The next item of business is a debate on motion 12331, in the name of Marie Todd, on national care service Scotland, built at stage 1. I would invite all those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request of speak button. I note that we seem to be missing a committee convener, but hopefully he may appear very shortly indeed because he is on at number 3. With that, I call on Marie Todd minister to speak to move the motion up to nine minutes, please. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking everyone who has contributed to the consultation on the national care service, our co-design sessions, the annual forums and the many meetings that my officials and I have undertaken. We've heard from thousands of people and overwhelmingly the message is the same. We need to improve the social care and community health system across Scotland. We need long-term widespread transformation to fix some of the ingrained issues within the system and ensure sustainability for the future. This bill is our chance to effect the meaningful change that we all agree is needed. The national care service will provide greater transparency of the delivery of care, improve standards, support and improvement in pay and conditions for workers and provide better support for unpaid carers. I want to thank the seven parliamentary committees who took evidence and reported on the bill during stage 1. The committee's scrutiny has been comprehensive and robust, which I welcome. I acknowledge that the health and social care and sport committee have restated their intention to consider further detail of the Scottish Government's proposed changes to the bill during stage 2. I have provided a great deal of information already at stage 1 in the interests of being transparent and helpful. I have committed to giving the lead committee what it requires during the stage 2 process, as requested in the letter of 7 November, and I repeat that commitment here today. Information will be provided as soon as possible. The starting point for this work was the independent review of adult social care conducted by Derek Feely, commissioned by the Government in summer of 2020. It has been the guiding force behind this bill. It recommended reforming social care in Scotland and strengthening national accountability for social care support. It outlined the limitations of our current delivery structures. Those included a postcode lottery of user experience, a lack of national oversight and co-ordination, and the lack of collaborative and strategic leadership. It also said that we should take a human rights-based approach to social care. All of that has been confirmed through our engagement and our co-design work. We have heard repeatedly that the current social care and community healthcare system must change to drive up standards to a consistent level across the country. Many campaigners have been waiting a long time for this, but some do not have a long time. I know from listening to them that the status quo is not an option, but we cannot delay change. I was very moved to meet an advocate for motor neurone disease recently. He told his story powerfully. He may only have a few months to live, too few to be spending time as a delayed discharge in ICU when he could be at home with his family. Now, as a country, we should be good enough at planning, managing and delivering social care so that people like him get exactly what they need, when and where they need it. Now, I feel he also highlighted a need to reconsider the way that we think about social care. Globally, social care support is seen as a burden or a drain on society. Now, in a country with an ageing population, with unprecedented pressure on our national health service, we cannot afford to view social care as a burden. It is an investment in our society. Good social care, wherever people live in Scotland and whatever their needs are, enables and empowers people to live independent lives. I thank the minister for taking that intervention. I have to say that, as a disabled person and a user of social care and also someone who gets a lot of representations through my inbox, as many of us do, those things have been said to people who use social care for a decade. For a decade, this Government has promised people who use social care that they would get more access to it, that they would not have to pay for it, that they would be care workers there to provide it when they need it. Still, there is not any. Without any detail of this on the bill, how can the Government expect people to believe them this time? I agree that there is a great deal of time that people have waited for this change, but let me assure you and let me assure the public that this change is coming. I think that, over the past 10 years and longer, we have established that primary legislation and structural change are required. There are parties in this Parliament who still oppose that idea. I absolutely agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy that it is unequivocal that we need change. We will deliver change. I am keen to work with everyone across this Parliament to deliver the change that Scotland needs and deserves. The bill, as introduced, sets out the principles of a national care service. It commits to a national care service charter. It sets out a national approach to managing complaints. It sets out provisions relating to data sharing and to care records. It includes provision for breaks for carers. It includes provision to enact Anne's law so that people in care homes have the rights to be visited by their families. The engagement that we have carried out over the past year reconfirms that all those provisions are essential to improving social care in Scotland, and they remain central to the Government's planned approach. As I have set out in some detail to the committees and information that I have shared with all Members across this chamber this week, there are three significant changes that I intend to make to the bill at stage 2, should Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill today. Those changes are in response to evidence taken at stage 1 following engagement with COSLA and the NHS and responding to on-going feedback from stakeholders. The main changes that I want to make to the bill at stage 2 are that a national care service board will be established to oversee delivery across Scotland, that we will not create new local care boards as originally planned, but will instead reform existing integration authorities and that local authorities will retain responsibility for current functions and the delivery of social work and social care services with no transfer or staff or assets. That change of approach reflects the challenges of a new fiscal environment, where it is more important than ever that we demonstrate value for money. Those changes would substantially reduce the cost of the bill by removing the need to set up care boards and to transfer staff and assets. As I set out to the finance committee, that will mean that the costs of setting up the national care service will be up to £345 million over 10 years, where the proposals that were set out in the bill as introduced would have cost £1.6 billion over the same period. We collectively spend over £5 billion a year on social care provision. The costs of change would be under 1 per cent of that current spend. We can make meaningful lasting change for that relatively modest amount. In relation to children's social care, social work and community health services, the national care service will bring change. We have a real opportunity to improve the outcomes for children and families. The NCS can help to simplify the currently complex landscape for children and lay the foundations to deliver much-needed improvement. I want to set out the difference that I believe the national care service board will make. The board will include as a minimum an independent chair, Scottish Government, local government, the NHS and people with lived experience of receiving and delivering community health and social care. The board will have an overview of planning and delivery of community health and social care provision across all of Scotland. It will look at what is spent, what care is provided, who receives it and the outcomes for those people. The board will also have a support and improvement framework to drive improvement and innovation and to help local areas when monitoring indicates that standards and needs are not being met and to intervene if necessary. The national board will give us a level of transparency that is not possible in the current system. It will let us understand where people's experiences are inconsistent across Scotland, build on good practice and tackle challenges. It will reflect the approach that we have already taken to building the national care service by ensuring that we listen to the voices of the real experts, the people who use community health and social care, the unpaid carers and the staff who provide it. In concluding, I want to repeat that the status quo is not an option. We must make change and invest in the future. The NCS is our vehicle to do that. I can believe that it can make a real difference to those who so urgently need the change. I now call on Claire Hockie on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. Up to eight minutes, please, Ms Hockie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I refer members to my register of interest in that I hold a bank staff nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I begin by thanking the committee clerks for their support during the committee's inquiry and preparation of the committee's stage 1 report. The Health and Social Care and Sport Committee began at stage 1 scrutiny of the National Care Service Scotland Bill in October 2022, having issued a call for evidence during the summer. There was extensive engagement with that initial call for evidence and I would like to start by thanking everyone who contributed. The committee has listened very carefully to all the views expressed through that process and they have been invaluable in forming the committee's recommendations. The committee took oral evidence on the bill over nine meetings between October and December 2022 and we took further evidence on the bill in May 2023 and then during three meetings in October 2023. I am equally grateful to everyone who contributed oral evidence to the committee over that time. One message that we heard very strongly throughout our scrutiny was the case for reform in social care. That reform is badly needed to address existing inconsistencies and access, to ensure consistent application of guidance and legislation, to address on-going challenges in the social care workforce, to improve commissioning and procurement of services and most importantly of all to improve outcomes for those receiving social care and support. The case for reform is what motivated Derek Feeley's independent review of adult social care to recommend the creation of a national care service. In responding to the Feeley report, the Scottish Government has sought to give those with lived experience a stronger voice in shaping those proposals through a process of co-design. One of those giving oral evidence to the committee described that as a bold approach. At the same time, the committee has heard many stakeholders raising concern about an on-going lack of clarity regarding the definition, the precise scope and the key areas of focus of co-design and the anticipated outcomes of the co-design process. In a recommendation unanimously supported by members, the committee's report calls on the Scottish Government to set out an overarching plan that includes a clear definition of co-design, parameters and intended outcomes of the co-design work and a timetable for its completion. We also want the Scottish Government to recognise the critical role that the Scottish Parliament has to play in undertaking on-going scrutiny of the bill's implementation, including in relation to the outcomes of the co-design process. During its scrutiny, the committee heard widespread support for the principles set out in section 1 of the bill. At the same time, our report highlights several areas where a majority of the committee believes that those principles could be usefully clarified and strengthened. While acknowledging the Scottish Government's stated commitment to fair work principles, a majority of the committee would like to see the bill strengthened to include a clear and comprehensive definition of fair work and clarity on how those principles will be consistently applied and enforced. The committee's report seeks clarification on the remit of the planned national social work agency. The Scottish Government has said that the agency's responsibilities will include monitoring and improving service quality, overseeing and supporting education, improving and scaling up good practice, workforce planning, training and development, on terms and conditions including pay. The committee is keen to understand why its proposed remit is limited to the social work profession when there is an equally pressing need to address those issues for the wider social care workforce. Further, it is said that, if it is to be set up as a department within the Scottish Government, how it will be ensured that it has the necessary operational independence to fulfil its role effectively. I look forward to receiving a considered response to those concerns from the minister. On health and social care information, we have been talking about the creation of a single electronic health and care record for a long time. Completing that work will be fundamental to the success of the proposed national care service and needs to be treated as an absolute priority. The committee's report also highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluation. Without it, how can we judge whether a national care service has successfully achieved its objectives? The committee has unanimously called for appropriate provision to be made for effective monitoring and evaluation of the proposed national care service on the face of the bill. I acknowledge that there have been many areas where the committee has been unable to reach a consensus position. However, I am pleased to note that our recommendations on those parts of the bill relating to creating a right to breaks for carers and to implementing ANS law were unanimously supported. Those are important measures that I hope can be implemented with all due care and speed. Clearly, the Scottish Government's overall approach to the legislation has shifted significantly since the bill was introduced in June 2022. I thank the convener. I am glad that she mentioned ANS