 We will welcome the 29th meeting of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. Our committee convener, Elena Whitham, was appointed as Minister for Community Safety last Wednesday and is therefore resigned from her convenership of this committee. We wish Elena all the best on her new post and thank her for all the work that she has done for the committee. As deputy convener, I welcome James Dornan MSP to the committee. James will replace Elena as a committee member. Pryddynt ein cyfnod o gynllunio ymwneud hynny, rydyn ni'n ddaw'r ddefnyddio i gydag o'r ffordd fel ymddangosol yma. Rydyn ni'n ddaw'r dddefnyddio i gydag o gydag o'r ffordd fel ymddangosol yn gweithio ymddangosol ymddangosol, a fyddwn ni'n ddaw'r gydag o'r ffordd fel ei gydag o'r gydag o'r ffordd fel ymddangosol yn gweithio by motion S6M-00393, that members of the Scottish National Party are eligible to be chosen as convener and deputy convener of this committee. I will ask members for nominations for our new convener. Emma. Can I nominate yourself, chair? Absolutely. Thanks very much. Are we all agreed? Fantastic. Thank you very much to all the committee, I am really looking forward to this new role and the really important work ahead. This now means that the role of deputy convener needs to be filled. As the post for deputy convener is now vacant, I would like to nominate Emma Roddick for this role. Are we all agreed? Fantastic. I welcome Emma as the deputy convener and we will suspend very briefly just for a change over. Thank you. Our next item of business today is a decision to take item 6 and 7 in private. Are we all agreed? Fantastic. Agenda item 4. We now have consideration of a negative statutory instrument, the Scottish child payment saving provisions regulations 2022. These regulations make savings provisions in connection with the amendments made by the social security, miscellaneous amendment and transitional provision, Scotland regulations 2022 to the Scottish child payment regulations 2020. They come into force on 14 November 2022. These savings provisions are required to come into force on the same day as the amending regulations to ensure that the higher weekly rate of £25 only applies to periods of entitlement which fall on or after 14 November 2022 and an individual's entitlement to a double payment of Scottish child payment where a child dies does not apply where the child in question dies before 14 November 2022. The committee considered the amending regulations at its meeting on 27 October 2022. In advance of that consideration, the committee received a letter from the Minister for Social Security and Local Government explaining why the Scottish Government laid a standalone savings instrument under section 95 of the Social Security Scotland Act 2018. Are members content to note the instrument? Agreed? Thank you. We can now move on to agenda item 5. Our main item of business today is two panels of evidence on the national care service Scotland bill. I welcome to the meeting our first panel, Adam Stahura. I hope that I got that correct. Head of policy and communications aged Scotland who is with us in the room today. Dr Pauli Nolan, head of leadership and civic participation inclusion Scotland. Suzanne Munday, Gypsy Travel Service Lead, MEC OPP, Minority Ethnic Careers of People Project. Paul Traynor, head of external affairs Scotland, Careers Trust Scotland, who are all joining us remotely. I just want to mention a few points about the format of the meeting before we begin. Virtual witnesses and members, please wait until I or the member asking the question say your name before speaking. Virtual witnesses again, please allow our broadcasting colleagues just a few seconds to turn your microphone on before you start to speak. Can you also indicate with an R in the dialogue box and blue jeans or simply with a show of your hand if you wish to come in on a question? Please don't feel you all have to answer every single question. If you've got nothing new to add to what's been said by others, that's absolutely fine because we've got a lot to cover this morning, so I'd ask everyone to keep questions, answers and any follow-up questions tight. Colleagues in the room should indicate to myself or the clerk if they wish to come in and ask a supplementary question and committee members online should use the chat box or WhatsApp. We're tight for time today, but I will try to give all members an opportunity for questioning, so I will move straight to members' questions and the first up we have Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy. Good morning, convener, and good morning panel, thank you all for coming along when it's still dark outside. I suppose just as an opening question if I could ask and feel free to jump in where I want to go first. This bill is very much a kind of framework bill, a lot of the detail will come when we have regulations and guidance. Are you satisfied that the principles can work with such limited information in the bill or would you prefer to see more of how it will work in practice in the actual bill rather than wait for regulations and guidance? That's quite a unique bill in that sense for something so big that we're not really seeing too much of the detail early enough on, but what I will say is that in the bill itself, if you're looking at the broad principles from an age-scotland point of view, there's a lot there to be welcomed. I think that it does fit quite well with the Feeley review in terms of aspirations and direction, but you're right that there's not a lot to really dig into, is there? What we're relying on is the Scottish Government to do it right at the end. If you look on the politics of it, the votes will be there in the Parliament to largely get what is required for the Government through. I do think that with regard to the co-production just now, that's a really important process and it will take a long time. Part of this is almost putting it back to MSPs at times, thinking as much how much are you comfortable but not knowing enough. From age-scotland's point of view, we're not going to be highly technical experts in every element of it or indeed the bill itself isn't going to be the panacea to fixing and reforming social care on its own. A lot of this is going to be about what happens after a bill has royal assent and a national care service is up and running, but I think that the lack of finer detail is a nuisance in terms of trying to work out where we think potentially there could be changes because when it comes to second legislation it might be much harder to have your views or new ideas adopted or heard because at that point we'll have had a lot of co-production but it might be very difficult to work out exactly what is necessary and where flaws will be. I think for legislators it makes your job pretty difficult as well. I think that's why so many committees are undertaking these inquiries in this bill. I'm just wondering if anyone else wants to come in on that question. Paul, do you want to come in there? Yes, I fully agree. I think what we found with even our own ability when responding to the bill, because of the lack of detail, was really difficult at times really to articulate an informed response in parts of it. There's much to be welcomed in the face of the bill, but as we said, you know what is a framework bill where once we get to the next stage one of our concerns is around whether the policy intent gets diluted and because there's not real detail in the body of the bill, on the face of the bill, there's some complications there around what does that really mean and what will it mean at the next stage. As it said, will there be the same opportunity to scrutinise, to offer, to input, although co-design is very much embodied throughout the face of the bill and also in the intent of the bill. It's difficult to see what will this look like once it gets to the next stage. I wonder if I can roll—sorry, did you want to comment, my position? Pauline, sorry, would you like to come in? Yes, thank you. I'm speaking on behalf of both Inclusion Scotland and the People at Policy panel that we facilitate to co-produce adult social care reform. Yes, in terms of being a framework bill, we are quite supportive of the principles and we recognise that it takes a human rights approach, which is great. We just think that there needs to be more detail about the human rights approach, more detail about which human rights are going to be included. There's concern that the rights to independent living aren't necessarily going to be reflected in the bill and those are rights to choice and control and dignity and respect. There's concern that disabled people, pit-supported people aren't necessarily going to be included in decision-making going forward. I think that there are some top-line principles that could have been included in the bill that go to co-design such as co-production. There's lots of other detail that I can go into more detail about in the rest of this, but we support the principles. I think that there could have been a bit more detail, but people are really concerned now that the whole idea of co-design, the delay to the design school and everything is now coming with an announced £70 million cut. That's a real worry for those with lived experience that are inputting to this, committed to this and have been saying the same things for years about what needs to change. Thank you, Dr Nolan. You taught me that we are looking for a human rights-based approach, and you kind of unparalleled. We need to unpack a bit more in regard to what other areas of human rights do you think could be within the bill. At the same time, and again to anyone in the panel, is there concern that this will then lose local good practice by bringing things on nationally, or do you think we can keep the local and the national imbalance in regard to going forward? Those are big questions, thank you. In terms of human rights approach, the panel approach needs to be at every level of decision making. The local national is a huge question. As far as supported people are concerned, at least the ones that we've been speaking to, they feel that the local system is broken, that it hasn't been working for a long time. The reasons for that can be contested, as we know, but for the lived experience, there's collective grief, really, now, among supported people who have been through so many challenges, and there's a lack of trust. There's real concerns out there, especially after Covid-19, when a lot of people's social care support got stopped overnight, and some people were left with their human rights completely gone. Some people left in bed, unable to get out. Some people, one person said that they had to sleep in a wheelchair. We're talking about human rights, and we're also talking about the other side of human rights, of them not being met. There needs to be national things such as a record of unmet need that will meet human rights in order to be able to plan to progressively meet everybody's human rights. That's just one example. Do you have anyone else from the panel who wants to give the views around that and local delivery? I believe that Suzanne wants to come in. There are a couple of points that I'd like to make. I concur with my fellow panellists, but I think that we have a concern that there has been legislation in the past where there's essentially been what is an equalities clause on the face of the bill, yet we are still seeing individuals from minority ethnic communities not being able to access the support that they need. Whilst we welcome the commitment to a human rights approach and on the face of the bill, the intent to eliminate discrimination and promote race equality, we do think that that needs to be further developed. I'm going to the local and national question. Again, we think that there is scope for more national direction on this, because, again, if you look locally across Scotland, practice differs so much depending on where you live and that exacerbates problems for minority ethnic people. In the national care service, there is room for much more national direction on how to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity. Thank you very much. I believe that Adam just wanted to follow up on a point. On the local and national, if I may, part of that is social care that is fundamentally reformed in Scotland. I don't think that for a long time it's been working as well as possible with people that require it and for those in the future. It's not just for people today or people in the past but in the future as well. We see, as the Feeley reviewer indicated, wide local variances on access to services, on funding arrangements, on being able to understand what your rights are. Extraordinary long waiting times to have an assessment in the first place and then to receive social care packages but we have delayed discharge figures now at the highest level since they started recording them this way back in 2016, funding for all of this. If you think that care boards are going to be pretty local or could be very local, that's where the ambiguity in a lot of this comes in. Will they be regionalism like health boards or beyond that? There are still local parts. If you look back at one step about who is using social care and who needs it, to what degree do we need hyper-local decisions about that person's need whether they're in Dumfries or in Kirkwall? They might have the very similar needs but they're not getting the things that they require. There's not a lack of some national standards at times but particularly if you're looking at the people that call our helpline at Age Scotland who are trying to find out what on earth do I do next, my loved one or my son, I need some kind of extra care, where do I go? I'm battling with the council, I'm battling with social work, I'm not accessing these things. I think there's actually more to this in terms of its reform and I think the question of whether it's local or national, sometimes you can miss the point about are we delivering the best possible care and rather than thinking about silos and where that kind of power might lie or where those pots of money and could that resource be better spent making sure that wherever you go, in particular if you move local authority areas which you're perfectly entitled to do and could do throughout your life, you're not just stuck in one place, how your package goes with you or you have to do battle again for a new authority as a new funding arrangement. Thanks very much, Adam. I'll turn now to questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy on theme 1. Thank you and good morning to the convener and also to the panel. Thanks very much for your answer so far and also for the information you've submitted in advance. It was really helpful. I want to talk a little bit about co-production and if it's okay, I want to refer to some of the submissions from Inclusion Scotland. Dr Nolan, I remember around the time when health and social care partnerships were developed, a large number of disabled people's organisations convened what we called a war cabinet at the time to talk about concerns around co-production and getting disabled people and service users a vote on boards to make decisions. Can you say a little bit about the importance of having that, of users having a voice in determining the outcomes for social care and as well as the strategic decisions that are taken about it? And also, finally, you've said that a lack of co-production and co-co-production could defeat success from the national care service. Can you expand a bit on that and talk to us about how you would characterise its development so far? Yes, we did have a vote. In fact, we had the five asks for health and social care but generally we felt quite disregarded in the process as disabled people's organisations. I think that this reflects the general way that disabled people can be marginalised from those processes. The point of asking for co-production and co-design of services is not only a nice ask, it's embedded in human rights but it's also embedded in law. It's embedded in the guidance for planning for the Public Bodies Joint Working Act. Point 10 in the guidance makes the point that locality arrangements have to contribute to the commissioning plan and that duties are placed on community planning partnerships to engage and use community planning to co-produce plans to work with people and communities on what those plans would be. We thought that the advent of that agenda was a rich opportunity for disabled people to get involved but they weren't involved and we did a project following up on that where we looked at the way that specifically engagement with disabled people in three areas in Scotland and there were very, very poor experiences on the way that people were engaged. They just didn't have involvement. They felt that there