To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to council leaders withdrawing support for its National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. (S6T-02122)

The national care service is about improving lives and ending the inconsistency of care provision across Scotland. Reform is needed; Derek Feeley’s recommendations were clear. The thousands of people we have spoken to who receive or provide care agree, so it is disappointing that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has taken that step. We have worked extensively with it on its concerns for almost two years and made a series of substantial changes at its request.

Uppermost in our minds—and, I am sure, in COSLA’s mind—are the needs of the people who rely on care services. In that spirit, we will continue to work with individual councils and, where it is willing, COSLA on these matters, as well as with colleagues across the chamber. In the meantime, we will continue to work to invest in and improve social care services in Scotland.

The bill does not resemble the recommendations of the Feeley review. The truth is that the withdrawal of COSLA follows the withdrawal of all three social care trade unions—the GMB, Unite and Unison—and comes in the face of criticism from national health service chief executives and board chairs, and clear disappointment from the third sector as to the lack of vision. The substance of the bill is to create another quango that is not expected to be established until 2028 or 2029. It does nothing to improve social care now. Does the cabinet secretary agree with his predecessor and former employer Alex Neil that this is a “nonsensical bill”, and will he pause stage 2 to take the time to get it right?

The first area that Jackie Baillie covered was the recommendations of the Feeley review. The reason why there has been a departure from that is because of the work that we have done with COSLA to find a compromise position that would allow us to move forward, which is why I say that I am more than a little disappointed that we arrived at the position that we arrived at on Friday. We reached agreement on the vast majority of issues, which were worked through on a tripartite basis, in order to make progress. We all agree that there needs to be reform, but it is what that reform looks like that will be important. That is why I am committed to still maintaining dialogue not just with local authority leaders but with colleagues across Parliament.

Some elements of the stage 2 amendments—the amendments around children’s and justice services, direct funding and the removal of board members—were paused at the request of COSLA. Those discussions have not started up again. I am more than disappointed that COSLA arrived at that position on Friday before concluding those discussions.

There is no doubt that the cabinet secretary would want to talk to COSLA, but I do not think that he has been listening to it. The Scottish Government has revealed that it is spending almost £1 million a month on civil servants working on the bill. More than £2 million has been spent on private sector consultants. The cost to date has been well over £10 million, and all that we have to show is botched legislation that very few people support and which will not make a difference to social care now.

At the same time, care packages are being cut, direct payments are being slashed, services are being removed and staff are leaving. Councillor Chris Cunningham has appealed to the Scottish National Party Government for help to fill the £112 million black hole in the health and social care budget for Glasgow. That is the story in health and social care partnerships across Scotland. What will the cabinet secretary do to help social care right now, before it runs into more difficulty?

There are a number of areas to cover in Jackie Baillie’s question. On the first, regarding our interactions with COSLA, we have agreed that local government would retain existing statutory responsibility, staff, assets and functions, so there would be no removal of functions from local authorities.

We have also agreed to reform the existing integration joint boards instead of introducing new local care boards. The proposed new national care service board is a partnership, and we agreed with local government that it would be part of that partnership, and not subordinate. It is not a ministerial board, but a joint board.

We have been listening to COSLA and we have acted on its asks, including on pausing those elements of the bill on which we have still to reach agreement. That is why Friday’s decision was pre-emptive, because we still have areas to conclude.

With regard to what we are doing now, Jackie Baillie is right that the bill is about how we improve the current social care experience both for those who work in it and for those who receive services. We have achieved our target of increasing social care spending two years early, and we will continue to work with partnerships on improving the picture with regard to delayed discharge and other areas, as we have been doing over the summer, so that there is discernible progress and improvement for the people who need and expect our services to reform and improve.

There is broad agreement that there is a need for reform in social care to ensure that there are consistent standards across the country. It is very disappointing, therefore, that, after a considerable period of hard work to reach consensus, some people now appear to be playing politics and are refusing to work together. Will the cabinet secretary join me in calling on everyone who is involved to get back around the table and work together so that we can deliver the vital reforms to social care and community health that we all know are needed in order to meet the current and future needs of people across Scotland?

Yes, I will. I reiterate that the intention for a national care service, and for the bill, is about improving people’s lives and the quality of care—it is not about party politics. It is crucial that we continue to ensure that the people who use or work in social care, social work or community healthcare services are at the heart of our reforms. They have told us time and again that the system needs fundamental and sustainable change, and many stakeholders remain committed to working together for the people whom they serve. For example, this morning, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard from NHS leaders, who reiterated their willingness to achieve those aims. We will continue to work with individual councils, and the door is open should COSLA wish to engage, too.

Despite councils withdrawing support and NHS chief executives blasting the SNP’s proposals, the Government continues to push forwards with its unpopular and unworkable plan for a centralised care service. A total of £28.7 million has already been spent in the current session of Parliament on work relating to the national care service. As we have heard, the care sector is on its knees. When will the cabinet secretary commit to directing future funding to improve social care now, instead of continuing with this disastrous policy?

We are doing that already; we have met our target two years early for increasing our investment in social care, so delivering on that ask from Tess White is already under way.

With regard to where NHS chief executive and chairs are, Tess White will have heard them say this morning, at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, that they agree with the premise of a national care service and with the direction of travel and the aims that we are attempting to achieve. We will work with anybody who is looking to take forward the national care service in a way that ensures that we improve the situation for those who are in receipt of social care and, critically, for those who work within it, because we need to improve the standards and provide greater consistency for both those groups.

The cabinet secretary just said that the Government has increased investment in social care. In Fife, this week, they are cutting support for respite care in half and cutting care packages by £5 million, so they are reducing, not increasing, expenditure. Meanwhile, the cabinet secretary’s bill, which is supposed to solve all the issues in 2028, is losing supporters by the day.

When will the cabinet secretary understand that the bill is not the answer? He needs to focus on the fundamentals of social care in a way that is designed to help vulnerable people and the NHS. That, not the bill, is what we need.

With respect to Willie Rennie, I think that those who are in receipt of social care would disagree with him. Many who have provided evidence on the bill say that it is the way forward to provide consistency, both for those in receipt of social care and for those who work with them. It is a fact that we have increased investment in social care—that is there for all to see.

I am conscious of the decisions that are being made in partnerships across the country. During the summer, we engaged to try to ensure that social care is prioritised in order to improve the situation on delayed discharge. Unfortunately, some decisions are making that more difficult.