Chamber and committees

Thank you.

The reason I asked is that we have not had any previous discussion on that, so I wanted to touch on it.

Sharon, my question for you is about an issue that you raise in your written submission. You say that there is

“Concern that the recommendation to increase Free Personal and Nursing Care for self-funders will not necessarily deliver a reduction to the amount paid by self-funders.”

Can you expand a wee bit on what your concerns are?

I thank our witnesses for their contributions. We now move into private session.

I am sorry to interject, but you could say that about any service. You could say it about education, which is not the same everywhere. Bin collections are probably not the same in North Ayrshire as they are in Aberdeen. Are you saying that we have to have a national bin collection service and a national education service? Surely, if there is an issue that is affecting some local authorities—I do not know how common the cross-boundary issue is—you should address that, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The whole policy is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

It is not for us to criticise the policy per se, but the financial wraparound is of concern. The Fraser of Allander Institute said that, if the service is underfunded, it is

“unlikely to be any better than the system it seeks to replace”.

If we are to put colossal sums of money into new structural changes, surely that means that there will be less money available for delivery at the coalface.

So the priority now, given the political commitment behind the national care service, is to ensure that it is delivered as effectively as possible.

In your evidence today, you have talked about the co-design process and working with stakeholders. You said that engagement has been very proactive. However, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers said in its submission that

“Local Government was not involved in the development of the proposals prior to the publication of the paper.”

If there is all this proactive work, why was local government not involved?

SOLACE went on to say:

“The consultation paper provided very little information about what the proposal would mean for vulnerable adults, children and families who rely on social work and social care services.”

It also said that the consultation was

“in a largely tick box format.”

What are we, as a committee, to take from that? What is your response to that?

I am interested in the fact that you have mentioned the co-design phase a couple of times. There is a feeling among organisations such as local authorities that they have been bounced into the process and that co-design is not really a meeting of minds or, indeed, of equals. How is the co-design process actually going to work? I am thinking specifically of the financial structures, because that aspect, rather than the wider picture, is the committee’s remit.

SOLACE also said:

“Organisational changes appear likely to consume much of the total funding available for the NCS, which is stated to be over £840 million by 2026-27. This is about half of the total investment in adult social care alone that COSLA, Social Work Scotland and others consider is needed. In addition, this would not include the investment in justice and children’s social work and social care services that is desperately needed.”

As I said at the beginning of the session, we are in a situation of financial difficulty and challenge in Scotland and across the UK. How will we square the circle of having these huge organisational changes while delivering for the people who require the service?

That concludes questions from members. I have a few to wind up with.

The first is a follow-up to Douglas Lumsden’s point. The briefing by the Scottish Parliament information centre says:

“The stated purpose of the Bill is to improve the quality and consistency of social services in Scotland.”

From our discussion today, it seems like you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Surely, if there are issues of consistency and quality, as you have just touched on in your answer to Douglas, they should be addressed directly. Who has the problems of quality and consistency? Name and shame them. Would it not be easier just to impose duties to ensure that they raise their standards to the level of those who are doing best? I would be happy for you to name them, too.

As Michelle Thomson pointed out, it seems to be a monumental risk to have a bill of this nature, with all the financial implications, because a few service deliverers are not up to scratch.

All the submissions that the committee has received express concern about the VAT baseline, which is included in the figures in table 2 of the financial memorandum. To be fair, time has trundled on, and that was published before the latest skyrocketing levels of inflation. However, in its response, COSLA states:

“These figures are misleadingly uprated each year, from a 2019/20 baseline, by inflation plus 3%. This uprating does not reflect subsequent Local Government settlements”.

That is important, given that it was announced way back in May. The response goes on to say that the uprating

“is completely at odds with the reality presented by the Scottish Government’s own Resource Spending Review, of a 'flat cash' settlement”.

Surely that alone means that the financial memorandum is no longer fit for purpose and requires to be updated at least.

The last question from me—and the last in this session—is: does the financial memorandum, in your view, deliver best estimates of the cost of delivering the legislation?