was tick box exercises as usual and that plans had already been made and certainly no very local involvement. I'm aware that some of this has changed and there's pockets of good practice in Scotland but there needs to be consistent co-production at every stage, at every level. Co-design of the whole system, of the whole service and people with lived experience. I don't think that that includes providers, by the way, I think that they have experience of delivering social care support. The people with lived experience are the supported people and the people that need social care support who aren't getting it. Also, it needs to happen at the care board level so that's why I think that there needs to be more detail in the bill on how many, you know, that there will be a commitment to co-producing local planning on care boards. The second question about lack of co-ordination, there's lack of co-ordination if there's lack of co-production at every level of this it's not going to work. If local people aren't involved and disabled people and supported people and national level aren't involved at every level it's not going to, you know, we revert to having to retrofit services as we always have done. I think that there needs to be a potential co-design that's been around for ages. The Christie commission recommended it, but at the same time, you know, these things are in policy. It's been said by my fellow panellists, these things are great, they're in policy already, but they're not happening because they're brought in at a time of cuts and we're in a time of cuts again, once again, a time of, when we're looking at, you know, recession, cost of living, this impacts everything and I fear that it's going to impact the delivery of this service. Thank you. I appreciate that response and it's really clear about the importance of co-production and co-ordination there. I think I'll move on. I believe that Suzanne wanted to come in on that point, sorry. Thank you very much, convener. I think it's also really important to remember that not everybody is starting from an equal place in this process and absolutely agree with Pauline that co-production is vital to the successful information and delivery of the national care service, but there are communities of people that are historically distant and continue to be distant from the whole process and I think that we need to actively consider how we can support and encourage these communities to be involved in the process and I think another thing to look at within this is from an equality perspective, intersectionality, because the experience of a black disabled person will be different from that of a white disabled person. Thank you. That's really helpful. I have no further questions on this theme. Thank you very much. We'll turn now to questions from Foisel Chowdry, who is joining us online. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. I just have a very small question. I'll direct it to Suzanne. Is there anything missing from the face of the bill that would be required to give effect to those principles? Who would you like to direct that question? Anyone from the panel would do that, but, Susan, you've talked quite a lot about getting involved with minorities. I've worked with you before, so nice seeing you again. My question is in general. Do you feel that there's something missing from the face of the bill? Good morning, Faisel. My question is in general. Do you feel that there's something missing from the face of the bill? Good morning, Faisel. Lovely to see you again. I think I'll go back to my original point, which is that we need, I think, much more clarity on human rights and equality within the bill. I totally accept that it is a framework bill, but we have been in this position before. My colleague Dr Nolan also made the point about the panel approach and fare, and what does this mean in practice? I think that detail would be really, really helpful. Thank you. If anybody else wants to come in, I just want to see if anyone feels that there's something missing from the face of the bill. Dr Nolan, do you want to come in on that? Yes. As mentioned, equality and human rights impact assessments that were developed by the EHRC and the SHRC, not only should things be judged by commissioner or minister in service failure, there could be a more focus on a proper impact assessment that takes that approach. Also, the definition of independent living, that I mentioned before, is really essential to disabled people's human rights and particularly the delivery of social care for the people, having choice and control, living within their communities, being able to have things like the right family life and friendship, the right to go to work. Independent living is absolutely crucial. It's one of those connected rights. There's quite a misunderstanding of what independent living is, that there's been a little bit of backing off from it by the Scottish Government, that people feel that everybody can have independent living. Actually, it's universal right in the UNCRPD. It's about putting in place measures to support people to have their independent living. It's not about living on your own and doing things for yourself. It's about making sure that people have that support to be in their community and to recognise their civic rights, to enjoy their civic rights, to participation. I feel that's missing. There's also things like data connection and analysis. We need accurate intersectional aggregated data and co-design qualitative responses monitoring the experience of accessing it and receiving support. We need not only a commitment to involving people, but, as Suzanne Hintedat—well, she's more than Hintedat— involving people also involves ensuring that any information that they get is fully accessible to them and that they have training and development. There needs to be a commitment to resources to doing this. You can't just commit to involving people in care boards or at a national level without ensuring that they're brought to the level playing field. That involves time and costs some money. Let's face it. That needs to be recognised, those resources. Sometimes they're there, they're in the communities, but they need to be recognised as a need. Thank you very much. As no other witnesses have indicated that they want to come in, I will move on. Can I just ask before we do move on? I would be really grateful if members could direct their questions to specific members of the panel, just for ease of the flow of the meeting. Thank you. We'll move on to theme 2. We touched on it a little bit within that, but I will move to questions from Emma Roddick. Thank you, convener. I'd like to ask my first question to Dr Nolan. The fact that this is a framework bill in itself leaves a lot of scope for the co-design. Is it right to determine the details of the service using a partnership with those with lived experience, the folk who know what they're talking about, or would it have been better to invite you to scrutinise a proposal that already had the details agreed? Your answer is a new question. People with lived experience need to be involved in setting out the detail. We don't start from a blank page. We shouldn't also come to people, supported people with a detailed plan that has everything in it that they've had no contribution to. People with lived experience of receiving or needing social care support are absolutely experts. Some of the people in the panel that we support are more than lived experience experts, but they have expertise in things like social work as well. You've got to remember that different people have completely different levels of expertise. That is really important to recognise, not just assuming that people don't have any knowledge and they need that, but also that some people have a lot of knowledge and experience of being involved in decision making. If self-directed support is delivered right, that's supposed to be co-produced with the individual. That's supposed to be a choice and control. Yes, it hasn't been delivered and it's been delivered in a system of eligibility criteria. It's getting down to the way that those things are delivered that needs to change. People at policy panels have been talking about this since 2018. We recognise that there are nine high-level principles for changing the delivery of social care support. All of that was fed into FELE. To be honest, there was a lot of detail in FELE that the panel agreed with and supported, and that we agreed with and supported as well. There's a real fear of both losing control and contribution to this for people with lived experience and that those commitments get diluted further down the line. I completely understand where people are coming from when they say that they are afraid that they won't be listened to. When we look at Social Security Scotland as an example, there's been a lot of good feedback from DPOs and others who were involved in the co-design. Does that offer any reassurance from your point of view? It does offer some reassurance. That was a really good experience, but it's a really different policy area. In terms of social care support, it's an on-going co-production. It's not just the design. There are a number of principles of co-design and levels to it. I'm just going to go to my notes because there's a quote in here that talks about not just the co-design of services but the different levels. I can come back to that. Sorry. That's a good place to start from. I suppose that you agree that it's good that we're here today having this conversation. I'd like to bring Pauline here as well as Pauline. I think that it's really important that we're having this. At this point, it's really important that unpaid carers are seen as experts in their own experience and also in the care of the people that they care for. As we look at building the national care service, it's really important that the unpaid carers are involved in every aspect of that. One of the clarity that's really unclear and touches a wee bit more on theme one as well is the lack of detail in relation to care boards and the relationship with IJBs. It's really interesting that there isn't any real detail in the bill of what that means. Does one replace the other? We already know that within the current systems that unpaid carers are disadvantaged because they don't have voting rights in IJBs. If we look at co-design more broadly, it's really important that we highlight that. If care boards are coming forward, even in the process of developing what that may look like, the unpaid carers are involved throughout, the unpaid carers are recognised as equal partners throughout that process, and that comes through an implementation not only of voting rights but aspects to expenses. There's a whole postcode lottery as well about how even carer involvement exists currently within the social care system. It's really important that we're building an actual care service that unpaid carers are involved as experts and as equal partners throughout that process. Some of the lack of detail in the bill doesn't really specify much in relation to that. I don't know if Pauline is wanting to come back in, but otherwise, Paul, the way that the bill is... Sorry, I've got pages and pages, reams of notes here, so it's quite hard to get around them because it's such a massive bill, really. We've got a quote here. On the basis of co-designing services and planning stages, it's really important, but it's also the need to involve people with lived experience in the delivery of service provision. A quote from Ross et al about co-production in social care, what it is and how to do it. It says that co-production involves the co-design, including planning of services, co-decision making and the allocation of resources, co-delivery of services and co-evaluation of services. We also think that people need to design framework for monitoring it and the research associated with that. We've got resources for that in projects that we've been involved with. We need to recognise that disabled people are often acted as a collective, not everybody, but often we do via our organisations, disabled people's organisations and centres for inclusive living. They need resources to support this. They need to be able to, at a local level, support disabled people in decision making, whether that's about SJS or whether that's being involved on care boards as voting members. Thank you very much for that. This is my last question for Paul. The way that the bill is being planned allows for an evolution of the system over time. Is it right that we ensure that flexibility so that people can tell us something's not working once it's up and running? I wondered if you could just tell us at this point whether you think that the general principles of the bill and the co-design intentions are right. Overall, the co-design intentions are correct. I do think that they're good intended. Over actually, when we spoke to unpaid carers, there is general support for the national care service and the bill, and that's often to do with the experiences that they've had that the local structures that are in place are just not working for them and that this reform is required. However, in that same sense, I think it's really important when you think about what's missing in the co-design is also recognising for us that thinking about young carers is really important as well. Although taking out of children's services, although that's a wider discussion, adult services and the involvement of children and young people caring for adults is also really vitally important in the co-design process and ensuring that children and young people who care for adults are also involved throughout that process. Of course, within the flexibility of the bill, it's really important. You don't want the bill to be so tight that there's no flexibility and we completely appreciate that. I do think that the intention of co-design is really important, but those are some key questions as to who is being involved, how are they being involved and in relation to things like voting rights members. I think that those things are particularly important because they are some of the failings that we hear in and out already with the current system, so there's maybe not so much that needs to be in the face of the bill, but there needs to be a clear intention of where the bill is going. Thank you, that's really clear. Thank you very much. I'll move now to questions from Paul MacLennan. I think that a few of my questions have already been asked, but I just kind of want to focus on a couple of things. One was almost around about once we get into the co-design part of the process, how do we measure the effectiveness of that going through that because if we go through and we think we need to change things, how do we measure that and what's the process for that? I suppose the second thing, in the most important part, we kind of talked about how are people fully involved because obviously there's yourselves that are involved as part of that, how are obviously the people that you represent involved in that discussion as well, so it's really just when we get further down the process how do we measure the effect of that being? I'll probably come to yourself, Paul, if you want to kick it off, that's okay. I think that's quite a big question in there as well. I do think that there's how do we evaluate if co-design has been successful and I think that there's something about recognising the opportunities to engage and we do recognise that there is now becoming that demand for full engagement. However, our experience was that even in the formation of the bill there wasn't a huge amount of engagement post-file and in the development of the bill with carers and that was something that we highlighted that although the intent of the bill is to really involve carers throughout that process in the planning of the bill we say that that didn't happen at the level in which we would have hoped in that. Organisations like ourselves and many organisations in our sector were feeding in and ensuring that the views of unpaid carers and local carers services as well were featured throughout the formation and through our influence and work. Ultimately, I think that we've found that co-design has been successful by doing all those with lived experience feeling that their national care service represents them ensuring that they see a national care service that reflects the intentions of Fili as well when we Fili supported for Fili to be fully implemented. We're very much supportive of the overarching principles of the bill but, as I said earlier, the rationale will be the result of the bill and the detail which will come which we'll really see if the policy intent stays true to that. Paul, just on that point, obviously yourself through the organisation but obviously the people that you