Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are always challenges in retaining some folk. The Government places great importance on its relationship with senior health and social care leaders. My officials regularly meet integration joint boards’ chief officers, and I have been meeting chief officers almost monthly since I took office. Those meetings cover a wide range of topics, including leadership development and barriers to integration.

Officials recently met the executive group of chief officers to discuss what more support might be required—whether that is more capacity to provide peer support in learning, coaching and mentoring for individuals, or more structured programmes of support. We have also discussed engagement with wider staff groups to encourage participation in local and national strategic activity, with succession planning in mind.

The meetings that we have with chief officers also give them the ability to articulate what they are doing well and where they are having difficulties. There is also peer support, which is extremely important. At some points in the pandemic, folk felt that there was not enough time for that. All those things will be important as we move forward.

My role in all that is to listen to what is being said by chief officers about what barriers exist for them, and to see whether we can get rid of them. It is also to provide a forum to bring folk together for the support that is required.

There is absolutely no doubt that resilience is a part of that. However, much of the focus in discussions has been on how we have all supported one another during what have been very difficult and stressful times for many of us. There have been lots of discussions around the mental wellbeing hub support that we have put in place, for example. Local examples of good practice in mental wellbeing support have been talked about in the national group and folk have implemented them in their areas.

Coming together to talk about such things can be not only good for learning but can be quite cathartic, because at points during the past period, many of us have felt a little bit alone. When we talk to others about what is happening to us, we find that people have been in similar positions. How do we help one another through all that?

We have given a really good outline of what we want to do. You ask about defining benefits. Whose benefits are we defining? There are benefits for the public service itself, and for people using it—the list goes on. We must continue to work on defining what the benefits are. We will continue analysing all of that.

I go back to the report by the Christie commission: the key thing is to look at a joined-up approach and to get rid of the silos that still, unfortunately, exist. No matter what is in, or out, of the national care service, making the transition phases much better for people will be a major benefit. Without doubt, there will be a huge amount that will benefit people and the public sector as a whole. We will continue to work on all of that, and I am sure that Mr O’Kane will continue to scrutinise whether those benefits become a reality. I am hopeful that we will make real change, particularly for the good of folks.

Absolutely. A lot of the questions in the consultation came from suggestions and views from the voices of lived experience. We ask some difficult questions; that is how consultations work. The question about the GP contract came directly from the recommendation from Derek Feeley’s independent review. If we had not asked that question, people would have said that we had ignored a Feeley recommendation.

Mr O’Kane talks about the complexity of the consultation; other folk said that it was not complex enough. I recognise that folks always want more detail but, at the same time, in the areas where there was more detail in the consultation, some folks said, “Oh well, you’ve already made up your mind on that issue.” Sometimes, ye canna win in these regards. However, folk recognise where the Government is going with all of this—most stakeholders recognise that the consultation is only one part of the process. We will continue to discuss where we need to go with stakeholders and listen to the voices of lived experience, and that will include discussion of the benefits.

I am absolutely convinced that the service will be beneficial for all. We need to grasp the opportunity to get it right and ensure that we are doing the right thing in shaping the future of social care in Scotland.

As the committee well knows, I do not commit myself or promise anything unless I know that it can be delivered. Timelines are difficult, because we do not know what the coronavirus will do next and trying to second guess all this is not an easy thing to do. As always, I am more than happy to continue to brief the committee on where we are at in all aspects of our workstreams as we move forward.

On the timeline for the bill, we said that we would introduce it by the end of this parliamentary year. That is June, and we are on track to do that. However, I emphasise that it is not all about the bill or the formation of the national care service. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that we get back to some kind of normality—the remobilisation of social care.

The committee will be well aware of the actions that we have already taken. For example, on pay, we have introduced the minimum rate of £10.50 an hour. We are in discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about conditions, and I hope that the newly elected members in our local authorities and whoever the new COSLA health spokesperson is will continue to engage with us on that.

I put on record that the previous spokesperson, Stuart Currie, who stood down at the recent election, was extremely co-operative. I think that we are in a good place with our local authority partners, because we all want to achieve the same thing. On that front, we also have to recognise that, at the moment, one of the big difficulties for me and the folks in local authorities is that we are dealing with 1,200 employers, but we will continue to try to make gains in that regard.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, another thing that I would like to see is the demise of eligibility criteria for non-residential services. I know that COSLA shares that ambition, but we have to work our way through that. As we have those discussions and negotiations and, I hope, make progress, we will keep the committee informed. At the heart of all that change are people, of course, and getting it right for people—not only the workforce, but the folks who are being supported and receiving care.

I hope that, with the comfort that we have provided through the procurement policy note that I talked about earlier, we can move to a type of ethical commissioning that has fair work at its heart.

We have drafted procurement rules in Scotland in a way that enables collaboration and discourages competition based on price. The rules enable preliminary market engagement with providers before starting a tender process and prevent a public contract being awarded on the basis of price alone. We want to see high standards; we want fair work to be at the very heart of all that we do. That is vital as we move forward. There are some folks who say that it is difficult to do that under the current procurement rules. Those folks are more than welcome to have conversations with my team or with the procurement team to give them comfort on how they should move forward on that front towards ethical procurement.

We often concentrate on the legislation and regulation. Sometimes, it is difficult to legislate for or regulate cultural change. We know that we have a job of work to do with regard to changing culture, particularly in certain areas, by which I do not necessarily mean geographical areas.

One of the main ways in which we change the culture is to ensure that the voices of lived experience remain at the heart of all that we do, at not only national but local level. That is why I am very keen to ensure that the voices of lived experience have a role and a vote on care boards. I hope that that will come to fruition, because I think that it will change the dynamic a great deal.

I know that in many parts of the country, folks with lived experience are already at the table, but I want them at the table with a vote, because that will make a real difference in relation to cultural change.

I will write to the committee with indicative timelines. I do not want to be specific about any of this, because, as the committee will be well aware, this is an ever-moving feast. I am also, as are my officials, reliant on other partners in all this. However, we will give you indicative timelines.

There are many different views on the national care service consultation, and I think that it would be fair to say that I have heard them all. Some folk thought that the consultation was too long, some thought it was too short, others felt that some of the questions that they wanted to see were not there. The list goes on.

The NCS consultation is not the end of the engagement on the service. I have made it very clear, right from the beginning, that, as we move forward, we must continue to talk to, listen to and consult with stakeholders, and in particular the voices of lived experience, in order for us to get this absolutely right.

That is why the work will continue throughout. It will go on as the bill progresses, and beyond the bill as we shape the NCS. It is not just about the legislation or the regulation; it is also about the cultural change that is required. There will continue to be engagement on the NCS all the way through.

As I have said to the committee time and again, and will probably continue to say as we move forward, I am very keen to hear the voices of lived experience. We need to hear those voices as we shape social care for the future.