 Rydw i'n fawr cymaint o'r 28 yma i'r 2022 y Dyn nhw'r Gwyrdegyddiaeth a Gwymau Gwyrdegydd. Rydw i'n pethau o'r dweud hyn yn gwneud eich ddau'r cymaint o'r dweud i'r newid o'r cwmaint a'r sefydliad o'r ddechrau yn gwneud yn gwneud. The first item on our agenda today is to decide whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Our members agreed. We are all agreed. We now turn to agenda item 2, which is to take evidence on the national care service bill at stage 1 as a secondary committee, and we are going to hear today from two separate panels of witnesses. The first panel this morning, we are joined by Simon Cameron, who is from the workforce and corporate policy team, from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, COSLA, Jerry Corns, who is from workforce portfolio lead from Solace Scotland, Tracy Dalling, who is the regional secretary at Unison Scotland, and Jane Fowler, who is president of the Society of Personal and Development Scotland, SPDS. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and will open the questions. I would like to begin with a broad look at the bill overall. Last week, the committee heard from local government and third sector organisations. Although concerned about some aspects of the bill, most witnesses welcomed other parts. I would like to hear what your general views are on the aims of the bill. I will start with Tracy. I am interested to hear what you think about your general views on the aims of the bill. I think that I will start by saying that the priorities are all wrong. Spending upwards of half a billion on set-up costs for new quangos is, I do not think, at the right time when we have so many vulnerable people waiting to receive a service. The biggest issue that we have with the bill is what it does not say rather than what it does. We have been very, very clear in our submissions to you that we think that the bill should be withdrawn and should ostensibly start again. I think that that is it in a nutshell in the essence of time that I can elaborate further. When you say start again, start again, in what way? Start again, I think, by consulting fully from the bottom up on the design of this. We do not think that the framework bill, as it stands, is robust enough to deliver what you are trying to do. Thanks very much. Gerry, do you have anything to add to that? Yes, thank you. I think that, probably as expressed in the causes response, so has the response, the aspirations of the bill and some of the key objectives that we would support in terms of the opportunity for a national care service to provide national leadership to look at things like workforce planning and training, national standards, procurement, commissioning, et cetera. So I think that there are some real benefits that could be delivered by a national care service. Where we would probably have questions about is does it need the massive structural change in terms of the delivery model to deliver on those outcomes? Thanks very much. Anyone else want to come in, Simon? Yes, thank you. I suppose just to support what colleagues are saying there. The real risk that we've got with the bill whilst there's a lot in it that we can support in terms of that improvement, and being very clear across Scottish local government that there is a want to improve, we understand that there's always the need to advance our services. It's the risk that it will undo an awful lot of the good work that is happening. The fact that we've got integrated joint boards, the fact that they are still relatively new and that the cultures are still developing but there is a lot of good and well-embedded practice now happening, that we risk unravelling some of that as opposed to continuing to advance it. And investing, both as Tracy and Jerry have said, investing in where the real need is at the front line in terms of how people are experiencing services on a day-to-day basis, as opposed to changing the structure through which we deliver the services that we currently have. Thanks very much. And Jane? Yes, thanks very much. Support the views taken by my colleagues. Around the potential, there is potential here for us to have, to introduce some national standards, to introduce national workforce planning, to deliver care on a more consistent basis across Scotland. So we would definitely see that as a positive, and local government we're fully committed to working with all partners to make sure that that is delivered. We have worked very hard on the Public Body Joint Working Act to make integration work, and we have a workforce now that is integrated across health and social care and social work. So one of the key challenges, one of the key pressures that we see and the biggest difficulty really is what happens to our workforce. So in local government we have 75,000 staff affected by this. We can't say to them now who their employer will be. And that's very difficult for a workforce that's currently already under a significant amount of pressure. And we've got lots of partnership working that's on the go at the moment to try and alleviate that pressure. However, as employers, it's really difficult for us to explain this because we are not clear ourselves. So the fundamental issue for us is how is our workforce going to move forward for them current integrated position to a new arrangement that is still not clear to us? So just thinking about the current spending and challenges, and given that council now spend around 20 per cent more on social care in real terms than they did in 2010, what more could be done to improve the situation within the current system and structure? So with that, that big structural change, what could we do? And I think some of you started to touch on things like giving the IJB more time to bed in and that kind of thing, but anybody got any thoughts about what we could do? One of the things that we have in a workforce that's under particular pressure, and yes, there has been significant investment in social care, we know across Scotland there are some fantastic examples of good practice. However, not all of our care employers, not all of our care service deliverers have got the capacity to be able to implement that, those excellent practices. So if there were to be investment in supporting that transformational change in care, recognising the current issues we've got around workforce supply, the issues we've got around attendance, the issues that we've got around the workforce under pressure in general terms, supporting our managers and supporting our leaders in the care service with a little bit more, with more capacity, more capability to try out and implement some of those excellent examples of best practice, I think could be a really practical step in that direction. Could you help the committee by giving maybe one, expand a little bit on one of the excellent examples? Yes, certainly. So if we look across the way that we operate our kind of employment and contractual arrangements, is we tend to have fairly fixed shifts that people are allocated by, for example, their home care organiser. If you look to the retail or other private sectors where people have set carry-out session of work, then they'll have an app, they have an app where they can select the shift that they want to do, that suits their work-life balance, that suits the way that they want to operate it, and it suits them, they can pick up the work when it best suits them, and the employer has got clarity in real time about where there are gaps in the service delivery. Now our colleagues in South Lanarkshire Council have just introduced that and there are many other other care providers who would be really interested but don't have either the ICT or the management or the implementation capacity to do so. That's really helpful. It's great to hear that flexibility there. Anybody else on the question? Tracy and then Simon? I think quite bluntly we need to strip the profit out of care if we're looking for some extra money. The SCC did some analysis of this and in private care the workforce investment is less than that within the public sector. Wages are £1.60 per hour lower, complaints are more frequent and up to £13,000 per bed, per year leaks out of the system and profiteering. I think that we need to be really cautious that the national care service in whatever shape it is structured into absolutely has ethical commissioning at the root of it but we need a huge amount more detail about what that looks like. Just saying it is not going to be enough. We need to know that if we have rogue contractors extracting money out of care and frankly in some instances we know it ends up in the Cayman Islands then they are stripped of their ability to deliver public sector contracts in Scotland so the monitoring needs to be really really robust to ensure you get absolute value for money. Do you have a sense at the moment that we are not doing that? No. Not doing that? Monitoring well enough? No. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I suppose just to follow on from Jane's points about some of the good practices happening there. I mean, Cosa would welcome the single integrated health and social care record that I think because we can see in terms of when we look across the system the investment that there is at a local level is the ability to have to procure locally as opposed to nationally and develop a system and relationships whereby we can share the data, we can reduce the administrative burden that is on a lot of staff, we hear about how time poor staff are and it's because of the bureaucracy that so often drives the work that we have to do as opposed to being out there directly working with individuals the rest so there are those improvements that can be made but yet again it doesn't require the overall structural change that is at the heart necessarily of the bill just now. These are improvements that in fact have been long spoken about with colleagues across all parts of the sector and it's the empowerment to actually get on and do that really would drive a lot of the positive change that we could seek right now. And when you say empowerment what would need to happen in order for that empowerment for this particular piece you were talking about the digital record? I suppose there is that just in terms of that trust across the system in terms of working together that understanding not only with members of the public but across organisationally in terms of the the rigor that there is around data sharing etc the legal agreements for that to happen in the rest and then yet again back to the procurement process in the rest that actually the combined public spend from what these organisations can put towards a system as opposed to individual systems for individual organisations. Great thanks very much Jerry. Thank you probably just building on one of the points that I think Simon has made is just a maybe a recognition of just how new IJBs are. Only six years and if we think about that six years there's a natural period of time at the setup of these kind of organisations where it focuses on governance and getting the right systems in place and then there's been the period of the pandemic where it was a very much reactive so these are actually very new organisations that are just starting to develop and and drive the kind of improvement I think we're looking for. I mean I think in terms of your question about what could happen now I think in terms of the joint statement of intent much of that can be delivered within the existing system whether that's about looking at eligibility criteria support for unpaid carers the investment that will be required for that within a national care service targeted now could deliver that and so I think there's an opportunity for that. In parallel I think with the points that I made earlier about the things that a national care service at a national level can lead on like ethical procurement and ethical commissioning that was mentioned by Tracey earlier. Great thank you very much those responses are very helpful. I'm going to move on to questions from another of my colleagues Mark Griffin. Good morning committee last week went to see the view that this wasn't just a reform of social care this was a reform of local government and I wonder if I've seen Northern Heads so I'm assuming that you're agreeing with that but I wonder if you'd like to comment on whether you feel there has been enough discussion debate strategic thought on the future and the sustainability of local government if these reforms were to go ahead. Come to Simon first. I would say I don't think there has been enough debate and discussion in terms of what the sustainability of local government would be I think we recognise that in terms of what's laid out in the bill and the ability to transfer both people and assets. As Jane had mentioned at the start of the discussion quite clearly all of our services are integrated at a local level and the interdependence between education services, housing services, social care, social work and numerous other services are raised not only in terms of those front line services and how they work together and the strong relations that they need to be able to deliver effective local services for individuals but quite clearly the back office services whether it be the HR function, the IT, the procurement, the finance etc that goes with it if you start to take one part out of local government that's where you start to unravel the potential viability of a number of the authorities