Chamber and committees

I think that, if we had done things the other way round, the committee and others would quite probably have asked, “Why didn’t you do it the other way round, given that the primary legislation is the most important thing in all this?” It is a bit of a no-win situation for anyone.

A fair number of questions have been asked about VAT this morning, so I will write to the committee with the detail of where we are at. Of course, we will also continue to apprise the committee of the advice that we receive to ensure that it has as much detail as possible about where we are at.

I will look at that, and we will spell it all out in our letter on where we are at.

That is subject to co-design. Obviously, there have to be some parameters in all these things. For example, if somebody were to suggest that there should be 1,000 care boards, that would not be realistic, and it could not happen—it would be outwith the parameters. However, we have said that we are open to discussion about whether the care boards should be coterminous with local authorities or health boards.

Currently—I am sure that the committee is aware of this—there are not 32 IJBs. There are 31, because Clackmannanshire and Stirling are together in that. Is there the possibility of others joining up as part of the co-design process? Would they want to do that? We would look at that closely.

The other aspect—again, the committee will know about this—is whether we should look at other options for certain parts of the country. Some of the island authorities—although not all of them—have talked before about a single island authority. Would that be favourable in delivering services—not just the national care service—in our islands in the future? We are open to looking at that, too.

We have to make a fair amount of change in all of this, and it is the establishment of the care boards and who is on them that are of real interest to folks. For example, I have not said very much about who should be round the table. There are clearly folks who need to be there, but there have been a lot of suggestions from individuals and groups about who should be there and who has been missing from the formulation of services in their areas.

One thing that I have been clear about is that I believe that the voices of lived experience should be at the table with a vote. Again, however, those matters are subject to the co-design process.

I will bring in Ms Bennett on that.

It is difficult for me to say which committee they will go to. I imagine that a number of committees will want to scrutinise aspects of them. I would not want to be held to a timescale either, to be honest with you, convener. As I said, I want to be as open and transparent as possible, so the answer is probably “as and when they are ready” in some regards. I imagine that not only this committee but others will want to see the business cases as soon as they are completed.

On the pay and conditions of local government staff and the differentials if they were to transfer to care boards and the NCS, I think that 43 per cent of the cost assumptions for care boards in the financial memorandum are down to the staff costs if that were to happen. However, I go back to my point that no decision has been taken on any transfer of assets or staff, as that is a matter for the co-design project.

I am well aware of the college aspect. I go back to my earlier point about having no unintended consequences. We have to work through all of this. We have made some assumptions in the financial memorandum, but no decision has been taken, and it is a matter for co-design. I go back to my earlier point that, at the moment, many local authorities deliver high-quality care services. Is there a need to transfer those services to local care board control? Probably not, but that is a matter for the co-design process.

What I have talked about is national quality standards that should be adhered to, but there will still be local flexibility around the delivery of care. Let me make it quite clear that there should and will be local flexibility in terms of delivery of care. We will have national standards, but it is not what I would term standardisation overall.

This is not about centralised commissioning but about commissioning at a local level. As we move forward, it may well be that we choose, in co-operation and collaboration with partners, to do some specialised centralised commissioning for more specialist services. Again, many members of the public would like to see that, but it is not about centralised commissioning.

Does Donna Bell want to come in?