Seòmar agus comataidhean

Some of the same things were said just before we moved to integration joint boards. It was said at that point that many folk might choose not to stand for local government. I have no evidence of that, and it would be difficult for me to judge the position in other parties. Even with those changes, from the perspective of my party in my neck of the woods, more people have come forward to stand for election. Of course, that means that there will be much more choice as we move forward.

I have no evidence that the removal of social care from councils would be a barrier to people standing for local office. The same things were said previously, and I have seen no change. In fact, the opposite is the case.

With regard to your previous question about the charter, I have found the relevant bit of my notes. As you can imagine, I have piles of documents in front of me. The national care service proposals are fully compatible with the articles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The charter clearly states that, when responsibility is allocated to another authority, the extent and nature of the tasks concerned and the requirements with regard to efficiency and economy should be weighed up. As the committee is well aware, the independent review of adult social care was clear about the need for a national care service, given the extent and nature of social care. I hope that that is helpful.

I disagree completely and utterly because we are not setting up a quango; we are setting up a national care service for the good of the people of Scotland. I return to my earlier points around and about the huge opportunities that we have to get delivery right for the people of Scotland. The main reason for doing this is to ensure that we have a care system that is person centred and has human rights at its very heart. We need national high-quality standards, as I have said before.

We also need to sort out the accountability aspect. It has come out loud and clear from people that that is not right and that, in many cases, we are not serving them well. We need to deal with that.

From a union perspective—I declare an interest as a member of Unison—this is the greatest opportunity that there has ever been to get it right for the social care and social work professions, because of the opportunity for national sectoral bargaining to put right pay and conditions and, as I said previously, to create the right career pathways for folk. That will attract young people to the profession, which is not easy to do. One of the biggest takeaways that I have had from the young people in front-line social care and social work whom I have spoken to is that they want to see career pathways.

It has not yet been mentioned this morning, but this gives us the opportunity to embed ethical procurement in all that we do and to put fair work at the heart of it. I recognise that some people see negatives in what we are doing. There are always vested interests, but I ask that we balance that out with the needs of the people. I ask not only that we listen to the folks who are giving negative evidence—although it is not wholly negative, because almost everybody says that we need a national care service and that we need change—but that we look at the positives in all this and, in particular, listen to the voices of lived experience.

If anyone was transferred in relation to the aspects that I laid out earlier, the local care board would be the employer. I do not think that the setting up of the national care service is a leap of faith at all. I think that it is the greatest opportunity for the social care and social work workforce that there has been for many years. It gives us the opportunity for national sectoral bargaining, which does not currently exist. It gives us the opportunity to drive up pay and conditions and to put in place career pathways that many young folk in social care and social work do not think exist at the moment.

When change is proposed, we are always likely to get the negatives first. However, from a workforce point of view, the national care service probably represents the greatest opportunity that has existed for the profession for a very long time, if not ever.

As I said earlier about the local government workforce, I do not envisage there being a huge transfer of staff from local authorities to local care boards. Obviously, there will be discussions about that in the co-design process, but I see no reason for that to happen—unless, of course, a local authority chooses not to deliver care any more, which I cannot see happening. I do not envisage the transfer of a huge number of staff from the third sector to local care boards, either. I want to be very clear about that.

I say to Mr Briggs and others that, as part of my job, I see it as being absolutely at the top of the agenda to listen to the voices of lived experience, but also to speak to front-line staff. I have been open with front-line staff about their ability to speak to me and officials directly, and I have gone out of my way to hear views. At a recent meeting of the cross-party group on social work, for example, I made it clear that social workers should be telling us what they need, what change they want to see and what would make their jobs better. That is the way that we intend to proceed and that is the way that we will continue to operate as we move forward on that front.

Absolutely, Mr Coffey. I have spent a huge chunk of the past 18 months listening to people and what they want to be changed. Some of the stories that I and my officials have heard are particularly galling; we have heard about problems that have reached crisis point because people have not been listened to at the right time, which is wrong. That is my point about the implementation gaps that have developed when changes have taken place previously. If there is one thing that I am absolutely adamant about, it is that we do as much as possible to get rid of those implementation gaps, because we cannot afford the amount of money that we are spending on crisis and we cannot afford the human cost of not getting it right earlier. That is why national high-quality standards are so important in all this.

