Chamber and committees

That is correct. We expect to lay those regulations shortly and will perhaps put them before the committee some time in the new year.

Mr Ewing has put to me three substantive questions, all of which are absolutely legitimate.

On the first question, we have not undertaken any modelling of expectations of fraud. We have undertaken modelling of the number of applications that we consider it likely that we will have to deal with in the scheme. That modelling information is enhanced by our experience of the advance payment scheme, which has given us a sense of the likelihood of applications coming forward. Therefore, there has been modelling, which has underpinned the financial memorandum for the scheme. The modelling also influences the discussions and dialogue that we have with providers of care, to whom we are looking to provide financial contributions to the scheme.

We have not carried out modelling of the likely quantity of cases that might be affected by error. The reason is that the instrument is about creating a proper architecture for financial control and giving financial assurance about the operation of the scheme. An entirely new scheme is being created, so we have to ensure that we have the appropriate financial architecture in place. The instrument is one element of that architecture.

Mr Ewing’s second point is about the threshold of evidence. During the committee and chamber deliberative processes relating to the act, we discussed the issue extensively. The question is finely balanced, because the redress scheme is available to members of the public who have suffered abuse but who are likely to be unsuccessful in pursuing a claim through the civil courts.

If it is possible for an individual to pursue their claim through the civil courts—and if it is their judgment that the claim is strong and valid—they should do so, and sufficiency of evidence will be a critical factor in that respect. The scheme is predicated on a lower standard of proof than that in the courts, but that standard is still of sufficient credibility to enable a judgment to be made in each case. That has to be accepted in good faith, but, if we find that that is not the case, we will need remedies, and the regulations are therefore appropriate in that respect.

Lastly, we have engaged extensively with a range of schemes across not just the United Kingdom but the world to identify any lessons to be learned from their administration and organisation, and we have taken a lot of that learning into the design of the legislation that the Parliament has considered and passed. The provisions under consideration are our assessment of the legitimate provisions that must be in place to ensure that the scheme is robust and workable.

I completely understand Mr Mundell’s point, but I can clarify that the regulations that are before the committee relate not to redress payments to survivors but to legal fees and psychology reports and other relevant circumstantial reports where costs might have been incurred in error. The other instrument that I mentioned in my answer to Mr Ewing will look at the question that Mr Mundell has raised, and we will have an opportunity to air some of these issues again when those regulations come before the committee.

No—in fact, I would say the opposite, convener. It might be that there was an error in the process that requires specific action to be taken in relation to the process, not necessarily to the payment that has been made. However, there could of course be a relationship between the two.

I think that I have said all that I need to say this morning, convener.

Motion agreed to.

In my previous answer, I should have said for completeness that there will be areas that are much harder to penetrate than others. I have given some examples of where cultural change has happened. There are other areas that are more challenging.

One of the problems is that I could sit here and give a litany of examples of good practice, but I would struggle to say in all of them that they were systemic approaches. They might be good examples, but I am not sure that those approaches are happening everywhere.

That brings me to my response to your question about the appropriate care for individuals. I think that we have made very good progress on ensuring that people receive the care that is appropriate for their needs, but I live in the real world and I know that we currently have around 1,400 to 1,500 people who are experiencing delayed discharge in our hospitals. I do not think that that is because anybody in health and social care partnerships around the country is taking any view other than that they are keen to ensure that people who are in hospital and could be accommodated at home with a care package are able to be. They often face practical challenges in doing that. Some of those practical challenges might be to do with the availability of money. There may not be enough money to afford all the social care packages that we would want to afford at the local level because resources may be tied up in the more acute hospital settings.

Actually, I do not think that that is the problem that we have just now. As I have explained to Parliament on a number of occasions, the problem that we have just now is the availability of staff to deliver social care packages in communities. There are simply not enough available people on the ground to do so.

We got a leaflet in the mail to my house yesterday from a much-respected local care provider that invited people to come forward to join its social care staff. We have never had such a leaflet through our door before. That indicates the lengths to which care providers are going to try to encourage people to join the labour market because of the acute challenges that are being faced.

