Chamber and committees

More than a decade ago, the Scottish Labour Party called for the creation of a national care service. Our vision was rooted in a belief that social care could be transformed to deliver exceptional national standards of care across Scotland. That is about changing the culture, not the structures, by ensuring that our social care system treats people with dignity and by ensuring that our care staff are respected as skilled professionals. Sadly, the Scottish Government’s proposal lacks substance, lacks vision and, increasingly, lacks the confidence of key stakeholders, including trade unions, COSLA, care providers and staff who are working on the front line.

At yesterday’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, COSLA’s health and social care spokesperson, Councillor Paul Kelly, clearly outlined on behalf of councils across Scotland—of all political stripes, including SNP-led councils—huge concerns about what the bill would do to local government. It would take away power from local communities and place it in the hands of ministers, who would then use secondary legislation to design the national care service. He raised concerns that many councils might become unviable.

I and the Scottish Labour Party have serious concerns about the Scottish Government’s vision of the national care service. If the minister will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to his own colleagues, who are also losing confidence in their Government’s ability to deliver what it has promised.

At last week’s Finance and Public Administration Committee, Kenny Gibson compared the Government’s approach as being akin to using a

“sledgehammer to crack a nut.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 25 October 2022; c 24.]

He also mentioned the “monumental risk” in relation to the financial memorandum and the lack of detail therein.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have a lot to get through, so I want to make some progress.

The loss of confidence in this proposal has been growing, week on week. That is why, today, Scottish Labour is calling for the bill for to be paused. Let me be clear: this is not about trying to get one over on the minister or opposing for the sake of opposing. What we are debating is far too important for that. This is about a fundamental principle—the principle of good lawmaking—and creating a national care service that is worthy of the name.

It is irresponsible to press ahead with legislation that is not fit for purpose and that does not command the confidence of key stakeholders. We cannot afford to get these reforms wrong. Indeed, we have had 15 years of this Government ignoring social care. Half-baked solutions will only deepen the problems in the sector.

Presiding Officer, if Emma Harper wants to speak, I am happy to give way.

I am running short of time, as I am into my final minute. I am sure that the minister will be able to raise his point in his concluding remarks.

The Scottish Government needs to go back to the beginning of this process to substantively and meaningfully engage with the key stakeholders in co-designing legislation. In the meantime, let us get to work on improving social care right now. As a first step, the Scottish Government should immediately act on the key recommendations of the Feeley report, including by removing non-residential care charges and tackling poverty pay in the social care sector. It is clear that we do not need to wait for a national care service to begin to address these problems. Indeed, we have been making that argument from the Labour Party benches for many months. The Government could take action here and now to improve the social care sector if it had the political will to do so.

What the Scottish Government is proposing is, in its current form, a national care service in name only. The Scottish Labour Party aspires to see a properly funded and well-planned national care service. That means local delivery while maximising standards, making it a race to the top by forcing bad actors who do not deliver high levels of service out of the system. The Scottish Government must listen and reflect on the growing worry of stakeholders, including trade unions, front-line staff and local authorities, and it must show some humility. It is time for the Government to pause and to meaningfully listen and properly engage, so that we can create the national care service that Scotland deserves.

I move amendment S6M-06523.2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, as an amendment to motion S6M-06523, in the name of Craig Hoy, to leave out from “raises concern” to end and insert:

“; recognises that Scottish Labour first proposed a National Care Service over a decade ago with the aim of improving national standards for social care, while also supporting local delivery and accountability; regrets that, instead, the Scottish Ministers have published a bill that is completely lacking in a vision for a National Care Service; acknowledges the serious concerns from local government, trades unions and other stakeholders about the potential negative impacts of centralisation; considers that meaningful reform should focus on changing culture and not structures, so that care users are treated with dignity and staff are valued as skilled professionals; believes that the immediate priority must be to address the current challenges in social care, and calls on the Scottish Government to pause the bill and take stock, and urgently deliver on the recommendations in the Feeley Review, including ending non-residential care charges, and to tackle poverty pay in the sector, in the midst of the cost of living crisis.”

I have a brief question for Eddie Fraser, after which I will ask a final question.

At the end of the previous section of questions, Eddie, you outlined the alternative approach of local and national Government working together to try to find national standards and to implement them in a national care service. Do you see any parallels with what happened in 2017 when proposed education legislation sought to make ministers responsible for improvements in education through regional improvement collaboratives? That legislation was taken away, and there was collaboration and co-design with all the partners to create what we now recognise as RICs, which are run regionally but have local accountability and committees. Might we want to learn from that process here?

Good morning, panel. I will begin with some questions on what is felt to be the lack of detail, which is being left to secondary legislation, and the lack of local accountability, on which many of you share comments in your submissions.

Starting with COSLA’s approach and its submission, I think that it is fair to say that it is very concerning to read local government’s view on what the bill will do to the provision of services by local government. At COSLA, unanimous cross-party concerns have been raised about the bill, and leaders have unanimously agreed that position. I was a councillor for 10 years and I do not recall such unanimity at COSLA, particularly through its leaders. Councillor Kelly, will you explain how that position was reached and what the concerns are?

My next question is for Jennifer Paton, who is here on behalf of the Law Society. In your response to our call for views, you say:

“It is not clear what evidence base suggests that a national service will improve quality and consistency of services. This lack of an evidence base also makes us question whether the centralisation of what are currently locally-delivered services can be justified in terms of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.”

The Government hopes to incorporate that policy into law. Can you please expand on the impact that you think the bill will have on local democracy and accountability?

I will expand on the point about the practicalities of the bill. It is a framework bill that has some very clear things to say, and it will have a very clear effect on local government, but the written submissions say that there is also concern about what is not said about secondary legislation. In its submission, Inverclyde Council says:

“Leaving so much to secondary legislation will mean there will be no effective consultation, no opportunities for expert advice and experience to influence the details and a lack of transparency and democratic accountability.”

To be fair to the Government, I think that it would contend that there will be a co-designed process, but is it your view that that is the wrong way round and that there should have been a co-designed process first, followed by the bill?

My other question is more for Councillor Kelly. This morning, we have heard you, as COSLA’s representative, express concern about a wholesale transfer of services from local government to the national care service. I have heard it described by people as councils essentially becoming providers in a larger framework. Do you think that there is a principle at stake here for local government?

In its written submission, the Law Society of Scotland said that it is concerned about a lack of evidence for a national care service, which raises the

“question whether the centralisation of what”

is currently delivered locally

“can be justified in terms of the European Charter of Local Self-Government”.

I bring that up, because of the shared commitment by the Government and COSLA to incorporate that charter. Do you think that principle is at stake, too?

That would be helpful. Is it fair to say that, as your submission suggests, you question whether the centralisation agenda can be justified?