Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendments 86 and 87 seek to strengthen support for carers by ensuring clear timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for local authorities to produce those plans, which leaves carers without the support that they need. Unpaid carers have long reported frustration with delays in accessing assessments and support. Without clear deadlines, carers can be left waiting indefinitely, which undermines their ability to balance caring responsibilities with their own wellbeing. The introduction of statutory timescales will provide much-needed accountability and ensure that carers receive timely recognition and assistance.

Additionally, the amendments would repeal sections 7 and 13 of the 2016 act, which currently allow local authorities to decide whether to prepare a plan or statement if a carer’s identified needs do not meet eligibility criteria. Removing those provisions will ensure that all carers, regardless of eligibility, receive a formal assessment, reinforcing their right to support and acknowledging the vital role that carers play in our system.

I move amendment 86.

Most of my amendments in this group relate to what the bill describes as sufficient breaks

“from providing care for the cared-for person”.

Significant concerns about that phrase have been expressed by carers organisations. I am sure that it was not meant in that way, but the fact is that many carers do not actually want a break from the cared-for person; they want a break from the act of caring itself. Indeed, they would quite often like to have a break alongside that cared-for person, and that is particularly true for parents who are caring for their children. Therefore, I think that that reference should be left out and something else perhaps put in.

My amendments 131 and 88 seek to define the phrase “sufficient breaks”. I am aware that Jackie Baillie has an amendment on this issue, too, but amendment 131 suggests a “reasonable limitation” on how long people care for and a

“recognition of the carers’ ... right to rest”,

which was important to many of those carers.

As for Jackie Baillie’s amendment 132, I do not think that a break of two weeks might be enough for some people. It has to be done on an individual basis. I appreciate Jackie Baillie’s intention in wanting to set out some baseline or limit, but I worry that it might be seen as a ceiling rather than a floor.

I move amendment 73.

Amendment 123, in the name of Brian Whittle, is grouped with amendments 125, 134, 135, 138 to 141, 148, 155, 156, and 159.

As I said at the outset, I was not entirely sure that amendment 97 was directed at the correct bodies. I appreciate what the minister has said about amendment 97.

In winding up, I want to respond specifically to what the minister said about amendments 72 and 99. Amendment 72 was suggested by carers, who wanted to make sure that not only a person who was receiving care could complain. They wanted the bill to be clear about that. On amendment 99, I appreciate the minister’s desire not to pre-empt the co-design process, but I would hope that all the aspects identified in the amendment would be taken into consideration anyway when a complaints process was developed, so, to my mind, amendment 99 does not completely pre-empt what could be done in the co-design process.

I will not press amendment 97.

Amendment 97, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 71 moved—[Gillian Mackay].

My amendments 69, 70 and 94 are designed to provide a clearer definition of independent advocacy services, to avoid ambiguity in how the legislation is applied. In particular, the definition in amendment 94 was developed with the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance.

My other amendments would ensure that advocacy is genuinely independent, as well as applying it to all care services. Despite best efforts, some people will still need advocacy to access services.

I appreciate that the minister’s amendment 41 pre-empts my amendment 70. I still believe that advocacy needs to cover all services, not just those that are in the public realm. I hope that, if the minister’s amendment is agreed to, we can have a look at how we achieve the spirit of amendment 70 at stage 3.

Truly independent advocacy is essential to building trust. People must feel confident that their advocates are acting in their best interests and they must be able to access advice and information. The definition aligns with best practice and ensures consistency across the social care system.

Although I welcome the Scottish Government’s intention of seeking to improve the complaints process, there are still things that we could make better. It is important to make the system as smooth as possible. Unpaid carers have said that the current system lacks trust and transparency and often leaves them with unresolved issues. To bring about trust in the complaints procedure, it is clear that a process should be developed to enable complaints to be assessed against the principles that are set out in the bill.

Amendment 99 would strengthen the complaints system by ensuring that complaints were assessed against the key principles, which are the “realisation of human rights”, enabling

“people to thrive and fulfil their potential”

and enabling

“communities to flourish and prosper”.

It would also introduce guidance on the handling of complaints related to social care resource allocation and eligibility assessments, which are two contentious issues for the sector.

I am not entirely sure whether amendment 97 is directed at the correct entity when it refers to “local authorities”. If the minister flags any issues with that, I will be happy to work with her to come up with a more appropriate definition ahead of stage 3. The amendments have been worked on with carers organisations, so I hope that members will support them.

I move amendment 97.

In the spirit of the offer from the minister to work on a definition ahead of stage 3, I will not move amendment 94.

Amendment 94 not moved.

Amendment 95 not moved.

Section 36 outlines information-sharing requirements for professionals who work in public health and social care services. In order to create a care record system that is person centred, section 36 should be amended so that it outlines measures to ensure citizens’ control of and access to their data, and a digital choice approach.

My two amendments in the group—amendments 118 and 119—seek to ensure that the care records that will be established under the bill will align with best practice in human rights data approaches and digital choice frameworks. By embedding clear rights in the regulations, amendment 119 would strengthen personal autonomy and ensure that individuals have meaningful control of their care information. The amendment provides that citizens must have the right of access to and control of their care records, including the ability to determine who may access different types of information. That is essential for maintaining privacy and trust in the system.

I recognise what the minister said about control and some people potentially being excluded. If my amendment needs to be worked on to provide further useful definition, I am happy to do that. However, outwith the normal situations where people have data shared with doctors and so on, there are people who will not necessarily want their data to be shared, and it is essential that they have a choice on that.

Amendment 119 seeks to ensure that guardians may exercise the rights on behalf of those for whom they hold legal responsibility, which offers vulnerable individuals clarity and protection. Crucially, the amendment would also guarantee that care records will be accessible in various formats, ensuring that no one will be excluded due to digital barriers.

My amendments in the group would make it explicit that providers of care services should be included in the information-sharing framework. I take on board the minister’s point about the definition of care providers, but care providers need appropriate access to relevant records in order to deliver safe, effective and person-centred care. The amendments were worked on with third sector care providers, who do not always have access to all the records that they feel that they need. However, their access must be balanced with strong safeguards that give individuals control of their data by ensuring a clear rights-based approach to information governance. My amendments would support a more transparent, accessible and accountable system.

I want to come in briefly on the group as a whole and say that I support what Carol Mochan and Jackie Baillie have already said. However, I hope that, in summing up, Jackie Baillie will cover what the totality of the impact will be for local authorities. The Scottish Government is not always the one that is doing the procuring in the first place, and throughout the bill process, one of our concerns has been about autonomy for local authorities. I hope that Jackie Baillie might be able to address those considerations in her summing up.

Good morning, everyone. You made two recommendations relating to people with lived experience in the statutory services workforce: to increase their number and to ensure that there is equitable pay and fair conditions for them. How should that be done to ensure that it is not the tick-box exercise that you speak about in your report?