Chamber and committees

Councils may have an opinion on their need that is different from yours, as we see in the budget discussions at the moment and the talk around the council tax freeze. For example, a council could say that it needs a certain amount of additional support because of increased cost, increased uptake and direction from the national care board. It would then be for the Scottish Government to agree additional funding with that council. Potentially, therefore, councils could be left short because there has not been agreement on the levels of funding that is required.

Are you comfortable that most councils, or all councils, are on board with your plans, or that they are content enough to let COSLA negotiate on their behalf?

What kind of concerns do they raise? Are they concerned about the fiscal aspect, in particular?

I turn to the national care board, on the detail of which Liz Smith raised issues. Given that you are a rural MSP, as I am, you will know that delivering services in a rural or island area is very different from delivering them in another part of Scotland. How will you ensure that those rural and island voices are included? You have said that you do not know exactly what the make-up will be. You have mentioned that lots of different organisations, including COSLA, will be involved, but delivering services in a place such as Shetland is very different from delivering them elsewhere. How will you ensure that those rural and island voices are included?

The national care board is now a vital component of the bill—it will be extremely important from the point of view of strategy and oversight—so it is surely very important that a rural or island perspective is taken on board as part of the oversight process.

On the convener’s point, you have said that you will come back to us with figures. Do you expect councils to have to take on more staff? Are those costs for additional staff included in the estimates?

Michael Marra has covered quite a lot of what I was looking to cover, but I will ask you to look at it from a rural perspective. Do you envisage there being any additional costs to councils because of the bill?

Surely that could all be done without a board and these reforms. Councils could and should speak to one other on best practice and efficiency. What additional benefits would a board bring in those scenarios?

Will there be a chief executive sitting under that, on the professional side?

Okay. Given that one of the bill’s aspirations seems to be about providing better access and combating the postcode lottery, you will appreciate that delivering care services in rural island communities is very difficult, extremely expensive and so on. I know that there is a shortage in parts of my region because a lot of people are writing to me. They are not writing about transparency; they are writing to me, as Michael Marra said, about access, more visits and longer time. How is the bill likely to improve access? How will it mean that those communities will get the care support that they have been allocated but that is not being delivered because of a shortage of carers and so on?