represent as well about getting their points of view. I know that you're there as the organisation speaking to them themselves. Do you have any thoughts on that as we start to co-design the bill? I think that, as we start to co-design the bill, one of the aspects is we need to break down barriers to ensure that they're able to participate as well in the bill, looking at multiple flexible options for them to do that. Do you recognise that it's important to go out to unpaid carers and recognise that unpaid carers often don't have a huge amount of time and resource to be able to fully participate in civic participation and have their voice heard? It's about trying to ensure and recognising what the value is for unpaid carers to participate and use the time that they have. I think that the best feedback we will get is unpaid carers recognising that whatever develops represents their views, it represents also not only what they want but at the same time representing to see themselves within the national care service framework. Adam Cymru, you're just obviously from the Age of Scotland point of view and obviously it's one of the key points. One is obviously your views from the organisation itself and obviously the people that you represent. I suppose it's trying to add in the checks and balances going through the co-design process. I don't know if you want to comment on that at all from how you would do that. That's a good question. There are a couple of points that it's worth raising. One of the principles around this is accountability as well, where it sets. For the first time, we'll see the Government largely being more accountable at least to the public on delivery of social care which has been missing. I think that the impact of Covid-19 and Dr Nolan mentioned this earlier on but the start of Covid-19 and the wholesale withdrawal of care packages to people across the country no-one was responsible for that. Looking at responsibility in IJBs actually people out in the real world are trying to have problems of care like who is responsible, what actually happens, what is the accountability measure. I think that this is what will be important in terms of that. The co-design and co-production element is that ministers ultimately are responsible for making sure that it's working and that making sure that enough resources are going in to ensure that they get in the right voices, the right participation. Again, I think that's been often in all the debate about the national care service. We've sometimes missed that element of who is responsible and then that's almost having that urgency to go and fix it for a change. This Parliament doesn't often talk about social care but often the challenges that people are facing are very much linked to it. This is going to be very welcome but on this as we're looking older people interact and how can their voices and views be captured and fed in would be very important. That might be through social care itself about having regular feedback about the services. Data collection I think is really important. I didn't ask the question earlier on about what's left. A question about anything else in the face of the bill because it's in our submission but the idea of much better data collection to understand what on earth is going on. We will regularly FOI local authorities about waiting times. If it's hard to get an FOI response to that it means in my view either the local authorities or health service partnerships don't have the information to hand so this is going to be really important in terms of that feedback so you look at metrics and measurements and also one thing I'll suggest in terms of this is going to be about digital exclusion of people and how if just by sticking something on a website somewhere doesn't mean that people have had their voice heard half a million older people in Scotland on smartphones so you can't just QR code something and go away and fill in a survey and we've got challenges around different languages, eth minority older people people with different disabilities not being able to access this so just assuming that something stuck away on a website or there's been an email sent round or whatever it means that folks have had their voices heard the challenge that Suzanne mentioned is going out and finding the people who are missing from this inclusion that's really hard and it needs to be massively resourced because we're back to the point where IGPs and care boards if they're replacing that could have much more power from actual real people so you can't just make a decision and walk away and that's that and it'll never be challenged I think that's going to be really important but ultimately accountability ministers will hopefully drive that because the public will see through otherwise Adam that's really helpful Pauline I can see nodding your head there when Adam was talking just on the same point how effectiveness is the co-design as we go through the process and I think that it comes back to the same point that Adam as well are in about the people you represent your organisation but obviously it's the people you represent so how do you ensure that process is effective going the way through and it also touches on the point that Adam talked about making sure that we're reaching as many people as possible can so just really on the same point yeah absolutely so how do we evaluate it throughout so I'm nodding my head vigorously because each of the panel members so far have mentioned aspects of the human rights approach which is panel and that's participation so obviously as Adam mentioned 71% of adults with limiting physical mental health condition using compared to 94% of non-disabled adults so it can't be one fat size bits all to ensure participation accountability Adam's also gone into that non-discrimination we've all gone into that it's about ensuring intersectionality and ensuring that there's an individual approach as well as a country-wide population level approach accountability obviously involves data collection ensuring you have that information on discrimination empowerment people need to be empowered at every single level people need to feel that they own this it's a bit like people feel so close to the NHS people need to feel that they own the national care service as well that they own their own social care support that they're in charge of it and whatever option they take from self-directed support and legality you have an independent complaint system to address the people when things go wrong all those features of panel need to be within the co-design and then going right through to the outcomes to the approach to delivering social care support for people as well as for workers Can I mean if it's okay just to ask if Suzanne's got anything to add on that again just the same I believe she does Thank you very much so again going back to co-production and involvement of people I would actually cast in it wider from a minority ethnic point of view and also other communities of carers such as LGBTI carers because not all of these communities are actually linked into support organisations or carers organisations and the infrastructure that works for these communities across parts of Scotland is not as well developed so when we're seeking the views of the population I think it's really really important to be more creative and look beyond the infrastructure such as carer organisations DPOs et cetera a lot of the people that we work with for various reasons are not able to engage with these organisations and they may look to smaller community organisations or BME specific organisations because that is where they know that they can get their needs met I think it's also really important in terms of how do we know something is working it will be a process and we do welcome the flexibility in the bill for the care service to evolve but going back to the data gathering if we can strengthen equality's monitoring which is already a requirement I think that as the bill progresses the service progresses being able to catch that data will give us a good indication of what is working and what isn't across a whole range of different population groups the last thing that I'd like to say in terms of co-production and involvement is the care boards I think there should be something specific requiring them to say how are they engaging with different equality groups in this process but there needs to be a very specific focus on this Thank you Thank you very much Paul I will now move on to questions on Theme 3, Charter Advocacy and Complaints and I'll move first to Faisal Chowdry for his question Thank you Thank you, convener Again, it's a general question Will the Charter have a practical effect or is it more of a public relation exercise Can I ask Paul Thank you, I think it's interesting That's an interesting question because I think the Charter is quite important as a information resource I think it's really valuable for unpaid carers to have and the wider society to be aware of a charter as an accessible resource However, there are charters under other pieces of legislation such as the Carers Scotland Act and it is not spoke about particularly much it's almost a forgotten document that has been developed and designed so it's not so much that the Charter and principle that there could be some areas of concern about it's about how the Charter is used what its purpose will be its longer term vision and implementation that I think is quite important I think we've seen from other pieces of legislation that sometimes these things can get lost in the bigger picture so I think it's the principle of the Charter is important I think it's also quite clear for a place for people to go particularly with the complexity of what the national care service will bring a charter may be a place where people can go can look and actually in a more condensed way really understand what the national care service is what their rights are within that which I think is vitally important but I think it's ultimately important I believe that Suzanne wanted to follow up on that point as well Thank you very much I agree with Paul but I think the key thing is what lies behind the Charter and rights are only meaningful if you are able to realise those rights and entitlement and if there is nothing sitting behind those rights so for example to a service but if that service isn't there for a variety of reasons then you're not able to realise that right so for me that's the key thing Thank you we've got everyone wanting to come in on this question as well so I will bring in Adam first and then I'll move to Pauline thank you Without wanting to go over everything everyone else has said the Charter can be important but I think that what's really important is that who understands them it's not just the person who is receiving care and almost they can hold this and almost demand their rights making sure that the language is accessible there's lack of ambiguity so when it's challenged somebody says well we don't really mean this we mean this and that those who are delivering care in these settings or local authorities or care boards whoever that's at the top of their list in terms of the training that they undertake charters being lost and forgotten especially when you've got a big turn over of staff in different sectors is it something that they've been embedded with them and looking at this a service provider or the care board or whoever looking at the chart and going we're not meeting our obligation here so if you look at figures which Times journalist Helen Putic unveiled earlier on this year on waiting times for social care that in some local authorities people are waiting years to receive social care at what point does that local authority go we better fix this because we're not meeting this person's right it might be difficult if a charter or something else says that you know this must be done I think that's wholly unfair and absolutely scandalous now things might be hard in delivering social care but I think I'll look at these figures if you're waiting 800 days to receive a social care package or for the first part of that to start I mean this person's life is ruined and I know these things are difficult it's more complex just looking up for one case so charters can be important I think for the user, for the person now for carers, for family members for the individual in our circumstance older people they can actually go to that and look at them, these are the things I should expect and get and who's going to help provide that and hold them accountable on the basis of that but these are the things that can be they could be payer exercises as Foisal has suggested maybe but that's very much about culture and understanding that who are you trying to help here, that individual and this is going to be really important not the computers, there's no part we can possibly do it's too hard, difficult, we don't have any money we're going to make this happen and I think that's because the charter says that and I think that's why it has to be important Thank you Adam Can I move now to Pauline to finish us off on this? Family members and support people are regularly excluded from decisions about their needs and there are differences in opinion between more professionals and people with lived experience feel constitutes a full life so we do have some concerns that a charter might just be a piece of paper that's not used and if it's not legally binding or has loopholes then at whatever level, whether it's minister doesn't back it or it's not delivered at local level then it's going to be toothless so it was felt by panel members that the charter and the rights contained within it assuming that it has rights and that there are specific things like how to complain and what address you might get because currently complaint system there isn't one, you complain to the provider that you're complaining about and you risk losing what you've got they feel that what's in the charter needs to be is writing law to offer them protection and ensure that things in it are upheld then that comes back to accountability and they're concerned that if it's not upheld they want it to be fully publicly acknowledged and an explanation as to why this was the case should be given there's lots of things that people think should be in the charter I suppose that comes into the code design but things like Mary Meldle Woodward has coined this phrase of a right to need satisfaction first developed by Loughan Dover and we feel that should be in there because it offers six ways of ensuring and there's simple things that I've mentioned already today such as recording all of my need at both national and local personal levels such as ensuring the person is involved at every level and basically progressively delivering human rights and ensuring that the person's needs are met Thank you very much I'll now move on to questions from Pam Duncan-Glancy Thank you, convener and thank you again to the panel If it's all right, Dr Nonan, I'd like to pick up where you finished there and talk about Dr Jim Meldle Woodward's paper I'm very impressed with the work that he's done on this and had a look at it when I saw your reference in your submission The right to need satisfaction underpinning it, he talks about what does it mean to be me can I have advocacy before, during and after the process being present when decisions are made having an independent appeals mechanism and recording unmet need Have you had any discussions with the Government on that and do you think that they are moving towards that? I have to say, I note your earlier comment about feeling a backpedaling on independent living and I do have serious concerns about that Jim sent it several times and we really want the opportunity to discuss it with the people of policy panel as well but we keep having to jump through various such as consultations we've mentioned it in all the consultations I think that the Government haven't expressed an interest in it but haven't I think that for the Government this is a massive, for civil servants anyway this is a massive undertaking and there's so many challenges to look at there's so many different groups again this is why it's so different to social security there are different groups involved there but not quite as many and it's not as complex and undertaking so I think that the Government have to be fair on the civil servants they're working so hard on so many different things but no, they haven't really fully considered the rights to need satisfaction that's in this I do think that really that it's quite an academic paper that Jim's written he is an academic, he's a brilliant man but it's actually quite a simple concept he said it's just six really simple things that you just have to ensure that you've met deliver a person and individuals and populations rights can need satisfaction