Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Let me cover Mr Sweeney’s points about parliamentary functions. Those functions are already set out in legislation in schedule 3, so the bill does not need to set out that detail, as it is already in legislation.

I recognise that some folk think that co-design is a risk, but it is also a huge opportunity that has not been taken before. In hindsight, it is probably wrong that that opportunity was not taken before, because—as I have said before—during our 20-year journey of legislation, the Parliament has done a lot of good in making changes in health and social care integration, but we still have implementation gaps and postcode lotteries, and many folk out there perceive that we have an unfairness in service delivery. We need to get rid of those implementation gaps, the postcode lotteries and the unfairness. The best people to help us do that are the folk who receive daily care, their carers and staff on the front line. I see co-design as an opportunity, because those folk will be at the heart of it.

As I have said at previous committees, and as I said in my earlier answer to Jeremy Balfour, my door is open. As I have also said to other committees, I will consider the views of committees on how we can be as open and transparent as we possibly can.

As I have said to the committee, I want everybody to be engaged in these processes. I hear what Mr Sweeney has said, and I will reflect on that and consider how we might be able to improve the scrutiny of that as we move forward.

Your clerks could explain them much better than I can. There are processes other than those for affirmative and negative instruments, but I am no expert in them.

All committees have heard some criticisms. Some of those views have come from critical friends. Other people, of course, do not want change. I think that it is fair to say that. However, change is required in relation to a national care service. We cannot continue in the same vein. We have changing demographics and we have a postcode lottery of care in Scotland, which is not good enough. I have to say that the lack of voices of lived experience in some of the committee evidence sessions is frustrating. The voices of those folks who are in receipt of social work and social care help and support are the ones that we need to listen to, because they will rightly point out where the system does not work for them.

We have been on a 20-year journey of health and social care integration; there have been improvements, but there are still implementation gaps. One reason why there are implementation gaps is that we have not listened to people, and we have not let people help us to shape services.

I recognise that some folk do not want this change, but, if you listen to the voices of lived experience, you will hear that many of them are hungry for change. They want rid of the postcode lotteries, and they want those implementation gaps to be plugged and a system that works for them.

I come back to the point that I made to the convener on the system not working for some folk, and I come back to that lad who I talked about earlier who was at risk of offending—he has 15 interventions going on, but it seems that the system does not work for him.

I will answer those points, starting with the point about “churn”, as Mr Greene put it. I agree that there is a lot of churn in social work. I point out—without naming authorities, because it would be a little bit naughty of me to do so—that we know that there are folks who leave one authority to go to another because pay and conditions in the other authority are much better. That causes grief. It means that there are difficulties with recruitment and retention in some parts of the country, because other local authorities pay much more or the conditions there are better. We need to ensure that there is some kind of uniformity, and an improvement, in pay and conditions. I cannot do that at present, because it is not a matter for me.

With regard to the transfer of staff, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that local authorities’ staff, for example, will need to transfer their employment. The Government’s position remains that new local care boards will work collaboratively in partnership with the national health service, local authorities and the third and independent sectors to improve support locally and nationally.

As I have said, we will have the discussion around that with social workers and their professional bodies, and others, as we move forward. However, there is an opportunity for improvement, not only in pay and conditions but in getting career progression right. One of the things that I have been told by care workers, and by social workers, too, is that opportunities for career progression are often not there. We need to do better on that front, for the simple reason that we need to attract more folks into those professions. For young people in particular, a number of whom I have talked to, as you can imagine, while pay and conditions are way up there, career progression, education and continuous professional development are also high on their agenda. We need to get better at that, too, and we have the opportunity to do so.

Derek Feeley concentrated on adult social care in his review, but he also made recommendations about a national social work agency. When we listened to people initially, we found that many folks felt that bringing only adult social care into the national care service could lead to difficulties around transition points and cause problems with linkages, as I have outlined. That is why we consulted about bringing other things into the national care service.

Derek Feeley’s report looked at adult social care in depth, but, if we are to bring community justice and children’s services into the national care service, we recognise that we need to have the evidence base to do that. That is why we are carrying out the research and the options appraisal and, most importantly, why we are listening to stakeholders to establish whether those services should be included in the national care service. As I have already explained to the convener, whether that happens or not, we have to make sure that the linkages are right. The work that we are doing will be of benefit no matter whether the services are in or out of the national care service.