law, and I welcome the recommendations at 81 and 82 in the report. I note that the committee agreed that ANS law should be fully implemented as soon as possible to ensure a human rights-based approach to care. Were there different options other than just this bill looked at by the committee? I think that there is a frustration across the chamber that we all agree on ANS law, but perhaps it does not need to be part of this bill that could be implemented in other ways. The committee was considering the bill in its entirety with all the different parts, and one of those sections was ANS law. The consensus agreement with COSLA on shared legal accountability means that a number of key aspects of the bill will need to change. Accountability for social care will no longer be transferred from local authorities to Scottish ministers. Integration joint boards will no longer be replaced by local care boards. Instead, a national care service board is proposed, and local government will now retain social care functions, staff and assets. While that shift is an approach that might be welcomed by many, we need to acknowledge that others will have been left feeling disappointed that it fails to reflect the core aspirations of the failure review. For those people, there will be a job to be done to rebuild that trust. Our committee has noted the Scottish Government's intention to bring about changes to the bill through amendments at stage 2. A majority of the committee has expressed a willingness to recommend that the general principles of the bill, as introduced, should be approved at stage 1. However, we have made the majority recommendation on the understanding that the Scottish Government is prepared to allow the committee sufficient time to take further oral and written evidence on the details of those amendments prior to commencing the formal stage of considering and disposing of amendments at stage 2. I want to acknowledge the interim response that was received by the minister yesterday, and I am grateful to the minister for providing the committee with a summary target operating model for the proposed national care service. The minister has also given a commitment that she will formalise the extensive input so far received from a wide range of stakeholders into a legislative advisory group to help to guide the on-going development of the bill. A majority of the committee has specifically called for the full text of the Scottish Government's stage 2 amendments, a marked-up version of the bill as introduced incorporating those amendments in a highlighted format, and an updated policy memorandum and explanatory notes to be published no later than 29 March. I am particularly encouraged by the minister's commitment in her interim response to accept that recommendation and to facilitate what the committee requires to do this as quickly as possible. In conclusion, I look forward to listening to all the contributions to this afternoon's debate. I acknowledge that it ultimately was not possible to reach a consensus position as a committee on the general principles of the bill. I recognise the strongly held positions of all members on the committee and across the chamber. However, if later today the Parliament agrees to approve the general principles of the bill at stage 1, as the majority of the committee has recommended, I hope that all members, whatever their view they express today, will continue to engage constructively with a reinforced process of scrutiny at stage 2. I now call on Kenneth Gibson on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee up to four minutes. I first wish to apologise for missing the first minute of the minister's opening speech. I would also like to confirm my own thanks to the clerking team of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, who have been very strong in their support of our deliberations. Following on from Claire Hawke, I would say that we did actually reach consensus on our committee in terms of the deliberations that I am about to discuss. I am pleased to contribute to this debate on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and highlight the key issues that we identified during scrutiny of the financial memorandum for the bill. The committee examined the costs associated with the national care service bill and programme and first reported on the FM in December 2022. A report raised, I quote, significant concerns in relation to the costings within the financial memorandum, which we considered, I quote again, did not provide best estimates of the cost that the bill gives rise to. We requested a revised financial memorandum, including full details of the underlying assumptions, updated estimates for the gaps identified in this report, as well as updates to the existing cost estimates set out in the FM. Last December, the minister provided an updated FM, along with a summary of the financial implications of changes proposed to the bill following agreement between COSLA and the Scottish Government on shared accountability for the NCS, as well as a programme business case. We took further evidence from the bill team and minister on the 23rd and 25th of January, respectively, setting out our conclusions in the letter to the Scottish Government on 8 February. The changes proposed by the Scottish Government remove a number of the uncertainties that we originally highlighted, including around the transfer of staff and assets and the number of care boards. It also extends the timeline for implementation over a 10-year period. The original FM presented costs ranging from £644 million to £1,260 million over a period of five years. That updated FM, based on the bill proposals, has introduced and estimates the costs of £880 million to £2192 million over a period of a decade. Under revised proposals to be introduced by amendment at stage 2, total costs over a 10-year period fall dramatically to between £631 million and £916 million substantially lower than in the original and updated FM. The committee has acknowledged the work undertaken to improve cost estimates associated with the bill since we published a report on the original FM back in December 2022. That includes narrowing the variances between the lower and upper cost ranges and enhancing the level of detail regarding the costs associated with the rights to breaks for unpaid carers, which now form the bulk of the proposed expenditure. The reduction in the maximum cost variance from 225 per cent to 45 per cent, comparing the 10-year costings in the new FM with the original, is a welcome indicator of the work to provide more accurate and lower costs. Nevertheless, the FPA committee has concerns regarding the approach that is taken by the Scottish Government to induce a framework bill and use co-design to develop the detail of the policy as the bill progresses through Parliament. We prefer co-design to be undertaken as early as possible to enable inclusion in primary legislation. Had the committee accepted the original FM, it would have led to significant unnecessary expense to the public purse at times of severe strain on Scotland's public finances. As we explore during evidence, some risks and uncertainty around costings remain. Namely, the potential of VAT liability should direct funding be provided to the integration authorities, costs associated with the proposals for information sharing or the creation of an integrated health and social care record. The format functions in membership of the national care board and the yet unknown level of unmet need that the NCS will need to address. We heard in evidence that the co-design process continues to support development of the policy detail to be included in secondary legislation after the bill has passed and that business cases are being developed to support this work. We welcome the Scottish Government's intention to share these with the committee, along with associated costs. We are concerned that the piecemeal nature of providing updates in different formats is not conducive to effective parliamentary scrutiny. We will continue to monitor the finances associated with the bill and take this opportunity to reiterate our own request to the Scottish Government that the committee has kept updated of all costs related to the bill and the programme that has been provided to us. Thank you, Mr Gibson. I now call on Sandish Gulhani up to seven minutes, please. Thank you. I wish to refer members to my register of interests as a practicing NHS GP, and I am also a Member of Parliament's Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. Despite warnings that the SNP Green Government is unable to articulate and communicate how the national care service would actually work in practice, Parliament is nevertheless asked to date a supporter bill on the basis that, come the second reading, all will be revealed. Really? That is not how scrutiny of legislation is supposed to work. We are not here to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I know the islanders of Arran would not, nor those using the A9, nor patients waiting for cancer treatment. The Law Society of Scotland is also concerned about the bill as presented. It says that effective scrutiny is a crucial element of the creation of good law. It is therefore essential that there be further clarity in both policy and drafting terms at an early stage to allow for proper scrutiny and appropriate stakeholder engagement. I am mindful of other flagship bills that the SNP Green Coalition has tried to push through Parliament over the past couple of years. Here we go again. When it comes to the latest SNP rebrand of the national care service bill, health committee members are well aware that there is a dearth of detail and so many unanswered questions. This bill is far from ready for a stage 1 vote. There is criticism from professional organisations, unions, charities and councils, all four members of the committee who are not SNP or Green, descended from up to 46 of the 110 point recommendations, including support for the bill's general principles. These principles are so broadly drawn that it is not clear who the principles apply to, the accountability and enforcement, how these principles will be evaluated or how they will fit with existing rights under the 2010 Equality Act. We all know how important this is, at least legislation goes pear shaped. The SNP Green Government argues that we were asked to approve a framework bill that much of the detail will be set out in secondary legislation, that they are simply trying to work at pace and be efficient. But the many areas we highlight should be addressed in primary legislation. The Law Society of Scotland's view is that this is not inconsistent with the aim of ensuring responsiveness and adaptability. Furthermore, the approach whereby the bill is scrutinised in advance of the co-design process limits our committee's job to provide full and effective scrutiny at this stage of primary legislation, as important details are simply not available. While we are going on the subject of co-creation, the SNP Green Government's approach is highly problematic. There is no statutory basis for this co-design process within the bill and no statutory guarantee for meaningful engagement from a full range of stakeholders. There are many understandings of co-design, but we do not know what the SNP Green Government has in mind, nor do we have a plan on how it intends to go about this. This might suit a Government that has a reputation for secrecy and, according to some of its own members, authoritarianism. Scottish ministers will be responsible for the national care service in a way that seems to them to best reflect the national care service principles. Despite shared legal responsibility with COSLA, Scottish Ministers are responsible for monitoring and improvement of services with significant discretion afforded to Scottish Ministers. We all agree that social care reform is well overdue, and the Scottish Conservatives support key recommendations of the Feely review, including national employment conditions for staff and treating social care as an equal partner to the NHS. Rather than opt for a centralised top-down approach to care as advocated by the SNP, we believe that there could be many approaches that are tailored to those needing support and doing now, as Monica Lennon suggested earlier. That can include caring for people with a terminal illness, many of whom are spending their end-of-life journey at home. By 2014, 60,000 Scots will have palliative care needs, 10,000 more than today. We need to ensure that everyone in Scotland has a right to the palliative care that they need. The SNP green coalition is bent on centralising social care at the expense of local authorities, all the hallmarks of a power grab that will not improve social care delivery, and it is an expensive power grab at that. Parliament's finance committee has repeatedly raised concerns about how this will all be funded, that costings did not and could not reflect the actual cost of the provision of the bill, but instead the SNP Government decided to plough ahead with their failed scheme, ignoring the concern of experts. The SNP green government are spending over £800,000 every month on civil servants for the national care service already. To get a national care service up and running, we were told by the social care minister, Marie Todd, to expect total spend of £1.6 billion, now less, still almost a billion. The type of national care service advocated is the wrong priority for Scotland. Where are the efforts to eliminate delayed discharge promised by Shona Robison by the end of 2015? Yes, you heard right, 2015. As the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh reports in the year ending March 2023, there were over 660,000 days spent in hospital by people whose discharge was delayed because they did not have a social care package to support them at home. And there's a double whammy. Scottish Care has warned that one care home per week is closing in Scotland. We now have 19% less care homes than in 2013, with private care homes being cheaper for the public purse. Homes are Yousaf is the mastermind who drafted the national care services bill in June 2022, with a plan to complete stage 1 by March 2023. The fact is, the NCS Bill has been delayed four times. It had to be radically overhauled, and implementation perspwned until 2029, but just yesterday and today Minister Marie Todd tried to tell us that she was going to prevent delay. The SNP Green Coalition is making up the timelines as it goes along. If it was about scrutiny, we would have everything with us already, and we need to ensure that the enormous challenges faced by patients, both young and old, are garnished and looked after