Social Covenant Steering Group minutes: January 2024

Attendees and apologies

Social Covenant Steering Group Members

• Marion McArdle
• Cathie Russell
• Dr Jim Elder-Woodward
• Dr Pauline Nolan
• Shubhanna Hussain-Ahmed
• John Whitfield 

Scottish Government

• Maree Todd, Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport
• NCS Communications and Engagement
• NCS Bill
• NCS Co-design

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced the ENTs and Scottish Government officials on the call. The Chair then expressed her sincere condolences in respect of Helen Morrison who sadly passed away in November. Helen was a valued member of the group and will be missed. The Chair provided a verbal update on the progress of the NCS programme.

Discussion – Verity House Agreement (VHA) and Shared Accountability Agreement (SAA)

The Chair opened for discussion.

The group asked if the NCS Stage 1 debate is to be held on 31 January.
The Chair stated that the date of the debate is in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. 

The group asked if the Scottish Government will withdraw the NCS Bill.
The Chair clarified that the Scottish Parliament can reject the Bill, but Scottish Government has no intention of withdrawing it. 

The group asked for clarifications on what is meant by: local by default, national by agreement in the VHA.
The Chair clarified that local by default, national by agreement, means that some public responsibilities are best met locally. However, where possible and effective, national approaches will be used.  But there will be a presumption in favour of local flexibility.

The group asked if the Chair had heard anything from the Finance Committee or the Health, Social Care and Sport (HSCS) Committee. 
The Chair informed the group that she will be appearing at the Finance Committee on Thursday, 25 January and that the HSCS Committee are currently drafting their stage 1 report.

The group highlighted concerns around the nature of the shared accountability agreement. 
The Chair responded that we couldn’t make progress with the Bill without the shared accountability agreement, as set out in June last year. Over the last nine months we have worked hard to bring stakeholders on board, to find a consensus, meeting regularly with COSLA, setting out a more collaborative approach. Following the shared accountability agreement, the Scottish Government, the NHS and Local Authorities will provide the structure of the NCS. If Parliament agrees on that, then the co-design work can then focus on the detail. 

The group asked about ensuring that the National Board had an independent chair.
The Chair stated that it’s crucial that we have an independent chair in order to hold Local Authorities to account. The primary legislation will cover a National Board, but the secondary legislation will detail who sits on that board and the co-design process will inform that. 

The group asked how seriously the VHA is being taken. 
The Chair responded saying relationships with COSLA are good, and she meets regularly with Cllr Paul Kelly who is her counterpart. The Chair outlined that she works with Cllr Kelly on dementia, suicide, mental health as well as the NCS and they work together to persuade people that change is possible, that something better can be delivered. 

The group raised a point that it would appear all 32 Local Authorities will have authority of the services, and asked if there is a way to centralise services.
The Chair responded that some services are to be centralised, things like complex care with learning disabilities and the coming home work that Local Authorities are struggling to address. Prison care would likely sit nationally. A new approach to produce national standards for social workers in Scotland will help, with the same standards country wide. Some things will look different in different parts of the country, so we will need local flexibility, as care looks different in some places and we need that.

The group asked what are the main objections to the NCS? 
The Chair responded that some of the concerns are around money. A lot of it is about power. We want transparency around the Local Authorities having flexibility to move money around and that’s where the tension lies.
The group asked if over time it would be a cost saving measure? The Chair responded that we are going to have to spend more initially, but it’s clear in the long-term it could save money, as well as saving people through early intervention. 

The group raised concerns around the shared accountability agreement and commitments to free care at home, as it is a postcode lottery. The group felt that it should apply to care homes too and that from recent Freedom of Information (FOI) enquiries we are seeing that Edinburgh are paying 25% more than other areas for beds at care homes and they don’t know how many are being used, there needs to be national oversight on this. The Chair responded saying that there is work going on around costing for free care at home and it is our intention to deliver that. There are things we are trying to improve now without the NCS and it needs money, which is challenging.

The group raised the importance of accountability. The group shared personal experiences including witnessing people waiting weeks for care packages. 
The Chair responded stating that we will ensure accountability through the National Board. Right now, Local Authorities develop service delivery plans but there is very little scrutiny on delivery, or accountability. When there is failure there is not a lot I can do to address it. Where there is a problem, it is hard to find out who is responsible. That clarity of who is responsible and who is held to account, not in a punitive way, is important so that we can ensure we get the required support in place. 

The group reflected that the experience of social care support users are often a rollercoaster of emotions. People should be talking together, especially when dealing with complex care, and factoring in the location of the service user too, as assumptions are often made about what is and isn’t available, especially in remote or rural areas. 
The Chair agreed that the system is not listening or respecting views and assumptions are made. We need person-led and person-centred decision making going forward where we are all treated as equals. If we continue doing what we are doing, we are not going to make progress.

The group raised the idea of an independent chair for the National Board and suggested it could be co-chaired with someone with lived experience of accessing services, underlining the commitment to lived experience, and urged the Chair to consider those options.
The Chair emphasised her commitment to someone with lived experience having a position on the Board. Whether it’s a seat, co-chair or chair, they will be given the support to fully participate. Lived experience is at the heart of it and will be a significant part of the national and local boards. 

The Chair thanked the group for attending and closed the meeting.