Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the last evidence session, we heard about ethical commissioning and procurement. The language around ethical commissioning is really important with regard to how we procure services. The bill refers to reserving the right

“to participate in procurement by type of organisation”.

I am interested to hear what your involvement has been in how services are commissioned. What do you want to see in the bill specifically to support an ethical commissioning and procurement framework?

You want that to be part of the bill or considered through the co-design process in the future. What you are describing, such as someone looking down the line to their pension, is a huge consideration for people with regard to the job that they do. We heard in the evidence that we took way back at the beginning of the process that most care staff are women who are aged between 50 and 65 and who are often carers themselves.

When we are considering the way in which contracts are created and delivered, we need to bear in mind the particular groups of individuals who provide the care. Would you want that consideration to be part of the co-design process, once the bill moves forward and we look at the devil in the detail?

I will be quick and will cite some specific information that we heard in Dumfries, which will also be directly relevant for Julie Welsh. I am using that example because Dumfries is in my patch and I was at the table when it was said. We heard that Scotland Excel can sometimes be challenging to work with and heard examples of delays in passing on uplifts in pay, which led to staff leaving, and of delays in processing variations or refusals to consider variations. I do not know the specific details, but there was a standard rate, despite local differences in costs. It would be interesting to hear from Julie Welsh about any direct experience of how Scotland Excel works with providers and about what would happen if Scotland Excel were no longer involved in commissioning arrangements for social care.

Not all training is done away from any place. As a former clinical educator, I used to go right into the intensive care unit, operating theatre or ward and do direct education. Education can be delivered on the ground in the area where care is provided as well.

A lot of this has been covered already, so I will be really brief.

One of the issues that is coming out is to do with how local government wants to be part of delivering care now that we are going to create the national care boards. For example, how do we manage that shift to make sure that we can show local authorities that this is about local delivery, with national guidance? It is not about taking control into ministerial offices; it is about the delivery of care at the local level, with national guidance that underpins what the care quality needs to look like.

We are talking about how to measure success; I have a question for Nick Price on that. You said that, due to the pandemic, the chief of the IJB has developed a way of working, with the Granite Care Consortium, that has actually been successful—we heard that feedback. What the GCC has been delivering has been called a care board model. Do you recognise that, and should we consider harnessing that model as we take forward the national care service bill?

I am interested in the language in the bill around training and the recruitment and retention of the workforce. We are starting to move away from the time-and-task model and are looking at real ways of helping to support retention and recruitment and valuing people by engaging in training. What do you think about the provision in the bill that

“The Scottish Ministers and care boards may ... provide training”

and about how training helps in relation to valuing our staff and maybe retaining them even longer and supporting the continuing recognition of the professionalism of care? A lot of the care that is provided is really complex, so I am interested to hear your thoughts about what is in the bill as far as the language around training goes.

It is interesting to talk about the release and sharing of information and the whole minutiae of regulations that allow freedom of information requests and monitoring and evaluation to be out there and shared to allow us to compare how one board is doing versus another.

We talk a lot about self-directed support, which works really well in some places but does not work well in others, so we need to be able to monitor that. Do you think that there should be something more detailed about data monitoring and evaluation of the system, such as on unmet need, in the bill?

Should Anne’s law be extended to other facilities, such as hospitals? I understand that infection control and prevention guidance is important in specific areas, especially if there are outbreaks in other places. Have you considered whether we should extend Anne’s law to hospitals?

It is for either Beth Lawton or Ken Macdonald.