at all different scales so I don't think there has been enough discussion the financial memorandum doesn't look properly at what the consequences may be we don't understand it in terms of the cost that may be associated with things such as the pensions that people are entitled to the fact that under two pay rules they're not those that won't automatically transfer over but what leaves in terms of the viability of that behind etc so there's lots of different dimensions to it that we do need to have a you know a more in-depth and proper discussion about and indeed actually we need to reflect on what some of the other conversations we've been having for a number of years now with government namely things like the local governance review and the fact that actually Scottish local government has been working not only with government but also with public sector partners to look at different models and ways in which we can deliver services more effectively and efficiently by changing the governance model overall so perhaps that's the thing is that in terms of the national care service and the bill itself there are other things already out there that are progressing that we could focus more time on any other members yeah i mean i think that it becomes also a numbers game as well so if we think about the total number of employees in local government we've got 250 000 that obviously includes all of our teachers includes everybody who delivers all of our front line services you know roads amenities all of that plus our back office staff because we've got we're bureaucratic and democratic organisations so we have a we have a support staff network behind that that enables those democratic functions to take place if we start to break that up particularly in smaller local authorities so we're total 250 000 staff across scotland 75 000 potentially transferring over into whatever the employment arrangement is for a national care service that's reducing significantly the size of local authorities and without any other structural change or change to the nature of local authority then it I suppose it almost feels a bit like death by a thousand cuts because we're being constrained our revenue budgets are are being affected as as everybody's are in the public sector but then this is being removed as a significant part so just as a brief example we run a customer service centre in the local authority I work for which handles calls for our social work and social care colleagues we also have an IT system that has integrated web-based applications for care support or for all sorts of other for our revenues and benefits would I be expected then to take off a part of that a chunk of that say a quarter a fifth a quarter of that team and donate them to a national care service where they have to then rebuild that whole that whole structure of service delivery that's already working locally and accountability to our local democratic council would that then be chopped off and built into something new that seems really inefficient so the clarity for us in local government about how this affects our overall operation is really significant and I think that those conversations we could do with a lot more of them before final decisions are made. Yeah I mean just to just to kind of lead on from that you can't take a third of your council budget out without having a significant impact on what's left and if the intention was by design to reform local government alongside care within our communities then it would have been helpful if that had been you know very straight and up front from the off but to do it by accident is it's just impossible to comprehend the devastating impact that would have I think on the local government workforce so 75,000 go out and the air paying conditions aren't clear and neither are their pensions the remainder that stay in our left thinking well where we going next you know is it somewhere else is it is it some kind of structural reform and that's been mooted for years we were reminiscing out in the corridor from our old strathglide days that's a long so many of us have been about and remember it well when local government was reformed back in 1996 and those memories live on I'm not sure that's really where we need to be in 2023 given everything else that's going on and the funding pressures that exist so I don't think that's a sensible idea to be doing alongside the creation of a national care service not least because any of these reforms cost money and I'm not saying you just leave it alone if it's not working but I don't think that we're saying to you that local government in itself is so fractured and broken that it needs completely reformed and restructured at this stage so I think my plea to you would be leave it well alone. Much of what I would have said has been said but I mean I think in terms of your original question I think it's fair to say that colleagues in Cosland and Solace would have welcomed more discussion not only about the direct implications of the of the bill but those indirect implications in terms of what's left behind and what this kind of mass transfer and this huge change would mean for the resilience and the sustainability of the services that are left in local authorities because as my colleagues have articulated many of those provide services across a range of front line services and therefore when you take a big large chunk of that out then it's going to have a real impact on what's left behind thank you. We've got fairly recent examples of regionally run services being centralised in the police and fire reforms in recent years I just wonder Tracy if you're able to comment on what the impact of that centralisation was on your members particularly civilian support staff who went from you know the regional services into the national one. A hugely unsettling time for them I think that the biggest issue was largely around around pay because there was there was no equity if you like about you know who got paid what and when and how and where and why and all of that rationalisation a huge undertaking to evaluate all of those jobs it's taken years it's taken huge amount of investment to sort out all the pay as you can well imagine somebody working in a police station in Glasgow is not going to welcome being paid less than somebody in a police station in Edinburgh for exactly the same job so that needs to be worked through. The huge equal pay risks in all of this if it's not properly invested we will have as everybody then works for the same employer which would be the Scottish Government in some respects if we're doing the analysis with the national care service saying why am I being paid differently we already have that we have a bit of a bleed of social work staff who are under pressure moving from one place to the next because the money's better so if there is a move to equalise that out it's going to have to be a huge investment in that if we're to learn from the police and the fire example because it took years and years to sort all of that out when you bring everybody together at one time so I'm not saying that's a bad thing it can be a very very good thing because you don't have that bleed in that movement within your own service and staff transferring all over the place just for a few extra pounds. If the pay is set properly you'll have a more stable workforce but not without investment. Thank you. Thanks. I'm now going to move to questions from Paul McClellan. Yeah thank you convener and good morning panel. I've come to this with 15 years experience as a councillor and also a previous councillor leader. There's a couple of questions I want to ask and it's probably just slightly different from what I was going to ask before. Was there any about co-design and co-production? We've obviously mentioned that it's a framework bill that's come forward and Tracy I'll probably ask yourself first and then probably come to yourself Jerry after that. You mentioned about trying to almost rip it up and start again can you start? Is there not obviously an argument 9% being involved in the co-design and co-production going forward in terms of that and obviously Empherson rather than starting the whole process again so probably on devil's advocate here why wouldn't that be the best approach in terms of that? I'll throw it straight back at you. What do you mean by co-design because that's not clear at all? If it's a string of meetings we can do that anyway and we do. The co-design works best when it's at a very very local level. We've talked about co-design for years in social care where carers, the care receiver, the caregiver sit down with professionals and they co-design the service for them. I mean that could be ramped up to a board level. I think there needs to be some decisions about this whole postcode lottery element of it. Does it differ from place to place because social pressures might be different from place to place or is it an equal even if it's a cash sum for a care package across the board? We have no idea what is entirely meant by co-design in the context of the national care service. We can guess at it but the framework bill is so loose it's really really difficult to determine and therefore very very easy for us to be critical and ask you to go back to the start and be far more specific about exactly what you mean by this. Yeah do you not think that that process could be done now rather than go back to the start? I mean if the framework's established then there's an opportunity to try and develop beyond that? No I disagree. Right okay I'll maybe pick that up at later stage. I know in the Social Justice Committee last week the same issue was raised and from different groups in there who had a different point of opinion on that. Jerry just from yourself as well in terms of that from the Solace point of view in terms of your involvement in the co-production co-design I mean is it your do you share the view about having to go right back to the start again or do you think there's an element for Solace to be involved in further discussions about co-production co-design? Yeah so I think first of all just to say fully support the principles of co-design and co-production and that happens at a local level just now in terms of you know a person-centric approach the service user being at the heart in terms of the way that we're looking to try and deliver the service that we've got so in terms of the principles absolutely no argument whatsoever I'd probably harp back to my previous answers where I don't think to deliver on co-design and co-production you need the whole scale change to a national care service delivery model I think there is a role for a national care service and one of those roles could be setting out the principles and the you know the high level guidance for co-design and co-production but I think that's best taken place at the most local level closest to the people who are receiving the services. Okay could that be done after a framework element of this has been established and taking the lessons that you've obviously put the feedback you've given an element of that could that be taken now rather than going right back to the start and saying right okay I can acknowledge the points that you're making in terms of you know where we are but where we are is there an opportunity then to look at in terms of right let's take the learning from this and move forward with the second of course the co-design and co-production of that what the service actually looks like. I think a national care service that focuses on the kind of high level strategic issues that I talked about earlier I think that that in parallel with still with local delivery models and local democratic accountability that then features very highly co-design and co-production as a model that could work going forward. Okay don't know if anybody else wants to come in on that particular one. Yeah Simon I don't know did you want to? Yeah again it's back to that kind of key point is it in terms of co-design for you know the framework in terms of it being feeling like it's predetermined already for individuals in the rest so actually how do you get people to the table to do the co-design process when they actually feel as if there's already an answer that's been given to them in the rest and I think if you are doing true co-design you do it at the start with a blank bit of paper and you take people through the process and fundamentally as Tracy can have highlights in the rest is in terms of the care service in the rest this is about individuals wants and needs and the local determinants that have shaped their circumstance and how we best support them as opposed to what you might determine from a national exercise of co-design and how that will look very different across all parts of Scotland whether it be rural whether it be urban and everything in between okay just briefly we're working really hard to embed the principles of the scottish approach to service design which is all about identifying with the service user at the beginning what the need is so we would be looking for that same approach to be taken in the development of the national care service where you're working with identifying what is it that we're trying to fix here and how do we collectively work together across all the different stakeholder bodies to deliver what is best for the person receiving the service at the end point there probably I've got two other questions but one probably specific for unison one probably specific