���˿���

What was your rationale for giving a promise of co-design after the bill is passed rather than doing that during the preparation of the bill? Is it your view that co-design after the fact is better than co-design before legislation, and who decided that the bill should proceed in that manner?

Okay. That might be comparing apples to oranges.

I will move on slightly, and quote some of the evidence that we have heard. The minister said that he feels that he has adopted a logical process, but we heard the following:

“at the moment, it feels as though it is a one-size-fits-all system, and I do not think that that will work”.—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 25 October 2022; c 38.]

We heard that

“So much is left to secondary legislation and co-design that we do not feel that we have the detail ... to be able to comment”,

and that

“We are talking about a substantial bill on a national care service that has been introduced without clear detail”.—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 1 November 2022; c 2, 23.]

We heard that

“this bill does not deliver the changes that are required”,

and, finally, that

“It is like buying a house without ever having seen it or knowing know how many rooms it has or where it is located.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 15 November 2022; c 35, 39].

That was a cross-section of the evidence that we heard from legal experts, Common Weal, care providers, local authorities and trade unions. Those are very serious concerns about the way that this has been done. Would the minister like to comment on some of those quotes?

Does the minister not recognise that there is a principle here around decisions being taken as close to people as possible and the role of local government in doing that? He is right to say that he and I have both served on local authorities as councillors, as have other colleagues on the committee. I am keen to understand why he feels that there will be more accountability by virtue of 129 ���˿��� and the minister having that control as opposed to local councillors having it. Does he feel that local councillors are not accountable enough now and do not represent their constituents on these issues?

Good morning, panel. The first section in our briefing paper for the meeting is titled “General hopes and fears”. That is a broad theme, but I am keen to understand the concerns that people might have about how the bill has been structured and came to be.

Over our evidence sessions, we have heard significant concern about the bill being a piece of framework legislation and the detail being co-designed after the bill has been passed. I will quote Tanith Muller, chair of the Neurological Alliance of Scotland, who said:

“Scotland is being offered a new structure for care—but without blueprints, a schedule or a budget. We can’t tell if it will even stand up, much less that it will meet the care needs of people in Scotland. Ministers need to go back to the drawing board and show us all the plans that they have developed with people before they ask ���˿��� to legislate.”

I know that MND Scotland is a member of the Neurological Alliance, so I ask Susan Webster whether she shares some of those concerns, and to say what could have been done differently.

Susan, you have pre-empted my next question, which is on the consensus that came out of the Feeley review. Given the nature of a condition such as MND, would you have preferred to see more action being taken more quickly on some of the issues that were raised in the review, particularly on the workforce, non-residential care charges and support for people and their families?

Should there have been more co-design before the bill was introduced? What co-design would you like to see included in secondary legislation?

My question is this: if, for example, Mr and Mrs Smith decide to make a representation to an elected member, where does that responsibility sit most effectively and appropriately? I take your point, but I wonder about that more local focus.

Convener, if I may, I would like to move on to the points that Age Scotland made in its submission about aspects of the Feeley report that the bill does not cover. Adam, you alluded to the financial memorandum not correlating with what is in the bill. Are you concerned that things are being missed because they are not in the bill? I am referring to things such as free personal nursing care rates, the removal of non-residential care charging and the terms and conditions of social care staff. Should they have been in the bill in the first place?

My next question, which is for Elinor Jayne, is on a broadly similar theme. Obviously, the scope of what is proposed has extended beyond what was in the Feeley report, and we have heard suggestions that elements of social work could go into the national care service. How would SHAAP feel about that, given the strong links between social work and support for those with problematic alcohol and drug use?

Given your mention of resources, are you concerned about the resourcing of the national care service, given the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concerns about the total cost as well as the concerns that have been expressed about the Scottish Government’s budget, which we will hear about later in the week?

Good morning to the panel. I will pick up on what Adam Stachura said about the cabinet secretary’s accountability for social care. Would you contend that local councillors are not currently accountable in that way and that people would have a better chance of holding the whole system to account via the 129 members of the Scottish Parliament than they would through our hundreds of councillors? I have to be honest and say that it can be challenging for ���˿��� to hold health boards to account. In my 10 years as a councillor, I often found it easier to hold social care providers to account. Could you expand on that?