���˿���

It has made matters for many very, very difficult. Some of you will have heard me mention before that, in conversation with one employer, I heard that they lost 40 per cent of their workforce in one of their facilities after Brexit. Folks chose to return home because of what happened and because of the feeling that there was a hostile environment. That has had an impact on service delivery. Some folk have said that we overegg the pudding when it comes to talking about Brexit, but that is a prime example of the impact that Brexit had on service delivery. Although I am not saying that every service lost 40 per cent of its staff, there are tales from right across Scotland about the impact of people returning to their home countries because they did not feel welcome in the UK any more.

I know that we have done our level best to try to reassure folk that they are welcome here in Scotland, but we lost a lot of good people who were delivering for our most vulnerable people.

I have previously given frank answers to questions on data, particularly in the chamber to Ms Mackay, who has vociferously asked numerous questions on that front.

We have implemented a data improvement programme, working together with local and national partners. That should challenge the issues regarding the consistency and quality of social care data and with data sharing. It should also address gaps on unmet need, workforce data and modelling future demand. That programme is developing and I am more than happy to come back to the committee or otherwise inform it of the improvement work that is going on in the short to medium term.

We must get that right in the transition to the national care service. As part of the work, we have been working with Public Health Scotland, IJBs, NHS boards and local authorities to improve management information on pressures on the health and social care system. That will enable us to respond collectively to pressures and issues arising, as well as to improve planning for the future.

A vital aspect of this is our proposal for the national care record. One of the key issues for many people who are accessing care is the number of times that they have to repeat their story. That is often frustrating and can be triggering, because they are having to repeat difficult stories again and again. The national care record will make a real difference by ensuring that we get it right for people as we move forward.

I am more than happy to continue to update the committee on what we are doing to improve data.

There is a fair amount in there.

I highlight the point that the Government has raised pay for social care staff twice in the past year. The minimum pay has been £10.50 an hour from April this year. That is an increase of 12.9 per cent for those workers over the course of the year, and that increase is much greater than the increases south of the border and in Wales.

I agree with Mr O’Kane that the cost of living crisis is having an impact on everyone, including folk in the social care workforce. I appeal to the UK Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get the finger oot, get on with an emergency budget and ensure that we are doing our level best for individuals and families throughout the country who are being impacted by the rises in fuel prices, energy costs and the cost of their weekly shop. I appeal to the chancellor to get the finger oot and take some action there.

On the specific issue of transportation costs and mileage that Mr O’Kane raised, I highlight the point that there are 1,200 employers out there. The Government is not the employer. Those employers need to step up to the plate, as well. The Government does not set the mileage rates that are paid to social care staff; they are agreed and set by their employers. However, we are actively engaged with our partners, including local government, to understand the impact that the increase in fuel prices is having across Scotland and how social care providers can support their staff through this period to ensure that they can continue to deliver the invaluable support that they provide.

We as a Government have a long-standing commitment to the principles of fair work for the social care sector, and we are fully committed to improving the experience of that workforce. As I have pointed out, that includes increasing the levels of pay and, as we move forward, delivering consistent fair work conditions to staff who work in social care in Scotland.

There is not a lot that I can do. I have no power to push the 1,200 employers into some actions, but the committee can be assured that we will continue that active engagement with local government to see how we can move forward on that front.

There are a number of things to address in that. A rushed visit is not good, either for the person who works in care or for the person who is being supported. Although I have heard examples that are exactly the same as that one, I have also heard examples of things working well for the folks who work in the sector and those who are receiving support and care. We need to look at those good examples and export them across the board.

Let me give you what is probably the best example that I have come across. I recently met Aberdeen’s Granite Care Consortium, which is a group of third and independent sector organisations that came together to bid for a home-care contract in Aberdeen. During the pandemic, those organisations did something that I hope others will follow suit on—I have been encouraging others to do so. They gave their front-line staff the independence and autonomy to step up or step down care in order to meet the needs of the folk whom they support. As Dr Gulhane, the convener and the committee will understand, there is more stepping up of care than stepping down.

In my opinion, that person-centred approach, with independence being given to the person in the know—the person who goes in daily and can see the needs of the patient—is the right way forward. We should have more independence and autonomy among front-line staff.

Some people would ask us to provide evidence that that makes a difference. We know that we have difficulties with delayed discharge across the country and that rates in some areas are much higher than they are in others. Dr Gulhane will know from his medical experience that the best way of stopping delayed discharge is to keep people out of hospital in the first place, and instead to provide for their needs at home, if that is at all possible.

