 Good morning and welcome to the 30th meeting in 2022 of the local government, housing and planning committee. I would ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their devices are on silent and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting. The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Are members agreed? We're all agreed. Thank you. We now turn to agenda item 2, which is to take evidence on the national planning framework. We're joined today by Tom Arthur, Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth, Fiona Simpson, who is the chief planner, Andy Cunaird, who is the head of transforming planning, Carrie Davidson, the head of environment and energy, and Carrie Thompson, who is the head of development, planning and housing at the Scottish Government. I just want to really warmly welcome you all. I think that this might be the first time that we've all been in the same place together during the process of the NPF4. I know that it has been a great deal of work, and around this time last year it was being brought in. I think that it's been tremendous to see that you've really taken on board a great deal of what's come back as feedback and such an important piece of work as we look forward to the next 10 years in Scotland and shaping in response to climate and biodiversity emergencies. I would also like to welcome Liam Kerr, who is attending for this item in his capacity, as a member of the net zero energy and transport committee. We're just going to go straight to questions. I want to begin by focusing on how evidence and feedback—I'm sorry. Apologies, so just a little bit of confusion there, so I'd like to invite the minister for a brief statement. Thank you very much, convener, and a good morning to the committee. Let me begin by saying I very much welcome this opportunity to come back and address the committee again on NPF4 now that we have our revised draft before the Parliament. I am delighted to be at this stage in the NPF4 journey. As you recognise, getting to this point has taken a mammoth effort and commitment by so many people to whom I am all exceptionally grateful. It has taken three years, three wide-ranging and wide-reaching public consultations, extensive stakeholder engagement and a thorough parliamentary scrutiny, which the committee led on earlier this year. I gave my commitment to listen very carefully to what people were telling us about the earlier draft and to take the time needed to get NPF4 right, both in its intent and in its structure and specific wording. We have reached this revised version by engaging with others. We listened, we learned and we changed the document where needed. I was delighted to hear the feedback presented to the committee last week, overwhelmingly recognising the significant improvements in clarity and focus of NPF4 and its policies. I have also been delighted by the substantial support from across society to the change in direction in how we plan Scotland's places and communities. It is a rare thing for any planning strategy to unite so many different interests in the way that NPF4 has. That is not to say that we are enjoying universal agreement on everything, of course, nor could we ever expect that in planning. A planning document will inevitably generate a range of views. There will always be those who support and those who do not support any given planning policy. In this revised draft, we have made in choices informed by all of those views. In doing so, it is not possible that the committee would recognise to please everyone. We are charting a new course for Scotland's future development, with climate and nature and a wellbeing economy all central to our thoughts and decisions. NPF4 is about less compromise and a clearer commitment to net zero. As Professor Cliff Hague noted last week, we now do not have much choice about having that focus. We will not shy away from the challenges that society faces, nor from the difficult decisions that may need to be made. NPF4 will ensure that Scotland has a truly plan-led system. We are different views on how far planning policies can and should go towards prescribing the outcome of a planning decision. That is perhaps because, too often, decisions have been made which compromise on the development plan. NPF4's strong policies will provide more certainty and confidence for all of us so that, if proposals are supported by a sustainable, locally driven plan that has been developed with communities, we can all have more confidence that they will be delivered on the ground. While NPF4 is now very clear in its intentions, there will still be some flexibility at the local level, and each case will still be treated on its own merits. That is hardwired into our planning system, which allows and requires professional judgment and discretion to be applied. I know that there are some concerns about implementation and how competing policies will be reconciled in specific cases. In every planning decision, there will always be planning policies that support the proposal and those that do not. That is why we always stress the importance of reading NPF4 as a whole. It is also why the planning system is operated by professionals, whose job it is to apply professional judgment and provide sound advice to inform democratic decisions. If decisions are backed by strong planning policy, which is clear in its intent, I believe that I know that Scotland's planning authorities will be up to the job. Indeed, the strong focus on well-functioning, healthy, high-quality places strongly featured across NPF4 is why people get into the planning profession in the first place. We are nearing the end of the beginning for NPF4, and I am very keen that we get on now and move into implementation. In a few weeks from now, I will ask the Parliament to give us approval, and should that be agreed, we will move swiftly to adoption and give NPF4 its new statutory status as Scotland's development plan. I do not underestimate the scale of the work that lies ahead to deliver NPF4. That is where I and my officials are turning our focus. After several years of policy development and legislative change, we are now ready to shift our attention fully to delivery. However, we cannot deliver NPF4 alone. It will take further wide-reaching cross-sector collaborative commitment. The Scottish Government will be a key actor in driving and supporting that implementation. Monitoring will of course be vital. This is the first time that Scotland has a standard set of national planning policies. It will take some time to establish whether the policies are being implemented as intended, where there is room for improvement and where there is a need for the detail to be adjusted. We will be monitoring this very carefully, while also supporting interpretation of policies. We will also work with everyone involved in planning to build skills and share experience, particularly in the first instance for the newer areas of policy, such as climate change, the nature crisis and community wealth building. The committee is well aware of the resource pressures facing the planning system, our authorities and the wider public sector. I reiterate my commitment to progressing the work that we are doing with our partners through the high-level group on planning performance, with the planning profession and with our authorities, to raise the positive profile of planning and to make progress on its effective resourcing. We have made clear throughout our work on NPF4 exactly where our priorities lie for Scotland's future development. Our task now, and the vote that is to come, is to consider whether the NPF4 is doing enough to address the global climate emergency and nature crisis and doing this in a way that improves our places and builds a sustainable wellbeing economy. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to make real and progressive change. I have welcomed and appreciated the committee's support and hard work in its careful scrutiny of NPF4. I look forward to your questions this morning and what I am sure will be interesting in stimulating discussion. I want to begin by focusing on how evidence and feedback on the revised draft will be used. The planning stakeholders have suggested several possible improvements to NPF4 during last week's session. First, how will those and other stakeholder suggestions be taken on board before NPF4 is formally adopted? Secondly, can you commit to further engagement when NPF4 is in place to improve areas that do not work as intended through perhaps a chief planner's letter? I would say that the answer to your first question lies in your second question. We have arrived at this point, as I alluded to in my opening remarks, through an extended period of work—over three years of work now to get to this point. The intention is now, and what we will do is bring forward the NPF4 draft as revised before the committee for consideration today to Parliament for a vote. Under the legislation, a parliamentary vote is required before ministers can adopt. That is the revised version that we will bring to Parliament for a vote, so there is no scope at this juncture for changes or amendments. To do so would be to effectively reopen the process again and delay getting on with the work of implementing and delivering NPF4. With regard to your second question, engagement, collaboration, partnership working, that is essential for the delivery of NPF4. We have set out in our delivery programme, in its first iteration, how we will work with partners to help to achieve that. The delivery programme will be reviewed after six months, and I am very grateful for those who have already offered comments about what changes they would like to see and what additions they would like to see in the delivery programme. That is something that we will engage on. Of course, as I again stated in my opening remarks, through our monitoring process, we will be able to learn how the policies are actually delivering on the ground. We will begin to see how that impacts on the development of new LDPs. It is through that process that we will then be able to evaluate the impact that NPF4 is having. There is provision within the legislation to the 2019-19 planning act to amend NPF4. We will bring forward those regulations next year, but clearly any changes to NPF4 would have to be evidenced and carefully considered. The priority and focus now is on the adoption of NPF4, subject to Parliament's agreement, and then its implementation and delivery, which will be done in a genuine spirit of collaboration and partnership working. I thank you very much for that response. It is really heartening to hear the continued commitment for engagement and collaboration there. I would like to touch on resourcing and biodiversity, because I have heard you talk a number of times in conversations about NPF4 about the fact that it is climate and biodiversity that is the headline that we are trying to attend to. Last week, Bruce Wilson, who is the head of policy and advocacy at Scottish Wildlife Trust, said that there is a lack of resources to measure biodiversity, that that threatens the ability of planners and developers to understand what is at risk and how they must modify developments to safeguard biodiversity. The increased workload of this additional responsibility is further augmented by the shortages in planners across Scotland. Therefore, I would like to understand how will the Government ensure that local authority planning departments are resourced and supported to properly evaluate and monitor the impact of developments on biodiversity? As I indicated in response to my statement in Parliament last year when I introduced the draft NPF4, resourcing of our planning system is a priority for me. To realise the ambition and vision within NPF4, we need a properly resourced planning system. The actions that I have taken since then include increasing planning fees from April this year, which there is already some evidence to suggest is feeding through into additional positions within some planning departments. We are working through the high-level group to support the collective and collaborative work to address challenges around recruitment intentions. For example, the future planning project, which I was delighted that the Scottish Government was able to provide financial support to, has developed a report that has provided a series of recommendations for how we can recruit more people into the planning profession and, indeed, to help to retain people within the planning profession. I should note that the challenges that Scotland faces around recruitment in the planning sector are not unique to Scotland. They are much wider challenges, but I am clear that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to be doing all that it can to support our planning authority partners to ensure that we have a well-resourced planning system, which we have taken action towards through higher fees. We are continuing to take action towards through engagement and dialogue on how we can move to a model of full-cost recovery, which is an ambition but requires careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences, and in ensuring that we have a sufficient workforce within our planning sector through the future planners project, we are taking action there in partnership with our key partners to assist in making sure that we maximise the number of people coming into the profession and staying in the profession. The final point that I would want to make is to recognise that NPF4 provides an opportunity to really inspire many, many more people to choose planning as a career. Planning is a wonderful career choice for any young person thinking about what they want to do in life. It provides an opportunity to make a huge and impactful difference not just to their own communities but to the countries of all. Planners will be at the forefront of shaping our places and ensuring that we can meet our obligations to reach net zero by 2045, specifically on the issue of biodiversity. I do not know if there is anything that you really want to add, Kerr, about the specific support providing there and particularly given the new policies that are coming online. I can add that the Scottish Government has commissioned research to explore options for a biodiversity metric or other tool and will be working with NatureScot on a programme of engagement as that work moves forward. Will that be linked into the biodiversity strategy and the natural environment bill? Will there be a cross-connection there? It is certainly a cross-collaborative exercise across both Scottish Government, including colleagues leading on those work streams but also with NatureScot as well. It is a very joined-up exercise and we are keen to engage across the piece as that work moves forward. Thank you very much for that. It is good to know that that is happening. It seems to be a critical tool that we will need. I am not going to bring in Willie Coffey. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, minister and your officials too. Tom, you spoke at Great Lanfair, which was very welcome about NPF4. We cannot do it alone, it is not a standalone document, it is going to be wide-ranging across sector and so on. We had some of that discussion, I would say, over the period of time that we have looked at the progress of NPF4. Last week, Professor Hague widened it out as well to talk about how it might interact and interface with other departments within Government. We heard to Irish colleagues in Government there that their departments set out how they will deliver their priorities within their framework of their own NPF. Is that something that you see happening here in Scotland that the other Scottish Government departments will be able to show to demonstrate how their policy delivery interfaces interact with NPF4? I want to respond in making two points. Firstly on process, this has been a cross-government endeavour. Over 200 officials have been involved in the development of NPF4. Of course, it has been a collaborative effort across wider Scottish society and the Parliament with the process that has got us to this day. By design, it reflects the full gamut of Scottish Government policy. Beyond that, planning by its nature touches upon every aspect of our lives, from the homes that we live in to the places that we work, where we go to for leisure and recreation, to the spaces that give us a sense of identity, to how our economy operates and functions. Planning is inherent in every aspect of how modern contemporary society functions, so it is inevitable that any work of this stature and magnitude that every aspect of Government policy will have had input. Clearly, there is a focus on the climate emergency and the nature crisis, but that is a lens through which all other policies have been considered and that is what NPF4 seeks to bring together. You will have seen this morning that our colleagues in the economy committee have released their report on town centres and many of the themes in that were covered during our discussions, particularly about how we improve the town centres. Some of the comments from our members and those giving evidence to us over recent months are talking about those particular issues too. It is a good example for me of how it must cross-cut and embrace those issues that are coming out of a sister colleague committee's reports. Is that something that you support and we should hope to develop over the time that the NPFs in place? Absolutely. I was delighted to give evidence to the committee earlier this year. I am grateful to see that the report has been published. I have not had an opportunity to consider it in full yet without it being published this morning, but looking at the headline items that were covered, it is encouraging to see that there will be such unanimous support and recognition of the key and vital role that our town centres play for our communities and for our country overall. That is something that is reflected within NPF4, seeing our town centres. Indeed, other local centres, city centres or commercial centres are key strategic assets. I am sure that we are recognised throughout the work that the committee has undertaken in looking specifically at town centres, as we are recognised in our own town centre action plan, which we published earlier this year, and is reflected within NPF4. There is no single lever that we can pull to address the challenges that our town centres face, but there needs to be a collaborative, joined-up approach. Planning has a huge role to play in that, so does fundamentally reorganising and rewiring our local economies work. That is where community wealth building, something that we will have a lot more to say about in the new year, can have a very important role to play in ensuring that our economies and our local communities retain more wealth, which in itself will support vibrant and flourishing town centres. Thank you very much for that. I hope that I can come back in later. I am now going to bring in Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. Thank you for joining us. You just mentioned cross-government endeavour, which NPF4 has been. I welcome the positive and constructive nature of discussions that we have had, but I am concerned with regards to housing and where that currently sits within NPF4. The housing crisis is not necessarily being addressed, so I wanted to ask a few specific questions. In relation specifically to how the revised NPF4 addresses the issue of potential under-delivery of land in pipeline going forward, and whether or not there is any trigger in place if that is not being brought forward. We want to just go one question at a time. First, we as a Government recognise the centrality of housing. What we are seeking to do with NPF4 is move the debate on from one around numbers to one where we focus on quality of place. A quality home does not end at the front door, and that is what we are seeking to do through NPF4. With regards to numbers specifically, by having the minimum all-tenure housing land requirement, which I appreciate the committee understands fully, is a floor rather than a ceiling. That can help to provide greater certainty, but it is important to recognise the role that local development plans will play. As we work towards the introduction of the regulations that will commence new style local development plans and accompanying guidance, I am committed to engaging with stakeholders with hops and industries to ensure that there is clarity there. That will play a key role as well, but with regard to some of the specific point that you made, I will ask Carrie to address that on the question around triggers and issues of under-delivery. The NPF is set out where there is under-delivery of housing. The longer term sites that are allocated would be able to be bought forward. In the pipeline, it is split into three different stages. Years one to three, short term, 46 medium, 7 to 10 long term. We have also asked for plans to allocate sites beyond 10 years as well. If the delivery is not happening early on, then those longer term sites can be bought forward. I will give you an example of my area here in Edinburgh. 