Chamber and committees

I never said that either.

IT is a vital component in almost all that we do nowadays. However, the starting point is to look at what we have in place and ask whether it can be used to deliver what we want. We will then look elsewhere to see what was required as we moved forward. Again, we would come back with a business case for all that.

If we had done it that way round, it is likely, as I said to Mr Greer, that folk would not have been happy with that either—

I will not reiterate the point that I just made. If we had done it the other way round, folks would have said that that was not the right way round and probably would have taken umbrage with it.

No, I do not think that there is. As this committee will be well aware, I take my responsibilities in this very seriously and questioned to the nth degree the officials who put together the financial memorandums and other documents. As I have said throughout, this financial memorandum covers the aspects that the bill covers.

I have never known Parliament to legislate for an IT system. As I am sure that every member is aware, an FM covers what is covered in the bill—that is what is covered by the financial memorandum.

No decision has been made on those things—they are on the table as part of the co-design process. I repeat what I said earlier to Mr Mason: we also have to take cognisance of where there is already good service delivery. Why would we make a change for change’s sake if there is already good service delivery?

We will keep an eye on this as we move forward, but I cannot reiterate enough that the statutory responsibility still rests with local government and that no decision has been taken by the Parliament to make any changes to that position. As the bill progresses, local government will remain statutorily responsible. I hope that, for reasons of good governance and stewardship and to ensure that people get things right for their citizens, local authorities will continue to recognise their statutory duty and to do their best in relation to service delivery for their constituents.

You are right to point out that this is not a new approach. We have used it previously and with some success for Social Security Scotland.

We have launched the co-design panels, and we are looking for partners to promote the sign-up of front-line staff to the lived experienced experts panel. To support that, the NCS programme will shortly advertise introductory seminars, which people will be able to sign up to online. There will also be co-designed training, which will be associated with a number of specific themes that we will send you more detail on.

With regard to timelines, we will write to you, convener. However, work will be on-going. We have got to get this right, and we have to continue to consult and co-design.

As for balancing the views of competing interests, we managed to do that fairly well with Social Security Scotland. Some of the folk whom we involved in co-designing that organisation are at the forefront of helping us with the national care co-design. I will put all that in more detail in writing to the committee. I have pages of notes before me, convener, but I am quite sure that you do not want to sit and listen to me for another hour.

My response is that, as I have said today, we will continue to update forecasts, business cases and everything else as we move forward. I reiterate the point that I have made again and again today: the financial memorandum covers what is in the bill. CIPFA, COSLA, SOLACE and others want answers to things that are not contained within the bill; they will get those answers, but they will have them after the co-design and when the business cases have been built up. I think that there is a big difference between what they want the financial memorandum to address and what is actually in the bill. As I have said, the financial memorandum covers what is in the bill.