Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a big question.

I revert back to my point about the SDS legislation. We all thought that that was a fantastic piece of legislation, but some folk have found loopholes that have not been challenged and have not been easy to change. I have tried to change some of that through guidance. As you know, vehicles for primary legislation sometimes do not come along very often. If we find a flaw or loophole, or if something changes in the way that we deal with an illness or condition, we can change secondary legislation quite easily, or more easily. That does not mean that we do not have folk scrutinising and that we are not open and transparent on that. If and when secondary legislation requires to be changed, I expect that we will continue to have the voices of lived experience guiding us on that.

That subject is very close to my heart, because of my previous job—just because you change jobs, you do not forget about things. The greatest breakthroughs that we have made in recent times in tackling rough sleeping and the issues of the most vulnerable folks have come through the work that we have done on the housing first approach. That policy brings housing, care, health and other services together in order to create the right environment for a person to thrive in their own home.

That has been immensely successful—more successful than any of us could have hoped to imagine. In the most recent figures that I saw, which might be out of date, there was 90 per cent tenancy sustainment. We need to ensure that, no matter what services are, they are wrapped around the individual in order to get them right for people. Some of our changes in homelessness legislation will put duties on folk to do that.

The national care service has a big role to play in that. I talked earlier about the linkages that we need to create to ensure that we get it right. That is why I have met, and will continue to meet, folk from the housing and homelessness sector. It is also why Shona Robison and I have met officials fairly regularly—to get it absolutely right.

Because of the work that we had done on adult social care, we were well aware that we had a huge amount of information. A huge amount of consultation has been carried out. We have undertaken to do similarly for children’s services and criminal justice social work. Work is on-going in looking at all of that. We will continue to consult and to listen to people on those fronts.

I reiterate that the Government has taken no decision on transferring children’s services or criminal justice social work to the national care service.

As you have just done, we recognise that caring roles vary in nature and intensity. We also recognise that some folk feel more able to access certain things than others do.

One of the key aspects, which comes up time and again, is the eligibility criteria. In removing some of the eligibility criteria for those unable to access sufficient breaks, the bill aims to shift the balance to enable more carers to access preventative short-break support. That might need to be different from what is currently on offer in particular places.

The key aspect is to understand better what a sufficient break is and to recognise what the differences are in terms of the nature and intensity of the care. The stakeholder group has been established to work our way through that, including on reaching a definition of “sufficient breaks”.

I think that we have a long way to go on data. I will have a look at the English, Welsh and Northern Irish situations. There is some data that I would like to get my hands on that is not easy to obtain, and we have to do better on that front. We must also do better in terms of individuals’ data. That is why the national health and care record is important. Depending on the data sharing agreements that are associated with that, we will be able to get much more accurate data about what is going on.

I get your point about the consistency and quality of data. You will know, having seen it at this committee, that, often, data is caveated, sometimes quite heavily, so it does not necessarily give us the true picture. Mr O’Kane talked about comparing apples to oranges; I often feel that that is what we are doing, when we look at comparative data. We absolutely need to get better at that. The national health and care record will go a long way in helping us on that front. Again, even before the NCS, we must continue to refine what data we collect, how we collect it and the impacts of that on people.

I will consider anything, but I again come back to the point that, if we put too much into primary legislation, we might end up in a situation in which it is difficult to change what is there. I do not really like the term “reablement”, so I am glad that you used the term “rehabilitation”. In that regard, we are seeing advances as we move forward. We do not want to set everything in stone, so secondary legislation is probably the right place for that.

Obviously, I want those very good folks, some of whom I know well—including Fanchea Kelly, whom I know from my previous role in housing—to be at the table helping us to shape what is required as we move forward. Blackwood Homes has made immense advances in the technology that it has put in play so that folk can live free and independent lives. Those include a washing machine that irons, which was something that took my eye—Ah hinna got een yet, but I certainly have been considering that over the piece.

We need those folks to be at the heart of the process. I will consider what they have to say. I do not think that that issue necessarily has to be in primary legislation, but their voices have to be heard, and we have to get that right as we move forward.

It does not necessarily need to be mentioned in the bill, but we all have to be cognisant of the need to make sure that, in the co-design, we get everything, including integration, absolutely right.

It has been strange to me that many folk have said that various things should not be in the bill—for example, that criminal justice and children’s services should not be in the NCS. There are numerous arguments about that. The Government has not yet taken any decisions about whether those two areas should be in or out of the national care service.

However, at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee the other week, there was a suggestion from a member that housing and homelessness services should be in the bill and in the NCS. Of course, that is not going to be the case. However, we have to ensure that the national care service, no matter what is in or out of it, has linkages with other services across the board, including housing and homelessness services. There are areas that are perhaps not being seen by you folks to be discussed as much as they should be, but those conversations are being had right across the board.

Number 2 on my list was

“realising rights and recognising responsibilities”,

which includes the charter development. The others were: information sharing to improve health and social care support, which we have touched on already; keeping health and social care support local; making sure that voices are heard; and valuing the workforce. As I said, we will write to you on all of those.

We published the new statement of intent yesterday. There are constant meetings between officials and COSLA officials. As you can imagine, I see Paul Kelly, the COSLA health and social care spokesperson, regularly because he is involved in many of the relevant groups, including the ministerial advisory group, which he co-chairs with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, to deal with the here and now.

I will give one example of where I want to see improvement, and to see it quickly. As I am sure COSLA officials would agree, I believe that it is scandalous that many women who are working in social care at the moment have no maternity-pay entitlement. That is absolutely scandalous in the 21st century, and it is one of the first things on my list for improvement. I think that the statement of intent will help us to move forward on that front and to get rid of some of the antiquated employment situations that exist.