Chamber and committees

This is not about trusting ministers; it is about trusting people. That is why we are doing things differently. It is about putting our faith in the people to help us to get it absolutely right and fill the implementation gaps. It is different from how we normally do things, but it is the right thing to do when it comes to major public service reform, because, as I explained, during our integration journey we have not done well when it comes to filling the implementation gaps.

To get that right, end the postcode lottery and ensure that we get service delivery right for folks, we need people’s help.

The bill is clear and accessible. It was introduced into the Parliament alongside a suite of accompanying documents, including the policy memorandum, which gives a huge amount of detail about our ambitions and vision. It is unfortunate that not everyone reads the policy memorandum; I urge folks out there to do so. I urge all members to do so, as well.

On how we got to this place, which I think is what you are driving at, we wanted to hear from as many folks as possible during the consultation period. We especially wanted to hear from folks who are in receipt of care and who access care, their carers and front-line staff.

We have had a huge number of events connected to the national care service consultation. We have had over 100 engagement events and meetings, speaking to—and, more importantly, listening to—around 3,000 folks from right across the country, including our remote rural and island communities, which I know are of interest to Ms Minto.

We published the independent consultation on all those findings in February of last year. Along with other discussions, that all helped us to build to the bill, the policy memorandum documents and the other suite of documents.

At every single stage, we have listened to folks. We have built on the recommendations in Derek Feeley’s independent review of adult social care and I think that we have done all that we can to engage with as many folk as possible. We will continue to do that right the way through the process.

As we have said all along, we want to ensure that the national care service is the best that it can be. To do that, we need people to be involved in the co-design of the service. In my opening remarks, I talked about the implementation gap that exists. We have done a lot of good work in recent years, and we have been on a journey over the past two decades, when it comes to social care integration. There has been a lot of good legislation and a lot of good policy, but we have always been left with an implementation gap. To fill that gap, we need co-design, to ensure that folks who are in receipt of care, folks who work in care and folks who are carers are at the heart of helping us to design the future national care service.

To ensure that there is effective co-design, we have to ensure that the principles of the bill are in place, so that the folks who co-design with us know that their work will lead to actions.

Absolutely—I do not disagree with that and I am sure that Parliament will make changes to the bill along the way. Stakeholders feel that they have not been listened to enough. By doing the work this way, they feel that they are being listened to. They recognise that the principles of the bill will be in place and that we will then move into the co-design process. As we move forward and come to secondary legislation, they recognise that there will be further consultation and that changes might take place. However, I think that we needed to set out the general framework in order to gain people’s confidence and get them to take part in the co-design process.

I do not want to speak for others, but I think that it would be fair to say that many of the disabled people’s organisations, for example, feel that they have not been listened to enough over that journey period of social care integration. We need to take those folks with us. That is why co-design is so important and that is why we need to have the framework in place before we start the co-design process.

Thank you.

As I have said all along, we will be open and transparent all through this process. We are putting together lived experience experts panels. Prior to the Christmas break, I think that over 400 people had applied to join those panels—I am looking at Ms Kynaston, and she is nodding—along with stakeholder groups.

We are making the lived experience experts panels as accessible as we possibly can. We know that some folk will be able to be involved in great work in putting forward their views but we also know that some folk will prefer one-to-one discussions.

We know that we have to ensure that the panels are accessible for all, including folks with sensory impairments and folks with learning disabilities—the list goes on. We are committed to doing that as we move forward. We will continue to promote our vision for the national care service to the wider public as we carry on with this process.

Over the summer, we ran five public engagement sessions to explain what the bill would mean for people. We have published questions and answers, and we ran three introduction to co-design events at the end of last year, setting out how co-design will work and what co-design is.

If any member feels that there is more that we can do on that front, I am more than happy to listen—as Ms Minto knows, because she and others have approached me about what this all means for communities in Argyll and Bute. I am more than willing to have such conversations with any member, or with anyone, really.

As I have said at the meetings of numerous committees, I want to be open and transparent. I want and welcome scrutiny of the bill, and I will also welcome scrutiny of the secondary legislation. Mr Sweeney, and many others, want the answers to all the questions now, but if I start answering all the questions now, it makes a mockery of the co-design process. I recognise that parliamentarians want to know everything in the here and now, as I have asked such questions myself, from the other side of the table.

We have to have faith in people and in the co-design process. I know that the approach is different, but it is the right thing to do with this public service reform. It is important that we give people and stakeholders the ability to help us shape the national care service, which has to be fit for the future. We have a future with changing demographics, so we have to take that into account.

I ask Paul Sweeney not to ask me for all the answers now, and instead to wait and see what comes out of the co-design process and what answers people come up with to shape the national care service.

I refer Mr Balfour to my earlier response about co-design. It is not a case of ministers just making the decision because, of the five co-design stages, the third stage is agreeing with people on how we move forward.

We know that there will be polarised views and we know that not everything that every single person wants is possible, but stage 3 of the co-design is agreement. I say again that the co-design stages are understanding, sense making, agreeing, drafting of regulations and then consultations on those regulations. There is a huge amount of opportunity in that process.

We will co-design a complaints and redress service for the NCS that ensures accountability. Co-design will take place with people with lived experience, in order to hear their experiences of accessing and providing social care support, and with partners and stakeholders, who will be involved in the implementation. That will include the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

No decisions on implementation have been taken, because co-design will inform that. However, section 14 places an obligation on the Scottish ministers to establish a service for receiving and allocating complaints about services that the NCS provides.

Ministers will have regulation-making powers to provide for the handling of relevant complaints, including improving and strengthening how complaints about the NCS and wider social care services are handled and the associated redress processes that will have to be put in place. Under section 15(4), the regulation-making power requires the Scottish ministers to secure the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s consent before laying any draft regulations that would modify or remove functions of an SPCB-sponsored body. That is similar, although not identical, to a provision under section 19 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The key difference is that, under that act, the provision must first be requested by the SPCB.

It is considered an appropriate balance for the control and scrutiny of the NCS complaints system that the Scottish ministers should be able to propose appropriate provisions following co-design. If it wishes to, the SPCB will have the power to veto those through withholding consent. Subject to consent, detailed provision would be set out in subordinate legislation, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. I hope that that lays out the processes for Mr Balfour.

I hope that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body would take cognisance of the views of the people who are in the co-design process so that we get the complaints and redress process right for all. As for the views of the public, I have been struck by how, at points, folk have felt that they were not able to complain or seek redress because of a fear that services might be withdrawn. We must ensure that that fear goes, whether or not it is only a perception.

We must ensure that there is a complaints and redress system that works for all. I hope that we all—the people, the SPCB, ministers, the Parliament, the ombudsmen and others—co-operate so that we get it right as we move forward and we do not have folks fearing to seek redress or even to make complaints.

Those questions are for your clerks rather than for me. I see the clerk nodding her head.