Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely.

You mentioned several organisations that want answers to questions. Some of those questions canna be answered, because those matters are subject to the co-design process. Some of the folks that you mentioned want no change whatsoever. That is not an option at all, because we have to ensure, no matter what, that social care is sustainable for the future.

Beyond that, I note that many of the stakeholders from which the committee has heard are folks who have power and influence and perhaps do not want to see that change. This committee, along with other committees in the Parliament, needs to listen to the voices of lived experience and the change that they want. You should listen to some of the third sector organisations that feel that the current system does not work for them, and to those folks who want change.

The Government made a commitment in its manifesto to introduce legislation to establish a national care service. That is what we are embarking on.

I am sure that there would be arguments galore no matter which way round we had chosen to do it. However, we need to get on with it. We need to have faith and trust in the co-design process, and ensure that people who have not had their voices heard thus far are at the table making the decisions about the issues that affect them on a daily basis in relation to their care and support.

As I said, I think that if we had moved in another direction some folk in Parliament would have said, “Nah, you have to do the primary legislation first”.

There is no provision for IT in the bill; therefore it is not in the financial memorandum.

It is still the local authority’s statutory responsibility to deliver social care and social work. I am quite sure that, in all of this, folk will look to the future in relation to delivering all of that to members of the public instead of considering only their asset base.

I would have expected to see it before now, Mr Lumsden. Anybody who submits such a number must have the workings behind it, but we do not have them and I do not recognise the figure of £1.5 billion. Now that those questions have been asked by the committee, I hope that we can all see the workings behind the £1.5 billion figure.

As I have said, we will provide the committee with as much information on that as we can as soon as we can.

I disagree that we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. We want to ensure that, where service delivery is good, we export it across the board, and the national high-quality standards will ensure that we are able to do that.

Again, I come back to the issue of accountability. People who are being cared for and supported on a daily basis do not feel that the accountability is right; they do not feel that it is right at a local level, and they want accountability at a national level. We need to listen to that. I always look for the best in everything so that we can replicate it where necessary, and the national care standards would give us the ability to do that across the board. However, that also allows for flexibility in delivery at a local level.

Many things that we have discussed today will come into play during the co-design process. If nothing else, I hope that many members of the public and stakeholders will play a part in helping us get it right as we move forward.

We need national high-quality standards. Indeed, that has come across very clearly from those who are supported by carers as well as from front-line staff who believe that national high-quality standards are the way forward.

The other aspect is accountability. I have now been in post for 18 months, and at the beginning, I was surprised by how many of the folks who are supported by our care system mentioned accountability. People do not feel that there is the accountability that there should be at the local level, and they feel that ministers should be accountable for more than just the policy direction that we are currently accountable for.

People also feel that national high-quality standards are absolutely necessary. That has come across loud and clear in almost every conversation that I have had with folks with lived experience of the care system. It has come across loud and clear from the social covenant steering group, and it has come across loud and clear from those who work on the front line.

I will give you an example, without naming anyone. I have heard time and again that, where there have been failings, folk get pushed from pillar to post. They are told, “That’s not our responsibility—it’s the responsibility of the health and social care partnership,” “No, that’s not our responsibility—it’s the council’s responsibility,” or, “No, that’s the responsibility of the national health service.” That leads to real difficulties for people, and we need to change that. That is why we need the national care service. We need to ensure that that accountability exists, so that people know what they can expect from the care system.

Indeed, convener. One of the reasons why we have put staff transfer in the bill is that local care boards will be—or may be, depending on what Parliament decides—the provider of last resort. It is important that we have the ability for staff to transfer in those situations, just as we have seen in recent times. When there have been closures of services in the independent or third sector, or people deregistering services, we have seen those transfers take place between third sector, private sector and other third sector partners or, indeed, local authorities. At the moment, that is happening fairly regularly. As provider of last resort, if that is what Parliament chooses, local boards have to be able to have the staff to ensure that there is a continuation of care for people.

Ms Bell may want to add to that.