Seòmar agus comataidhean

I ask the members sitting opposite me to consider the fact that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to debate the issues—we have that right. I hope that the member who spoke before me asks for some Government time so that we do not have to have short debates.

The bill on a national care service has promised a great deal but, with each passing month, the weight of that ambition has been forgotten. Instead of building a truly revolutionary service, the Scottish Government is tinkering around the edges of what the service would mean on the ground, while concentrating power in its own hands rather than in those of carers or people who require care.

Will the member take an intervention?

We have to scrutinise the bill, and part of that is for the Government to bring more debates to the chamber so that we can debate the issues more fully, which are important and on which people have concerns.

The national care service is a mere shadow of what a universal care service could be, and it does not, at this stage, seem worthy of the name. The Scottish Government is not proposing a national care service in this plan; as it exists currently, it would lead only to a national procurement and commissioning service, dressed up in the language of radical change.

The profit motive is at the heart of everything in this plan, and the harsh reality of low pay and poor conditions for most workers are not set to change in any substantial way—there is no drive from the Government for collective bargaining or the improvement of pay and terms and conditions of the poorest-paid workers.

I will make progress, because I am running out of time.

As members might expect, I believe that, through their trade unions, workers understand the drawbacks better than most, yet very few of their concerns have been taken into account when drafting the bill.

Unison has, quite rightly, called the plans “not fit for purpose” and has asked for them to be recalled. I have a lot of sympathy for that position and share the view—made explicit in my party’s amendment—that the process must be paused immediately and that it requires the recommendations that are laid out in the Feeley review to be delivered as a priority. We can do that. If we do not take stock and allow for that to happen, we will create a service that, in essence, is set up to fail and built on the broken foundations of this care service.

The overt centralisation at the heart of the plan is designed to further disempower councils. Unite the union has expressed concerns about the proposal to hand power to

“unaccountable local care boards to deliver services”

with no democratic mandate.

It is clear that COSLA is firmly against the plans. It has stated that the Government is planning to remove

“decisions around locally delivered social care services ... from communities”

and hand them to

“Scottish Government Ministers in Edinburgh.”

That does not sound like a step forward to me; it sounds like an old-fashioned power grab that will put the future of many jobs firmly in the hands of ministers who are far away from what happens on the ground. Given the state of negotiations with public sector staff, we can understand why care staff and trade unions have serious concerns.

We are not here to simply tick boxes and say that a national care service has been built and then move on to the next manifesto promise. We are here to build something that, like the NHS, will stand the test of time.

I reiterate that the Government must pause the bill, listen to the concerns of carers, service users, councils, trade unions and MSPs, and get it right the first time round. Anything else would be a dereliction of duty.

I would like a bit of information about Anne’s law, which is about rights for care home residents. We are interested to understand whether the inclusion of Anne’s law in the bill will make circumstances easier for care home residents to be visited or to visit places during a public health threat. Will the bill provide that balance to ensure safety for residents, carers and staff?

On your last statement, do you think that we need additional legislation around the issue, or more accountability in how we proceed?

The witnesses might have answered some of my questions, but I will ask about local government integration with health and social care.

The Faculty of Advocates has given evidence that there seems to be

“a lack of provision in the Bill regarding the interrelation between the proposed national care boards and local authorities”,

which was much clearer when we introduced health and social care partnerships. Do the witnesses agree that that is the case? I ask them to be honest. There has been some suggestion that health and social care integration was slow and faced a lot of hurdles. I ask them to reflect on that. Are there things that the national care service could bring to the table in terms of integrating health and social care a little more easily or quickly?

Okay. I suppose that Anne’s law has highlighted to us the need to ensure that such things are explored.

Thank you.

I just want to be clear. It has been mentioned that the bill moves towards centralisation. To give me some idea of what would be an alternative to that, will you talk me through what might allow us to get the good integration that we want?