80 per cent of all local development plan land is currently at its brainfield site. 80 per cent of that is currently sitting on it, which is something that is not aware of. Cat and dog home is also part of that. There is no plan for where they will then be moved to. Here in Edinburgh, where the housing crisis is acute, I do not see where that land will come. That is the problem that I hope a mechanism would be in place to address. It is not going to come forward as far as I can see within that seven-year period anyway. That is where I think that there really needs to be a mechanism for adjusting that when we see this problem on the horizon clearly here in the capital anyway. The point that I would stress is that where we are considering the NPF for today, local development plans will have a very important role to play in this. One of the things that NPF for will allow is for LDPs to be less characterised by written policy and more focus upon spatial strategy. We will also, of course, be monitoring implementation and how NPF for ultimately is delivering on the ground. There will be that continuous process of engagement and, as I say, monitoring. Of course, that will be a learning process in itself, because, as I said in my earlier remarks, we have never had a national statutory planning framework before. We will engage ahead of the introduction of the LDP regulation and guidance, and, of course, there is the means of, if NPF for were in any way not to be delivering what we would want to see when delivering then, of course, we would take action, but it is really important to recognise the significant role that LDPs have in that. I do not know if you maybe want to come in and just offer some views and a bit of information with regards to what we are doing, working towards LDPs, new style LDPs and the guidance that we will provide. I know that we are concerned around transitional arrangements as well being expressed by stakeholders, so I beg to hear if you could provide some information on that. That was the perfect example of how we need to make sure that we do not just look at NPF for in isolation but planning reform as a whole and how NPF and local development plans will work together. For that reason, this time last year we ran the consultations on NPF and on the new local development planning system at the same time, because they are just so closely interlinked. Likewise, we are coming into the implementation phase that the links are there, I guess, for long to see. On the assumption of NPF for being approved and then adopted by ministers, we will then want to move very quickly into laying the regulations that will bring the new local development plan regulations into play. The authorities are looking to get started on their LDPs, get under way with that. At that point of adoption of NPF, we will also produce just a bit of guidance on the transitional arrangements for how that will fall into place. We published a couple of years ago some guidance on how we expected the transitionals to work, so that those authorities that are already working through their existing local development plans will continue to do that and see that through to completion while the others can get started. It all just flows through a sort of logistical process or get through NPF, lay the regulations for the LDPs. The guidance will come with that, which will also include some thematic guidance about implementing NPF through LDPs, too. I think one of the things that's really important to bear in mind is that central to this housing problem is getting them back to a plan-led system. That is something that is absolutely essential for developing the kind of communities that we want to see, but also for meeting and ensuring that there is consistency with the obligations that we have and the policies that are within the document around addressing the climate emergency and the nature crisis. However, as I said, we will engage closely with the house-building sector and we will have a programme of monitoring, and that will involve regular engagement. As I also indicated in my opening remarks, as a Government and as a division planning architecture regeneration, we are moving from that phase of policy development and legislative change into delivering it out, and part of that will include a lot more engagement with planning authorities and with wider stakeholders. Thank you. That's helpful. I think the commitment to transitional guidance for sectors is something we have heard all sectors ask for, so it's good to have that on record. The committee has also heard concerns around a flood of local development plans being published shortly after the adoption area of MPF4. I just wondered what steps has the Scottish Government taken to ensure that local development plans will be phased in conjunction with MPF4 as well? To some extent, that will happen naturally. I think that there are about five authorities that recently are in the process of completing their LDPs using the existing arrangements. What we envisage is that within about five years, all planning authorities will have adopted a new style of LDP, but the pace at which they do that will be determined by a number of factors, the age of their existing LDPs, the particular impacts specific to their areas of new policies, and also the capacity within their teams. However, we will of course engage closely with authorities to understand what their plans are, and the DPEA will be doing similar to assist them in their business programming. I recognise the point, but it should also be recognised that it's not unusual that we will see different authorities moving in different paces reflecting their particular circumstances. Supplementary on that, if I can. What will apply if a council is in the process of updating its local development plan and it hasn't quite reached that point yet, and NPF is adopted prior to that? What applies in terms of planning decisions locally? Is it the NPF-4, or is it the current LDP in the local council? Will the guidance make clear which? As a setting of legislation, when NPF-4 is adopted, the development plan will consist of NPF-4 and a local development plan, but NPF-4 will take precedence over any existing LDP. Once new LDPs come online, that situation is changed as they are the more up-to-date reflection of policy. However, once NPF-4 is adopted, if there is a conflict between an existing LDP and NPF-4, where would prevail? I don't know if there is anything more to add on that point. We are now going to move to questions from Mark Griffin. The committee has raised issues around the potential capital investment plan at previous sessions. That was essentially to allow us to scrutinise how the ambitions of the document could be met. Will the minister be able to set out why there was a decision to not include that capital investment plan, if that is something that the Government would potentially reconsider? I recognise that that has been something that has been of interest to some stakeholders. What would the delivery programme set out is where we already have existing funding? Will there be through infrastructure investment plan, the place-based investment programme, the vacant and the debit land investment programme, or strategic investment within transport, the investment within housing? All of that will contribute towards delivering on the ambitions within NPF-4, so there are a range of existing investment plans with which NPF-4 aligns. As those plans want to further iterations, NPF-4 will help to inform that. That speaks to the importance of the delivery programme being a live document. As the funding landscape changes, and we do, unfortunately, with the circumstances that we face, our funding landscape can be volatile as a consequence of how devolution in the fiscal framework operates. It is important to have that flexibility there, but we will be in a position through the delivery plan to demonstrate how existing and new funding streams, as they emerge, align with the ambitions within NPF-4. While I recognise that there would be a call for something that would be a perhaps unique, concise, specific capital investment plan that was published alongside NPF-4, I think that, in essence, the delivery programme captures that intent. I do not know if there is anything to add to that point. We have proposed the planning infrastructure and place advisory group in the delivery programme. We have, alongside that, previously established an infrastructure delivery group. That involves private sector infrastructure providers, as well as the public sector. That reflects the complexity of the picture. It is not as simple as a single capital investment plan that is fully funded by the public sector, but it is about that engagement with the private sector, too. That is the key point, because it is not solely public money that is going to deliver on NPF-4. The private sector has a huge role to play, and even within the public sector there is a mix between the Scottish Government and local government. It is quite a complex funding landscape. We seek to present, in terms of the public sector side, the money that is available through the existing funding streams. How that aligns with the ambitions and principles within NPF-4? We can move on to another area that you have touched on, the Matler figures, and I wanted to bring it back a stage before that to the housing needs and demand assessment tool that informs them. Last week at the committee, we heard evidence from witnesses who said that the Honda tool was not fit for purpose, because it underestimated and overestimated figures on contrasting evidence from witnesses. I am concerned that it does not fully take into account the number of concealed households that are out there, and potentially obstructs young people who have clearly got a demand on the need to go out and make their own way. Given that there are conflicting views by witnesses, whether there is a rough confidence in that tool and whether the work that has informed the Matler figures is robust enough. I will ask Carrie to come in in a moment, but what we have done is to take an evidence-based approach, and I think that we all recognise that that is absolutely vital. The numbers that we arrived at are based on both national and local data, but it is also important to recognise that the Honda was a starting point in reaching the Matler. There is also flexibility within that, and it is important to remember the opportunity for local evidence as part of the new style LDPs through the evidence reports to identify where there is additional need and demand, so there is that flexibility that is built in. The Honda guidance and the tool are kept under review, and they are regularly updated in relation to when there is release of updated household projections by NRS. I would say that Honda is well understood and well established, but I would also recognise that the session last week that Homes for Scotland offered to facilitate a workshop for the committee on Honda. I am very keen to maintain positive engagement with Homes for Scotland, so planning issues and notes from the centre of our housing market analysis will of course be happy to have discussions on the Honda tool and other matters with Homes for Scotland, but I do not know if there is any particular detail that you want to provide, Carrie. On the Matler figures, the process that was undertaken, we engaged quite a lot with the local authorities. We provided some baseline information that was national data and statistical based, but then we provided the local authorities with an opportunity to feed in local level evidence and information to inform it, so whatever data they have at their level information based on policy ambition or policy drivers, they can use that to influence the data, the information that they fed into the figures and increase them. What those figures will do will be a baseline for the next LDP, so I have expressed that they are minimum figures, and the HNDA would then be completed in full to inform the LDP as that progresses through the new system. Can I just ask about the local engagement with the various planning authorities, just to ask did they all engage fully with that or was there various levels of interaction with your department? How did they all fully engage? Every authority responded, some collectively. The west of Scotland, the Glasgow City Regionary, they responded collectively. Every local authority is at a different stage of their housing and planning processes, so they provided the information that they were able to at that particular time. We have updated the information based on HNDAs that have progressed prior to the draft, and authorities will then also be able to use updated information as they are progressing their LDPs as well. Minister, we were also discussing at the committee evidence about the infrastructure first approach to the whole planning system across Scotland. What level of buy-in do you think there is from infrastructure providers to support that approach? We heard some evidence from witnesses over the period that we were involved in about how important that is to deliver and achieve that, so how confident are you that that can be done? With the support of the NPF for providers, that can bring a degree of confidence and certainty. It is certainly something that, in my experience in the last 18 months as planning minister, this is a key interest from many colleagues, is the question of infrastructure. I think that this is a policy commitment of any NPF for that is very much welcome, but it is important that the NPF for it itself is. There is a key role to play here for local development plans, and that will help them to play a very important role in securing that buy-in and providing that confidence at the local level. I think that the heart of this is going to be collaborative working. We set out for our delivery programme some of the practical ways in which we will seek to engender collaborative working, and I have been trying to set out more generally that the work that we do as a Government moving from policy design into implementation can help to support that work as well. You mentioned yourself in response to one of the questions that the community wealth building. There was some evidence at the committee that it is a little bit lacking in clarity about its definition of the NPF for what it means, and perhaps it is not so well understood in planning circles even now. Could you say a bit more about that, about how you might address that, if you agree with those concerns and those issues, to make it clearer for everyone to understand? I would want to recognise and welcome the comments from stakeholders who have welcomed the greater clarity on community wealth building within the NPF. Community wealth building is at different stages of implementation. You will be aware from your constituency, Mr Coffey, that across Ayrshire, starting with North Ayrshire, now including the whole of the region, we have seen trailblazing work in community wealth building. I was delighted to be out and about in the area earlier on in the summer, seeing some of the great work that has been done on there through procurement place-based approaches. Community wealth building will be something that more local authorities are going to take up. As I think has stand at the moment, there are five pilot areas that the Scottish Government has supported. There is a work that has taken place in Ayrshire. There are other local authorities on their own steam taking forward community wealth building approaches. We have a commitment as a Government to supporting all local authorities to develop their own community wealth building strategies. I will have more to say about that in the new year. We also have a commitment to introduce legislation to support community wealth building upon which we will consult ahead of introduction. We have established a bill steering group in that space as well. Again, I will have more to say about that in the new year. Community wealth building is, again, its reference within our National Strategy for Economic Transformation. Community wealth building is going to be a key practical tool for realising the ambitions around a wellbeing economy. It is going to be integral to rewiring how our local and regional economies operate. They operate in a way that sees less wealth extraction and more wealth retained by communities. I think that the situation will transpire as this model is rolled out and more local authorities adopt it. We will see more local authorities with their own community wealth building plans and, as the policy reference, that will have to be recognised in planning decisions. Do you think that there is enough understanding locally local people about what we mean by community wealth building? Do they get it, as the question I am asking the minister, and how will they shape the community wealth building plans as they develop? We have always been in favour of taking a view that Governments and councils should not do things to people. We should do things with them and embrace people at that ground level to enable them to shape policy development. Do you think that there is enough local knowledge about what we mean by this, and are there enough opportunities for people to get involved in that process to help to shape it? I think that the term community wealth building may be new to some people, but the concept underlying it is not. Certainly, the key components, many of which are well established in Scotland, whether that be around sustainable procurement, supporting local businesses and localising supply chains, whether it be about the retention of local assets and seeing more local assets in community ownership, or whether that be promoting fair work and progressive recruitment practices, or whether it be promoting more progressive models of ownership, be that co-ops, employ-own businesses or social enterprises. Those are all well understood strands of work, many of which have had long-standing support from the Scottish Government and local authorities. What community wealth building does is bring a strategic lens to those individual strands in such a way that we can affect quite significant and radical change of how our local and regional economies operate. I have to say that I am heartened to see the interest of dating community wealth building from right across the political spectrum and indeed from right across stakeholders. I have had very positive engagement with, for example, the FSB in community wealth building, and I look forward to more constructive engagement going forward. That is something that has got real potential. It is not going to be an overnight fix. There are no silver bullets here to go and address all the challenges that our local and regional economies face, but community wealth building is something with a track record in other areas. It is already delivering on the ground and air, and I think that more and more communities adopt it through Scotland. We will see the benefits of it, and special planning can have a key role to play in helping to deliver community wealth building, which is why I am delighted that we have this policy in NPF4. Although I cannot say for certain myself that I know from one contributor the suggestion that this might be the first planning policy in the world to have a specific community wealth building policy within it. This is a demonstration of the commitment that the Government has to advancing the community wealth building agenda, and it is something that I very much hope to have the opportunity to discuss in more detail with the committee in due course. Those comments are very welcome ministers. Thank you very much. I am now going to move on to questions from Marie McNair, who is joining us online. Some of the evidence that we received last week from stakeholders with some calls for improvement that could assist the general public, would you consider publishing a non-technical summary of the NPF4 to aid community groups and others in understanding what can be fairly technical document that will enter the future planning decisions? Yes, absolutely. I want to see as much engagement in the planning system as possible. I have been clear that this will be a collective endeavour and that this will take time, but I want to move the narrative from one of conflict to one of collaboration, and that means genuine community empowerment and engagement within the planning process. We have, to our disposal, already introduced the regulations and local place plans earlier this year, so they can provide a key opportunity for communities to be shaping their places. I note the comments from last week, and I think that it may have been Professor Hague who made them, which is with regards to often when we seek engagement within the planning system. It is in a negative context of wanting to stop a development. We have so much insight and knowledge within our communities, but we need to do more to harness and for that to feed into our local place plans and other mechanisms to ensure that communities are much more engaged at an earlier stage and have the opportunities to bear their experience, their local insight and, most importantly, their ambitions for their communities to bear on through local place plans and other measures on the local development plans that take place. I think that that can do a power of good for planning overall, because it gets much more into a space of talking about what we want to see, rather than the developments that we do not want to see. Thank you for that reassurance. Some planning stakeholders are concerned that delivery continues to be the weakest point across NPF board documents. Can you assure us that the policy priorities set out in the NPF4 will be delivered? Apologies. Can you repeat the question? I missed the first part of it. Some planning