Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope not. The intention is for those things to be simpler and more transparent. We think that the integration authorities will fulfil the purpose of the care board as in the bill as introduced. On the link with the national care board, the integration authorities will produce their local delivery plans, and the national board will look at those and will hold the authorities to account on delivery. I think that, if anything, that will improve the situation by ensuring that adequate funding is put against aspirations to ensure that delivery occurs. That is the relationship between the local integration authorities and the national care board.

On efficiency savings, I meet people day in, day out, and I am told, anecdotally, just how difficult it is to navigate the social care system. Every MSP round the table will have experience of hearing from people who are bounced around from pillar to post to access care. There is duplication of effort and there is inefficient and ineffective sharing of information. Sometimes that is costly. We can all see it in our mailboxes, day in, day out. If the system works better, there will undoubtedly be efficiency savings.

I think that there is a level of unmet need—I agree with the Feeley review on that. I think that there is a level of need that we have not identified among people who are not successfully navigating the system and getting the care that they need, so there will be some increased cost as well, if we do this right. We will have to meet the unmet need, as well as making efficiency savings.

We recognise that it is there. It is hard to quantify, because it is not properly counted at the moment—that goes back to better data, better financial scrutiny and better understanding. We will have a better idea, as we go along, of the costs that are involved. We have an ambition to increase spending. We recognise that unmet need is there.

We have a good understanding of the spend in the social care system for each individual once they have successfully navigated the system and got their package; we have a good understanding of delayed discharges; we have a good understanding of the people who have been referred for a package but have not yet been seen; and we have a good understanding of the people who have been referred and assessed for a package but do not yet have it in place. What I am saying is that I am reasonably confident that—as I think would be confirmed by the independent review of adult social care and by the mailboxes of every individual round this table—some people are not in the system at all, and it is very difficult for us to quantify that.

Once the system is built, there will be far fewer civil servants working on it. This is a change programme.

No.

I absolutely understand that you have found that confusing. I will ask Lee Flannigan to explain it to you again.

We were attempting to be helpful. We were trying hard to provide the committee with information on both scenarios so that it could compare apples with apples, and not apples with pears. Undoubtedly, though, members have found that situation confusing. We will take that on board and we will reflect carefully on how we inform the committee about the various costings and scenarios in the future. I absolutely take on board that the previous approach has not helped.

We have a great deal of engagement with the sector. Just last week, in the chamber, I made that point to your colleague Jackie Baillie. I do not know whether Donna Bell might want to add to that.

There is potential for disagreement in future. As I said, we are working hard to ensure that our costings are accurate and that the service will be fully funded, just as we have done in relation to other commitments. For example, the increase in wages was fully funded by the Scottish Government—although that was not always passed on by local authorities to IJBs. We are determined to improve the situation and we are increasing our level of spending.

Richard, do you want to say more on that?