Chamber and committees

In relation to what, convener?

No, I do not. I am not so chuffed that Mr Mundell is trying to get me out the door at the very start of the new year.

We will not go there, convener.

The national care service is all about people. We will be guided by people and by stakeholders through that co-design. I am sure that all of us around the table, regardless of whether we are supportive of the national care service proposal, recognise that people need to be at the very heart of it. We need to do something a little bit different here and put our trust and faith in people themselves.

One of the reasons why social care integration has not been the best that it possibly can be thus far is implementation gaps. Through co-design and with people’s help, I am absolutely convinced that we can get those implementation gaps filled, and do it right.

Beyond that, as I said earlier, it is much better to put some things into secondary rather than primary legislation so that we can be flexible and put things right at a far greater pace. Even so, as I have said at previous committees, I am more than willing to listen to others from across the parliamentary chamber on stage 2 amendments that might work. However, I appeal to members of the committee—as I have appealed to members of other committees—to listen to the voices of lived experience and hear what they have to say about where things have worked for them and where they have not. That might change the views of some folk about using secondary legislation in order to be much more adaptable in meeting the needs of folk out there.

Some folk want to see everything in the bill—they see that as the way forward. However, people out there do not see that as the best way because, as I explained earlier, when everything is in the bill—in primary legislation—it is not so easy to change it. One of the examples that I have given to other committees is about the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013. The legislation was supported by all, but the implementation has not been so easy in some regards. I recently changed the guidance on self-directed support, again, to provide more clarity on people’s rights and the responsibilities of public services. However, loopholes have been used to ensure that folk have not been able to access all the rights that the act was intended to give them, in terms of freedom over and responsibility for their own care.

If many pieces of that act had been in secondary legislation, it would have been much easier to change them and to put it right, but that is not the case. Therefore, we want to use secondary legislation with regard to the delivery aspects of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, to allow that flexibility as we move forward if we find flaws or that things are not working appropriately for people. That is a good way to go, although it is different to the approach for many other bills that have been passed here in recent years. However, I come back to the point that the framework bill method was used to form the national health service, and I think that we can all agree that that has been a bit of a success.

My officials will speak to the clerks about that offline—that is probably the best way to deal with the issue in the first instance. I do not really know what you are asking of me, but if you are asking me to write to the committee about parliamentary processes, I do not see that as my job.

Convener, I am more than willing to outline in writing all the processes that we are introducing. However, the issue about parliamentary processes is probably best dealt with by your clerks. I would be happy for my officials to talk to the clerks about the issue.

Let me cover Mr Sweeney’s points about parliamentary functions. Those functions are already set out in legislation in schedule 3, so the bill does not need to set out that detail, as it is already in legislation.

I recognise that some folk think that co-design is a risk, but it is also a huge opportunity that has not been taken before. In hindsight, it is probably wrong that that opportunity was not taken before, because—as I have said before—during our 20-year journey of legislation, the Parliament has done a lot of good in making changes in health and social care integration, but we still have implementation gaps and postcode lotteries, and many folk out there perceive that we have an unfairness in service delivery. We need to get rid of those implementation gaps, the postcode lotteries and the unfairness. The best people to help us do that are the folk who receive daily care, their carers and staff on the front line. I see co-design as an opportunity, because those folk will be at the heart of it.

As I have said at previous committees, and as I said in my earlier answer to Jeremy Balfour, my door is open. As I have also said to other committees, I will consider the views of committees on how we can be as open and transparent as we possibly can.

As I have said to the committee, I want everybody to be engaged in these processes. I hear what Mr Sweeney has said, and I will reflect on that and consider how we might be able to improve the scrutiny of that as we move forward.

Your clerks could explain them much better than I can. There are processes other than those for affirmative and negative instruments, but I am no expert in them.