Chamber and committees

I recognise that legislation and regulation do not necessarily change cultures. Indeed, we have examples of that in some of the very good legislation that has previously come before the Parliament. Perhaps the best example is self-directed support, in respect of which we put forward—and agreed on a cross-party basis—the ability for folk to have more independence and autonomy over their care, with four different options that they could access to best suit their needs. That approach has worked immensely well in some parts of the country but not in others because, instead of sticking with the spirit of the legislation, some people in some places have looked for and found the flaws in it and have given reasons for certain things not applying to certain folks. That is not good enough, to be honest. Although we are about to publish new guidance on self-directed support that will help with some of the difficulties that people face, there is still an edginess towards the primary legislation.

One of the reasons for embarking on this co-design journey is to ensure that all people—the voices of lived experience and stakeholders—shape how we move forward on this. Beyond that, by putting some of the elements in secondary legislation, we can change things quite quickly if we find any flaws. We have been unable to do that with self-directed support, because it is enshrined in primary legislation. As a result, we will have greater flexibility.

As for the cultural aspect, there are a number of things to highlight. I think that the flexibility that I have mentioned will help to change cultures, but, beyond that, there is also the way in which we are putting the voices of lived experience at the heart of what we are doing. People have asked me, “Who do you see being on care boards?” There are certain folks who obviously have to be there, but I have tried to keep schtum on that question, because that, too, is a matter for the co-design process. However, I am absolutely adamant that the voices of lived experience must be on local care boards and must have votes. I hope—and I imagine—that that, too, will help us to change cultures.

We are going to have a national care service to deal with adult social care.

That was the recommendation from the Feeley review. That is what the voices of lived experience want. That is what many stakeholders want. As we have explained this morning, we will consider whether to include other elements, including children’s services and criminal justice services. If, as part of that co-design, folk say that a certain element might not work, we have to be cognisant of that. We are not going to be dismissive of folk in the sector or of the voices of lived experience.

No matter what is out of or in the national care service, we must ensure that the linkages are there between the NCS and the services that remain outwith the NCS.

Today, the concentration will be on whether something should be out of the NCS. On Thursday last week, folks at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee were saying that housing and homelessness services should perhaps be in it. The—

Not at all.

You are being very naughty, Mr McLennan, because I said that I really do not want to be drawn on my views on who should be around the table. I think that, in the discussion during the co-design phase, many folk will say that the third sector should be there—they will advocate that—but that is a matter for the co-design process.

No, I do not think so, because we have done it in that way for so many other things. The Government has been clear that we will ensure that those who currently require care and support, their carers and the workforce are at the heart of shaping the new service.

When it comes to the voices of lived experience, many folks have gone through lots of other processes that have not worked for them. We need to make sure that we get it right this time. This is a great opportunity for listening, consultation and co-design. If nothing else, one of my big ambitions is to remove as many of those implementation gaps as possible. This is the right way of doing so.

Some people with lived experience—such as those from the social covenant steering group, and others—whom we have talked with and listened to since we began, would argue that the framework is the right way to go, because, if we started the co-design process without the framework, they could put in all that effort then find all of it wasted.

Again, some of the people who are very active in social care—for example, disabled people’s organisations—have been involved in things previously, thinking that that was going to lead to change, but it has not done so. The framework has to be there so that we can do the next part of the work, through co-design.

Others have argued that we could have done it the other way around. I do not think that that would have worked. If we had done it the other way around—without that framework—I do not think that many folk with lived experience would necessarily have had the confidence to participate to the degree that we want.

We want as many folk as possible to get involved in the lived experience experts panel and the stakeholder groups. We are at the early stages of that. Last week, for example, I attended an event looking at how we establish the charter of rights and responsibilities. That was an extremely positive meeting. I am not saying that no negative points were raised—some always are—but, if we go forward in the spirit in which that meeting was held, where there is a level of trust in what we are doing and people feel that they can contribute, we will do very well. That is what I want to see across the board.

The answer to the accountability aspect of that question is that the Scottish ministers are not accountable for service delivery. A lot of folk think that we are, but we are not accountable for service delivery.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I would like to expand on that. Where self-directed support works well, it can absolutely be a life changer for people and their families and carers. There are some immense stories about situations where self-directed support has made real differences to folks’ lives.

There are parts of the country where flexibility has been brought into play, because people have been listened to. In those instances, doing something a bit differently for someone, which will make a huge odds to them, is the right thing to do. However, in other parts of the country, there is a closing down of available options, and there are different payments. I spent the summer going around the country asking about SDS and various other things. There are stark differences, and we have to end that postcode lottery. I am very much in favour of giving folks as much independence and autonomy as we can.