stakeholders are concerned that delivery continues to be the weakest point across the NPF board documents. How can you assure us that the planning priorities set out in the NPF4 will be delivered? I want to reassure us that I have sought to do that in the evidence that I have provided so far to the committee. As a Government, we are turning, as I say, from the focus on policy development and legislative change to implementation. We are working constructively and collaboratively with stakeholders to ensure that the planning profession is supported and is resourced. We will also notwithstanding our focus on delivery be rolling out the further provisions of the Planning Act 2019, which will help to support the delivery of NPF4 as well, such as master plan consent areas, for example. We also have a phase programme of permitted development rights review, which we are taking forward and which, again, can help to support on delivery. Delivery is an absolute priority, and monitoring will be key in assessing how we are progressing in doing that, but to deliver will require collaboration. I am absolutely committed to the closest engagement possible with stakeholders because, ultimately, planning is for everyone, but everyone has a role to play in making planning and in making NPF4 a success. Thank you for that minister and no further questions, Camino. Thanks, Marie. Just on that piece about everybody needs to be, everyone has a role in the success. With the climate and biodiversity at the forefront, you mentioned at some point this morning and also in the past that we need to be moving to a spatial strategy. I would also say that maybe we are also facing a spatial squeeze. I think that we have heard that some ways about Edinburgh with Miles Briggs' questions. I wonder if, in the development of the NPF4, do you have a sense that sectors that are involved in development, housing, for example, understand that they maybe need to change their business models? What I am starting to see across all my work in the Parliament. In the need to respond to climate and nature emergency, business models need to change. We have to move from how we are doing it now, we need to be really seeing how we are doing housing or anything else 10 years from now, 20 years from now. I just want to get a sense. Do you feel like that collaboration is really happening on the part of those sectors that we will be putting in our infrastructure? It comes back to the point that Professor Hage made. We do not have a choice. We can say that it is a social imperative or an economic imperative or indeed an environmental imperative. We do not have a choice. Climate change is happening yes, we have to mitigate it but we also have to adapt it as well. If we do not do that, the consequences I think we can all say would be incalculable. We have put the climate emergency and the nature crisis right at the heart of the NPF4 policy number one, which runs through the entire vision of the document. However, those considerations are not unique to Government. Every business and every local authority is having similar discussions. What NPF4 does is provide a clear direction within our planning system of the action that has to be taken. Planning is uniquely placed to help us to address the climate emergency because of that power it has to direct and a coherent and considered and rational way the types of development that we need to see to meet these strategic challenges as well as that given the timescales upon which planning operates over. There is no overnight fix. There is no quick cure. It takes sustained work and that is why we have set out a vision to 2045 within the NPF4. Thanks for that. It will be interesting to see what happens once we start to move into that delivery plan phase and the changes that come about from the private sector. One of the potential conflicts arising between what we heard last week is between renewable energy and wildland. One of the tests for allowing renewable energy development on wildland is that it will support meeting renewable energy targets. Concerns were raised by Scottish Environment Link and John Muir Trust that, by their very nature, all renewable energy developments meet that test. I would like to understand how you can assure the committee that the correct balance between protecting wildland and meeting renewable energy targets has been struck in NPF4. Secondly, more clarity on the issue will be provided. I would probably want to highlight the evidence provided by Scottish Renewables last week, which in itself recognises both the way in which the significance of renewable energy policy within NPF4 and the forefront in thinking within a European context. Equally what Scottish Renewables recognises was the existing protections that already exist for wildland and are retained. For example, the percentage of wildland that we find within our national parks or our national scenic areas. The other point that I would make is that it is very important when considering NPF4 to read the document as a whole. Ultimately, decisions have to be considered on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the development plan. That includes the local development plan as well, and by the individual decision maker has to take all of those factors into consideration. I would just add that there is a separate process for setting out targets, including for onshore wind. The draft onshore wind policy statement was consulted on. I believe that that was autumn 2021. I understand that colleagues will be bringing forward a final onshore wind policy statement shortly. I can see that NPF4 is going to be core curriculum for all the new planners that we are going to be bringing on board. You have said a number of times that it needs to be read as a whole. It is going to be that central document. I would now like to bring in Paul MacLennan. Last week, there were discussions about, obviously, resources and upskilling planning staff, particularly in the DPA and so on. I think that you have just touched on that before, Minister, on that. The RTPI mentioned that as well about recruitment. I am just wondering if you can give us a little bit more on the estimate of 700 additional planners that were required. We have heard that in Marine Scotland to require that as well. I do not know if you can say any more on what that process will look like over the next number of years in terms of that recruitment over that. I do not know if you can expand on that a little bit about how. Again, it was mentioned that the NPF4 is welcome, but they need the resource probably at the end of stage to try and deliver on it. The first thing that I would do is I would encourage all aspiring planners from outwith Scotland and other parts of the UK to come to Scotland to work in planning and to help us deliver this really significant document. There is not going to be a quick fix to the challenge. We all recognise that. I think that there is a high level of things that we can do about really raising the profile of planning to make it a tractor of career choices that possibly can be. I want to be clear again that planning has so much potential to deliver so much good and would represent an excellent career choice for anyone. Beyond the practical work that we are doing, there are issues around resourcing that I have touched on earlier, fees that are translating in some planning authorities to additional posts, work towards full cost recovery with all those caveats and complexities there. We do not want any unintended consequences, but that is a commitment that is taking forward. We will work on the Future Planners project, which has put forward a report that was published earlier this year and provides a number of thoughtful suggestions about how we can, about actions that we can take to increase the number of people coming into the profession. I do not know if you want to touch on some of the Future Planners project. The Future Planners project has a range of very practical suggestions, whether that is a planning apprenticeship scheme that is working with graduates in coming into the profession to give them a rounded experience, because some of it is about retaining planners in local authority services rather than moving to the private sector. There is a range of different things that we can work with the profession, with heads of planning who are really keen to progress all of this. I think that part of it is about the planning profession itself, which we absolutely need more planners, but we also need to think about interdisciplinary working as well and how we work with the other built environment professions alongside planners themselves, so lots of work to do on it. Next question, convener, is really just on one of the key things I think the committee were keen to look at in this. NPF4 was around about monitoring it over the next number of years. It is 11 documents, so what are the key metrics that we should be looking at? I suppose that the key thing, the question for myself was how is it going to be monitored from a Government point of view and a Directorate point of view in terms of obviously reviewing policy and particularly going ahead over that the next 10 years, because obviously we have seen how much things have changed in the last 10 years. To enable it to be a living document, how are we going to monitor that? Again, I think that that is something that the committee would be keen to look at as what are the key metrics, and I think that we have mentioned this before, and they voted the key metrics in terms of that we will be looking at, so that we can be looking at that over a number of years. Disbyt from a Government point of view. The first point I would want to make is that the recognition of monitoring is absolutely vital. This is something new falling on from the 2019 act, and I am keen to have the closest possible engagement. I am very keen to hear what the views and insights of the committee are, both at the point of adoption of NPF4, but as we move through that innovative process with the delivery programme. I want to make that crystal clear from the start. We also need to recognise that, as we all do, the impact of planning can take time to feed through. That is by intrinsic to the very nature of the way in which planning operates. There is clearly a number of different metrics that we could go through, and I will ask colleagues to come in in a moment to touch on that. I was struck by something that Professor Hague said in the evidence session last week, which is about recognising that looking at how LDPs are shaping up and planning appeal decisions is important. There is also a need particularly around that community engagement piece and ensuring that people feel involved, that we are reporting and discussing collectively how NPF4 is having an impact, in a way that is real, intangible and measurable. I think that there is a very important rule for what we are set out within the delivery programme, but I think that it is well ensuring that we are making clear, in a way that is accessible, how NPF4 is impacting on the ground is very important. There are things that other strands of work where there can be a role in monitoring as well, working towards the recruitment of the national planning improvement co-ordinator, a role that is dated by the planning act. There is also the work to create the new planning performance framework reports, which will replace the current voluntary regime. Those can all have a particular role as well, but I do not know if you want to come in and just sign. Just before that, again, I think that it is not just on government. I think that there is an emphasis on local development plans to have that same process there, because, as you said, NPF4 is the framework that the local delivery sometimes is down by the local authorities, most of the local authorities. I think that there is an element in that as well in terms of local development plans. I think that it is something that that pivot that I spoke about earlier, in terms of our focus, as we move on to implementation and delivery of NPF4, it is something that government can have more active engagement on. I will ask if you want to come in. I would say that it is a work in progress for us around monitoring. We have choices to make. Do we make use of high-level strategic broader data sets, such as the data and indicators that are used for the national outcomes? Or do we focus more on the specifics and the direct impact in terms of planning decisions and where LDPs are through the process? It is probably a mix of both of those things. We need to work through that. I think that digital as well will have a really important role to play. If we can get through the next stage of the digital programme, the digital strategy is focusing on data and how we use our data in a really smart way. The idea being that the data sets will mean that at any point in time we will be able to see what is happening, where the sites are and bring that together from a national perspective that moves down to a local perspective. Again, lots of work to do on that, but that is ideal. I had one more question, if that was okay. It is a specific issue. Last week you have probably been aware that the issue of out-of-town developments and drive-throughs were raised and it has been in the press and so on. I was just really looking for a bit of clarity in that regard. I don't fear maybe for myself, Minister, or Andy, or Fiona in terms of that, but what the policy actually states. The press was quite confusing in terms of that. It has been raised to all of us on certain occasions. I just want to give us a little bit of clarity on that one if it is possible. Yes, certainly. I think there was some reporting of it, which could potentially be misleading, misunderstanding. What the policy provides for is that drive-throughs should only go ahead if they are supported within the local development plan. I think we would all recognise that that sits within supporting a range of policy outcomes around local living in 20-minute neighbourhoods, of course, or ambitions on reducing the amount of emissions, car travel, etc. Of course, with regards to out-of-town scenarios. I am conscious of the issues that were raised and I will be engaging with relevant stakeholders to provide reassurance and clarity with regard to what the intent of the policy is and what it will seek to deliver. I am now going to bring Miles Briggs in again, but on behalf of Annie Wells, he has a few questions. Annie is with us online, but he has a throat ailment. After that, I will bring in Liam Kerr. Last week, we did hear from Jim Miller, chair of the head of planning Scotland, who suggested that his interpretation of section 27D pointed towards a ban. I think that that is where there has been concern. I saw the minister coming in with a coffee this morning, I do not know if he used a drive-through to get that or not, but part of what is important is making sure that when this gets down to local authority level, it is not misinterpreted. Section 27, I do not believe, was even part of the original consultation and has had no further consultation on that. So, I am pleased to hear what the minister had to say on that to Paul McClellan, but in terms of any future consultation on this, he said, this is it. What will that look like in guidance going forward? I do not think that that is clear from the interpretation that people are taking from NPF4 currently. As I made reference to earlier, in general terms, we will provide advice on transitional arrangements. Should Parliament agree and approve NPF4, following the adoption of NPF4, we will work to lever the regulations and local development plans along with guidance there. That is what we will do in general. I think that the policy is clear, and I think that when the policy is red, its intention is straight forward to understand. However, as I have said, I will engage with relevant stakeholders within this sector to ensure that the intent of the policy is clearly understood. I recognise that some confusion may have been caused with how it was misreported, but the policy is consistent with what we want to see in terms of a plan-led approach. Of course, with my coffee, it was always potrest in a garden lobby. I am pleased to hear that, and I will feed that back to Kirsty. On a separate point, we welcome the positive engagement and work around renewables, but I am slightly concerned with what that means around there not being a specific strategy for grid reinforcement works. That is something that is still missing within the document, and the delivery programme is where the minister will point towards that, being in guidance. However, I wondered in terms of renewables coming online where that now sits within the potential development of grid major, grid reinforcement works, which will be needed to realise that potential. I would highlight the status of strategic renewable electricity generation and transmission as a national development, and the clear support for renewables behind the policy. If we could ask the minister to give a nod back to policy 11 itself, which sets out that the support includes enabling works such as grid transmission and distribution infrastructure. We are obviously very well aware of the role and strategic importance of the expansion of the grid network, not least because of its role in supporting the role out of offshore renewables as well. Certainly, policy 11 makes clear support for that very reason. On that exact point of transmission and the grid, policy 6B concerns forestry, woodland and trees, and it states that development proposals will not be supported where they will result in any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees or adverse impact on their ecological condition. During the consultation, various stakeholders including SSE and Transmission pointed out that such a black and white position means that transmission infrastructure, perhaps linking new wind farms to the grid, perhaps reinforcing the network to transport that clean power to areas of demand or strengthening grid resilience for rural communities—in other words, minister, meeting the strategic challenges that you talked of earlier—wouldn't be done on a case-by-case basis and it would be unable to go ahead, at least with things like public inquiries. This section hasn't changed in the revised draft, so what was the thinking, minister, which led to rejection of those representations and no change? I think with regards to policy 6, it's important to recognise that our ancient woodlands are irreplaceable habitats. Given the clear commitments around tackling both the climate emergency and the nature crisis, there is an imperative to ensure that we are protecting those vital and natural assets. I'm conscious of the concerns raised by SSE and, just as a matter of interest and transparency, I will be meeting with them shortly. My fishers will already have had engagement discussions on these particular issues, but, regardless of the development of the policy, we'll perhaps just ask Kara to come in to provide a bit more detail. Again, I would just reiterate what the minister has said there about MPF4 being read and applied as a whole. I would point back to your opening remarks, minister, that there will always be judgments to be made based on the circumstances of individual case. It's already the case that grid connections are subject to planning requirements, and there is opportunity for judgment to be applied where public need may outweigh any negative impacts. I would just add that policy 6 aligns with and reflects established Scottish Government policy on the control of woodland removal, which is set out in Scottish forestry's policy. I'm very grateful. I understand the points the minister makes about the ancient woodland. That could probably be applied similarly to peatland, and, of course, policy 5 concerning peatland, specifically concerns peatland, and also wasn't changed, but that's in slightly different terms, because it says that policy 5C development proposals on peatland, carbon-rich soils and priority peatland habitat, will only be supported for essential infrastructure, and there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site. That is an appropriately stringent but, nevertheless, arguably more sensible position, which recognises the importance of peatland, particularly in the drive to net zero, but allows for nuance where there are infrastructure projects such as transmission, and those projects are required. Given that, minister, would you consider reviewing policy 6B such that it is more akin to, or indeed mirrors, the 5C on peatland? I mentioned the previous answer. I'm happy to engage and I will be engaging with SSEN to understand their concerns in more detail. I recognise the point that you're making, Mr Kerr. I'm just very conscious of the significance of ancient woodlands and the fact that they are an irreplaceable habitat, but the point that I would make is twofold. One is that we are at an end of a process that has taken some time to get here, so I want to focus on bringing NPF forward to Parliament for a vote of approval and then, subsequently, in short order adoption by ministers. However, I am absolutely committed to the closest monitoring and engagement of stakeholders going forward. No one wants, in any policy development, any outcomes that are not consistent with the intent. So, through monitoring and engagement, which was already indicated and committed to undertaking already, we will look