Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mark Taylor and Emma Congreve have talked about the lack of clarity around why what is proposed will improve things. Hannah Tweed and Ralph Roberts, could you elaborate on that? Currently, decisions around social care services are being made by local authorities and health boards separately and collectively through integration joint boards. The implication is that we need an independent decision maker that is separate from local authorities and health boards—if that is not the implication, I do not know how to interpret the Government’s plans. Do you think that that is the problem? Do we need an independent decision maker of that sort?

You are correct. I might have phrased my question unfairly, so I will put it another way. Is the problem about where we are making decisions? If we are going to spend £500 million on improving social care, does there need to be a separate decision-making body or do you think that we should look elsewhere for the solution?

Ralph Roberts, do you agree with what Hannah Tweed has said about reflecting the voices of users? Do you think that there has been sufficient analysis of international comparisons with regard to what has been done elsewhere, what works and what the dynamics are?

I have a supplementary question for Mark Taylor. The IT question is potentially significant. To look at recent projects, Social Security Scotland has to date spent £250 million setting up its IT, and Police Scotland estimates that it needs to spend around £300 million on its computer systems. Those are all records systems that hold information on citizens. Is that the scale of magnitude that we should be looking at, and is Audit Scotland aware of any other recent IT systems that we could look at to find analogues?

That is diplomatic.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has done a substantial bit of work on the issue of the ageing population across the industrialised economies. Its reports show that the approach that has been taken in countries that have undertaken reform—notably Japan, the Netherlands and Finland—involves enhancing the powers at a municipal level for configuring and delivering social care services. It strikes me that the bill is taking the opposite approach, and is going up a layer. Has it been explained to you why the Scottish Government is taking a centralising approach, rather than pushing the powers further down? What do you think is the appropriate level for the decisions to be taken?

Thank you. When we were in private session, I assured colleagues that I would be strict and fair with regard to time allocations, so I have to hand over to others at this point.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. I agree with your position that, as far as possible, we should carry on with our usual budget processes. Consistency, clarity and certainty are all vital components of prudent and responsible budget setting.

I want to ask about a couple of points for clarification. Has the Government had communication or correspondence with the Scottish Fiscal Commission regarding the level of data that it has, or expects to have, and whether it feels equipped to carry out the budget forecast?

Also, you questioned whether the UK Government’s fiscal plans might need revising. Are there thoughts about potentially having to revise the Scottish Government’s resource spending review in the light of UK Government fiscal changes, and is there a mechanism for doing so?

I will ask a couple of supplementary questions. If I may offer a brief comment, you are absolutely right, Deputy First Minister, that it is difficult to follow a pound from the budget through to the national performance framework. I also gently submit that it is quite difficult to follow a pound even through to the outturn. I know that the Government has announced changes to some of the processes but, in order to have a grown-up and candid discussion, being able to follow the pound effectively, although it is not always easy, is important.

More specifically, some preventative spend is difficult, because it takes many years to follow through, although some is a little more immediate. We heard good evidence from Engender, who made a plea for investment in social care. That can have a gendered impact, because women are disproportionately represented in the social care workforce.

More numbers came out today, but the figures from July show that 55,992 days were spent in hospital by people whose discharge was delayed. Does the Government have a view of how much that costs? Is it undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of increasing the pay of social care workers and thereby reducing the number of vacancies? Will that kind of work be undertaken in advance of the budget?

There are supplementary questions from Douglas Lumsden and Michelle Thomson, but I would like a brief clarification first. You have committed to making a response to the mini-budget in the week beginning 24 October. You alluded to the fact that there is some ambiguity about what the consequentials might be. The Scottish Parliament information centre has published analysis of what that might look like, which indicates that the consequentials might be as little as £35 million in the current financial year, depending on what the Government does in its latter years.

Does the Scottish Government have a view of what the quantum might be in this and the next financial year? It strikes me that there is a question of priorities. The Scottish Government could seek to reverse some of the decisions that it made early in September; it might seek to replicate decisions by the UK Government; or it might seek to do targeted things with the limited additional money that it may or may not have. Which of those three should be the priority? What is your expectation of what may or may not happen in the statement that you will make in the week commencing 24 October?