Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have left the most important theme until last. We need to see how the bill will deliver for unpaid carers.

During consideration of the bill that became the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016, another Aberdonian, Nanette Milne—whom, I know, the minister knows well—lodged amendments to put in place breaks for carers. That was really important at the time, but it has not been delivered, partly due to the fact that support plans are not being delivered or commissioned. Statistics show that only about 20,000 of the estimated 339,000 unpaid carers are able to access those plans. How will the bill ensure that that situation is turned around and that unpaid carers actually get those breaks?

As the bill progresses, I will want to make sure, through amendments, that that is delivered.

The minister started the evidence session by saying—the cabinet secretary also said this when he launched the bill—that the bill will end the postcode lottery of care in Scotland. We all want to see that, but this framework bill has been designed around the NHS. We have a postcode lottery in our NHS, and ministers are responsible for policy direction and delivery, so why will this be different?

I represent Edinburgh, which has some of the worst delayed discharge rates and some of the highest homelessness numbers in the country, and I worry that the bill will not necessarily change that. What learning will ministers who have been responsible for the NHS for 16 years bring to the bill?

We will be speaking to the minister after this session. What would your message to him be? Perhaps we will start with Gerry Cornes on my final devil’s advocate question.

It has been put to this committee and to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee that, following the pandemic, the workforce is tired and feels burned out. Could the creation of a national care service be a distraction from recovery in social care? Can the Government guarantee that we are not about to embark on a further period of disruption and potential underinvestment by local authorities? We have heard that many local authorities are viewing the national care service proposals as a reason not to invest in assets.

I respect what you have said about some of the outcomes that you would like to be achieved, and I agree with many of those. However, can you understand the concerns of someone who is working as a carer today about the fact that you are suggesting that their employer will be the local care board, which does not currently exist, about the disruption that that could present and about the uncertainty around their pension being transferred?

That is a good point.

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for joining us today. I want to follow on from the previous line of questioning. We know how closely intertwined social care and social work are with council services. Specifically in relation to the transfer of local authority workers, what other consequences has the Government not taken into account?

I think that all the committees that are considering the bill are hearing those concerns.

In their submissions, COSLA and Unison described a scenario in which local authorities could be competing against private and third sector providers. At last week’s meeting, we heard about two areas in which co-design—for want of a better word—with the third sector has been useful: the ending homelessness together programme and the Promise. People wish that the Government had approached the national care service with those principles in mind, rather than telling organisations how things will be.

Will you talk about your concerns about competition? Are they purely to do with bidding for contracts in the future, or are they also about workers’ terms and conditions? Tracey Dalling, you have touched on that.

Good morning. To go back to the previous answer, all the committees in the Parliament that are looking at the bill are hearing from the sector that there is a lot confusion. People seem to be in the dark about where this is going to go, and that is important.

Last week, Audit Scotland told the committee that such reforms should be based on a clear business case, realistic costings and an assessment of impact on the wider public sector. From the two committees that I sit on, it is evident that that is not known by those who are going to be tasked with delivering a national care service. Do you recognise that the witnesses who are coming to the committees do not know what you are expecting them to do? We are hearing today that a national care service is potentially not what they think it will be.

Thanks for that. To be fair, I note that all the committee’s witnesses have been positive about many aspects of the bill—for example, fair work, data sharing, ethical procurement and the need for a national improvement body. Local care boards could be developed to deliver that. Clinical care standards are something that I have always wanted. This is not about getting rid of everything that the Government has suggested; it is about trying to make it work.

No witnesses appear to support the transfer of roles, responsibilities or budgets away from local government to a new body. The direct impact on local authorities needs to be made clearer.

In the six years for which I have been an MSP I have never seen so many witnesses coming to Parliament expressing concerns, at this stage in the process of a bill. Given all that concern, and cross-party concerns, including from your party, would you be open to the bill being amended by Parliament in many ways to make it more in the spirit of co-design? Many people are expressing concern about that. The minister has been involved in previous legislation through which co-design has worked well—we have heard about that in relation to the Promise and to the ending homelessness together policy. Co-design needs to be delivered on the ground, so is there a chance to pause the process to try to get it right now?