Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are the two standards sufficient?

What parts of the bill would the witnesses like to progress? Your opinion may be personal or be given on behalf of the organisation that you represent. Notwithstanding the fact that Anne’s law could in theory be progressed outside of legislation, I very much recognise why carers organisations, people with lived experience and many others want some of those things to be enshrined in law, so that they are not negotiable. Eddie Follan is nodding along, so I go to him first.

Good morning, and thank you for your answers so far.

My first question is for Rob Gowans. In our evidence taking, we have heard from witnesses that a lot of the bill could be progressed outwith legislation. As someone from an organisation that represents disabled people and people with lived experience, why do you think that it is so important for some of the things that are in the bill to be in legislation?

You have articulated a number of things that can be given life only if they are in the legislation. Which of those do you believe should be strengthened by further amendment and what would you propose?

My next question is for Karen Hedge and Rachel Cackett.

We have heard from relatives of people who are in care homes that there has been a delay in the implementation of Anne’s law and that relatives are not seeing the progress that they would like to have seen. What do you perceive as being the issues with that implementation? Should it be put on a statutory footing, even though it could be progressed outwith the bill, to give those families certainty that we will never again see what has happened before?

Good morning. The Law Society of Scotland and other stakeholders have expressed concerns that the charter that is in the bill lacks legal status and overlaps with existing documents such as the national care standards. How could the charter be strengthened to provide meaningful legal protections and ensure that it serves as a clear and enforceable pathway for service users to uphold their care and human rights?

Good morning. In the previous session, Rosemary Agnew in particular spoke to us about the complaints process and the fact that it has not really changed between the introduction of the bill and the proposed stage 2 amendments. How can we improve the cluttered landscape of complaints processes and make those processes accessible for people who need support as a result of their experiences with social care?

I go to Jan Savage first.

The reference to the charter in the bill remains that it is to be a

“charter ... of rights and responsibilities”—

as in the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011. In witnesses’ opinion, for whom or what bodies should responsibilities be made explicit in the bill? I go back to Karen Reid.

Good morning. Quite a few of my questions will be for Rosemary Agnew, but if anybody else would like to come in, that would be brilliant.

The sections in the bill that relate to complaints have not really changed between the bill’s introduction and the provision by the Scottish Government of its proposed stage 2 amendments. What would the implications be of establishing a new complaints process as part of the national care service? How should issues of duplication or other potential issues related to the creation of a new complaints process be addressed?

That was useful.

The complaints landscape is already quite cluttered, so adding a new complaints process will have practical implications. I have said all along that the devil will be in the bill’s implementation. Do you think that having an extra complaints body would cause issues? Is it more a case of replicating the work that you mentioned about how different bodies work together to make sure that complaints are resolved and that people feel supported, or are we reaching a critical mass with regard to the number of bodies for people to complain to, whereby the process is becoming so complicated that it is impenetrable?