Seòmar agus comataidhean

Indeed.

You have referred in a number of your projections to the size of the increase in the health spend, which I think you are estimating will be just under 50 per cent of the change—it is about a third now. Obviously, there will also be an increase in the social security spend. Do you have any views on the scope for public sector reform in the economy to address the increase in the costs that we are having to cope with?

I want to ask about data. It was put to us by two former ministers and one civil servant last week that, when it comes to good-quality decision making in the Government, it is essential that good-quality data is available—if the Government chooses to ignore it, that is another matter. Having such data available is critical to good-quality decision making. Are there gaps in the data that it is necessary to put before Government ministers? Is there anything that we can do to improve that?

I have to say that I think that Scotland is blessed with an awful lot of people who are putting the facts in place for the Government. Perhaps we need a few more organisations like the Fraser of Allander Institute but, nonetheless, I think the ones that we have are pretty objective.

James Black, when you make a submission on, for example, a very objective analysis of the economy, does that submission reach the right circles? I am thinking about the civil servants and Government ministers who will be making some pretty big decisions about the economy. Is the analysis reaching the right quarters?

That would be very helpful. The convener has asked questions about the significant amounts of money that are being transferred between portfolios. If we are talking, on a longer-term basis, about a figure of £1.3 billion as a minimum—it could be more—that is a considerable amount of money. It is important to the Parliament, and certainly to this committee, that we know what the plans are for how that money will be deployed. If there are any delays in the process of the project, which is what is happening, that frees up money that could be spent on other things, which might address some of the constraints that we have before us. Could we get some more information on that?

Can you clarify whether there have been any conversations between you, John Swinney and civil servants who look after budgets on whether that is up for discussion as a major piece of money that can be deployed elsewhere?

That is helpful. You have made it clear that there has not been much discussion about the issue—certainly not with you and the cabinet secretary. I find that slightly strange, I have to say. The national care service was a flagship policy that the Scottish Government wanted to put in process, and it has fallen foul of at least four committees in the Parliament, which have very serious concerns; I think that another three committees are looking at it just now. There is clearly some concern about not just the general direction of the policy, but how it would be financed. Our job in this committee is to scrutinise the financial aspect.

We were told that a second, much more detailed—and, one would hope, more accurate—financial memorandum would be coming down the line fairly shortly. That was before the delay, and we are now left in a bit of an open space with regard to exactly what is happening. It would be helpful if we could get some clarity on all that.

Correct.

The reason that I am asking is that the matter is crucial in terms of freeing up money that was going to be available for a project that has been delayed. The committee would strongly welcome clarity on exactly how much money has been already spent. I think that I am correct in saying that the implication was that some of it—whether it was up to £50 million or not—had already been spent. The committee would like to know how much of that money has been spent, what remains and whether that will have considerable implications for budgets that need to be planned ahead—in fact, as you have indicated, you are already planning ahead.

Can you provide the committee with clarity on that? We are very anxious that we get that clarity, because it is clear that there is money available.

I think that the convener made an extremely important point; namely, if there is X billion pounds to be spent on health, it is very important that we, and the public, know how much of that is spent directly in the health budget and how much of it will be spent on health in local government—or wherever it might be spent.

To pick up on a point that the minister made, it is the “why” that is important. If we really want to get clarity about what we are trying to do and measure the effectiveness of the spend, it is important that we understand who has spent the money and why they have been tasked with spending it. That is the clarity that we are looking for within budgets. I know that they are incredibly technical and complex, but it is about getting extra understanding.

It is to the benefit of everybody—including the Scottish Government—to know where money is being spent, by whom and why some of it goes to one channel and some goes to another. That is critical, and the convener was right to ask questions about it.