Seòmar agus comataidhean

I just want to follow up on that exchange with Mr Marra about funding. I get the impression that we cannot quite decide whether, if the national care service happens and children’s services are part of it, it will be launched with a big bang and we will have a big shiny new service overnight or whether there will be a strategic evolution of the service over a number of years.

As for kinship care and the costings in that regard, is it the expectation that, in the first instance, there will be a standardised national kinship care allowance across 32 local care boards, or will the national commitment to that, which will be implemented over a number of years, have specific budgetary implications, both nationally and locally, on which there will have to be negotiations involving COSLA and the Scottish Government?

Having listened to today’s discussion, I feel as though people are talking about a big bang, whereby—if it happens—we will have a national care service and everything will be fixed. However, it is clear that that is not going to happen. Minister, can you say a bit more about how resourcing will be allocated so that we do not oversell what we are trying to do and can get a better understanding of that process?

That was quite concise, convener.

Given that Nicky Connor spoke about variation across the country, perhaps she would be the ideal person to talk about how, through a national care service, we could better deliver for kinship carers, looked-after children and their families.

The evidence session has been interesting so far. Both my questions are about what opportunities a national care service could bring. I note that concerns have been raised, but this change might happen, so we should explore the potential opportunities.

My first question is about the national care service charter that is contained in the bill. Some concerns have been raised about whether the care service focuses too much on adult care and not enough on children, young people, families, child protection and so on. Would anyone like to comment on what the opportunities could be to shape the charter in order to set out our ambitions and aspirations for wider childcare services in Scotland? Those services will be designed nationally but delivered with flexibility locally. Has anyone given any thought to what the benefits of the national care service charter could be?

That is helpful. I asked a similar question at last week’s meeting, and the witnesses took a similar approach to the one that this week’s witnesses have taken, which is understandable. Everybody is focusing on what structural change might look like instead of on the potential opportunities from the change. The national care service charter provides the opportunity to draw into one place a summary of the rights and responsibilities that we all have in relation to the national care service, children and families. The witnesses might not be able to answer this today, but, if any of them think that there are opportunities in that regard, perhaps they could pass that information to the committee through an email to the clerks. What is proposed might happen, so we want to ensure that the opportunities are realised.

My second line of questioning relates to kinship care. In May, a national kinship care protocol was introduced for all local authorities, but it was cluttered, complex and difficult. Similar accusations about a potential new national care service have been made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, Social Work Scotland, the chief social work officer committee’s working group and the national kinship care collaborative. The protocol was an attempt to have national co-ordination for kinship care, which I absolutely welcome, because Nicky Connor spoke about the variability across Scotland in relation to various services. Kinship care allowances, access to trauma-informed care for young people and placements relating to bereavement still vary across the 32 local authorities. Whether a kinship carer volunteers to take a child or whether a child is given a placement by social work can determine whether someone gets the allowance. There is significant national variation.

Are there opportunities to address national variation through a national care service that is delivered locally? I would welcome any comments in relation to children, including looked-after children.

Perhaps I could ask you about that. I apologise for interrupting, but it is difficult not to do so in an online session.

I commend the really good work that is happening locally. My point is that the local work in Glasgow will be different from the work in Galashiels, which will be different from the work in Aberdeen and Aviemore. It is about ensuring that we have more national consistency. We have heard for many years about benchmarking and sharing best practice, but, decades later, that has not necessarily happened. Will the proposals help to address the variability?

So, there is more than one way to achieve that. A national care service might be one way, but it is not the only way.

My final question is for Ross McGuffie, and it widens out Fiona Duncan’s point. The issue is not only the allowances that are paid to support children in kinship care and their families, but also access to wider services, in which there is significant variability across the country.

Ross McGuffie talked about trauma-informed care and support, which he was right to do. I have a centre of excellence for trauma-informed care for kinship carers in my constituency. It is funded on a commissioning basis, sometimes from integration joint boards, sometimes from local authorities and sometimes directly from the NHS across a number of local authorities. It is a mishmash of funding, which makes that centre really struggle with sustainability.

Could a national care service have an advantage in enabling better commissioning of specialist, trauma-informed services for vulnerable children and young people?

I am asking not only about finance but about the quality of the commissioned specialist support. It is sometimes commissioned through the NHS, sometimes through integration joint boards or individual local authorities and sometimes through education services. One provider might have a patchwork of funding. That happens not just in Glasgow but across the country. Something clearly needs to be addressed. Whether the national care service addresses that is another matter, but there may be an opportunity for the national care service to address some of it.

It will only take half an hour, convener. [Laughter.]

We are talking a lot about the point that there is not much in the bill and that it is a framework bill, but I am trying to mention things that are in the bill. Witnesses have not really latched on to the things that are in the bill; they have taken us back to the abstract. It would have been helpful if witnesses had latched on to what is in the bill rather than what is not in the bill. That would have helped—

Absolutely, although I have a supplementary question first that follows on from Mr Marra’s exchange with the witnesses. I am a wee bittie concerned about the idea of the national care service potentially leading to people working in silos, with less communication. I hope that I can get some reassurances on that.

My understanding is that, way before health and social care partnerships and integration joint boards were a thing—we are now moving, potentially, to a national care service with local care boards—the police, social work, housing, third sector, schools and childcare were all talking to one another as best practice anyway. Sometimes, the practitioners say that, irrespective of the structures that are put in place, they will get on with delivering best practice. The question is whether the structures facilitate and support that best practice and drive consistency.

The committee has to decide whether a national care service is the best thing to proceed with. I suppose that I am looking for reassurance that, irrespective of whether it goes ahead, you are confident that that best practice, which I saw happening in Glasgow before health and social care integration and before we had spoken about a national care service, will continue. Mr Burns spoke eloquently about some of the progress that has been made in Glasgow.

What reassurances can you give that the concern about silo working might be a wee bittie of a red herring? Can there be some reassurances?