Chamber and committees

There may be some moves to put things in the bill, but the reason why the committee is so concerned about having more in primary legislation is so that we can scrutinise the costings and so on. There are very challenging financial circumstances across the Scottish Government and we all worry that a bill of this magnitude and quality, if it is delivered as it should be, might not end up doing what it says on the tin because of resources. It is about knowing what the resources are. I have a feeling that the more co-design that is done before primary legislation is enacted, the better. That is the view of most people on the committee, if not all of us.

We previously asked a lot of questions about the GDP deflator and so on. On five separate occasions, I think, Donna Bell has said that she would get that information to us. When will that information—for example, costings based on the GDP deflator—be given to us?

I am asking about that for consistency, because it is very difficult to scrutinise when you are looking at one figure that is increasing in cash terms and one that is increasing by inflation plus 3 per cent. It seems that we are almost looking at two separate measurements, which will inevitably have different figures.

Social Work Scotland said that it has concerns that that target will not be met. You are saying that it has been met in cash terms, but it thought that the figure was meant to be in real terms, so some clarification is required.

Sorry—where is the greatest variability within the overall package of £631 million to £916 million?

I am sorry, minister—I do not like to interrupt, but time is against us. General questions in the chamber start in less than 20 minutes. You have kind of body-swerved the question. Costs are built into the bill, and we are now pinning them down. There is the new, revised bill—never mind whatever was proposed over a year ago—and there is the range between £631 million and £916 million. An element of that costing must be for the additional staff component that is required to deliver the bill on the ground, taking into account the improvements in conditions and status that you have mentioned.

I am asking a straightforward question: how many additional people will be needed? I appreciate that we talked about its being four years before implementation, but how many additional people will be needed in a rapidly ageing workforce? I do not know what we will do when women over 45 get to retirement age in 15 or 20 years, because I am not seeing young people coming in in the numbers that we require. How many additional people will be needed to deliver the bill as envisaged? It is one thing to develop a wonderful bill, but you need to have the folk to deliver it. How will they be recruited and trained?

Most of those costs must be for staff. The money that the bill costs must go on people’s wages. For example, we have mentioned the £10 million spent on 170 civil servants. A colossal proportion of the £631 million to £916 million must surely be for staff. That clearly tells us that wages will improve, but numbers must improve if there are 36,000 people with unmet need. That is why I ask about how many people we will need to deliver the bill. They might not be recruited by the Scottish Government, but the Scottish Government is putting money into the bill to ensure that it is delivered, and that must filter down to staff.

You said on at least two occasions on Tuesday, Donna, that you have pessimistic assumptions. I am trying to be realistic—I am not looking for a pessimistic assumption—about how the bill can be delivered on the ground, given the workforce challenges that we currently face.

Indeed. However, we have found that it is difficult for people to disengage from existing programmes at a time of financial challenge, and to say that, if they stop doing X, we will be able to spend more money on Y in prevention. Unfortunately, that is not being seen. With the best will in the world, that is difficult to achieve.

We will call a halt there. I thank the minister and her officials for their evidence this morning.

The next item on our agenda, which we will take in private, is consideration of our work programme.

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2024 of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The only item on our public agenda today is an evidence session with the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill’s financial memorandum. The minister is joined today by Scottish Government officials Donna Bell, who is the director of social care and national care service development; Lee Flannigan, who is national care service senior finance manager; and Richard McCallum, who is the director of health and social care finance, digital and governance.

I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Good morning, minister.

Again, that makes one wonder why there is almost a go-slow in delivery of the legislation. The legislation will be enacted four years after stage 1. If the legislation is going to deliver such savings and such improvements to people’s lives—which I think everyone wants—it is worrying that it will not be implemented next year or the year after, but in 2028 or 2029.

We have all had a letter from Social Work Scotland, which has been trailed in the media, that questions the 25 per cent that you talked about and whether it is in real terms, cash terms or somewhere in between.