thank you do you think the bill as drafted gets anywhere close to that and you mentioned independent living earlier on in the definition of independent living do you think the bill could be strengthened to have that or do you think we need to do something else to address whether we call it a right to need satisfaction or whether we call it something else I think the things that are being set out in that paper are the sorts of things that people who use social care services just really need so do you think that the bill could be strengthened I think the bill could be strengthened but it needs to be also set out in the processes of for example assessing people for social care support it can't just be on the face of the bill in self-directed support we all worked hard as disabled people's organisations to ensure that independent living was on the face of the bill but that hasn't been delivered to disabled people to supported people and unpaid carers that's not the reality of the delivery of self-directed support there's pockets of good practice but in terms of the rights to independent living and the right to need satisfaction there are in terms of things like advocacy you need a national approach to advocacy to ensure consistency but you also need appropriate and different kinds of advocacy for different groups of people so that that's accessible you need peer advocacy you need the collective voices and ensuring that's inclusive to all groups of disabled people as well intersectional groups as Suzanne mentioned that information is accessible in different languages, in BSL in whatever accessible version people need there are many ways to make sure you get this right but it all needs to be really well resourced independent advocacy needs to be well resourced across the country it's all very well having a national service but if people don't understand about the rural context that someone lives in the local community that someone lives in and the challenges that they face if they can't get a full picture of that but also really have an empathy with that because they don't know what it's like to live on an island or in a very remote rural place then that advocacy isn't going to be appropriate similarly you're going to need different advocacy for families with children than you do for young adults than you do for older disabled adults or disabled adults that are carers themselves Thank you Dr Nolan and I have one final question in this area for Adam if that's okay On rights you've already spoken about accountability and some of what we've just heard from Dr Nolan and another panelist actually and yourself around making sure people can hold people to account you mentioned data earlier on on unmet needs what else do you think needs to be done so that if people find themselves waiting for 800 days for social care which is entirely unacceptable where can they go? Well this I've said before that all the questions here are excellent because there's a lot on the bill it's not included at all there doesn't seem to be any kind of particular steer just now on what that will look like this is why I think the principles of accountability in this bill are important because ultimately as members of the Scottish Parliament you hold ministers to account of people your constituents are waiting quite frankly beyond the guidelines I think a few years ago we undertook a report on waiting for care 40% of older adult students social care were waiting longer than the national guidelines to get it but actually what happens at the end of this and the point there about kind of right dissatisfaction is really important I think there needs to be a mechanism with teeth so that people can make complaints that are anonymous as well and have their voice heard one of the things we hear a lot through our helpline so I say care homes or the social care packages they're very worried about actually speaking up publicly about that or even making proper complaints on the current routes for fear of recrimination that we've heard in the past and whether this is, you know, slightly anecdotal where people have made complaints about their care home and then found themselves a few weeks later handed with notice essential eviction to kind of leave because we can no longer meet your care needs but where do you go is part of it and I've added this in our submission with regard to things like looking for strengthening of how long people, the notice people would get for leaving such places because it's less than you'd have in some tenancies for instance but the actual need is much more severe and lack of places but to be a bit more specific to your point there Pam is having a strong independent body who can properly scrutinise complaints and actually take action is important and actually realising within national care service bill what the alternative that will be so if your complain is the type of care I'm getting isn't meeting my kind of needs and whoever's delivering the care says we have no other options we'll actually go and find something else that meets that need as opposed to just now people going well my care package will be removed or will be downgraded or will be reassessed in the dark or help line will hear different advocacy organisations will hear charities and third sector organisations will hear about the challenges of where do you go so I think this is going to be really incredibly important that folks can have that satisfaction as Dr Nolan had outlined but also who's going to implement that has got teeth and that providers or care boards whatever really take notice of that and that is recorded as well complaints the nature of the complaints where they are what these sites think will be important I think more data is important and if we're talking about a digital society this is largely about what is behind services not just about how people interact with them that we should be able to record things properly and understand them and the people are using them make decisions based on good data and insights not just the numbers but insight why this thing is happening and actually looking for solutions not getting the care that they need because every day they go without it that their condition will get worse and their needs become more severe so I think this is why it's going to be incredibly important thank you, I appreciate that I have no further questions just before we move on to the next question I think Dr Nolan wanted to come in on that point I have so much to say about all of this thank you in terms of making sure people get that redress as Adam was saying also just a small but really important point that somebody mentioned a complaint system needs to be independent but a panel member said that also it needs to be solely for complaint and not just general feedback the thing that she said in a panel meeting was when she phoned to complain to the NHS about I think it was access to a service she got told that she was being far too negative she phoned to make a complaint she didn't phone to give them general feedback so you know there's that point that if people want to offer feedback there's another way to do that but complaints are complaints and that they handle those complaints and that there is some redress and that people feel that their complaints is being taken seriously Adam talks about fear that goes wider than care homes that you get now if you made a complaint because it goes to exactly the person that made the decision in the first place needs to be independent of decision making but also there is no legal precedent in terms of social care support decisions because if people make a legal challenge councils will wait and wait and wait until the last minute so that people are again waiting and waiting for months and months of court to ensure that there's no legal precedent so at the moment there is no sense of justice whatsoever at any level for supported people Thank you Dr Nolan I'll move now to Jeremy Balfour to finish us off on this theme Thank you I'm conscious of time so let me ask a yes or no question which might save us a bit of time When we were debating the Social Security Charter a number of years ago we were debating whether it should have a legal basis and should it be able to be challenged or reviewed in court and the Scottish Government came to review that that shouldn't be the case and it didn't happen for the new charter for this should it have a legal status which would allow people to seek hopefully rarely but if appropriate legal judicial review a yes no would be fine if that would be okay and maybe just start with Adam since you are moving Yes Anyone else? Or you completely don't know if you have to say I don't know Yes Yes I've already said why Yes Yes, indeed Again I'm conscious of time so if you have the time you can maybe write us more fully but as far as I can see the new charter doesn't give new rights are there any particular new rights you think should be in the charter to actually give the legal basis that Adam and others have spoken about people are facing day and day out should there be anything more specific that's not there at the moment I don't think there's enough detail in it just now to really have a great view on what that would be I believe Dr Nolan would like to come in and then I'll bring Susanne in as well Thank you I've already mentioned the charter needs to have which rights and which conventions apply the Scottish Government are planning to bring in the UN convention on the rights of disabled people are planning to bring in the convention of the rights of children and other conventions into Scots law therefore it needs to be legally binding and contain those rights and again that includes articulating disabled people's rights to the independent living and articulating that right to need satisfaction which is based on rights to independent living once again Thank you, Susanne, do you want to follow up on that? It's how it's viewed and complaints are not necessarily a bad thing because they drive improvement and other providers local authorities can also learn from them so I think that's an important thing to capture as well when we're talking about the rights of the charter being enshrined in law Thank you very much We will turn now to our final theme theme for carers rights and I will move first to Miles Briggs Thank you convener, good morning to the panel, thank you for joining us A few committees this week at the national care service and I think it was quite concerning what Audit Scotland had said with regards to the Scottish Government significantly understating the costs of delivering the bill so I just wondered what your views were on that, maybe start with yourself Adam and then go round rest the panel I think I've listened back to a whole range of committee sessions in the last few weeks that seems to be the consensus I think even the minister himself I think part of this is that we've got to expect that this is going to cost a lot of money because good things do cost money as well but as part of this financial memorandum of the cost of it that a huge amount seems to be in the bureaucracy and the machine behind it and not enough discussion about the amount of money going into delivering great care because the things that underpin that whether it's the people themselves carers, service delivery the things that people need as well so having a mechanism and a structure seems to be the bulk of the financial chart I think we need to have a bit more focus on what we need to have for real people Does anyone else want to come in on that point? Pauline I agree with what Adam just said but we've seen this before with the integration of health and social care sport when with the public bodies during moving bill there's a lot of focus on structure with not enough focus on outcomes and that's so important in this that we get this right from the start that the intention is set and there's very much a concern about dilution of what's in the bill or that the same budget is put to the delivery of the bill or the act when it comes in but you bring more and more and more groups in you bring more and more health services in and that once again social care support goes down and down and down and how much it's funded and there's no commitment to ensuring that future funding of what's going to be a bigger and bigger pressure to support people in the future Does anyone else want to come in on that point? I was specifically wanting to look at assumptions within the financial memorandum and I noted that 10% of adult carers assumption is will be able to access short breaks and additional 14% will use easy access support and that's fewer than 25% of people taking potentially that entitlement for a short break so my question was specifically where do you think such a low level of demands being predicted and why do you think that is Does anyone want to come in online on that? I see Paul. Once to come in I'll bring you in, Paul. Thank you. In the financial memorandum is estimated costings from historic figures based on break uptake figures that are available and it doesn't reflect inflation it doesn't reflect the estimated increased numbers of unpaid carers in Scotland and the need for a break there's a whole aspect in relation to the financial memorandum that needs to be considered as well when we are looking at the estimated numbers and some of the concerns that we also have around the financial memorandum for unpaid carers is also to young carers because there is no finance put aside for replacement care for young carers in the financial memorandum of the bill and through work that we've did with young carers it's been very clear to us and from at the Scottish young carers they cannot take a break unless replacement care is put in place although that's a larger question and also the numbers of young carers in Scotland which the Scottish Government recognises is generally understood to be an underestimation as well but the estimated costings are based on historical figures of actual uptake based on those who actually have an adult care plan or who have accessed more breaks through other mechanisms and other support services so it doesn't truly reflect the figures of carers in Scotland and the potential of carers who could be entitled to this right. Thank you for that and I think one of my concerns was that data also is surely looking at a pandemic period when these were suspended and not available so it feels like it's artificially low in predicting potential uptake anyway. In terms of more carers being able to access support plans and statements to make sure they have that right to a break do you think a national care service is going to potentially help standardise that and we've had that discussion in terms of what would be referred to as a postcode lottery in people being able to access different services depending where they live and so I just wondered in terms of some of the improvements in standards and consistency and you know I would support clinical standards I think we should have had those long time ago in Scotland but don't necessarily need this bill to achieve that and so I just wondered where you think that could be improved and importantly how it should be included in the bill as there's very little detail. I think there's a larger question there around adult care support plans more generally and wider support for carers and one of the aspects is it's not solely a question in relation to national care services it's a question about resources and resources getting put aside you know there is aspects already within the Carers Scotland Act and additional funding put into the Carers Scotland Act to ensure that more carers can benefit from adult care support plans but in reality what we're seeing by local carers services is that funding is not around friends there is unclear where that funding goes but there is large demand for local carers services there's an increased number of carers coming to local carers services and each carers service highlights over the course of the pandemic an average around a 45% increase on the numbers of carers coming forward to them but at the same time their ability to support all those carers they've predominantly had standstill if not slight uplifts on their budgets which is not really comparative their ability to even meet the aspect of providing adult care support plans for all those carers who are coming to the service becomes a challenge for them as well so there's a structural barrier here as well which is about we want to identify carers we want carers to have support carers service work for them but we need to put the money in to ensure that that can be experience that can be upheld for unpaid carers so that those rights can be lived and so that unpaid carers even know that they have a right to have a care support plan or a potential right to a short break thank you