Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is my expression. That is how people feel. They feel that there has been a lack of consultation and almost that there is an imposition with regard to how it is going to work as opposed to people working together to create a system that might actually deliver over the next decade and beyond. That is the impression that I am getting. Colleagues might have a different view, but that is certainly the impression that I have got from the submissions to the committee and from speaking to my local authority and others.

I am sorry, but I am talking about the organisational changes.

I am sorry to interject, but you could say that about any service. You could say it about education, which is not the same everywhere. Bin collections are probably not the same in North Ayrshire as they are in Aberdeen. Are you saying that we have to have a national bin collection service and a national education service? Surely, if there is an issue that is affecting some local authorities—I do not know how common the cross-boundary issue is—you should address that, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The whole policy is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

It is not for us to criticise the policy per se, but the financial wraparound is of concern. The Fraser of Allander Institute said that, if the service is underfunded, it is

“unlikely to be any better than the system it seeks to replace”.

If we are to put colossal sums of money into new structural changes, surely that means that there will be less money available for delivery at the coalface.

So the priority now, given the political commitment behind the national care service, is to ensure that it is delivered as effectively as possible.

In your evidence today, you have talked about the co-design process and working with stakeholders. You said that engagement has been very proactive. However, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers said in its submission that

“Local Government was not involved in the development of the proposals prior to the publication of the paper.”

If there is all this proactive work, why was local government not involved?

SOLACE went on to say:

“The consultation paper provided very little information about what the proposal would mean for vulnerable adults, children and families who rely on social work and social care services.”

It also said that the consultation was

“in a largely tick box format.”

What are we, as a committee, to take from that? What is your response to that?

I am interested in the fact that you have mentioned the co-design phase a couple of times. There is a feeling among organisations such as local authorities that they have been bounced into the process and that co-design is not really a meeting of minds or, indeed, of equals. How is the co-design process actually going to work? I am thinking specifically of the financial structures, because that aspect, rather than the wider picture, is the committee’s remit.

SOLACE also said:

“Organisational changes appear likely to consume much of the total funding available for the NCS, which is stated to be over £840 million by 2026-27. This is about half of the total investment in adult social care alone that COSLA, Social Work Scotland and others consider is needed. In addition, this would not include the investment in justice and children’s social work and social care services that is desperately needed.”

As I said at the beginning of the session, we are in a situation of financial difficulty and challenge in Scotland and across the UK. How will we square the circle of having these huge organisational changes while delivering for the people who require the service?

Yes—that is a really good point.

Sharon Wearing, in your submission you mention the importance of strong financial leadership and the fact that it has not been recognised in the consultation, the financial memorandum or indeed the bill. You also mention a lack of robust information. For the record, what additional information do you require at this point?

The concern is that those costs use current expenditure as a starting point rather than the actual costs of the delivery of social care. All those who are responsible for the delivery of social care fear that there just will not be enough money, frankly, for the delivery of the service, especially given that, as a Parliament, we are already under severe financial pressure, local authorities are already facing financial restrictions, and we have an ageing population. How is that circle going to be squared?

There are mountains of questions that I could ask, but colleagues will have issues that they want to raise and I do not want to steal all their thunder.

One issue that I want to ask about is VAT. From paragraph 52 of the financial memorandum, it looks almost as though a cavalier approach—a fingers-crossed, “it’ll be alright on the night” approach—is being taken. On pensions, it says that

“More work and engagement will be required to determine the most suitable and affordable design”.

On VAT, it says that

“If care boards are not able to reclaim VAT in a similar way”

to integration joint boards,

“there could be a significant financial impact.”

It goes on to say:

“Work is underway to understand this potential cost and how it might be mitigated to ensure maximum support for front line services. VAT costs are not assumed”.

What level of certainty do you have that we will be able to deliver the national care service if we do not get the VAT allowance that we hope to get and that integration joint boards get?