Chamber and committees

There are a number of things in that. Oversight and accountability came out very clearly in Derek Feeley’s review and recommendations, and in the work that we have done prior to, during and since the consultation. National oversight will be better in terms of sharing of good practice and innovation. Developments that take place in one part of the country are often not easy to export to other places.

The bill will also remove unwanted duplication and functions, and make best use of public funds.

I have come across no one who does not want high-quality national standards. That is a priority for folks with lived experience of care and their carers, and it is extremely important for front-line staff. It is very clear from everything that we have heard that people want national accountability—they want ministers to be accountable. Among the faces around this table and people around Parliament are many who write to me to ask me to get involved in cases in their constituencies to do with social care. I have to say that I have no responsibility and no accountability, in that regard. I can set policy direction as a minister, but I am not accountable and do not deliver the services. People do not get that; they think that national accountability and national oversight are needed. In particular, people want high-quality national standards in order that we can end the postcode lottery of services.

Another aspect to consider is local accountability. It does not work well in some areas, so we need tighten it. People need to know what to expect in delivery of services.

There is a huge opportunity to improve standards; we have different standards in different places. The change also gives us the opportunity to ensure fair work and fair terms and conditions, which is not the case at the moment. Terms and conditions and pay cause a great deal of grief not only in social care, but in social work. Without naming authorities—that would be a bit naughty of me—I point out that certain parts of the country are having real problems in recruiting social workers because other authorities nearby offer better terms and conditions and pay. There is an argument that that represents local flexibility, but there is also an argument that it leads to real difficulties in recruitment and retention in some areas, which means that there is diminution of services there. In respect of pay, conditions and fair work, the national service is the right way forward.

We have uplifted pay twice in one year in adult social care. That has not been easy for me or my officials because we are dealing with 1,200 disparate employers. We need to change that, as we move forward, in order to get it right.

Those are a few reasons why we need to move to national oversight. At the top of the list is high-quality national standards so that people know what level of service they can expect, no matter where they are in Scotland.

Anne’s law is on the face of the bill and in primary legislation. Can I lay out the way in which this occurred? The consultation was published in August 2021, as I am sure the committee will recognise. That set out the proposals for change. The responses to the consultation supported change and a huge range of views were in favour of co-design principles. That allows us to work through all the matters that are important to people out there.

One of the key things that I should highlight to the committee is that, in the past, people have not been at the heart of the changes that we have made. That has created implementation gaps, and that is not good for anyone. It is not good for front-line staff and it is certainly not good for those folk who require care and support, or for their carers or their families.

This is the right thing to do. We never achieve perfection, but the way in which we are shaping this, with people at the heart of it, is the right thing to do. Again, I highlight the fact that, in terms of the co-design and the secondary legislation, we will consult all the way through in order to get this right. If we find that there are flaws in what we come up with in the secondary legislation, the fact that it is in secondary legislation makes it much easier to adapt. Some of the key frustrations that are out there are around about where the Parliament has set good legislation with good intention but there has been an implementation gap.

You may well seek an example, so I will give you one. The Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 is a good piece of legislation, which we will build on in the work that we are doing here, but some folk have used some aspects of that primary legislation to find loopholes in order not to deliver as per the spirit of the act. We need to change that, but it is not so easy to change something over a short period of time when it is set in stone in primary legislation. It is much easier to do that in secondary legislation. That is what the voices of lived experience want to see, rather than sometimes being stuck in a cul de sac in which the spirit of legislation is not being lived up to.

This has to be part of the co-design process. What we have ensure is that, if there is a need to be provider of last resort, we have the ability to transfer staff and assets. That may not necessarily be from local authorities, but the committee will understand the need for a local care board to be able to deal with emergency situations. I have explained the reasoning why that is in play in the bill. We can spell out that reasoning in more detail. We have to do it in order to protect people who may face difficult situations. This talk that we have already decided to transfer staff and assets wholesale is not the case.

Let me spell this out. I have not suggested that anyone’s employer will be a local care board.

I said last week that I do not want to pause the bill: we need to move forward. People who are in receipt of care and support—carers and the voices of lived experience—want us to move more swiftly than we are moving on all this. Many of them would say that they want change yesterday; I understand that strength of feeling.

On amendments, Parliament decides on amendments and, obviously, the Government will lodge amendments as and when necessary.