today. Social care is in crisis right now. Care packages for some of our most vulnerable people are being cut. Almost 10,000 people are waiting on assessments and to receive care, and providers are handing back contracts because they cannot afford to deliver staff moralis at rock bottom with people leaving the profession in droves. Nothing in this bill addresses that immediate crisis. Instead, we have a framework bill with little detail introduced 20 months ago. Despite the minister's warm words, implementation will not happen until 2029, at a projected cost of £2.2 billion. Not one penny will go towards care packages right now and nothing either for hard-pressed social care staff. This bill should have been about raising standards and the quality of care. It should have been about removing care charges. It should have been about standardising eligibility criteria, encouraging independent living, valuing the workforce with consistent terms and conditions, collective bargaining and pay, and it should have been about cultural change, not just structural change. A framework bill with little detail that is frustrated stakeholders and frustrated Parliament described by many as a bill without vision, a bill that simply doesn't address the challenges now and a bill without ambition. The bill is introduced, has been considered by numerous committees, health and social care education, finance, delegated powers, local government, more besides. Concerns have been expressed by the overwhelming majority of them, and indeed the finance committee, as we have heard earlier, has looked at it twice and still do not believe the sums actually add up. They are not alone. The voluntary sector, the independent sector, carers, those experiencing care, trade unions, all of them have concerns. If you look at the committee report, it runs to more pages than there are clauses of the bill, and page after page is filled with criticism. I am not going to rehearse the arguments that were made yesterday about further scrutiny, but it is really simple. The bill that is introduced is about to change beyond recognition because of a deal done with COSLA. It has simply not been scrutinised. The SNP and the Greens don't care about the integrity of this Parliament. They want to ride rough shot over the legislative making process and just railroad the bill through. It is a mess, and this is a recipe for bad legislation. However, let me consider a few of the provisions that we do support, Anne's law and the right to respite breaks. We support Anne's law 100 per cent. The right for relatives to see their loved ones in care homes must be legislated for. We cannot repeat the heartbreaking experience of too many families during Covid. The current provisions in the bill are weak, but there is a strong argument to decouple this from the bill. You could, and I invite the minister to look at this, amend the social care and social work improvement Scotland requirements for care services regulations of 2011. This would be a much faster legislative vehicle, which would undoubtedly carry the unanimous support of this Parliament. We also support the right to respite 100 per cent. Again, there are other legislative opportunities that can be explored, but the truth is that this element will take resources. The financial memorandum estimates that the amount of additional money that is required for 2025 is 5 million, rising to £133 million in 2035. However, that is just for 10 per cent of carers. This is fantasy budgeting, and like so much the SNP does, this legislation might be passed, but it will not be enacted and carers are let down in the process. Let me turn to social care staff, because they are the backbone of the delivery of quality social care, yet they are leaving their jobs. They are going to work in Lidl or Asda because they pay more. We first proposed £12 per hour in early 2021, rising to £15 by the end of the Parliament. Had the Government done so then, the hourly rate now would be worth £1443, and you would not have the hemorrhage of social care staff. It is regretfully always the same with this SNP Government. They talk a good game, but they fail to deliver. So where are the fair work principles in the bill, the improved terms and conditions, the right to full sick pay from day 1, the opportunity for sectoral bargaining? They are simply not there. The daily record today outlines the pressure that social care workers are under. Quoting a recent GMB survey of frontline care workers in Glasgow, 80 per cent of them said that social care staff believe that workloads are now unmanagable. 89 per cent are warning that vulnerable service users are now at risk. One carer said that we are rushing from one visit to another, always chasing our tail, never being allowed to give enough time to people. I used to absolutely love my job, but I am terrified that someone is going to be so rushed that they make a terrible mistake. I just want to get out before it is me. The national care service bill will do nothing to address these problems, nothing for those who care packages are being cut now, nothing to help the sector that is on its knees and nothing to stem the flood of staff leaving. It was, of course, Scottish Labour that proposed a national care service more than a decade ago, but the SNP said no. The bill as it stands does not implement the feely review. It will not work as it stands. We will continue to engage constructively at stage 2, but it must be lengthened to allow for proper scrutiny. There is no room for arrogance or hubris in something this important, and I fear that, instead of listening to the many reasonable suggestions from stakeholders, the Government is now hard of hearing. Please do not ignore the warnings from those with care experience. Do not ignore them from social care staff. Do not ignore them from social workers or the sector as a whole. This bill must not be an excuse for the SNP not to act now to avert a crisis in social care. Stop the cuts to care, boost pay in the sector and deliver a right to breaks and Anne's law so that those can deliver for those who work, live and care in our social care system. We reluctantly cannot support the general principles of the bill. The committee has not scrutinised the substantial changes that are being made, but we will continue to engage constructively at stage 2. I thank you very much indeed. Here we are again, debating this afternoon another iteration of what was in essence a line in the SNP's manifesto in 2021. This was an election three years ago and we are here again with another amorphous form looking for a function. I will come on to that again. A lot yesterday in the debate around Jackie Bailey's motion to defer this proceeding focused from Government benches by evoking the national health service and establishing the national health service. I am glad that that has not happened so far today. I dare say that it might, but the rhetoric would suggest that we are on the threshold of some great reform. The names of Beverage and Ibevan are soon to be joined in the annals of our national story by the likes of Kevin Stewart and Marie Todd, but we are not on the edge of a great reform. This is an amorphous structure, an ever-changing structure, looking for a role in our society. All that we have heard from Opposition speakers, rightly so heard from people like Jackie Bailey and Sandesh Gauhani, is that it is still to find that role in our society. I have heard the minister suggest that the Liberal Democrats in our staunch opposition to this bill, to the establishment of the national care service, would so to be an opposition to the national health service, where we were all transported back to 1948. However, you will recall, Presiding Officer, that whilst the vision for the NHS was executed by a Labour parliamentarian, it was the brainchild of a Liberal parliamentarian in William Beverage. When William Beverage wrote the Beverage report, he identified five great evils in our society—ignorants, idleness, squalor, want and disease. It was that last one that he felt most important in establishing a basis on which we had equal access to healthcare, healthcare that was free at the point of delivery and readily available in every community of this country. In terms of the national care service, the nomenclature is where the similarities end. We know that, although a form is looking for a function, no lives will be saved in its creation. Nobody who did not get free care yesterday will get it on the implementation and royal assent of this bill. No care workers will be paid any more as a result of it, but we will be paying the cost of it through the taxpayer press. There are significant concerns about the bill on the part of stakeholders and, indeed, the committee. We have heard some of that today. The committee report on the bill has been damning. The word concerns features 28 times in the summary alone. Around 238,000 people receive social care support in Scotland. Many of them will be known to us in this chamber. Many of them will be related to us in this chamber. That is 4 per cent of our population. This is a vital and important part of our society. Those who work in it manage the sector are clear that it needs to be better funded. Of course, it needs reform, but they are not talking about ministerial paragraph of centralisation that line the pages of this piece of legislation. Do not take my word for it. Listen to COSLA, who just said this week that the reality is that national funding decisions will further squeeze local care and social work services, which are already under incredible pressure. COSLA put out a briefing this afternoon and said that, despite the agreement that it has come to with the Government, it still harbors significant reservations, particularly in the nature of the funding settlement that it has been meted with this week. Instead of providing that support, the Government has delivered a hammer-blow to local authorities in their budget. It is hard to imagine a worse plan for social care than the one that is before us today, or a worse time for its execution than the time that we are in now. It is a bureaucratic exercise that will cost large sums of money and consume vast amounts of time. Right from the start, there have been serious concerns about its skyrocketing costs, which could reach over £2 billion, and the design process. Each and every iteration of the bill has proved outrageously expensive and completely unworkable. That is why we keep having to go back to the drawing board. That is why this Government has deferred it and deferred it again. Care organisations, unions and local authorities have united to condemn it. Even SNP Finance Committee members have suggested that the sums do not add up, and there are still hesitations and concerns within that committee. It is no wonder that this legislation has been pushed back three times. I put it to you, Presiding Officer. We are only here because we are running out of parliamentary time for the SNP to deliver on its flagship manifesto commitment before we rise for the next Scottish parliamentary elections. That is why we are here today. Just when the sector needs clarity and support, the Government has embarked on a grand bureaucratic crusade that is characterised by confusion and chaos. It has formed looking for a function. Scottish Liberal Democrats have always rejected plans for ministerial take-over of social care. We firmly believe that local authorities, care providers and those on the front lines are best placed to make decisions about how to implement and how to structure the care in their community. We believe that power works best when it is as close as possible to the people that are there to serve. However, there is yet more confusion around just what powers ministers would be given as part of those plans, with the committee report saying that it remains unclear to what extent the Scottish ministers will have extensive powers with respect to the proposed national care service board. The Government is all over the place here, right from the start. Things have not been done properly. The committee said that one of its challenges with the bill is, and I quote again, the lack of available detail from the start of our scrutiny. Only this morning, the minister circulated a target operating model for the national care service. This has been something that we have been waiting for for a long time on the day that this has introduced to Parliament that we are expected to vote on its general principles. We are given that. Simply is not the way that we should do things. We are now forced to waste our time voting on a hollow-out nothing-burger of a bill that does zero to address the very real issues in social care, but no one on the front lines wanted it in the first place. It will not make care free at the point of delivery. It will not make care a profession of choice. It will not relieve the interruption in flow that currently is causing a crisis in our NHS because people cannot be released from hospital because there is no adequate provision in our communities to receive them. Free up the funds of this billion pound bureaucracy. Scrap your bill today and use that money to improve the pay and working conditions of our social care staff, whose selfless and quiet heroic efforts often go unnoticed and rewarded. Mr Hamilton, you need to conclude. That is what we should be focusing on today, not this ill-fated, bureaucratic waste of time. We now move to the open debate. Backbench speeches of up to six minutes. I call Emma Harper to be followed by Liz Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, who has been present during the entirety of the committee's scrutiny of the bill and during the stage 1 report, I welcome that this bill is at stage 1 today. I would like to thank everyone involved in providing evidence and for the clerks also, and of course anyone who provides care for our people across Scotland. What we have to remember with this bill is that it is about a change that may be described as monumental as the creation of the national health service was a framework legislation as well as this legislation. We need to remember that. I want to be clear that the evidence that we have taken at committee has clearly demonstrated that the current social care landscape is cluttered, is complex and that it is fundamentally working for those requiring care who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The Parliament has a duty therefore to those individuals to get this bill right and to have a social care system that meets the demand of our society, but which is underpinned by the principles of human rights respect and person-centred choices. There is a need for standardisation of the