 Llyfrinol, byddai'n ei ffodol i dweud mewn diwylliant yng Nghymru? Mae'n ffordd i ddweud rewsio i fynd o'r fforddol, gallwnhaeth chyflw diseasellauiau hynny, ond y drws ni wedi'u gw Celebradwyr sydd yng Nghymru ei wlad dassu a'r Gwyrddol. O'r Gwyrddol yn gyflascytu'r Gwyrddol, a'r Gwyrddol yn gyflascytiadhau drws wedi gweithio'r gwaith ddylchol, the risks to care across the country, worn by councils of the risks to local democratic accountability, by care home providers about the impact on the independent and third sectors and rural councils who warn of the risks of creating a central belt-focused service, worn by health and social care partnerships about the risks of proceeding with a framework bill when we know so little detail about the scope of the service, by alcohol and drug charities about the impact on services those with dependency issues and by unions about the risks to workforce planning and development, worn by labour groups about the risks to pay and conditions by social workers about the impact of detaching social work from local services such as housing and employability, and by council chief executives about the very real risks of shifting 75,000 council workers to a bloated bureaucracy, worn by this parliament's corporate body over the y brifoedd o ymwyllgor o hollwydau peirwyr ymwysig, a byddai'r cyhoesgol o'r ffordd i'r rysg o'r cyhoesgol o'r cyhoesgol ymwysig, ac rwyf wedi'u gwirio'r cyhoesgol o'r cyhoesgol i gaeliwyr o'r gwirio'r cyhoesgol i gaeliwyr o'r cyhoesgol i gaeliwyr a'r dgellysgol o'r gweithgawr. Felly, dwy'r fawr i'w gwirio ar gyfer, mae'r Government SNP yn ynnwys i'w gaeliwyr i'w Y cyfnod hyfforddau hyfer yr Eisteddf, sydd yn gyflawnu'r hyn, i ni'n rhoi gwreithio'r ysgolwyr canoligion Model Eisteddf fel Ysgolwyr Gwyddoedd Ysgolwyr Rydydd, gan y SNP, myfyrtau ein rheod, ac y cyfnod ar y cyfrif ymgyrch yn cyfryd, ac mae'n ddangos ar gyfer y dyfodol cyflots mawr, er mwynol agnwys ei lefnod o'r cyfrif, yn cychwyn am y dyfodol. Mae'n gweithio'r yrthraff yw gweithio'r cyfrif hefyd. cwysigio y cyd-dysguwch am yr adeiladau ac yw'r oedd y lleiddiad. Ynw gwybodaeth y pryd-fysgfainiaid yng Nghymru yn gyfawr â'r fysgfainiaid yw'r cael ei wneud. Ynw gwybodaeth yw'r cael ei wneud o'r ysgolwyddiad yw'r ysgolwyddiad yw'r ysgolwyddiad, yw'r ysgolwyddiad, yw'r ysgolwyddiad a'r ysgolwyddiad. Ynw i'r ysgolwyddiad yw'r ysgolwyddiad a'r ysgolwyddiad, rhan o'r cymorth a'r cyfleu ymgyrch yn y cyfnodol cyfnodol yma? Mae'n gweithio'r cymorth yn gweithio ac yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch ymgyrch, ac yn dweud o gydag y cwmorth, rwy'n fywch i'r cymhwyll ymgyrch yn y cyfnodol cyfnodol, mae S&P maen nhw'n gweithio'r cyfnodol iawn, a'r tynnu ei fawr oedd o gydag i'r cyfrifetau sy'n ddifuig o'r cyfrifetau a'r cyfrifetau sydd yn ddifig ar gweithio a'r cyfrifetau. Felly, yng Nghymru yn gweithio i gael unigol a unigol yn ei wneud i gael y plan bryd. Coslau, Unison, Cymru Cymru, NHS Lothian, Scottish Care, Parkinson's UK, Highland Council, East Lothian IJB, City of Edinburgh Council, Angus Health and Social Care Partnership, Y MS Society, the Faculty of Advocates, the list goes on. The SNP's own members have raised their heads above the parapet to express concerns over how this Government will fund its national care service. After destroying council's finances, they are looking to do the same in social care. Audit Scotland is warning that the already eye-watering predicted costs of £1.3 billion are likely to be an underestimate. Even after this framework has been published, big questions remain. How is a top-down system consistent with the Christie commission's view that services must be designed with and for people? How will this system eradicate the postcode lottery in care? How will commissioning and collective bargaining work coherently and consistently on a national basis? How will care boards be comprised? Where will be the democratic accountability? What impact will this massive shift have on local authority budgets? Won't any efficiencies gained in the economy of scale achieved through the NCS be wiped out by the equivalent loss in economies of scale within local government? Where are the calculations on the cost savings that an NCS will achieve? Minister, the financial memorandum is very vague indeed. What impact will the NCS have on capital investment into social care today because councils are pulling back? Isn't this power grab likely to be an asset grab as well? The nationalists have learnt nothing from the shambolic centralisation of Police Scotland, a move that left the service plagued by financial problems, plagued by a lack of accountability, plagued by cuts at the front line. The NHS is in crisis. The SNP has put our police service on the brink and they are now determined to go the same way with social care at Giveway. Emma Roddick It is the NHS and I note that his party voted against the creation of the NHS 22 times. Does he not recognise that it is people with lived experience who have fed into these proposals and are asking us to create this new public service? Cwyd Coy. The Conservative party may not have given birth to the NHS, but it is Conservative government after Conservative government that has nurtured through good times and bad. That is why today in our motion the Scottish Conservatives are calling on the SNP to scrap those wasteful plans and put every penny back into front line social care. We want to see a local care service that empowers communities, a change in culture and a change in delivery at the local level, a service that is underpinned by a simple commitment to ensure that people access care in their local area close to their family and close to their support networks. Centralisation does not just pose risks to those who work in the care system. It poses risks to those who need care and to the families who need to be around them. The national care service poses a very real risk of an increase in cruel out-of-area care that splits families from loved ones. The SNP falls back on one justification and one justification alone, that the reforms will create consistency despite having no real plan to achieve it. The only consistent thing about a national care service is the opposition to it. Opposition from councils, opposition from NHS boards, unions and the workforce, from charities, opposition from royal colleges, from the independent and third sector and now opposition from normally supine SNP backbenchers. Minister, there is a way out. The iceberg can be avoided. The SNP can urgently U-turn on a national care service. It can back our common sense local care-driven approach. Unless it does, once again, overstretch care workers, vulnerable patients and their families will suffer. I urge colleagues across the Scottish Parliament to support quality local care and back our motion tonight. I move the motion, the Scottish Conservative motion of mine. I remind it to colleagues that we are extremely tight for time, and members will have to accommodate any interventions in their time allocation. I call Kevin Stewart to speak to a move amendment 6523.3 for up to six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I'll move the amendment in my name. The bill sets out our clear principles for the future of a national care service. It is against those principles that the bill should be scrutinised, that the detail will be designed, and that we will monitor the benefit. We are not just suggesting change to address the challenges of today. We must build a public service fit for tomorrow. Today, at least 232,000 or 125 people receive care support in Scotland. Demand is only going to grow, and we need to recognise the risk of increased pressure on an already fragile system and act now. Our ambition for the national care service is to establish a social care system that empowers people to thrive, not just enable them to survive. Health and care support are an investment, and they must work to remove barriers and tackle inequalities. The principles of any new system should be person-centred with human rights at the very heart. That means that the national care service must be delivered in a