Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, you will be pleased to hear that I will not cover every amendment in turn—the committee would give up the will to live if I tried to do so.

Gillian Mackay raised the issue of local authorities. The common principles would be for all social care provision and would provide the framework for the social care sector. I have an expectation that ministers, working alongside their advisory board, would use them to inform and bring forward the strategic plan.

When it comes to amendments, I hear what the minister says. I recall that it was mentioned in discussions with the minister and others in the sector that there would be reference to ethical commissioning in the bill. However, when we lodge amendments to that effect, they are rejected. That is genuinely disappointing.

In relation to amendment 104, the minister referred to statutory guidance. I wonder whether that has been published or could be shared, because that would certainly be helpful.

On amendment 106 and the other amendments that the minister referred to, we believe that competence is a matter for the Parliament. Those amendments have been accepted. That is a matter for the Parliament to make a judgment on, and we believe that they are competent. I am conscious that there is no other legislative opportunity. I am keen for this suite of amendments, which builds on the work of the Feeley review and which the minister has said she supports—whether on fair work, human rights or ethical procurement—to be supported in some way.

The amendments try to get us to do more than offer warm words—the Parliament and the Government are very good at offering warm words. We need to put some of those principles into legislation. However, I am a reasonable person—oh, the minister is testing my patience by smiling at that. [Laughter.] I am sure that she did not mean to.

I will speak to all three of my amendments in the group.

If we are to get social care right, we need a national strategy that sets out key objectives that we can all agree on and that identifies the state of the landscape while respecting local structures and accountability. That is why I lodged amendment 115, which would require the Scottish Government to have a four-year national strategic plan for social care services that should include social care planning and procurement of services. As members can see from the amendment, the strategic plan would be comprehensive and designed in consultation and collaboration with key stakeholders across the sector, and it would drive consensus about what needs to be done to make social care the very best it can be.

Amendment 126 would require the Scottish Government, integration joint boards and health and social care partnerships to publish details of the funding that was available for social care in the current financial year and for the subsequent five financial years. That information would be published at least once every financial year.

Similarly, amendment 127 calls for data collection and reporting on social care needs, including unmet need and estimated costs. It is important that we have transparency about finances and an understanding of the level of unmet need across Scotland, and it would serve as an opportunity to assess the progress that ministers were making. If we are to get serious about transforming social care and ensuring that it meets our population’s needs, we need a clear strategic approach that is agreed on by stakeholders. I urge all members to support the amendments in group 5.

I move amendment 115.

Despite repeated Government commitments on greater integration of health and social care, it is clear from talking to those at the coalface that that has simply not happened. One of the most obvious examples is the collection and sharing of a patient’s information to trusted bodies that are involved in the individual’s care. Despite digital solutions existing, the Government has been much too slow to take action and seems to be stuck in an analogue age. In lodging amendment 120, I want the use of digital technology to improve data sharing.

Despite the Government’s track record, I remain an optimist. That is why I lodged amendment 120, which would require the creation of that digital shared record and which sets out practical examples of what it should include, with safeguards around the sharing of information and data protection. The detail will be for the Government to bring forward in regulations. We do not believe that amendment 120 relates to a reserved area, but if the minister is willing to discuss it, I will consider withdrawing it.

For the record, we support all the other amendments in the group.

There is currently no effective strategy, which is why I think that the bill needs to be amended. There is a lack of transparency among some of the social care bodies, and trying to get information from them is like trying to get blood out of a stone. We absolutely need to improve data and reporting—if we do not, how will we measure progress?

However, the minister will be pleased to hear that I will be consistently reasonable. I will seek to withdraw amendment 115 and will not move amendments 126 and 127, on the understanding that she will work with me prior to stage 3 to bring something back.

Amendment 115, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 36—Care records

It was 2017.

Absolutely—they are the ones who know. However, eight years have passed and there has been no update or attempt to complete that data set.

How many returns have you received from those fisheries? What enforcement action, if any, have you taken against those that do not return catch data?

Not all the fisheries provide catch returns.

I intend to press it, convener.

Thank you, convener. I have a number of questions about the Endrick Water. Cabinet secretary, do you know yet how many riparian owners there are on the Endrick?

But there are some active fisheries. I understand what you said to my colleague earlier about a series of letters. Is any enforcement action taken if active fisheries do not provide returns?