³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We have a great deal of engagement with the sector. Just last week, in the chamber, I made that point to your colleague Jackie Baillie. I do not know whether Donna Bell might want to add to that.

There is potential for disagreement in future. As I said, we are working hard to ensure that our costings are accurate and that the service will be fully funded, just as we have done in relation to other commitments. For example, the increase in wages was fully funded by the Scottish Government—although that was not always passed on by local authorities to IJBs. We are determined to improve the situation and we are increasing our level of spending.

Richard, do you want to say more on that?

In general, they are not raising such issues with me. We have moved on to the detail of how, collaboratively, we can improve the situation.

We want the bill to work everywhere in Scotland. The national board is more about scrutiny and oversight, support for individual local integration authorities that are struggling to deliver, and picking up on good work. We have talked about Shetland. The way in which Shetland Islands Council has integrated its health and social care services and operates those services is outstanding. I would love it if everybody worked in the way that Shetland does.

The national board will be able to look at what is happening in local areas, to identify quickly and easily where things are working well and to ensure that those aspects of good practice are shared nationally. I do not know whether your concern is that COSLA is unable to adequately represent rural and island authorities.

If I could finish—

Perhaps I have pointed to the areas where we do not have robust evidence. Undoubtedly, there is a level of unmet need that we have not adequately quantified yet, because it is not in the system.

Absolutely. I have been very clear that we can quantify a good amount of the unmet need. Public Health Scotland already produces tables showing those who have been referred into the system and who are awaiting an assessment and those who have been assessed but who do not yet have their package, so we are absolutely certain about much of the unmet need. We have robust evidence on that. There is a very small proportion of the unmet need that I do not have robust evidence on yet, and perhaps I should not have focused on that.

Again, on the economic benefits, I have said that there are areas where this work is difficult. It is, for example, difficult to know how many unpaid carers are out there. In the business case, however, we have detailed the stuff for which we have a robust economic case. We have put in it that, in 2021-22, 236,000 people in Scotland were reportedly receiving social care support or services. We have made an assumption and said that if just 10 per cent of that group—that is, 23,600 people—experience a 0.1 point improvement in wellbeing because of the establishment of the NCS, for the reasons discussed in the business case, that could lead to a potential annual benefit of around £34 million at 2021 prices.

The business case also details that around 130,000 people were employed in the adult social care sector. If it is assumed that just 10 per cent of those people—13,000 carers—experience a 0.1 point improvement in their wellbeing on the life satisfaction scale from the establishment of the NCS, it might lead to a potential annual benefit of around £19 million at 2021 prices.

Therefore, I do not think that it is fair to say that we have not provided any economic detail; indeed, I think that we have provided really solid economic detail in the business case. However, I accept that we cannot be absolutely certain. Those are estimates; we have used calculations and formulas and have made a best guess at what we think that it will deliver, but I accept that there is uncertainty around that.

What I would state time and time again is that I am absolutely certain that this is the right thing to do. I am also certain that it will deliver economic benefits.

The first thing to say is that those are not direct costs from the bill. That is not our workforce, and those people will not be employed by us.

I ask Richard McCallum to come in on that, as that is his area of expertise.

Yes, but do you want that civil service workforce to continue to work on those issues or do you want to build a system in which they are dealt with better in the future?

The wider workforce is not directly employed by the Government—that is one of the challenges. For social work, for example, I think that the national social work agency is a jewel in the crown of the national care service. I agree that, for social work, work would need to be done to improve its status and the support that it gets in the national planning for that profession, regardless of the national care service. However, we need the primary legislation in order to bring the national social work agency into being and to fit it into the national care board so that it can have oversight of the system.

The national social work agency will deliver better support and mentorship for newly qualified social workers and better support and straightforward pathways for advanced practice. I just do not think that it is possible for individual local authorities, which employ social workers, to do that.