I go back to a point that I have just made. There will not be a health and social care partnership in the land that believes anything other than that an individual should be accommodated in the most appropriate setting for them. If a care package in the individual’s home is the most appropriate approach, the health and social care partnership will want to provide that. However, there will be practical impediments to their ability to deliver that, and the most important practical impediment just now is the availability of people to deliver social care in our communities.

Philosophically, we need to encourage organisations to follow one of the principles of the Christie commission—the principle of partnership and collaboration. There are various ways of taking forward an agenda of public service reform and one approach could be structural change. We have used that option in certain circumstances.

In other circumstances, a route could be taken around the theme of partnership and collaboration whereby we establish the atmosphere and motivations to encourage different public sector organisations that need to work together to do so effectively to meet the needs of individuals. As an example of that, some time ago I visited the team at Perth royal infirmary, which serves my constituency. A joint team of health and local authority staff work in a rather small room in Perth royal infirmary and they focus on intelligence coming from the hospital about who is almost ready to be discharged. They then work out between them the timescale and circumstances for that individual’s discharge and the necessary support within the community.

That, to me, philosophically brought to life what I am talking about here—public servants from two different public bodies working together in collaboration, focusing on individual cases, and working out how best to ensure that those individuals have a smooth journey out of hospital into their own home, and that they are well supported as they recover.

The route that was chosen there was collaboration, but a different route could have been chosen. Structural reform could have been undertaken, for example. However, encouraging public servants to focus on the delivery of the best possible outcomes for members of the public is a strong incentive.

It is about supporting communities to enable them to intervene and act effectively in their areas. That support varies around the country.

During Covid, a local hotelier in my constituency established an organisation called Feldy-Roo—incidentally, a local resident phoned him up one day and said, “I’ve just had a leaflet from Deliveroo—I think they’ve done something with your name,” which is an interesting way of looking at it. Feldy-Roo did not exist before Covid—it was set up by an individual named Gavin Price, who owns a couple of hotels and bars. He had kitchens, and there were vulnerable people in Aberfeldy who needed hot meals, so he got a squad of people together. By accessing financial support from different bodies, they created a mechanism that went on throughout Covid and delivered free, good-quality hot meals to vulnerable individuals in the community.

Such fine-grain intervention is absolutely welcome, and it comes about because people feel that they can do something to make a difference. Gavin Price was not asked to do what he did by the local authority, although it encouraged and supported the initiative. There are countless such examples around the country in the Covid space and in other spaces, too.

The Scottish Flood Forum supports a lot of organisations at a local level by providing early intervention for householders in relation to flooding incidents in communities. It works with local authorities and resilience partnerships but has decided to take the initiative so that it can actively support communities.

For the Government, community empowerment means making sure that people are enabled and supported to advance on propositions of that nature rather than us designing an elegant system of governance that—I venture to suggest—would not do much else to have a practical effect on people’s lives.

Yes, but that will vary in intensity, given the significance of the issues that are at stake. Inevitably, that will depend on where the policy focus is and what the issues are that arise from the events that are taking place.

If statute requires ministers to interact with a public body in a particular way, ministers should operate in that fashion, but if statute says to ministers, “You’ve got to keep a distance from these boards,” ministers should do that. The situation will vary, depending on what statute requires.

I certainly do not feel any lack of accountability, and I do not think that many other people feel a lack of accountability. There are multiple accountability streams in our systems. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, members of Parliament are accountable to their electorates and the electorate make their choices—they made one on 6 May. Local authorities are accountable to their electorates, and health boards are accountable to ministers and through annual public meetings in their localities, so there is no lack of accountability.

One of the Auditor General’s relevant points on accountability was that some of the channels, requirements or measurements of accountability that we have might not be helpful in achieving the Christie commission’s aspirations. The convener asked me about a discernible shift of resources to support prevention. If the accountability mechanisms are in place to monitor and assure performance on aspects of public service delivery, it is difficult for public servants to move away from those mechanisms to something else, because there will be continued pressures on the existing accountability mechanisms.