���˿���

Dairy UK is the national trade association, so it might be worth asking it the question, too. I was just looking online to see whether I could find out more while we were talking.

I agree with the recommendations that Mr Torrance suggests. Furthermore, I suggest that we consider direct engagement with health and social care partnerships, where there are clear deficiencies in implementation of the related MAT standards that we are discussing. Perhaps we could seek evidence directly from those health and social care partnerships about what the blockages and impediments are, which could offer us a way to be useful in getting delivery expedited.

To follow up on that point, what was interesting in the correspondence from NHS Grampian was the point that it is seeking to implement a controlled drug licence by the end of February. It is almost offering itself as a pilot of how to rapidly implement a controlled drug licence. When that happens, it would be helpful to get an insight from the health board and the relevant health and social care partnership as to how they achieved that and what the impediments were.

That might offer an insight for the minister and, indeed, the Parliament into how to speed up the process for other health boards and other health and social care partnership areas so that we can try to get this rolled out. It seems that that was the key sticking point that was identified in the correspondence, so if we find out how to break through that bureaucratic issue, we could focus on that.

Mr Stewart, you said that Parliament might interfere with what people with lived experience want, but surely it is the role, not of ministers, but of Parliament, as the ultimate democratic body in the land, to be the arbiter of that matter.

What assurance can you provide to workers that the co-design process will begin promptly, what assurances can you give them that their recommendations will be listened to by ministers and what role can Parliament have in ensuring that that is done?

I appreciate that, minister.

Thank you, minister, for your responses so far and thanks to your team for their support. It has certainly been an interesting discussion.

A point that has been raised consistently is that it is quite difficult for Parliament as a democratic body to adequately scrutinise a piece of proposed legislation when there is a lack of detail in it.

The minister referred to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, which had 81 sections and was 90 pages in length. The current bill has 38 pages and 48 sections, so there is quite a significant difference. What safeguards exist in the bill to ensure adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s policy proposals?

I will briefly raise one specific point in relation to the opportunity for Parliament to engage. The main area where it is mentioned in the bill is, as I see it, in section 12, which is on further provision about a national care service charter. The charter is to be reviewed at, at least, a five-yearly interval. Would there be an opportunity for Parliament at those junctures to have a role in ratification of the charter and perhaps to propose amendments to it? That would be the fundamental and overarching document that would create the fundamental principles.

The bill currently states only that

“The Scottish Ministers must lay before the Scottish Parliament a copy”

of the charter and any subsequent changes. It does not provide a mechanism for the Parliament to have any role in engaging with it; it is merely a presentation exercise. Might there be an opportunity for Parliament to have more on-going engagement with the charter through amendments?

We are all keen to hear what stakeholders have to say. The question is what role Parliament has in the discussion. That is the concern that we have; it is not about the qualitative aspects of what we want to do, it is about Parliament’s role in that exercise.

I am interested in the point that you made about gathering information. Last year, Mary Alexander, the deputy regional secretary of Unite trade union, suggested to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that the Government had already collected enough evidence of the changes that are needed in the care sector. What is your response to that suggestion and to evidence to other committees that the co-design approach may well present a risk to robust parliamentary scrutiny and that it is potentially a duplication of work that has already been undertaken by the Government?

A lot of the detail that the minister alluded to is critical to the strategic plan for the national care service and local care boards’ plans for delivery. However, at a macro level, Parliament will be able to address much of the bill’s provisions only in secondary legislation. As was alluded to by my colleague, it will therefore have the opportunity only to approve or reject in a binary fashion any significant policy proposals, rather than having the chance to debate and propose amendments in a more nuanced fashion to any of those policy provisions. That is a real concern around Parliament’s opportunity to engage with the process constructively. Will the minister offer a view on how that might be improved?