Chamber and committees

Obviously, the health service is in difficult circumstances for many reasons. Would the bill have merit if those circumstances were easier—if we were not fighting Covid, other health issues, the cost of living and so on? Would it be the right thing to do?

Obviously, it will not be easy for the committee, and eventually the Parliament, to carry out the scrutiny that you have referred to if we are a little unsure about the source of the statistical analysis and the rationale for using it. In many ways, that makes our job just as difficult as yours is. I am interested to know whether you want that clarity in order to make a better assessment of the statistics.

Is it not also appropriate to have consistency as well, because that allows us to measure against a period of time, particularly given that, as we have mentioned today, it will be an on-going process for some time? Surely it is important to have consistency in the statistics against which you are measuring.

Mr Roberts, you have been clear in your view that, although some of the principles behind the bill might be laudable, you do not think that it is the right thing to do at this juncture. Is that the view of your colleagues who are chief executives of other health boards? Is there a general feeling that, although you might like to do some of these things, that huge structural change is not appropriate just now?

Do you accept that we have moved too quickly? Obviously, you have to take evidence from stakeholders who will be on the front line in delivering what will, in effect, be a new system. Would it have been better to take a slightly different approach to designing the bill so that we had a more substantial financial memorandum with greater detail than we have at present?

That was helpful.

I put on the record similar concerns to those that my three colleagues have spoken about so far. The financial memorandum is an important part of any bill or legislation, and it is important that, when we pass bills, they are good law. Good law has certain principles—namely, it has to have clarity of purpose, it has to be understood and it has to be workable, but it also has to have a strong evidence base. Although we are considering only the financial memorandum and not the wider policy commitments, the committee is struggling with the lack of an evidence base.

You have just given an answer to Michelle Thomson that makes it clear that work is being done on an on-going basis and that the information will be updated. Our problem is that we have to scrutinise the financial memorandum. Do you accept the criticism that has been levelled at you by the people who will give evidence later this morning and others who have provided written submissions? The convener described it as “excoriating” criticism. Do you accept that those people have a point and that there is not enough information for them to make a value judgment about how to proceed?

I understand fully why people might wish to see a policy change—you are right that a lot of people would like change in delivery of health and social care and how it is organised. However, this is about the procedure and how the change can best be put into practice. The stakeholders who are giving evidence to you and the committee are not comfortable with the process, in which they are, in effect, being left in the dark when it comes to many of the costs, which have not been laid out. Do you accept that that criticism must be addressed?

Ms Wearing, you made an interesting point about IJBs in response to an earlier question from Michelle Thomson. You said that you felt that there was scope for improvement. What did you mean by that, given the role that IJBs have in the context of care? Would that have any financial implications?

Given the concerns that you rightly have about the proposed changes, do you think that there are changes that could be made to the IJB system that would help us to achieve the aims and objectives that everyone wants to achieve, but without having to go through the major overhaul that is proposed in the bill?