Chamber and committees

We have NHS Education for Scotland and Healthcare Improvement Scotland. We now have Public Health Scotland. Our national health service workforce looks to those bodies for advice. The bill could enable our national care service to tap into expertise in NES, HIS and Public Health Scotland. Can we reasonably assume that that would support education and research?

Okay. Thank you.

My understanding is that there are 1,200 care providers in Scotland, and the bill proposes to have them meet criteria on issues such as salary, education and career pathways—the whole approach. That would mean that someone could work in Dumfries and Galloway or the Scottish Borders, because their career pathway and training would be transferable, no matter where they go. The bill proposes to include the provision of training and even the funding of it. Would it not be a good thing to have the 1,200 care providers meet certain equivalent and measurable criteria, so that we know the value of the care that is being provided and so that the carers are valued?

Research and training—clinical nurse educator was my career for many years—are in the bill. In the section entitled, “Research”, the bill says:

“The Scottish Ministers and care boards may do any of the following in relation to research relevant to the services that the National Care Service provides—

(a) conduct it,

(b) assist others in conducting it,

(c) give financial assistance in relation to it.”

That will enable us to say in further legislation that we absolutely value research and training—and training leads to quality care, improvements and career progression. The bill is a framework bill, which will enable further research and training as we move forward with the national care service.

I am not sure whether that was a question or just a comment.

It is just a wee short one.

I will go back to multidisciplinary team working. I gave the example earlier of a person who had eight social workers. I have heard examples of support workers who look after people seeing deterioration that requires a step up in care. Currently, that requires a referral for further assessment, which takes time, although it is obvious to the support worker that additional care is required. As part of multidisciplinary team working, would it be better if direct engagement could flatten the bureaucracy so that faster response times could be delivered for people who need their care to be escalated? I see that Colin Poolman is nodding.

I will pick up on Roz Foyer’s point about collective bargaining. A Scottish Government document from February 2021 states:

“The Scottish Government has made a clear commitment to promote collective bargaining through the inclusion of an employee voice indicator, measured by collective bargaining coverage, within the National Performance Framework, and will work in partnership with the STUC to achieve increased coverage.”

Therefore, the intention to do that work already exists; it is part of what is being progressed.

If that work is already taking place elsewhere in the Government’s processes, do you think that language around that needs to be in the bill, rather than using secondary legislation down the line to embed that in the co-designed approach? It looks like the Scottish Government is already taking forward that work.

Much employment law is still reserved to Westminster, so certain aspects of that cannot be achieved in Scotland. We have to look at what is doable in legislation in Scotland.

There are real challenges right now. We know that there are issues with recruitment and retention. One of the issues that I have raised is the need for a national approach to standards of training and education. Would that help to support the message that social care is a worthwhile career and a great way to look after people? We know that, predominantly, it is women who are carers and that they often care for other people at the same time. Will what is set out in the bill on training and a standardised approach move us forward in supporting recruitment and retention?

My understanding of the financial issue is that the projected costs for the bill are estimates that are already being used for health and social care. This is not £1.5 billion that is coming from somewhere else; it is for care delivery that is already happening on the ground. That might be worth picking up.

My questions are about training and research. We have covered many of the issues around the necessity for training to be standardised, which could be part of a national approach to supporting staff. This is about what people who are in receipt of care want—the folk who are being cared for and the carers who provide the care want a national care service. They can see what could be fixed and they know what works. We know that self-directed support works really well in some places but doesnae in others. The creation of the national care service is about helping to support people on the ground, because that is what people want. I am interested in that and in the training that will deliver what folk are asking for.