Chamber and committees

That is a very fair and reasonable question to ask. Every MSP around the table will probably have had experience of constituency cases in which families and children have approached them with similar difficulties, concerns and worries. Those issues were certainly raised during the consultation and in the conversations that Mr Stewart has been having with children and young people, and I absolutely recognise those concerns.

Integration has worked well in some areas and provides some excellent services. I do not want to sound as though I am criticising the staff who work in those services—they have gone above and beyond, particularly in the past couple of years—but I think that this is evidence of why we need national consistency, minimum standards, a charter that sets out the rights that people can claim and those voices at the table when we co-design services. We need to ensure that there are no boundaries to accessing services and that we have consistency so that people who move from one local authority area to another can expect the same level of service.

Unfortunately, the things that those children and young people have experienced are not uncommon; they were certainly a driving force behind the independent review of adult social care, and they have lent a voice to the suggestion that children’s services be included.

I disagree. We are taking a very measured approach to whether children’s services should be included in the national care service. We are looking at the evidence, consulting stakeholders, consulting the people who are using care services at the moment and helping them to co-design what could be the children’s element of a national care service.

We will look not only at what the research tells us but at what stakeholders and the people involved in the service will tell us. It is important that we do not look at things in isolation.

Mr Stewart and I have talked about co-design, and it is vital that we listen to those who use care services and hear their opinions on what the service for children should look like. As I said in response to Ms Maguire, all of this evidence gathering and consultation will not go to waste if it turns out that children’s services are not to be included in the NCS. Instead, it will help us to drive forward change that is needed and wanted and that will best suit the needs of children and their families.

We know that there are some areas of extremely good practice. Iona Colvin referenced one in North Ayrshire. There are great examples of shared multidisciplinary culture with a shared goal of improving services for children and families. In looking at whether children’s services should be in the national care service, we are considering the opportunities that that would give us to scale that up, to have national standards and to drive good practice in areas where it perhaps is not as good as it is in other areas that we can cite.

The points that Ross Greer raised about education and early learning are important. Ensuring that those linkages remain strong and are built on is absolutely key and really important. Of course, all of the Government’s work with children and young people is underpinned by the GIRFEC approach of getting it right for every child and, by extension into the care service, of getting it right for everyone. Those principles would remain the same. The care and support for a child and their family should be individualised for their needs in a wraparound service. Including children’s services in the national care service would give us the opportunity to expand that across the country by having national standards.

I think that Mr Stewart has covered it all.

I have a point to make in relation to Mr Marra’s question about schedule 3 of the bill and the acts that are mentioned there. All of those acts cover social work-related local authority functions and duties—that is why they are included in schedule 3.

We will give on-going consideration to what is in and what is out on the basis of the evidence, the consultation and the research that has been commissioned. This is not set in stone; we will continue to consider these matters.

We are talking about a national care service that might or might not have children’s services in it. I am sure that Mr Marra is aware that we are in negotiation with COSLA on that issue, and have been for some time. We are very keen to get a resolution to that. There would be a financial cost within that.

I do not think that Mr Stewart could answer that question at the moment, simply because he does not have the figures in front of him, but we are not waiting—we are working on those issues.

No—I am happy for you to move on.

I covered some of the primary legislation that Mr Dey has alluded to in answer to Mr Marra’s earlier question. The pieces of primary legislation in question, which are all listed in schedule 3 to the bill, relate to local authority social work functions and duties. We are in the process of identifying all the relevant Scottish statutory instruments that might be affected if those functions were to be transferred, and much of that work has already been done. Where adjustments to SSIs are needed to further reflect the transfer of functions, that can be done through the ancillary powers in section 45 of the bill. I hope that that will reassure Mr Dey a bit.

I am afraid, though, that I will have to ask him to repeat the second part of his question. I must apologise for not scribbling it down.