way that respects, protects and fulfills the human rights of people accessing health and care support. Another fundamental principle is inclusion. This morning I visited Tiferith, the camp hill community-based in Edinburgh, to learn more about their work, supporting the life and work of adults with learning disabilities and autism. We must get it right for everyone. We have an opportunity to include many people across society in a conversation about their needs, a conversation that they have traditionally been excluded from. I would like to thank terrers, both paid and unpaid, for their remarkable work, providing critical and invaluable support to people across our country. The cost of living crisis has an impact on everyone in Scotland, and that includes the social care workforce and unpaid carers. By working in collaboration with our partners, we want to see improvements in recruitment and retention, fair work and ethical commissioning. I do not really have time, Presiding Officer. I will maybe take Ms Smith briefly. Very quickly, and thank you. Can I just ask the minister—these are laudable aims that you have just built out—why are so many stakeholders opposed to this bill? There are stakeholders who are not content with all aspects of this, but what I would point out to the chamber is that this is about people, and people in the consultation bat the national care service overwhelmingly. This is about people, and that is who we need to listen to. We are, as a Government, fully committed to improving the experience of the social care workforce, increasing levels of pay as we recognise and value the work that they do. The Government is taking action now. From April this year, we provided funding of £200 million to local government to support investment in health and social care, embed improved pay and conditions, and deliver a £10.50 minimum wage for all adult social care staff and commission services from 1 April this year. The Government has been leading the way in the UK in improving pay, terms and conditions. I am shortly due to chair an event with COSLA unions providers to discuss how we work together to make further improvements now. Government alone cannot do it, working with all our partners we can make significant improvements. Financial sustainability is a principle set out in the bill. We need to ensure that we can deliver continuity and security of service for the people who access those services. The Government has already committed itself to increase spend in social care by 25 per cent by the end of the Parliament to help lay the groundwork for the establishment of a national care service. Through plans for an ethical commissioning framework, we will ensure increased financial transparency, allowing us to prioritise quality of care and better understand cost and profit across mixed economy of providers. I have a lot to go through, so I am not going to take Miss Bailey. We must reintroduce a focus on early intervention and prevention. We must limit the number of people who end up in crisis. People who want and need quality services delivered a time and buy a method that best suits their needs and builds on their strengths. Last week, I met representatives from the Fife social work team and heard about their initiatives, social care off the books, delivering in the path head and dicer areas of Cercodi. It is a community approach aimed at reducing crisis care, and it is critical that we learn from existing good practice from across the country. The NCS bill sets out a framework for change. The detail relies on us all, including those of us here today and beyond, to work together. We need to grasp the opportunity to deliver public service improvement together, to ensure that we are getting the detail right for everyone. Such an approach requires trust and confidence in each other and in the process, and we need to recognise the implementation gaps that the independent review highlighted between legislation and delivery. I have been honoured to chair the social covenants steering group over the past 12 months. They will be critical in holding us to account on the priority of the voices of lived experience as part of the design phase. People confirmed to us that they are supportive of the proposals as part of last year's consultation. The sooner that we start, the sooner we will be able to deliver better care support for everyone. Thank you very much indeed, minister. I now call Paula Cain to speak to a move amendment 6523.2 for up to five minutes. Over a decade ago, the Scottish Labour Party called for the creation of a national care service. Our vision was rooted in a belief that social care could be transformed to deliver exceptional national standards of care across Scotland. It was about changing the culture, not the structures, by ensuring that our social care system treated people with dignity and ensuring that our care staff were respected as skilled professionals. Sadly, what the Scottish Government has proposed lacks substance, lacks vision and increasingly lacks the confidence of key stakeholders, including trade unions, COSLA, care providers and staff working on the front line. Indeed yesterday at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, COSLA Health and Social Care spokesperson Councillor Paul Kelly clearly outlined on behalf of councils across Scotland of all political stripes, including the SNP. The huge concerns about what the bill will do to local government, taking power away from local communities, placing it in the hands of ministers and then using secondary legislation to design the national care service. Indeed, he raised concerns that many councils may become unviable. I and the Scottish Labour Party have serious concerns about the Scottish Government's vision of the national care service. If the minister will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to his own colleagues, who are also losing confidence in their own Government's ability to deliver what they promised. We heard last week in the Finance Committee from Kerry Gibson who compared the Government's approach as being akin to taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. As he described, I quote the monumental risk in relation to the financial memorandum and the lack of detail therein. I have a lot to get through, so I do want to make some progress. The loss of confidence in this proposal has been growing week on week. That is why Scottish Labour today are calling for the bill to be paused. Let me be clear that it is not about trying to get one over on the minister or opposing for the sake of opposing. What we are debating today is far too important for that. This is about a fundamental principle, the principle of good lawmaking and creating a national care service worthy of the name. It is irresponsible to press ahead with legislation, which is not fit for purpose and does not command the confidence of key stakeholders. We cannot afford to get those reforms wrong. Indeed, we have had 15 years of this Government ignoring social care. Half-baked solutions will only deepen the problems in the sector. Emma Harper is fantastic. I want to ask Paul O'Kane, as a member of the Health and Sport Committee, which I am as well. Do you not just concede that there were two sessions into the scrutiny in this bill, that there is time to submit changes? There is time for taking evidence, but everybody is jumping on this right now, as if it is a massive issue. Do not we need to take the time to scrutinise it and allow all the voices to come out? I recognise that the Government has been talking about this and consulting on this for months. I recognise that COSLA in evidence said that it found out about the Government's framework legislation proposals the night before they were published. I do not think that that is acceptable, and I think that there are growing calls from across all sectors that we need to take this pause and reflect. I am going to say again to the minister if he will not learn from me—he does not want to listen to me—that perhaps he should learn from John Swinney. In 2018, the Deputy First Minister listened, reflected