The key element that some people do not like relates to co-design. In order for us to get it right we need the voices of lived experience at the table with others. Mr Briggs mentioned my experience as a minister, when I have brought together as many people as possible to reach consensus. With changes to homelessness regulation, we managed to do the good work that we achieved because we had the voices of lived experience at the very heart of the process. I want to ensure that those voices are heard and that co-design is truly co-design. Obviously, parameters have to be set; people are realistic about these things. However, I want all stakeholders and the voices of lived experience to be involved, then we will end up with the best possible service.

I do not want a situation in which people are painting themselves into corners by saying that they are not going to play a part in the co-design process. That looks particularly bad for the folks who have experience of care; it looks to them as though, once again, certain sectors are not listening and are not willing to listen to their views.

Obviously, there will be a shift of resources in ensuring that we get care delivery right. Some local authorities have expressed concerns that that may impact on other services. As we move forward, we are trying to reach a cost-neutral position, so that those impacts are not there. One of the main reasons why I want to ensure that COSLA, local authorities, SOLACE and others take part in the co-design process is so that we get it absolutely right.

There are huge opportunities here for all of us. As I have stated, this is about a change of accountability, but local services still need to be designed and delivered locally, and local government can and should still play a part in all of that. In that regard, I think that there is not much difference.

The difficulty that some folk foresee is with that change in accountability, but accountability has changed dramatically over the past years anyway, with integration joint boards and other things.

I should point out that the bill itself does not have a direct impact on local authorities, as it is a framework bill. Instead, it sets out the powers to transfer services from local authorities, and any regulations that are developed on the basis of those powers will be subject to further impact assessment, as I have said elsewhere.

As we are still co-designing the national care service and how it will work in practice, we do not yet have the full details that are necessary to evaluate all of the impacts. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those impacts once they are known. I again say that a huge amount of what we are doing will be subject to the co-design process and that I want local government to be involved in that all the way through.

Some of the same things were said just before we moved to integration joint boards. It was said at that point that many folk might choose not to stand for local government. I have no evidence of that, and it would be difficult for me to judge the position in other parties. Even with those changes, from the perspective of my party in my neck of the woods, more people have come forward to stand for election. Of course, that means that there will be much more choice as we move forward.

I have no evidence that the removal of social care from councils would be a barrier to people standing for local office. The same things were said previously, and I have seen no change. In fact, the opposite is the case.

With regard to your previous question about the charter, I have found the relevant bit of my notes. As you can imagine, I have piles of documents in front of me. The national care service proposals are fully compatible with the articles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The charter clearly states that, when responsibility is allocated to another authority, the extent and nature of the tasks concerned and the requirements with regard to efficiency and economy should be weighed up. As the committee is well aware, the independent review of adult social care was clear about the need for a national care service, given the extent and nature of social care. I hope that that is helpful.

I disagree completely and utterly because we are not setting up a quango; we are setting up a national care service for the good of the people of Scotland. I return to my earlier points around and about the huge opportunities that we have to get delivery right for the people of Scotland. The main reason for doing this is to ensure that we have a care system that is person centred and has human rights at its very heart. We need national high-quality standards, as I have said before.

We also need to sort out the accountability aspect. It has come out loud and clear from people that that is not right and that, in many cases, we are not serving them well. We need to deal with that.

From a union perspective—I declare an interest as a member of Unison—this is the greatest opportunity that there has ever been to get it right for the social care and social work professions, because of the opportunity for national sectoral bargaining to put right pay and conditions and, as I said previously, to create the right career pathways for folk. That will attract young people to the profession, which is not easy to do. One of the biggest takeaways that I have had from the young people in front-line social care and social work whom I have spoken to is that they want to see career pathways.

It has not yet been mentioned this morning, but this gives us the opportunity to embed ethical procurement in all that we do and to put fair work at the heart of it. I recognise that some people see negatives in what we are doing. There are always vested interests, but I ask that we balance that out with the needs of the people. I ask not only that we listen to the folks who are giving negative evidence—although it is not wholly negative, because almost everybody says that we need a national care service and that we need change—but that we look at the positives in all this and, in particular, listen to the voices of lived experience.

If anyone was transferred in relation to the aspects that I laid out earlier, the local care board would be the employer. I do not think that the setting up of the national care service is a leap of faith at all. I think that it is the greatest opportunity for the social care and social work workforce that there has been for many years. It gives us the opportunity for national sectoral bargaining, which does not currently exist. It gives us the opportunity to drive up pay and conditions and to put in place career pathways that many young folk in social care and social work do not think exist at the moment.

When change is proposed, we are always likely to get the negatives first. However, from a workforce point of view, the national care service probably represents the greatest opportunity that has existed for the profession for a very long time, if not ever.