Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is about how you came to the £191 million figure rather than anything else.

—that you thought might have to be used but which has not been. Okay—I see the arithmetical calculation. I am just interested in why some of the figures are what they are, but I will leave that for now.

I completely understand what you say about making available information that a complaint has been made and the name of the person. If I were that person, I would like the public to know that the complaint was turned down for certain specific reasons, to clear my name. I would not want a scenario in which there was on-going doubt and confusion. I completely understand why you say that, if the person is not named, all ministers are potentially involved in the speculation but, if someone is cleared of any wrongdoing, it is important to make clear why.

Mr Swinney, I think that the Scottish Government and the ethics directorate have gone a long way to improving transparency. I very much welcome the progress that you have made since you first came to the committee, particularly in relation to complaints that are upheld or partially upheld. That is very good news.

Partly from listening to what the convener said, I have slight concerns about circumstances in which a case has not been upheld and about ensuring that all the information comes out to the public. There has to be a categorical assurance to the person, who potentially could be vilified through social media, as the convener mentioned, or otherwise—it should be very clear exactly what the reasons are for not upholding the complaint.

We all know that, especially if there is a bit of a time delay between a complaint being made and the investigation process, there is scope for individuals in any political party to be vilified by members of the public unfairly. I am slightly concerned that that could have an implication for those who might be attracted into politics, who might feel that the system will name and shame them even when they have not done anything wrong. I am a bit concerned about that process, so could I have your reflections on that?

Secondly, when you mentioned that former ministers could be included in the procedure, I take it that that is all former ministers and that there is no time bar for ministers who have not been in office for 10 years or whatever. Does it apply to all ministers?

Yes, I very much do. I do not doubt that there will be conversations—of course there will be—but, as a committee and as a Parliament, it is our duty to scrutinise any piece of legislation but particularly any sizeable piece of legislation. We must be clear in our minds about the financial memorandum that accompanies that legislation. I think that I can safely say that, irrespective of what we think about the bill, the committee has concerns because of a lot of the evidence that has been provided to us in the past three weeks.

That evidence says that what is before Parliament is not sufficient for the level of scrutiny that is required in order for us to decide whether the bill can progress in its current state or whether we need a completely different approach. Do you accept that the concern is sufficient, particularly among those who are trying to scrutinise the financial memorandum, to cause you to pause the bill until there is more detail?

Minister, in last Wednesday’s national care service debate, you said that, should the bill pass, it will involve a huge change to social services, and you have just repeated that comment. In that debate, you also said that you were keen to set out the principles and that those ought to be heavily scrutinised. You cited financial sustainability as a key principle.

How are we supposed to engage in that scrutiny if we do not have anything like the detail that we need in the financial memorandum, for the reasons that Michelle Thomson and the convener have cited? I think that you have to admit that many stakeholders are deeply unhappy that they do not have the relevant detail to undertake sufficient scrutiny.

Mr Stewart, I do not think that it is simply a case of having conversations. The committee is asking for, and the Parliament will ask for, further detail. I completely understand that you could never put out a full set of estimates, but too many people—whether witnesses who have given evidence to us or those who have produced commentaries on the bill—have made it clear that it is extremely difficult to provide the best forecast of costs, because the Scottish Government has not provided sufficient detail.

That makes it very difficult for us to carry out scrutiny, the importance of which you raised in last week’s debate in Parliament, when you set out the laudable aims of the bill. You made it clear that our job is to scrutinise the bill, and you are right about that. Forgive me for saying so again, but we cannot do that unless there is adequate information on which to base the scrutiny. Do you accept that?

I understand that, but to ensure that we deliver first-class services for people, we need to have some structures. The Scottish Government is proposing that a structure that is vastly different from the existing one should be put in place. That may have merit but, for us to be persuaded of that merit, it is surely incumbent on the Scottish Government to set out as much detail as it possibly can to help us along the way and to persuade us that the change that it wants to make is not only desirable, based on the laudable aims that you have set out, but that it is actually workable and deliverable. At the moment, far too many people around the country are telling us that they have serious concerns about what they will be asked to do to make that work and about whether the costs are applicable.

Do you at least accept that there is genuine concern and that that is another reason why the bill should be paused for the time being?

My final question is about a comment by someone who is on the front line and who spoke to our committee on behalf of the chief executives of NHS boards. I think that he very much agrees with the principles of some of the things that you are trying to deliver, but he was nonetheless very sceptical about whether those could be delivered, particularly at the moment, when the NHS is facing so many difficulties and when there is absolutely no spare room in the NHS. He is telling you that NHS bosses are not happy about the workability of the bill. Do you accept what he says? That was Ralph Roberts.

Minister, I have to say that it is the weakest financial memorandum that I have seen in all my time in the Parliament, and that includes the financial memorandums for various pieces of major legislation. What would you say in answer to those witnesses who have told us that, for some of the projected additional costs that the bill would give rise to, they have had to ask civil servants for further detail, because such detail has not been presented to them as they have sought to establish their projections from the financial memorandum?