and took the sensible decision to pause the education bill, when he recognised that stakeholders had serious concerns about the move to legislation. The process that then flowed from that was co-designed with councils, teachers, parents and staff, and it is the regional improvement collaboratives that we recognise today. I am running short of time about going to my final minute, but I am sure that he will be able to bring it up in concluding. The Scottish Government needs to go back to the beginning of this process and to substantively and meaningfully engage with the key stakeholders in co-designing legislation. In the meantime, let us get to work in improving social care right now. As a first step, the Scottish Government should immediately introduce the key recommendations of the Feli report, including removing non-residential care charges and tackling poverty pay in the social care sector. It is clear, Presiding Officer, that we do not need to wait for a national care service to begin to address those problems. Indeed, we have been making that argument from these benches for many months. The Government could take action here and now to improve the social care sector if it had political will to do so. What the Scottish Government is proposing in its current form is a national care service in name only. The Scottish Labour Party aspires to see a properly funded and well-planned national care service, which means local delivery, while maximising standards, creating a race to the top by forcing bad actors who do not deliver high levels of service out of the system. The Scottish Government must listen and reflect on the growing worry from stakeholders, trade unions, front-line staff and local authorities and show some humility. It is time for the Government to pause and to meaningfully listen and properly engage so that we can create a national care service that Scotland deserves. I move the amendment in Jack Bailey's name. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Mr O'Kane, and I call it School Hamilton for up to four minutes, Mr O'Kane. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to rise for the Scottish Liberal Democrats and I am very grateful to Craig Hoy for bringing us this debate this afternoon. Deputy Presiding Officer, words matter. What we call things matter. The Government have sought in the nomenclature around the national care service to dress this up as our most treasured national possession. It is more wonder then that the public response to that is that they regard this as a mirror image of that thing that they hold so close, that we all hold so close, but this is anything but. The NHS was forged out of the rubble and poverty of war. It is free at the point of delivery. Nothing about that is emulated in the national care service. Liberal Democrats have made no secret of our opposition to these plans from the very start. The SNP-Green Government has stood by and watched the disintegration of our health and social care sector. This is on their watch, and rather than taking the immediate action that is so desperately needed right across that sector, their response is an ill-fated bureaucratic exercise, which is already turning into a mess. But, Presiding Officer, even I am surprised at how quickly the wheels have come off the wagon here. Already legal experts, auditors, council officials have slammed Government plans. This week, the chief executive of East Ayrshire Council said local authority leaders had no certainty as to what services were going to look like over the next three or four years. He described the current circumstances as truly unstable for social work and social care. At this week's finance committee, as we've already heard, officials described uncertainty about how much these plans would cost, with a suggestion that it could even spiral beyond the Government's estimate of £1.3 billion. Presiding Officer, the alarm has even been raised from within the SNP's own ranks, and we've heard something of that this afternoon in a rare act of dissent among the collective, but one that is becoming a little more common these days. I will. Michelle Thomson. Just to put on the record as somebody who raised some points, I am absolutely in favour of this national care services, absolutely the kind of audacious and ambitious project we should be doing. However, I'm carrying out my function in terms of financial scrutiny, and I think other parties would do well to heed this, for example, the Tories. Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I can only imagine that Michelle Thomson's mobile phone must have been red hot between the time she made her remarks that she had no confidence whatsoever in the intervention she's just made, but she did say that, and she said she was completely surprised by the lack of detail in her Government's financial memorandum, as are we all. Sadly, it doesn't come as much of a surprise to the rest of us. Presiding Officer, many have rightly questioned the wisdom of spending huge amounts of money on structural reorganisation rather than supporting hardworking staff. I'm afraid I must make time. I only have four minutes. We must remember that, despite the incredibly important service they provide, social care staff are amongst the lowest paid in our society. The cost of living crisis, as such, is hitting them the hardest, and more must be done to help them. They will leave the sector and seek fairer pay if we do not, and who could blame them? Presiding Officer, no-one is arguing that change is not required. Reform is not needed. Of course it is, but it must be good change and genuine reform. Staff and service users need that change now, not in five years' time when this bureaucratic monolith is finally set up. If we're Liberal Democrats in Government in Scotland right now, we would reward staff now with better pay, with better conditions, career progression, powerful national collective bargaining. We've set out national standards to get rid of the postcode lottery that currently exists in social care so that everyone gets the same level and quality of care, no matter where they live. Instead, the Government just wants to remove power from local service providers who know best how to use it and place it in the hands of the Government ministers who've proven themselves to be incompetent time and time again. The playwright, George Bernard Shaw, once said, progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything. Presiding Officer, this Government would do well to heed that lesson and get things before things get worse. The Government's plans could not have been more poorly thought out, so I urge them to think again before it's too late. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. I now we move to the open debate. I call Liz Smith to be followed by Emma Harper for up to four minutes. Jackie Baillie said last week that she has a long memory when it comes to parliamentary experience, and whilst I can't compete with her in terms of longevity, I can get quite close. I certainly remember a couple of occasions when there were very serious concerns about financial memoranda, which were designed to underpin major pieces of legislation. It happened with the Children and Young People's Bill and it happened with college regionalisation, but never in my time in this place have I seen a financial memorandum which is so out of kilter with the ambitions of the Bill presented and so lacking in detail. Michelle Thompson and Kenny Gibson were spot on last week, and Michelle Thompson is spot on again this afternoon when they say quite correctly that they have a duty when it comes to scrutiny, they do, and it's not possible to have confidence in the financial memorandum and that it is a monumental risk to taxpayers. That is not a good place for the Scottish Government to be in. It is not a good place for this Parliament to be in, and when it comes to the scrutiny of the Bill, and it certainly doesn't adhere to the request from Audit Scotland to ensure that there are more accurate financial memoranda accompanying legislation, I give way to Michelle Thompson. Thank you for giving