and I think a lot of what we see within the bill has come out of the experience of people during the pandemic and I think that many of us was concerning seeing suspension of power of attorney for example is something I don't think the Government have ever properly explained but I was interested to see the annual campaign which I think all of us have supported cross party in section 40 within the bill which requires carers to comply with ministerial directions on visiting now that is visiting but it's not necessarily talking about patient rights and individual rights and I think that is where I have concerned so I just wonder if anyone had specific comments they'd like to make with regard to section 40 as well Adam I was probably a little helpful I was in a meeting with the Scottish Government about Ansela and access to care just a couple of days ago and on a regular basis and actually if you go back a few steps Ansela is absolutely necessary but it shouldn't have to be necessary that people have their human rights and a variety of human rights that as we found with regard to Covid or maybe even more recently with different kind of virus outbreaks in care homes for instance that the rights have been not just paused but just removed I mean Ansela is absolutely necessary and I think that we have nationally learned so much so quickly with regard to COVID how to handle things but this wasn't kind of applied across let's say care homes as an environment or indeed some hospitals or you know sort of medical kind of residential homes for people living with dementia that access was absolutely denied and I think there's a regard to Ansela I mean one of the complaints I think in this that's taken so long to enact the sort of government's rationale is that through Parliament the mechanism will be through the national care service bill obviously once it's passed if it's passed it won't require care service to be set up and running for that to have action but actually it's taking a long time and for those that have been campaigning heavily on this that their loved ones have either deteriorated greatly in this time or are no longer with us and has the spirit of what Ansela was to do being met with what's in this bill or indeed the kind of guidance and regulations behind that possibly not actually so there's a frustration in this and actually if you look across the piece that there are care homes that are doing things incredibly well allowing visiting that's allowing that, facilitating visiting is what I should really say, it's allowing someone to have their rights and making sure their rights are enacted but this wasn't consistent and I think this is where the care homes and care providers have to meet this or demonstrate somehow incredibly well why this is not happening and that the Government or care inspector or others have satisfaction that is going to be really important but this is where some discussion has had with the timeframe for this it's just so long but people don't have time to lose and wait on this I don't think Thank you, does anyone else want to come on? I'll bring Suzanne in first and then Dr Nolan Thank you very much I could just return to a slightly earlier question in terms of the projected demand, I think for us what the figures don't show is the people who would also like to access short break provision but haven't been able to because those services are not accessible or appropriate to their needs so that's the first point and then second point in terms of the right to a short break I have to go back to my earlier point and I think for us this is the main concern from an equality perspective that a right is only as good as much as you're able to realise it so again you could have a right to a short break for a minority ethnic carer but if that service is not available then it doesn't mean anything to you and I think this was one of the key concerns of the consultation that we undertook with carers and you know we have examples where carers from different communities have tried to access a short break that is culturally appropriate to them but because it does not fit within the norm of what a local authority is used to that it's been turned down and we've had to go down the legal route to actually secure what is a culturally appropriate short break for that family across the whole discussion it's you know I keep returning to equalities and how that is going to be front and centre of the bill and you know what does it mean for smaller population groups that you know are not part of the majority relation? Thanks Suzanne, Dr Nolan I would appreciate if you could keep your comments fairly brief just because we have a danger of running slightly over thank you. Just to say on the short breaks a lot of carers are disabled people themselves or have acquired new payments and conditions through carers during the pandemic there are data in our response that illustrate that and you need appropriate short breaks for the supportive person that are accessible so that they can have a short break but also in the financial memorandum it says that there are going to be cost savings allowing carers back into employment I don't think they understand I don't think that appreciates the commitment and the time that people spend caring a short break is just one short break and maybe that is needed for leisure time and not necessarily work paid work you know for others in the family and so on there's a lot of things that people need a short break for so you need to be careful that you're not accounting for the savings that are going to be made on Anselot I don't see really how it's that different to what we've got now that ministers can put in an emergency situation ministers can make a decision that says people can't access care home so I don't really understand how it's going to change but I feel that in situations where there might be a divergence this is care of Scotland where there might be a divergence of views on most residents and relatives and the care home that you make a human rights approach and use fair which is a tool to resolve it in a human rights way Thank you I have two questions from Jeremy Balfour who is finishing us off today We are glad to hear from Cymru that all my questions have been covered so I am happy to rest Fabulous, alright well on that then I believe that is everyone's questions covered I would like to thank all the witnesses for appearing this morning and also for the very very early start I'll briefly suspend to allow the witnesses to change over Thank you Welcome back everyone I have a second panel Kara Stevenson, organiser for the Women's Campaign Unit GMB Scotland Sarah Lattow, policy officer Volunteer Scotland Alison White, convener, social work Scotland who joins us all in person and Sarah Cawin, co-ordinator of the Scottish Women's Budget Group who is joining us remotely I've got a few points that I'm just going to say again for the benefit of the witnesses Virtual witnesses and members or the member asking the question say your name before speaking Please allow our broadcasting colleagues just a few seconds to turn your microphone on before you start to speak Can you also indicate with an R in the dialogue box in blue jeans or simply with a show of your hand if you do wish to come in in a question Please to all the witnesses don't feel you all have to answer every single question if you have nothing new to add to what has been said by others that's absolutely fine to cover this morning so I would ask everyone to keep questions and answers relatively tight Before I move to the questions I do just want to bring in Pam Duncan-Glancy for a declaration of interest Thank you convener I should have said in the previous session that on my register of interest it is noted that I work for Inclusion Scotland Thank you very much So I will now move to questions for members and I would like to bring in Paul MacLennan first He called me out on a well-zerd and I could be straight up but here we go It's obviously on about supposing involvement in the workforce and developing proposals for the national care service So there's two things for me, one is about how is the workforce being involved in the developing process including your volunteers first of all so probably come to yourself Sarah if that's okay It's really just about proposals for the national care service and obviously it's inclusion of your workforce of volunteers Just to say how much the workforce has been involved in that and how you see the ongoing process Honestly I'm not sure how much volunteers have been involved so far in the development of the national care service I think that's something that is going to be a really complex endeavour is to ensure that the voluntary sector and volunteers are included to be honest Is it going to developer at this stage not thought about? In terms of involving volunteers Well absolutely It's not just something that we've not been asked to contribute so far Volunteer Scotland, we don't have our own volunteers we represent organisations that involve volunteers so at this stage we've with the consultation response that we did we engage with quite a number of different organisations and we work quite closely with the alliance to ensure that the interests of volunteers are represented Cara, do you want to comment obviously from your point of view from the union point of view about where you see the process just now how much it's been involved at this stage and where you kind of see it as the process develops and what I kind of asked at the last question was almost assessing how that as a proposal is to evolve where you see the work to yourself and also your members in terms of the workforce have been heavily involved in this but that is through the trade unions pushing for meetings and representation on working groups I wouldn't say that it was an open invitation, it's been quite difficult to make sure that the workforce voice is being heard what I would say as well is you know the bill itself it's it does not achieve the aim to improve the quality and consistency social work and social care services in Scotland is it's not prescriptive enough as yet what we are seeing is actually trying to get the workforce involved in this is quite difficult because there's not enough in the bill for them to want to be involved in it these workers have just went through two years of you can't imagine you know what their working life has been for two years working through a pandemic I myself was involved in that I actually was a home carer through the pandemic and to now be turned around with something that's quite non prescriptive and all subject to co-design and ask the workforce to take a leap of faith on this I think it's really really difficult trying to get people involved in it and get people to support it so in terms of that going forward and ideally what you mentioned it was difficult to get involved and so on ideal solution when it becomes more prescriptive how that would look like or how you would like the union to be represented in that really what we would like is you know more meeting the bone so to speak we want consistency and promises on paper we also want it to be rhetorical these workers are used to being given warm promises and nothing happens so we need to have more information there has to be more information around this and how the Scottish Government see it in the future for us to then try and get the workforce involved and get their ideas in there their response to it because right now they're quite disengaged it's as if it's just another empty promise your engagement in the process but also the more details on that Alison I was going to bring herself in obviously from a social work point of view if that was okay yes certainly I think there have been opportunities for us to engage but most of that has probably been through the submissions that social work Scotland has made to both the original consultation process and the submission that it's made to the bill certainly from social work Scotland we have engaged across our membership group to try and get a really strong and collective voice around that and certainly I know for some of the front-line social workers Sassworth certainly has also done some of that work as well and we've combined around that I think one of the challenges we get with the consultation certainly social work Scotland discussion around this has been asking for a pause so that we can then do the co-design process to the bill coming in is around that engagement and making sure that we do get the voice not just of people with lived experience but of those people who assess for and deliver services as part of that and I suppose it's thinking about the current context that we're in we've just come out of the pandemic we've got staff who are exceptionally tired at this point we have the cost of living crisis we have the challenges that we're seeing within NHS around some of the delays being real pressures in our workforce in social work and social care in terms of gaps at times it feels that we're running to stand still around this and when we look at the consultation process that's planned in the co-design the 70 separate work streams for us to be able to engage in a really meaningful way around that because of the significant interdependences between those is going to be really challenging for the workforce to be confident that we can do that in a really positive and meaningful way as I say whilst there have been opportunities and whilst we've been having those conversations there are challenges for us about how we how we do that in a really meaningful way and I think you're right Cara in terms of it can be difficult to get some of the front line staff involved because the only bit that there seem to be a level of fixation on is almost who will my employer be there's not enough probably in the bill at the moment for them to know what else that might mean for them it's a bit too vague around that sense of will it change my employment and the anxiety that that change when you can't see what the wider benefits might be for you a fairly significant that level of uncertainty for staff makes it difficult for them to think about engaging in the wider conversations that are so important around the national care service about how it will improve outcomes and the way we're working because at the moment for some of those front line staff it's my terms and conditions and where I'm going to be working on that is there almost another stage in before you move on to the co-design is that what you're... I'm trying to dig a bit deeper in terms of that because obviously you're trying to say that it's at the end of our dependency I'll say a lot of issues that are there is there almost that pause at the start before you go into that or are you talking for the consultation process to be a bit a little bit longer I think we're suggesting that the bill should be paused because obviously at the moment the proposal is there's a bill and then there is a co-design process and the proposal is that we should probably do the co-design before we do the bill so that actually we have a bill that meets what has come out of that co-design process so it's not suggesting we shouldn't get to the point of a bill it's not saying that Social Work Scotland certainly is against a national care service there's just a sense that we should probably have the conversations about what that looks like what that means, what the interdependencies are before we have a bill around that so for us it's just the almost the cart before the horse almost in terms of where we're doing that that co-design process is going to be really critical in this but we need to have that before there is a bill because it's really difficult to get behind something when the answer to lots of things is that will come out of the co-design process but it then almost feels that we should be having those conversations now rather than after the bill I was going to bring herself in that from your point of view and I suppose the other thing just to kind of hang out there as well for other panel members was around about obviously when the key thing was involving the workforce and what would the impact be if not involving the workforce in that design so if you want to come in after that but Sarah was going to ask herself or obviously from your point of view from the Scottish Women's Budget group just on that around about obviously I'm not as much broader for yourself of this, have you any thoughts or comments on that at all? Just to add to what the others have said just to highlight that the workforce as everyone will know a highly gendered workforce 83 per cent of the social care workforce being women and so the importance of their participation and of their voices being heard is there because of the long-term undervaluation of care that's often seen as this women's work