Chamber and committees

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?

It is interesting to listen to everyone. It is my understanding that this is a framework bill to create a more integrated service. It includes fair work, human rights and improvements in the quality and equity of services. I have the recommendations of the Feeley report in front of me. The report lays out the case for the creation of a national care service. Recommendation 20 is:

“The National Care Service’s driving focus should be improvements in the consistency, quality and equity of care and support experienced by service users, their families and carers, and improvements in the conditions of employment, training and development of the workforce.”

There is a lot even in that single recommendation. It is my understanding that this is about people with lived experience and about people who need care in order to prevent hospital admission. It is not just about dealing with delayed discharge; it is not a delayed-discharge bill. I am trying to get my head around how we support co-production, co-creation and innovation.

The framework bill is supposed to set out what further statutory instruments will come afterwards. Those will come from people—whether they are service users, service providers, NHS leads or others—working together. I would be interested to hear comments about Derek Feeley’s recommendation number 20 on the case for the national care service. Nick Morris has his hand up.

I have a quick question about the national care service charter that is part of the bill. Sections 11 and 12 mention the creation of a national care service charter that is “publicly available” and they state that the charter should be monitored and reviewed after five years.

I am interested in your thoughts about inclusion of the charter, specifically as it relates to the human rights-based approach and to supporting people—especially people who receive care. This is about embedding support for people with lived experience, as I understand it. Can you please tell us your thoughts on that?

I have questions about the workforce and fair work. Section 1 of the bill says that

“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.”

In the previous evidence session, Nick Morris said that a national care service should allow for greater awareness of the work that social care staff and social workers do.

Can you comment on the fair work principles in the bill and say whether anything still needs to be added? Are there any gaps?

I will pick up on what Nick Morris said about the national health service, which was created 70-plus years ago but is obviously still a work in progress, given the changes that we see happening in it. I take on board what you are saying about the creation of a national care service needing to be done with consideration. We need to do it carefully and make sure that we get the legislation right.

However, that brings me back to the beginning. This is a framework bill and there will probably be amendments after our stage 1 report, but I am interested in how we make sure that we bring everybody along with us. It is great that we are singing the praises of social workers and that we can use this to value their work. That could be done using national approaches to skills development, education and things like that, as well. I am interested in your thoughts on that.

I am interested in any legislation on feed additives that is introduced, and I will continue to be so because I think that it is really important that we know what we are consuming. We hear about novel foods and what is happening in other countries in relation to trade, and I know from my research that there are issues around hormones and other chemicals that are being added to products that might end up in our food supply chain. We also had an informal discussion with Food Standards Scotland last week. I just want to put on the record that this is an important issue and we should pay attention to it.

As a former clinical educator, I like the national pathways model of skills development and the ability to look at how we measure the quality of care that is delivered so that we can ensure that it is the same whether the person is in Stranraer or Stornoway. I am interested in your thoughts on establishing recognised national career pathways so that we can focus on recruitment and retention and ensure that the career development process helps us to focus on valuing the staff and the care that they are providing. Can you give us your thoughts on that?

Yes. What I wanted to ask about has mostly been covered already, but I will just say to Eddie that, every time you come to committee and give us information, no matter what your role is at that point or what hat you have got on, your knowledge and everything just demonstrates what an asset you are, and I want to say thank you.

Obviously, Dumfries and Galloway has issues as a rural area. I love the idea of electric cars—I am pursuing that already with Dumfries and Galloway Council. I think that that is absolutely the way we need to go, especially with petrol being so expensive.

I am thinking about the other aspects around social care, such as delayed discharge, and you have been able to tackle that in your area, too. I am also thinking about recruitment and retention. It is not just about encouraging young folk to go to school and college; it is also about the fact that social care is delivered mostly by women, the average age of those carers is about 50, and most of them have other caring roles and responsibilities. The papers from the previous panel of witnesses raised the issue that people who are providing care might also be caring for their parents or their kids. There are challenges with regard to recruitment and retention, so what are your thoughts about the fact that some local authorities pay a lot less than others do? Fair approaches to recruitment, retention and remuneration are, therefore, part of what we need to consider—including with Paul Kelly, I suppose.

The bill talks about the charter being reviewed every five years. Is that enough time, or should the period be longer? Indeed, should it be shorter?

I mean before the bill was published. Did COSLA engage with the Government before the bill was published?