for yourself Jane I'll probably come to yourself first of all one is obviously there was talking about concerns about removal of local government workers but not NHS staff I don't know what your views are on that particular point of view yeah really challenging when we're when we've currently got health and social care partnerships with fully integrated teams so right down so our heads of service our chief officer our heads of service our third tier managers they are integrated interchangeably between social work social care and health so if some of those people are being moved into a new delivery body and the rest are going back to the NHS but the responsibilities for things like community community health are going to the local care board without the staffing complement then you're starting out with a local care board that has a responsibility but no no people support no no workforce resource to deliver that so that was a that was a clear issue for us really early on we've got an integrated workforce at the moment but we're seeing it split apart and that causes greater uncertainty for our current employees so we would be looking I think to establish what is the principle of what what's the principle of intent for the future of integration in relation to the national care service because if we can identify if we can recognise and articulate that to our workforce then they'll understand the direction of travel and we'll also be able to to communicate it to to our communities who are currently wondering what's what's happening as well okay thank you that and the final question community if that's okay it was it was trusted probably to yourself obviously one of the key things I think it was mentioned at the start of the national care service was probably trying to lead to improved terms and conditions for social workers across and obviously I think we mentioned about retention and recruitment as a major issue I mean do you accept that the part of that improved terms and conditions could be a benefit in the national care service in that regard it's one of the aspects of what is laid out that we would we would welcome and that is that the process and the principles if you like of finding founding and national care services that you've quite clearly said it that you're going to be exemplars in your in your approach to fair work now that was that was a huge step forward and if that is embedded further within the the national care service that could only be a good thing okay on that particular point in terms of conditions I don't know if anybody else wants to come in on that one just again we threw one of the funding principles I think of the national care service was improved because recognising issues around about retention and recruitment Jane you want to come in on that one yeah you're absolutely right about retention and recruitment and traces traces covered it as well I think my biggest word of caution would be around the challenge of equal pay so we have a model in local government with teachers who are in a single set of terms and conditions a thing a national paying grading system we have a paying grading system across the sgc so the other local government staff but we each apply a different sort of pay grade paid grade to that so we have the evaluation process that attributes at points and that's equality impact assessed but we do pay slightly different amounts associated with those spinal column points however if we look back at when we introduced single status in local government which was around 2008 I remember it well yes there are still challenges of equal pay kind of lurking around there so this is an expensive and major exercise similar to to Tracy's point about the creating the national police and fire service so word of caution around that anybody else want to come in Simon on that one and the sheer scale that we're talking about in terms of we're not only talking about local government look at all the other providers that we're talking about so how do you in effect level up and how do you not put a risk the very good terms and conditions that are in place particularly in terms of local government broader terms conditions we can always make improvements but in terms of if we're trying to level up everybody to that position how do we actually do that we're able to afford the cost of that in one fail sweep because effectively that's what people would be expecting this is going to be a long progressive process that we need to do it's about yet again the reinvestment of the process it's about the procurement process that Tracy alluded to earlier on in the rest and the scrutiny of that in the rest and how we take people forward in terms of delivering these services in the appropriate kind of ethical manner in the rest but I think as Jane kind of highlights is the hidden cost and the hidden risk that's associated has not been properly explored okay and again on a kind of positive note in terms of the engagement that we've had around the set this creation of the sectoral bargaining is something that we would not want to lose on under any terms and the social care workforce beyond the social work or the social care workforce that are out on the streets in the house next door looking after somebody's granny are so vulnerable in terms of their pay and their terms and conditions and we've had examples recently with big companies who operate across the UK who say things like we won't need to bother with the Covid sick pay scheme just come to your work so that the Scottish Government have put this in place you can't access these funds but we couldn't do that across the whole of the UK so we'll not bother in Scotland now you know we have sorted that out with some Scottish Government intervention with one of these big organisations but there are other examples like that we need to be really canny with I think really cautious around that we don't allow contractors to come in and it's a race to the bottom the sectoral bargaining needs to be based on some very clear founding principles we're working our way through that we've got huge engagement around it and we want to continue to proceed with that and ensure that we don't lose any more out of the social care workforce than we already have we know their key workers we need to value them. Slightly concerned when it's on a broken record here I think you can deliver on a lot of the fair work principles within the existing model and a national care service can do great work in terms of ethical commissioning I think the points that Simon and Jenner have made are really pertinent though that we need to understand that in terms of raising all of the standards that we want to see the implications what that would mean for local government in terms of job evaluation that's where really close dialogue is required to make sure. I suppose measures are getting it it's welcome but there are complexities obviously behind that we need to look at so okay thanks thanks again. Thanks Paul. We're now going to move to questions from Marie McNair who's joining us online Marie. Good morning panel most of my questions that's going to ask have been covered and I really appreciate the answers given sit for the directors of finance last week highlighted issues relating to pensions in the unison submission highly the concerns that 2P doesn't guarantee the maintenance of existing pension agents can anyone comment further on that maybe Tracy first if you don't mind. Quite simply as employees leave one employer and move to another using the 2P regulations there everything is protected bar pensions there is an option for new employers to ask for an admitted body status to the pension scheme but that often comes with cost implications and it's not what they want to do particularly if they bid for a contract on the basis of cost they will not want to pay what they would see as an unnecessary expense so we would then have 70 75 000 social work staff out of the local government pension scheme obviously the more money that goes in the more it's invested in the better the return and the more stable that scheme is so there's a huge huge concern not least for that group that are out of the local government scheme but also for those that are left in it within the current council and it's not just as much as it's called the local government scheme there are scotland's colleges for example are in the local government scheme some of our university institutions are in the local government scheme so there are some serious questions about the future viability of that scheme should you shift everybody out and into the vagaries of what would be an employer-based scheme. Thank you, engine is wanting to comment further. I think this is one of the the kind of real levels of uncertainty for our workforce just now because the question about pensions is very complex but it's very closely linked to who the eventual employer might be and we can't give any kind of information at the moment so if the care board itself was an employer there might be a different pension consideration there if it's a third party whether it's a private independent or voluntary sector there are huge pension implications there and affordability questions for those organisations that might be receiving employees and the final point that Tracey made as well taking that number of people out of a pension scheme it's going to raise some real questions about the viability and sustainability of that pension scheme going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. Just maybe to add to make a general point as well in terms of that point of what does it say to all of those that would be as it were left behind in local government and I don't mean that they'd be left behind because the values across the whole system the integrated nature of our services the reliance on frontline services of working together across the different resources and with public partners and third and independent is vitally important here and whilst absolutely as a society we need to value more if we're going to recruit and retain people into social care social work roles and wider roles we've got a recruitment and retention challenge across the whole of Scottish local government in many different roles professional and otherwise and I think yet again it's that point here as if that we if we carry on purely down this route of taking this portion of the workforce out what does it say to all those essential services that are left behind and I think if the pandemic's proven anything is the value and the worth that Scottish local government provides to our communities every day in the rich tapestry of services that we deliver many that are unseen but many that are essential and that maintain day to day activity for individuals so there's just that broader point okay okay thank you we're now going to move on to questions from Miles Briggs thank you can be no good morning to the panel thank you for joining us today I wanted to follow on that line of questioning because we know how closely into wine social care and social work are with council services so specifically looking at the transfer of local authority workers and what other consequences do you think have not been taken to account by the government as well okay so I think probably touched on this in one of the previous questions the consequences are clearly in terms of those employees that are transferred to a different organisation it's the ongoing work and the interface if you like with those services that they work very closely with and you'll know this with education with housing etc so that is one dimension that I think needs very careful consideration I think the second dimension is it's the impact of the loss of these services on the services that remain so if we give examples they'll already have support services but will provide services to a range of other what we might call front line services and the impact of the loss of the front line services and perhaps some of those support services depending on the model will have a real impact on local government and what's left which is not particularly nice term to use but what's left in terms of its sustainability and its resilience because we'll have these multidisciplinary support teams that if some or all of them or some of them move what's left might not be sufficient to provide the necessary level of support and resilience to the services that are left so there's huge consequential impacts of the the transfer of such a large portion of local government staff at the moment. Yeah and I think also there is the the impact on you have to remember this is a regulated workforce and there is a significant impact on our social work colleagues as well and we've got a lack of clarity about where the chief social work officer would sit so currently direct accountability to local authority chief executives and so there's a question around that where where does that protection sit I think the on a very very practical basis when managers who are responsible for highly regulated service delivery don't have sufficient support through their support staff they end up having to do that themselves and that diverts them away from using their professional skills and experience to deliver the service and solve the problems and improve things so we lose economies of scale as soon as we start transferring people out we lose those economies of scale and that I think is where the national care service could come in and could actually support you know