social care system, employment practices, education for social care workers and of social care standards across all of Scotland. From evidence, it is clear that, yes, I will. I thank Emma Harper for taking intervention. Does she agree that, as part of that, we also have to look at self-directed support and how that is delivered across the country as well, and make sure that when we are looking at the national care service as a whole, it is not just directly delivered services but self-directed support too? I am coming on to self-directed support, but that is part of all the complexity that needs to be reformed so that we can make changes and help support our most vulnerable people who need care. From the evidence, it is clear that one of the best ways to do the changes is through reform and integration of joint boards as the minister has set out to the committee. At the committee, we have heard repeatedly from people with lived experience that the current adult social care system must change in order to drive up standards to a consistent level across our country. One of the ways that it is intended that those aims be met is through the creation of a national care service board. The NCS board will ensure that there exists consistent, fair, human rights-based social care support and community health services in place. The NCS board will be responsible for reviewing and overseeing the performance of local strategic plans. To support that, the Scottish Government is proposing to transfer ministerial powers of intervention to the board. That will allow the board to invoke those powers as a last resort and it gives the levers needed to drive and support performance and act if required. As a former clinical educator and a nurse, I am really interested in how this board will help to standardise social care and social working care and how we approach it across the whole of Scotland. Just this week, my office spoke with a local care provider across Dumfries and Galloway about the NCS board and the standardisation. They welcomed this approach. In Stuartry care, one of the folk gave us evidence when we visited Dumfries, my office called them the other day. They are one of the largest providers of social care across Dumfries and Galloway. They stated that although they carry out mandatory moving and handling training for their staff, much of the training that they do on top of that is not mandatory. Stuartry care also trains staff on assessment of nutritional status and their staff are given education on how to spot the signs and symptoms of malnutrition of those within their care. However, it was evident from the meeting with Food and Food Train last week that this kind of education is not a universal practice and many care providers do not have that education or training despite the importance of nutrition and the commitments in the Good Food Nation Act passed by this Parliament. That is just one example of an area of education that would benefit from standardisation across the whole of Scotland. I would ask whether the minister agrees with me and that we should consider nutritional monitoring as being part of the national standards as the bill progresses, not necessarily in primary legislation, but look at how we consider that as we look forward to moving standards forward. I also want to touch on the commitment to establishing a national social work agency that COSLA has agreed with. For those working in and leading the social work profession, the establishment of a national social work agency is a vital piece in the jigsaw of reform. As has been noted by social work Scotland, the current national arrangements for social work are messy and insufficient, inefficient, with the Scottish Government employers, the triple SCs, social work Scotland, improvement bodies and many others. They are all separately leading on aspects of social work development. However, if we are to affect the changes in social work systems and practice outlined by the independent review of social care and the promise and which the profession itself has called for, we need to create an enabling context. The national social work agency has a real potential to address those challenges. Currently, in the Frees and Galloway, social workers are paid the lowest wages than all other Scottish social work departments. That is why some of our social workers are leaving to go and work south of the border and to other parts of southern Scotland. That is something that could be addressed as we take a national agency forward. Another example is that self-directed support, which Gillian Mackay interviewed me about, has been administered with quite variable approaches by different local authorities, with some performing really well and others performing not so well. I would ask the minister to confirm that it is the Scottish Government's intention for the social work agency to deal with these kinds of discrepancies to support the social work profession and to get it right for those who are engaging with social work. It is clear that the bill is needed to improve social work care and social work landscape in Scotland. In closing, I will support the bill at stage 1 and urge members to do so. When a major committee of this Parliament concludes that it is concerned that the Scottish Government has so far been unable to articulate and communicate a model of how the proposed new legislation would operate, it is hardly a ringing endorsement and, worse still, when that is supposed to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Parliament has seen. Because both the minister, Marie Todd and First Minister Nicholas Sturgeon and Hamza Yousaf argued that the national care service bill was to be a flagship piece of legislation. Indeed, in their words, and I quote, arguably the most important public service reform since the creation of the national health service in 1948. Now that is quite a pledge. I don't doubt the Scottish Government's ambition, but in the usual way for legislation, particularly given its flagship nature, we should have had the right to expect a well-thought-out, holy coherent and well-costed bill. We should also have had the right to expect a fully watertight scrutiny process, giving committees and parliamentarians maximum opportunity to engage in detailed scrutiny, and that has not been the case. It is not the case in terms of the structure of the bill, and it is not the case in terms of the costings, which I will come to in just a minute. Deputy Presiding Officer, the first iteration of the bill faced very considerable criticism from no fewer than four parliamentary committees, such as health and social care, local government, audit and finance. There was no clarity whatsoever about the related costs, which is why, as Kenny Gibson rightly said, the finance committee would not accept the first financial memorandum, and it was also why the DPLR committee raised concerns. However, just as importantly, it also faced very widespread criticism from local authorities and health service stakeholders. In short, it was in deep trouble last summer, including from some SNP MSPs. Given those circumstances, Marie Todd was well told that there had to be a major rethink. So what did we get? Three changes, two very major changes to the bill. There would no longer be any transfer of local authority staff and assets, and there would be no new care boards for each of the 32 local authorities. Accompanying the changes, a second attempt at a financial memorandum was presented, marginally better than the first, but still not satisfying the finance committee, as its members have made clear. However, there are other issues about parliamentary scrutiny. The Scottish Government has made substantial changes to the accountability and governance provisions in the bill. However, it has not provided the detail of what those changes look like in legislation. The finance committee has particular concerns about the lack of detail surrounding the new national care board. The minister tells us that the bill is only a framework bill, and she said that she will share the details about governance and accountability provisions should the general principles of the bill be agreed to. That is very unusual territory and not one that we feel makes for good legislation. Presiding Officer, framework bills have suddenly become quite fashionable in this place. If I was being charitable, that is because of the principle of co-design, i.e., allowing ministers and stakeholders together to design the bill. I will come back to that in a minute. However, if I was being less charitable, it is because the Scottish Government is finding it impossible for whatever reason to produce the detail that Parliament needs. If I may be allowed to say so as somebody who has been in this place a long time, too many framework bills on the statute books present a problem for scrutiny. Perhaps when the Presiding Officer looks at parliamentary reform, that is an important issue to consider. As Jackie Baillie rightly pointed out, we cannot have bad legislation. The Finance Committee remains very sceptical indeed about the co-design process, not in its principle. There are lots of good things about co-design, but about the lack of estimates for measuring the economic benefits set against the projected cost, and also about how to measure the co-design cost at all, given that the co-design process is still on-going. We feel that that co-design process should have been completed before the revised bill was brought to Parliament. We know that a framework bill has been roundly criticised by stakeholders and parliamentary committees for the lack of detail about what would appear in primary legislation and what might appear in secondary legislation. That is not good enough, and it is why, during the first iteration of the bill, the committees put their scrutiny concerns on record with the DPLR committee, saying that the Scottish Government's approach is, quote, unacceptable and risks setting a dangerous precedent undermining the role of Parliament. I have said before that I can remember previous occasions when there were issues about financial memoranda. The Children and Young People's Bill and College Regionalisation would be two examples, but not ones that are so out of kilter with the ambitions of the bill presented, so lacking in detail and so risky to taxpayers. The Scottish Government yet again is guilty of negligence when it comes to the provision of baseline evidence to support the policy basis. One wonders how on earth ministers ended up in this situation. Everyone agrees the critical importance of the issue. Social care is increasingly a requirement for more and more in society, and that will continue to be saw due to demographic changes going forward. Of course, it has an impact on the wider health system as a potential blockage for delayed discharge and many other aspects of the wider system. It is absolutely critical that we get this correct. I welcome the Government's focus on taking the work forward and the commitment to provide long-term, sustainable solutions to the challenges that we face, not just in Scotland or the UK but internationally as well, and to build on the work of the failure review that lays out very clearly the steps that need to be taken. I think that the general principles—I suggest that everyone can agree with those, as articulated in the bill—has introduced the recognition that spending on social care is an investment in society, the need for financial stability, the commitment to fair work, the human rights focus and the importance of dignity, equality, inclusion and the commitment to co-design. I think that so far everyone can absolutely sign up to that. Unfortunately, the debate on the bill has spent much of its time recently focused on process, but it is important that we recognise that process is there for good reasons, and it is there to ensure that we make good legislation that delivers on the principles clearly articulated in the bill, so it is important to get that right. The health committee and other committees have already been recognised, identified, uncertainties in the proposals that have been laid out with significant changes from the bill as introduced compared to the proposals that have been agreed with the Government, and COSLA in the minister has been articulating over the past months and that are being taken forward in the co-design process. I very much welcome the provision by the minister and the Government of the target operating model that came out in the past two days and the fact sheet that has been sent to MSPs alongside that. I understand that the member has been asking for this target operating model for some time now. Does he think that it is acceptable that it only appears yesterday when there is no time for committee scrutiny? As Jackie Baill identifies, the committee has been asking for this information for a while. I am glad that it has come out before the debate in the Government to be fair and made the commitment that it would come out in advance of this debate. We would always love more time for scrutiny, and I will come on to talk about that as I take my remarks forward. I am also looking forward to the Scottish Government providing the stage 2 amendments, as asked for by the committee by 29 March, to enable the committee to take forward stage 2 scrutiny and extended stage scrutiny to meet the timetable laid out. I am glad that the minister has confirmed that those amendments will be coming forward to meet that date during the debate today. I know that the Government takes us very seriously as a priority because I understand that the team is working on that. Now numbers are 160 civil servants and we have been given assurances by civil servants that there is not a lack of resource working on developing those amendments and taking forward the proposals to thrash out the details of the bill as amended. One area that I would like to focus on briefly is the finance proposals in the operating model that I have had a look through over the past couple of days and the fact sheet that was provided and the responses from the minister. There is a commitment in there to have a clearer funding model with greater transparency. There is a provision for ministers and the board to fund specific activities and local activities directly in certain circumstances. Clarity from the minister seems to suggest that the bulk of the funding will continue to flow as it does presently. It is around £5 billion in total, either through health boards or local authorities. Some clarity on that would be helpful in exactly what is meant by providing greater transparency to the funding flow. One of the key priorities that is critical to get right for the whole sector