Chamber and committees

Good morning, minister and officials—thank you for being here.

You say that 2030 is the backstop, but that does not mean that 2030 is when people will start doing the work and making the changes that are needed for all the different schemes, including those that you have discussed. It is not just about LFASS; there are other issues around suckler calves and so on. A lot of schemes need to be developed, and my understanding is that resources are already driving those changes forward.

In the past fortnight, the committee has received a lot of evidence from different people that shows that there is a level of concern. One response says that you

“gave assurances that this does not necessarily mean that schemes ... will go to 2030”.

Can you reassure the committee that, should we approve the SSI today, although 2030 will be the backstop date, that does not mean that nothing else will happen before then?

I quickly put on record that my understanding is that this is a technical statutory instrument. I hear what Rachael Hamilton is saying about the wider issue and the number of people who submitted responses to this statutory instrument. It shows that, as the co-design of the policy moves forward, work needs to be done to promote trust and to engage with the rural and agricultural sector, new farmers, new entrants and all of that. This is a technical instrument, but it highlights and uncovers wider work that we need to be sensitive to when engaging with stakeholders.

Good morning. I am interested to hear whether youse are still in support of a national care service.

Last week, the example of delayed discharges in East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire was raised in evidence. There is one health board but three local authorities. One local authority is doing really well in addressing delayed discharges. Is the support of care boards not part of the reform of creating a national care service, so that we can identify why something works really well in one area but not in the other two? That is only one example, but other local authorities struggle with delayed discharges. Is it not part of the reform to look at what is working in one area but not in others?

I will pick up on the reference to having one hour to see the draft amendments. What were the circumstances? In its written submission SOLACE, says that it

“recognises that there are specific areas that would benefit from a national approach”.

Those include

“Leadership and driving improvement ... Standards, assurance, performance, reporting and scrutiny ... Workforce planning, fair work and training ... Ethical commissioning ... Complex and specialist care commissioning ... Improvement and innovation including improving research”,

and more. There is loads that you can agree on. The fact that COSLA has walked away is so significant that I am wondering about those one-hour circumstances. How is it possible that you had just one hour to look at amendments?

Good morning. My initial question is, what are your thoughts on the proposed amendments to the bill?

I have a wee supplementary question. Sweden has a senior alert programme, which includes an assessment for risk and prevention of falls, malnutrition and pressure ulcers. That is done before people even get to the point at which they need care. It is co-ordinated through a national programme that the Swedish Government introduced in 2010—14 years ago. It works; it has been shown to keep people out of hospital. We talk about preventing admission to hospital, but we also want to care for people when they come out of hospital.

In Scotland, we might be seen as a nanny state if we assess people when they turn 65. However, should the national care service aspire to have a programme that supports people to be at their healthiest in their home—or in a care home, which would become their home—for as long as possible, so that prevention runs alongside care?

You talked about direct funding, children and the removal of members from IJBs. In your negotiations with the Scottish Government—in the tripartite agreement that came to be the way to move forward—what additional reform would you like? What fundamental changes need to happen now?

Okay. You are all members of the expert legislative advisory group. I am interested in hearing about how your experience of working together in order to shape potential proposed amendments has been.

I am finding it really difficult to understand that you had one hour to look at amendments but then had June, July, August and September before you walked away. We have marked-up pages of amendments, with lots of additions in blue and strikethroughs in red. I am trying to understand why that one hour is so significant when no decisions were made about the amendments.