Chamber and committees

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?

Thank you.

The second part of the question was on the faculty’s submission. There were concerns about the delay in getting to secondary legislation in order to make the change that is required in social care at the moment, and there are issues with staffing and improving outcomes. Do you have a comment on that?

The committee has heard that women over 50 make up 80 per cent of the social care workforce, and colleagues have touched on the point that informal caring and support is often a responsibility that people have outside their work. On a wider point about carers, I know that a framework bill is obviously not going to say anything about how we support carers with regard to, say, rights to paid leave, but do you think that it is important that there be at least a statement of intent on that? Frank Jarvis might want to comment on that from the human rights space.

Thank you. More detail will be helpful, as I think that we will come back to the matter as we make progress.

On a more technical point, the bill does not outline exactly how the transfer of staff will happen and for whom transferred staff will work. We know that NHS staff will remain NHS staff, but we are less clear about, for example, social care staff, who are in the employ of local authorities. Is there a sense that, without that detail, it is harder to look at how fair work practices can be implemented, particularly given the differing pay scales and terms and conditions?

We are trying to consider the bill with regard to the detail that is outlined in the framework. However, on the point that you have made, Councillor Kelly, about viability, and in relation to the amendments that you have mentioned, are your concerns based around, for example, the fact that there is no definition of the geographic spread of a care board—that care boards would not necessarily reflect what we have currently in the integration joint boards, which would have a potential impact on the geography of people’s local authority, as they understand it, and on what their local authority would be responsible for?