is the pay rates in the sector. The commitment and delivery of the £12 minimum per hour is very welcome. It absolutely takes everyone to at least the real living wage. It shows that the mechanism is already in place to deliver that in advance of the bill. That increase in future increases towards £15 per hour helps to tackle the major challenges in the sector around recruitment and retention. Of course, notwithstanding the impact that Brexit has had on immigration restrictions and the lack of devolution of immigration to Scotland has had on hampering the sector very significantly, we all recognise that that period and taking forward the wider fair work agenda is absolutely critical. I want to make one point that that is not only to the benefit of the staff and those who are served within the social care sector. Because of the scale of the sector, any additional pay increases that are delivered to workers in the sector have a wider economic benefit, not just in terms of how that money is spent, but it also drives the labour market and the private sector to increase wages across other sectors that suffer from low wages. That is one of the most cost-effective ways that the Government can tackle poverty across society more and more generally. On the conclusion, I hope that the debate can now move on to issues of substance round about the Government's proposals and amendments to the format of the delivery of the national care service. I look forward to the details of the Government's amendments, as I do stakeholders do, so that they can start to take their positions on that. I look forward to the further evidence that will take at stage 2 in engagement with stakeholders in that regard. I welcome the Government's commitment to supporting the committee and others in that work. As I said at the outset, it is critically important that we get this right to deliver for current generations and, of course, for generations into the future. I thank the clerks and members for their participation in the process. The establishment of a national care service gives this Parliament the chance to be bold, ambitious and innovative. Members should take this opportunity and, indeed, the responsibility that comes with it seriously and act in a way that our constituents would expect. That is to read the report, act with conscience and truly decide whether the bill should progress to the next stage. I must say that I am extremely disappointed by the Government's approach to the progression of social care, but definitely the progression of the national care service, disappointed in their unwillingness to co-operate and disappointed in their inability to work with people to enhance that crucial piece of legislation. The minister's contribution at the start of this debate is not based on the reality of the past 10 years. When it was clear that the bill was not ready to proceed, a view that I am sure held by many SNP members on the committee, the Scottish Government pushed them to carry on and progress the bill. Indeed, last night, again, I pushed to vote against sensibly referring the bill back to the committee. I think that the contribution from the member before me shows that some people on the committee are considering the points in hand. I hope that we can, if it moves to stage 2, work together. The opportunity to improve the bill, to extend stage 1 and to take more time, was made available to the committee by Labour members. The report confirms that, but the SNP and the green members did not take that opportunity, sadly. Indeed, they pushed through a report that includes a Scottish Government in Cozledale that was not properly scrutinised, that agrees general principles that have changed significantly to those that were initially set out, and a report that is absolutely laden with requests for more evidence, further information. Anyone who reads the report will see that. Suggestions that that report or the evidence within it portrays a positive outlook on the Government's approach is absolutely absurd. Trade unions, third sector organisations, carers and those who receive care came to committee and to members individually to express serious concerns about the way that the bill was progressing, about the framework nature, about the lack of clarity, about the things that could ultimately be done now, but the SNP ignored it and they are pushing on anyway. Ross Foyer, when speaking about the commissioning service, proposed to set up, said, and I quote, our fear is that the sort of commissioning system that is being set up will neither address nor take forward fair work and collective bargaining issues in a way that gives us any surety. Indeed, after many steps taken by Government were ignored, the co-design process Rachel Cackett from CCPS summed up well the feeling many hold when she said, and I quote, there is not in my view a great sense that there is a clear connection between what is being heard and what is being delivered through the bill. Those are quotes from the STUC and the CCPS. If the Government is not listening to them, then many will be asking, who are they actually listening to? They have been irresponsible at a time of critical importance. They have played games with a crucial bill. A national care service is something that Labour has been calling on for years because if delivered properly, it will deliver that much-needed parity between health and social care, deliver for workers, deliver for carers, deliver for service users, but the Scottish Government, if it continues in its current direction, makes that proper and effective delivery highly unlikely. It is certainly not clear in this bill how it will deliver on those aims. The Scottish Government would have the public believe that to deliver Anne's law, for example, you need a national care service, and it is those of us fighting to improve the bill to deliver its full potential that the national service is needed. That could not be further from reality. This is the Government with a distant relationship with delivery, a Government that sat on its hands rather than delivered key policies. Anne's law could be delivered. I asked the minister to address the question raised by my colleague Monica Lennon and be clear that they will be looking to ensure that Anne's law is considered in other legislation as soon as possible. That would be supported across the benches. Throughout the committee process, my colleague Paul Sweeney and I called an expert advisory board, something that is not uncommon. That was rejected by the SNP. We called on the Government to bring forward its amendments before the conclusion of stage 1 to ensure proper scrutiny, rejected by the SNP, and we called on the bill to be referred back to committee after third sector organisations, trade unions and many other stakeholders said that the bill was not clear. That has been rejected by the SNP. Despite the minister's warm words, the SNP does not seem to be standing up for care in Scotland. In fact, it is standing in the way of care in Scotland, and its stubborn approach to the bill, as is clear in the stage 1 report, has proved just that. It is with great regret for the reasons outlined above that I will not be supporting the bill in its current form at stage 1. I thank Kevin Stewart to be followed by Gillian Mackay. The national care service bill offers us the opportunity to build care services that truly reflect our shared values of dignity, fairness and respect for all people. It gives us a chance to end postcode lotteries, the rationing of care and should to lead to more person-centred care and independence for people. The debate around the bill has concentrated heavily on power, process and pounds. Those are important issues, but the overarching priority of all that we have embarked on has to be people. It has to be people. We need a national care service that leaves no one behind and works relentlessly to support not just those in need of care, but also their families and the care workers who make it all possible. I will give way to Mr Balfour. I am grateful to Mr Stewart for taking the intervention. What one difference will this bill make to somebody who is in the seat of social care today or tomorrow? What one difference will it make to their rights? Kevin Stewart will make a difference and have a care service that is not only fit for today, but also right for tomorrow. The minister I know is working in great effort about today, but this is about the future as well. With an ageing population, we have to make sure that we get this absolutely spot-on right. The need for reform of our current care system is undeniable. The disjointed and inconsistent nature of our existing system all too often leaves many without the support that they desperately need. This often leads to crisis for folk and their families, which is expensive and has a massive human cost. Everyone, regardless of postcode, should have equal access to the social and healthcare support networks that they require, with national quality standards that must be met. The bill presents us with a chance to make that a reality. At the heart of the bill lies a vision for a more integrated and streamlined service in which resources, standards and expertise are there across Scotland, ensuring greater fairness and accessibility for all. We need to be focusing on self-directed support, independent living, the right to short-term breaks and law, and autonomy for front-line staff. However, the focus has been drifting away from that, and process and organisation have taken centre stage. Those are, of course, important, but we cannot become sidetracked as this risks the bill simply becoming a rebranding exercise. That is all about people and their needs, their hopes and their independence. The needs of people must come before the wishes of the bureaucrats, the politicians or those with vested interests who do not want to see any change at all. That must be a people-led service and not simply a service that does things to people. I am glad that the minister mentioned that there will be voices of lived experience on the national care board, but I also want to see the voices of lived experience on integrated joint boards, too. I hope that the minister will tell us more about that in our summing up. Fair work also needs to be at the heart of this change. Care workers must be treated as the professionals that they are, and we know that, where they are given autonomy, we get better outcomes for those in receipt of care and their carers. In a similar light, we need to accept that we rely on that army of unpaid carers who support family and friends. I recognise that this Government has gone further than any other in these islands to support those heroes, but the right to short-term breaks is vital and must be enshrined in law. At any one time, one in 25 Scots will need social care support. Most of us here have had or will need support in the future. We need a social care system that is not only right for today, but is fit for the future. I recognise, Presiding Officer, that change is often disconcerting, but change is required here. Derek Feely has told us so, many, many front-line staff have told us so, but most importantly, people have told us so. People who are in receipt of care and their carers want to see change, and they want to see change now. That is the most important and ambitious reform that there has been since the formation of the national health service, our most valued institution, a national health service that came about through a framework bill. I do not know what the difficulty is with framework bills, but it is time that we replicate that valued institution, the NHS, and match it with a national care service that works for people. Let us stop the dither and delay and get on with creating a national care service that meets the needs of all our people. I thank you very much. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I would like to echo the thanks from my committee colleagues, the clerks, and those who gave evidence to the committee. There is no doubt that there are glaring inequalities across the country in social care. The independent review of adult social care outlined significant challenges in the Scottish social care system. The review questioned the effectiveness of local authorities' commissioning practices with a structure based on time rather than outcomes, and one that is not responsive to people's wants and needs. The national care service bill is intended to put human rights at the centre of services. Many have welcomed an opportunity to end the postcode lottery in social care and the establishment of standardised delivery practices across Scotland. There are several aspects of the bill that I think most in this chamber would agree on. We all welcome An's law. We are supportive of the provisions to provide family members or other carers the same access rights as staff. I was very grateful to have met those campaigning for An's law outside Parliament earlier in the bill's progression. Their stories were traumatic and we should ensure that this can never happen again. I have raised previously that while I— I think that way or not. Yep, absolutely. Emma Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Julie Mackay. On your point about An's law, when we took evidence at committee around that, but also evidence from people with lived experience as well as Sam-H and the Alliance, so these people all supported getting on with the bill and taking it forward, is that what your read was when we took evidence from them? Julie Mackay. Absolutely. I thank Emma Harper for raising Sam-H in particular, because it was the mental health aspect for a lot of those carers, that trauma of being unable to get to their loved ones, that exacerbated some of the want and the need for An's law in the first place. I have raised previously that while I appreciate An's law currently, it is proposed to only relate to social care settings, giving what many, including my self-experience during the pandemic with loved ones in hospital, this, I believe, should be extended to those settings, too. We also all agree on the right to short breaks for carers. This will, however, need to have the appropriate monitoring in place to ensure that it is having the desired effect and is being delivered consistently across the country and crucially for all ages of carers. As a co-convener of the cross-party group on carers, we have also heard of the difficulties faced by some in knowing where to go for support and help, or not having been identified as a carer in the first place, and I hope that that is factored into the work that is on going on the bill. The general principles of the bill mark a shift in the way that care is considered. We