carefully and understand the concerns and monitor carefully any impact that this is having. However, the position right now is that we will be bringing NPF forward back to Parliament for a vote of approval and subsequent should Parliament agree adoption by ministers, but there will be the closest engagement with all sectors that, specifically in the point that she raised, NSL will be meeting NPF, SCSE and, shortly, to discuss their concerns in more detail and with this, it's already half had engagement. Very grateful. That being the case, will there be guidance issued to assist local authorities interpreting sections such as 6B so that, for example, they could be assisted in deciding what the loss of ancient woodlands means? For example, where perhaps the developer was going to replace or even enhance what was there, except in the point that the Minister rightly made earlier. If there is to be guidance, does the Minister know when that might be out? I would, on the general point with regards to guidance and transitional arrangements, I would just refer to my other sense of where we are committed to providing transitional advice shortly following a vote in Parliament should Parliament approve. There will be guidance published alongside the regulations for the local development plans. That guidance will cover both the actual process of LDP development, but also thematic guidance with regards to how to reflect specific policies within LDPs. As to any concerns around specific guidance, of course, through the monitoring process, through engagement, I will be happy to reflect upon any kind of issues or concerns that are raised. Don't you want to add any more to that, Andy? Yes, sure. Guidance can take different forms as well, so it may be that there's a need for some sort of Government-published guidance. However, as part of our whole new approach of moving into that delivery phase within our own team, that will mean engaging with those who are delivering the policies themselves and working together on the interpretation. Guidance can take different forms and could potentially be in the form of best practice. I was just going to add that policy 6 in particular reflects on the fact that MPF does not sit in isolation. There is some existing guidance that supports the control of woodland removal policy. There is specific implementation guidance that supports that. Obviously, as Andy says, there are wider plans around engagement and best practice sharing to support delivery of MPF specifically. The final thing for me, Minister, you've suggested throughout today, and for understandable reasons, that the parliamentary process for MPF4 does not allow for amendments to be considered at this stage. How can amendments be brought forward in the future, specifically relating to critical national infrastructure and unavoidable perhaps impacts of developments on ancient woodland, and how soon can that amending process be commenced? There are provisions to make amendments to MPF4, and that can take place at any time following the commencement of the relevant regulations. Clearly, careful consideration would have to be given. It would be not a step that would be taken lightly, but that provision is there within the legislation for very good reason. Of course, should it be necessary to do so, that would be taken forward in a way that is through consultation, engagement and evidence-led. I don't know if you want to add about the process, Andy. That's a piece of work that will start early in the year once we have MPF3. Once we adopt this, we'll be taking forward that process to provide clarity. However, we can reassure that there will be a means of amending MPF4 at any time once it is operational, and that provision is commenced. Thanks very much, Liam. That concludes our questions. I really appreciate all of you coming in to hear what you had to say about MPF4 and the work that you've been doing. It's been a very useful session and I look forward to the next steps in this process. I now suspend the meeting for five minutes before we move on to our next item of business. The third item on our agenda today is to continue our scrutiny of the national care service bill. Today we have two panels of witnesses who represent people receiving social care. For our first panel this morning, we are joined online by Mike Burns, who is today representing the Granite Care Consortium, but he is also the CEO of the Mental Health Charity Penumbra. We have Sophie Lawson, who is policy and participation manager at the Glasgow Disability Alliance. Stephanie Fraser, who is the chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, and Andy Miller, the strategic lead for participation and practice at the Scottish Commission for People with Learning Disabilities. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting and if they could indicate when they wish to respond to a particular question by putting an R in the chat box, I will make sure that we bring them in. We only have an hour for this panel, so can I remind members to address your questions to particular witnesses where possible? Of course I'm going to go potentially against that request when I begin my question. I'd like to begin by focusing on the challenges facing care delivery. Firstly, I'd be interested to hear what, from your perspectives, are the main problems with the way social care is delivered currently. Secondly, do you agree that there is currently a postcode lottery in care delivery at the moment in Scotland? I'll start with Stephanie Fraser, but then I'll open up to others. Stephanie. Thank you for inviting me here to the committee. People with cerebral palsy fall between the cracks. Cerebral palsy is a very good bellwether condition because it is a long-term condition. There's no medical procedure or drugs that can make things magically better. You will lead as long a life as anybody else if other complications don't occur. What you can achieve in life and how independent you can be depends on how involved your disability is and also what is your access to help and support. People with cerebral palsy fall between the cracks of the current system. People with very involved CP who have a large care package from childhood are relatively okay, but when those needs change and people with cerebral palsy needs do change as they age, even though it's not a progressive condition, needs will change, then who is able to assess this? People who maybe as children and young adults don't need access to care quite often need access to some care as they age. There is confusion around how they can access this, whether it's health or whether it's social care. Thresholds, referral criteria are cumbersome. The health and social care system at the moment is not fully integrated. It's too disjointed and there's too little access to condition-specific expertise when it's required, so people are passed from person to person without anybody, one person taking responsibility. There aren't any specialists for adults with cerebral palsy and you asked whether there was a postcode lottery. I would say it's not as simple as one area is better than another. If someone with CP has access to whether it's a social worker or whether it's an advocate or whether it's a physiotherapist or whatever it might be that helps them navigate the system, then they will have a better outcome. It's just hot luck as to whether people find that positive first person. Thank you very much for your response, Stephanie. That's very helpful. Andy, you've indicated that you'd like to come in as well. Yes, thank you. Good morning everyone. A lot of people learn disabilities experience similar situations to what Stephanie has just described. I would say that systemically it is more of a postcode lottery for people learn disabilities, what they've reported, in some respects, which I'll come to, but in general people find the social care system complex and inflexible. It's hard to get into and it often involves multiple retellings of same experiences and those experiences are often traumatic, so retelling them is difficult. If you go into the system as an adult, it's difficult to find out who to speak to and how to get an assessment. That's complicated if someone doesn't have a formal diagnosis of having a learned disability, which is often the case. If you go into it as a child—in other words, if you have social care as a child and then you move into the adult system, that's really difficult, very frustrating for people. A lot of them describe the experience, like falling off the edge of a cliff, because the level of service provision as an adult is often so much less than what children will learn disabilities are entitled to. It's always going to be a complicated process because so many different agencies are involved, but the co-ordination of those agencies is just regularly very poor. Between the agencies, there's no clarity about who should be leading the process and how wide the process should be. That's one issue. Eligibility is another issue. Over the last few years, eligibility criteria have tightened and become increasingly high, so unless you're in critical or life-threatening need, you're just not eligible for social care and it's currently a binary system, so you get it if you're in critical need or you get nothing. There's a great quote in the Feeley report. I know that someone with a learned disability saying that social care should be a springboard and not a safety net, but the springboard function of social care isn't working. There's a focus on crisis prevention and not on capacity building and not on the protection of human rights. One area that you could describe as being a postcode lottery is social care charging, where some people pay almost nothing and some people pay really exorbitant amounts who receive similar levels of social care support. High turnover of staff is really problematic and that's been particularly bad since the pandemic. The importance of relationships within social care is really high and it's just getting harder and harder for people who use support, people with learning disabilities, to have a strong relationship with someone because the turnover is so quick. This is not what people have told us themselves but it's really clear that there's a lack of data about people with learned disabilities. If you want to know how many people with learned disabilities there are in Scotland, you can't. It's just that the information is not there. If you want to know how many people with learned disabilities in Scotland or on a housing waiting list, you can't. There's no data. The Fraser of Islander Institute, the person who highlighted the particular invisibility of people with learned disabilities in data collections in Scotland, makes service planning impossible and policy planning. If you don't know how many people your policy is or your plan is going to affect or what their support needs are, it just makes it very difficult. I also mentioned the experience of Covid and the pandemic. Many people have experienced not returning to similar levels of support provision that they had during the pandemic. I think that there are a number of reasons for that but, in terms of people's life experience, it's been awful to the extent of making people feel suicidal. That's both people with learned disabilities and family carers where there are family carers involved. Thank you very much Andy for that. Sophie, you would like to come in on those questions as well. Yes, thank you very much. I'm going to echo a little bit of what Stephanie and Andy said because I know that there are similar experiences for our members. Just for a bit of context, Glasgow Disability Alliance has a membership of more than five and a half thousand diverse disabled people with different outlooks on many, many things. That is one area where we have a completely unanimous position that the social care system and its current form is too broken and fragile to meet the real needs of disabled people in Glasgow and across Scotland. Members of our social care expert group over 100 disabled people in Glasgow who dedicate their time and energy on campaigning to improve the social care system for themselves and others have gone months and, in some cases, over a year without a shower, have been called lazy by their care workers for asking for help, are put to bed while it's still light outside. Like Stephanie was saying, they are met with extremely long waiting periods for assessments, some waiting months or, again, years for urgent intervention. We know again that eligibility criteria is set too highly and is based around reducing dependency on services. Disabled people, we found, don't feel believed or listened to by social care providers and that trust has really broken down. Within our membership itself, 83 per cent of members receiving social care support have reported that they do not get the support they need when they need it. As others have touched on as well, we are facing this high turnover of care staff due to poor wages, poor progression in opportunities, which disabled people also object to and sympathise with, but for them it means inconsistency, it means no shows, it means cuts to care, which, as people have already pointed out, has a devastating impact often on mental health and is a life or death situation. To touch on the second question, there is definitely an inconsistency that we have found, but also within local authorities. We have heard a lot of members talking about who you get. Some people are on the same street, one has had a brilliant experience of social care and one has had a really traumatising, difficult experience. We have also found that many GDM members have moved local authority just for the hope of finding better care in a different area. That is how stark the postcode lottery is. We are seeing the real consequences for that amongst our membership. I know that that was touched on previously. There is also the assumption that, when statutory provision is failing, families can provide care to fill in the gaps, which changes relationships and often puts families into poverty. With the inadequate care support in place, it is a real difficulty for families financially and emotionally. From our perspective, we are saying that we are in the midst of a social care crisis that requires urgent intervention along all those points. Good morning, folks. I echo a lot of what has been said by the other contributors. From my national perspective, in relation to mental health, I have said that social care is very desperate and at times very desperate for people. With my Granite Care Consortium hat on, it is someone that is responsible for taking forward possibly the biggest test of change in social care in Scotland, a whole-place test of change in relation to the city of Aberdeen. Even within single locations, there is still a disparate picture that faces people trying to access social care. We only have to look at the sizes of the unmet ead lists and waiting lists for people to get on to social care, but not only get on to social care to get a social care assessment. In relation to the question, is there a postcode lottery? Yes, I agree that there is, and I agree that the situation is one that, when you look at locations, is still disparate in the sense that we have a disparate structure where we have three layers of provision, and none of that ties up together. We have tried with IGBs and SDS, and I know that some of the questions later might come on to that, but as far as joined-up thinking and joined-up delivery is concerned, it just isn't there. Thanks very much, Mike. I will continue with another question, and I will start with you, Mike. If others want to come in, please indicate in the chat function. The committee has heard from others that the proposed national care service is a disproportionate solution to some of the challenges that you have all laid out this morning. I am keen to hear your views on whether legislation is needed to bring about the improvements, or is there another way that we could approach the more joined-up needs of the things that you have discussed? Mike. Back in 2014, when we tried to roll out IGBs, I remember sitting on a strategic planning group for IGBs, and they have done the at the time, and watched eight silos get reduced into four silos, and two of those silos staying within local authorities, and two staying within health, and that was some people's view of integration. We had SDS, which did not achieve the person-centred focus that we believed that we would have. For me, there were two pieces of legislation that should have brought more integrated approaches to delivery of social care. Those legislative pieces of social care have not been successful, so I would argue that the legislative route is possibly the only route that is left open to us to try to create something that is truly integrated and truly creates a voice for the people who use the services and for all the organisations that deliver those services. We only have to look at Granite Care Consortium and what we have tried to achieve in the city of Aberdeen in our first two years of operation. That is an example, and there are pockets of really good practice across Scotland where we have seen attempts to create social integration and social care integration, and GCC is one of those, but that has taken the goodwill of people and social care partnerships, making a choice and making a decision and taking a gamble. That is just one-off. We should have something similar to that, delivering services across the whole of Scotland, rather than relying on getting the right people around the table. We need a framework that will get the right people around the table to make that happen across Scotland, and for me that would be a legislative framework. Thank you very much. I know that a lot of GD members feel the same way that the legislative change is the only route out of the current crisis that we are in. We believe that the change through legislation is needed, as well as in conjunction with increased resources and support to leaders driven by political buy-in. We know that legislation cannot change anything alone, but we know that that is needed to start making a change for the social care system to become fit for purpose. We know that, especially because of the changes proposed in Derek Feeley's independent adult review of social care, he said himself that legislative change is needed on a national level to put that progressive reform into place to fix all the problems that we have laid out earlier. From our perspective, GD members feel that we need accountability at a national level, consistency, better standards to ensure that people's needs are met, and we need a legislative backup to ensure that that is implemented in the social care system. However, we would say that the legislation that stands needs more commitment, particularly in secondary legislation, to ensure that a human rights approach to social care is implemented and that change is properly put through. That includes more detail on accountability, the charter and the care board formation, which must have representation from the same people's organisations and other collective voices to make sure that that is carried through. Stephanie, you want to come in and then Andy. Thank you. I'm going to take a slightly different view to the others who have all pointed out that we've had an awful lot of legislation in the space of integration, starting with the self-directed support act, the public bodies joint working act and Audit Scotland has examined much of the integration process, and there are numerous Audit Scotland reports. I would argue that this legislation hasn't been implemented and people haven't been held to account where they haven't implemented. The other thing is that we have national standards and guidance, so just in my area for neurological conditions, we have the framework for action for neurological conditions, which covers acute community health and care. We have the Health Improvement Scotland general standards for neurological care and support. There are guidelines for individual conditions. Some of them are SPICE guidelines, for example, with epilepsy, but where SPICE guidelines don't exist, there are nice guidelines. For example, for children with CP and adults with CP, we have frameworks such as GERFECT and Ready to Act for AHP's national framework. None of those seem to be being implemented or known about by the wider health and social care workforce. The answers to what we want are in these bits of legislation, but people are not being held to account for implementing them. I had an example of a very large health and social care integrated joint board contacting Cerebral Palsy Scotland asking us in response to a complaint from a family of an adult with CP. Was there any framework for the care of people with cerebral palsy? I was absolutely shocked that they didn't know that those documents existed and they weren't working towards them. It's not rocket science, and the answers I would argue are there. I would agree with previous speakers that we do have a problem with workforce. We would call for a national workforce strategy and we have a problem with data and invisibility. As previous witnesses have said, it's not just people with learning disabilities that we don't know about. We don't know how many people there are with neurological conditions in Scotland. We don't know how many people there are with cerebral palsy. We don't know how many unpaid family carers there