Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I have a supplementary question for Mark Taylor. The IT question is potentially significant. To look at recent projects, Social Security Scotland has to date spent £250 million setting up its IT, and Police Scotland estimates that it needs to spend around £300 million on its computer systems. Those are all records systems that hold information on citizens. Is that the scale of magnitude that we should be looking at, and is Audit Scotland aware of any other recent IT systems that we could look at to find analogues?

I will ask a couple of supplementary questions. If I may offer a brief comment, you are absolutely right, Deputy First Minister, that it is difficult to follow a pound from the budget through to the national performance framework. I also gently submit that it is quite difficult to follow a pound even through to the outturn. I know that the Government has announced changes to some of the processes but, in order to have a grown-up and candid discussion, being able to follow the pound effectively, although it is not always easy, is important.

More specifically, some preventative spend is difficult, because it takes many years to follow through, although some is a little more immediate. We heard good evidence from Engender, who made a plea for investment in social care. That can have a gendered impact, because women are disproportionately represented in the social care workforce.

More numbers came out today, but the figures from July show that 55,992 days were spent in hospital by people whose discharge was delayed. Does the Government have a view of how much that costs? Is it undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of increasing the pay of social care workers and thereby reducing the number of vacancies? Will that kind of work be undertaken in advance of the budget?

There are supplementary questions from Douglas Lumsden and Michelle Thomson, but I would like a brief clarification first. You have committed to making a response to the mini-budget in the week beginning 24 October. You alluded to the fact that there is some ambiguity about what the consequentials might be. The Scottish Parliament information centre has published analysis of what that might look like, which indicates that the consequentials might be as little as £35 million in the current financial year, depending on what the Government does in its latter years.

Does the Scottish Government have a view of what the quantum might be in this and the next financial year? It strikes me that there is a question of priorities. The Scottish Government could seek to reverse some of the decisions that it made early in September; it might seek to replicate decisions by the UK Government; or it might seek to do targeted things with the limited additional money that it may or may not have. Which of those three should be the priority? What is your expectation of what may or may not happen in the statement that you will make in the week commencing 24 October?

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. One of the key reflections that we must all have is that it is critical to have clarity on and an understanding of the impact of budget statements and actions ahead of time. I recognise that there have been some changes in recent days and weeks. Can you clarify what we should be expecting?

On the basis of the correspondence that the committee has had from the Scottish Government, my understanding is that its emergency budget response will be published on 24 October. Is that still the intended timing? Will the response be focused purely on changes to this year’s budget? Does the announcement that has been made in the past day on the bringing forward of the OBR’s forecasts for the UK Government’s budget decisions have implications for the timing of the Scottish budget?

I have a final question before I hand over to colleagues. The committee has been taking evidence from a broad range of bodies and stakeholders in recent weeks. To my mind, one of the most significant insights came from the Auditor General, who highlighted the fact that the total payroll for the Scottish Government across the public sector is around £22 billion, which, in crude terms, is half the Scottish budget. The head count increased by around 15,000 during Covid, and the Government has set out the fact that it intends to bring the head count back to pre-Covid levels, although it will protect the national health service.

We have had those broad statements, but it strikes me that, with regard to the pressures, managing that payroll is critical. We also know that the medium-term financial strategy assumed that, in essence, the payroll bill would remain static, which would imply that managing the numbers is the key variable.

Can you set out in more detail what steps and measures the Scottish Government might consider in the coming financial year? Above all else, those who work in the public sector require a level of insight into and certainty about the security of their employment.

I have one brief point of clarification. You clearly set out the role of borrowing in relation to investment and financial shocks. We hear comments from different parties—my own included—that suggest that borrowing brings some sort of infinite possibility for public expenditure. Do you agree with my view that, in broad terms, borrowing should not be used for current expenditure but that it should be there to provide flexibility around shocks or to allow for investment? Prudent financial management should not use borrowing either to fund tax cuts or to expand public spending.

It is clear that my comments about time discipline have instilled a remarkable discipline on the committee. It might be the first time that anyone has ever followed my lead. However, it means that we have time for some supplementary questions. I invite Liz Smith to ask her supplementary and I have one or two. If other committee members have supplementary questions, we have time in hand.