impose duties to ensure that they raise their standards to the level of those who are doing best? I would be happy for you to name them, too.

As Michelle Thomson pointed out, it seems to be a monumental risk to have a bill of this nature, with all the financial implications, because a few service deliverers are not up to scratch.

All the submissions that the committee has received express concern about the VAT baseline, which is included in the figures in table 2 of the financial memorandum. To be fair, time has trundled on, and that was published before the latest skyrocketing levels of inflation. However, in its response, COSLA states:

“These figures are misleadingly uprated each year, from a 2019/20 baseline, by inflation plus 3%. This uprating does not reflect subsequent Local Government settlements”.

That is important, given that it was announced way back in May. The response goes on to say that the uprating

“is completely at odds with the reality presented by the Scottish Government’s own Resource Spending Review, of a 'flat cash' settlement”.

Surely that alone means that the financial memorandum is no longer fit for purpose and requires to be updated at least.

The last question from me—and the last in this session—is: does the financial memorandum, in your view, deliver best estimates of the cost of delivering the legislation?

Good morning, and welcome to the 26th meeting in 2022 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We are joined in the public gallery by members of the California Lawyers Association. I welcome them all to the Scottish Parliament.

We have received apologies from Ross Greer and Daniel Johnson.

The first item on our agenda is an evidence session with Scottish Government officials on the financial memorandum to the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Donna Bell, director of social care and national care service development, and Fiona Bennett, interim deputy director for national health service, integration and social care finance.

I understand that Donna Bell would like to make a short opening statement.

Could you speak up a wee bit? I am finding it difficult to hear you, and I think that other members are, too.

Thank you very much for that opening statement. Given the submissions that we have received, you will understand that it is likely that there will be a number of questions from me and from colleagues around the table.

In its submission, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities mentions

“the long-term resourcing of the National Care Service; matters in relation to borrowing, holding of reserves, pensions, audit and VAT; and shared services”,

and it says:

“Disappointingly, the draft Bill and memoranda do not address these points explicitly and there is an unacceptable lack of clarity.”

Another issue came to the fore in all the submissions. We asked whether there was sufficient time to contribute to the consultation, and every respondent gave a one-word answer: no. We asked them to elaborate on that, and they said that the consultation took place over the summer and the period was far too short, given the magnitude of the bill and the depth of the financial memorandum, which is one of the most detailed—if not the most detailed—financial memorandum that I have ever seen.

How do you respond to those concerns and the other issues that I have raised?

Paul Manning, you said:

“Whilst the Financial Memorandum acknowledges that further work is required, this should have been undertaken prior to the publication of the Bill, to support adequate scrutiny.”

I realise that. A number of caveats are given right at the start of the financial memorandum, where that point is made, and the Scottish Parliament information centre repeated that in its briefing, so we are aware of that. At the same time, a structure is being developed that seems to have unrealistic parameters, and that is of concern to all of us.

Basically, you are saying that, ultimately, local authorities might have to find money from somewhere else.