way. I think we have to fairly concede however that the larger and more audacious and ambitious a project is that that point in time it is incredibly much more difficult to come up with accuracy in any financial memoranda. I know that from my business experience of delivering large-scale transformational programmes, would she concede that point in fairness? I'm judging by my time in this Parliament, which now stretches to 16 years. I have never, in my time, seen a financial memorandum that is so lacking in that situation. As Audit Scotland points out, there are a number of costs associated with the bill that are yet to be assessed—national care boards, transition costs, pensions, VAT, capital investment and maintenance costs, which are surely extremely important and of considerable concern to stakeholders. There is also the issue raised by the Fraser Valander Institute, which suggests that those groups trying to estimate the costs had to persistently question civil servants to find out about which additional costs beyond the core costs mentioned in the financial memorandum would be set out. Those are key questions that are being asked by virtually every stakeholder, which is obviously something that I would have thought is very considerable concern to the Scottish Government. It's entirely the wrong way round, I would suggest, to have this concern where it's not possible to scrutinise enough of the bill. That's why COSLA, councils, trade unions and front-line staff in both the private and public sectors are getting angry, because they simply don't have the answers that they need. Let me turn, finally, to the evidence presented by Ralph Roberts on behalf of the chief executives of the NHS Trust. He rightly cited the very welcome focus that the Scottish Government has had on improving social care, on developing better quality and consistency when it comes to data, and on ensuring that some of the intense pressures in the NHS regarding the workforce are addressed. However, when asked about the extent of restructuring on a scale that is equivalent to major reforms such as the centralisation of the police force or college regionalisation, he was much more sceptical. What is proposed by the Scottish Government is not something that is supported by NHS chief executives at this time, the very time when they are having to deal with other pressures and when all the spare capacity is already taken up. Mr Roberts suggested that there are other ways that should be looked at to tackle the issues at stake before there is leviath and new structures even contemplated with so many costs unaccounted for. They are asking if this bill is actually necessary to deliver the desired ambitions, not just because of the current economic challenges, but because of the extensive disruption that is likely to be needed in terms of structural change. I have every support for the motion that is in the name of Craig Hoy. I call Emma Harper to be followed by Carol Mawkin for up to four minutes, Ms Harper. Here we go again, these opposition debates talking down the commitments of this SNP Scottish Government. Indeed, our hard work in the NHS and social care staff are becoming wholly tiresome in this chamber. Last week it was Labour, this week it was Tory. It has become increasingly harder to see the policy difference between the two, better together, coming back together, making a massive muckl midden together in the lead-up to our injury ref. Maybe that is just what is going on, Presiding Officer. Anyway, to dispel the drivel that we can see in the Tory motion, the establishment of a national care service will be the most ambitious reform of public services. In a wee minute, it will be the most ambitious reform of public services since the creation of the national health service. The national care service as proposed in the bill will bring together social work, social care and community health to strengthen health and social care integration for adult services, and I will give way to Liz Smith. Thank you for giving way. I accept the situation that the member has just outlined, but does she really accept that when it comes to this bill and what stakeholders are saying, that they are comfortable with this bill? Every single one of them who has given evidence that the finance committee has spoken to us is saying that they don't. What I do know is that the heart of the bill is caring for people, caring for human beings, looking after the people whose verbal responses to the consultation said that they wanted a more joined up service that brings all the care providers together. By the end of this Parliament, accountability for adult social work and care support will transfer from the Government to the Ministers, and the Ministers will be accountable. I'm sorry, I didn't have time. These wee four minute debates don't really allow us to get on the record what we want as far as debate, but I'm happy to speak to any member after this if they seek a more detailed response. The bill will increase transparency and standardise the delivery of care to eradicate the current postcode lottery system of care. Importantly, it will take the focus of social care away from today's for-profit industry and into system focus on human rights, human rights and high quality care. Contrary to the Tory motion, the bill does not centralise social care. It is a framework bill. The framework bill means that other regulations will come after that, affirmative regulations that we will be able to scrutinise again. It means that it allows, I'm sorry this again, I want to just proceed because I have some particular points to make. For example, regarding the approach to how it works better, Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, their large rural areas will require a bespoke approach to the challenges of distance and rurality. The bill allows for that, but ensures that the standards of care in D&G and the Scottish Borders are separate and bespoke, but certain standards will be matched nationally. That has to be welcomed and will ensure high standards of care. I would have thought that the Opposition could get behind improving care standards and ensure a wide equity of care, but instead they simply just continue to moan, moan and moan. Presiding Officer, quickly, I want to turn to self-directed support. STS is an area that I have worked on since my re-election. STS allows people to receive money from their respective local authority with the aim to be spent on, for example, where people feel most appropriate for them, helping to manage a health condition or disability, helping with buying technology, helping with getting out about and even support for attending work in college. Over the summer, the Minister came to Dumfries where we heard directly the lived experience of people who were receiving self-directed support. That is all part of how we take this forward, by engaging with people, by listening to people, with co-production with people, so that we can have the best bill to take forward. Can I start my contribution by asking that the members of STS consider the fact that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to debate those issues? We have the right here, and I would hope that the member before me might ask for some Government time in order that we do not have to have short debates. The national care service has promised a great deal, but without each passing month, the weight of that ambition has been forgotten. Instead of building a truly revolutionary service, the Scottish Government are tanking around the edges in terms of what that service would mean on the ground, while concentrating power in its own hands rather than the hands of carers or those who require care. I think that, as you are asking for the Government to take information forward, we have just begun the scrutiny. Won't we have a stage 1 debate that will be able to bring that to the chamber again? I think that we do have to scrutinise the bill, and part of it is the Government bringing more debates to the chamber so that we can debate those issues more fully. Those are important issues, and we know that people