I absolutely do. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made the point that it is not good legislative practice to stick substantive decisions on spending into secondary legislation.

An expert bill advisory group simply does not exist for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, so there is a genuine lack of confidence that the proposed changes will work, and promises of co-production after the bill is passed are not enough. Witness after witness described the bill as “vague”, as lacking in vision and as failing to articulate a set of general principles.

Rachel Cackett, of the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland, encapsulated the problem. She said:

“I do not know what the bill will look like … For me, there is a question about what principles are being agreed at stage 1 and also what exactly those amendments will look like.”

Dr Jim Elder-Woodward, from Inclusion Scotland, rightly complained that the Scottish Government’s deal with COSLA

“did not take any cognisance of the co-design process and … was made without reference to any stakeholder”.—[

Official Report

,

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

, 31 October 2023; c 28, 23.]

This Parliament is a relatively young institution, and we do not have a second revising chamber. It is therefore important that we take the time to get things right.

I want to support the bill, but it is currently a mess. We are in danger of making bad legislation because the Government has not allowed appropriate scrutiny. This is about the integrity of the Parliament and the integrity of us as members. Every party that is represented in the chamber, aside from the SNP and the Greens, has expressed disquiet. Parliament matters, and I ask back-bench members of the Government parties not to railroad the bill through.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill be referred back to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for a further report on the general principles of the Bill.