Seòmar agus comataidhean

It does not necessarily need to be mentioned in the bill, but we all have to be cognisant of the need to make sure that, in the co-design, we get everything, including integration, absolutely right.

It has been strange to me that many folk have said that various things should not be in the bill—for example, that criminal justice and children’s services should not be in the NCS. There are numerous arguments about that. The Government has not yet taken any decisions about whether those two areas should be in or out of the national care service.

However, at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee the other week, there was a suggestion from a member that housing and homelessness services should be in the bill and in the NCS. Of course, that is not going to be the case. However, we have to ensure that the national care service, no matter what is in or out of it, has linkages with other services across the board, including housing and homelessness services. There are areas that are perhaps not being seen by you folks to be discussed as much as they should be, but those conversations are being had right across the board.

Number 2 on my list was

“realising rights and recognising responsibilities”,

which includes the charter development. The others were: information sharing to improve health and social care support, which we have touched on already; keeping health and social care support local; making sure that voices are heard; and valuing the workforce. As I said, we will write to you on all of those.

I revert back to my point about the SDS legislation. We all thought that that was a fantastic piece of legislation, but some folk have found loopholes that have not been challenged and have not been easy to change. I have tried to change some of that through guidance. As you know, vehicles for primary legislation sometimes do not come along very often. If we find a flaw or loophole, or if something changes in the way that we deal with an illness or condition, we can change secondary legislation quite easily, or more easily. That does not mean that we do not have folk scrutinising and that we are not open and transparent on that. If and when secondary legislation requires to be changed, I expect that we will continue to have the voices of lived experience guiding us on that.

The figure of £1.4 billion relates to what is in the bill. The issue that Tess White raises is not in the bill; it is action that we are taking now. That statement of intent covers a huge number of things, including pay and conditions—maternity pay being a condition. Not all of those things are spelled out individually in the statement of intent. Off the top of my head, I picked one that is extremely important to me.

Again, off the top of my head—I will correct this in writing if I am wrong—I believe that the cost of the policy is around £4 million.

We published the new statement of intent yesterday. There are constant meetings between officials and COSLA officials. As you can imagine, I see Paul Kelly, the COSLA health and social care spokesperson, regularly because he is involved in many of the relevant groups, including the ministerial advisory group, which he co-chairs with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, to deal with the here and now.

I will give one example of where I want to see improvement, and to see it quickly. As I am sure COSLA officials would agree, I believe that it is scandalous that many women who are working in social care at the moment have no maternity-pay entitlement. That is absolutely scandalous in the 21st century, and it is one of the first things on my list for improvement. I think that the statement of intent will help us to move forward on that front and to get rid of some of the antiquated employment situations that exist.

I am fine.

I do not see this as centralisation, at all. Some folk around the table will already be aware of this, but I will just point out to the committee that I was the first minister to island proof a bill—the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill—before the Islands (Scotland) Bill had been passed. In all the work that we are doing, we are taking cognisance of the different airts and pairts of our country and of how we need to get this right for everyone.

As a result, we have a separate workstream that is looking at islands and what can be done there, and we are looking at some of the suggestions that authorities have made about how they can deliver on the bill in a different way. A few months back, I was in Shetland to listen to people’s views, and I am due to go to Orkney at the beginning of the year. There have been suggestions from some island leaders—although not all, I hasten to add for the record—with regard to single-island authorities. The Government will look at that.

As for our more rural areas, particularly our remote rural areas, there is, as I have said, an opportunity to use ethical procurement to change the way in which we do things, and I hope that that opportunity will be grasped. We have to look at how we deliver across the board. I will do so, and my officials know what needs to be done in that regard.

Again, I note that we have, so that we can get this right for everyone, gone out of our way to find voices of lived experience from our remote rural and island areas, given that the difficulties that they face are often very different to those that are faced by folks in my community in Aberdeen, for example.

I have already given an assurance this morning that we are moving on many of those fronts. That is why we have the statement of intent with COSLA. There are things that I want to have been done yesterday. We will continue to try to advance on all those things. I say to Ms Mochan and others on the committee that, sometimes, such things are not so easy. I would, for example, like to see national sectoral bargaining, as is envisioned in our NCS proposals.

The financial memorandum will cover all aspects that pertain to the bill. As the committee knows, we are working at this moment to ensure that we cover all bases when it comes to any liabilities, including VAT. The best option would be for the Treasury to rule that there would be no VAT liabilities. We will continue to push and prod the Treasury on that front.

We have to have a framework before we can move to co-design. We had to show the people who we want to help us co-design the bill with us that there is a framework to blanket that co-design around.

We came to that decision because that is the logical way to do it, and because we looked at what has happened previously. I remind the committee that the formation of the national health service was based on a framework bill, and I think that the national health service has been a wee bit of a success, has it not?