Chamber and committees

I understand that. The key point here, in relation to what you have just said, is that how the bill is implemented surely has a direct relationship to cost.

But those are not related to future co-design.

I will leave it there, convener.

Good morning, secretary of state. When you were last at committee, back in February 2022, Michelle Thomson, Daniel Johnson and I all asked you about the objective analysis that goes into the decision-making process on who gets money and who does not. On that occasion, you said:

“I am absolutely confident that our assessment is objective.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 24 February 2022; c 12.]

You also said that you would come back to the committee to explain if we had any concerns about that objectivity and whether people understood the process by which awards were made. Since that time, you will be pleased to hear, we have had some very complimentary comments about the process—in the past year, 13 local authorities said that they were very pleased with it. However, some local authorities have not been successful and they are slightly critical about the fact that there is not sufficient transparency about who gets what and who does not. Can you update us on where we are with that?

When it comes to those local authorities that are disappointed and which have not been successful, is there a process by which they can be made fully aware of where the criteria were not met and why their bid failed? Do they understand exactly why their bid was not successful?

Again, that is very helpful.

I would like to raise one further point, if I may. Another question that we had at that time was about the data that were being used to underpin the criteria that you have just spoken about, on productivity, unemployment, rurality and so on. Two years ago, we were a little concerned about the fact that some of that, which came largely from the Office for National Statistics, was maybe not quite the same data that was being used to assess what was happening in the Scottish economy. Has that problem been ironed out?

That is a helpful update. Would it be your view that, since your attendance at this committee two years ago, there are now better relationships between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, in terms of assessing what those criteria are?

Again, that is helpful. It is important that we have the ability to scrutinise whether the money that is awarded is being spent in the right place and whether that is done on an objective and fair basis.

Thank you.

Would one of the choices have been to scrap the proposed national care service, so that the money could be deployed elsewhere?