particularly welcome the positive language around the valuation of care, which describes care as an investment in society. The aspirations in the bill, such as recognising that meeting individuals' needs is essential for achieving their human rights and that fair work principles should be key to the delivery of those services, are essential to changing the way that care is currently delivered. We have heard from many organisations and individuals about the appetite that many have for change and reform to social care. The bill lays the foundations for a national care service, allowing for a big part of the substantive detail to be co-designed with people who access support, those who deliver it and unpaid carers. I have been clear in committee that we need to ensure that, for those who are involved in the co-design process, that this is done in a sustainable manner. There are a huge number of work streams, and we need to make sure that those who are giving their experience are supported to do so without any detrimental effect on them. Structural reorganisation will only go part of the way to realise the ambition of change and reform in social care. Delivery and implementation of change is vital both locally and nationally to make a real difference to social care. That will also have to be carefully monitored to ensure that it is having the desired outcomes. While framework bills are difficult to scrutinise, I believe that this is where one of the potential strengths of the legislation lies. The ability to analyse the impact of reform then adapt what is in the secondary legislation to improve outcomes, correct any unintended consequences and adapt to new circumstances. I believe that this is the right thing to do with appropriate scrutiny mechanisms attached. We must be wary that having a legal duty to collaborate does not, in itself, lead to effective collaboration, and much of it relies on consistent leadership and cultures across health and social care, which we have heard is not a reality everywhere. General engagement towards the bill's general principles has been positive. We have heard in committee that there remains concerns about how some of those principles would be achieved in practice. If we want this national care service to be as successful as possible, we must ensure that it is viable and addresses the issues flagged at this stage. I welcome the committee's commitment to a more in-depth stage 2 process and look forward to hearing more evidence from organisations and individuals on any potential changes. Several important stakeholders recommend that the bill passes at this stage and have also been clear that there are substantial amendments that need to be made at stage 2. The health and social care alliance, for example, recommended amendments that support the full and equal membership of people with lived experience in reform day IJBs and the national care service board. That would include being given full voting rights and a duty to include multiple lived experience members to be considered to core it. I also believe that there should be workforce representation on those boards. There is very little time, Presiding Officer, to get through everything that I would have liked to, but the establishment of a national care service must be informed by the voices of lived experience, including those who access support and care, the workforce and unpaid carers. The national care service offers an opportunity to improve people's experiences of rights-based, person-centred social care if implemented in a way that responds to the concerns and experiences of people accessing social care, the workforce and implements the recommendations of the independent review of adult social care. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I should declare that I am in receipt of social care. In many ways, politics should be about prudence. One philosopher famously said that he preferred the actual to the possible. That is as much better philosophy for conducting our politics than aiming for something that may seem good in principle but would crumble in practice. We owe it to individuals and to carers and the taxpayer to be prudent when making policy, which is why I am in favour of performing our current social care system rather than building something completely new. We must acknowledge that respondents have real concerns about social care and we have to listen to their lived experience. To diminish those experiences would be very wrong. However, that does not mean that the only way forward is wholesale change. We all want a more efficient social care system in Scotland, but the underlying issue will not be addressed by simply structural change alone. We have heard, if you read the consultation responses, that the main difficulties in social care are challenges such as finding suitable funding and hanging on to good staff. Those kinds of problems will remain regardless of national care service is implemented. Until we address the root issues, it would be much better to target these problems to reform what we have rather than having a complete overhaul. This bill does not honour either those who receive social care or those that work in social care. It lacks a sense of detail which makes our jobs very hard as the policies are impossible to scrutinise properly. Key specifics of the bill rest on secondary legislation, and we cannot know what it will mean for those living their lives today and in the future. For example, there is no explanation of how the bill will affect relationships with existing local share structures, or how a national care service could be equipped to respond to local concerns. In addition, areas such as data, employment implications and individual rights and responsibilities are all left completely to secondary legislation. Those are hugely important areas that should be addressed in primary legislation to guarantee full parliamentary scrutiny. Securing those details in the primary legislation stage would not diminish the ability to be responsible and flexible during secondary legislation, but it would give us as parliamentarians and those that we represent confidence that the bill had the appropriate power that it required. Social care cannot wait for the national care service. There needs to be decisions made now. Social care is too important. The bill is presented as distracting us from solving the real problems that we have. That people like myself and others who have crossed Scotland live with day in and day out. The bill also does not guarantee meaningful accountability from Government ministers. There is no provision for how the principles of the national care service will be monitored, evaluated or enforced. Section 2.2 of the bill says everything that the Scottish ministers do in discharging that duty is to be done in a way that seems to them to best reflect national care service principles. So the minister becomes judge and jury. Where is the more effective successful metrics for success? I am not convinced that a centralized service will provide better care than is currently being offered locally. A centralized body cannot know the exact situation of every community in Scotland. We live in a diverse country with diverse needs. The concerns of care workers and people who need care are very different depending on where you live in the country. It cannot be the same up and when off of Scotland as it is here in the central belt. Those who have rural issues will be different from those of us that represent urban constituents. Presiding Officer, there is no value of money for the taxpayer in this bill. The effect of centralising social care is that the organisational and administration costs will well balloon and be very much unwieldy than we have currently. The result of that will be a dramatic increase in bureaucracy, which will do nothing for the efficiency and, crucially, will not do anything for those that need the care and for those that provide the care. Those funds will be better off going to social care workers on the front line instead of going into a bottomless pit of bureaucracy. Presiding Officer, I will not be supporting this bill at stage 1. It does not effectively tackle the challenges that currently exist in social care. It is an enabling bill but does not provide the required level of detail to stand up to parliamentary scrutiny. There is no provision in this bill for accountability. It is down to a subjective judgment of Government ministers. Of course, this bill does not give the taxpayer value for money. Thank you. I call Colin Smith to be followed by Ruth Maguire. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I daily rarely passed at the height of the Covid pandemic when constituents didn't raise with me their heartbreaking experiences, not being able to visit loved ones and care homes because we didn't get a act together over testing social care packages being removed, the pressure people felt to sign do not attempt to resuscitate forms, care home staff frightened because they didn't have PPE and the appalling death rate among those in later life. The human rights of older people were cast aside when the big decisions were being made. Nicola Sturgeon promised to build out of the Covid crisis a positive legacy of a national care service. It was a chance to put social care on the same level as our NHS, to create parity, to ensure that services were fully funded, properly staffed, met national standards, but were delivered locally and were accountable to local people. However, the Scottish Government have squandered that promise with this bill. We know that this Government is obsessed by framework bills or rather empty frame bills, but, even by its standards, the bill is ill-judged, ill-thought-through and incoherent. There has been almost universal criticism, unison, unite, the RCN, the Royal College of Physicians, so many others who support a national care service but are opposed to this bill. Care providers and those with lived experience, Audit Scotland, COSLA have all been scathed in, so too have this Parliament's committees. The local government and housing committee called for a full business case before the bill is voted on. It has not happened. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee said that the bill undermines Parliament, the education, children and young people committee slam moves to centralise children's services still on the cards. The Finance Committee said that the lack of a credible financial memorandum breached our standing orders and, as Jackie Baill said earlier, they have looked at this bill twice and they still don't believe the numbers. Even the Health and Social Care Committee in its water down stage 1 report is unclear how the Government's national care service would even operate in practice. No wonder private profiteering from big-care home owners, inadequate funding, high vacancy rates, low pay, poor terms and conditions, the absence of sectoral collective bargaining have been all ignored in this bill and were ignored by the minister today. There is a lack of detail. Big questions remain unanswered. So many issues are unaddressed. Common wheel and their briefing to MSPs highlights several glaring examples. Here is just a few. The absence of a clear purpose statement which sets the need for creating a national care service in the first place. No provision for how resources will be determined or allocated little clarity on who will be responsible for delivering or enforcing that crucial human rights-based approach. Nothing on transitional arrangements, little on fair work principles, including national terms and conditions. Despite that, the SNP in Greens, such as a 1960 movie, are determined to carry on regardless. Only there is nothing funny about presiding with a bill today that is so fundamentally flawed. If the Government were serious about salvaging this wreck of building consensus, they would have published their planned amendments before this debate. Yesterday the bill should have been referred back to committee to revisit stage 1, to properly scrutinise those amendments and allow those of us who are not on the committee to debate what may be fundamental changes before we vote on the principles of the bill. Either those amendments don't exist or the Government know they won't allay the legitimate concerns. It's not good enough for ministers to slip out an operating model that no one has seen, never mind, scrutinised ahead of this debate. May well the crisis in Gullfin or social care continues. Age Scotland wrote to the cabinet secretary recently and rightly said, older people in Scotland cannot wait for the delivery of the national care service to fix our care system. A system where delayed discharge goes unabated, where people are struggling to get a care assessment, where more and more care homes are closing one a week according to Scottish care and where older people are left stuck in hospital due to a lack of carers. Ivan McKee said there's about 160 civil servants working on this bill. That's about the same number of vacancies that are in the care sector for home care workers in Dumfries in Galloway. The Covid crisis has been replaced by a care crisis. We need action now, not in four years' time, such as on Anne's law and the right to breaks. The SNP and Greens have cynically chosen to tie people's rights to see loved ones in care homes and the right to respite to this wrongly rejected bill. It's simply untrue to argue that those can only be delivered through this bill and it should get on with fulfilling the promise to families that were so badly let down during the pandemic. The mishandling of this bill has been a complete distraction from delivering on these and other social care issues, but it is symbolic of the Scottish Government's approach to policy and legislation over the last 16 years. Issue of press release full of hyperbowl, dismissed stakeholders' concerns, steamroll through legislation and leave the details until later. The sad thing is that this impacts on people's lives. It means that vulnerable members of a society, mainly older people who need support, won't get it when they need it. The Scottish Government's so-called national care service plans were launched to so much fanfare. They were described as the biggest public sector reform since devolution. Parallels were even drawn with the creation of the NHS after the Second World War, but just saying something in a press release doesn't make it so. When the NHS was created in 1945, that was real public sector reform. It replaced a broken private healthcare system with a universal free, at the point of delivery, comprehensive service. It had a transformational impact on working people's lives and still does