Chamber and committees

My understanding of the financial issue is that the projected costs for the bill are estimates that are already being used for health and social care. This is not £1.5 billion that is coming from somewhere else; it is for care delivery that is already happening on the ground. That might be worth picking up.

My questions are about training and research. We have covered many of the issues around the necessity for training to be standardised, which could be part of a national approach to supporting staff. This is about what people who are in receipt of care want—the folk who are being cared for and the carers who provide the care want a national care service. They can see what could be fixed and they know what works. We know that self-directed support works really well in some places but doesnae in others. The creation of the national care service is about helping to support people on the ground, because that is what people want. I am interested in that and in the training that will deliver what folk are asking for.

I know that there will be additional money, but I am considering the complexities of the financing of care and care delivery through 1,200 providers and the people who provide care at home and in residential homes. The whole situation is really complicated, so the bill is looking to iron out the approach to that.

Sure. I will be quick. I am thinking about the bill and the fact that we have recruitment and retention issues across health and social care. We need to get people into the workforce and value them. Dumfries and Galloway College, for example, runs care courses that really consider career development.

I was a clinical educator—I was a nurse who taught nurses how to provide care at home, including central venous access and things like that. I am interested in the extent to which you think the bill will help to address recruitment and retention, especially if a standardised approach to career development is part of the proposals in the bill.

Kay McVeigh is looking directly at me, so perhaps she can start.

Colin, I am sure that you would welcome the fact that the bill says that

“The Scottish Ministers and care boards may ... provide training”,

because that has not been the case previously, and we know the importance of teaching people about moving and handling and infection control and prevention measures, especially given what we have seen during the pandemic. I take it on board that you think that the bill might need to go further, but do you welcome the fact that training is in the bill in the first place?

We have NHS Education for Scotland and Healthcare Improvement Scotland. We now have Public Health Scotland. Our national health service workforce looks to those bodies for advice. The bill could enable our national care service to tap into expertise in NES, HIS and Public Health Scotland. Can we reasonably assume that that would support education and research?

Okay. Thank you.

My understanding is that there are 1,200 care providers in Scotland, and the bill proposes to have them meet criteria on issues such as salary, education and career pathways—the whole approach. That would mean that someone could work in Dumfries and Galloway or the Scottish Borders, because their career pathway and training would be transferable, no matter where they go. The bill proposes to include the provision of training and even the funding of it. Would it not be a good thing to have the 1,200 care providers meet certain equivalent and measurable criteria, so that we know the value of the care that is being provided and so that the carers are valued?

The bill says:

“the National Care Service is to be an exemplar in its approach to fair work for the people who work for it and on its behalf, ensuring that they are recognised and valued for the critically important work that they do.”

That is what we can build on—again, this is a framework bill. Do you agree that it is a good idea to have that statement about fair work in the bill? I direct that question to Roz Foyer, because she is nodding.

I want to pick up on Paul O’Kane’s point. He said that there is ambivalence about the bill. What I see is flat-out negativity against it. Do you think that part of the issue is that people are used to seeing detail in legislation, but the bill is a framework bill, so what comes after will be bite-sized pieces of legislation that will be able to be scrutinised and interpreted, then agreed on or amended and then delivered? I am really interested in hearing what Alison Bavidge and perhaps Maree Allison, too, have to say about that.

The people on the ground are asking for the bill. I have just read something about an action group from Falkirk that basically said:

“The National Care Service will have equality, dignity and human rights at its heart. It will empower people to make the choices that are right for them.”

One of my constituents has had eight social workers in eight months. The bill aims to slim out some of the bureaucracy and to make it easier—to make it a choice—for the people on the ground to choose self-directed support or whatever they want. I am interested in that aspect. Perhaps people need to hear more about what a framework bill is and what comes after that.

I will go to Alison Bavidge first.

Research and training—clinical nurse educator was my career for many years—are in the bill. In the section entitled, “Research”, the bill says:

“The Scottish Ministers and care boards may do any of the following in relation to research relevant to the services that the National Care Service provides—

(a) conduct it,

(b) assist others in conducting it,

(c) give financial assistance in relation to it.”

That will enable us to say in further legislation that we absolutely value research and training—and training leads to quality care, improvements and career progression. The bill is a framework bill, which will enable further research and training as we move forward with the national care service.

I am not sure whether that was a question or just a comment.