The problems that have been outlined about postcode lotteries, and the need for a national approach to what people can expect, are not new, and I share the characterisation of those concerns. However, I do not share the Government’s characterisation of the situation as one in which it does not have any accountability or responsibility for that. People who receive services for social care, or people who work in social care, should not be expected to have to go to multiple doors and multiple agencies to get answers. I am afraid that, actually, the buck stops with the minister. I therefore hope that there will be a mechanism in the here and now, as well as in the future, for people to hold the system to account.

The other point that I want to make—after which I will get to my question—is that, although I am pleased that the issue of sectoral bargaining has been raised, there is nothing whatsoever in the bill about it. That is giving serious concerns to various people across the sector, such as trade unions and third sector organisations. It would therefore be good to hear that the bill will include a commitment to collective bargaining.

Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. I am pleased that you have referred to the fact that we cannot wait but need to take some measures now, and I am not at all surprised to hear that disabled people and their organisations are urging change as soon as possible. I remember being involved in asking the Scottish Government to address social care 15 years ago. To say that there has been incremental change since then is probably an understatement.

There are a number of problems right now. Disabled people are getting so few hours of care and support that they are having to choose between using those hours to go shopping, to pay their bills—with someone there to help them—or to have a shower. That is the reality that disabled people are facing right now. As regards carers who are working in the sector and living on poverty pay, the minister has mentioned that there have been two pay increases, but that has not been enough, and carers are leaving the sector to work in supermarkets instead, because the pay is better there. That is leaving people without the care and support that they need.

Which parts of the problems that I have just outlined is the minister going to address now, instead of waiting until the national care service is developed?

I have one final question, convener—you will not need to come back to me if I ask it now.

I am pleased to hear that sectoral bargaining is on the agenda, and I press the minister to give an absolute commitment to it, because I know that a number of people are seriously concerned that, as a result of this process, we will go backward rather than forward on fair work. A firm commitment on that would therefore be helpful.

It could be one person’s view that a framework bill is flexible and another person’s view that, because there is no detail, people cannot have confidence in what it will deliver. In that regard, I am interested in human rights. Two specific rights are in the bill, but neither of them relates to article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I heard what the minister said about the forthcoming human rights bill, but we cannot have a situation in Scotland in which we have one overarching human rights bill that governs everything and all of the services. We also have to look at how we implement human rights through different parts of Government, including in the national care service. Will the minister therefore commit to putting the right to independent living in the bill? How will human rights be delivered for the people who use the national care service and those who work in it?

It might be self-evident, but are the retention and recruitment issues largely to do with pay and conditions, or are there other factors?

Sheena Arthur, could you respond to the same question and tell us about the situation in Glasgow for your members?

Thank you. Do you have anything further—

I do not have another question, convener. I was just hoping that Andrew Ewen might come in on the previous one.

Do you think that the bill needs to be strengthened in that sense?

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answers, and I note some of the concerns about competency in relation to amendment 115. However, I believe that we need to send a signal that asylum seekers are welcome to apply for the process. I wonder, therefore, whether the cabinet secretary will consider the requirement in Tess White’s amendment 116 that the applicant intends to be here for longer than a year. Most asylum seekers, I imagine, would make that declaration and believe it to be true at the time. On that basis, will the cabinet secretary consider supporting that amendment?

I thank the members who have lodged amendments. I will speak to a couple of the amendments in the group. In short, there are merits to many of the amendments before us, but I have concerns about some. I hope that we can work on those together, ahead of stage 3.

Carol Mochan’s amendment 117, as she has highlighted, seeks to address concerns that some people have. It would require free, confidential and balanced support to be provided, at their request, for 16 and 17-year-olds applying for a GRC. That would be really important for some people. Carol Mochan’s amendment seeks to ensure that there is support for people who need it. Amendment 117 would give 16 and 17-year-old applicants the opportunity to access support on their terms. That is a positive way of supporting young trans people to access their rights and is distinct from other amendments in the group, in particular amendment 38, in the name of Christine Grahame. On that basis, if those amendments are pressed, I will have to abstain.

Martin Whitfield’s amendment 124 adds the coercion of 16 and 17-year-olds as a factor allowing for the rejection of an application for a GRC, along with a presumption that 16 and 17-year-olds do have the capacity to understand the process. All those elements support capacity and the influence of coercion, as my colleague Martin Whitfield has highlighted. I believe that that could be helpful and should be considered further at stage 3, and I urge the Government to continue working with my colleague to do that.

I cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 31, because it delays the act. Trans people have already waited long enough for reform.