are, frankly, backing up the system and being the safety net when we want the system to be a springboard. There are two questions. First, is legislation helpful? Second, is the bill as it was consulted on earlier this year the right legislation? What is clear is that change is needed. We think that some legislation would be helpful to increase accountability, perhaps to make national accountability. It would be helpful in terms of implementation, but we also agree with a lot of what Stephanie has said that there is already a whole raft of different legislation that just isn't being implemented and other policy frameworks that just aren't being implemented. We are particularly disappointed that the separate support legislation has not brought about the change that we all hope for. If that hasn't worked, why should the national care service legislation? We were very disappointed with the bill that came out earlier this year. The national care service bill focused solely on the structure of the new service and did not give any assurance to us that that structure would bring about the human rights protections and the capacity building and the possibility for early intervention approaches that were put forward by Feeley. We were particularly disappointed by the financial memorandum, which explicitly excluded certain of the key building blocks in Feeley's vision for a new national care service. The costs in the financial memorandum were big enough, and I think that that is worrying at this point in time with so many other financial pressures on the Scottish Government. Is this the right time to bring in expensive new legislation? Even worse than that, the memorandum did not cover or only covered a fraction of the real costs that will be needed to implement Feeley's vision for a human rights protecting national care service, because the financial memorandum that I am talking about does not cost in meeting current unmet demand, investing in community-based services, covering the loss of care charges if those are to be abolished and they cost £1.3 billion back in 2013. We are talking about massive amounts of money, implementing new minimum terms and conditions for workers, the cost of new structures, for example, if there is going to be a social care commissioner, the cost of that office, the investment in independent advocacy services that will be needed and that Feeley talked about. None of those are costed in the financial memorandum, and it is going to be a huge, huge cost. The worry is that, if you just pay for the structure, it will still be expensive, and I will not bring about any of the outcomes that people will learn disabilities and other people that rely on local care support are hoping for from this new service. Thanks, Andy. I just want to come back on a supplementary. You brought up the fact that there is already existing legislation, and Andy, you have just been talking about the cost of bringing in the end the national care service. We have existing legislation, reports from Audit Scotland and aspects of existing legislation that has not been acted on. I would just love to hear a little bit more about why you think that that has not happened. Is that to do with lack of funding in part? I think that there are issues with the current set-up. For example, a lot of it is to do with confusion about who is responsible for what. There are issues with health boards, local authorities, IJBs and HSCP boundaries not being coterminous and confusion about who does what. We find people with cerebral palsy particularly who are not in receipt of big packages if they present because they want some help to access employment or something like that. The reason that you cannot do that is because of your cerebral palsy. If you want that treated, you need to go to your GP. Where is primary care in all of this? The lack of sharing of information among agencies is leading to confusion. As I said, the lack of confusion around who is responsible is one of the reasons that the current system is an issue. Andy Wightman, do you have anything to add? Yes, lack of co-ordination and clarity but also financial pressures on local bodies, on local authorities and HSCPs and health boards as well. Taking SDS is a specific example. There is a crossover period. It is one of those bits of legislation where you would hope that because it is putting forward a person-centred system of support that when that is in place it is a very efficient system, people's needs are being met and there is no kind of fat in the system that is streamlined and so on, but to get to that point requires going through a process that maybe does take extra out investment that was not provided. There is a lack of accountability. I am not saying that any individual or any one HSCP takes a so-what attitude, but if SDS fails in any one particular health and social care partnership there is no repercussions really except for the individuals and their families. I would always put forward an improvement programme. I am not saying that we need to go around punishing health and social care partnerships or cheap execs or anything. Improvement and learning from good practice is always much better, but I am just saying that there is no repercussions for failure. One of the things that comes to my mind is that part of the reason that the minister talked about the NCS being brought forward was to put accountability at the door of ministers. That would be part of why it would be being brought in. I am now going to move to bring in Willie Coffey with a few questions. Thank you very much, convener, and hello to the panel online. I suppose I really have to start by asking you. Do you actually see the national care service proposal as being the legislative instrument that can help to transform those services and to deliver the consistency that I think I am hearing you saying that we need across Scotland? I mean, there are a number of issues that you raised there, Andy, and everybody really, which outline a huge number of problems and experiences right across Scotland. Do you see the national care service proposal bill as being that instrument to help deliver that, or don't you? Could I maybe start with you, Sophie? Thank you very much. Just to touch on what was said previously by Stephanie, I think that the national care service does offer a solution, if done correctly, to some of the issues that were highlighted. So if you are talking about people not knowing who is responsible for what across local delivery, they are not being consistent communication. If a national system was brought in the right way with better consistency, national standards and accountability, then hopefully that would help to resolve those problems. From our perspective, we think that the national care service provides an opportunity to make the progressive change needed to give the same people the support that they need to live the life that they want to live. It is an opportunity for radical change. From a GDA perspective, a lot of our members have said in response to the bill that the system, as it stands, cannot get any worse than not being able to shower for months on end, or being told that you cost too much money or are too difficult for needing support to have your basic needs met. For them, despite the bill not having everything that we would like to see at this stage, and we would like to see secondary legislation that drills down on making sure that there is a charter that is representative of our rights, that gives honour to the UNCRPD and the rights independent living, that gives more detail about care boards and making sure that there is representation of disabled people and disabled people's organisations on those care boards, that makes sure that accountability is specified and how that would be oversaw on a local level to address the postcode lottery that was mentioned earlier. We think that, despite the legislation that stands, it is not perfect. We are hopeful that this and a national care service would give rise to a new system with proper legislative backup that could stop the human rights breaches that we are seeing at the moment and to give disabled people the support that they need. I think that legislation could help and could be part of the answer on its own, but it could be part of the answer. Certain things would need to be put into place. Architects of the bill would need to focus on much more than just the structure. As if the national care service was not complicated enough on its own, there are other bits of legislation currently being developed that will affect people with learning disabilities, for example not just people with learning disabilities, but you have the human rights bill, the learning disability autism in your diversity bill and the review of the mental health legislation. It is complicated, but it is really important that the four bits of legislation are properly aligned. For example, the human rights bill will place duties on states parties to protect the rights of disabled people, for example, to live independently. That will have an impact on the national care service. The learning disability autism near diversity bill will establish a commissioner, and that commissioner might have a role to play in the scrutiny and accountability of how the national care service is delivered. That is why the teams developing those four different bits of legislation really need to know what each other is saying. At the moment, I am not sure that that is happening as well as it needs to be. It is a highly complex task, and I am not minimising that in any way. I think that those four bits of legislation together could well make a difference, particularly around accountability, but they need to align and help each other or not to get each other's way. Mike, is the national care service bill the instrument that we need to deliver that consistency of care across Scotland in your opinion? Morning, Willie. I would argue if not then what and if not now when. We have a system that, in my 30 odd years nearly in health and social care, from a social work perspective, people tell me is broken, and I witness it on a daily basis. I don't mean that anybody in the field doesn't tell me that change is required. If we look at some of the previous legislation that my colleagues have all talked about very well this morning, when we take SDS as an example and look at that from a case study perspective, we are still delivering that on a time and task basis, and we desperately need to move to an outcomes focus where we can start to work alongside people and measure the outcomes that they need in relation to their package of care. That needs to have a human rights basis to that. In the test of change, we are trying to take forward Granite Care Consortium in Aberdeen. We are the only whole-place test of change in the country, and we are trying to bring all those things together. Even then, we are still facing large on-met needs. We are looking at how we risk assess that on-met need. We are looking at how we risk assess the people that we deliver that care and support to. We are doing that within a system at the moment that is disparate, because we have health sitting at one part of that equation, we have local authority in-house or long-arm care providers as another element, we have the third independent sector as another element, and we have successfully brought all those together in the test of change. I would argue that that is a forerunner to what Derek Feeley was trying to describe within the Feeley report, and that is what I believe that legislation and an NCS would help us to create. For me, I do believe that this is the time for legislation, and if we do not grasp the opportunity now, we will end up tinkering with something that is broken and just end up with another patch-up job on a system that needs to be integrated. Lastly, Stephanie, is it the instrument that we need to address the issues that you yourself mentioned there about policy framework not being implemented all over the place? Will the national care service proposal help us to garner that together and deliver the outcomes that we all seek? I think that the short answer to that is given the outline of the proposed bill, it is difficult to see where that would be. We absolutely welcome the drive to ensure consistency of social work and social care services, but we are wary of too much centralisation. If the establishment of the national care service is just another layer of bureaucracy that service users have to navigate, then no, it will not improve the quality. I have already mentioned that there are national standards, and we need national standards and we need to hold people to account for implementing them, but services are local. Services are delivered locally. I just want to read an organisation called Social Care Future's definition of the purpose of social care, which is that we all want to live in a place that we call home with the people and things that we love in communities where we look out for one another doing what matters to us. This bill seems to start with the structure and the formality at the top. I would argue that we need to start with the person and those around the person and build up, and this bill does not do that. That is why local is so vital. You have to remember that community assets and third sector organisations can support people who do not need formal regulated care services at the moment to find appropriate support without drawing on formal services. That underpins all the formal structures that we see in the national care service bill at the moment. I am very disappointed by this bill, and I am not convinced that it is going to deliver the change that all of us want to see. Okay, thank you very much for that, Stephanie. I just have another question. I would be really grateful for a simple yes-no from our panellists. It is really about the accountability question. You heard the minister last week saying that he fields questions very often in the Parliament, and he does not have any accountability for many of the issues that are raised and put to him. Simply and shortly, could you say whether you agree that that national accountability is needed at ministerial level or not? I would really appreciate a simple yes-no in order to let other colleagues come in with their questions. Andy, you may be first. Yes. Thank you. Sophie. Yes. Thank you. Mike is still looking at Mike. Yes. Yes, thanks. Lastly, Stephanie. Why is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care not accountable at the moment? The legislation does not point in that direction, I am afraid. It is local accountability. I mean, there is accountability, but it is very serious, Stephanie. But he is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. Yes, but he is not legally responsible. It is the local councils and IJBs and so on that are responsible. That is really accountability. Currently lies, and that is why we get the disparate position we are in, perhaps. So, do you think that he should be accountable or not? Yes. Good. Thank you. Matt, you can be now. Thank you, Willie. So, we do have quite a few questions to go through. I would ask colleagues to direct their question to somebody initially. For folks on the panel, put an R in the chat function if you have something to add so that we can make sure we get through. I definitely want to hear from everybody, but if we keep going around everyone for all the questions, we are going to run over time quite considerably. So, I am now going to bring in Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener. Maybe in the purpose of time I will do some yes or no questions as well because another committee, the social justice committee, has been looking specifically at this at the national care service bill as well and part of our work has been around the charter of rights and responsibilities which will be created. I welcome that, but one of the concerns is that that is not necessarily going to be legally binding. So, I wanted to ask the witnesses whether or not you think it should be and we can do a yes or no answer round as well. So, I do not know if I will start with Stephanie in the work round. I am going to give you a cautious yes. Thanks. Yes. Sophie. Yes. And Andy. Causious yes, but can I add that I really, sorry, but it is a plea to separate rights and responsibilities from the charter. It should be a charter of rights because the rights we are talking about are human rights and they are not conditional. Yes. And when you link rights and responsibilities that is suggesting that people are entitled to their rights as long as they behave responsibly in a certain way. So, of course it may be the case that people that use support have responsibilities to behave in a certain way, but that should not be any suggestion that might not be entitled to the human rights if they behave badly. Yeah. No, thank you and that's a very good point. The Health and Social Care Alliance has suggested there should be scope within the bill for the creation of an independent authority to hold ministers to account as we've been discussing for their decisions. So, I also wanted to ask the panel what their view is on that and whether or not they support that call as well. So, I may be bringing you back in Stephanie on that, go round. I think that the problem with the current bill is that there's no detail and structure, so it's really difficult to understand from the vague text. It talks about Scottish ministers being held accountable for, quote, securing improvement in the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. That's a massive thing. I really don't know if I was trying to draw up the KPIs for that, how you would hold ministers into account. So, I think that my problem is that we need to see clear lines of responsibility, both locally and nationally. If the only accountable officer is a Government Minister, I would argue that that is too far removed from everyday experience of individuals. I don't know whether—I just want to come in here—that I think that a lot of this could be solved by the right to independent advocacy and mediation at an earlier stage. And I would call for that to be integral. Thank you, Miles. We're now going to move to Marie McNair, who is a colleague who's joining us online. Thank you, convener, and good morning, panel. Thank you for your time this morning. I've got a few questions. What have been the impacts of the integrated joint boards and has this model had enough time to bed in and make a difference? What are the implications of placing them with the care boards? I know that you've touched on them already. I just want to know if you'd like to comment further. I'll pop that first to Mike Burns, if that's okay. Morning, Marie. As someone who was, as I said earlier, part of the strategic planning and development of IGBs back in 2014-15, looking back on to it from a third sector and private sector, independent sector perspective, we ended up in some ways with a power grab, and the voice of people who received those services, in my opinion, was not reflected in the establishment of IGBs. You only have to look at IGBs across Scotland to see that, in some IGBs, we have a third and independent sector representation, in others we don't. The legislative framework around that wasn't robust enough to ensure an equal voice at IGBs. My own opinion is that IGBs have not succeeded in their mission and vision, and hopefully if we do establish an NCS with care boards, we will learn from that and address some of the deficits that we have around IGBs. Thank you, Mike. Does anyone else want to further comment? No, a lot of it has been touched already. It doesn't look like anyone else is going to come in on that. The next question, again, has been covered, but do you recognise that the situation is best by the minister last week? Obviously, you're saying that currently people feel that they push from pillar to post if they can have a complaint or concerns. I know a lot of that has been discussed already, but I will throw that out there if anyone wants to expand on that further. It's just probably to Sophie. I'm sorry to put it on the spot, but do you want to comment? Yeah, absolutely. That is a massive inconsistency, and we see recurring examples of GDA members being pushed from pillar to post constantly, particularly when they're navigating the different areas that people such as Stephanie were highlighting that don't join up. I've gone from SDS to an OT assessment. There's a lot of lack of transparency about what support is available, and particularly for GDA members, there's not accessible information about what support is available. Sometimes they're speaking to people within social work that themselves don't even know what is available, and then they're referred to community navigators or people within our own organisation to give them advice further. We talk in an NCS about having that kind of national consistency of information, a bit more transparency about what services are available would help with that. Within our organisation, as part of our future visions project, we have been testing a community navigator model, which is essentially a person that works with a disabled person as a holistic person and looks at their needs holistically and takes them through all the aspects that they need in social care and does that work for them, because we're finding that people either aren't able to navigate that system and all the complex different people they need to go to when they're pushed