Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I have said at the meetings of numerous committees, I want to be open and transparent. I want and welcome scrutiny of the bill, and I will also welcome scrutiny of the secondary legislation. Mr Sweeney, and many others, want the answers to all the questions now, but if I start answering all the questions now, it makes a mockery of the co-design process. I recognise that parliamentarians want to know everything in the here and now, as I have asked such questions myself, from the other side of the table.

We have to have faith in people and in the co-design process. I know that the approach is different, but it is the right thing to do with this public service reform. It is important that we give people and stakeholders the ability to help us shape the national care service, which has to be fit for the future. We have a future with changing demographics, so we have to take that into account.

I ask Paul Sweeney not to ask me for all the answers now, and instead to wait and see what comes out of the co-design process and what answers people come up with to shape the national care service.

I refer Mr Balfour to my earlier response about co-design. It is not a case of ministers just making the decision because, of the five co-design stages, the third stage is agreeing with people on how we move forward.

We know that there will be polarised views and we know that not everything that every single person wants is possible, but stage 3 of the co-design is agreement. I say again that the co-design stages are understanding, sense making, agreeing, drafting of regulations and then consultations on those regulations. There is a huge amount of opportunity in that process.

We will co-design a complaints and redress service for the NCS that ensures accountability. Co-design will take place with people with lived experience, in order to hear their experiences of accessing and providing social care support, and with partners and stakeholders, who will be involved in the implementation. That will include the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

No decisions on implementation have been taken, because co-design will inform that. However, section 14 places an obligation on the Scottish ministers to establish a service for receiving and allocating complaints about services that the NCS provides.

Ministers will have regulation-making powers to provide for the handling of relevant complaints, including improving and strengthening how complaints about the NCS and wider social care services are handled and the associated redress processes that will have to be put in place. Under section 15(4), the regulation-making power requires the Scottish ministers to secure the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s consent before laying any draft regulations that would modify or remove functions of an SPCB-sponsored body. That is similar, although not identical, to a provision under section 19 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The key difference is that, under that act, the provision must first be requested by the SPCB.

It is considered an appropriate balance for the control and scrutiny of the NCS complaints system that the Scottish ministers should be able to propose appropriate provisions following co-design. If it wishes to, the SPCB will have the power to veto those through withholding consent. Subject to consent, detailed provision would be set out in subordinate legislation, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. I hope that that lays out the processes for Mr Balfour.

I hope that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body would take cognisance of the views of the people who are in the co-design process so that we get the complaints and redress process right for all. As for the views of the public, I have been struck by how, at points, folk have felt that they were not able to complain or seek redress because of a fear that services might be withdrawn. We must ensure that that fear goes, whether or not it is only a perception.

We must ensure that there is a complaints and redress system that works for all. I hope that we all—the people, the SPCB, ministers, the Parliament, the ombudsmen and others—co-operate so that we get it right as we move forward and we do not have folks fearing to seek redress or even to make complaints.

Those questions are for your clerks rather than for me. I see the clerk nodding her head.

In relation to what, convener?

No, I do not. I am not so chuffed that Mr Mundell is trying to get me out the door at the very start of the new year.

We will not go there, convener.

The national care service is all about people. We will be guided by people and by stakeholders through that co-design. I am sure that all of us around the table, regardless of whether we are supportive of the national care service proposal, recognise that people need to be at the very heart of it. We need to do something a little bit different here and put our trust and faith in people themselves.

One of the reasons why social care integration has not been the best that it possibly can be thus far is implementation gaps. Through co-design and with people’s help, I am absolutely convinced that we can get those implementation gaps filled, and do it right.

Beyond that, as I said earlier, it is much better to put some things into secondary rather than primary legislation so that we can be flexible and put things right at a far greater pace. Even so, as I have said at previous committees, I am more than willing to listen to others from across the parliamentary chamber on stage 2 amendments that might work. However, I appeal to members of the committee—as I have appealed to members of other committees—to listen to the voices of lived experience and hear what they have to say about where things have worked for them and where they have not. That might change the views of some folk about using secondary legislation in order to be much more adaptable in meeting the needs of folk out there.

Some folk want to see everything in the bill—they see that as the way forward. However, people out there do not see that as the best way because, as I explained earlier, when everything is in the bill—in primary legislation—it is not so easy to change it. One of the examples that I have given to other committees is about the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013. The legislation was supported by all, but the implementation has not been so easy in some regards. I recently changed the guidance on self-directed support, again, to provide more clarity on people’s rights and the responsibilities of public services. However, loopholes have been used to ensure that folk have not been able to access all the rights that the act was intended to give them, in terms of freedom over and responsibility for their own care.

If many pieces of that act had been in secondary legislation, it would have been much easier to change them and to put it right, but that is not the case. Therefore, we want to use secondary legislation with regard to the delivery aspects of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, to allow that flexibility as we move forward if we find flaws or that things are not working appropriately for people. That is a good way to go, although it is different to the approach for many other bills that have been passed here in recent years. However, I come back to the point that the framework bill method was used to form the national health service, and I think that we can all agree that that has been a bit of a success.

My officials will speak to the clerks about that offline—that is probably the best way to deal with the issue in the first instance. I do not really know what you are asking of me, but if you are asking me to write to the committee about parliamentary processes, I do not see that as my job.

Convener, I am more than willing to outline in writing all the processes that we are introducing. However, the issue about parliamentary processes is probably best dealt with by your clerks. I would be happy for my officials to talk to the clerks about the issue.