have concerns. This service is a mere shadow of a universal care service, and, to be frank, it does not seem worthy at this stage of the name. The Scottish Government is not proposing a national care service here at all. The plan, as it exists, currently would only lead to a national procurement and commissioning service dressed up in language of radical change. The profit motive is at the heart of everything in this plan, and the harsh reality of low pay and poor conditions for most workers are not set to change in any substantial way. No drive from the Government for Collective Bargaming or to improve pay terms and consistencies of some of the poorest paid workers. I am going to make progress because I am running out of time. As you might expect, I believe that workers through their trade unions understand those drawbacks better than most, yet very few of their concerns have been taken into account when drafting this bill. Unison has quite rightly called the plans not fit for purpose and I have asked for it to be recalled. I have a lot of sympathy with that point and shared the view made explicitly in my party's amendment that this process must be paused immediately and that the required recommendations laid out in the fully review should be delivered as a priority. We can do that. If we do not take stock and allow for this to happen, you will essentially be creating a service that is set up to fail built on the broken foundations of this care service. There can be no doubt that the overt centralisation and the essentialisation at the heart of this plan is designed to further disempower councils. Unite has expressed concern about the proposal to hand power to unaccountable local care boards who will deliver services with no democratic mandate. It is clear that COSLA are firmly against those plans, stating that the Government are planning to remove decisions about locally delivered social care services from communities and hand them to Scottish Government ministers in Edinburgh. That does not sound like a step forward to me. It sounds like an old-fashioned power grab that will put the future of many jobs firmly in the hands of the minister who are far away from what is happening on the ground. Given the state of current negotiations with public sector staff, you can understand why care staff and trade unions have serious concerns about that. We are not here to simply tick boxes and say a national care service has been built and move on to the next manifesto promise. We are here to build something that, like the NHS, will stand the test of time. To conclude, I reiterate that the Government must pause this bill, listen to the concerns of carers, service users, councils and trade unions, MSPs in this Parliament and get this right the first time around. Anything else is a dereliction of their duty. I don't often tell personal stories in my speeches, but today I'm going to repeat the one I made in my very first speech in this chamber. My grandpa fell in his house shortly before the council elections in 2017. After that fall and his recovery, he required care in his home for the rest of his life. His carers were far more than help around the house. They enhanced and enriched his life. He loved to tell stories and what his carers and often their families were up to became part of the stories that we were told. We knew that he was safe with them. They often stayed and made us a cup of tea when we needed it too, and words could never express how grateful I am to each and every one of them. His experience and the fact that not everyone had that experience is what drives my approach to the national care service. We need to make sure that person-centred care is what people are receiving. I recognise the anxiety around the lack of detail in the bill. Framework bills don't give the immediate certainty that it is needed, but this one provides the ability for those receiving care, their families and care workers to input into how the service runs. Let's not pretend that our current system is one in which those voices are always heard. This bill gives us that chance to get things right. Fair work has to be at the heart of it. I was hugely frustrated hearing from my grandpa's carers the lack of holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay or even consideration for something as basic as local knowledge. I've got a lot to get through. I'm really sorry. Carers being sent from one end of the local authority to the other because a manager who doesn't know the area thinks that a trip from Bones to Larbour is one that can be done in 10 minutes just to come back to Grangemouth after that. Caring for care workers has to be at the heart of this bill, and that's why I will be introducing amendments to further embed fair work at the heart of this bill as part of ethical procurement, working with the minister and unions to address some of the current concerns. We know that there's a mixed picture across the country, but I believe that working in social care in Falkirk should have the same terms and conditions in culture as working in Argyll and Bute. For those receiving care, how they've received that and what they're entitled to should also be the same. This is a fundamental principle of the national care service and one of the main reasons why we want to see it progress. Culture change has to be a key part of any social care reform, and as I said in committee yesterday, culture change does often not come with huge costs attached. I agree with Mr O'Kane as I'm sure the minister does that any of these issues can be tackled now, and I would like to see, from the joint working group between COSLA and the Scottish Government, discussion and agreement on ways to do that and advance it now. At committee yesterday, we also heard COSLA's concerns about appointments to care boards being the minister's decision, and I wonder if the minister might address that in his closing. I'm really sorry I need to keep going. There are some things we can agree that are good in this bill. We all recognise the importance of Anne's law. I met with campaigners outside Parliament as others across the chamber did. The pandemic robbed many of those of those last pressures of hours and days. I want to see better and consistently offered bereavement support from pay carers as well as support with manual handling and, crucially, the right to short breaks. We need to make sure that this is implemented consistently to ensure that breaks cover those with multiple caring responsibilities in a way that is useful to them. In reality, there is far too much to cover in four minutes. There are some real opportunities here through co-design and secondary legislation to be flexible, listen, take account and change things that do not work as anticipated. I recognise the anxiety around lack of detail, but I look forward to working with carers organisations, lived experience and care workers to ensure that the bill delivers on its core aim, to make things better and more consistent for people who use and work in the social care system. This Tory motion is quite frankly a disservice to the social care sector here in Scotland. The establishment of a national care service will be the most ambitious reform of public services since the creation of the national health service. The aim is to ensure consistent fair and high-quality care for everyone in Scotland, reducing the current variations that many folk have raised over recent years. The Tory motion is simply wrong. A national care service is not about nationalisation of services. The bill—maybe the member's opposites should actually read it—sets out that a national level, the functions are focused on consistency through national oversight. Services will continue to be designed and delivered locally, and this is right to support delivery with and for our communities and the people they would serve. Sorry, I normally do take way to interventions, but I really have only got four minutes today. National oversight will allow for better sharing of good practice and innovation, which we know takes place right across our country. For example, Aberdeen