so I think that that's why it's really important that the bringing in the voices of lived experience for people receiving care of unpaid carers but also the paid care workforce is really important throughout the process of design and I think just some other kind of numbers around that when you look at the workforce with 20 per cent not being on permanent contracts 11 per cent being on zero hour contracts there's some really important workforce issues around how the workforce is contracted in terms of conditions that could like changes within it could demonstrate the better evaluation of care and so hearing from the experience of paid care workers through the design will be a really critical element to be able to ensure that the improvements that come through the development of the national care service truly deliver for across all aspects I don't know if anybody else has got anything else to add at this stage before we move on Sarah Cowan can I just double check is it Sarah or Sarah it's Sarah could I ask members while we're going round we've got two Sarah's so can you just direct your question to a specific Sarah I'll move now to questions from Miles Briggs Good morning to the panel I wanted to follow on some of the questions Paul has brought forward and I think you made some really important points there Alison because at local government committee which Paul and I are also members of we heard that two examples of good policy making around co-design has been ending homelessness together and also the promise of this process not at the very end so I wanted to specifically ask how do you think the Scottish Government can, given the process they've decided to use for this make sure that we don't see the national care service potentially destabilising for care users and their carers and the workforce wider as well and where do you think that co-design is actually now going to come in during this process I mentioned you specifically Alison so I'd be happy to put that back to you I suppose it goes back to the social work Scotland position that we think the co-design should take place prior to the bill to allow that real sense of people being involved and engaged and being able to address some of the concerns and issues that are out there and that doesn't stop actually addressing some of the key concerns that the national care service wants to deliver so there is nothing to stop the greater collaboration better ways of working looking up terms and conditions of staff amongst some of that and how we do that that there are mechanisms without the bill that would allow some of the key elements of that to take place and I think actually having a workforce at this point in time as we've said we already have significant vacancies in social work staff and certainly in social care we are struggling to recruit there are real challenges that other panel members have already mentioned for social care staff certainly we see challenges across the country so the differences between urban areas and rural areas and the recruitment challenges that we face across those are slightly different there's nothing to stop us doing some of those things whilst we're doing the co-design process but I think it's needing to understand better I think the challenge with doing the bill and then the co-design process is that we spend a lot of time in that co-design process then looking at structures rather than spending that co-design process looking at what would make things better for the people that we support and for our communities and for our staff in terms of making sure that we get people in because it then becomes a structural type of conversation rather than a conversation around where that is and particularly for social work there's also a challenge because we have and we really welcomed the fact that there was a decision that stuff around children services and justice needed further analysis but there's a challenge then that the national care service is designed around adults to begin with with children and justice coming in at the later stage rather than those key decisions being made in the national care service being designed around the totality of what ultimately will be part of that national care service so as I say it's around getting the right conversations otherwise we make decisions about what should be included in a health and social care record for example before we make the decision of children services as part of the national care service or not that is held within children services is very different to some of the others so it's around as I say those interdependences in those discussions that we need to have that we need to be mindful that we I suppose take the right amount of time to have those discussions rather than feeling constrained within the parameters of a bill is anyone else going to I think it's probably fairly evident within the bill that it's quite light and that is maybe reflective of the fact that that co-design process maybe hasn't taken place particularly just thinking about the voluntary sector and how complex that is I don't feel like that complexity and the contribution that the voluntary sector makes to care is reflected adequately at the moment and I think just following on from what Alison said well from what other panel members have said as well maybe now is not the time it's going to be quite a challenging time to meaningfully do that co-design the voluntary sector as a result of the cost of living crisis is facing a perfect storm of surging demand increasing costs and decreasing budgets so in terms of their capacity when you're talking about you've got the larger voluntary organisations but then you've also got all the really really small ones that contribute to care at a really local level so for them the capacity to contribute to this type of process is going to be really really challenging and I don't think that's... I think there's currently a lot of weight on the secondary legislation for the bill perhaps more than there maybe needs to be Thank you for that I think just with regards to co-design we welcome the fact that voices of the workforce lived experience and everybody else is being heard and people want them to be part of this process however it has to be organised correctly for it to work so it's great seeing we welcome co-design but there has to be a structure on how you're going to co-design so for instance just to give an example a couple of months ago when we as a trade union started looking into the co-design to make sure that the workforce were involved in this and their voices were being heard I think we accounted something like 24 working groups that were discussing co-design that's not going to work you know co-design yes there has to be a structure there but also our position as well is that social care is in crisis now and there's no reason why changes can't start happening now never mind co-design and other discussions we know what issues are there in social care we can't recruit staff we can't retain them that's a big issue for service users and people who rely on that service that's something that we need to be doing at this second thank you for that final question was with regards to financial memorandum because I think it was also raised local government committee pensions liabilities and insurance-rained staff now given that we're talking about 75,000 people being transferred from different local authorities all 32 to a national care service do you know if there's been any discussion about what that looks like and the potential cost and liability which hasn't currently been outlined by the government as far as we're concerned it's subject to co-design right so one of the 24 groups thanks very much thank you thank you Mails I'll now move to questions from Jeremy Balfour thank you and good morning to you all Alison, I wonder if I could start with you on this question one of the areas we haven't covered yet is children's services and criminal justice which there still is obviously maybe another working group looking at that from your perspective as a social worker do you think criminal justice and children's services should be in this bill or not and I appreciate that it's a very big question but even just to give us some kind of high level overview of that I suppose one of the challenges we have is that it's difficult to know what we would be in because some of the other elements of the bill are lacking in a level of detail to be clear about that but I think social worker Scotland had thought that obviously the development and national care service came off the back of the Feely report which did just focus on adults and we welcome the fact that there has been a recognition that we needed to do more work on justice and children's services I suppose what it's worth saying at the moment is that there is a mixed model across Scotland already in terms of health and social care partnerships and integrated joint boards so children's services is in in some places and not in others and justice is in and in places just have one so there is already a really mixed decision around that and for those reasons I think those decisions were taken locally to do with other structures so in some areas children's services for example is really closely aligned with education services and those areas took the decision that that made more sense for them in terms of partnership working so I think that the piece of work that we're really key that has gone ahead around children's services needs to understand what the risks and challenges would be in all areas but if a decision is taken collectively either for children to be in or out it will mean significant change for about half of the country whichever way that decision is taken it will mean a significant change it's not as if things will remain the same for children's services potentially there is a strong thought around the risk of I suppose disaggregating social work so actually social work at times already is a profession that doesn't always have as strong a voice in some of this and actually if nothing else the national care services has shown a spotlight on social work and has been welcome for us to think about the role that they play but there are risks potentially with disaggregating that and the types of governance that go with that so obviously we have the chief social work officer role at the moment that has a really key role in terms of a lot of the governance around protection and mental healthcare and treatment act adults within capacity protection legislation there's a really clear governance route in terms of where that goes and it's not clear within the bill at the moment what will happen around some of those elements of legislation and how we manage around some of that and I suppose it's also thinking that people in themselves don't live in silos and people are part of families and part of communities and make different points in time have access to all of those services so even if justice for example is out we have an ageing who have offended who may need health and social care issues themselves in some ways so whatever structure comes from that is going to be really important but I think it's about us maintaining that strength in social work keeping people together but having a good understanding of what it means to be part of the new system and I suppose if nothing else ensuring that we continue to drive forward the changes that are happening in those areas so we need to make sure that so much work that's going on around that so we need to make sure that whatever the development of the national care service doesn't take away from that there's really strong ambitions about how we drive forward change and justice services as well and it's needing to make sure that this doesn't have an impact on those areas as well so sorry Jim, probably a slightly waffly didn't give you a straight yes or no answer to that but I'm practising to be a politician I'm going to say you're making a good politician now or something like that I don't know if anyone else has a question, no OK, my second question and again, maybe to start with you Alison is in regard to the good practice that we see across Scotland but not losing the individual local hands on and I appreciate a lot of this will come with the working groups, with the regulations but have you concerns that we lose our local good knowledge that people have in Stonaway or Edinburgh or Dumfries because we become a national service? I think there is a risk of that and I suppose it's how that design process comes in amongst it I suppose we're all for the fact that we want people to have equitable access we want there to be common standards and processes in amongst some of this but actually what will work in some of the Highland and Island communities is going to be very different from what might work in a city centre so we need to retain that and I think we've moved significantly on a personalisation agenda and self directed support and I know that that hasn't necessarily rolled out everywhere in exactly the same way and there's still time around some of that but actually it is very much about how we work with individuals around improving outcomes and personalisation so to some extent we need to make sure that we retain and keep that level of individualisation for people as much as anything else in amongst this in terms of the choice and control and the rights and responsibility that are central to the self directed support legislation that isn't just about how we're working in communities but things will work very different in our rural and urban communities and we need to have some level of structure to some extent the NHS has that because there are still localised and localised developments that meet their communities needs so whatever structure is in place around a national care service we need to have that local engagement and that sense about how we develop things that meet the needs of local communities and amongst that because that will be very different I think Pam had a follow up to that and then I was going to bring you in next anyway so if you want to move on to your next questions as well that's fine I will do that seamlessly thank you for all your comments so far and I also want to say at this point to put in the record just a thanks for everything all the work that carers did during the pandemic but also before that and after that as a care user I understand the importance of social care so I just want to put that in the record my question was a follow up to the previous one for Alice and it's one thing that strikes me at that members and others might be aware of I've got a bill looking at the transition to adulthood for young disabled people in your view would this be affected and the process of transitions be affected by the national care service and is there a danger that it becomes more piecemeal if all of the services are not much more coordinated as part of that I think there is a risk in that and I suppose it's about being really clear in the core design process about how we don't lose some of that we already know as part of the reason you're putting the bill up that there is inconsistency around transitions but getting that right for that age group is so key and critical certainly most of my career in social work has been predominantly in learning disabilities where certainly that transition process can be a make or break in terms of how you manage that it's so difficult around that moving from school into adulthood certainly and the differences and the shifts and the changes and the responsibilities that come with that I think there are some risks in this bill if we don't get the design process right about it because I think there's so many uncertainties but those transitions aren't just from children's social work to adult social work they also include education we need to be involved in that wider issue housing is often a really key issue for people as they're transitioning and moving out of home so those links are wider than just where social work and social care sits in amongst this it's that broader picture in amongst this so the biggest risk is probably the destabilisation while change happens once we get to the point of there being in the national care service whether children are in out whatever that might be we can rework again but it has the potential to massively destabilise and risk things in the meantime I would say what would you do to not destabilise it I suppose I would go back to social work Scotland's point of we need to do the design process before we make the significant changes around that because I think the danger is we destabilise whereas we could do some of those incremental changes that are central to the NCS bill without destabilising the whole system in the meantime and then make that transition because at that point we would know if children's services