Seòmar agus comataidhean

The bill says:

“the National Care Service is to be an exemplar in its approach to fair work for the people who work for it and on its behalf, ensuring that they are recognised and valued for the critically important work that they do.”

That is what we can build on—again, this is a framework bill. Do you agree that it is a good idea to have that statement about fair work in the bill? I direct that question to Roz Foyer, because she is nodding.

I want to pick up on Paul O’Kane’s point. He said that there is ambivalence about the bill. What I see is flat-out negativity against it. Do you think that part of the issue is that people are used to seeing detail in legislation, but the bill is a framework bill, so what comes after will be bite-sized pieces of legislation that will be able to be scrutinised and interpreted, then agreed on or amended and then delivered? I am really interested in hearing what Alison Bavidge and perhaps Maree Allison, too, have to say about that.

The people on the ground are asking for the bill. I have just read something about an action group from Falkirk that basically said:

“The National Care Service will have equality, dignity and human rights at its heart. It will empower people to make the choices that are right for them.”

One of my constituents has had eight social workers in eight months. The bill aims to slim out some of the bureaucracy and to make it easier—to make it a choice—for the people on the ground to choose self-directed support or whatever they want. I am interested in that aspect. Perhaps people need to hear more about what a framework bill is and what comes after that.

I will go to Alison Bavidge first.

Research and training—clinical nurse educator was my career for many years—are in the bill. In the section entitled, “Research”, the bill says:

“The Scottish Ministers and care boards may do any of the following in relation to research relevant to the services that the National Care Service provides—

(a) conduct it,

(b) assist others in conducting it,

(c) give financial assistance in relation to it.”

That will enable us to say in further legislation that we absolutely value research and training—and training leads to quality care, improvements and career progression. The bill is a framework bill, which will enable further research and training as we move forward with the national care service.

I am not sure whether that was a question or just a comment.

It is just a wee short one.

I will go back to multidisciplinary team working. I gave the example earlier of a person who had eight social workers. I have heard examples of support workers who look after people seeing deterioration that requires a step up in care. Currently, that requires a referral for further assessment, which takes time, although it is obvious to the support worker that additional care is required. As part of multidisciplinary team working, would it be better if direct engagement could flatten the bureaucracy so that faster response times could be delivered for people who need their care to be escalated? I see that Colin Poolman is nodding.

I have questions about the workforce and fair work. Section 1 of the bill says that

“the National Care Service is to be an exemplar in its approach to fair work for the people who work for it and on its behalf, ensuring that they are recognised and valued for the critically important work that they do.”

In the previous evidence session, Nick Morris said that a national care service should allow for greater awareness of the work that social care staff and social workers do.

Can you comment on the fair work principles in the bill and say whether anything still needs to be added? Are there any gaps?

I will pick up on what Nick Morris said about the national health service, which was created 70-plus years ago but is obviously still a work in progress, given the changes that we see happening in it. I take on board what you are saying about the creation of a national care service needing to be done with consideration. We need to do it carefully and make sure that we get the legislation right.

However, that brings me back to the beginning. This is a framework bill and there will probably be amendments after our stage 1 report, but I am interested in how we make sure that we bring everybody along with us. It is great that we are singing the praises of social workers and that we can use this to value their work. That could be done using national approaches to skills development, education and things like that, as well. I am interested in your thoughts on that.

I am interested in any legislation on feed additives that is introduced, and I will continue to be so because I think that it is really important that we know what we are consuming. We hear about novel foods and what is happening in other countries in relation to trade, and I know from my research that there are issues around hormones and other chemicals that are being added to products that might end up in our food supply chain. We also had an informal discussion with Food Standards Scotland last week. I just want to put on the record that this is an important issue and we should pay attention to it.

As a former clinical educator, I like the national pathways model of skills development and the ability to look at how we measure the quality of care that is delivered so that we can ensure that it is the same whether the person is in Stranraer or Stornoway. I am interested in your thoughts on establishing recognised national career pathways so that we can focus on recruitment and retention and ensure that the career development process helps us to focus on valuing the staff and the care that they are providing. Can you give us your thoughts on that?

It is interesting to listen to everyone. It is my understanding that this is a framework bill to create a more integrated service. It includes fair work, human rights and improvements in the quality and equity of services. I have the recommendations of the Feeley report in front of me. The report lays out the case for the creation of a national care service. Recommendation 20 is:

“The National Care Service’s driving focus should be improvements in the consistency, quality and equity of care and support experienced by service users, their families and carers, and improvements in the conditions of employment, training and development of the workforce.”

There is a lot even in that single recommendation. It is my understanding that this is about people with lived experience and about people who need care in order to prevent hospital admission. It is not just about dealing with delayed discharge; it is not a delayed-discharge bill. I am trying to get my head around how we support co-production, co-creation and innovation.

The framework bill is supposed to set out what further statutory instruments will come afterwards. Those will come from people—whether they are service users, service providers, NHS leads or others—working together. I would be interested to hear comments about Derek Feeley’s recommendation number 20 on the case for the national care service. Nick Morris has his hand up.