something around that that taking the bureaucratic burden away from the within the existing service to take that bureaucratic burden away and free up our professionals to to do what it is that they are good at doing and that we need them to do so at that impact the impact of putting more of a burden on our professionals for Carina that's poor I think is at this point. A reflection for me as well would be just in terms of democratic accountability at the local level obviously in terms of being within the council structures and working the way that they do across services and so forth obviously there's that ability to deliver services based on the needs of local people and understand the interplay between education between housing between you know community health services and so forth and ultimately I suppose if you separate out that proportion of staff before that democratic accountability is taken away and their priorities at a national level override and necessarily then we get that tension between the two and are unable to when people are seeking to see their services improved the way in which obviously we rely on all the services to work together to get people into their homes keep people in their homes live well and be healthy then ultimately we start to put tensions there that we might not be able to overcome we've been working through integrated joint boards to get to that challenge of being partners that work positive together this simply undoes the years that we've travelled so far the seven or so years of integrated boards at the moment in the rest and gets us back to a start point so but this time round takes away those services puts the viability of the services at risk and ultimately has to rebuild relationships based on those two competing priorities of national versus local. Can I just kind of some respects conclude that with that we know that the outsourcing of workers leads to a reduction in their in their pay in their in their terms and conditions and in their their employment stability and their ability to deliver good quality care good quality care is usually delivered by workers that are adequately and properly rewarded for the services that they do and I am seriously concerned that there'll be a marked and disproportionate adverse effect by both gender race and disability in the context of this transfer there's been equality impact assessment work done in relation to service users but nothing in relation to workforce and you know if this comes to pass then that's something that's going to have to be explored in full to ensure that we are not um putting in place some structural reform that's inherently discriminatory. Yeah do you want to come back in that time? Yeah just picking up on that so absolutely the equality impact assessments against our protected characteristics but also the fear of Scotland duty and if we look at the additional impact on our remote and island areas we already have a service that is stretched over a over vast areas with the additional complexities of delivery in you know to islands into very small communities the pressure on the workforce becomes even greater and the demands and needs for some kind of economy of scale to support that has to be taken into account so as soon as you add uncertainty of a change of employer into that mix as soon as you start to think about what additionally you're asking these people to do to deliver those already challenging services then I'd be really really interested to see how the because I know there's been an island's impact assessment on the bill as it stands but remote island and rural areas there there are significant challenges there already we've heard already about the your social care is is really struggling at the moment in recruiting a workforce across local government we are really struggling at the moment and this is compounding that uncertainty and further compounding it in remote, rural and island areas and I think across all committees who are looking at this we're hearing those concerns reading the submissions from both Cozzler and Unison you describe a scenario whereby local authorities could be competing against private and third sector providers now last week we heard two examples of where actually co-design for one of that better word has actually been useful with the third sector especially around ending homelessness together and the promise and that sort of wish that this is how the government had actually taken forward a national care service and in that principle rather than telling organisations how it would be I just wondered what those concerns specifically relate to is it in terms of pure bidding for contracts in the future or terms and conditions as well of workers the trace you've touched upon some of this already I mean it's both it is absolutely both you know if one screw comes on done you know we don't dismantle the whole thing and rebuild it we will try and put the screw back in so in terms of those particular areas that you've talked about yes there's been there's been fixes there um you've heard from my colleagues that what we have on the stocks just it's not perfect but it you know it does deliver social care there's always going to be room for improvement we can all tell you stories of of particular third sector employers who do not serve their staff well the last thing we want to do is have councils having to go through a process routinely and it would be routinely of contracting for work of preparing bids going through the tender process huge amount of uncertainty start moving from one contract to another on a fairly regular basis and we see that in different fields it does not allow employers to retain recruit and retain valuable and committed staff um so there is just there's a propensity here for it to be a mess on on every level costly um and from my point of view as a as a trade unionist costly in the in the sense of what is exactly in our members pockets at the end of the day um and if they end up contracted to uh hired out to you know a whole range of different employers over the years we can only see that their pay is going to diminish over time that it will not improve so um i think it's both is the is one answer to that okay ferries do you want to come in i think that kind of prospect of a potential bidding process is another kind of real area of uncertainty um for local government at the moment and so i guess looking at it logically first of all it would depend on what a care boards commissioning strategy is in terms of as i understand it at the moment it could still be a direct employer or it could choose to commission works and then you get into the question of bidding for contracts then and first of all most a local authority would have to choose to bid for it if it doesn't have the statutory accountability to deliver it that's a choice that would have to be decided locally so there's uncertainty there and then there's the uncertainty that's generated by a whole bidding and process in terms of the run up to that the evaluation and the award and the the period of time after an award which is always uncertain as well and you have that prospect of potentially bidding with private independent third sectors and all of the tupia implications and all of the pension implications that we talked about and all of the resource that has to go into preparing the bid and assessing these implications and i think again we would feel at a local government level would much more be much happier that those kind of efforts were round about co-production and co-design with our colleagues in the independent third sector on improving outcomes at a local level. We're talking about a workforce here that we say we value because they deliver an important service for the people of Scotland. We're talking about a system here where if we go through compulsory tendering we're going to be tupian these people from employer potentially to employer potentially to employer potentially to employer that doesn't paint a picture to me of a workforce that's valued. That's a good point. I suppose you again as well bring it back to the point about local democracy and if the bill empowers ministers to be able to appoint and abolish care boards etc what kind of national imperatives will be put on where actually the fundamental there's a lack of understanding about what the local needs is and how you actually deliver services is the route to always trying to solve the problem and get into that situation while that care board didn't work this time around they didn't appoint to the right organization so we'll abolish that one we'll set up a new one and we'll tell them where to point next. We're going to get people caught in the trap of wanting a service that is individualised and personal but actually is driven by a national imperative and therefore not delivering actually on what the needs are. Thank you and just finally we have the minister in in the next session after yourselves what would your message to him be maybe start with yourself charity my final devil's advocate question because i've got questions from willy coffee and he's got two or three so we're rapidly running out of time so i would say a look at the the positive outcomes at national care service could deliver without the whole scale structural change that would be required for it to become a delivery operating model i would look at those things about national leadership about workforce planning about ethical commissioning and i would focus resources in terms of the delivery of those outcomes within the existing model yeah i think i would say that this bill doesn't improve the quality of work in in social care uh or the quality of employment for workers in care at home and residential care um that fair work in social care inquiry was directly about improving that and i don't think the bill meets the aspirations of that inquiry yeah oh sorry i think all the stuff that's been said already by my colleagues but also do we really need to be playing on with this now we've got a very difficult winter ahead of us this process is taking up a lot of resource a lot of time a lot of people's and creating a lot of anxiety can we take a pot can we take a breath at least until after the winter and we get through the current challenges we're facing i suppose very simply for me we demonstrate to the workforce across scotland that we value them by investing in them and empowering them and trusting them to do the jobs that they know well how to do and giving them the ability to do that job more effectively meaning on the ground i continued you know want to scrutinise and ask for reports as opposed to working with individuals is where we need to move to thank you thanks thanks miles william i'm going to bring you in but if you can direct your question we've got we're running out of time and i know you've got two or three questions so if you can direct your questions to specific people that would be fantastic because it'll be as quick as i can convener thank you very much and good morning to the panel i just wanted to start by asking each of you to take you back to feely itself it's been out nearly two years now it's been on the table nearly two years now the panel agree with feely's principal recommendation that there should be a national care service do you actually agree with that start with Simon I think we agree that improvement is required in the system and we i think you know in terms of some of the points that colleagues have made and to Jerry's point in terms of how nationally we can do things like workforce planning and standards the rest but that's where we can create efficiency and effectiveness in the system but fundamentally we need something that empowers the system empowers the individuals at a local level empowers local democracy to deliver for the priorities and the needs of individuals so i think the principle of a national service that enhances the opportunity to deliver better services we can stand behind but i think a structural form that takes away from that ability to deliver locally and takes away the investment from front line services as something we need to award against thanks thanks Simon Jerry yeah i mean i'm actually looking at my own council's response in terms of feeling it's confirmed support for many of the aspirations and outcomes highlighted by the feely review and the overarching intention to improve the quality and experience of accessing social work and social care supports so that that would be my answer but i do believe there's a role for national care service but it's the one that i've articulated previously in responses to the committee i don't think it should be the full-scale structural reform that that's being talked about thank you thanks Jerry Tracy again just a complete echo i mean who could disagree in principle with a national care service if it's akin to something that we've had for 80 years in the national health service but it's not it takes services out of councils in the nhs and it's not the national care service that we need nothing further to add i agree with my colleagues okay my second question is a recommendation plenty in feely's original report was that the care service should be a driving focus on improvements in consistency quality and equity and care and support by service users so how do we get that consistency that is at the heart of what the work that feely did across scotland if we don't have a national approach to it that was one of the main issues that he raised and is