City and Sherr councils have pulled resources for years to get best value when possible. It can be done. Those changes will bring forward new power-sharing arrangements at national and local level. They will deliver a mix of the clarity people want about ultimate accountability and crucially the flexibility to meet local needs, such as those of our island and rural communities. The Tory motion questions the Scottish Government's financial estimates for the bill, as well as the rationale for it. The bill follows the independent review of adult social care, which showed the need for change, recommending reform and strengthening national accountability for social care. The review of adult social care found that the current way of working has not fully delivered the improvements intended to be achieved by integration of health and social care. It showed that the current approach to social care simply is not working with the current system focusing on profit over people, and that must change. The Tory motion appears to support the findings of the failure review, but it will deprive this Parliament of the tools to deliver the change that is needed. The so-called local care service fails to address the fundamental issues of consistency, quality and access. It would add to the current postcode lottery system of care, allowing, for example, a difference in the delivery of care across Aberdeen Donside and Glasgow City. Perhaps, in their summing up, the Tories could clarify how their plan would deal with the current postcode lottery, which they constantly complain about. On spending, any spending decisions made on the national care service will be backed by rigorous, evidence-based decisions. The costs in the financial memorandum largely represent investments in service improvements and terms and conditions for our vital front-line care staff. Any suggestion that the figures relate exclusively to admin costs are totally false and misleading. This bill will also remove unwarranted duplication of functions that provide the best value of public funds. That is to be welcomed. It reinforces our wider commitment as a Government to take long-term action to change our society and make it a fairer and more equal place to live, work and play. In conclusion, we need to grasp this opportunity to deliver public service improvement together. I encourage the Opposition to work constructively with the Scottish Government on this bill. Let's get this right for Aberdeen. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and what will be a crucial piece of potential legislation. I have been engaged with local authorities on this matter for some time and, in fact, spoke to the chief executive of East Ayrshire, Eddie Fraser, on Monday in preparation for this debate. First, I think that it is important as a Parliament that we accept the current situation, and we do try and work together to develop a solution to what is a continuing developing crisis. Health and social care in this country is in crisis, and, quite frankly, it is much worse than is being reported. Front-line staff are working flat out, way beyond what should be reasonably asked of them, to look after those needing healthcare. For that, I know that we are all truly thankful for everything that they do. That, however, cannot continue indefinitely, relying on their goodwill. I know that the cabinet secretary for health suggested earlier this week that it will take five years to redress this current crisis. There are two things I would say to that. Given that this is an issue that has exacerbated long before Covid, it was exacerbated by Covid. First, I would say, why didn't you start to redress the problem five years ago? Secondly, I would say to the cabinet secretary that it will take a lot longer than five years to get a fully functioning, fully staffed NHS and social care sector. It's a couple of decades away for parliamentary terms, so we won't get the credit from this Parliament, but there has to be a long-term strategy put in place and initiated. I wonder will it be the cabinet secretary that is brave enough to put those kind of wheels in motion? Let's accept the situation where we are and discuss this with a view to develop solutions. Firstly, from the social care sector itself, they say that they are an entity in itself, and the message is that they are not to blame for the current NHS issues. Child social care, adult social care and general social care are all part of the mix. Although we talk about a postcode lottery in Scotland for social care, it is only when things go particularly wrong that we hear about it that there are many positive outcomes across the country. The message from local authorities is that structural change is not required to fix where things are not working. What is required is targeted support for those areas struggling to deliver the service. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Learn from the areas delivering a really good service and apply that learning where improvement is needed. There are substantial differences in the way that councils deliver social care, especially between rural and urban. It is the local authorities who understand what dictates the way in which the service should be delivered. The proposed SNP centralisation of these services will not solve the current crisis. Where is the evidence that this is the path to take? Why do the SNP think they know better than the local authorities, the professional healthcare workers and so many stakeholders, as my colleague Craig Hoy said, who already deliver these services? Finally, we need to retain staff. What is required is a system that is financed properly that accounts for the work that social care does, both public and private providers, including financial provision to offer a decent pension as part of the package, valuing our social care workers to ensure that retention of staff is at the top of the agenda. Social care is about relationship building. It is about continuity of care to provide better patient outcomes. There is no evidence that a national care service will in any way help this situation. What is needed is a system-wide evaluation of health and social care, designed for need, not demand. Social care is the way that the SNP is proposing. It is not just unworkable, but it is unaffordable. I find this motion puzzling. The Conservatives cannot seem to decide what point it is making, whether the issue at hand is getting good care to people who need it or not spending money on public services. I think that it should be about getting good care to the people who need it. Postcode lottery is a favourite term of the Conservatives, yet we are here today with the Scottish Government being criticised by them for taking forward proposals to create a national care service, an idea that is overwhelmingly backed by the public and would standardise care across the country and, instead, suggest that it implement what is essentially a formal postcode lottery. I am a Highlands and Islands MSP. I hate centralisation. That is not centralisation. You can have national standards without centralising, and from everything that I have heard about the proposals so far and of the overall intention of this ambitious public sector overhaul, I am not at this point worried that it is a power grub. That is about combining national standards with local expertise to get rid of a postcode lottery. Colleagues can count on me spending the rest of this process as the bill takes shape, making sure that Highlands and Islands voices are heard and that their local expertise and local good practice, where it exists because it does exist, is taken forward. I have already heard extremely helpful, constructive and thoughtful input into the proposals from people with lived experience of caring or receiving care. This is an opportunity, a huge one, and it would be a real shame to just chuck it out instead of putting the work in. As a Conservative colleague said only minutes ago, why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Besides the fact that it is ridiculous to say that the care sector is in crisis, so it is the wrong