Chamber and committees

All committees have heard some criticisms. Some of those views have come from critical friends. Other people, of course, do not want change. I think that it is fair to say that. However, change is required in relation to a national care service. We cannot continue in the same vein. We have changing demographics and we have a postcode lottery of care in Scotland, which is not good enough. I have to say that the lack of voices of lived experience in some of the committee evidence sessions is frustrating. The voices of those folks who are in receipt of social work and social care help and support are the ones that we need to listen to, because they will rightly point out where the system does not work for them.

We have been on a 20-year journey of health and social care integration; there have been improvements, but there are still implementation gaps. One reason why there are implementation gaps is that we have not listened to people, and we have not let people help us to shape services.

I recognise that some folk do not want this change, but, if you listen to the voices of lived experience, you will hear that many of them are hungry for change. They want rid of the postcode lotteries, and they want those implementation gaps to be plugged and a system that works for them.

I come back to the point that I made to the convener on the system not working for some folk, and I come back to that lad who I talked about earlier who was at risk of offending—he has 15 interventions going on, but it seems that the system does not work for him.

I will answer those points, starting with the point about “churn”, as Mr Greene put it. I agree that there is a lot of churn in social work. I point out—without naming authorities, because it would be a little bit naughty of me to do so—that we know that there are folks who leave one authority to go to another because pay and conditions in the other authority are much better. That causes grief. It means that there are difficulties with recruitment and retention in some parts of the country, because other local authorities pay much more or the conditions there are better. We need to ensure that there is some kind of uniformity, and an improvement, in pay and conditions. I cannot do that at present, because it is not a matter for me.

With regard to the transfer of staff, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that local authorities’ staff, for example, will need to transfer their employment. The Government’s position remains that new local care boards will work collaboratively in partnership with the national health service, local authorities and the third and independent sectors to improve support locally and nationally.

As I have said, we will have the discussion around that with social workers and their professional bodies, and others, as we move forward. However, there is an opportunity for improvement, not only in pay and conditions but in getting career progression right. One of the things that I have been told by care workers, and by social workers, too, is that opportunities for career progression are often not there. We need to do better on that front, for the simple reason that we need to attract more folks into those professions. For young people in particular, a number of whom I have talked to, as you can imagine, while pay and conditions are way up there, career progression, education and continuous professional development are also high on their agenda. We need to get better at that, too, and we have the opportunity to do so.

Derek Feeley concentrated on adult social care in his review, but he also made recommendations about a national social work agency. When we listened to people initially, we found that many folks felt that bringing only adult social care into the national care service could lead to difficulties around transition points and cause problems with linkages, as I have outlined. That is why we consulted about bringing other things into the national care service.

Derek Feeley’s report looked at adult social care in depth, but, if we are to bring community justice and children’s services into the national care service, we recognise that we need to have the evidence base to do that. That is why we are carrying out the research and the options appraisal and, most importantly, why we are listening to stakeholders to establish whether those services should be included in the national care service. As I have already explained to the convener, whether that happens or not, we have to make sure that the linkages are right. The work that we are doing will be of benefit no matter whether the services are in or out of the national care service.

Yes, of course. As I said to the committee earlier, no matter whether they are in or out, we have to ensure that all this gels together. The work is being done to make sure that we get this right for people.

The Government will, as always, look at the consultation responses. Mr MacGregor said that some of the proposals are not popular. I say to him that, in a lot of the conversations that I have had with folk out there, there is popular support for change. I have done a fair amount of talking to front-line social workers. Mr MacGregor has seen me being questioned by folks in the cross-party group on social work.

Many front-line social workers see all this as an opportunity, because they want more freedom and autonomy for the front line and they want the spirit of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to come into play. At the moment, many of them feel that they are bound by eligibility criteria and by budgets, rather than being able to make the right decisions when it comes to preventative support.

I say to Fulton MacGregor that, although some stakeholders out there do not necessarily favour the proposals, a lot of folk on the front line do favour them. To Mr MacGregor and to the committee as a whole, I say that, as always, we will analyse and look at the consultation responses, and act accordingly.

They do not both need to go.

I will give another example. There has been a lot of discussion at committee about what should be left out of all this. Other things will not be in the NCS but have very clear connections to it. At the Social Justice and Social Security Committee the other week, there was argument from some that housing and homelessness should be in. The Government has not put forward such a proposal. However, we know that there are very clear connections between care, social work and housing—the list goes on.

In that regard, we are ensuring that, whatever is out and whatever is in, the NCS has a clear connection with housing and homelessness. Committee members will understand that, because of my previous role, I have a real desire—it is a necessity—to ensure that all that is absolutely spot-on right. No matter what is out and what is in, those connections must be there.

It is not the case that both justice and children’s services have to go in or stay out.

We will have a look at that, and I will write to the committee on certain aspects.

For some folk, some of the proposals that we are putting forward are controversial. However, the key point in all this is that we listen to the voices of lived experience. Those voices are the primary motivation for me getting up in the morning and doing this work, because they know what works for them and what does not.