trying to solve i imagine to his recommendations to the government so how do we get the consistency we seek without a national approach is a very good question how do we get the consistency and i suppose without as jerry said sounded like a broken record with this i think the trust and the investment at a local level and that kind of empowerment of local democracy in terms of working with individuals in communities to co-design those services and develop those services in a manner that meets their own individual needs but the the wider community needs in the rest is fundamentally where we need to get to i think as we've said doing something that is an overall structural that sucks people up into an organization the challenges will remain the same that you know when we talk about consistency whether you live in the highlands the Scottish borders and glasgo etc the reality is you have a different need based on the circumstances in which you live in so we've got to empower the system to to work on the basis of those needs and not assume that we know what everyone will need or want in all parts of the country thanks jerry yeah i mean obviously again completely agree with that principle of driving focus for consistency i think what we're talking about when i think about that is its consistency of outcomes for service users there will be different delivery models at a local level that i think are best informed by that local co-production and co-design but i think we should be striving for the consistency of outcomes across the country i think that's where there's a role for a national care service when it's looking at national standards and it's looking at where we're driving improvement thank you thanks jerry tracy how do we get that consistency if we don't have the national approach that feeling was recommended i think you've heard from my colleagues and from i'm sure a whole range of others that it isn't by nationalising it is about that local delivery that's been talked about here the minute that you make a council a contractor you're in a whole different ballgame you've then got 32 other contractors all bidding for services i think you will struggle if you are intent on on it being consistent across the whole of scotland the more contractors you put in the frame the more variances that you're going to get in terms of service delivery and i think it's um that's a mistake i think to go down that road i think we've heard of good examples where councils are are well equipped and able to deliver for the people of scotland without putting a national care service or care board commissioning went into the mix do you think there's sufficient consistency and quality of service at the moment then i think there's always room for improvement i mean i'm a trade unionist i'm not a social worker so i can't say explicitly what happens on the ground you'll get various examples good and bad what i would say is that a single outcome is it or a consistent outcome won't suit everybody all of the time there needs to be flex within the system to meet service users needs and they will vary my colleagues have said and as i think we've reflected before national standards consistency improvements national workforce planning and training all of those can support consistency of service delivery and some consistency in the improvements and sharing sharing of good ideas about improvements for the future sharing of best best practice and you know just if you look at education we've got a consistent set of standards but a variety of different workforces so with 32 different local authorities as employers but we all come together and we all work to a set of standards set out nationally and that achieves consistency across without structural change thanks very much for that those are very much contained in the fealy report and hopefully who i'm here on the minister next to tell us how they are formed and part of it all but thank you very much for your contributions and answering my questions thanks community thanks really thanks for your questions and that brings our evidence session to a close and i just want to say thanks very much for coming in this morning i think your responses have been very helpful to the committee's work and i now suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow for a change of witnesses we'll now begin our second panel of witnesses this morning on panel two we are joined by Kevin Stewart who's the minister for mental wellbeing and social care with the Scottish government and mr Stewart is joined today by Ian Turner who's the deputy director of national care service programme design engagement and legislation from the Scottish government and anna knyston hope i pronounced that right you can correct me when you speak later deputy director of the national care service programme design engagement and legislation also with the Scottish government and i warmly welcome the minister and his officials to our meeting and before we turn to questions from the committee i invite mr Stewart to make a brief opening statement thank you very much convener and good morning to you and to the committee and thank you for having me along today to give evidence on the national care service bill it's fair to say that the national care service is one of the most ambitious reforms of public services since the creation of the nhs it will end the postcode lottery of care provision across scotland and ensure that those who need it have access to consistent and high quality care and support to enable them to live a full life wherever they are the ncs bill sets out a framework for the changes we want to make and allows scope for further decisions to be made as it progresses through parliament towards becoming legislation this flexibility enables the national care service to develop and adapt and respond to specific circumstances over time i want to take time this morning to reflect on why change of this scale is necessary at scotland's community health and social care system has seen significant incremental change over the last 20 years despite this people with experience of receiving care support and providing it have been clear that there remains some significant issues these were detailed in the 2021 independent review of adult social care services and it set out a compelling case for change including reform of social care in scotland and strengthening national accountability we are not just changing to address the challenges of today we must ensure that we build a public service fit for tomorrow today about one in 25 people receive receive social care social work and occupational health support in scotland demand is forecast to grow the ncs must be developed to take account of our future needs and we'll build a system that is sustainable and future-proofed to take account of the changing needs of our population the principles for an ncs i set out in the bill i believe support that aim this is not about nationalisation of services the bill sets that out at a national level the functions are focused on consistency through national oversight services will continue to be designed and delivered locally that is right to support delivery with and for our communities and the people that they serve local government will be important partners as we design the detail we are very conscious of the importance of ensuring that the role housing plays in supporting independent living and we'll look at house services such as housing support adaptations and technology contribute to the principles set out in the bill and of course they should deliver increased early intervention that prevent or delay the need for crisis care it's for that reason that we recognise how valuable the interfaces between housing and homelessness services with the ncs will be we want everyone in scotland to have choice dignity and freedom to access suitable homes built or adapted to support their needs and we are embedding a person-centered approach that will align the ncs with housing and health services the ncs will bring changes that will benefit the workforce too the importance of staff in the social care sector has never been clearer and we are fully committed to improving their experience as we recognise and value the work that they do the ncs will ensure enhanced paying conditions for workers and act as an exemplar in its approach to fair work our co-design process will ensure that the ncs is built with the people that it serves and those that deliver it that needs to be at its very heart and we are committed to working with people with first-hand experience of accessing and delivering health and community community health sorry and social care to ensure that we have a person-centered national care service that best fits the needs of the people who will use and work in its services and of course convener that has to have human rights at its very centre thank you very much thank you very much for your statement i just before we go on to questions i just want to correct ian turners title i believe you're the deputy director for adult social care workforce and fair work is that correct yes apologies for the mis-titling of you at the beginning there so yeah i'm going to open up the session to questions from members and really appreciate the statement and i think we'll we'll kind of maybe dig a bit deeper into some of the things you touched on there focusing first on the broad role of local government can the minister give his views on what the purpose of local government is and furthermore what determines which services should be delivered by local government and are there other services which could be reformed in such a way convener as many of the committee know i have a background in local government i served for 13 years on Aberdeen city council and i recognise the importance of local government and of local democracy and in terms of what we are trying to do here with national care service local government will still play a major part in terms of the delivery of services as we move forward if they choose to do so and i think that that is extremely important to set out we have also said and i reiterated it at the finance committee last week that in terms of the changes that we are proposing we aim to create a cost neutral position for local government as we move forward however what has been very clear to us in terms of the feedback from the consultation but also which was absolutely apparent in the responses to the review is that people want to see a change in accountability in terms of how care is delivered in scotland i think if you talk to the disability disabled persons organizations to individuals and to other groups they feel at the moment that that accountability is lacking and i was quite surprised when i took over this post how important accountability was for people at this moment there is no national accountability to scotland ministers we aim to change that and we aim to make local accountability more important i think one of the things and you may have heard as a committee and if not i think again i would appeal to you to go and speak to those who are receiving care and support at this moment is that often people feel that they are pushed from pillar to post where they'll go to a health and social care partnership with a complaint around about the care that they're receiving until that's not our responsibility that's local governments or that's the nhs is and that goes on so accountability is extremely important here for the people who the many people that not only we have talked to and listened to which is more important but also the evidence that Derek Feeley took and that is why his recommendations themselves moved us towards the national care servers position thank you very much for for that response i'm just curious when you say could you expand a little bit on what you mean by cost neutral cost neutral being cost neutral obviously there will be a shift of resources in terms of ensuring that we get care delivery right some local authorities have expressed concerns that that may have impacts on other services what we are trying to do as we move forward can mean it is to reach a cost neutral position so that those impacts are not there again i would say that one of the main reasons why i want to ensure that local government cos la local authorities solace and others take part in the co-design process is so that we get this absolutely right thank you for that and uh i'm interested in how the government would respond to edwards city council's view that the bill isn't just reforming social care it's reforming local government and obviously with your background and local government you are i'd love to hear from you about that but i think there are huge opportunities here for all of us and as i've 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 so in that regard you know i think that there is not much difference i think that the difficulty that some folk foresee is that change in accountability but accountability has changed dramatically over the past number of years anyway with integration joint boards and other things what i should point out is 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 developed on the basis of these powers will be subject to further impact assessment as i've said elsewhere as we are still co-designing the national care service and how it will work in practice we don't yet have the full details necessary to evaluate all of the impacts parliament itself will have the opportunity to scrutinise