time to fix it, I find the brass neck of the Tories in talking about a care crisis at all quite astounding, because nothing has harmed care recruitment in this country more than Brexit, which their party forced on this country. We are hemorrhaging despite the best efforts of the Scottish Government, EU nationals, who worked in or would have worked in these roles. I mentioned earlier the fact that the Conservatives voted against the creation of the national health service, our NHS, 22 times. I would have hoped by now in 2022 that we would have got to the point where we do not need a war to happen to get folk behind looking after our citizens. Out of interest, I looked up, answered today for the debate on the 1942 beverage report, not the first attempt at creating a national health service, but the beginning of the successful one, because I suspected correctly that there might be some similarities between it and today's debate. On 16 February 1943, Sir William Davidson, a Conservative MP, questioned the cost of delivering on this massive overhaul of social security, asking what about the millions of money for those who are not in want. An Arthur Green would have Labour responded, they should thank God that they are in those very happy circumstances. A Scottish Unionist, Charles McAndrew, also worried about the cost, telling the House that it does not satisfy me to be told that we cannot afford to be without it. I think that all of us here today can agree that NHS Scotland is vital, a core institution and worth spending massive amounts of money on for the sake of saving and improving lives, and agree that we cannot afford to be without it. I encourage members to think about this question when they speak. In 80 years, what will folk who are living in a country with a national care service think if they dig up their comments in the official report, and will they be on the right side of history this time? Thank you. Ms Roddick, we now move to closing speeches. I note that there are some members who were participating in the debate who do not appear to be here. I will expect an explanation, and I call First Lady Jackie Baillie for up to four minutes, please, Ms Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Paul O'Kane rightly stated, Scottish Labour called for the creation of a national care service more than a decade ago, rejected by the then Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP has finally caught on to the idea, but I have to say that the lack of understanding and vision from the SNP has led to a pale imitation of what a national care service could be. Demand for a national care service has never been greater as we emerge from the pandemic. Social care has been underfunded for too long, with rationing of care based on budgets, rather than assessing and meeting need, and ultimately only dealing with crisis rather than prevention. Social workers and social care workers have been holding together a system that is fractured and under strain, but what is needed is cultural change. Let's liberate our social care professionals to do the jobs that they were trained to do, to help people to live independently, to focus on prevention and to meet need, and let's fund it properly. Today, we learned that £70 million has been reprioritised—sounds like a cup to me, Presiding Officer—and I'm happy to hear from the Minister in his closing speech on that point. However, the SNP lack ambition and simply view a national care service as entirely about structural change, with little, if any, new money on the table. A framework bill with no detail reminds me of the tale of the emperor's new clothes. There is simply nothing there. Saying that you will work out the details later and bringing in sweeping changes by secondary legislation is simply not good enough. We believe in co-design and co-production. We share the Government's view of that, but you really need to do it in advance of legislation, not after. The bill should have laid out plans for the creation of the biggest publicly funded social care system since the creation of the NHS. It should have laid out a coherent vision for the future of care in this country—improving standards, investing in staff, enhancing care, but it falls far short. So bereft of vision that millions of pounds have been paid in fees to private sector consultants to tell them what to do. Listen to the experts—those receiving care and their carers or the many social care staff—but do it in advance. We know what some of them think. Social Work Scotland, the key professional body, has asked the Scottish Government to pause the bill and think again. Unison, representing many social care workers, do not just want the bill paused, they want it withdrawn. COSLA has made clear that the wholesale transfer of staff must be removed from the plans entirely before they will engage any further, and countless other voluntary sector groups have major reservations about the proposals. I agree with Gillian Mackay's comments about staff, and I am sure that she shares my disappointment that the bill is silent on all these issues. Let me turn to money. The Finance Committee did savage to the financial memorandum—they were doing their job because they do not think that the money stacks up. There is no idea, for example, whether they will need to pay VAT or what happens to pensions if you 2P transfer people because that is not covered. They were followed swiftly by Audit Scotland, who said that the financial memorandum is likely to significantly understate the margin of uncertainty and range of potential costs. £1.3 billion is clearly the tip of the iceberg. The Feely review identified a funding gap of £660 million a year, but the Government is only committing to more than £800 million over three years. You cannot get decent social care on the cheap, and if the Government are underfunding this from the start, it will fail. The Government should pause now, take the time to think this through and to get it right because we cannot afford to fail. Actually, there is a pressing need to do things now. We want this to be the most ambitious reform of public sector services, but, as it is currently drafted, it is not. We want to work constructively, but let us do the right and mature thing. Pause the bill to strengthen it. This is too important to fail. We need to get this right. The ultimate establishment of a national care service will be the most ambitious reform of public services since the creation of the NHS. It will end the postcode lottery of care provision, ensuring quality, fairness and consistency of provision that meets individuals' needs. A lot of the focus of today's speeches has been on structures. The focus of this Government is getting it right for people. That is why the co-design is at the very heart of what we are going to do to achieve the best possible national care service. This is not about centralisation. The bill sets out that, at a national level, 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. I agree with COSLA that consistency does not necessarily mean an increase in quality of care. Consistency does not necessarily mean quality. What will bring quality is those national care standards, which will eradicate the postcode lotteries that Mr Hoy and his colleagues moan about quite regularly. I would hope that, at the very least, they would see the benefit of those national high-quality care standards. A change of this scale will take time. We will not rush the design process. We will develop the detail in partnership with people and with experience of using these services and delivering them on the front line and our stakeholders and our partners. No decisions have been taken on whether children's services or justice social work should be included in the scope of the national care service. The Government is establishing a programme of gathering evidence and undertaking research to inform those future decisions. This afternoon has allowed important contributions across the chamber in the proposals for a national care service. Some of them have been very positive and have had people at the heart, including Ms