were in how we think those relationships would be with the wider education system, the local government sector in terms of where those are because as people are moving in that transition period it is that broader it isn't just a social work issue it is a much broader public sector response in terms of how we resolve those issues thank you and I'll move on to my original areas of question if that's alright, thank you my questions are for Cara Stevenson and Sarah Cowan if that's okay in the first instance, Cara you mentioned that in social care it's been very difficult to recruit and to retain staff can you tell us a bit about the role of fair work in that experience that your members are having on the pay that they're currently living on yep, thanks for that basically right now social care workers are living on a poverty pay for doing a lot more work to cover the gaps in recruitment at the moment we're actually driving a social care workforce in a state of panic and anxiety because they don't know what they're going to the next day and as a social care worker being them myself the main priorities around the service users and people who rely on the service we're on a cost 11 crisis at the moment as well we've got care workers that are actually having spoke to them recently they're going out to their work and having to decide whether they go to the shop and buy their service user a loaf of bread and a pint of milk or whether they take it back to their family that is a really scary place for us to be at the moment and we're paying them a pittance for it so really what we call on is we want a minimum of £15 for social care workers now not by a national care service not through co-design it has to happen now or this crisis is going to get worse thank you Kara the example you just shared about the shop is grim I've seen it of people in the region in the Glasgow region have told me about it as well and as I hope you're aware we support the £15 an hour ask it's beyond overdue and the notion that we need to wait until the national care service is set up is worrying Sarah Cowan if you could comment on that with particular reference to the impact it's having on women's inequality and poverty thank you just I'm building on what Kara said it's long been known that fair work isn't being delivered in social care the fair work convention has highlighted that in the past well before the pandemic so this is a long term issue that needs resolved as quickly as possible so in terms of there being steps that I know we're talking today about the national care service bill but just to emphasise the point about steps that can be taken along the way while the bill is being made and I think changes for workforce is a key one in fact these were elements in the financial memorandum that were said to be are said to be separate and on-going from the bill so that's why it's really crucial that they are acted on with urgency and that funding in the forthcoming budget looking at what the next period would be last year there was the commitment to £10.50 we've seen the real living wage now surpass that at £10.98 and as Kara said moving to a £15 award would be a fair wage for social care workers we're looking at some numbers around investment in care and we plan to release research on that in the coming in early December and the £15 mark would be about 75% of nurses wages that's what models like in many Nordic countries where social care is seen to be of a higher standard that's the sort of pay differentials they're looking at whereas at present we're at closer to social care staff is even about 50% of nurses wages and as we're hearing on the news today there's a lot to be done with nurses wages as well so I think moving towards the £15 parry is a crucial element while the national care service is being developed we are also doing some research that will be published hopefully next week around the impact of the cost of living crisis on women on low incomes which as Kara points out many social care workers will fall into and it is the desperate decisions that people are having to make about choices whether to feed their children or heat their house and choosing and women are making choices not to eat meals themselves to cut back on real essentials so the real fear from our point of view around the cost of living crisis and women's equality is that it's going to be another point where women's equality is pushed back if measures aren't taken to if measures aren't taken now to keep equality on the agenda and that the response to the cost of living crisis brings the key equality issues within it so I think that with the social care staff being such a gendered workforce it's a key area that we need to see investment in while the national care service process is on going thank you both for that I have no further questions on this team thank you very much I will move now back to Jeremy Balfour yeah thank you again I think probably most of the questions I had have been answered and it's a wee bit slightly going round in circles but what would you like to see if we're going to continue down the road that we are going to continue and we're not going to pause as you suggested what should be in the bill now that can't wait for a secondary legislation to fall on I appreciate that but if we are going to if this is going to go on in the next few months then what would you like to see in the bill which you don't think can wait for regulations and guidance can I start with Sarah in my room Sarah if that makes any sense I think for me in terms of what needs to be in the bill there are a couple of things first of all around recognition that volunteers are a really key part of the care workforce so as I said in my submission that we estimate that there's around about 200,000 volunteers supporting health and social care and that's roughly equivalent to the paid care workforce so it's really important that those specific needs are met I think as well something that's missing in the detail of the bill at the moment on care boards and what the make-up of those would be and how the voluntary sector would be meaningfully engaged in that we think potentially there's a key role for third sector interfaces in supporting this work I know that they're in various areas they're involved in the IJBs but it's not clear how the voluntary sector currently fits and how they would be meaningfully engaged in decision making so those would be the two I'll try and keep this brief so everybody gets their lunch in time but basically I'll just give you a few examples of what our key assets are right now for the bill so 15 per hour minimum for social carers in a proportionate increase for all other care staff which I've just meant just responded to Pam's question just why we need that now the other thing is we're wanting to cover all professional fees to the Scottish Social Services Council for all care workers because that relieves some pressure some financial pressure from social care staff trading must be paid for by employers and on staffs paid time again it just reduces anxieties for staff and also we would like trade union recognition and all social care settings so that we can negotiate terms and conditions contracts and be involved in the national care service at every step of the way as well I think we'd be looking for more clarity on the national social work agency it's not clear within the bill about what that would look like and I think more clarity in the bill around the role of chief social work officer on some of the protection legislation mental health care and treatment etc around that but there needs to be some clarity around the protection elements of that it's such a significant element of the social work role I think a bit more clarity about the difference between what social work and social care is at times it feels as though those terms are used interchangeably and I think that causes a level of confusion and around the fact that from a social work perspective just the gatekeepers to people who require a social care service there is a much broader role that we hold as social workers and I think that understanding around that would be really helpful I think the fair work issues that have been highlighted are the biggest single thing that would make a difference in terms of the crisis that we have at the moment and that needs to be addressed but I think as part of that I think some more clarity in the financial memorandum about what that will mean the financial memorandum I understand and certainly have listened to the minister and everyone having the conversations around that that some of the detail of that should come from the co-design process but it is quite difficult and challenging to understand what the impacts will be you've already mentioned the pension contributions and everything that go amongst that I think that lack of understanding causes a huge concern around that so those are the key issues that we would be looking for and as I say I suppose that that is a challenge for us around the fact that elements of social work the decision isn't going to be taken for a while but design process might be be through prior to that but that is part of the process that we are going through and last but not least online show I think just picking up on that point around the financial memorandum and the level of detail there justification was given within the financial memorandum of why certain elements were excluded those were really big elements particularly around the terms and conditions for the workforce so if it's not appropriate to be within the financial memorandum I think that that information needs to be presented transparently through this process because it's such a huge part of where costs will be in the national care service as well that it's hard to scrutinise the financial memorandum without clarity on those elements and where the Government can see and predict those elements to develop the other thing on the bill more widely I guess it's a bit of a rather than a really specific element to add but it's a bit of a pull back and just have real clarity on the outcomes we want to see from making this change and delivering this bill and kind of using a human rights approach in terms of framing those outcomes we want to see so it's really clear that the technical changes that are being considered and developed are going to deliver to those overarching outcomes Thank you and my final question you really go back to Sarah's comment about the 200,000 unpaid and someone who benefits from that unpaid care how do we not lose their voice because obviously an unpaid care again in different parts of Scotland will have different challenges different issues and you do a great work but how do that voice get fed into this because these are some of the key people that keep the system going without their help we'll be in an even more difficult place I think firstly it's about making the distinction between unpaid carers and volunteers because I think for unpaid carers that's not unpaid carers and we wouldn't class them as volunteers because quite often unpaid carers it's not voluntary they don't have a choice in the care that they have to provide so in terms of volunteers and how their voice is heard I think it's about that meaningful engagement with the voluntary sector again as a conduit to those volunteers that are on that front line I mean just as an example with a representative from a volunteer-involving organisation earlier this week who was saying that the staff shortages she's funded by the statutory sector and the staff shortages that she's experiencing she's getting increasing demand from her funder to take inappropriate referrals so it's a befriending service and to take inappropriate referrals back to that point of ensuring that volunteers aren't there to make up for staff shortages because I think if we're thinking about volunteers' experiences what we're starting to see at the moment we're starting we think that we're starting to see a decline in participation in volunteering coming into the cost-of-living crisis for a number of reasons the practical barriers presented by the cost-of-living crisis but also the feeling of apathy and fatigue and I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that volunteers were potentially asked to do things during the pandemic that they were happy to do on a short-term basis but as we all know the pandemic lasted a little bit longer than we were expecting and they maybe didn't feel that they could give up those additional responsibilities that they'd been given so I think that there's a real challenge to make sure that those voices of volunteers are heard because they are so important in the provision of care home care person-centred preventative space and if we start seeing a decline in those volunteers then we're really going to be struggling in how we deliver care on an on-going basis I'll just run a very quick final I mean so far in my process had there been meaningful engagement between the third sector and the Scottish Government whether at ministerious or civil service level I don't honestly know the answer to that certainly Volunteer Scotland haven't been engaged I know that there are some of the larger organisations such as the Alliance maybe Chest Heart and Stroke that have maybe been more involved looking at it from the provision of care but from a volunteering perspective we've certainly not been engaged before the consultation response process Thank you, thank you, Camilla Thank you I just want to pick up on something that we haven't necessarily touched on so the ethical commissioning strategies must reflect the principles of the national care service and important in that is including that of fair work to what extent do you feel these strategies will ensure fair work is embedded in the national care service I'll go to Cara first because I know that the GMB had commented on this so if I could go to Cara Sorry, can you repeat the question for me? Sure Ethical commissioning strategies must reflect excuse me must reflect the principles of the national care service and include in that is fair work so it's just to what extent will these strategies ensure that fair work is embedded in the national care service The fair work accreditation must require employers to adhere to certain standards on union activity especially being the voice of the workforce within their services prior to full recognition which includes recognising trade unions to be able to negotiate pay terms and conditions for the workforce Sorry, freedom information legislation must be amended so that the public can see how private funds are spending and profiting from public funds I think sometimes that's overlooked as well that this is public funding that goes into these places employers must be held accountable to report back on what they're doing spending of public funds but also how much funding is going into their staff to achieve that fair work that they're shining up for principles need to be stronger Yes, they have to be stronger and there has to be liability as well if certain employers' organisations are shining up to fair work accreditation and ethical commission there must be structures in place that if they're not adhering to that what happens next so to give an example the £10.50 minimum social care wage that came in it was a big struggle trying to get private employers to pay their staff that they dug their heels they hid behind a million excuses so we don't want to be in that place again if people are signing up to these accreditations there has to be a regulation around it to make sure that they're adhering to that Thank you Alison, I see you want to come in at one level I don't but I think when you are doing the commissioning I think you're right at the point that you're commissioning and as part of that commissioning process you're looking for the £10.50 an hour it can be very hard in that commissioning role to formally check that every member of staff is doing that because it's not your own organisation so I think it is right in terms of the regulations about how you ensure that organisations are adhering to that and how you are in amongst that but I think one of the biggest challenges I think welcome that there are both plans around that but there are already some good strong guidance and advice about ethical commissioning the biggest challenge at the moment has been the budgetary constraints that are around for commissioning bodies at this point in time so the two need to go hand in hand the financial memorandum and that clarity around what is available for those fair work practices along with really clear guidance in the commissioning processes for the bodies around how they're delivering that because without that we're either going to have less of something to fully commission at that level or we're not going to be able to commission for what