We will continue to have local accountability, local flexibility and local design of services, but that must match up to national high-quality standards. We cannot afford postcode lotteries. Mr Coffey represents East Ayrshire where care delivery is very good, but I want everyone across the country to be able to expect that level of service and beyond. There are worries in certain quarters that, in all that we are doing, there might be a move backwards in certain places. That will not be the case. We must drive up the quality standard of care delivery right across the board.

The national high-quality standards will go a long way in reaching consistency. Beyond that, we have other pieces of work going on with voices of lived experience and stakeholders around and about the charter of rights and responsibilities. It is some of the earliest co-design work that we are doing; I was involved in discussions on that last week that, for me, were very exciting.

We must ensure that we get the right design and that we monitor as we build on the principles of the bill, ensuring that we get the secondary legislation right and removing the implementation gaps that have existed before.

Most important in all this is that, in order to change the culture that exists in certain places, we have to continue to listen to the voices of lived experience and to listen to and trust front-line staff, because a lot of what has gone on over recent years has eroded the autonomy, independence and flexibility that front-line staff have in certain places. When front-line staff have greater freedom, autonomy and flexibility, there is usually better service delivery for people. People have to be at the very heart of all this. Even once the bill is passed and the secondary legislation and regulations are in place after co-design, we must continue to listen all the way through so that we continuously improve.

Anne’s law is on the face of the bill and in primary legislation. Can I lay out the way in which this occurred? The consultation was published in August 2021, as I am sure the committee will recognise. That set out the proposals for change. The responses to the consultation supported change and a huge range of views were in favour of co-design principles. That allows us to work through all the matters that are important to people out there.

One of the key things that I should highlight to the committee is that, in the past, people have not been at the heart of the changes that we have made. That has created implementation gaps, and that is not good for anyone. It is not good for front-line staff and it is certainly not good for those folk who require care and support, or for their carers or their families.

This is the right thing to do. We never achieve perfection, but the way in which we are shaping this, with people at the heart of it, is the right thing to do. Again, I highlight the fact that, in terms of the co-design and the secondary legislation, we will consult all the way through in order to get this right. If we find that there are flaws in what we come up with in the secondary legislation, the fact that it is in secondary legislation makes it much easier to adapt. Some of the key frustrations that are out there are around about where the Parliament has set good legislation with good intention but there has been an implementation gap.

You may well seek an example, so I will give you one. The Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 is a good piece of legislation, which we will build on in the work that we are doing here, but some folk have used some aspects of that primary legislation to find loopholes in order not to deliver as per the spirit of the act. We need to change that, but it is not so easy to change something over a short period of time when it is set in stone in primary legislation. It is much easier to do that in secondary legislation. That is what the voices of lived experience want to see, rather than sometimes being stuck in a cul de sac in which the spirit of legislation is not being lived up to.

This has to be part of the co-design process. What we have ensure is that, if there is a need to be provider of last resort, we have the ability to transfer staff and assets. That may not necessarily be from local authorities, but the committee will understand the need for a local care board to be able to deal with emergency situations. I have explained the reasoning why that is in play in the bill. We can spell out that reasoning in more detail. We have to do it in order to protect people who may face difficult situations. This talk that we have already decided to transfer staff and assets wholesale is not the case.

Let me spell this out. I have not suggested that anyone’s employer will be a local care board.

I said last week that I do not want to pause the bill: we need to move forward. People who are in receipt of care and support—carers and the voices of lived experience—want us to move more swiftly than we are moving on all this. Many of them would say that they want change yesterday; I understand that strength of feeling.

On amendments, Parliament decides on amendments and, obviously, the Government will lodge amendments as and when necessary.

The key element that some people do not like relates to co-design. In order for us to get it right we need the voices of lived experience at the table with others. Mr Briggs mentioned my experience as a minister, when I have brought together as many people as possible to reach consensus. With changes to homelessness regulation, we managed to do the good work that we achieved because we had the voices of lived experience at the very heart of the process. I want to ensure that those voices are heard and that co-design is truly co-design. Obviously, parameters have to be set; people are realistic about these things. However, I want all stakeholders and the voices of lived experience to be involved, then we will end up with the best possible service.

I do not want a situation in which people are painting themselves into corners by saying that they are not going to play a part in the co-design process. That looks particularly bad for the folks who have experience of care; it looks to them as though, once again, certain sectors are not listening and are not willing to listen to their views.