Seòmar agus comataidhean

A number of factors have come into the revised timeline, one of which is resource. Everybody is aware that we are in a different financial situation from the one that we were in when we introduced the idea of a national care service, and that we must work within our means. Therefore, our ambition has not dimmed, but the fact that we are slowing the pace of change means that the cost will be spread out over a number of years.

There are other issues. It is helpful that you highlighted the situation of the people who depend on social care and who expect to benefit from the bill.

Social care in Scotland is a really complex system and we need to manage carefully the changeover from where we are to where are going in order to ensure that we maintain services at all times, and that there is no system failure. We have to be much clearer about the steps that are required to navigate that changeover safely, both from a financial perspective and in relation to service delivery failure for people who access care.

Of course, we are not going to delay absolutely everything. As with any law, some parts of the legislation will commence sooner than others. For example, we have done a great deal of work on Anne’s law and I meet regularly with Care Home Relatives Scotland. We have, largely, put in a place a solution to the problem as framed by Anne’s law; the legislation in the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill will catch up with that and make it law. That will be implemented as soon as possible, once the bill is passed. We will not be waiting years for everything to happen.

The cost is £134 million, but it could be significantly higher. If we could reduce delayed discharges, there would obviously be a benefit.

Young carers tell us that their ability to attend school—never mind to concentrate at school and achieve their potential—is impacted by their caring responsibilities. If the care system works and we can remove some of the burden from young carers, I expect a huge impact, not just on the lives of those young carers now, but on their future prospects, because they will be able to achieve more at school. It is really hard to quantify that.

In Scotland, one in four people is economically inactive. That is due in part to inability to access social care and to the amount of unpaid carers. We hear directly that caring for people in the community is largely invisible and unquantified women’s work. If we had an impact on that, the people who are being cared for could contribute to the economy, as could people who are having to cut their working hours to provide care. We have heard very clearly from unpaid carers that they have had to cut their hours or stop working in order to fulfil caring duties. There will undoubtedly be economic benefits and impacts from the investment; we are working hard to quantify them.

As you would expect, I passionately believe in the national care service. I am absolutely certain that it is morally and ethically the right thing to do. I recognise that there is unmet need out there. Feeley spoke in his independent review about the fact that there is unmet need and that we have to increase our investment in social care.

We are currently increasing our investment in social care. We have committed to increasing our investment by a quarter in this session of Parliament and we are ahead of trajectory on that. I am certain that it is economically the right thing to do and that there will be economic returns from the investment, as well as it being the right thing to do. I will work hard to ensure that I can provide the committee with back-up information on that.

I do not know whether Donna Bell wants to try to explain better how the shared accountability is different from what happens in the current situation. There is a recognition that the way that things are is not delivering and there is a willingness to change.

I am not sure that I quite understand your point. I think that you are asking about the value and the proportion—

Do you want to respond to that, Richard?

I cannot speak for Donna Bell and it might be easier for her to answer that. However, when I came into this role as minister, it seemed that many of our partners—with whom we are working very healthily now—were quite opposed to the bill. That would include—

Yes. I am confident that the compromises that we have come up with are absolutely the right way forward.

No. As I said, we are still working on the detail of the economic benefits. Those benefits will come from having a social care system that delivers for people and from having a workforce that has better pay. Those would result if we are able to successfully introduce a social care system that works well for the people who are working in it as well as for the people who are accessing care.

You have the business case, which is a dynamic document and is regularly updated. We supplied that to you, along with the paperwork, on 11 December, and I am absolutely content to continue furnishing the committee with the updated business case as we go along. We are working on what the economic case is likely to be—as opposed to the budgetary cost—in the business case. That is where the detail is laid out.

The detail of the format will be worked out in co-design and in secondary legislation; it does not need to be in the primary legislation.

I have ideas about who I think should sit on that board. I am fairly certain that, as well as the shared accountability partners—the NHS, local authority and ministerial representatives—there should also be lived experience, which might mean people who are accessing care as well as unpaid carers. There is a lot of interest in ensuring that the sector itself is represented on the board.