we require at that point in time so those guidance and the financial memorandum kind of need to go hand in hand to make sure that there is sufficient budget to enable that to be enacted in the way that we would want to see it being enacted Thank you for your answers there I'm very sorry I've actually been managing to juggle the hybrid meeting quite well but I do see that Sarah Cowan wanted to come in on the last point if you would still like to come in that's fine Sarah, I can bring you in just now Just to say for the support for the points that Caraid was mentioning about strengthening the ethical commissioning piece within it and needing to use those commissioning tools to ensure that fair work has delivered and Caraid made a good point about private firms and the terms and conditions that STUC has done some research around that showing that the largest private firms have lower wages more complaints about care quality and higher levels of rent extraction so it's really important that the detail is there within the ethical commissioning and I did very briefly on Jeremy's point about the voice of unpaid carers and ensuring that those voices can be heard making sure that it's clear that the stage in the design process is a genuine process but also just reflecting the cost of living crisis having an appropriate budget there for that design process is going to be crucial to having the voices of everyone unpaid carers and those who receive care support because they'll need support through if it's a 10 meetings give up time to take part in that design process so there needs to be an appropriate budget for how that can be delivered as well Absolutely, thank you. I'll move on to questions from Pam Duncan Glancy Thank you I was wondering if we could explore a bit about the impact on inequality and human rights of social care I've long since considered the social care to be an investment for an essential infrastructure actually to deliver on equality and human rights but I'm keen to know from Kara first how you think we can get to a position that social care does that for the people who work in it but also for the people who use it and how we can use this bill as an opportunity to do it Yeah, thanks for that I think really the main point that we have and we have been trying for years is the public perception about what social care actually is so when we speak to a lot of members of the public when we're out kind of a rally for care workers what we tend to get is they'll go in, they'll make a cup of tea and they'll have a chat with somebody that's really degrading for a worker but it's also really degrading for a service user that's not all that happens care is relied on for somebody to live a normal daily life and I think that that has to be reflected in what we're trying to do here with the inequality care is predominantly women's work and I think that with regards to equal pay and what men get paid for doing similar jobs that has to be looked at and taken really seriously as well which has again been overlooked in the past but I think the public perception on why that is overlooked go hand in hand all so just to kind of add on that with the inequality in the human rights slant on that is you still have the perception of a woman being caring compassionate more than what a man is but that is what employers jump on the back of with a workforce and they use it and that's a really strong word they use somebody's care compassion in their gender to make them do over and above for less money that's a really inequality right there and that's something that we can be changing just now wow thank you Kara we took evidence in another committee that I sit on the equality human rights civil justice committee a couple of weeks ago about the budget and the Scottish women's convention made a very similar point about the way that women workers are treated so it's I'm disappointed that it's such I mean I'm not surprised but I'm disappointed that it is so prevalent thank you for putting that on the record Sarah Cowan if I could come to you next I wondered if you could talk about your understanding of the role that social care and the social care workforce but also social care as an infrastructure in general has in reducing poverty inequality and promoting human rights thank you and it's vital that social care is seen as an important infrastructure in this country and that social care like money spent on social care is seen as investment so just emphasising the point that you were making in your opening the question and it was welcome to see details around that in the financial memorandum as well so there was a recognition and details provided about what social care is already providing to the economy as well as to the people it's supporting in terms of as I mentioned earlier we're working on some research just now around investment in social care and what we would like what sort of investment is needed to really develop to really transform the social care in this country and to really put the investment into it that is needed to make significant changes in terms of the inequality points that have been mentioned and to deliver in that research is looking at what funds are needed to ensure that current care needs are needed but also what care is provided within the care service can be expanded we don't know the detail around unmet care needs in Scotland because there's not a consistent way of collecting that information so what we can assume from that is that there's going to be a need to make significant more investment to meet those unmet care needs and to expand provision of care and also to as we were talking about earlier to cover the funds needed to increase paid care workers wages and what we'd be looking at around that is again taken from Nordic examples is we need to increase the amount of GDP invested in care investing around I think 2% of GDP we've just under at present and we need to be looking to move that up to closer to 3.5% of GDP again that's chimed with what's happening in Nordic countries and that would lead to genuine transformation in the care service and expansion as I said of who it reaches and of wages people are receiving and in that way we believe that we can tackle some of the inequalities that exist both for women workers and for people who are receiving care and also for unpaid carers the majority of whom are also women because with that kind of investment unpaid care would also be moving towards, it wouldn't be there yet but we'd start moving towards being a choice within families rather than what is just now with a heavy reliance within our care services on unpaid care so we need to be looking at that kind of investment within the care service and national care service to really transform the inequality in human rights elements and that will sound like a big jump in terms of investment but remembering within that that social care contributes to the economy if we're increasing workers' wages and the number of social care workers that increases tax returns also increases a wider local economy so there would be money coming back from the system to the economy that would kind of help fund the increase in investment as well so that's why it's important as you said to see social care as an investment in society and people and in the economy Thank you and could I really ask Alison the same question if that's okay? Yes certainly I think if nothing else one of the benefits of the development of the national care services for what feels like a very long time the ability to discuss what social work is, what it means and what it does has been really valuable amongst this and I think at it's heart social work and social care has always been around social justice it's been about addressing inequalities it's about promoting human rights and when it's done well we really see that last night had the privilege of being at the social services awards where they were recognising the good practice for social work and social care and amongst that around Scotland in terms of the type of work that's going on our bright sparks, our service delivery it was really heartening to just see that volume of work that's going on and I think for each of the individuals that were nominated it was that sense of care and support that they were wanting to deliver and get the right service for the people that they're working with we were seeing people who had previously used services who had come here to support workers and a sense of pride that they were able to give back in the same way that they had been supported by carers themselves in a previous time so I think when we're looking at that human rights and inequalities perspective social work and social care are almost uniquely placed to be driving forward some of that change but without the issues that have already been highlighted by Karen and Tusseras around this without that right workforce without attracting people in and we often get stuck in those conversations so that we could work in Tesco for slightly different but actually for many people this is a vocation this is a profession this is something that they are super committed to doing this isn't just around that low paid level entry job that people are looking for we need to be attracting those bright sparks in there there are leaders of the future in amongst this profession and I think that the difference and impact that we can make in those areas if we get it right through this design process and impact on human rights and inequalities across Scotland no further questions thank you very much I will move to Emma Roddick to finish this off today thank you very much convener my first questions for Sarah Cowan you mentioned earlier that the need to keep equality on the agenda and I think that's the intention behind this committee scrutinising the bill from a social justice perspective so inviting this panel here as witnesses and I've found the evidence this morning really helpful and I think that's because we are discussing a framework bill and everybody here has such specific interests and ideas for what the end proposal should look like I just wondered did you find it helpful in any way being asked to come and give evidence to a parliamentary committee with such a blank slate and being able to say what it is that you want the national care service to look like can you do a really quick answer to that and say yes it's really good that this committee is scrutinising the bill because it does have such important social justice inequality implications as we've been talking about I think the ambitions of this bill and as it's being talked about publicly in relation to a national care service as being the biggest change in public services since the national service service was created creates a lot of expectation about what's going to be delivered through this and that can be a really good thing and there's a lot of opportunity there so in terms of what we want to see of a quality, accessible free at point of use social care system that has fair work at its heart and pays a good wage to the workforce and reduces the need for unpaid care or does not rely on unpaid care in the way the current system does is what we're imagining and hoping to see from the national care service but I think there's a real risk that it becomes a technical process and it's about changing structures and systems but that the care people are receiving and experiencing doesn't necessarily change and the workforce conditions don't change so I think it's vital for committees and MSPs scrutinising this and for the Scottish Government as they're building it that while needing to get the detail right the overarching ambitions are also front of mind and how care is experienced and changes for people so that more people can access it as well as improving service people are experiencing where that's needed is vital and as we've discussed a lot the workforce elements are brought in but as we've made clear across the board there are changes that can be made as the national care service is developed so it's because we're the budget group and we're looking at investment what we're hoping to see in the budget is not only that the set aside for the development of the national care service but that the on-going increase in funds to social care that will be delivered immediately because I think we've already heard some of the challenges that are being faced Thank you very much I think there's a lot to think about there and the flexibility for further changes down the line is definitely something that I'd like to keep an eye on Alison mentioned this a little bit in your answer to Pam earlier but the financial memorandum outlines the potential benefits that the national care service can have on Scotland's wider economy and tackling inequalities not just for those working in or receiving care so I'd like to go back to you Sarah, but also bring in Cara do you think that the national care service will bring these wider benefits in tackling poverty and inequalities Sorry, back to Sarah Cowan Sorry, is that me? Yes I think the national care service will hang on how much it's invested in it whether it delivers the benefits that we want to see in tackling poverty and inequality I mean, we know there's already the commitment for the increase across this parliamentary term we would like to see a much more significant increase across this parliamentary term than was committed to in the resource spending review yet we know that the emergency budget review is moving money and shifting money out of social care so the answer is basically the structures obviously are very important and how it's developed is crucial but if it doesn't have the investment coming with it based on what comes out of the co-design then we'll feel like they have invested so much time and hope into what's coming next but people could end up feeling like that process wasn't worthwhile if it doesn't follow with investment Thanks for that Basically just a follow-on for what Sarah is saying as well We do not oppose a national care service at J&B Scotland but it has to be done right it has to be funded properly and the co-design has to be that it has to be co-design with lived experience the workforce and the people who this is going to affect As I've previously mentioned things have to change now and that's the bottom line One of the things I did want to mention is how this has been interesting to listen to I think what's missing here as well is that there's absolutely no passion for care when it comes to a national care service you hear people talking about a national care service they're angry they've got great ideas they're talking about co-design but there's no passion behind talking about care when they're mentioning this and I think you know that's quite worrying because when you talk to care workers when they talk to you about their job you know they will tell you what's wrong on it but when you start talking to them about their service users they are filled with passion for care you know and they'll leave and tell you stories about sitting holding somebody's hand when they die and they're so passionate about that for the national care service to work the people that's implementing this have to show the same passion back to the people who use the service and the people who work on the service so what do you think is missing, sorry I listened to everything you said there but I'm not sure what part you're referring to honestly all of it so when you're talking about co-design, the bill because that isn't much in the bill the workforce don't actually think much is going to change because there's no understanding and no care for what they actually do we have suggested within the national care service meetings that we would welcome MSPs indeed, minister Kevin Stewart and his team to come out into our workforce and work with us for a day so that they can actually understand what care is what care workers do the service the service users receive and how they can incorporate that into the national care service in making changes for the better for everyone that's involved in this alright thank you all for your evidence today it's been really really useful I think for all of us now I appreciate this bill as being scrutinised by a number of different parliamentary committees but it's absolutely essential as many of you have mentioned that we look at it from that social justice perspective and your evidence has been key in that today so once again I'd just like to thank all the witnesses from this morning for coming along and giving your evidence today thank you so that concludes our public business for today next week we will continue to take evidence on the national care service Scotland bill and we'll now move into private members who are joining us remotely please use the microsoft teams link in their calendars to join the meeting thank you