Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would not be appropriate to start again. The parts of the bill that remain are the parts that everyone has agreed are required to fundamentally improve social care. It is time for us to crack on with that.

I agree that we are in a difficult situation, and I do not really want to say more about when we expect to get clarity on the figures, but it is a function of the bill being at stage 2 rather than stage 3. The bill has not yet been finalised; Parliament will amend it and we will then be able to provide you with figures. At the moment, we are in negotiation with Opposition parties that are proposing amendments and talking about hypothetical figures for what it might cost to deliver on those amendments.

You are absolutely correct to point to the issue of staff, particularly in rural areas. There is variability across Scotland, and when we dig into that, we find different underlying reasons.

In remote and rural areas, including where I live in the Highlands and in Arran, in your constituency, there are challenges in finding a workforce. There are labour shortages across the board. As you have said, that has been the case since Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, and there has been an impact on Europeans, many of whom have left Scotland. Many of those people worked in hospitality, and others have since moved from social care into the hospitality sector. There are labour shortages right across the board, and we certainly feel them acutely in remote and rural parts of Scotland.

The United Kingdom Labour Government’s most recent announcements on immigration will be catastrophic and devastating for rural communities. I can think of examples in my own area of communities that have very few young people, and that ageing demographic is hitting our rural highland villages harder, faster and earlier than the rest of Scotland. There is no bank of young people who are waiting for jobs to walk into. Until recently, the problem was solved by immigration, but the Labour Party’s announcement that it is stopping immigration for social care workers will undoubtedly be problematic in that regard.

We need to increase investment in social care, and the Scottish Government is doing that, despite the financial constraints that we have faced over the past few years. Everyone in our workforce is professional; they are regulated by the SSSC and are paid at least the real living wage, an investment that now costs the Scottish Government nearly £1 billion. It is significantly more than their counterparts are paid in England and Northern Ireland—I should say that Wales pays the real living wage, too.

However, we need to do more. We need to work from where we are now towards parity, and we need to invest in our social care workforce. Of course, there are challenges all over. I do not feel quite as nihilistic about it as you sound, convener; I think that we can rise to some of those challenges, and—

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak on the financial aspects of the bill after stage 2. I have provided a summary paper of those costs in response to the committee’s request.

The national care service is moving forward with a revised approach. Parts 2 and 3 of the bill are going ahead, which will ensure that vital reforms are made to information records and standards, procurement, Anne’s law and a right to breaks for unpaid carers. Stakeholders have told us time and again that all those areas need to be improved. However, as a result of the removal of part 1 of the bill, the anticipated costs, savings and changes to revenue that were expected to arise are no longer relevant.

Part 2 of the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill, as it is now named, relates to health and social care information, with provision giving ministers the power to set up a statutory scheme to permit data sharing and produce information standards. Part 3 relates to reforms connected with the delivery and regulation of social care, with provision for a right to breaks for carers; rights to visits to or by care home residents—that is, Anne’s law; powers for the Scottish Social Services Council to require information; protection of adults at risk of harm; a national social work adviser and agency; and independent information, advice and advocacy.

I firmly believe that the provisions in the bill, as amended at stage 2, are highly reasonable and balanced reforms to the existing system. As politicians, we must ensure that we effect the real change and improvement that people who use social care services require and, more important, deserve.

Financially speaking, the bill will cost far less to implement than it would have done when introduced. Our forecasts to the end of 2031-32, as per the previously revised financial memorandum, are now between £329 million and £545 million, of which £306 million to £512 million is directly related to breaks for carers. The previous range of costs prior to the stage 2 amendments, as presented in December 2023, was £843 million to £2,149 million over the same time period.

We already spend more than £6.1 billion a year on social care, as per the 2023-24 local finance returns data, but that spend is not transparent and it is not clear to people who need social care who is accountable for the service that they receive. However, we cannot think about the financial cost of care reform in isolation; we must think, too, of the many plausible benefits to people that will be delivered. For example, improving information sharing or independent advocacy and advice in care and support services could help to reduce the barriers to an individual’s ability or opportunity to work, to increase their working hours or even to take up a new job, thus enabling more people to contribute to the economy.

My financial summary of 20 May 2025 sets out those changes, which will substantially reduce the cost of the bill since the removal of part 1. There are costs are associated with introducing a right to breaks for carers, independent advocacy and the establishment of the national social work agency and Anne’s law, as set out in the financial summary and the revised FM, but overall costs are greatly reduced.

As the committee will be aware, we are now driving some of that work forward on a non-statutory basis. We have set up the interim national care service advisory board, which met for the first time last week and comprises people with lived experience of accessing care—social care workers, care providers, the national health service and local government—with the ultimate aim of improving the sector.

The Scottish Government has worked enormously hard to reach a consensus with stakeholders and MSPs ahead of stage 3 scrutiny, and I am confident that we are in the best position from which to move forward. I hope that I have given you an overview of where we are with the NCS and social care reform, and I am happy to take any questions that you might have.

I apologise for that. There was an error in one table in the letter that we sent to the committee last week, and it was quickly spotted and corrected. Do you want to say more about that, Lee?

Yes.

In relation to Anne’s law? I do not think so. As was clear at stage 2, some Opposition colleagues, including your Conservative colleagues, have lodged amendments that, should they be passed at stage 3, would have significant financial costs, but we are working together to find a satisfactory resolution. As was committed to at stage 2, we are working to reach agreement and to understand your colleagues’ objectives and aims, so that we can achieve them in a way that is affordable and sustainable.

I am working closely on the amendments with Opposition parties and stakeholders with an interest. On Anne’s law, for example, I am very proud of the amendments that we lodged at stage 2. We worked closely on those with care home relatives Scotland, whose input I am very grateful for, and we think that they delivered a substantial improvement. Care home relatives Scotland has said that it wants further refinements that would ensure that the balance of power is appropriate between care homes and relatives. We are also working with Opposition parties to reach agreement on such amendments.

No, I do not. I will bring in John Paul Liddle to speak more about the value of co-design. The member is oversimplifying the stakeholders’ feelings about the bill. As I have said, the people who access social care particularly loved the first version of the bill. They thought that it was the most true to Feeley’s recommendations. However, local authorities and the unions were very strongly against it.

The stakeholders who access social care were less comfortable with the shared accountability agreement. They were concerned about the power resting with local authorities, the NHS and the Government. They went with it as something that was workable, but it was not necessarily their first choice. Then, without coming back to the table to discuss it with the Government, the local authorities made the decision to walk away from the shared accountability agreement. Local authorities and unions were very strongly against the shared accountability agreement that they had jointly signed up to.

In the co-design work with individuals who access social care, those people said very strongly that they would have liked the first version of the bill. So, I think that you are misunderstanding the level of complexity—there is no one view from stakeholders on what they want to see in improvements to social care. There is no single view; there are a lot of strong, powerfully expressed different views. My challenge is to bring everyone with me as we make improvements to social care in Scotland.

Do you mean the number of people simply to deliver the breaks for carers? Is that what you are specifically discussing?