���˿���

I will pick up on that point about the framework bill and the way that this has come about. Some witnesses have said that the concern about its being a framework bill is that co-design could have happened prior to publication of the bill. The bill could have been co-designed and if it had been, we would now be having a different discussion. The views of those who are calling for a pause, including Social Work Scotland, Unison the union and COSLA, have been fairly well documented.

I am keen to get your views on whether there should have been a co-design process prior to the bill’s introduction. I do not think that anyone disagrees with what you have said about the fact that people want to see tangible benefits. Do we need more pace on other parts of your review recommendations—for example, removal of charges for non-residential social care support? Should we invest money now in order to move the dial on those things, rather than waiting for the delivery of a national care service by, potentially, the end of this session of Parliament?

Thank you both for those responses. There is an issue about the structures around care boards, the culture that is embedded through HSCPs, and some of that integration work.

I have a question for Alison White on the point about potential staff transfer. Last week, we heard from COSLA, which, obviously, was very concerned about the local government space and what might happen to local government staff. As you represent social workers, can you give me a sense of what the anxieties are for the social work profession about what their future might look like?

I am keen to understand more about the approach to community health services and where they should sit within the structure. I appreciate that it is difficult at this stage to fully understand and discuss this, but should responsibility for community health services sit with health boards or the proposed new care boards?

Thank you. I will move on to Alison White. I appreciate that you are here to represent Social Work Scotland, so I will not ask you necessarily to respond as a chief officer.

I want to ask about Social Work Scotland’s view at the moment. It has called for a pause in the legislative process. Is that to do with what you said about co-design? You said that there should have been a process of co-design prior to this point, rather than it happening through secondary legislation. Is there anything that you want to add about how Social Work Scotland arrived at that position?

Thank you, convener. I have two questions, but they will be directed to individual witnesses.

I will begin with Patricia Cassidy’s comments. I am looking for a bit more clarity about where chief officers are on a number of issues. In many of the submissions that we received from local authorities, IJBs and health and social care partnerships, concern was expressed about what disruption to services will do to integration. Angus HSCP said that

“Significant work has gone into the establishment of IJBs”,

and that a national care service

“could take the focus away from integration and continual improvement”.

East Lothian HSCP said that

“It would be damaging and counterproductive to restructure services again, less than eight years since the integration of H&SC.”

Are chief officers of the view that there needs to be structural change to the care boards, or is there a sense that there is not enough detail in the bill to make a judgment about whether we should move towards that and about what the change would look like?

I will pick up on your response to Evelyn Tweed on accountability to the Parliament and the minister being held accountable for social care. Is it your view that social care is not currently being held to account by elected council members and health board appointees—who are appointed by the Scottish ministers—who sit on IJBs? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities would take exception to that because of how councillors are connected to their communities and hold social care accountable. Is the principle of local accountability not at stake, to some degree, if we focus everything on the Parliament?

I have a brief question for Eddie Fraser, after which I will ask a final question.

At the end of the previous section of questions, Eddie, you outlined the alternative approach of local and national Government working together to try to find national standards and to implement them in a national care service. Do you see any parallels with what happened in 2017 when proposed education legislation sought to make ministers responsible for improvements in education through regional improvement collaboratives? That legislation was taken away, and there was collaboration and co-design with all the partners to create what we now recognise as RICs, which are run regionally but have local accountability and committees. Might we want to learn from that process here?

Good morning, panel. I will begin with some questions on what is felt to be the lack of detail, which is being left to secondary legislation, and the lack of local accountability, on which many of you share comments in your submissions.

Starting with COSLA’s approach and its submission, I think that it is fair to say that it is very concerning to read local government’s view on what the bill will do to the provision of services by local government. At COSLA, unanimous cross-party concerns have been raised about the bill, and leaders have unanimously agreed that position. I was a councillor for 10 years and I do not recall such unanimity at COSLA, particularly through its leaders. Councillor Kelly, will you explain how that position was reached and what the concerns are?

My next question is for Jennifer Paton, who is here on behalf of the Law Society. In your response to our call for views, you say:

“It is not clear what evidence base suggests that a national service will improve quality and consistency of services. This lack of an evidence base also makes us question whether the centralisation of what are currently locally-delivered services can be justified in terms of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.”

The Government hopes to incorporate that policy into law. Can you please expand on the impact that you think the bill will have on local democracy and accountability?

I will expand on the point about the practicalities of the bill. It is a framework bill that has some very clear things to say, and it will have a very clear effect on local government, but the written submissions say that there is also concern about what is not said about secondary legislation. In its submission, Inverclyde Council says:

“Leaving so much to secondary legislation will mean there will be no effective consultation, no opportunities for expert advice and experience to influence the details and a lack of transparency and democratic accountability.”

To be fair to the Government, I think that it would contend that there will be a co-designed process, but is it your view that that is the wrong way round and that there should have been a co-designed process first, followed by the bill?