Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will have a look at that, and I will write to the committee on certain aspects.

For some folk, some of the proposals that we are putting forward are controversial. However, the key point in all this is that we listen to the voices of lived experience. Those voices are the primary motivation for me getting up in the morning and doing this work, because they know what works for them and what does not.

It might well be that something was controversial a decade or more ago, and now it has its day. That is the way that the world works at points, is it not?

I think that social work, including criminal justice social work, has changed dramatically since the previous Administration was in power. It is only 10 years since I left local government, and I have seen massive changes in social work and criminal justice social work since then. Some folk would say that some of that change is for the good, while others would say that it has been for the bad.

I referred to front-line social workers talking about eligibility criteria and budgets. It is fair to say that many front-line social workers feel that social work has lost its voice at the moment, in particular in certain parts of the country. Again, that needs to be addressed.

I promise Ms McNeill that I will look back at the history of that over the holidays—I am nothing if I am not an anorak—and we will respond as best we can to the question about whether there are similarities.

All committees have heard some criticisms. Some of those views have come from critical friends. Other people, of course, do not want change. I think that it is fair to say that. However, change is required in relation to a national care service. We cannot continue in the same vein. We have changing demographics and we have a postcode lottery of care in Scotland, which is not good enough. I have to say that the lack of voices of lived experience in some of the committee evidence sessions is frustrating. The voices of those folks who are in receipt of social work and social care help and support are the ones that we need to listen to, because they will rightly point out where the system does not work for them.

We have been on a 20-year journey of health and social care integration; there have been improvements, but there are still implementation gaps. One reason why there are implementation gaps is that we have not listened to people, and we have not let people help us to shape services.

I recognise that some folk do not want this change, but, if you listen to the voices of lived experience, you will hear that many of them are hungry for change. They want rid of the postcode lotteries, and they want those implementation gaps to be plugged and a system that works for them.

I come back to the point that I made to the convener on the system not working for some folk, and I come back to that lad who I talked about earlier who was at risk of offending—he has 15 interventions going on, but it seems that the system does not work for him.

I will answer those points, starting with the point about “churn”, as Mr Greene put it. I agree that there is a lot of churn in social work. I point out—without naming authorities, because it would be a little bit naughty of me to do so—that we know that there are folks who leave one authority to go to another because pay and conditions in the other authority are much better. That causes grief. It means that there are difficulties with recruitment and retention in some parts of the country, because other local authorities pay much more or the conditions there are better. We need to ensure that there is some kind of uniformity, and an improvement, in pay and conditions. I cannot do that at present, because it is not a matter for me.

With regard to the transfer of staff, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that local authorities’ staff, for example, will need to transfer their employment. The Government’s position remains that new local care boards will work collaboratively in partnership with the national health service, local authorities and the third and independent sectors to improve support locally and nationally.

As I have said, we will have the discussion around that with social workers and their professional bodies, and others, as we move forward. However, there is an opportunity for improvement, not only in pay and conditions but in getting career progression right. One of the things that I have been told by care workers, and by social workers, too, is that opportunities for career progression are often not there. We need to do better on that front, for the simple reason that we need to attract more folks into those professions. For young people in particular, a number of whom I have talked to, as you can imagine, while pay and conditions are way up there, career progression, education and continuous professional development are also high on their agenda. We need to get better at that, too, and we have the opportunity to do so.

Derek Feeley concentrated on adult social care in his review, but he also made recommendations about a national social work agency. When we listened to people initially, we found that many folks felt that bringing only adult social care into the national care service could lead to difficulties around transition points and cause problems with linkages, as I have outlined. That is why we consulted about bringing other things into the national care service.

Derek Feeley’s report looked at adult social care in depth, but, if we are to bring community justice and children’s services into the national care service, we recognise that we need to have the evidence base to do that. That is why we are carrying out the research and the options appraisal and, most importantly, why we are listening to stakeholders to establish whether those services should be included in the national care service. As I have already explained to the convener, whether that happens or not, we have to make sure that the linkages are right. The work that we are doing will be of benefit no matter whether the services are in or out of the national care service.

Yes, of course. As I said to the committee earlier, no matter whether they are in or out, we have to ensure that all this gels together. The work is being done to make sure that we get this right for people.

No, I do not accept that at all. Again, I will lay that out in some depth in writing.

Once that confidentiality is out of the way, we will write to the committee to let you know.

We do not have anyone here from the Scottish Government legal directorate. I will write to the committee to outline all the processes, most of which are outlined in the policy memorandum. The committee will be glad to hear that I am not going to read out the entire policy memorandum. I will outline in writing how that process will work. I say to Ms Clark and to others that I am more than happy to continue to have an open-door policy and to listen to and consider what folk have to say about the issues.

We are probably all just a bit jaded this morning.

I will go through the information on what will come into play with regard to supporting the decision. We commissioned the external research to understand the strengths and weaknesses of practice and where improvements can be made. That research is being procured and it will go alongside a literature review. We will actively gather views from stakeholders, including staff and those with lived experience.

The options appraisal will bring stakeholders together to further co-design and analyse different options, which will result in understanding of the desirability and viability of each option. That will help to inform an in-principle decision in autumn 2023. The final phase is the 12-week public consultation to seek views on the proposed approach. That will commence in late 2023, and it will inform a final decision in around April 2024.