Seòmar agus comataidhean

I could probably get myself into a lot of trouble if I tried to redefine the names of folks’ roles at this moment in time. Nevertheless, I am not averse to having such conversations. I get where Ms Stevenson is coming from with regard to some folks mistrusting social workers, but I also have to say that I have seen some very good examples of trust being formed between social workers and the folks whom they support.

I think that the element of mistrust often comes into play because a social worker has come in at a point of crisis rather than prevention. That is why we are currently looking at a number of changes on that front, and we will do further tests of change to see how we can improve things further.

A couple of months back, I met folks from Fife—I intend to visit again, but we have not managed to slot that in yet—who currently have a pilot going on in two areas there. They have given social workers a clean sheet to do what is required to achieve good outcomes for people—obviously within reason, but it is basically a blank sheet.

The pilot is at the very early stages, but it already seems to be having positive impacts on people because social workers have been freed up and have autonomy. They are no longer bound by some of the strictures that were there in the past that could often lead to mistrust. We need to look at that work and the other work that is being done on tests of change.

It goes back to my point about the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The community social work ethos of freedom and autonomy worked well, but some of the changes that have taken place since then, particularly in the 80s, have drawn us away from that. Let us see what this test-of-change work can do. I think that it will inevitably lead to greater trust.

No. There will be no privatisation of those services. Mr Greene talked of centralisation, and I say to him that the national care service will balance the need for local flexibility by having care boards plan and commission care while providing national consistency through ministers being ultimately accountable.

Why have we moved in that direction? It is because people have told us that they want ministerial accountability. Accountability has been a high priority in the discussions that have been had. You can see from the Feeley review and other work that folks do not feel that people are necessarily as accountable as they should be for the delivery of services.

Quite frankly, people canna believe that I am not accountable for the delivery of social work and social care services in Scotland at this moment. Folk around this table have written to me to intervene in social work and social care situations in their area, which I cannot do, because that is dealt with by other autonomous bodies.

The public has been clear; more than 72 per cent of respondents to the consultation want ministerial accountability. They also want local accountability to be strengthened, which we will achieve. It is not centralisation; it is about national accountability and setting national high-quality standards that should be applied across the board to ensure that postcode lotteries disappear. It is also about local delivery, local flexibility, local innovation and local accountability.

Good morning, and thank you for having me along today to give evidence.

It is fair to say that the national care service is one of the most ambitious reforms of public services. It will end the postcode lottery of care provision in Scotland and ensure that those who need it have access to consistent and high-quality care and support to enable them to live a full life, wherever they are.

People with experience of receiving social care support, and providing it, have been clear that there is an urgent need for change. The bill sets out a framework for the changes that we want to make and allows scope for further decisions to be made. That flexibility will enable the NCS to develop, adapt and respond to specific circumstances over time.

The principles of any new system will be person centred, with human rights at the very heart of social work and support. No decision has been made yet on whether justice social work will be included in the national care service, but we are making provision to enable that and we are considering what the best approach would be.

I acknowledge that, unlike care, justice social work has the unique feature of being court ordered, placing requirements on those in contact with the service and adding different practical considerations. To fully support those involved in the justice system, a holistic approach that recognises the links between offending and other care and support needs is required, whether justice social work is included in the NCS or not.

The work in progress will collate evidence, work with partners to develop options for the future of justice and include a public consultation at the end of 2023, which is a result of the feedback from stakeholders in the consultation. Justice social work staff and people with lived experience will be central to our programme of work.

The NCS will bring changes that will benefit the workforce, too. The importance of staff in the social work and social care sector has never been clearer, and we are fully committed to improving their experience as we recognise and value the work that they do.

We are committed to co-designing and working with people with first-hand experience of accessing and delivering social work and social care to ensure that we have a person-centred national care service that best fits the needs of the people who will use and work in its services, with human rights at its very centre.

I recognise that, sometimes, folks are wary of change; however, others see opportunity. The Cabinet decision will be taken on the basis of evidence that is collated by the sector. I was clear at the cross-party group on social work and I will be clear with the committee today that the social work profession should be—needs to be—at the heart of shaping the future. We need to listen to the profession. That is what I have committed to doing, and it is why I have made all the appearances and visits that I have made: to listen to what folks have to say.

I do not know the history of the previous proposal, but I am quite happy to go and look at that. I might be able to fit in that reading over the Christmas and new year holidays.

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.

Whatever we invest in the national care service is for the good of people, but we know that there is work to do in the here and now. It is not all about the formulation of the national care service. That is why we are also acting in the here and now, which will also be for the good of the establishment of the NCS.

I am very pleased that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has now agreed, through our joint statement of intent, to support additional actions that we will jointly take over the next 12 to 18 months to bring about improvements in delivery of social care.

We have heard repeatedly from people with lived experience that the current adult social care system must change in order to drive up standards to a consistent level across our country. We need to tackle the postcode lottery of care, so a different approach is needed. We must have a system in which high-quality community health and social care support helps to create thriving communities across Scotland. That is why we have introduced the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which is a framework bill to support collaborative design and address the historical implementation gap that has been mentioned. The implementation gap between policy, legislative intent and service delivery must be closed. That is top of the agenda for people.

The NCS is important, but the work that is being done here and now is absolutely important, too. That is why we will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that we cover the additional actions in our newly published statement of intent.

I said at the finance committee that there also would have been detractors if we had done it the other way round. The approach that we are taking allows for the scrutiny of the principles of the bill before the co-design starts, which provides reassurance for people in the co-design process that their contributions matter.