these impacts once they are known and again i would say that a huge amount of what we are doing here will be subject to the co-design process and i want local government to be involved in that all the way through you thank you very much for that i'm going to move to questions from mark griffin thanks good morning minister because of the the nature of the way the legislation's been drafted witnesses a number of our evidence sessions i've said that they haven't really been able to get into great detail about what they feel would be the likely impacts of national care service bill so i just wanted to ask i know the minister's talked a lot about co-design when it comes to secondary legislation regulation and guidance what consideration was given to to co-design of the initial bill that we see just now. community obviously since the beginning of this parliamentary term we have put a number of things in place in order that we can listen to the views of people including the social covenant steering group and you know i think some folk think a framework bill is somewhat unusual but i would point out that a framework enabling bill is exactly the way that the nhs was established and in listening to people particularly those from the social covenant steering group but also other stakeholders it became very apparent to us that people wanted to be involved in the co-design process all the way through and that is why we decided upon a framework and enabling bill as was done with the nhs as i said previously and to allow folk the opportunity as we move forward to co-design all of the elements that slot in to that framework bill i think that is very important particularly for those folks the voices of lived experience that we have done it that way and i know that you know and i had it at finance committee last week some folk have argued why did we not do it the other way around but it is difficult to design something without the framework of primary legislation in place and that's why we have done it in that way the minister gives the example of the nhs but i mean we had a framework bill essentially in the last session that's set up by a whole new social security system but there were still elements of some of the priorities that the government and parliament would want to have seen in that system that were still included in that legislation i wonder why when we think about things like ann's law or independent advocacy some of those high level principles that i know the government's committee to the government were committed to for the social security system why they weren't considered for inclusion in the face of the bill in that primary legislation well ann's law is in the face of the bill in primary legislation convener in mr griffin um can i lay out you know the way this occurred because the consultation was published in august of 2021 which i'm quite sure the committee will recognize and that set out the proposals for change the responses and that supported change a range of views a huge range of views were in favour of co-design principles and that allows us to work through all of the matters which are important to people out there i think one of the key things which i should highlight to the committee is that in the past changes we have made people have not been at the heart of the change that has happened and that has created implementation gaps which is not good for anyone it's not good for frontline staff it's certainly not good for those folks who require care and support or their carers or their families so this is the right thing to do i think that we we never achieve perfection but in the way that we are doing this the way that we are shaping this is the right thing to do with people at the very heart of it and again i would 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 terms of the secondary legislation that makes it easier much easier to adapt in the fact that it is in secondary legislation and i know you know some of the key frustrations that are right there are around about where this parliament has set good legislation with good intention but there has been an implementation gap and you may well seek an example so i will give you one because a good piece of legislation which we will build on in terms of the work that we're doing here is self-directed support but there in that primary legislation some folk have used some aspects of that to find loopholes in order not to deliver as per the spirit of the act we need to change that that's not so easy to change when something is set in stone in primary legislation not so easy to change over a short period of time i should say that is much easier in terms of secondary legislation and that is something you know that the voices of lived experience want to see rather than sometimes being stuck in cawdy sacs where the spirit of legislation is not being lived up to thanks minister just to come back to point the convener led on just on the scale of potential change to local government local government staff budgets and the services they provide i just wonder if there was any consideration to producing an impact assessment on local government when it came to the draft in this legislation so absolutely as we work for work forward in all of this we will continue to provide business cases and impact assessments for scrutiny by this committee and by parliament that all committees and by parliament you know we need to do that in terms of openness and transparency as we move through the code sign process and we have to take cognisance of any impact on any part of the system at all but you know as i said just not minutes ago the bill as it stands at this moment has no direct impact on local authorities and there are a lot of myths going about around about what may happen but you know let me give you examples you talked about transfer of staff for example within the bill there is the ability to transfer staff because care boards as envisaged it would be the provider of last resort so if a care home fell over or a care service fell over then there has to be the ability to transfer staff and assets in order to protect that service but no one certainly i haven't suggested the wholesale transfer of staff from local authorities to local care boards or to the national care service and as i said earlier i see local government as being important delivery partners as we move forward and that's why i want them at the table co-designing equally there's been a lot of talk of transferring of assets again that's not something that is necessary again that has to be something that is looked at in terms of the co-design but you know some of the witnesses that have been at this committee is another and others have suggested that there will be the wholesale transfer of staff and assets including electric cars i believe the other week you know that is not as we envisage it but we have to have in the bill the ability to ensure that there is a provider of last resort i really appreciate that clarity because like you said minister you know the witnesses we've been hearing from have been giving concerns about the impact so it's really helpful for you to be able to confirm then that any transfer of staff or assets is only a essentially an active last resort for a failure in service so this has to be part of the co-design process but what we have to do is ensure that we have the ability if there is a need to be provider of last resort that we have that ability to transfer staff and assets and that may not be necessarily from local authorities but i think the committee will rip well understand the need for a local care board to be able to deal with emergency situations now you know i've explained the reasoning why that is in play in terms of the bill we can spell out to the committee and more detail around about the reasoning for doing that we have to do that in order to protect people who may face difficult situations as we move forward but this talk of we've already decided to wholesale transfer staff and assets is not the case thanks mark i'm not going to move to questions from myles briggs thank you good morning minister good morning to the panel thank you for joining us and i think you know to go back to the previous answer there's a lot of confusion which all committees in this parliament looking at this are hearing from the sector and you know they seem to be in the dark in in where this is going to go minister i think that's something important and to go back to last week audit scotland told the committee that such reforms should be based on a clear business case realistic costings and assessment of impact on the wider public sector now from the two committees i sit on it's evident that that's not being known by those who are going to be tasked with delivering a national care service so can i just ask do you recognise that situation where the witnesses who are coming to committee do not really know what you're expecting them to do and we're hearing today that potentially national care service isn't what they think it will be well i think convener i should say exactly what i said at the finance committee there's been a concentration on some aspects of what we're trying to do here and not on others and i said to the finance committee last week that really what people need to do is look at the suite of documents that we produced not just the bill itself not just the financial memorandum but also the policy memorandum and the other documents that were produced at that time that gives us a very clear idea of what we are aiming to achieve here now some people want answers to all of the questions now but if we if i were to answer all of the questions now given my opinions that would blow the entire concept of the co-design out of the water and what i want is stakeholders and the voices of lived experience to be at the table to help us co-design the service as we move forward and what i would say to the committee because as you can imagine i've been watching the evidence sessions not only of this committee but of others too is that many of the witnesses that you have are witnesses who have vested interests in terms of where power, accountability and resource lies at this moment and i think that what would be really good to see would be committee taking evidence from those folks who are receiving care and support carers their families and from front line staff now i've spent the last 18 months or so listening to people around about their experiences and where they think we have done well and where we have gone wrong over the past two three decades in terms of changes to care support and i think it's a duty in all of us not only to listen to those folks who have vested interests they are important stakeholders there's no doubt about that but there's also a duty to listen to people and that's why so much emphasis of the work that we have put in is not only to listen to cosla to solas to syffa to others to others as well but also to go and hear the views of people that's why we have had numerous events not only during the course of the consultation but since that's why we have had the national care service forum and Perth which was extremely well attended the other week and i would ask the committee to look at the responses that came out during the course of that national care service forum but i would also appeal to you to listen to and hear from witnesses from disabled people's organisations from third sector groups such as enable and from people themselves about their experiences and i think that you will then garner the reasoning why co-design is so important in order to get rid of the implementation gaps that have existed in previous changes that have been made thank you for that and i think to be fair and all the committee's witnesses have been positive about many aspects of the mill and you know for example fair work data sharing ethical procurement and the need for some national improvement body and you know your local care boards i think could be developed to deliver that personally i think clinical care standards is something i've always wanted to see delivered as well so you know this isn't about just getting rid of everything government suggested it's trying to make this work now no witnesses appear to support the transfer of roles responsibilities of budgets away from local government to a new body and what you've said with regards to no direct impact on local authorities i think that needs to be made more clear so could i ask do you now given all the concerns and in the six years i've been in msp i've never seen so many witnesses come to parliament at this stage in the process of a bill expressing these concerns and i think cross party concerns from your own party as well minister would you now be open to this bill being amended by parliament as it progresses in many ways to to look at making this more in the spirit of that co-design which so many people are expressing concern about because the minister has been involved in previous bits of legislation where that co-design has worked well we've heard in terms of the promise and also in relation to ending homelessness together and how that's actually delivered on the ground what we need to see so i wanted to put that to the minister to to see whether or not there is a chance to pause this to try to get this right now convener i said last week i don't want to pause this bill we need to move forward the people out there who are in receipt of care and support carers and the voices of lived experience want