Chamber and committees

Mr Lumsden, I can just imagine that if we had done it the other way round, you would have been one of the people who would have said that we should have done it this way round and that the most important thing would have been to put primary legislation in place first before the co-design process.

In relation to that particular statement, I would say that we have made no decisions whatsoever about moving staff or assets from local government to the national care service. I have made that clear today. We want to make sure that folks are involved in the co-design process so that we make the right decisions as we move forward. Without doubt, some folk will want to see those transfers of staff and assets, and others will not. We need to do that co-design process together to discuss those particular issues.

The other aspect from a trade union point of view—I should probably declare an interest as a member of Unison—is that what we are embarking on provides a huge opportunity in relation to national bargaining, pay and conditions, and ensuring that we have the right career pathways for the future. There are huge opportunities there.

In relation to the statement that there will be wholesale transfer, we have not made any decisions about that.

I canna make myself any clearer on this: IT is not in the bill and the financial memorandum covers the bill. As I have said clearly and repeatedly today, as soon as the other work that needs to be done in relation to co-design and service delivery is completed, we will bring the business case back to Parliament and folk will have the opportunity to scrutinise that—just as they will have the opportunity to scrutinise every aspect of secondary legislation.

The standing orders are very clear about providing a financial memorandum covering the aspects in the bill. That is what we have done.

We do not recognise them. We are more than happy to talk through the numbers with COSLA, but there is no doubt about this: that number is not attached to the bill. If COSLA wants to speak to us about how it arrived at that figure, we will have those conversations, ask it how it did so and listen to what it says. I hope that we will get some co-operation on that front.

We constantly have conversations around about—

We have conversations about data and money, but we have had no explanation for that figure of £1.5 billion.

We have discussions with COSLA on a constant basis, Mr Lumsden.

We have discussions with COSLA on a constant basis, Mr Lumsden.

I am happy for folk to write to us about particular matters and we respond to them. That will be in the public domain. I want all channels to be open, but I also want to be open and transparent about all that as we move forward. We will put into the public domain as much as we possibly can. In reality, as we move forward, we will be involving so many folk in all of this that things will be public anyway. We will put out there as soon as we possibly can the co-designs and other things, including the formulation of the business cases and all the other work that we do.

When I visited a Camphill community in Edinburgh the other week, a woman said to me, “You won’t like this, because I’m going to be very challenging.” That is what I want; we need to be challenged if we are to get this right. However, we need to be challenged not only by some of the folk who regularly come before the committee; we also need to give the public the opportunity to challenge us and to shape services as we move forward. That has not happened to the degree that it should have happened in the past.

That does not surprise me, convener.