Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning to the panel members. I want to focus on the idea of having a single electronic record for health and social care. That has come up time and again, not only in our scrutiny of the bill but more broadly in our work, including in many of our inquiries. Many people feel that having a single record is important, particularly so that people do not have to repeat their stories and explain their issues time and again.

What are your views on the benefits or otherwise of having a single electronic record? Is there sufficient data in the system to deliver such a record?

Yes. I am going to come on to talk about what a separation might look like. However, if, as envisaged, we were to transfer criminal justice services, for example, what impact do you think that would have?

I want to return to the point about the fragmentation of the social work profession. We have heard, and I hear, from social workers a real concern that, if we take social workers out of the local authority context, we will run the risk, particularly in children and family services, that there will be a real disconnect from education, which has a role within child protection as well, and that the link with teams around the child will be lost. Do people recognise that that is a significant risk?

Is the timescale realistic? I think that the intention is that the national care service should exist by the end of the parliamentary session. We have heard that there are big challenges with being able to deliver it, not least around whether the data is available, what the infrastructure will look like and how we will upskill people.

My question has two parts. First, is the timescale for implementation realistic? Secondly, are there concerns about the cost? I heard that being mentioned. We will come on to questions about finance, but are there concerns about how much delivery could cost? Beth Lawton, could you answer that?

Sure. I presume that the Care Inspectorate pointed to those services not being included in the Feeley report. Kevin, will you comment on that?

I wonder whether I can return us to the way that the bill came about. We have heard a lot about co-design after the framework bill is passed and we have heard a lot about that co-design being done through regulations.

My sense, across all the contributions here today and more widely, is that there are things that could be dealt with right now using existing powers in relation to pay, terms and conditions and the recommendations in the Feeley review and the Fair Work Convention, and that it might have been better to sit down and co-design something in a meaningful way before we got to the legislative process.

Is it fair to say that that is the position of trade union members and that that is why there is a call to pause the bill? Do you feel that it would have been better to do the co-design up front and to have a meaningful discussion about what that would look like?

I find it extraordinary that no one approached the trade unions and said that that would potentially be the process.

I will ask about finance. A massive structural change such as we are discussing brings with it a financial burden. There has been a lot of comment in this committee and others about the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill—we have heard it being referred to as a blank cheque. I am keen to get your sense of what that could mean when it comes to the local authorities’ finances.

Good morning. I will direct my questions to Alison Bavidge and Colin Poolman because they are relevant to their submissions. In its submission, the SASW said:

“As it stands, this Bill is unlikely to deliver improved quality and consistency of social work services.”

In its submission, the RCN said:

“the Bill will not achieve”

its

“purpose without the Scottish Government first tackling the workforce crisis across health and social care”.

Given the answers to the convener’s question, does the process seem to be back to front? Should there have been more input into the framework legislation in order that things could have been put in the bill that could affect the issues that you spoke about in your submissions? Should we then have looked at how to go forward from there?

Sure. I was just quoting back to you the concerns in your submission about delivering quality and consistency and asking whether you would rather have seen more detail in the bill. You mentioned putting things in the bill, but could you expand on what could have made a difference?

Prior to the introduction of the bill, should there have been a broader discussion about the roles of the SSSC and the Care Inspectorate, and where they sit in relation to and interact with—the dotted line between them—a national social work agency? Is there enough detail on that, or do we need to do more thinking around that? Should there be a broader discussion about that after the bill is dealt with?