us to move more swiftly on all of this than we're doing many of them would say that they wanted to change yesterday and i understand that strength of feeling in terms of amendments to bills well parliament decides around about amendments to bills and obviously government will bring amendments forward as and when necessary but i think the key aspect of this and i think it's the element that you know some people do not like is the co-design aspect but in order for us to get this right we need the voices of lived experience at the table with others in order to help us get this right and mr briggs talked about my past experiences as a minister where you know i've brought as many people together as we can to reach consensus and if we look at homeless homelessness changes regulation you know the reason why we managed to achieve the good work that we did is because we had the voices of lived experience at the very heart of that too and what i want to do is to ensure that those voices are heard and that that co-design is a true co-design obviously and all of this parameters have to be set people are realistic about these things but i want all of the stakeholders and the voices of lived experience to be involved in that and then we will end up with the best possible service that we can get what i don't want mr briggs is a situation whereby you know people are painting themselves into corners at this moment and say that they're not going to play a part in that co-design process because that looks particularly bad for those folks who have experience of care and you know it looks to them that once again that certain sectors are not listening and not willing to listen to their views thank you cabrina thanks miles i'm just before we move on we've got quite a number of questions to cover in the next bit of time that we have together so i'd appreciate if members keep their questions brief and the minister answers also brief but i think we also may cover some of the questions anyway in some of the answers so i'm not going to bring in paul mclellan good morning minister one of the key things i think through the field of view we're obviously looking to improve outcomes and shift services towards prevention i think what for witnesses as you've no doubt seen is in regards to why can't we just amend the current system and so just asking you to elaborate around about why you think the national care service will improve outcomes and shift services towards prevention and i'll try and wrap up the two questions i've got into one and obviously the other point we heard from was in regards to the integrated joint board model and again your comment on that and you know could we again build on that model that's what we've heard from witnesses but that's the key thing i think obviously is improve outcomes and shift services towards prevention i think there are a number of things there convener and you know what has come out very clearly not only in terms of derrick feely's review and his recommendations but also from the work that we did prior to the consultation and the work we did during the consultation and since is that oversight and accountability aspect of all of this national oversight will be better i think in terms of sharing of good practice and innovation developments that we know that are taking place across the country now are often not easy to export to other places it will also remove unwanted duplication and functions and make best use of public funds now there is no one that i've come across yet that does not want to see national high quality standards which is a priority for those folks with lived experience of care and their carers which i think is also extremely important for front line staff too in all of this and what is very clear from everything that we have had back is that people want to see national accountability they want to see ministers accountable and you know i'm looking at faces around this table and if i looked at faces around this parliament many people write to me and ask me to actually get involved in cases that they have in their own constituencies around about social care and i have to say that i've got no responsibility no accountability in that regard i can set policy direction as a minister but i'm not accountable and do not deliver these services now people don't get that and they think that there needs to be national accountability and national oversight and in particular they want to see national high quality standards to end postcode lotteries i think the other aspect of this is the local accountability which does not work well in some areas and we need to tighten that too so people need to be able to know what to expect in terms of delivery of service also in all of this i think that there is a huge opportunity to improve standards and we have very different standards in very different places and it also gives us the opportunity to ensure that we get fair work embedded and fairness around about terms and conditions which don't exist at this moment and terms and conditions and pay itself causes a great deal of grief not only just in social care but also in social work so without naming authorities because that would be a bit naughty of me you know there are certain parts of the country at this moment that are having real problems in terms of recruiting social workers because other authorities quite nearby the terms and conditions and pay are better now you know there is an argument that that is local flexibility but there is also an argument that that leads to real difficulties in terms of recruitment and retention in certain areas which means a diminution in service in that particular place so again in terms of paying conditions and fair work this is the right way forward you know we have in terms of adult social care uplifted pay twice in one year but that has not been easy for either me or my officials because we are dealing with 1200 disparate employers at this moment and we need to change that as we move forward in order that we get that right so those are a few elements of why we need to move to that national oversight situation at the top of it being national high quality standards so that people know what service to expect no matter where they are in scotland thanks minister just one just on the preventive element as well minister if you can touch on that i think that's the really important part as well i think that it's freely picked up as well so so i think one of the key elements of of this is that we actually need to move to a situation where there is more independence and autonomy in front line staff and we can see again in certain parts of the country that where independence and autonomy is given to front line staff there is better service delivery less crisis that costs the public purse less money and it also stops the human cost of getting it wrong so a good example at this moment is in my own home city in Aberdeen where the granite care consortium there have given the their front line care at home staff the ability to step up or step down care as they see folk circumstances changing as you can imagine mr mclellan mclellan most of that is stepping up some of it is stepping down obviously that only happens in consultation with those folks who are receiving the care and their families and their carers but that ability means that it cuts out reassessment which is bureaucratic and takes time and also you know is much better for the individual because all of that change happens quicker much more quickly so these are the kind of preventative measures which are happening already which we need to see happen across the board and that again is another reason for these changes just well the government agrees with accounts commission that the bills financial memorandum needs updated due to the recent increases in inflation and given the likely squeeze in public finances over the next few years where do you believe that money for reform will come from? in terms of the financial memorandum the financial memorandum was written at a time whereby inflation was much lower and it currently is and where forecasts did not show what was about to hit us thanks to trusonomics and other factors and of course we will all be watching this week to see what happens in terms of the chancellor's budget statement whatever it's being called this time which is likely I think unfortunately to lead to further squeezes to public services and I wish that was much different but unfortunately it will be what they decide and I wish we were making those decisions here and I hope that Ms Wells and Mr Briggs and others will be lobbying the chancellor hard to ensure that there's no further cut to public services which will have an impact on people here. What I said to the finance committee is that we will continue to update Parliament to round about the changes as they occur in terms of forecasts that doesn't mean that we change the financial memorandum because the financial memorandum was laid at the time that the bill was laid but that doesn't mean that we don't continue to do all of the work that's required to ensure that we know exactly the costs as we move forward and again that's why I said earlier that we will also update in terms of business cases as we move forward. Future investment, as always, is always subject to the annual parliamentary budget and has parliamentary budget scrutiny and we obviously will have to take into cognisance the financial landscape dealt to us in the hands from Westminster and we will do that. However, I come back to my earlier point it may well be that some of the pace of change has to be incremental it may well be that we have to take time over certain longer time over certain aspects of this it may involve some phasing as the cabinet secretary said at the weekend but we cannot sit back and not change because we know that there is a huge demographic change about to happen we know that the population is changing we know that care is changing and we need to get to that position whereby, as Mr McClennan rightly pointed out just not minutes ago, we move to prevention rather than dealing with crisis so no matter what cards were dealt financially by the UK Government we are going to have to make change for the good of the people of this country. Thank you for that reply minister. The bill's financial memorandum describes savings or efficiencies through shared services however Solace argues that it doesn't acknowledge the corresponding loss of economies of scale for local government. How do the government respond to the concerns about financial implications of the bill on local authorities and particularly the smaller councils that are involved in this? I think there are huge opportunities in terms of shared services and my own experience of shared services in local government there have been fairly substantial savings which have gone back in to front line services and let's be honest this is all about delivery on the front line for people. I laid out in an earlier answer convener so I won't go on at length because I know that time is ticking that we have already said and I've said again this morning that we will look at all aspects of this and we look towards cost neutrality for local government and in order for us to get that right what we need is for local government to be at the table in terms of co-design. I'm well aware of the opportunities and the challenges here or many of the opportunities and challenges but others have a lot of knowledge that they can bring to bear too and we are happy to listen to that knowledge as we move forward. Thank you convener. Thanks Annie I'm going to go back to questions from Miles Briggs. Thank you convener. It's been put to committee and also to social justice committee that following the pandemic the workforce are tired and feel burnt out minister so I wanted to ask whether the creation of this national care service could also be a distraction to that recovery we're seeing within social care and whether or not the government can guarantee that we're not about to embark on a further period of disruption and potential under investment by local authorities because we've also heard that many local authorities now are seeing this as a reason not to invest in assets. Well what I would say to local authorities at this moment is that they still have responsibility for delivery at this moment in time and I trust local authorities to do what is right for the populations and the people that they represent so I think it would be a particularly daft thing to do to stop delivery and to stop investment. In terms of your question around about front line staff and I agree that the focus of front line staff at this moment is in terms of delivering for the people that they care for and support in a day and daily basis. I'm not going to use my words what I would say is that Mike Burns at the Education Children and Young People Committee and Mike Burns is the assistant chief officer in Glasgow and the vice-convener of social work Scotland he said that he agreed that change is needed and he said to the committee there's little impact on front line staff and the focus of delivery at this moment in time is on the work that they are doing, the valuable and valued work that they are doing in a day and daily basis and that senior managers are beginning to consider the proposals. I think that that is right and I think that the main focus of front line staff at this moment is on the delivery of care and services. I hope that we can get front line