Chamber and committees

Does anyone else want to come in on that point?

If no one else wants to come in on that point, I will move on to look at specific assumptions in the financial memorandum. It is assumed that 10 per cent of adult carers will be able to access short breaks and that an additional 14 per cent will use easy access support. That is less than 25 per cent of people potentially taking the entitlement for a short break. Why do you think such a low level of demand has been predicted?

Good morning to the panel, and thank you for joining us. This week and last week, a few committees have been looking at the bill. I am concerned about Audit Scotland’s comment with regard to the Scottish Government significantly understating the cost of delivering the bill. What are your views on that?

One of my concerns is that the data covers a pandemic period, when breaks were suspended and were not available. It feels as though the figure is artificially low in predicting potential uptake.

Will a national care service help to standardise the approach so that more carers can access support plans and statements, to ensure that they have the right to a break? We have discussed what is often referred to as a postcode lottery, in which people can access different services depending on where they live. On improvements in standards and consistency, I support clinical standards and think that we should have had them a long time ago in Scotland, although we do not necessarily need the bill to achieve that. Where could standards be improved and, importantly, how should they be included in the bill? There is very little detail.

A lot of what is in the bill has come out of the experience of people during the pandemic. For many of us, that was concerning. For example, I do not think that the Government has ever properly explained the measures on the suspension of power of attorney.

I am interested in the Anne’s law campaign, which I think all parties have supported. Section 40 in the bill requires care homes to comply with ministerial directions on visiting. That is about visiting, but my concern is that it does not necessarily talk about patient rights and individual rights. Does anyone have specific comments on section 40?

I want to follow the questions that Paul McLennan asked. You made some important points, Alison White, because at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, which Paul McLennan and I are also members of, we heard that two examples of good policy making around co-design have been ending homelessness together and the Promise, where you were brought in at the beginning of the process, not at the end. Specifically, how do you think that the Scottish Government can, given the process that it has decided to use for this, make sure that the national care service is not potentially destabilising for care users, their carers and the wider workforce? Where do you think that that co-design will come in during this process?

Does anyone else want to come in?

So, one of the 24 groups might be having a wee look at that.

Does anyone else want to come in?

My final question is about the financial memorandum. The issue of pensions liabilities and insurance for staff was also raised at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. Given that we are talking about 75,000 people being transferred from all 32 local authorities to a national care service, has there been any discussion about what that will look like from the point of view of the potential cost and liability, which, currently, has not been outlined by the Government?