For example, delayed discharges in Aberdeen stood at 19 on 26 April. That is very low compared to many other parts of the country, and it is particularly low compared to the other cities. The work in Aberdeen by the Granite Care Consortium and others on flexibility and stepping up care where that is required has meant that fewer folk have had to go into hospital. Flexibility and autonomy for the front line and understanding about meeting folks’ needs make a real difference. That is what we need to be doing.

There is a lot going on in terms of fair work as part of our on-going work to set minimum standards for pay and conditions, as we move forward. The fair work in social care steering group that we established will continue to explore that across the entire spectrum of social care work. The group’s work is critical; we are working on the objectives that were agreed with the group at the start of last year. I look to officials on my left and right to see whether I am right, but I understand that the steering group will meet tomorrow to agree new priorities. I will correct that later if it is not meeting tomorrow; it is certainly meeting very soon to look at the new priorities.

As I have already pointed out, we are taking action now with partners in local government and the care sector to accelerate improvements, including to levels of pay. We are also in discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about our next steps on workforce development. Members might be aware that COSLA leaders took a paper on the issues to their final meeting before the local government elections. We will revisit that with the new and reinvigorated COSLA when it appoints new leadership and spokespeople.

We are fully committed to working in partnership with trade unions, staff and providers, including on recruitment, leadership at all levels, pay, terms and conditions, learning and development—which I touched on earlier—and career pathways. We will focus specifically on the commissioned-care sector in the first instance, but we will reach across the whole of adult social care.

I am sorry if I am going on for too long, but I am being as specific as possible about the 2019 fair work report. As part of our commitments from that report, we are ensuring that we move forward on social care workers having an effective voice in workplaces. We have included the requirement to consider effective-voice measures as part of fair work first procurement guidance, which includes there being appropriate channels to be heard, such as trade union recognition. I could go on at great length about that, but the convener is probably going to stop me.

In all that we do—in the work of the Government, of integration joint boards, of local authorities and of NHS boards—we must listen more to the voices of lived experience. Let me be frank with the committee: some of the work that we are doing at the moment would not have been at the forefront of our minds, but issues have been brought to us by folks with lived experience. One of the key things for me about the national care service is ensuring that the voices of lived experience play a part in shaping services.

I might be a bit controversial here—that is not like me, I know—but it is a decade since I left local government. Looking at procurement now, from this place rather than from the local authority side, I can see some real changes that have happened in certain places.

One of the frustrations that I have—this is certainly a frustration for those who are supported and receive care—is that, in recent times, there has been more involvement in the formulation of the tender and the contract by the likes of accountants and the legal bods than there has been by front-line social care staff or folks who receive care. Quite frankly, we need to turn that on its head.

I will continue to listen to folk—I gave the example of my meeting yesterday—and officials continue to do so on a daily basis. It might be useful if we provided the committee with an idea of what has been going on in the past month or two both from my perspective and from the officials’ perspective. Some folk have said, “Oh, you’ve been quite quiet during the pre-election period,” and there were obviously things that we could not say at that time. Even so, we have continued to talk to stakeholders, listen to them and take on board what they have to say. At the very heart of it all is listening to the voices of lived experience, which, as far as I am concerned, is key.

I would say that the work that we have done on the social covenant steering group is citizen leadership. However, citizen leadership is not just for the level of folk who will help us to co-design the NCS. We—not just Government, but the public sector as a whole—need to listen to the voices of the very articulate and experienced folk who know how the system works, what works well, where the system does not work and where it has failed many of them. We need to listen to people as we shape the right care system for all.

I do not want anyone to have to go elsewhere for treatment. I want folk to remain as near to their home as possible, because one of the key things in all of this is family support. We have some very good practice in supporting families when there is a distance to travel, but we probably have to do more on that front.

The key thing for me—I am sure it is the same for Dr Gulhane—is that we get to a situation in which folk do not have to go into acute services. That is why an amount of our investment has gone to the likes of Beat. We need to build on the community support that is available. I have visited the unit here, in Edinburgh, and a huge amount of its work is in the community rather than on the ward. We are in a situation in which we will have to keep a very close eye on beds. It may well mean more investment and an increase in the number of beds, but I think that it is preferable—I am sure that Dr Gulhane would agree—if we can keep folk out of hospital and provide them with the right support community. That would be the best way forward.

As Ms Baillie well knows, we have gone through a global pandemic, and are now getting back to some kind of normality. I have outlined what we have done around CRWIAs. We know that we have more to do and we will do it.