today. The Scottish National Party's plans are a pale in comparison. This bill is frankly not worthy of the title of national care service. I call Ruth Maguire, the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The establishment of a national care service can be one of the most significant reforms of public services since the creation of the national health service. The significance of this work is reflected in the volume and breadth of contributors to the committee's scrutiny, and indeed in the number of briefings colleagues will have received for this debate. I'm really grateful to everyone who continues to share their experience and expertise. I think that it's fair to say that the case for change in social care is unassailable and everyone agrees that it's necessary. The committee's certainly heard that loud and clear. There is a need for all our citizens to have access to consistently high-quality social care support across Scotland whenever they might need it. We all, I'm sure, want our social care workforce to flourish and would support the Scottish Government's goal of future-proofing the social care sector to be realised for generations to come and for people coming into the profession. I've not been a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for very long, however, recognised through both previous work as a local councillor and member of an integrated joint board through previous and current parliamentary committee work and perhaps most significantly for me in my current constituency work, the importance for our nation of getting care right and the devastating costs to individuals, families, workers and communities when we don't. We have here in Scotland a brilliant committed workforce within the public and third sector and a legion of unpaid carers delivering high-quality care to the best availability in some terribly difficult situations. We also have pockets of really excellent practice and services which enrich lives. But there are also far too many people whose needs are not being met. Too many people in hospital wards where they should be at home recovering. Too many people waiting for adaptations to their homes to make them safe and enable them to live independently with dignity. And too many people assessed as requiring services and interventions to realise their human rights but not receiving them because of budget constraints or distance from services or workforce shortages or rigid and flexible approaches from institutions. To change those things I support the principle of forming a national care service for Scotland to ensure that our citizens get the care they are entitled to to live dignified lives and where public bodies do not meet their obligations they are held to account. The convener of the committee Claire Hockey laid out well the huge amount of work undertaken by the health, social care and sport committee to scrutinise the principle of forming a national care service and thank to all involved. I echo those thanks. The committee report is lengthy and substantial with the summary of recommendations alone running to 15 pages. I do not intend to go through them all in this debate. There has been a lot of discussion about scrutiny. Seven committees have reviewed the bill in the 20 months since it was introduced and the Scottish Government has met thousands of people to discuss the national care service. I am serious about my responsibilities as a parliamentarian and of course process is important but I do agree that we will be letting folk down if we allow ourselves to get too tangled up in procedural delay rather than get on with the important work of scrutiny and amendment to this Government legislation. Committee members now have the requested target operating model and I understand that committee clerks and Scottish Government officials are in the process of discussing stage 2 amendments to ensure that sufficient time is built into the timetable to allow for scrutiny and further evidence to be taken. I know that every member of the committee will approach that task with the vigor and sincerity that it requires. In closing, I want to acknowledge that the committee was not united in our conclusions and that the support of members who did not dissent was not unconditional. The report reflects that and this debate has given us all an opportunity to expand on the personal positions that we hold. Presiding Officer, there is a great deal of work to be done at stage 2 and 3 to ensure that this bill achieves its potential. For me, one of the key things will be around accountability. Supporters of a national care service and perhaps particularly those with lived experience will want to know what exactly will be different. As part of that, the national care service will have clear accountability and a fair escalation and redress process for when things do not go right. I hope that, should Parliament agree to the general principles this evening, we can all come together and make sure that the important reforms are the best that they can be for the people of Scotland. Thank you and we move to closing speeches. I call on Paul Sweeney up to six minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer. The minister at the outset of the debate this afternoon said that we need change and we certainly agree on these benches but as the GMB Scotland's general secretary, Louise Gilmour, said that the national care service is going nowhere slowly. As my colleagues before me it is a matter of sincere regret that Labour will not be able to support the general principles of the national care service. This afternoon, because indeed a national care service has been a long standing policy position of this party, it was an idea proposed by this party over a decade ago and indeed it was a matter of consensus that emerged in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic as my colleague Mr Smith just said, the parity of esteem between the national care service and NHS is a clear mission statement that we can agree with. But as many good ideas when they reach the hands of the Scottish Government they seem to go there to die. Providing a universal, yes, happy to give way. Kevin Stewart. I thank Mr Sweeney for giving way. He says that it's with regret that they'll vote against stage one here today. Can I ask him how much engagement he and his colleagues have had with the Government around about the national care service? Paul Sweeney. I can say certainly on the committee that we have tried repeatedly to engage constructively with Government ministers and indeed I believe that that ties across two committees in which I have been a member of in recent months including when the gentleman was a minister in this role he came before the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and made the repeated dubious assertion that framework bills were a matter of normal practice that indeed the National Health Service Bill of 1947 was a framework bill. I'm afraid the Hansard Society disagrees with him and indeed the National Health Service Scotland Bill of 1947 was around twice the length of this proposed framework bill so I have to dispute his points on that and there are critical critical fundamental issues with it that remain outstanding indeed in an effort to repair relationships such as the derision with which this current draft legislation has been held by key stakeholders the government has been trying to run a PR offensive over the last 24 hours indeed I just had sight of a PR statement from the government just published that the National Care Service will provide support to anyone in Scotland who needs it through social work social care support for carers, primary care and community health services has been at the end of its press release says that the bill allows Scottish ministers to transfer social care responsibility from local authorities to a new national care service that can include adult and children services as well as areas such as justice social work Scottish ministers was also able to transfer healthcare functions from the NHS to the proposed national care service well which is it we are not getting clarity on this definition even in the same press release a comprehensive service is that what is being proposed or are Scottish ministers still undecided about what will happen with children and justice services and social work and so on the definition simply is not there we do not have confidence in this draft legislation at stage 1 Presiding Officer we hope that the government's national care service bill would provide the transformation that has been alluded to by members on the government side today but the reality is that the framework bill has published no longer reflects what the bill will become it is a travesty and it is a usurpation of the parliamentary process the conservative spokesman made the point that the law society raised concern about the tendency towards skeleton bills as has the handsar society indeed I mentioned earlier the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on this very matter that it risks undermining the role of Parliament and I noted that Ms Mackay from the Scottish Greens said that the potential is there for flexibility in framework bills and I note that point but the reality is that that does not preclude us from now at this stage defining key aspects of this bill and creating a baseline it requires ministerial leadership it requires heft from the government the mission orientation that we saw from the government of 1945 that built the national health service sadly sorely lacking 75 years on that's what we need to see today Presiding Officer yet it has been sorely lacking and it is not good enough we need to be clear that we take no joy or enthusiasm for not being able to support the bill at stage one because we've engaged throughout this in good faith and I'm sure all members of the health and social care and sport committee can agree that we very reluctantly had to part on that final page of recommendations but we were largely together on a lot of the substance of this it was the fact that there are fundamental issues of lack of definition at this stage that was simply not good enough and simply not mature enough to pass Parliament that is the role of Parliament to stand up for the people of Scotland and ensure the legislation that is passed on to the statute books is of sufficient quality to ensure that people's lives are improved and that is not what we can have confidence at this stage there is major issues around the stakeholders as I mentioned the my colleague Carl Mocken had outlined that in her speech the STUC say that the bill as proposed does not address the key issues that undermine the provision of social care the Royal College of Physicians say serious concern must be given to whether we continue with the current proposals and the Royal College of Nursing say that we are extremely concerned that they are pushing ahead as it stands and we'll do nothing to address the current crisis and the co-design process is much lauded by the Government in which we certainly on the face of it would like to support in good faith the stakeholders have come back to tell us that that process has had no transparency no common reference points to CCPS the coalition of care and support providers in Scotland have said there's no clear connection between what is being heard and what is being delivered in the bill and I think that was characterised by the speech by the member for Aberdeen Central granular language that sadly no real substance reflected in the actual text of the bill which we have interrogated in committee so that is why fundamentally we cannot support this bill Presiding Officer with great reluctance and I mentioned that in 1947 we had a bill for the national health service of 81 sections and 90 pages this bill has drafted of 38 pages and 48 sections simply falls far too short I urge parliamentarians to reject at stage 1 thank you and I call on Tess White up to seven minutes please thank you Presiding Officer I've been a carer myself no one should underestimate the importance of our social care system for the physical, social and emotional well-being of society but as we've repeatedly heard this afternoon social care is at a breaking point under this SNP government and vulnerable people are on a precipice as Jeremy Balfour rightly says social care cannot wait for a national care service it's too important in 12 years time one in four people will be over the age of 65 that means more people living with complex health and care needs accessing a system that is already in crisis from staffing levels to care home closures there simply isn't the capacity to meet growing demand of course reform is needed the system cannot sustain itself like this and there is consensus this afternoon around that point but how that change is going to be achieved is separate and it's clearly a contentious question the Feely review put forward a new approach the Scottish Conservatives supported many of the report's recommendations but we do not agree with the top-down concept of centralising social care we want to see urgent investment in the sector preserve local democratic accountability through a local care service and we want to avoid any unnecessary structural reforms in ordinary circumstances presiding officer this would simply be a divergence of policy between political parties but these aren't ordinary circumstances far from it the stage 1 deadline for the national care service bill has changed four times since the legislation was first introduced in June 2022 the implementation date has been kicked down the road by three years from 2026 to 2029 spiralling costs show that the government is making it up as you go along figures of 2.2 billion pounds and then today 3,345 million pounds not to mention the millions spent on the army of civil servants trying to keep the proposals afloat how can you cost something presiding officer if you really don't know what that something is the goalposts keep changing as my colleague Liz Smith highlighted no fewer than four parliamentary committees roundly criticised the first iteration of the framework bill they pointed to serious issues about the lack of consultation and detail in the bill significant concerns in relation to the costings the process set out in the bill being insufficient to allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and that it risks setting a dangerous precedent undermining the role of parliament Ruth Maguire today called it a can be SNP MSP Michelle Thompson said in a meeting of the finance committee she had no confidence whatsoever in the level of detail found in the ncs bill financial memorandum SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said