staff involved in the co-design to you and I recognise that we will have to be adept in being able to do everything that we can to allow them that opportunity but I don't think that any of this I have no evidence that any of this in terms of national care service is having any impact whatsoever on that delivery. Thank you for that. We also heard at social justice committee from unison that the workforce are being asked to take a leap of faith with the national care service so could I ask you and it's been put to us this morning who would be the employer of anyone transferred? Well, if anyone was transferred in terms of the aspects that I've laid out earlier, then the local care board would be the employer. I don't think that this is a leap of faith at all. I think that this is the greatest opportunity for the social care and social work workforce that there has been for many a year. This gives us the opportunity for national sexual bargaining which does not exist. This gives us the opportunity to drive up pay and conditions. It gives us the opportunity to put in place career pathways which many young folk in social care and social work don't think exist at this moment in time. Now, always when change is proposed, you are always likely to get the negatives first. However, in terms of workforce, this is probably the greatest opportunity that has existed for that workforce, for that profession, for a very, very long time, if not forever. I respect some of the outcomes that the minister says. He would like to see, I agree with many of them, but can you understand the concern of someone who is a carer today, working as we speak, that you're suggesting that their employer will be the local care board which doesn't exist and the disruption that will present potentially and the uncertainty around their pension being transferred as well? So, convener, let me spell this out. I have not suggested that anyone's employer will be a local care board. As I have said earlier on around about the local government workforce, I don't envisage huge transfer of staff from local authorities to local care boards. Obviously, there will be discussions around that in terms of the co-design, but I see no reason for that happening unless, of course, local authority chooses not to want to deliver care anymore, and I can't really see that happening either. Nor do I see or envision a huge amount of transfer of staff from the third sector to local care boards either, so let me make that very clear. What I would say to Mr Briggs and to others, as part of my job, I see it absolutely at the top of the agenda to speak to the voices of lived experience but also to speak to front-line staff. I have been open with front-line staff around about their ability to speak to myself, to officials directly, and I have gone out of my way to hear views. At a recent social work cross-party group, for example, I was clear that social workers should be telling us what they need, what change they want to see, what would make their jobs better. That is the way that we intend to do this, and that is the way that we will continue as we move forward in that front. We are now going to move to our colleagues who are joining us online with questions from Marie McNair. Good morning, minister. What, at Scotland, in other written submissions, have asked how the bill is consistent with other Scottish Government priorities, such as the lines of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, paper, power and local governance review. Would you like to comment on that? I would say that it entirely fits in with the charter. What I will quite easily do is write to the committee around about the details of all that and how it fits in entirely with the charter. I do have some details here, which I cannot find at this moment, but I will write to the committee to show exactly how it all fits, if that suits you. I was going to ask you to clarify the issue of staff transfers and concerns about this, but you have clearly answered that. I really appreciate your clarity on that, and I think that it gives reassurance to the 75 council staff members, as I mentioned. A final question, the committee is committed to exploring the barriers to local office, and I think that it was Eddie Fraser from East Ayrshire last week's committee who was talking about the removal of social care from councils, obviously with influence, whether people would like to stand in local elections. How do you feel about that? Can you expand on that? What I would say to Ms McNair is that some of those same things were said just before we moved to integration joint boards. It was said that many folk would maybe choose not to stand for local government at that point. I have no evidence of that, and I think that it is difficult for me to judge for other parties here, but even with those changes, I think that from my own party perspective and my own neck of the woods, we have seen more people coming forward for standing for election, which, of course, means much more choice as we move forward. I have no evidence of that, and I would say that the same things were said previously, and I have seen no change, in fact, the opposite. On Ms McNair's former question about the charter, I have found the relevant bit. As you can imagine, I have piles of documents in front of me here, Ms McNair. What I would say to the committee is that the national care service is fully compatible—proposers are fully compatible—with the articles with the European Charter of local self-government. The charter clearly states that the allocation of responsibility to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the tasks and requirements of efficiency and the economy. As the committee is well aware, the independent review of adult social care was quite clear on the need for a national care service given the extent and nature of social care. I hope that that is helpful. I appreciate your clarity on that. Thank you for coming up with that document. We are going to move on to questions from Willie Coffey. Thank you very much. Good morning, minister. I really have to give you a chance to respond to the comments from our colleague from Unison, who said that you have got your priorities all wrong, you are creating a billion pound quango, so what you should do is withdraw or start again. Give you an opportunity to respond to that, please. I disagree with that 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 would go back to some of my earlier points around the huge opportunities that we have in order to get this right in terms of delivery for the people of Scotland. First and foremost, in my mind, is ensuring that we have a care system that is person-centred and has human rights at its very heart. That is one of the main reasons for doing that. We need those national high-quality standards, as I have said before. We also need to sort out that accountability aspect of all of that. That has come out loud and clear from people that that is not right and that we are not serving them well in many cases. We need to deal with that. From a union perspective, and I should declare an interest as a member of Unison, this is the greatest opportunity there has been in terms of getting it right for the social care and social work professions, with that opportunity for national sexual bargaining, with that opportunity to put right pay and conditions, and with the opportunity, as I said previously, as well, around creating the right career pathways for folk. That will attract young people to the profession. At this moment, it is not so easy to attract young people to the profession. One of the biggest takeaways that I have had from the young people that I have spoken to on front-line social care and social work is that they want to see career pathways. We have not mentioned this morning yet that this gives us the opportunity to embed ethical procurement in all that we do, with fair work at the heart of all of that. I recognise that some people see negatives in what we are doing here. There are always, as I say, vested interests, but what I would ask is that we balance that out with the needs of the people and to look not only at those folks giving evidence who are maybe negative, but not wholly negative, because I think that almost everybody says that we need a national care service and we need change, but to look at the positives from all of this, and in particular to listen to the voices of lived experience. Thank you for that answer, minister. You did mention vested interests and you did mention that we have hardly heard a single voice from a person who is receiving care or those with lived experience during these sessions. I think that is an omission that we need to look at. Can you give us an assurance, give the committee an assurance that your bill and its proposals did engage with service users, people with lived experience, people that are actually at the front line of getting and receiving the care in order to shape your bill? Absolutely, Mr Coffey. I have spent a huge chunk of the last 18 months listening to people and what they want to see change. I have to say that some of the stories and the eye and officials have heard are particularly galling, problems that reach crisis because people have not been listened to at the right time. That is wrong. That is my point about the implementation gaps that there have been previously in terms of other changes that have taken place. If there is one thing that I am absolutely adamant about is that we do as much as possible to get rid of those implementation gaps because we cannot afford the amount of money that we are spending on crisis and we cannot afford the human cost of not getting this right earlier. That is why, the national high-quality standards are so important in all of that. Yes, we will continue to have local accountability, local flexibility and local design of services, but that must match up to those national high-quality standards. We cannot afford the postcode lotteries. I know that Mr Coffey represents an area east of Ayrshire, where care delivery is very good. I want everyone across the country to expect that level of service and beyond as we move forward. I have to say as well that there are worries in certain quarters that, in all that we are doing here, there might be a move back in certain places. That will not be the case. We need to drive quality standards, care delivery up right across the board. That brings me in to my final question on that matter. Minister, it is about consistency. You may have heard me asking the previous panel how we get that consistent approach right across Scotland without a national approach to this. I do not think that they were totally clear on what their views were on that, but I am really concerned about that, and I do appreciate that it is at the heart of this bill. You mentioned east Ayrshire there too, so how do we ensure that we get a national consistent level of quality and service, but we retain the existing services that are delivered in a first-class service? How do we ensure that we do both? The national high-quality standards will go a long way in terms of reaching that consistency. Beyond that, we also have other pieces of work going on with voices of lived experience stakeholders around the likes of the charter of rights and responsibilities. That is some of the earliest co-design work that we are doing. I was involved in some discussions in that last week, which for me were very exciting. However, what we need to do is ensure that we get the right design, build and monitor as we go along, building on the principles of this bill, ensuring that we get that secondary legislation right and removing those implementation gaps that have existed before. However, most important in all of this, in order that we change the culture that exists in certain places, we have to, without doubt, continue to listen to the voices of lived experience, continue to listen and trust front-line staff, because a lot of what has gone on over recent years has eroded some of the autonomy and independence and flexibility that front-line staff have in certain places. Where the front-line staff have greater freedom, autonomy and flexibility, then normally we see better service delivery for people. However, in all of this, people have to be at the very heart. Even after the bill has passed, after the secondary legislation and regulations that are in place after co-design, we have to continue to listen all the way through in order to continuously improve. Thank you very much for that, minister. That concludes our questions. Thank you very much for coming in. It's been helpful illuminating somewhat perhaps to hear what you had to say, and I'll suspend the meeting briefly. The third item on our agenda today is to consider a negative instrument town and country planning miscellaneous amendment Scotland regulations 2022. Members will note that a letter from the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community in response to a query raised by the Parliament's legal team is included with the papers. As this is a negative instrument, there is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendations on it. Do members have any comments on the instrument? No comments. Is the committee agreed that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to this instrument? We agreed at the start of the meeting to take the next two items in private, so as we have no more public business today, I now close the public part of the meeting.