from door to door, but also there's not the accessible support there through advocacy and a complaints process that isn't local. That's all internal to help them through that journey. Thank you, Sophie. Anyone else want to come in? Yes, so Stephanie and Mike both want to come in. Thank you. I just want to address complaints specifically, because in seeking to nationalise a complaint service we worry that local accountability could be lost. Our experience shows that too often the only way people who currently experience inadequate care and support can seek change is to make a formal complaint. When they do, they are passed from pillar to post with professionals trying to justify why they've done what they've done, rather than seeking to understanding the motivation for why the complaint has been brought in the first place and therefore seek a remedy. We would like service users and service providers to be provided at the earliest possible stage an opportunity to work together to resolve those issues, rather than having to go down the route of using a complaint service, which might take lots of time and might resolve absolutely nothing. In our opinion, access to advocacy and mediation services should be a first step available to all service users. We note that section 13 states that Scottish ministers may make provision for independent advocacy services. There is a lottery as to which condition you are able to access advocacy services or not. For example, people with a learning disability at the moment have a statutory right, people without a learning disability don't. We call on the Government to make right to access of independent advocacy for people with cerebral palsy and their carers, and we'd like the clause amended to read Scottish ministers will by regulations make provision for independent advocacy services. I really support Sophie's navigators. I think that they are an under championed role, but I would say that one of the issues that we have, and this is an absolute fundamental issue of integration, is that when you look at people's needs in a social care, holistic life comes into and cerebral palsy is a really good example of that, that what they need to stay well maybe for example is physiotherapy, that's immediately seen as a health issue. Then you're down another route and people's access to physiotherapy is the same starting blocks again. Rather than that being seen as an enabler, like maybe perhaps we might use regular exercise or a gym membership or something like that. So there is a lack of understanding about what input for people's condition is going to make the biggest difference. Thank you, Stephanie. I don't know where it is, but I appreciate your time, but I think that Mike wants to come in and Andy, then be brief if possible. Yeah, definitely, Maria. One of the successes that we've achieved in the whole city test to change in Aberdeen is that in relation to those issues we have social care managers, social work social care managers and service providers working alongside each other doing risk assessments and those risk assessments are often ways of preventing some of the complaints coming forward and by that joint integrated working you know the number of complaints we receive or the number of issues we have to deal with have been greatly reduced. So there's just one example of what we think Derek Feeley is talking about and we've made happen in that test of change. Thank you. Finally, Andy. A very quick point. One is that a lot of people with learning disabilities have said that they don't know what standard of care or support they're entitled to expect and so they don't know whether to make a complaint or not if they're unhappy. So we think that this should be a national part of the national care service work, should be to have a national programme to communicate people's human rights and rights to receive support that meets the health and social care standards and also to echo what Stephanie was saying about the lack of independent advocacy and research that we carried out a few years ago showed that it was inconsistent and insufficient across the country. Investment in advocacy is mentioned in the financial memorandum. Thank you, Andy. No further questions, convener. Thanks, Marie. I'm just going to remind us all again that it would be good if we can keep our questions and answers succinct and if members can direct the question to one person to start and again if witnesses can just put an R in the chat to indicate if you really have something additional to add. Mark Griffin. Thanks, convener. There have been concerns from trade unions and local authorities about potential wholesale transfer of staff and assets to a new directorate, essentially, but I think that the minister set out a different direction of travel when he was at committee and said that that would only be as any transfer of assets or staff would only be as a provider of a last resort in the event of a care home or a service failure. I just wanted to ask what is the current situation in terms of provider of last resort and how would the national care service change that in terms of how the minister set that out and perhaps come to Mike first? I said that GCC is a really good example of that because in the city of Aberdeen we had one provider of last resort and that was the local authority in house provider mark. Now we have GCC, which is a consortium of independent and third sector organisations delivering to the whole city, in fact, delivering to almost three times that that is being delivered by the local authority and house provider as also the provider of last resort. I know the big question that is being asked around this potential transfer is the question around pensions and such, but you have a three-tier structure at the moment. I would ask that we have to look at that three-tier structure and understand that and do something about that if we want to provide balanced and equal delivery of care across Scotland. We have national health service staff being paid out of that one pot of money, we have local authority care staff being paid out of that pot of money and we have third and independent sector organisations being paid out of that pot of money and I hate to say that it is all being paid differently for delivering exactly the same standard of services and as Feely pointed out, some of the best care that is being delivered is being delivered by the third sector, but so there is a disparate position there that we have to address and I do take on board some of the concerns about the transfer of those staff, but there are ways to look at that and we've proved in GCC that there's other ways to achieve that outcome. Thanks Mike, I don't know if there's anyone else. So Stephanie would like to come in. Thank you. I just want to say that in reality the answer to this question is that family, friends, unpaid carers are the real providers of last resort. They are unidentified, they are invisible and they are unsupported. When things fail families are made to feel an obligation to step in. The example of that is during the pandemic when many disabled adults had to move back into elderly parents' homes because they couldn't access community support to live independently. Family and unpaid carers are not treated as equal partners in the care of their loved ones. Often they are not listened to by professionals and they are not supported to navigate the system. Yes, in theory there are support networks so there are local carers centres, GPs for example, but some people do not class themselves as carers and therefore don't access the support. So I just think that in answer to your question about who is the carer of last resort in reality every day it is family and unpaid carers. Thanks for that. My second question was in the report, the review of adult social care reported and I'm quoting that trust is not currently in plentiful supply and social care support. I just wonder if, once he's agreed with that, whether they feel that that is the same situation when it comes to national health service provision and if not why there might be a disparity between trust being there in social care, not being there in social care but being there in a health setting perhaps could come to Sophie first. Thank you. I would agree that definitely there's a lack of trust in the current system as it stands. I think that's for a variety of reasons. I think, especially after Covid, if we look at cuts that happened in Glasgow alone, 1,884 social care packages were cut in Glasgow from the outset of lockdown, some being partially reinstated but a lot haven't been reinstated at all. People have been, for the last two and a half years, faced extreme isolation, poverty, cuts to vital services. Even before Covid, during austerity, we saw policies in Glasgow such as equalisation, which was essentially cutting social care packages of disabled people and saying this is being done to equalise so your neighbour down the road will get something and cut their vital services to justify it. In that context of cuts and not feeling hired or listened to, and as I cited previously, people go in massive amounts of time without essential support, being asked to choose between having a shower and eating that day because their carers are so pressed for time. In that context, it is really difficult for people to have a trust in the system as it stands. I think that that is why national change is really required, because if you were to co-design something at a local level, the trust to do that and to engage with people is not there because people have seen what has happened in the past and are aware that even with all those policy changes, for example maximising independence, which I will get into for time sake, all those new policies that have come in that have done nothing for disabled people, they do not have faith in the system as it stands. Having a new national system where it is based on co-design, it is making an effort to take that lived experience into account, it offers this new hope that it might be a better system than what we have at the moment. Okay, thanks very much for that, Sophie. We're now going to move to questions from Paul McClellan. Yeah, thank you again, Rainer. You'll be glad to know that I've only got the one, I think, the second one's been answered. We're probably, you're wearing a framework document, and the next stage really is moving to the co-design and co-production process in part of that. I suppose that it's really just asking about how you would like to see that process involve yourselves going forward. The minister's already committed to working with those with lived experience, and I'll probably come to yourself first of all, Mike, just on that one. Yeah, I think that's critical. I think co-design and co-production now have to be a central tenant of how we take forward the NCS, Paul, and how we do that. Well, again, I'll go back to the example we have in Aberdeen, where we're delivering services to people with learning difficulties, older people, personal care, mental health, and we're working in partnership with the health and social care partnership and all the other providers within the city. For me, it's about having that conversation, and you start that conversation with the people you deliver the services to, and they need to be an important part of that conversation. What we had in Aberdeen is we have a co-design and we have a collaboratively commissioned concept, and for me, that's a central tenant of Aberdeen. I don't know if anybody else wants to come on that one. I think that it's a really important part of the process moving forward. We've talked about the framework, as I said, in the next stage. I don't know, Sophie, if anybody can come in, everybody can come in. I think that it's a really important part of the process. It's okay. Yeah, Andy has indicated, and also Stephanie. Hi there. Yeah, I agree that co-design is really critical going forward. It's really heartening to see the commitment to co-design from the NCS team in practice. It's very challenging to make that properly inclusive. It's making sure that people with learning disabilities are included in the co-design process. It's challenging but really, really important. The structures have been set up for co-design, for example, the set up lived experience panels for people who use social care support, but our concern is that that's not an accessible model for people with learning disabilities. We just need to keep the conversation open, and the NCS team needs to keep listening to what's working for people with lived experience to make sure that they are properly involved all the way through. The main point that I really wanted to make is that timescales are artificially short as a commitment to get this legislation through in this Parliamentary term. I don't think that that's going to make it, that's going to compromise the effectiveness of the co-design. For people who take a bit longer to make their contribution, they're going to be cut out. That's our fear. Thank you. Apart from associating myself with everything that Andy has just said, our concern is that this process is a wrong way round. It's more on the focus around what you would like to see your involvement in the process, because I think that we've heard evidence of that, but, again, I'm conscious of the time. Where do you see your evidence? Who do you see your involvement in that co-design process? In the interest of time, I will absolutely echo what Andy said. Timescales and the lived experience panels and things are not fully inclusive and representative. Okay, I'll maybe take that after that. Sophie? Sophie, you wanted to come in. Yes, just very briefly. I'd again echo everything that Stephanie and Andy has said. I think co-design is really, really important, particularly as we go into secondary legislation. It does take time and resources, but I think it's a really, really valuable and important step. I know people touched on lived experience panels from our perspective, making sure that there is a collective voice guiding that, so using state-of-the-art organisations that have that mandate to speak to the process of co-design and have that capacity building built into the process to make the participation more meaningful. Okay, Sophie, thank you. Thanks very much, Paul. That brings us to the end of our questions, so thanks so much for keeping the answer short. Stephanie, I noticed that you were cut off in something that maybe was important to convey to the committee, so if you'd like to put that in writing, I would welcome that. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. I think it's been very useful for the committee to hear from all of you and hear the different perspectives, and I now suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow for a change of witnesses. We'll now begin our second panel of witnesses this morning. On panel two, we're joined in person by Adam Stahura, who is the head of policy and communications at Age Scotland, and maybe mispronounced your last name there. Online, we've been joined by Henry Simmons, who's the chief executive of Alzheimer's Scotland, and Hannah Tweedy, who is the senior policy officer from the Health and Social Care Alliance. I welcome our witnesses to the meeting. If you can, for those who are online, if you can indicate if you want to respond by putting an R in the chat box, I'll make sure that we bring you in, but also we will direct questions, members will direct questions to somebody specifically to start off. I'd like to begin and I'm going to direct my first question to Hannah, and actually this might be one where we get the response from all of you. I'd be interested in hearing what the main problems with the way social care is currently delivered, and add on to that. Do you agree that there's currently a postcode lottery in care delivering? Hannah? The answer is yes. I think that, as was ably covered by the previous panel participants, there's a wide variety of evidence available about the ways in which condition-specific and area-specific delivery of care varies irrespective, in many cases, of actual need, which is what that should be grounded in. We have a variety of material from work that the Alliance has done in partnership with self-directed support Scotland around people's experiences of accessing SDS and social care in Scotland, and that highlighted the range of that variance. I would say that some areas have notably poorer access, so I'd highlight folk with lived experience of sensory loss, mental health problems, people with learning disabilities, as Andy mentioned, and part of that is reinforced by both care charging and eligibility criteria use of Scotland. I think that there's also something about information sharing informing that that we found when we did the My Support My Choice project. I mentioned that only 42 per cent of respondents found that social workers described all four options with them in reviews, so part of that is grounded in if social workers are not empowered to have the information to share. People are not going to be able to have the suitable choice. It may not be the best provision of care for them, and that's before you get into the teases and seas of specific problems with individual providers in some areas. I'll pause there because there's a lot more that I'm sure colleagues couldn't speak to. Thank you, Hannah. Adam, what about you? As ever, Hannah has done a very good job of something out of exactly the position. There is a significant challenge. We here at Age Scotland from older people and their families in carers about the delivery of social care, and it's not being new. It's not being something that has occurred as a result of Covid-19. In fact, this has long since been the position. As a charity, we've been very careful not to use the phrase that social care is in crisis before Covid, but my goodness, it is now. I think you'll be very careful when you use that because it can't keep getting a bigger crisis and a bigger crisis. As we've heard in this last week from representatives in social care that the system, in a sense, is tension the verge of falling over with large closures on the car to tension for care homes, and that would be absolutely critical in terms of people's wellbeing. What happens then if people cannot live in their own home, which is their care home, that people will face incredible long waits to receive, in the first instance, assessments for their social care, and secondly, to actually receive the package itself. There's a very good series of FOIs from Helen Putty at the Times at the beginning of this year, which she discussed with us, and it outlined some extraordinary waits of years that people were waiting to receive their social care package. The clock stops when you get the first part of that piece, so if people still leave in 1,200 days and Perth and Kinross outcomes for them are incredibly poor. I think the answer to this is yes, but often, going back one step, the age got me here from people through our helpline and our different projects and on the ground, and we hear the worst of it, of course. There's a lot of great social care. Members of the Scottish Parliament will hear this all the time. You'll have these delivered in your constituencies and regions, but there is a significant challenge on getting it, getting good quality care, getting enough of it, and actually, I think in the previous panel mentioned when care has been reduced to meet budgetary needs or capacity needs has meant outcomes for that person are far poorer than they should be, in particular with regard to their own rights and their human rights. Thanks for that. Henry, do you have anything to add on there? I can't hear you at the moment. Hang on a minute. No, I'm not sure what's going on there. Maybe while you're trying to figure that out, we can come back to you once we get your audio sorted out. I'll add my other question that I had. The committee has heard that we've had evidence sessions already on the national care service, and we've heard from previous witnesses that the bill, as proposed, is a disproportionate solution to the challenges that we face. Are you keen to hear your views on whether we actually need legislation to bring about the improvements? Maybe Adam, I'll start with you. I think that we're at a position now where legislation is what we've got. If you look across the piece in social care, how disparate it can be in terms of the receipt of it and the different systems that will be in place. We've talked in the past, and everyone has talked about those who hear from people who receive social care or their families about this postcode lottery idea. We've got huge numbers of different integrated joint boards, health and social care partnerships and how the NHS does this and local authorities. I think that this has been a helpful step. If you're going to try and reform social care, then you probably need a useful mechanism to do that, and legislation will be this. Underpinning all of this is about accountability, as much as anything, and responsibility for social care. I was listening to the last panel session there, and the question was put about the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care actually having responsibility for that. My goodness, that's exactly the type of thing that we need from the Scottish Government, so it's not just in name only social care, because if you go back to the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic and the instances of