Chamber and committees

It will be interesting to see whether the national care service will resolve such issues, which it is supposed to.

We are almost at the end of our time. I ask all our guests to have a wee think for a minute or two about any final points that they want to make on any issue that we have not covered or on anything that we have covered that they wish to re-emphasise. The person who will be last to give his view will be Allan Faulds, because he went first earlier today—you have more time to think, Allan. I am looking for volunteers to step up to the plate; otherwise, I shall do eeny, meeny, miny, moe. Lewis Ryder-Jones has volunteered. On you go, Lewis.

I always do.

Cat straight among the pigeons.

So, the subliminal message is quite clear, in your view. Alison, did you want to comment on that?

Yes, sorry. One of the key points that you have set out in your submission is that

“Resources and support for capacity building across public bodies will be essential to align operations with the National Outcomes.”

What kind of “resources and support” do you think will be required to deliver that?

In case you wonder why, apart from Liz Smith, I have asked all the questions so far, it is because members are not exactly tripping over themselves to indicate that they want to come in. Liz will come in in just a minute after one more question from me.

Sarah Davidson, you have expressed concern that the plethora of outcomes means that it is quite hard for the Government to align with them all. Should there be fewer outcomes and greater focus on those? If so, what should the priority outcomes be?

I will merge the questions on behavioural change with the taxation section, because everyone is going on to it. I kicked it off, so I have only myself to blame.

Lewis Ryder-Jones wants to come in on this point.

Okay, I will let Heather Williams respond to Liz Smith’s question and then I will let you in, Michelle.

Because we have leapt from taxation to capital expenditure, I will bring in Euan Lochhead.