Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. This is not about moving the deck chairs—I am not into that kind of game. We need to take cognisance of the views that we have heard from those who are in receipt of care and support, from their carers and from front-line staff about the improvements that are required.

I return to a point that I made in my opening statement: we canna just tinker about at the edges, here. We have a changing demography in Scotland and we need to expand the social care workforce, as I also said earlier. We need to make a real change and, of course, people have to be at the very heart of our doing that.

As always, I am more than happy to work with anyone to ensure that we get things right, as we move forward. That is not to say—let us be honest—that I will support every amendment. However, if we can work in partnership to get the most out of all this, I am more than happy to do so. I think that Ms Mackay knows that ethical procurement is one of the top things on my agenda. I want to make sure that we do our level best to get all this right and to embed fair work principles as much as we can.

However, I highlight to the committee that, as you are all well aware, this Parliament does not hold powers over employment law, so we will have to do that, as always, with great care. It has been achieved previously in other bills—including in relation to forestry, if I remember rightly—and we need to do that again. If that means co-operating and collaborating with members to get it right, I will be more than happy to do so.

Folk in the consultation said that they wanted Scottish ministers to have control and accountability over this.

I am sorry that I did not quite get it.

The financial memorandum will cover all aspects that pertain to the bill. As the committee knows, we are working at this moment to ensure that we cover all bases when it comes to any liabilities, including VAT. The best option would be for the Treasury to rule that there would be no VAT liabilities. We will continue to push and prod the Treasury on that front.

We have to have a framework before we can move to co-design. We had to show the people who we want to help us co-design the bill with us that there is a framework to blanket that co-design around.

We came to that decision because that is the logical way to do it, and because we looked at what has happened previously. I remind the committee that the formation of the national health service was based on a framework bill, and I think that the national health service has been a wee bit of a success, has it not?

What do you mean?

I could also provide quotes from people with lived experience who want to be at the heart of shaping the national care service, which is, after all, delivering for them. I recognise that some people are worried about the change; I get that. Change is often of concern, but I have said, and I will continue to say, that we will continue to be open and transparent on this journey and to listen to people and allow the opportunity for scrutiny.

I will use the example of secondary legislation. Many people out there, and in here, always feel that everything has to be in primary legislation, but that does not allow for the flexibility that we often need for change.

Self-directed support, which I mentioned earlier, is mostly in primary legislation, and we know that people are using the loopholes in that to avoid the spirit of that act. To close loopholes such as those, we have to go back to primary legislation, but it would be so much easier if things were in secondary legislation because, if we found loopholes or an implementation gap, we would have the ability to change that pretty quickly to get it right for people. I recognise that some folk do not like that, and if we were to make change we would, of course, consult people and listen to them. However, using secondary legislation is a major way to ensure that we have the flexibility to get all this right in the future.

On picking the best that is out there, as I have said to the committee in previous appearances, I make no bones about the fact that it is absolutely vital that we pluck out the best work and export it across the board. In informing the national high quality standards, we must look for the best of the best. That is our aspiration.

However, as we continue on our journey, we will not wait for the NCS for some of that. We are already trying to ensure that we export best practice across the board. At the moment, we do not have the power in relation to national high quality standards to ensure that that becomes a given across the board.

On plugging the implementation gaps, the reason why we should have more confidence on this occasion than on other parts of our integration journey is because we will be listening to the voices of lived experience—they know where the gaps are, where the difficulties lie and the barriers that are preventing them from getting the care and support that they need. They will be key in plugging those implementation gaps.

In the future, once the care service is up and running, if we find that there are gaps and there is practice that is not working out for everyone, we will have the ability to change the standards in order to ensure that those issues are fixed.

No, this is not a power grab. We are responding to what we have heard from people right across the country. They want to see ministerial responsibility for social care. It has come as a shock to many people that while, as a minister, I can help to legislate and bring about policy, I have no direct influence over service delivery. It comes as a shock to many members of the Parliament, who write to me all the time, asking me to intervene in situations, which I cannot do, because I am not responsible for the delivery of community health and social care. As I say, we are responding to people who believe that ministers should have accountability for the delivery of social care. We are also responding to people’s view that that accountability should be enhanced at a local level—which I agree with. This is not a power grab; it is a response to people.

On the work that we have done around staff transfers and pensions, the bill only gives ministers powers to transfer staff from local authorities to care boards. However, as I said earlier in response to Ms Harper, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that there will be wholesale transfer of staff.

The Government is, as always, well aware of the repercussions of transfers. That is why we have worked on all of that to ensure that we get it right—and will continue to do so. If there are transfers, we will engage and consult with trade unions on that transfer of staff.

If it is agreed that any staff will transfer to the national care service, following discussions with local authorities, TUPE regulations would apply, as set out in section 31(4) of the bill. The Government would engage with the recognised trade unions in line with TUPE regulations and the Cabinet Office statement of practice. TUPE and COSOP place requirements on both sides to consult with trade unions in good time. We would ensure that such consultation takes place. We would intend to avoid any detriment to staff, including in relation to pensions.

However, I reiterate the point that I made to Ms Harper: there is no intention to make a wholesale transfer of staff.