people's social care packages being removed from them, I'm told that they'll have to go without people be waiting days in their own beds without being fed or washed or anything, the things that they need, there was nobody really held accountable for that in a crisis. Now, while that wasn't a crisis, that demonstrated absolute necessity. The Scottish Government had no levers essentially to fix this. Local authorities or IJBs or health services partnerships were wholly remote from public accountability. I think if you had that in the health system, which is equally as necessary to somebody's wellbeing as social care if you're receiving it, so I think underpinning that, having that responsibility is necessary and actually trying to reform social care is important. That will mean many things to many different people, of course. A lot of this will be about money and resources and how this is used effectively as the best outcomes for people. So we've got a natural care service proposed and we wholeheartedly support such a thing, at least in the broadest concept of it, but I want to bring that back to the accountability and responsibility that is massively important and doing so through legislation as much as anything is vital. Thanks, Adam. Hannah, you've integrated. Do you want to come in? Yeah, I would agree with Adam's comments there. I would also say that I think there are parts of the system that we can be working on to improve outwith the legislative framework and that that should be happening, but that's not a fixal. We know that the structure of, say, the SDS legislation does not deal with the problems that we have with our little bit of criteria, which is one of the most pressing reasons why people don't receive early intervention care and why things reach the point of crisis intervention. I do use that word very specifically because I think that that is frequently the case that people are in by the time they actually have access to social care in many instances now. I would also flag that all the legislation isn't a fix in all ways, and I would particularly say that the Alliance and our membership do have concerns about framework bill approach. There are things we would really wish to see change in that within primary legislation more on that later, but an example of legislative protection is working well when there were problems with accountability would be during the pandemic. We know that some local authorities temporarily suspended complaint systems. Now that's not in line with their duties as public bodies and when that was raised, I would assume out of ignorance and relative lack of support for extremely overworked individuals. I'm not trying to knock front line and look at local authority colleagues by saying this, but functionally they were not fulfilling their statutory duties and when that was raised and aired with them, the problem was actually dealt with pretty promptly because there was the legislative accountability and because there was a process of place to go, that's not great and here's why. To have something that can provide similar assurances would be beneficial if done right and that's a pretty significant cortisol. Thanks very much, Hannah. Henry, I'm going to try to bring you in again and if you can just respond or add anything to both the question about from the Alzheimer's Scotland perspective kind of the problems with the way that social care is delivered and the postcode lottery piece, but also do we actually need to bring in legislation to bring about the improvement? Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can, fantastic. I think that in terms of the I can answer the necessity question first of all that there's no doubt I think that as a country we're still reeling from the changes that were made back in 1996 on the days of regional councils and we've never really quite been able to deliver consistent variation across the two local authorities of what affected social care, so our view is very much that when you're faced with the challenges of the scale of dementia and if you look across the piece everyone today has told you how difficult it is to access good quality social care, but I think what's more important is that there's some big strategic plans that have been made over the past 12 years particularly around dementia, the national dementia strategy, but around about probably 35 to 40 commitments and all of them rely on local delivery and very few of them have actually been delivered consistently, so I think I can understand this from two sides, I can understand when a local authority is dealing with their own issues and trying to work out how best to serve their communities and the challenges that they've got there and then a Government who puts together some of the best perhaps the most comprehensive and innovative policies around dementia that we certainly think could go on the table, these two things don't well build together, so we've got national visions, national strategies, national agreements that would transform the lives of people who were mentioned from the point of diagnosis through to integrated and advanced care that have never really been delivered, so when you ask us if that were under the governance and direction of a national peer service with peer boards that were working to a consistent framework to give everyone across the piece the same quality of care, we would say yes that makes enough lot of sense because what we have tried to do today has just been very difficult, and I think that the agibs, when we bring two shugging bodies together with very little funds to meet the needs that's already out there, I think that the right at the start they were about saving money and trying to make better resources, and we never reached the point about really meaningful prevention work, and I think that the thing that Derek Feeley highlighted and we were very supportive of all was the sense of moving forward, thinking about prevention, thinking about prevention earlier, and even at the time of crisis that we need to really move everything forward and think through how we can avoid so much of the difficulties we experience now, and I think that's again something that needs to come from a national perspective driven through the care boards to local people. Thanks very much. I'm now going to move on to questions from Willie Coffey. Thanks very much again, convener, and good afternoon to everybody on the panel. I just wanted to go back to Derek Feeley's report, of course, and one of the key standouts for me, and I've read many times now, is that Derek said that the driving focus should be consistency of quality and equity of care and support by service users. That's at the heart of the Feeley review. Do you think, in your opinion, does the national care service provide the instrument to enable us to deliver this consistency of service across Scotland, and I'll ask Adam, if he would pitch in with an answer to that, please. I think it could. Obviously, detail is lacking, and a lot of the things how it actually happened. Of course, it's being co-designed and the co-production underlying the secondary part of legislation, but I think that when you consider the lack of consistency, and that's highlighted by the fact that anyone is coming forward to say that they're having poor social care or not receiving it at all, and it's not meant at those who are delivering it, because you look across the piece, for those who are working in social care, that consistency for them, as well, is lacking. It was mentioned in the last panel about different terms and conditions for doing the same type of work, but depending on who's being commissioned to undertake this, that some suppliers or suppliers may have to withdraw entirely from delivering social care because financially it's not sustainable. We've had before this latest round of energy crisis care homes closing because of financial model. It's an expensive business care, and often good things cost money, but I think that this is really important, and I feel that it's absolutely right in that report. I think that if you go back in all of this about who requires care, not just now but in the future, whether you're a child, whether you're an adult, whether you're an older adult, and as we've got an ageing population, that every one of us who may need care would expect to have something that meets our needs. Then that is absolutely right in this, and it's not consistent. So the care service could do all of these things, and Dev will be in the detail, of course, and that's what we don't really have right now, to be able to properly scrutinise. Thank you for that. Can I have a brief comment from Henry and from Hannah as well, please, on that? Is this the instrument that we need to deliver that consistency across the country? I think that the truth will be that there will be variations in performance. I think that if you look across to our national care service, for example, we don't achieve consistency despite having a very clear direction, a very clear guidance, because performance is always an issue in their management and their thoughts. I think that what we will have is a consistent set of principles, a consistent set of standards, a consistent set of both their rights and expectations that can be delivered and measured against, but I do think that, given the challenges that are going on in any social care structure of this scale, we'll always see some depth of inconsistency, but he asked me about the values and the principles in this driving position. Yeah, we need a national care service that's got all of that at the front. That should determine the structures that come behind it, and then, I think, the performance delivery will need an awful lot of very end-depth monitoring to ensure that we achieve that consistency. I would echo Adam's conditional response and that of Henry as well. I think that if I can summarise it that way, I guess that if I was getting into the T's and Z's, I'd say that the national care service has more organisational capacity, potentially, to do that in certain areas than current systems, but I'm not sure that that's the same thing as saying the National Care Service, Bracket Scotland and Clothes Brackets Bill does. I suppose that talking specifically about the data collection came up during the last panel, particularly around problems with the flags used around local learning disabilities. Our national approach to data collection would be proper intersectional analysis, both from our different population groups and how they're accessing social care, and something outcomes-focused that could be managed nationally, so the same questions and same data sets are being compared. To highlight where things are working well and that practice is shared, as well as highlighting problems, I think could be a really key part of being the usefulness of some areas of national analysis alongside that local delivery part that is also very important and has been raised by colleagues. If you don't have that, you don't know what you don't know, you can't meet the problem. I would also say that, although I would agree that there are clearly issues with varied provision within the NHS, the NHS does not vary its eligibility criteria in different local authorities and social care does. There are some areas where, under the current system, there are very clear distinctions in practice and that, bluntly, they are not human rights-based approaches by default. The very well-conceptions in section 1 of the bill prioritising human rights-based approaches could see that play through in a more equitable, in a more equal fashion. I have more detail, please. Okay, thanks for that, Hannah. Just another question that led the previous panel on the question of accountability. Do you agree or not that the ultimate accountability should rest with the cabinet secretary in the Scottish Government? Adam Snowding. That goes to myself first. Sorry, I had been left unmuted, so I wasn't sure. I think that ministerial accountability is a good concept. I think that it is useful to be able to have not marking your own homework, if I can put it in those terms. Sometimes, at the moment, when people are submitting complaints that we're hearing again and again that we're not sure who's dealing with the transparency isn't there, we don't know where to go, if we haven't got anywhere, there's something that is more devolved and has its benefits. But we do also question the longevity of some of that and whether there also needs to be a system that ensures anti-political changeover does not affect people's access to accountability structures. Yes, I think that it actually reflects what the public needs to be reduced at the present time. I think that if you look at probably minister's inboxes, you'll see lots and lots of people writing to them asking for them to fix and solve all the issues and difficulties in social care. So I think that in general public tend to think that the minister is responsible for social care. What I would say is that I think that the challenges of social care have been very difficult for many local authorities and IJBs to deal with. For me, this has to be about an inclusive engagement with everyone, this transition moving forward. Ultimately, I think that it's the right way to go, but I don't think it's simply because the system can be really appalled and I think that general public are keen for their government to be responsible for things that are not supposed to be. Okay, thanks very much for that. Thank you very much, Willie. We're now going to move to question from Miles Briggs. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the panel. Thanks for joining us today. It's my understanding that Lord Brailsford, the new chair of the Scottish Public Inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic will meet with families today and I welcome that. I wanted to ask specificly, with regard to your organisations, whether or not you feel that Ann's law has been captured and embedded into legislation. I don't think that if you asked those who are initially calling for Ann's law, I don't speak for them to say, is this what we intended or what we needed, they would say is. I think that it's also a pretty complicated business getting it with all the different elements that are required. I mean, we're really supportive of it, have been through the whole pandemic. The really sad thing, and this is necessary at all, that essentially people's human rights were not realised to do this and what we didn't have often was a system in which people said, how can we make this happen? As opposed to defence, defence will close the doors, we need to make sure that this virus is stopped. There are lots of really good examples of that, I don't want to draw on too long apologies, but I think that there are a lot of very good things about the principles of this. Part of the concern I think is, and I know that there are some legitives of timeframes, is that how long it will take for this to be realised. At a meeting with the Guards implementation of care home visiting, which I'm part of, I think was a couple of weeks ago, there are still inconsistencies. Doors are closed for different reasons because of no virus or some other things that will be necessary in the future as much as a result of Covid, but Covid is much better managed now than it was before. We're meeting in person, there's no masks, these types of things, we're in a much better place vaccination programme, PPE is being used and available, so this is a really, I think, quite sad state of affairs that we're still not at a place where residents who read this and family members and carers are able to get exactly what they need everywhere. So until this bill is passed, that won't be law, but I think broadly speaking it's doing the right things, but I don't think it's as strong as some who've been calling for it would like. Does Henry or Hannah want to come in on that question? Yeah, thanks. I think there's some really fundamentally challenging issues associated with Anne's law that we have to look at too, and we can't just look at its integration. The first thing is that part of the reason that these relatives can't access the premises is because of the very nature, size and scale of the premises. We know that 1,600 people with dementia probably died as a consequence of living in a large scale regarding environments. Going forward, we have to say, is that the right model? Is that the way that we think we can deal with a future pandemic? Because at the time when everything really evolved, most people placed their trust in public girls' understanding of how to handle and deal with this pandemic. Very few people knew how to challenge that from the student safety challenge, whereas I think that the campaigners and the care home relative group have made the point, they've made the case, they've won that argument and we can never go back the way on that just now. And I think that, as it stands, the option again comes back to public health making decisions now. That needs to be challenged. There's other evidence, there's counter evidence, there's a merchant song theories that have probably eaten a few fish to get to this, you know. So I think that we're in a different place for a different debate, and some of what we, public health, just held all the cards and made all the decisions and never quite understood perhaps the impact that that had on those families and individuals, and perhaps still don't. I feel that we need a bigger public debate about the future of that long-term care estate. We need to question it, consider it, and we never can have families in that position ever again. So it's not just about Anne's Law, it's about the whole position, as far as we are concerned, as we will follow. Thank you. Hannah, did I see your hand up previously? Yeah, just building on Henry's points, which I think we would be very much in agreement there with, would be the imperative to take that learning from the pandemic about process, as well about the specifics, and use that to inform these discussions. So that could also include around discussions around the right to rehabilitation, right to independent living, and the way in which consistently throughout the early stages of the pandemic, we did not see disabled people, people living in long-term conditions or unpaid carers, having input in decision making. I think that that has particular relevance to the post framework bill in terms of the material around care board representation, but also the ministerial intervention case of emergencies, that there's no statement up present about a duty to have respect or to pay attention to the principles of co-production, the principles of human rights outlined in the early sections of the act. I would be really keen to see that there, because that is the functional threading through of some of that learning that's being referred to there and the impetus to not go back that colleagues have just commented on. Thank you. In your evidence to committees, the Alliance has suggested that there should be scope within the bill for creation of an independent authority to be able to hold ministers to account for their decisions. I just wonder if you could outline what you would see that looking like legally and what legal standing that would have as well. I should preface this for saying that I'm not a legal professional. That is really centred around the concept that it is really important that people can trust in the process. Trust in ministerial oversight, absolutely, but also trust that someone has the capacity to be properly looking out for what is working and what isn't working, because ministerial accountability bestwill in the world is not going to involve one person who's the capsaic with the capacity to go, what is happening in the data we are receiving, what gaps do we have, where do we not know what standard of care people are receiving, what is being done to combat that, what progress has been made, that has to be done by a team of researchers bluntly, or some variation on that thing. Part of our proposal for the independent role of that is to reinforce, to support public trust around that process, but also to provide a really useful resource that ministers can draw on as part of that ministerial responsibility role, as well as being held to account. It's a two-directional process that would be the proposal. I also think that I'll expect some of the early comments made around complaints, which is if you have an independent body, they can be part of a more proactive approach to problem solving. In the same way that, say, the Care Inspectorate's reports, I like good practice. They're not all about saying, you know, we're putting you into special measures that far from it. So, certainly, they can really straddle that space and also be available both for disabled people and people access and services to be aware of, but also staff and the workforce, so that they can be raising concerns and suggestions and flagging items. That's helpful. Thank you. I don't know if anyone else wants to make any points about that suggestion. If not, I'm happy to hand back. Nobody has indicated. Thanks, Miles. Okay, so I'm just going to say again, if members can direct their questions and please just allow the panel to indicate they want to come in on that question and please everybody keep your questions and responses succinct. We're now going to move to questions from Marie McNair, who's joining us online. Thank you. Good afternoon, panel. Thank