It might well be that something was controversial a decade or more ago, and now it has its day. That is the way that the world works at points, is it not?

I think that social work, including criminal justice social work, has changed dramatically since the previous Administration was in power. It is only 10 years since I left local government, and I have seen massive changes in social work and criminal justice social work since then. Some folk would say that some of that change is for the good, while others would say that it has been for the bad.

I referred to front-line social workers talking about eligibility criteria and budgets. It is fair to say that many front-line social workers feel that social work has lost its voice at the moment, in particular in certain parts of the country. Again, that needs to be addressed.

I promise Ms McNeill that I will look back at the history of that over the holidays—I am nothing if I am not an anorak—and we will respond as best we can to the question about whether there are similarities.

That is a very pertinent question. I am not a great expert on the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, but I will give some detail on that in this answer.

As I said earlier, no decision has been taken on whether criminal justice social work will be in or out of the national care service. The Cabinet will take a decision on that at a later point, after all the work that we are doing is complete. Whether it is in or out, there have to be connections, and we have to make sure that those connections are right and that all this works for people.

Some of the scrutiny of the bill has been about structure, but, no matter what, we are all striving to achieve good outcomes for people. No matter whether justice social work is in or out of the national care service, we have to make sure that those connections are right.

As the committee will be aware, the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill is in three parts and focuses on two separate stages of the criminal justice system in Scotland. Part 1 focuses on how custody is used as part of bail and remand decision making in Scottish courts, and it will, among other matters, reform the legal framework within which courts make decisions on individual cases in regard to the use of bail and remand as part of the criminal court process.

Part 2 focuses on how certain release-from-prison custody mechanisms operate, with an emphasis on increasing opportunities for improved reintegration of people leaving prison and improving the support that is provided to them on release in order to reduce the risk of reoffending. The bill also makes provision to provide information on prisoner release to victims support organisations and introduces a permanent power of executive release in emergency situations.

Part 1, which covers some of the areas that the convener describes in her question, is split into four distinct areas. The one that the committee is most interested in this morning is the enhanced role for justice social work and the provision of information to the court. It also covers reform to the legal framework within which bailiff decisions are made, the recording of reasons when bail is refused and how periods of electronically monitored bail conditions affect time served for custodial sentences.

The main thrust of the question, and the main issue that we are looking at today, is the enhanced role for justice social work in the provision of information to the court. The bill has, of course, taken account of the additional work and resource that will be required. The enhanced role will be beneficial, but we must also ensure that the enhanced role for criminal justice social workers matches some of the other roles that social workers have in wider community settings.

Let me give the committee an example—because it is always best to do that—of something that shows that we sometimes have not got the linkages quite right, and why linkages have to be better. The committee will be aware that my officials and I have been talking to a huge number of folk and listening to the voices of those with lived experience about their feelings about social work and social care and support. One of the folk who we listened to was a young guy who is at risk of offending and who has 15 different interventions going on at the moment. Those are not necessarily linked and, based on what that young man told us, it is fair to say that he sometimes feels that he is being pulled from pillar to post and that he does not really know who to trust when he receives advice. No matter whether justice social work is in or out of the national care service, we have to get better outcomes for people who are in situations of that type.

We have a job of work to do to create much better linkages between criminal justice social work, children and family social work, care, support and other areas to get it right for individuals. That is why we are embarking on research and data gathering and, most importantly, listening to the voices of those with lived experiences.

I could probably get myself into a lot of trouble if I tried to redefine the names of folks’ roles at this moment in time. Nevertheless, I am not averse to having such conversations. I get where Ms Stevenson is coming from with regard to some folks mistrusting social workers, but I also have to say that I have seen some very good examples of trust being formed between social workers and the folks whom they support.

I think that the element of mistrust often comes into play because a social worker has come in at a point of crisis rather than prevention. That is why we are currently looking at a number of changes on that front, and we will do further tests of change to see how we can improve things further.

A couple of months back, I met folks from Fife—I intend to visit again, but we have not managed to slot that in yet—who currently have a pilot going on in two areas there. They have given social workers a clean sheet to do what is required to achieve good outcomes for people—obviously within reason, but it is basically a blank sheet.

The pilot is at the very early stages, but it already seems to be having positive impacts on people because social workers have been freed up and have autonomy. They are no longer bound by some of the strictures that were there in the past that could often lead to mistrust. We need to look at that work and the other work that is being done on tests of change.

It goes back to my point about the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The community social work ethos of freedom and autonomy worked well, but some of the changes that have taken place since then, particularly in the 80s, have drawn us away from that. Let us see what this test-of-change work can do. I think that it will inevitably lead to greater trust.

We do not have anyone here from the Scottish Government legal directorate. I will write to the committee to outline all the processes, most of which are outlined in the policy memorandum. The committee will be glad to hear that I am not going to read out the entire policy memorandum. I will outline in writing how that process will work. I say to Ms Clark and to others that I am more than happy to continue to have an open-door policy and to listen to and consider what folk have to say about the issues.