Mackay's, Ms Dunbar's and Ms Harper's. We have also had a wee bit of a history lesson from Ms Roddick. History often repeats itself, and I think that it is repeating itself over on the Tory badges today. What we have also done and have heard repeatedly from people with direct experience of community health and social care, as well as key stakeholders, is that the adult social care system needs to change in order to drive up standards to a consistent level across the country. The independent review referenced the current fragmented and dislocated system, and it is disappointing not to hear more about the views of the people that we represent here today in this debate. Change of the scale naturally raises questions and concerns, and we have a duty to people to work it through with all our partners, local government, health and social care partnerships, the unions and providers, to understand their position and use it to inform design and ultimately delivery. I would ask that all of us champion and engage and contribute to the on-going discussion, and my door is open to all. We have a responsibility to people to get this absolutely right. To support people to get involved in the discussion, we have identified a set of early co-design teams, information sharing to improve health and social care support, realising rights and recognising responsibilities, keeping health and social care support local, making sure that people's voices are heard and valuing the workforce. In September, we launched the lived experience panels to help us in that regard. We have established stakeholder register for stakeholders to become involved in the co-design of our national care service. That is the biggest change since the formation of the NHS. We want to ensure that people are involved in its design in the past 10 seconds. Community, health and social care will, at some point, reach into all of our lives. Everyone should have high-quality services, regardless of where they live in Scotland. I hope that everyone will join us in getting the national care service formation. That is absolutely right. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I now call on Senator Gohani to wind up the debate for up to six minutes, Dr Gohani. The Scottish Government really need to see sense and change their reckless and unaffordable plan to create a national care service. Prior to today's debate, the plan has been described as a sledgehammer to crack a nut and a blank check for the public purse by none other than their own members in the finance committee, as has been said many times. The Chief Executive of Ayrshire Council described the S&P's plan as truly unstable for social work and social care, while the Scottish Human Rights Commission was critical of the vague and unhelpful language around the proposed charter of rights. There are many more stakeholders voicing their deep concerns, and frankly, the S&P and Greens are not speaking for those organisations, nor the hardworking social care staff, those receiving care, and they are certainly not speaking for taxpayers. The S&P and Greens do not have their back, and they do not speak for Scotland. Yes, I will. I thank Dr Gohani for giving way. When I leave this debate today, I will be talking to unison. This morning, I was talking and listening to the campel communities. We have been out talking to people, the people that are at the forefront of care, those who have care, and those who deliver it. No one can say that we are not listening, we are. Dr Gohani. I don't think you are listening to be frank, because if you were listening, then you wouldn't be going ahead with this awful plan. The S&P have spent years hollowing out our local council with savage funding cuts, and as we have just seen today in S&P Green run Glasgow with a deficit 10 times higher than last year, and their plans for a national care service were scrapped local accountability and imposed total ministerial control and represent a direct assault on local government, scrapping local accountability. The S&P's plan for a national care service amounted to a blatant power grab, and we agree that social care provision in Scotland is in crisis, but the last thing we need right now is a major bureaucratic overhaul of the system. You should see precious resources diverted away from the front line into employing more management and admin staff, and we need to see the S&P abandon these plans and put every penny into local care service as we simply can't afford to see the 1.3 billion diverted away from the front line when we are crying out for help. We support a local care service because it is important to protect individual choice and control. No one should be forced to access care miles away from their community, family and support networks, and that is why our local care service would include a local guarantee which would ensure that support is delivered as close as possible to those who need it, especially in rural and island communities. Now allow me to turn to some excellent points made during this debate. Cracoy reminded Parliament why the Cabinet Secretary and his Ministers cannot deny that they were not warned about the risks of the national care service, and we are not talking about warnings from this side of the chamber, charities, Audit Scotland. In fact, Cracoy went on to list a large number of warnings that I don't have time to repeat. My colleague, Gleith Smith, reminds us of the numbers the Scottish Government thinks it will spend between £644 million up to £1.26 billion, and yet Audit Scotland thinks this is an underestimation. We are told that the Fraser of Allander Institute raises the issue of those groups that are trying to estimate the costs had to persistently question Government civil servants to get some clues as to additional costs that lie beyond the core costs. In the Minister's opening remark, he spoke about a clear bill. That is news to COSLA, who only saw the bill the day before it was published. He speaks of transparency, but there is no transparency running through the rest of Government. He also went on to say that people are supportive. Well, laudable aims, why wouldn't they? But if you go on to say—it would cost £1.3 billion to set up—if you go on to say that there will be no accountability—no, listen to this—if you go on to tell them that they have no accountability, then I believe they would no longer support you because the SNP failed to deliver. Paolo Cain reminded us of how John Swinney listened to stakeholders, and perhaps the Minister should copy this and show some humility. Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke of how health and social care has deteriorated under the SNP watch, and, in contrast to Kevin Stewart, points out that the financial memorandum has no details. Emma Harper does not seem to understand the difference between criticising the woefully inept SNP Government and NHS and social care staff. Our heroic staff are burning out and doing their best despite the Scottish Government. Did Emma Harper not hear Councillor Kelly at the Health Committee saying that staff are fearful of their jobs? The very staff she talks of are terrified. Carol Mocken speaks of how the national care service would be a procurement service, and not actually help the workers. She reminds us of how unison say the bill is not fit for purpose, a union that represents workers Emma Harper talks of but seems to ignore like her government colleagues. Emma Roddick said that she started by saying that she was confused and what would people say in 80 years time? They will say what a waste of money. If we are going to dig up Hansard records from 80 years ago, maybe I will not tell you of what your party wrote in a memo dated August 15, 1943. Maybe I could get you to look up yourself. It is very important that Scottish Ministers listen to what everyone has been saying. To quote Liz Smith, the national care service bill is in deep trouble and the Minister knows it. Thank you, Dr Gohani. That concludes the debate, and we will now move on to the next item of business after a very short pause to allow front-bench teams to change positions.