Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a couple of specific questions about the measures. You referred to the fact that the Government takes advice from the chief medical officer on protecting public health, and the regulations will flow from that. In relation to education and educational establishments in particular, there does not appear to be any requirement in the bill for any assessment to take place of the impact of an instrument made under the powers that may be exercised through the made affirmative procedure. Do you agree that it is important that those affected understand the impact of the regulations and that the information is accessible, clear and published in a timely manner? Would you consider amending the bill so that a requirement for such a process is included in it?

Nor is shutting an educational boarding facility.

Logic dictates one or the other. Either you want a statute book that gives you the capacity to do such things in certain defined circumstances or you do not. Mr Simpson and I are challenging the whole nature of the bill, because you are effectively passing into law certain powers that you would like to keep in the future—you tell us that you require them—and others that you say you are happy to let fall in 2025. By your own logic, you would surely want to keep in place the capacity to release prisoners.

Finally, are you not putting the cart before the horse with the particular measure in section 37? Would it not be better to pause, wait for the consultation, and then come back with further primary legislation as and when it is required?

I do not want to get into the detail of the proposals for a national care service—I do not want to pre-empt what the Government comes forward with—but, given that your report identifies that there is an urgent need for actions in relation to the present system, particularly in adult social care, is there a risk that the difficult decisions that need to be taken now could be put on hold, particularly given the much wider scope of and remit for a national care service, which go well beyond what the Feeley review envisaged?

The timetable on page 19 shows, in effect, the national care service becoming fully operational by 2026. Bearing in mind that we are already into the second quarter of 2022 and no legislation has come forward as yet, do you think that the timetable is reasonable and that any costings that you have seen so far are likely to be deliverable and achievable?

In response to a question from Mr Beattie, you talked about the importance of data. The Scottish Government’s consultation envisages a single national information technology system for patient and resident records. What are the risks in putting together such a huge scheme, given that public sector IT systems have not always run according to plan or budget?

On the consultation responses from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual councils, is there a risk that there will be a period of paralysis as we go through such a huge structural reform, particularly with regard to workforce issues? How should we guard against that?

On page 19 of the briefing, you set out the timeline for social care reform. I note with some alarm that, even before we know the full scope of the services that might be provided by a national care service, we have management consultants coming in to put in place a programme management structure and the operating model. Is there a risk that we are putting the cart before the horse and will end up building a bureaucratic system independently of the patient or resident-centred care system that Feeley envisaged?

Would you accept that we are almost talking about a fundamental structural reform of local government? I think that it was Mr Clark who referred to the need for urgent action from local authorities and IJBs in relation to the present demands and needs of the care service. However, we can see local government and IJBs being moved out of the picture, in effect—certainly, we can see a rebranding of IJBs—through the process. As we look at the structures and ownership of the system, will there be a risk that we will lose accountability at the local level and perhaps end up seeing some of the issues that you have identified in the past—for example, in relation to Police Scotland?