Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are in listening mode. Co-design is not lip service.

Of course I do; after all, Parliament has a job of scrutiny to do. What I would say to Mr Dey, however, is that this framework—or enabling—bill is not unusual. In fact, it is the way in which the national health service was formed.

I gave Mr Dey a kind of answer earlier about the reasoning behind the approach. Having the ability to make changes through secondary legislation gives flexibility, because that sort of thing is not so easy to do in primary legislation. I have already given the committee the very good example of self-directed support. Parliament, with the best of intentions, wrote a piece of legislation that had some flaws; folk have since dug into those and hivna stuck to the spirit of that act. We want some flexibility so that we can adapt as we go along, in order to get service delivery absolutely right.

I have not talked this morning about anybody being resistant to change—I want to put that on record. However, we sometimes have to take folk on a journey to see the benefits of the change on which we are embarking.

To answer Mr Rennie, in the previous session of the Parliament, the Government, under the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, Jeane Freeman, asked Derek Feeley to look at adult social care, and that independent review took place. I will not go through all the elements of that because I am quite sure that the committee is well aware of Mr Feeley’s recommendations.

After that, we, as a Government, went and talked to the voices of lived experience about the recommendations. That included folks from the likes of the social covenant steering group with real experience of where the service works for them and where it does not.

What became very apparent from those discussions with not only the voices of lived experience but stakeholders, too, was that folks thought that there could, and should, be a widening out of the proposed service and that we should look at that. That is why, in our consultation, we included questions to enable us to look at whether there was an appetite for moving beyond adult social care. From the responses that we have had, we see that there is such an appetite.

However, Mr Rennie asks a pertinent question about the work that we are doing in relation to not only children’s services but criminal justice and other areas. If we are going to do this, we have to have the evidence and the reasoning for doing it. That is why we are currently carrying out the review work, which I am sure Ms Haughey will tell us much more about.

It stood on a manifesto commitment of creating a national care service to cover adult social care. Since then, we have listened to people who have said that we should make other considerations as well, which we are looking at and which we included in questions in the consultation. As the committee is well aware, we are carrying out work to examine and review all the suggestions.

I canna reiterate this enough: no matter what is out or in the national care service, we have to ensure that the linkages are there, and that work is valuable, no matter what, in order to get things right for delivery for people. To get things right for delivery for people, people should be at the heart of co-designing that with us.

The financial memorandum, as it stands, includes everything that is covered off by the bill. I have said to the Finance and Public Administration Committee—

The Government has said to the finance committee that, at each stage as we move forward, we will publish the business case for each aspect of delivery. That will give the Parliament the transparency and openness to enable it to scrutinise everything.

Well, I would dispute that, convener, but I think that we had probably better not go into the machinations of that today.

I would dispute that figure. Beyond that, as I highlighted earlier, we cannot afford to stand still on the national care service. We know that we need to build services that are fit for the future. We have to build services that are sustainable and meet the needs of the changing demographics of our population. That is required, so there can be no standing still.

What I cannot do here today is give the committee the annual budgeting for each aspect of service delivery, because that is dealt with annually. However, I assure the committee that I have reiterated to the finance committee that, as we move forward, we will publish all the financial and business cases for our decisions.

Again, Mr Greer will be well aware, from what I said to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, that the work that we are doing at the moment, including the review work, will look at all of that as we move forward. As we propose and seek to make changes, we will bring all the elements of the business cases for those changes to committees and to Parliament so that they can be scrutinised. I imagine that a huge number of other stakeholders will scrutinise us on that front, too.

There are difficulties with some of those calculations. As the committee is well aware, it is often quite difficult for us to get certain aspects of data. The work that we are doing on the national care service creates a good opportunity to improve data collection as we move forward so that we know about the spend that goes on out there, some of which we are not quite sure about at the moment.

I go back to Mr Dey’s point about carers. We know that the Government provides £84 million or £85 million—if that is not the right figure, I will correct it—to local authorities to ensure that the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 is implemented, but we are not absolutely certain that all that money is spent on that particular service, as Mr Greer and others will know.

Ms Maguire is absolutely right to concentrate on implementation gaps. The committee has talked—and, more important, listened—to a number of young people. In some respects, far too much resource has been put in at points of crisis and not enough has been put into prevention. When people concentrate on prevention and have linked-up services, they spend much less on crisis. We need to recognise that, at the moment, much of the system—not just children’s services, but adult services—is focused on crisis spend. That costs a lot of money, and we also need to consider the human cost of not getting those preventative services right.

Ms Haughey is absolutely right to highlight the opportunity that we have in that respect. No matter whether children’s services will be in or out of the national care service, the work that we are doing now means that we can look at where things are not working and see how we can improve them. That will be easier with the national standards in the NCS, but that does not mean that we should not be aspiring to bring up standards across the board for all services, whether they be out or in.