���˿���

The reason I asked is that we have not had any previous discussion on that, so I wanted to touch on it.

Sharon, my question for you is about an issue that you raise in your written submission. You say that there is

“Concern that the recommendation to increase Free Personal and Nursing Care for self-funders will not necessarily deliver a reduction to the amount paid by self-funders.”

Can you expand a wee bit on what your concerns are?

I thank our witnesses for their contributions. We now move into private session.

We will no doubt question the next panel about that when they appear before us in a few minutes’ time.

The financial memorandum anticipates savings or efficiencies through shared services across the national care service, but it does not acknowledge the corresponding loss of economies of scale for local government. It has been pointed out to the committee—I have heard this directly from local authorities as well as read it in the submissions—that there will be an impact on the viability of some of our smaller local authorities. What do you think will be the unintended consequences with regard to the finances involved?

To be honest, though, it looks to me—and, I think, to many others—like we could be building a house on sand here. You have to get the primary legislation right first before you can think over the secondary legislation.

I am struggling to remember a time when I have previously received submissions that have been quite so excoriating with regard to the financial aspects of a bill. COSLA also made the point that no business case was produced before the publication of the draft bill,

“setting out the rationale, costs, benefits and risks of the National Care Service to facilitate meaningful scrutiny by Parliament”.

Why was that not done in the financial memorandum?

I know how bills have been produced in the past. Over the years, I have seen financial memoranda that have necessitated only one or two pages, and there has not been a lot of meat in them. However, this bill involves a monumental change over a number of years that will affect an extremely vulnerable section of all our communities. Surely much more in-depth thought should have been put into the financial aspects of the bill and its deliverability in financial terms.

That is my expression. That is how people feel. They feel that there has been a lack of consultation and almost that there is an imposition with regard to how it is going to work as opposed to people working together to create a system that might actually deliver over the next decade and beyond. That is the impression that I am getting. Colleagues might have a different view, but that is certainly the impression that I have got from the submissions to the committee and from speaking to my local authority and others.

I am sorry, but I am talking about the organisational changes.

I am sorry to interject, but you could say that about any service. You could say it about education, which is not the same everywhere. Bin collections are probably not the same in North Ayrshire as they are in Aberdeen. Are you saying that we have to have a national bin collection service and a national education service? Surely, if there is an issue that is affecting some local authorities—I do not know how common the cross-boundary issue is—you should address that, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The whole policy is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

It is not for us to criticise the policy per se, but the financial wraparound is of concern. The Fraser of Allander Institute said that, if the service is underfunded, it is

“unlikely to be any better than the system it seeks to replace”.

If we are to put colossal sums of money into new structural changes, surely that means that there will be less money available for delivery at the coalface.

So the priority now, given the political commitment behind the national care service, is to ensure that it is delivered as effectively as possible.

In your evidence today, you have talked about the co-design process and working with stakeholders. You said that engagement has been very proactive. However, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers said in its submission that

“Local Government was not involved in the development of the proposals prior to the publication of the paper.”

If there is all this proactive work, why was local government not involved?

SOLACE went on to say:

“The consultation paper provided very little information about what the proposal would mean for vulnerable adults, children and families who rely on social work and social care services.”

It also said that the consultation was

“in a largely tick box format.”

What are we, as a committee, to take from that? What is your response to that?

I am interested in the fact that you have mentioned the co-design phase a couple of times. There is a feeling among organisations such as local authorities that they have been bounced into the process and that co-design is not really a meeting of minds or, indeed, of equals. How is the co-design process actually going to work? I am thinking specifically of the financial structures, because that aspect, rather than the wider picture, is the committee’s remit.

SOLACE also said:

“Organisational changes appear likely to consume much of the total funding available for the NCS, which is stated to be over £840 million by 2026-27. This is about half of the total investment in adult social care alone that COSLA, Social Work Scotland and others consider is needed. In addition, this would not include the investment in justice and children’s social work and social care services that is desperately needed.”

As I said at the beginning of the session, we are in a situation of financial difficulty and challenge in Scotland and across the UK. How will we square the circle of having these huge organisational changes while delivering for the people who require the service?