Seòmar agus comataidhean

Those are all valid points, but the problem predates the pandemic.

Mike Burns talked earlier about an evolution taking place in the delivery of services and rights. The Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 required the provision of short breaks for carers, yet, six years on, we are being told that only 3 per cent of unpaid carers receive statutory support for breaks from caring. Section 38 of the bill has the potential to address that for carers in general, and for young carers specifically. Given the rate of progress so far, is that not essential to support a group of young people who, by and large, have a pretty tough time of it?

But the practical implications of doing it the other way are quite obvious as well.

I want to come back to something that you have said, but other witnesses might want to answer my question first.

I have been encouraged by the fact that our witnesses have avoided lapsing into the mantra, “If only you gave us more money, everything would be right.” That is very welcome. I was worried that that might not be the case after I read the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities submission.

I also welcome the acknowledgement that you have all made that things are not perfect and that there is room for improvement. An area that I suspect we would all agree has imperfections is the transition from young people’s services to adult services. How do we solve that long-standing issue if not through having a fully integrated national care service? If the issues in certain localities are to do with culture and approach and with not picking up on best practice, or stubbornly ignoring it, how on earth do we bring about improvement?

Is there not a logic to having children’s services captured by a national care service when there has to be that read-across from children’s services into adult services through the transition?

However, that is where the problems currently exist. How can we bring about improvement? You are right to focus on the positive examples, but, with the best will in the world, we all know that there are negative examples as well. I go back to my original question. How do we fix that if not through changing the structures and the approach?

However, that has not happened everywhere.

I have two further questions, one of which is probably for Cameron-Wong McDermott. What specific details what the service look like in reality would you require in order to be more comfortable about the approach that has been proposed? Going back to something that Iain Nisbet rightly alluded to, there will be considerable interaction with other pieces of primary legislation through the framework approach. Iain has already talked about scale. Will witnesses talk about some specifics of those interactions and, if we take this approach, how they might present challenges in getting everything right?

All of that is entirely accurate but, on solutions to the matter, colleges are restricted in their ability to generate additional income. They have no ability to borrow or hold reserves. Would you be prepared to consider those areas? That takes us into the territory of Office for National Statistics reclassification.

I am content with the answers that I have heard already, convener.