you very much for your time this morning. I'm going to follow with the same line of questions from the previous panel. It's obviously, I just want to know about the impacts of integrated joint boards. I want to tease out, do you think that the model has had enough time to bed and make a difference? What are the implications of replacing them with care boards? I know there's been a bit of discussion about that already, but maybe if you could come in with an expand on that a wee bit, Hannah, if you don't mind. I would say that IJBs, whether they've had long enough, I don't have the same breadth of experience as previous colleagues who were involved in the 2014 setup, but we have clear evidence that they are not meeting the needs of disabled people, people living in long-term areas on a consistent basis. Part of that is due to the legislative framing of integration, so the key example that I would give that I think care boards have the potential to meet the problem would be around representation of lived experience and of the third and independent sectors in that we see real variants between boards that do and don't have those posts in IJBs and those that do don't. Maybe they have the available posts, but it's not filled or functionally. The order of business is 9am meetings. We've got to read 50 pages over the weekend, which people with unpaid care responsibilities etc. We've frequently heard, I can't do a 9am slot because that's when the support is coming in. The nuts and bolts and the system is not designed to engage properly with people with lived experience of accessing services. If care boards are from the outset, it is prerequisite that people with lived experience are part of them in order for decisions to be quarried. That's a very different political landscape at that point in terms of the language of co-production and input on decisions, which is a really key part of that definition. We'd like to see that fed throughout the whole process of wider health and social care design. Although it's very welcome that the bill in its current state acknowledges that possibility and highlights the possibility of paying people properly for their time rather than just expenses, which is another problem in the current system, it's not listed as an essential. Best way in the world if something is not a requirement, it will be the first thing that goes when people are under pressure. That would be something that we would really like to see changed in current ill structure. However, if care boards can learn from things such as the people-led policy panel and the success of some of the really good work that happened around social security and co-production, that would be really welcome and could potentially be a much more meaningful engagement with co-production on an on-going basis than we see in IJBs. I don't think that IJBs have worked. I think that there's a number of very important and significant issues of that song that have been mentioned. One of the areas that I would point to is that the process of commissioning a subsequent procurement through IJBs has led us into a state of the crisis in social care. Where I would just separately highlight that would be the non-committal framework in the agreement that IJBs have adopted across the country. I would support enough to chair and inquire on behalf of the Fair Work Convention. We looked very carefully at all of that, and we made some recommendations in 2019, one of which was to see that the IJBs have driven, through the framework agreements, many organisations and indeed many of the employees within that to carry the burden of risk in the burden of the variability within social care. That, for me, is a failure of planning, it's a failure of proper commissioning. That's what leads to organisations having zero-year contract workers and not knowing how many years are going to be required. All of that then feeds into the actual willingness and desire of someone to work within social care. We've got 1,000 organisations, we've got 200,000 staff, 89 per cent of women, and we don't have any collective voice for that group of workforce at all. That, for me, is where social care has started to become more and more under pressure, more greater difficulties and that lack of really significant planning, proper commissioning and making sure that organisations are given the right level of contract with the right number of staff to deliver the needs that's led to where we are in terms of crisis. That's one area that IGIBs have struggled with. I don't think that the cultures have ever really emerged. We've got a name and we've got a logo and we've got a label, but have we really got one culture between all that was put into the individual IGIBs? Probably not. Moving forward, the idea of not having two different line management structures and two different report and procedures and having one national peer service seems to make sense, but there's a lot of work to be done to deliver on that. Thanks, Henry. In following up, do you recognise the situation that was expressed by the minister last week that currently people feel they've been pushed from pillar to post if they, for example, have a complaint or concerns about the service? You share that view. Yeah, well, I think what happens is that it's very difficult, first of all, to find out who to complain to, how to complain, where to go to. I think that my experience of people is that they really only complain when things get really serious and really significant and I would certainly support that. I think that that's very fair and a true and active reflection of what's happening with the industry. Thank you. Very briefly, does anyone else want to come in on that question? Adam? I will be really brief. If you look at accountability for IGIBs, there isn't that much in terms of the public. If you ask the public who are on the IGPs, what do they do? I think that there's very low understanding. I'll refer back to a report from Audit Scotland a couple of years ago where we were talking about how they just haven't worked yet. It's a very good question about whether they need more time, but do we have time to wait for that? Will that in itself fix social care? If it's such a broad kind of ask, in a sense it's fixed social care is pretty tricky, isn't it? If you're going to look at a national care service, there's a model to support that through care boards, but I think that IGIBs, despite a lot of good work, have been maybe even commissioning work. It's been a race to the bottom in terms of the cheapest costs for people to deliver, to procure care. I think that there's a lot more that they could do and I don't think that we've got time to see if that settles. Hannah, you wanted to come back in on the people being moved from pillar to post question. Just on that second question, yes they are, but I think one specific area I'd like to flag that I think is often not a lot of attention is paid for too, is the need for a complaint system and that sort of redress situation to be accessible to family and friends of people who access care or wish to access care and have since passed away. At the moment, the current system essentially investigation ceases in many cases after an individual has died and that is not fair on those families, it's not fair on those individuals, it also sets a really poor precedent in terms of learning and the ability to build upon when things don't work. So we would strongly welcome material that would alter that current state of play. Thank you, Mary, and thanks Hannah for flagging up that aspect. Mark, you've got some questions. We've heard concerns from local authorities and trade unions about the prospect of a wholesale transfer of staff and assets to a new national service and the minister last week tried to allay those by saying that it would only be as a provider of last resort in result of a failure. I just wanted to come to Hannah first and ask if you know what's led to that level of confusion, why was there such a concern amongst the sector about a wholesale transfer of staff and what your view actually would have been if that comes to pass? I think that this is responding on the hoof but I have not and a number of colleagues have not read the bill in the same way that has since been outlined by the minister. The understanding had been that there is the possibility of wholesale movement of staff and that that caused understandable concern, particularly among other areas in the bits where sections where it was explicit that NHS staff would not be moved and questioning, well what does that mean for NHS Highland who provides social care via for adult services? So there was some significant confusion amongst third sector colleagues around those sections. If, as the minister outlines, the transfer of staff will only happen in emergency, then I would return to my comments about being clear on the definition of an emergency, the length of time, whether something is permanent or short term, and how the human rights of both people accessing services and workforce and their work embedded throughout that are going to be respected throughout any such process. I think that material on that would reassure because at the moment it's considerable uncertainty in this sector that is already doggling and under considerable pressures and so stress is not a desirable addition in that context. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, thanks. I don't know if Adam or Henry wanted to come in. No. No, okay, that's fine. My other question was just around trust. The review report said that trust is not currently in plentiful supply and social care support when they're whether you'd agree with that, whether you would recognise that there is a difference in trust in social care in the NHS and why you think that might be. Come to Adam first. I think there's certainly an issue of trust and it's both sides, I think, for those who receive social care and those who are delivering social care. I think a lot of folks, in terms of like key workers in social care, might have a lack of trust in the system or in the, maybe, their employers or what they are getting themselves in terms of not just the kind of pay but conditions and training and all the types of things that support this. You've got unpaid carers who've got an extraordinary heavy burden on them to try and pick up everything when it comes to making sure that their loved one is in the best, the best healthy can possibly be. But I think if you looked at the last two and a half years to three years and social care has had probably the worst period of PR it could ever have had, not for what I've tried to do a really good job. It has been faced with a crisis in the beginning of Covid when care homes are essentially and social care providers left on their own to try and find PPE. You know, we've heard these stories, we can't forget that, that people were going on Amazon to try and find anything, but it was channeled broadly speaking to the NHS. Now, whether this was a decision that might all come out in the wash within the independent inquiry, UK and Scottish, but how these things happened, so response and what happened in social care meant that it was hard to deliver it because of these types of things. So, it felt like, if you're talking about trust, it felt like the NHS was protected for more than social care. I think that's an incredible hangover from that. As people had their social care packages removed with no warning or indeed not returned to levels that were initially assessed as their need, so that's the point. It's not as if what you get now is at some point you've been assessed as needing, this hate is care, and then all of a sudden you no longer need that much care. So, I think there is, there are big challenges there, and it's a lot of this about resource and making sure you can access it when you need it and as much as you need it. Thank you, thanks, I don't know if there's anyone on me. Oh yes, so Henry, you'd like to come in and I think you wanted to come in on the previous question as well, so if you can pull that in, that would be great. In terms of the trust issue, I think what's really important to understand is that the majority of the public get a surprise when they start to require social care services because they end up in this form of financial assessment, they end up having to contribute, having to pay for it, and that has been very big across 32 different authorities, but particularly for our people who are most concerned about when people reach the advanced stage of dementia, they might need to go to a care home, they're then facing bills of £1,200 per week, so they think that care is going to be free, the public generally thinks that care is going to be free, and when you enter the social care arena and you realise it isn't, obviously it will affect your perception of that, it's almost a damaged psychological contract that we've got that you work your whole life and all of a sudden you need something that you have to pay, either a component or for all of that, so that really impacts in my opinion on the trust, whereas with NHS, you never experience that and you tend to receive the care that you require, albeit that you may have to wait sometimes in various associations for it, so we've got two very different approaches and very different structures, but actually a very similar perspective around that, and that ultimately leads to a significant damage of trust, and indeed we have got a campaign that's targeting the inequalities around that which I won't get introduced now, but I really do think that that's something that you must bear in mind, that social care has always had this means-tested charring ability that actually makes people very confused and causes a trust failure. Thanks, Henry. Okay, we're going to move on to questions from Paul MacLennan. Yeah, thank you, convener. A couple of questions, I think, for me. On, we've talked about before in the previous session as well, and about, can you mean discussing about the framework, this is the framework element off the bill, and it's kind of moving on to the co-design would be the next stage, just to ask the panel what they would see their part in the co-design or what they would like to see as their part in the co-design process as we move forward. In the second question, the minister mentioned last week that the national care service represents the greatest opportunity as it existed for the profession for a very long time. Just your thoughts on that comment as well. I'll open it up probably to yourself, Hannah, first of all, and then open it up beyond that. I mean, first up, the alliance is very interested in being involved in co-production work so that we can share as many opportunities as widely as possible with our membership. What I would say the feedback we have had from them thus far is that the existing structures around the co-production work or by much of it is really good are not transparent, and that goes back to those questions about trusts that have just been outlined. I think that we could be seeing on-going improvement also in terms of inclusive communication and access. Hannah, just on that point, you're saying not transparent. What would you like to see in case of more transparency? So, off the top of my head, it's really welcome that you've got the lived experience expert panels. It wasn't clear from the information shared whether this was selective, whether everybody who wanted to be involved would be involved, just kind of basic columns essentially. But also a lot of the information is shared online only. What does that do around digital choice and digital access and what paid population groups and just not going to hear about stuff? There are a lot of material there. I think also there are concerns we have heard from within our membership at the timescales, particularly given the different developments across one of the core mainstream national care service work and the questions about whether to include justice services and children and young people services. Real concerns about making sure we don't retrofit children and young people services are included because a retrofitted system is not the way for purpose, it's not the way properly co-produced, but making sure that co-production work is fully inclusive of all potential groups from the very outset because universal accessibility is no bad thing even if things and even if those parts of the system are not in the end included. With regard to opportunity, the mention is a fair worker really welcome but not having a lot of detail has raised some concerns. There's the potential for this to be an opportunity. At the moment we know that yes there was a pay-up lift for social care staff but pay-up lift doesn't come with an ongoing promotional track in the way that NHS have, so something that could do that would be really welcome. Similarly that uplift did not apply to children and young people's social care workers but there are some existing disparities that are still being perpetuated, can that be addressed? We've also heard substantially from colleagues for example within the sensory loss sector who talk about the level of expertise required to be a guide communicator and that that is not noticed or acknowledged within the current systems either in terms of continued professional development or in terms of pay or conditions. So lots of scope to improve whether the bill will improve that is another question but the opportunity is welcome particularly if there's a real drive to get into that and lots of bolt stuff and see meaningful improvement for the sector. Henry wants to come in on that one. I think that the national care service has to have a national agreed body that represents social care workers alongside it. We need standard terms and conditions, we need to move away from the variety that we've got across the whole sector and give us people a sense of security. Again that was recommended by the Fair Work Convention's report and it's not happening yet but it really does need to happen. In terms of sort of co-design, I think that it would be very difficult to co-design the next stage of this bill including everyone and I think it's got to be chunked down in its specific bits of work, bits of any areas and people need to be brought in and engaged from the beginning but perhaps more depth across different pieces. So for example the ways of organisation have been campaign working with members for 40 years. We've got many thousands of members, we've got active voice groups, they all want to be part of this and we have to find a way I think at the right point in time using that skill and that expertise and using the line I think on the third sector because the third sector exists to do the very thing that now wants to be done. Something that the Government needs to create a new methodology on what we can do but quite frankly decades. I think that there's a lot to learn from our sector and we can do a lot more in partnership as opposed to create some new structures that perhaps they need a lot of help from but central component but there's a lot out there, a lot of organisations out there that can really be engaged and supported. However that does require some investment, it requires some funding, it requires some thought. I think the first part there was with regard to involvement. I think there is a lot of insight from older people, carers, family members that Age Scotland's helpline will have collated over many many many years that advises on that, we'll know what people are calling about in terms of what is good, what's not so good. I think that that's something that we would want to offer in terms of that kind of general public take on it. They've also got elements of work which they support people with experience of dementia which we'll have, eth minority older people, LGBTQ plus older people as well to making sure that their voices, their experiences, indeed their aspirations for social care are heard. I think that this is as much about the future as it is about today and fixing, you know, the national care service isn't going to fix the problems we're facing in social care today, tomorrow but we're looking into the future. We want to make sure that as more people may need it and whoever you are and whatever you might need wherever you are that that is fully recognised and understood and also for organisations like Age Scotland and many many others to test the ideas and to scrutinise some of the ideas that are coming out of co-design and co-production to actually work out in reality. Do we think that this will work or not? I think that that's another part is that we often have this to the Government about let's have a blank sheet paper and all come together and create this thing. Actually sometimes we want a little bit of leadership as well from the Government, say this is how it will work in actual practice, this is the framework that we've got, this is how the world operates. What do you think could improve that or where do you think they kind of blocks to this happening or? Okay. Thank you for that. Can you come to the time? So that's me. Thanks Paul. So that we've come to the end of our questions and I thank you all for joining us and giving evidence today. I think it's been useful for the committee to hear your reflections on the national care service bill. And as we agreed at the start of the meeting to take the next two items in private, there's no more public business today and I now close the public part of the meeting.