Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay; so you know that I said that there was a great deal of consensus over parts 2 and 3 of the bill. The debate is largely around part 1 of the bill, and that is where we need to achieve consensus over the next few months.

My aim over the next few months is to achieve consensus. There will need to be compromise on both sides about what we come up with, but I will not proceed without an alignment with close partners.

In any area where we are developing legislation, we are not a Government that imposes our view on the country. We work with the country to develop legislation that aligns with the problem that we are trying to solve. That is how we proceed. Generally, we build things carefully.

Even if there had not been a change in Government, there would have been a pause because so many concerns were raised during stage 1 evidence—including by a couple of committees in the Parliament, not just COSLA. Any Government would have to reflect, take on board such concerns and find a way forward that is in agreement with the Parliament; otherwise, we would never get the bill through the Parliament.

Absolutely. Routinely, in this country, for all legislation, we put forward a proposal; we consult on a general idea for a bill; we put forward a bill and consult on its actual detail; we take evidence; and we amend. That legislation evolves as it passes through the Parliament, which has its role in scrutinising and amending it.

One of the fundamental differences with this bill is the process of co-design, which involves working with people who access care or who work in care to ensure that they are absolutely integral to the development of the legislation. That is, possibly, slightly different to the way in which we have developed other legislation.

Absolutely.

Islands have particular challenges in delivering social care. There is an ageing demographic, particularly in the Western Isles, and a lack of young people to work in the national care service, which provides a particularly challenging set of circumstances for our island communities.

I am absolutely clear that one size does not fit all. We cannot have exactly the same system working all over Scotland, because that is not possible. In some areas, there are not enough people to work in the way that it is possible for care to be delivered in urban areas.

We need to make sure that we there are no unintended consequences that make things tougher for our island areas. I know that some of our island local authorities had real concerns when we introduced self-directed support. We are keen to work with them to ensure that we get the balance right between empowerment of the individual who is accessing care, while having their wish to have their needs and choices respected, and the possibility of there being a more limited range of options in rural and island communities.

The Finance and Public Administration Committee has written to ask for an updated memorandum; I will respond to it very soon. We would usually update the financial memorandum after stage 1 and before stage 2. I do not want to have to give multiple updates of the financial memorandum between now and the usual time when you would get an update. If there is going to be a period of pause, engagement and possibly further changes made to the bill, it makes sense to wait until those changes are woven in before we update the financial memorandum.

Absolutely. I am keen to work with the unions, and I am committed to improving pay and conditions. One of the advantages of having a bit more time is that we will be able to understand one another’s perspectives.

In my early discussions with Unison, it became clear that when we in Government are talking about sectoral bargaining, we are talking about something that is different to what the unions are talking about. When unions talk about sectoral bargaining, they are talking about bargaining for all local authority employees together, whereas the Government was talking about bargaining for all social care employees together. There is a fundamental difference. As I outlined earlier, the vast majority of people who work in social care are employed by private enterprises, not by local government. Therefore, it is almost immediately clear that we need to spend a bit more time understanding one other’s perspectives.

I am pretty confident that our aims align, however. I want people who work in social care to have better pay and conditions. I want them to be empowered, and I want their voices to be listened to. I am pretty certain—I am confident—that the unions want that as well, so I think that we will find ways to ally together on many issues. Both sides want what is best for the workforce, so we will work together on the areas on which we do not agree. I am genuinely confident that we will find a way forward.

You are absolutely right to raise the issue of Anne’s law. Everybody is passionately behind that and wants it to become a reality as soon as possible. Those are the tensions that we balance. We know that we need to pause and reflect before moving forward, but that cannot be for an infinite period, because there is urgency around issues such as making progress on Anne’s law.

Over the next few months, we need to reflect on the scope and phasing of the bill. I need to think about what I can do that does not require primary legislation—for example, how I can tackle some of the more immediate pressures in social care that do not need primary legislation to fix them. When we introduce primary legislation, we all know that it is not like a magic wand; it does not change things overnight and its implementation has to be phased. What, therefore, needs to be the highest priority? What do we need to do first? What can wait a little longer and how do we achieve that nationally? Do we need to pilot some aspects locally before we make the step to national delivery?

I hope to have a bit more clarity on all that, and a bit more consensus, as I have said, on what we expect to do and how far and how fast we expect to go over the next few months.

Donna Bell might want to come in on that, because it was her baby.

We will provide progress updates as those events take place. After each event, we will provide an update on what we think we have learned. I guess that, in co-design, there is a process of agreeing what everybody has learned, so we will absolutely be providing some detail on that as we go.

I understand the concern about the lack of scrutiny of secondary powers, and I am mindful that the process that is laid out is a minimum standard. I am comfortable with making sure that we engage on the secondary powers as well and that there is a process of assuring that everybody understands what is required.

I get your analogy about buying a car, but it is not quite the same. We are designing and building the car; we are not going out to a showroom and buying one. That is kind of the point.

There has to be a process of checking in with stakeholders at regular points throughout the process to make sure that everybody is comfortable with the direction of travel. With the pause, we have demonstrated that we are willing to do that. In fact, we are keen to do it, because we want the change to work. We see the change as absolutely vital for Scotland. The only way in which we will manage to deliver it is by working closely with all the stakeholders and partners to deliver it together.