Chamber and committees

A number of elements to this are very different. First, the co-design aspect is very different to anything that we have ever done before. This is not just about scrutiny; we need to think about the folks who have helped us shape the decisions that will take us to that point of making the secondary legislation. There will obviously be consultation on all of that. The process, therefore, will already be somewhat different.

Without making any commitments here and now, I will reflect on what Mr Dey has said. A number of folk around the table have worked with me before, and on tricky pieces of legislation. My door is open; I am willing to speak to anyone and everyone, whether informally or formally, about elements of this work, and I will certainly reflect on what Mr Dey has said.

Convener, we have embarked on this journey towards a national care service because of Derek Feeley’s independent review of adult social care; it is not a whim of Government. The report highlighted a number of things and made a huge number of recommendations, including the formation of a national care service. During our discussions with stakeholders, with the voices of lived experience and others before we went to consultation, people were telling us that this should encompass more.

We have been very careful in how we have done this. The consultation showed that more than 70 per cent of folk wanted to see a national care service. Many of those folks wanted to see the transfer of services such as children’s services, criminal justice and social work into the national care service. We did not fully go ahead with all of that—that is why we are doing all this work around ensuring that we get this absolutely right, because, whether something is in or out, we have to make sure that the linkages are right.

Folk highlighted a number of things, with accountability being one of the main issues. People felt that, in many cases, there was no accountability in their areas. Lots of folk highlighted that, often, they are pushed from pillar to post when they are told, “That is the responsibility of the health and social care partnership,” or, “That is the responsibility of local government,” or, “That is the responsibility of the health board.” That is frustrating for people when they are trying to get the care and support that they need.

The other key element is that folk want to see national accountability. That would mean that ministers could set national, high-quality standards, which would apply across the board and end the postcode lottery. That does not mean that it would be a centralisation, because local care boards would continue to shape and deliver services in their own locales. However, they would have to abide by those national standards.

The accountability aspect is way up the agenda for people because of the implementation gaps that exist in the system. In my opening remarks, I talked about the 20-year journey of integration. There has been change—and change for the better—but there are still a lot of implementation gaps. Why is that? It is because we have not involved people enough in shaping those services. We are all about ensuring that, as we move forward, the service is co-designed with people so that we can get it right, close those implementation gaps and deliver better services for people.

Mr Rennie is well aware that we produce a financial memorandum that covers the bill, and that is what we have done. If, at this moment, I were to pluck from the air a figure for care—

According to the financial memorandum that covers off the aspects of the bill, if we transfer off children’s services to care boards the figure for 2026-27 is £1.5 billion.

We will clarify all the figures with the Parliament as we move forward. I know that some folk want me to do the annual budgeting for the service for the next umpteen years—

—but I think that Mr Swinney would not be particularly happy with me if I were to do so. We have said to the finance committee that, as we move beyond the figures that are contained in the financial memorandum, we will publish every business case for scrutiny.

The financial memorandum contains a range of figures on the restructuring costs. Page 6 shows the total estimated cost of the bill’s provisions, giving ballpark figures. For care boards, the figures for 2025-26 range from £132 million to £326 million. For 2026-27, the figures range from £142 million to £376 million.

We can spell out more of the financial memorandum to the committee if it requires us to do so. We can also provide it with a comprehensive report—or even have officials come and speak to its members—on the workings in the financial memorandum, on many of which I have already been questioned by the finance committee. The figures are there in the financial memorandum that covers the bill.

No decision has been taken on that. It is part of the co-design process.

I do not have an answer on whether we could provide those figures to the committee. We will see what we can do to provide anything that the committee asks for.

Ms Colvin has just told me that we are still in discussion with COSLA on that issue. We do not hold that data centrally so, in some regards, we are reliant on getting that information from COSLA. If we can get that information, we will get it to you.

That commissioning would be done by local care boards. Let me expand on that. In all of this, there is the opportunity for a once-for-Scotland approach for specialised services. One of the key elements of the bill is ethical commissioning, and we want to get that right.

I said that that commissioning would be done by local care boards. We are very aware that, for some specialisms and for some very complex cases, there is real difficulty at the moment in getting it right for folks. That is why the bill includes the ability to set up special care boards to deal with those once-for-Scotland elements that involve more complexity.

As the committee can well imagine, some pretty complex cases cross our desks regularly. Health and social care partnerships, local authorities and health boards have great difficulty in commissioning the right service for those individuals because of the complexity of their needs. We have the ability to make a real difference here and to take a national approach, with flexibility at a local level.