introducing the plans were a sledgehammer to crack a nut and a monumental risk hardly a ringing endorsement from the SNP backbenches last summer a controversial backroom deal on shared accountability arrangements between the Scottish Government COSLA and the NHS was supposed to provide greater clarity on the bill according to the disgraced former health secretary Michael Matheson point of order Michelle Thompson very much Presiding Officer for granting this point of order I wasn't able to intervene on the speaker today but I think the record should be accurate the quote she states me making is correct but it was at the first financial memorandum and I want to make clear that in my opinion the Scottish Government went away and did a great deal of work on the subsequent financial matters and therefore it's disingenuous of Tess White to quote in that way Thank you Ms Thompson I'm sure all members will be aware that the content of members contributions is not generally a matter for the chair and members will be aware too of the mechanism that exists where any inaccuracy exists Ms White Thank you Presiding Officer I'm pleased that Michelle Thompson said that was a correct quote but from the Royal College of Nursing to Unison and many more Let us hear Ms White Point of order Kenneth Gibson The member is trying to mislead the chamber I also made those comments about the first iteration of the financial memorandum and I think she should be clear about that for the rest of the chamber Thank you Thank you I will refer back to my previous response Mr Gibson Thank you for designing offer I wish there was as much clarity in the stage 1 bill process and scrutiny that is being provided It does show that my colleagues can actually scrutinise when they need to but from the Royal College of Nursing to Unison and many more besides stakeholders are clear that developments last summer have just breached their trust and muddied the waters even more Presiding Officer the National Care Service Bill has been touted by the First Minister as the most ambitious reform of public services since the creation of the NHS but this has been a masterclass from SNP ministers in how not to legislate and it's a dog's dinner The party of the defunct GRR Bill the delayed deposit return scheme and the dormant hate crime bill has struck again This isn't just about policy it's about process and that process is a sham Today Julian Mackay asked Emma Harper about self-directed support these are just the kind of questions Presiding Officer that need to be ironed out in advance of the parliamentary passage of the Bill We're in the extraordinary position of being asked to agree to the general principles of a framework Bill that has changed so significantly we don't know what we're voting on As Ivan Mackay pointed out today it was only yesterday and he didn't say only sadly it was only yesterday that a model was shared and that's a week after the committee finalised its report If no one is alarmed they should be Presiding Officer it is disrespectful to the parliamentary process The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee Stage 1 report is a well-written report and I think we all agree on that but as Dr Sandesh Gulhane emphasised in his own remarks the SNP Green Majority Committee has ultimately nodded the Bill through with too many unanswered questions as I've outlined two examples There may be caveats and conditions in the report that support that but there are no consequences that is not threshold of scrutiny that the Scottish Conservatives can get behind you've had your chance and you didn't say anything during the committee process Always through the chair please The social care sector is deeply concerned the Bill is becoming a battleground A point of order We cannot lose Ms White Point of order, Clare Haughey Thank you, Presiding Officer It's my understanding of standing orders that members should treat each other with courtesy and should address each other via the chair Can you confirm that that's correct? That is the very point that I did just make Ms Haughey Ms White Thank you, Presiding Officer Pot Kettle Presiding Officer The social care sector Ms White Sorry I am aware of some comments being made I cannot hear them clearly I am aware of comments being responded to and again I would just underline the need for all members at all times to treat one another with courtesy and respect and to remember that as we go about our work in this Parliament Ms White Presiding Officer Presiding Officer The social care sector is deeply concerned this Bill is becoming a battleground We cannot lose sight of those people who require care nor of those people who work so hard to provide it Ramming legislation through on a wing and a prayer will serve no one especially the taxpayer who keeps picking up the SNP's legal bills when it eventually and inevitably goes on and including Presiding Officer For these reasons the Scottish Conservatives cannot vote for the general principles of this Bill at decision time and I urge others to do the same Thank you Thank you and I call on Marie Todd to wind up the debate and if you could take us to 5pm minister Thank you Presiding Officer I'd like to close this debate by thanking everyone for their contributions social care and community health services in Scotland need reform urgently We know it our stakeholders know it and the thousands of people who are impacted by social care who have spoken to us know it and I believe that all of us in the chamber know that too While we're working hard to implement changes now the reality is that we need longer term widespread reform to fix some of the issues that are ingrained within the system people across the country deserve better and that is what the national care service bill will bring My colleague Jackie Baillie talked about the bill focusing on the wrong things she noted culture support for workforce eligibility criteria et cetera Now I would refer you to the NCS Charter to the ethical commissioning and to fair work that are embedded in that principles in the bill set out a very clear path embedding human rights will address the issues around eligibility and holding people to account for delivering to meet need on the point of fair work one of the agreed core functions of the national care service is to oversee and to provide assurance on local strategic plans ethical commissioning strategies to ensure fair work principles will be applied consistently across the country certainly Jackie Baillie I think the minister has managed to invite to it can I say join together all of the trade unions unite the GMB the STUC unison in a common view they want all this on the face of the bill why won't she do that minister so I'm happy to continue to work with the unions on delivering on fair work and to reassure them on what requires what we need to do to deliver fair work because I agree with the unions in me they have a minister who absolutely believes in fair work who knows the transformation that fair work can bring to our health and social care system and I'm determined to deliver it now Jackie Baillie also made some criticism of the right to breaks cost estimates and I'm not sure if she has read the updated NCS bill financial memorandum which was submitted in December 23 it sets out cost estimates for the right to breaks that increased gradually over 10 years to between 155 million and 225 million per year now as part of the modelling assumptions that have had to be made because of the level of uncertainty upper and lower estimates are given as the demand and the scale of provision is expected to build over time estimated costs are given for a longer time period than for other aspects of the bill and officials have been as one would expect discussing these estimates with statutory and carer stakeholders to ensure that they are as accurate as possible now Ivan McKee talked about the funding flows through the local government and the NHS yes that is going to be continuing but we will provide further work on transparency including potentially independent chairs we will have national oversight of local strategic plans we will have direct funding in specific and agreed circumstances only that would apply to things like the real living wage uplifts for commissioned staff regional and national commissioning of specialist services that will promote transparency of spend within the system Kevin Stewart is absolutely correct to talk about the voice enhancing the voice of lift experience we've accepted the recommendation from the Fili review to voting rights to be given to all public partners service users, carers workforce representatives on integration authority boards and we'll take this forward in secondary legislation certainly Jeremy Balfour I'm grateful to the minister for giving away we all want to see those with lift experience involved in the whole process there's no disagreement about that but why can't that process take place before the bill was introduced have the scheme worked out with those with lift experience and then let Parliament scrutinise actual proposals rather than doing it after and when Parliament can't be involved in the process I have heard this plea many times and I will deal with it in more detail as I move on through my closing speech but there is no doubt in my mind that we need to act with pace on this issue people, as we have heard have been waiting for a very long time without their voices being heard and I am determined that they will be absolutely central to the development of this bill Gillian Mackay I'd like to proceed a little further Gillian Mackay, as ever, made wise and thoughtful and constructive suggestions and as always I will look forward to working with her on the specific issues she raises around Anne's law in hospital and around the monitoring of implementation on short-spreaks that is exactly the sort of thing that the national care service bill could deliver on Anne's law let me reiterate the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to delivering Anne's law Anne's law fits well into the national care service bill because that bill embeds human rights into our social care system uncoupling Anne's law from the national care service would be unlikely to speed up the process for delivery and it may even mean that it takes longer now of course we have not waited for the legislation and we are seeing positive results from having used existing powers to strengthen the health and social care standards and guidance for care homes thereby laying the foundation of Anne's law now and of course once the NCS bill has passed and is enacted we look forward to commencing Anne's law as fast as possible as soon as is practically possible once that is passed certainly Monica Lennon I'm very grateful to the minister for giving way and I'm glad she's giving so much attention to Anne's law I know that Anne's family are listening her husband Campbell Duke is listening her daughter Natasha will be listening and it's actually what they have to say that we all need to listen to can I appeal to the minister that between now and stage 2 if that's where we're heading that time can be made in her diary and with the Government to listen to the families like Anne's family and so many others who are not visitors they are essential caregivers and that nothing is taken off the table because we all agree in here Anne's law should be a reality it's long overdue and if there's a quicker and more effective route to that let's not rule it out minister minister so I can assure the member that I already already regularly meet with the care home families and I must publicly thank Campbell for the beautiful book he gave me a beautiful tribute to his wife and if anybody this legislation is so important to deliver for so many people around Scotland and I would appeal to absolutely everybody in this chamber to work constructively to deliver it for families like those of Anne who's absolutely I listen to them on a very very regular basis their words power me and strengthen me day in day out in this process now Emma Harper asked us to consider nutritional standards I'm very happy to do that there was a question around social work social work is a statutorily prescribed role which involves assessing need managing risk promoting and protecting the wellbeing of individuals and communities and because of that social workers is a protected title with social workers being responsible for the restarging of statutory duties within a complex legal framework created to protect the human rights of individuals now the Feeley review recommended establishing a specific social work agency for oversight of professional development and that's what we're going to do in partnership with the social work profession um the minister must conclude I'm afraid the minister must conclude okay so I am very grateful for everyone's input today it has been an extensive and thorough stage one which has been I think to our benefit I have truly listened to the feedback we've had both from members on all seven committees and importantly importantly from the people with lived experience we have heard from literally thousands of people right across Scotland the changes I am proposing at stage 2 where appropriate will take account of all that I have heard and as I said yesterday far from asking us to slow down the people who are trying to access social care in Scotland today want us to speed up this bill is the culmination of significant work research and evidence gathered out over a number of years most importantly it has been shaped by the insight we have gathered from those thousands of people right across Scotland we know how our current system works and where the improvements can happen I am proud to have designed a bill that is so directly influenced by the people you must conclude minister and work from it I must insist that you conclude I look forward to seizing this opportunity and to working with cross-party colleagues to deliver thank you that concludes the debate on the national care service Scotland bill at stage 1 it's now time to move on to the next item of business which is consideration of motion 12093 in the name of Shona Robison on a financial resolution for the national care service Scotland bill and I call on Marie Todd to move the motion moved thank you minister the question on this motion will be put at decision time there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business the first question is that motion 12331 in the name of Marie Todd on national care service Scotland bill at stage 1 be agreed are we all agreed the parliament is not agreed therefore we'll move to a vote and there'll be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system