Chamber and committees

I want to go back so that I understand the point about ministerial control as opposed to local control. The minister said that people have told him that they want ministerial control and accountability, and I appreciate that in previous answers he has said that he will communicate to the committee where that evidence came from.

Okay, but, as the minister knows, people have raised issues around the consultation and how consulted they felt. I am happy to go through the detail of that; I speak to people who have lived experience as well, and some people have raised concerns.

However, I want to get to the heart of this issue. What interests will local authorities have in the delivery of social care if they are not accountable for it? If local authorities do not hold a statutory responsibility for it, then what is their role?

Good morning. I will return to the point about the potential transfer of staff and the figure of 74,000, which I think that you described as “rumours”, minister. I think that trade unions, local authorities and front-line staff would contend that the concern about the possibility of 74,000 staff being transferred is legitimately held; however, I appreciate that you said that your view is that wholesale transfer is not envisaged, and you gave the example of a care board being the provider of last resort.

My understanding is that, currently, a council would be a provider of last resort anyway—it currently fulfils that function. If we are in the business of trying to clear up and dispel rumours, are there any other reasons why staff might transfer to a care board?

If we take as read what you have just said—if we take you at your word—why have you not spelled out in the bill that your intention is that the care boards will be providers of last resort, or that they might put in place specialist provision, which you referred to? Will you expand on that? I presume that you perhaps mean specialist learning disability services or something like that.

Why have you not spelled out in the bill what you have just said, in order to give confidence to people who are clearly very anxious? In evidence, we heard from trade unions, local authorities and front-line staff that there is anxiety, not least about the potential implications of TUPE for pensions and so on. I appreciate that you have written to the committee in that regard, but if we are dispelling people’s anxiety, do you want to take the opportunity to clear up some of those issues?

What will the status of health and social care partnerships be in the new approach? Do you envisage them no longer existing in their current form and being redeveloped through the national care service process?

What will happen to health and social care partnerships, given the process of integration that has happened in various local authorities?

I begin by asking more broadly about structures. I hear what the minister says about the need for national standards, and there is a large degree of consensus around that. However, whatever way we look at it, the national care service involves big structural change. Does the minister feel that there is a risk of that structural change becoming an end in itself rather than being a means to a greater end?

Convener, I wonder whether I can put another quote to the minister. In its report on the financial memorandum, the Finance and Public Administration Committee said:

“The significant gaps highlighted throughout our report in combination with the Scottish Government’s approach to introducing the primary legislation prior to completion of the co-design process has frustrated the parliamentary scrutiny process.”

Given everything that I said in my previous question and the concerns of other parliamentary committees, does the minister recognise that there is an opportunity here to pause, get back round the table, listen to those concerns and try to address them before we move to the next stage of legislation?

I want to turn to some of the financial implications and the financial memorandum. Last week, we heard from Cathie Russell from Care Home Relatives Scotland and the social covenant steering group, who said:

“What worries me, to some extent, is that we hear figures such as the £500 million cost of the new structure—Audit Scotland thinks that it could be more than £1 billion—but we will not get one extra hour of care for that. None of that will be spent on the front line.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 13 December 2022; c 38.]

Can the minister explain why existing Government commitments on the reform of social care as listed in the financial memorandum were not included in the bill? Can you give an update on any progress that there has been on fulfilling those commitments?

The minister will hear no complaints from me if he is singing the praises of East Renfrewshire. He makes a fair point about the length of time for which integration has been part of the fabric of certain communities and the importance of trying to learn from that.

I turn briefly to the social work element of that, and the further consultation that the minister intends to undertake on children’s services and criminal justice social work. What are the minister’s intended timescales for that?