Chamber and committees

How much of that work will come in at stage 2?

The updated memorandum presents some of the costs associated with the NCS national board, but they are quite varied—they vary from £20 million to £29 million. However, the estimated costs have been rounded up to the nearest million, with the result that any costs below £0.5 million have been rounded down to zero. That makes it difficult to understand the detail of the costings and whether certain costs are indeed zero or simply fall below the threshold.

Why has more detail not been put into that? If something costs £421,000 and something else costs £385,000, why not just add all the figures up in order to narrow the variances? We have been presented with bald figures that have been heavily rounded; it is almost as though they have been plucked from somewhere, rather than assessed effectively.

Okay. Thanks. I call Liz, to be followed by Michael.

It is just that, if people know that they are working to a four-year deadline, it does not exactly create any oomph behind the delivery of a bill. If they know that it is expected to be delivered in a year or two, it creates a greater sense of urgency. I find it bizarre that a bill with less content than it had a year ago now has twice as long to be implemented. I am wondering what the logic for that is. I know that you have said that you have been pessimistic, but I prefer realism to optimism or pessimism. It is quite a significant increase in the timescale for a bill that is not as complex as it was a year ago.

I am struggling to have confidence in the process, given how far on we are. It is 15 months since we last discussed and deliberated on the previous financial memorandum. One would have thought that some of this would have been pinned down a bit more by now. However, I will move on, as colleagues will want to come in with further questions on that area.

One issue that has concerned the committee from the start has been co-design. As a committee, we are much more in favour of having primary legislation, for scrutiny reasons and because it helps to pin down costs. The problem with the framework and co-design approach is that there are increased uncertainties around the cost estimates and the timing of those costs.

Given that it has been around 15 months since we last deliberated on the financial memorandum, how have we moved forward in terms of co-design? How much of that co-design will now be incorporated into the primary legislation, perhaps through amendments at stage 2?

Given the length and detail of your answer, it sounds as though we are in a situation whereby we still do not really know where we are with the national care board. The stage 1 debate will take place in only a few weeks. I know for certain that parliamentarians will want answers and will demand them of the minister in that stage 1 debate. When will the hatch be battened down in that regard? Will we have that information before the stage 1 debate?

I would be quite happy if you could tell us that.

I am sure that you are right, but that is how it looks.

I am one of those people who likes precise figures. Over the years, we have had plenty of financial memorandums that have provided precise figures.

I will ask just one more question, because I know that colleagues are keen to come in; it is about additional Scottish Government staff costs. Our briefing paper states:

“The final section of the new FM notes that certain Scottish Government staff costs are already being incurred in the region of £10 million per annum and would continue to be incurred even if the NCS proposals did not go ahead.”

What are those staff currently engaged in, and what will their role be if the proposals do not go ahead? There does not seem to be any detail on the number of staff involved or on their salaries or grades; we simply have a statement that those costs are in the region of £10 million. It is not very transparent.

I do not have the information in front of me, but my understanding was that you said that you would not be able to report even every six months, as it would contradict the Scottish Government’s annual financial assessments. It would have to be once a year. However, you are now saying that it could be once a quarter.