Chamber and committees

I want to pursue co-design issues and the implications for costs, which are the central concern for the committee. I would like a bit of clarity, please. You said in an answer to the convener that there has been considerable co-design over the past nine months. That takes us back to April 2023. Can you make it clear whether co-design was on-going before then? When did the co-design start?

Did the substantial changes that have been made to the bill in respect of no transfers of staff and assets to local authorities and no new care board plans result from your co-design discussions since spring last year?

Why was that not possible, given that co-design was on-going before? If people were advising those changes, why did the Scottish Government not respond to that at an earlier point?

The committee’s concern is to assess that with more certainty. As the convener said in his questions, we need much greater clarity about the nature of the costs that will be involved in implementing the bill. That is the central issue. There might be lots of good things about it—I am not taking sides on whether it is good or bad—but the principal role of the committee is to understand what the future costs will be and, therefore, how accurate the new financial memorandum is. We have considerable difficulty with that because of the uncertainty that is unfolding from quite a lot of your answers this morning. We simply do not know some of those things. Do you accept that?

Did that decision to re-engage largely come from concerns over costs, or did other factors require that re-engagement?

That is helpful—in a way.

Co-design can, in principle, have a strong case behind it, as you are engaging with the stakeholders who are collectively making representations to the Government about what the right process might be, but do you accept that, because that process is on-going, it is exceptionally difficult to come to any accurate assessment of what the costs are going to be?

But is it not the case that co-design is on-going?

So, if co-design is on-going, and if further representations are made to the Scottish Government about possible changes, does that not have implications for future costs?

Sorry, but can we go back a little bit? In effect, you are saying that, up until this point, the co-design has made the Government have a bit of a rethink about the bill. It has made three substantial changes, two of which involve reducing the costs, in that there will be no transfer of local authority staff or assets and no new care boards. That saves a lot of costs. Should co-design be on-going, and should the outcome of the further co-design be that more substantial changes are suggested, does that not have implications for the costs?

But what do you think the on-going discussions on co-design will be about if there are no suggestions of further substantial changes?