Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am quite sure that we can provide you with many examples from the evidence that we have gathered. I do not know whether Iona Colvin has anything to hand just now.

Ministers will not impose on any of those things. We are going to build a system that allows folks the opportunity to get redress—the right redress—for their complaints. We are talking about improving the complaints system, and what you have highlighted is certainly not how I would describe things. We want to get complaints and redress absolutely right. That is a major issue for the public at large, and it is one of the areas that we are absolutely adamant that we will get right.

Convener, I am sure that the committee has some of this information already, but we can provide more of it. There are 31 integration authorities in Scotland at the moment. Some operate with fully delegated powers for community children’s health services, children’s social care services and justice social work services. We can provide a breakdown to the committee of where those things are currently happening—where those delegations are complete—if you do not have it.

The Government stood on a manifesto commitment of creating—

As I said, some things would be brought forward as business cases. We are working on all aspects of this and gathering as much data as possible, and we will produce business cases for each of the elements.

I recognise that legislation and regulation do not necessarily change cultures. Indeed, we have examples of that in some of the very good legislation that has previously come before the Parliament. Perhaps the best example is self-directed support, in respect of which we put forward—and agreed on a cross-party basis—the ability for folk to have more independence and autonomy over their care, with four different options that they could access to best suit their needs. That approach has worked immensely well in some parts of the country but not in others because, instead of sticking with the spirit of the legislation, some people in some places have looked for and found the flaws in it and have given reasons for certain things not applying to certain folks. That is not good enough, to be honest. Although we are about to publish new guidance on self-directed support that will help with some of the difficulties that people face, there is still an edginess towards the primary legislation.

One of the reasons for embarking on this co-design journey is to ensure that all people—the voices of lived experience and stakeholders—shape how we move forward on this. Beyond that, by putting some of the elements in secondary legislation, we can change things quite quickly if we find any flaws. We have been unable to do that with self-directed support, because it is enshrined in primary legislation. As a result, we will have greater flexibility.

As for the cultural aspect, there are a number of things to highlight. I think that the flexibility that I have mentioned will help to change cultures, but, beyond that, there is also the way in which we are putting the voices of lived experience at the heart of what we are doing. People have asked me, “Who do you see being on care boards?” There are certain folks who obviously have to be there, but I have tried to keep schtum on that question, because that, too, is a matter for the co-design process. However, I am absolutely adamant that the voices of lived experience must be on local care boards and must have votes. I hope—and I imagine—that that, too, will help us to change cultures.

We are going to have a national care service to deal with adult social care.

That was the recommendation from the Feeley review. That is what the voices of lived experience want. That is what many stakeholders want. As we have explained this morning, we will consider whether to include other elements, including children’s services and criminal justice services. If, as part of that co-design, folk say that a certain element might not work, we have to be cognisant of that. We are not going to be dismissive of folk in the sector or of the voices of lived experience.

No matter what is out of or in the national care service, we must ensure that the linkages are there between the NCS and the services that remain outwith the NCS.

Today, the concentration will be on whether something should be out of the NCS. On Thursday last week, folks at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee were saying that housing and homelessness services should perhaps be in it. The—

Not at all.

There are a number of points there. I will come back to the general revenue grant in a second.

Ross Greer makes an absolutely excellent point about the areas where there is a greater degree of integration and where we are seeing very good service delivery. Iona Colvin talked about North Ayrshire, and another good example is East Renfrewshire. We want to absolutely ensure not only that that good service delivery remains in East Renfrewshire but that we can export those good services, with those right linkages, right across the board and across the country. We have the opportunity to do that as we move on.

As far as the general revenue grant is concerned, when I appeared before the Finance and Public Administration Committee, Mr Greer questioned me about the budgetary impact on local government, depending on what is in and what is out of the national care service. I give him the same pledge that I gave him then: we will do our utmost to ensure that all of what we propose is cost neutral for local government.