Seòmar agus comataidhean

Social Work Scotland says in its letter:

“Through correspondence with Scottish Government officials we have also received some helpful supplementary information. However, overall the information provided still lacks the transparency and sufficient detail needed to provide legitimate challenge from parliamentarians, stakeholders, other interested parties, users of services or the public.”

There are still concerns about the cost of the bill.

Social Work Scotland goes on to quote your letter of 11 December and raises one or two other issues, for example

“the numbers, costs and roles of the civil servants”.

Colleagues might go into that in greater depth. Have you had sight of that letter from Social Work Scotland?

Do you have any general comments about the letter?

I will move on, because there are plenty of other things to talk about, in the meantime.

There has been a huge reduction in the costs over 10 years, but if the legislation will not be implemented for three or four years, we will automatically see a reduction in costs. If we look year by year from implementation, what is the differential? The legislation will be implemented three years later than was expected, so no one would expect the costs, annualised from 2025 to 2028, to be the same, if it is three years late. We are not really comparing like with like, if you know what I mean, because we are not actually comparing what would be delivered in those years under the previous timetable and what is now being considered, because of the three-year slippage.

I am saying that the implementation delay of three years impacts on the full delivery of the bill and that the costs will hit further on than we are seeing now. In the new financial memorandum, there are only seven years of costs instead of 10 years, so it is hard to compare a given year. Under the new financial memorandum, the costs for 2027-28 look totally different than they did under the old one, simply because a lot less will be happening then as a result of the three-year delay.

There may be some moves to put things in the bill, but the reason why the committee is so concerned about having more in primary legislation is so that we can scrutinise the costings and so on. There are very challenging financial circumstances across the Scottish Government and we all worry that a bill of this magnitude and quality, if it is delivered as it should be, might not end up doing what it says on the tin because of resources. It is about knowing what the resources are. I have a feeling that the more co-design that is done before primary legislation is enacted, the better. That is the view of most people on the committee, if not all of us.

We previously asked a lot of questions about the GDP deflator and so on. On five separate occasions, I think, Donna Bell has said that she would get that information to us. When will that information—for example, costings based on the GDP deflator—be given to us?

I am asking about that for consistency, because it is very difficult to scrutinise when you are looking at one figure that is increasing in cash terms and one that is increasing by inflation plus 3 per cent. It seems that we are almost looking at two separate measurements, which will inevitably have different figures.

Social Work Scotland said that it has concerns that that target will not be met. You are saying that it has been met in cash terms, but it thought that the figure was meant to be in real terms, so some clarification is required.

Sorry—where is the greatest variability within the overall package of £631 million to £916 million?

I am sorry, minister—I do not like to interrupt, but time is against us. General questions in the chamber start in less than 20 minutes. You have kind of body-swerved the question. Costs are built into the bill, and we are now pinning them down. There is the new, revised bill—never mind whatever was proposed over a year ago—and there is the range between £631 million and £916 million. An element of that costing must be for the additional staff component that is required to deliver the bill on the ground, taking into account the improvements in conditions and status that you have mentioned.

I am asking a straightforward question: how many additional people will be needed? I appreciate that we talked about its being four years before implementation, but how many additional people will be needed in a rapidly ageing workforce? I do not know what we will do when women over 45 get to retirement age in 15 or 20 years, because I am not seeing young people coming in in the numbers that we require. How many additional people will be needed to deliver the bill as envisaged? It is one thing to develop a wonderful bill, but you need to have the folk to deliver it. How will they be recruited and trained?

Most of those costs must be for staff. The money that the bill costs must go on people’s wages. For example, we have mentioned the £10 million spent on 170 civil servants. A colossal proportion of the £631 million to £916 million must surely be for staff. That clearly tells us that wages will improve, but numbers must improve if there are 36,000 people with unmet need. That is why I ask about how many people we will need to deliver the bill. They might not be recruited by the Scottish Government, but the Scottish Government is putting money into the bill to ensure that it is delivered, and that must filter down to staff.

You said on at least two occasions on Tuesday, Donna, that you have pessimistic assumptions. I am trying to be realistic—I am not looking for a pessimistic assumption—about how the bill can be delivered on the ground, given the workforce challenges that we currently face.