Chamber and committees

I do not see this as centralisation, at all. Some folk around the table will already be aware of this, but I will just point out to the committee that I was the first minister to island proof a bill—the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill—before the Islands (Scotland) Bill had been passed. In all the work that we are doing, we are taking cognisance of the different airts and pairts of our country and of how we need to get this right for everyone.

As a result, we have a separate workstream that is looking at islands and what can be done there, and we are looking at some of the suggestions that authorities have made about how they can deliver on the bill in a different way. A few months back, I was in Shetland to listen to people’s views, and I am due to go to Orkney at the beginning of the year. There have been suggestions from some island leaders—although not all, I hasten to add for the record—with regard to single-island authorities. The Government will look at that.

As for our more rural areas, particularly our remote rural areas, there is, as I have said, an opportunity to use ethical procurement to change the way in which we do things, and I hope that that opportunity will be grasped. We have to look at how we deliver across the board. I will do so, and my officials know what needs to be done in that regard.

Again, I note that we have, so that we can get this right for everyone, gone out of our way to find voices of lived experience from our remote rural and island areas, given that the difficulties that they face are often very different to those that are faced by folks in my community in Aberdeen, for example.

I have already given an assurance this morning that we are moving on many of those fronts. That is why we have the statement of intent with COSLA. There are things that I want to have been done yesterday. We will continue to try to advance on all those things. I say to Ms Mochan and others on the committee that, sometimes, such things are not so easy. I would, for example, like to see national sectoral bargaining, as is envisioned in our NCS proposals.

The financial memorandum will cover all aspects that pertain to the bill. As the committee knows, we are working at this moment to ensure that we cover all bases when it comes to any liabilities, including VAT. The best option would be for the Treasury to rule that there would be no VAT liabilities. We will continue to push and prod the Treasury on that front.

We have to have a framework before we can move to co-design. We had to show the people who we want to help us co-design the bill with us that there is a framework to blanket that co-design around.

We came to that decision because that is the logical way to do it, and because we looked at what has happened previously. I remind the committee that the formation of the national health service was based on a framework bill, and I think that the national health service has been a wee bit of a success, has it not?

As always, I am more than happy to work with anyone to ensure that we get things right, as we move forward. That is not to say—let us be honest—that I will support every amendment. However, if we can work in partnership to get the most out of all this, I am more than happy to do so. I think that Ms Mackay knows that ethical procurement is one of the top things on my agenda. I want to make sure that we do our level best to get all this right and to embed fair work principles as much as we can.

However, I highlight to the committee that, as you are all well aware, this Parliament does not hold powers over employment law, so we will have to do that, as always, with great care. It has been achieved previously in other bills—including in relation to forestry, if I remember rightly—and we need to do that again. If that means co-operating and collaborating with members to get it right, I will be more than happy to do so.

There are a number of points there. I will come back to the general revenue grant in a second.

Ross Greer makes an absolutely excellent point about the areas where there is a greater degree of integration and where we are seeing very good service delivery. Iona Colvin talked about North Ayrshire, and another good example is East Renfrewshire. We want to absolutely ensure not only that that good service delivery remains in East Renfrewshire but that we can export those good services, with those right linkages, right across the board and across the country. We have the opportunity to do that as we move on.

As far as the general revenue grant is concerned, when I appeared before the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Mr Greer questioned me about the budgetary impact on local government, depending on what is in and what is out of the national care service. I give him the same pledge that I gave him then: we will do our utmost to ensure that all of what we propose is cost neutral for local government.

It is essential that local care boards continue to have the flexibility that is required to deliver for their area. They will have responsibilities for delivery and for shaping services in their area, and they will have flexibility. However, the important element is that they will have to work to the national high-quality standards. That will prevent postcode lotteries, but it does not stop innovation in terms of the ability for local care boards to be as flexible as possible and to meet the needs of the people and the communities that they serve.

With regard to ministerial direction and the element of accountability that folk want to rest with ministers, that, in the main, is around the setting of the standards and ensuring that they are met across the board in order to achieve what we all want, which is the ending of postcode lotteries. Those lotteries most definitely exist, sometimes not only between but within areas, and we need to resolve those elements.

It is probably not possible to give a concise answer, but I will do the best that I can.

As Mr Doris rightly points out, there will be no massive big bang here. We will have to phase all of this in over time. We will also have to look at which priority elements should be brought forward first and what the costs of those priorities will be.

Mr Doris’s priority today has been kinship carers, and I understand why from my own casework, but for other folks, the priority might be bringing up standards. We will work our way through those issues. We will speak to people and, more important, listen to them to find out their key priorities for change.

That is a key element of the co-design process, and I am sure that people will set out their stalls with regard to priorities. We must take cognisance of that as we move forward.

A number of elements to this are very different. First, the co-design aspect is very different to anything that we have ever done before. This is not just about scrutiny; we need to think about the folks who have helped us shape the decisions that will take us to that point of making the secondary legislation. There will obviously be consultation on all of that. The process, therefore, will already be somewhat different.

Without making any commitments here and now, I will reflect on what Mr Dey has said. A number of folk around the table have worked with me before, and on tricky pieces of legislation. My door is open; I am willing to speak to anyone and everyone, whether informally or formally, about elements of this work, and I will certainly reflect on what Mr Dey has said.

Convener, we have embarked on this journey towards a national care service because of Derek Feeley’s independent review of adult social care; it is not a whim of Government. The report highlighted a number of things and made a huge number of recommendations, including the formation of a national care service. During our discussions with stakeholders, with the voices of lived experience and others before we went to consultation, people were telling us that this should encompass more.

We have been very careful in how we have done this. The consultation showed that more than 70 per cent of folk wanted to see a national care service. Many of those folks wanted to see the transfer of services such as children’s services, criminal justice and social work into the national care service. We did not fully go ahead with all of that—that is why we are doing all this work around ensuring that we get this absolutely right, because, whether something is in or out, we have to make sure that the linkages are right.

Folk highlighted a number of things, with accountability being one of the main issues. People felt that, in many cases, there was no accountability in their areas. Lots of folk highlighted that, often, they are pushed from pillar to post when they are told, “That is the responsibility of the health and social care partnership,” or, “That is the responsibility of local government,” or, “That is the responsibility of the health board.” That is frustrating for people when they are trying to get the care and support that they need.

The other key element is that folk want to see national accountability. That would mean that ministers could set national, high-quality standards, which would apply across the board and end the postcode lottery. That does not mean that it would be a centralisation, because local care boards would continue to shape and deliver services in their own locales. However, they would have to abide by those national standards.

The accountability aspect is way up the agenda for people because of the implementation gaps that exist in the system. In my opening remarks, I talked about the 20-year journey of integration. There has been change—and change for the better—but there are still a lot of implementation gaps. Why is that? It is because we have not involved people enough in shaping those services. We are all about ensuring that, as we move forward, the service is co-designed with people so that we can get it right, close those implementation gaps and deliver better services for people.