Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I have said at the meetings of numerous committees, I want to be open and transparent. I want and welcome scrutiny of the bill, and I will also welcome scrutiny of the secondary legislation. Mr Sweeney, and many others, want the answers to all the questions now, but if I start answering all the questions now, it makes a mockery of the co-design process. I recognise that parliamentarians want to know everything in the here and now, as I have asked such questions myself, from the other side of the table.

We have to have faith in people and in the co-design process. I know that the approach is different, but it is the right thing to do with this public service reform. It is important that we give people and stakeholders the ability to help us shape the national care service, which has to be fit for the future. We have a future with changing demographics, so we have to take that into account.

I ask Paul Sweeney not to ask me for all the answers now, and instead to wait and see what comes out of the co-design process and what answers people come up with to shape the national care service.

I refer Mr Balfour to my earlier response about co-design. It is not a case of ministers just making the decision because, of the five co-design stages, the third stage is agreeing with people on how we move forward.

We know that there will be polarised views and we know that not everything that every single person wants is possible, but stage 3 of the co-design is agreement. I say again that the co-design stages are understanding, sense making, agreeing, drafting of regulations and then consultations on those regulations. There is a huge amount of opportunity in that process.

We will co-design a complaints and redress service for the NCS that ensures accountability. Co-design will take place with people with lived experience, in order to hear their experiences of accessing and providing social care support, and with partners and stakeholders, who will be involved in the implementation. That will include the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

No decisions on implementation have been taken, because co-design will inform that. However, section 14 places an obligation on the Scottish ministers to establish a service for receiving and allocating complaints about services that the NCS provides.

Ministers will have regulation-making powers to provide for the handling of relevant complaints, including improving and strengthening how complaints about the NCS and wider social care services are handled and the associated redress processes that will have to be put in place. Under section 15(4), the regulation-making power requires the Scottish ministers to secure the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s consent before laying any draft regulations that would modify or remove functions of an SPCB-sponsored body. That is similar, although not identical, to a provision under section 19 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The key difference is that, under that act, the provision must first be requested by the SPCB.

It is considered an appropriate balance for the control and scrutiny of the NCS complaints system that the Scottish ministers should be able to propose appropriate provisions following co-design. If it wishes to, the SPCB will have the power to veto those through withholding consent. Subject to consent, detailed provision would be set out in subordinate legislation, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. I hope that that lays out the processes for Mr Balfour.

I hope that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body would take cognisance of the views of the people who are in the co-design process so that we get the complaints and redress process right for all. As for the views of the public, I have been struck by how, at points, folk have felt that they were not able to complain or seek redress because of a fear that services might be withdrawn. We must ensure that that fear goes, whether or not it is only a perception.

We must ensure that there is a complaints and redress system that works for all. I hope that we all—the people, the SPCB, ministers, the Parliament, the ombudsmen and others—co-operate so that we get it right as we move forward and we do not have folks fearing to seek redress or even to make complaints.

Those questions are for your clerks rather than for me. I see the clerk nodding her head.

In relation to what, convener?

No, I do not necessarily accept that. We have had situations in which a huge amount of tendering has gone on and the winning of contracts has been based on price. I will be honest with you: omissions from such contracting frustrated me over the years in which I was in a local authority—I hasten to add that not everything that we did was based on price. Other elements should be put into procurements. Fair work is the main example. We are looking at other elements that can be built into all of that.

Currently, there is a mixed economy for care. Let us be honest: the third sector plays a hugely important role in all of this, and I am quite sure that nobody wants to omit it as we move forward. Ethical procurement will drive up transparency and bring fair work into play. I will write to the committee in some depth about ethical procurement.

As I have outlined already, the establishment of the national care service will have an impact on community justice partners whether or not justice social work is included in the NCS and the national social work agency. That reflects the fact that many community justice partners rely on effective communication and collaboration with other partners across health and social care.

I canna reiterate enough that community justice partners are actively involved in the work that we are doing to inform a decision about justice social work. That work and their involvement with it will make it certain that the options appraisal will fully consider the implications and opportunities for improvements across community justice and justice social work. Before the establishment of a national care service, and whether justice social work is included in that service or not, we will continue to look to make improvements because we must get the linkages absolutely right.

There have been a number of calls for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, or elements of it, to be paused. However, as I said to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee yesterday, many people want to see all this moving at pace. I have to strike the right balance with what we are doing, and I think that it is about right. Derek Feeley, the chair of the independent review into adult social care who recommended that we establish a national social work agency, has said that the work should move at pace. Many other stakeholders, particularly the voices of lived experience, want all this to have happened yesterday.

I understand some people’s feelings about the pace of change, but pausing the bill will not stop the work that we need to do to ensure that we get the best outcomes for people. As far as I am concerned, a national care service is the best way forward.

We have said that we will consult on the issues in question after the research and the options appraisal have been carried out and we have listened to stakeholders. We have committed to doing that.

I say to Ms Clark and to others on the committee that we did not suddenly pluck this out of the air and decide that all this should be in the national care service. We listened to the voices of people with lived experience and to their views and thinking on what they wanted the national care service to deliver.

You are right to say that some stakeholders have said that the evidence base for bringing criminal justice social work and children’s services into the national care service is not as great as the evidence base from the independent review of adult social care that Derek Feeley carried out and made recommendations on. However, in that review, Derek Feeley pointed out the importance of linkages. That is why we are conducting all the work that we are doing at the moment. We have not made a decision about whether children’s services will be in or out of the national care service because we want to have the evidence base and we want to listen to stakeholders.

I will give an example of how stakeholders are involved in informing that decision. Officials have established a reference group that meets regularly to inform and support the programme of work. The stakeholders on that group include the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Community Justice Scotland, the Scottish Association of Social Work, Social Work Scotland, the Risk Management Authority, the victims organisation collaboration forum Scotland, the office of the chief social work adviser and the Care Inspectorate. Those research partners will work directly with justice social work staff and their clients to obtain insight into how policies work or do not work, as the case may be, on the ground. In addition, the options appraisal process will include officials making visits to stakeholders around Scotland to ensure that the workforce and people with lived experience have opportunities to participate.

I have made a clear commitment to listen to the voices of lived experience and to ensure that stakeholders are involved. We will continue to listen all the way through until we make the decision one way or t’other. However, I reiterate the point that, no matter whether the services that we are talking about are in or out of the national care service, we must ensure that the linkages are better for people.

As Ms Clark knows, the bill is a framework bill, which includes provision to move criminal justice social work and children’s services into the national care service if the Parliament agrees to that.

I expect there to be scrutiny all the way through the process. I have said to numerous committees, and I say to this committee, that we want to be open and transparent about all this. If a decision is taken to move criminal justice social work or children’s services into the national care service, of course there will be scrutiny—there will be scrutiny of the secondary legislation.

As we move forward, we will convey our decisions to the Parliament and to committees for full scrutiny. As I have said to this committee and others, my door is open on all this, because I want to ensure that we get the national care service right for the people of Scotland.