Seòmar agus comataidhean

Social work plays a unique and crucial role that impacts on and influences the lives of people across the entire age spectrum. The Feeley review identified that social work services are disjointed and inconsistent, and that our dedicated professional social workers need more and better support to help them in the challenging roles that they undertake. A national social work agency will provide strategic national leadership to the social work profession, driving change and continuous improvement across Scotland. Working in partnership with sector partners, we seek to build a sustainable, strong and highly skilled workforce for the future, from student to senior leader.

The profession is regulated and the social worker title is protected by law. Therefore, formalising the existing role of the national chief social work adviser in statute signals its importance and centrality to the social work profession. The national chief social work adviser will champion the vital cross-cutting function of social work, bring strategic leadership at national level and advance the position of social work nationally. In partnership with the sector, the national chief social work adviser will drive the development of a sustainable and highly skilled workforce and strengthen cohesion through enhanced leadership of the social work profession.

I move amendment 59.

No, thanks.

Yes.

The GDP deflator, which is a measure of general inflation in the domestic economy, has historically been used to increase the free personal and nursing care payments annually.

As I stated in response to Dr Gulhane’s earlier question, inflationary increases were made from 2011 to 2015. The rate remained static in 2016-17 due to forecasts of inflation rates being too high, and ministers agreed to keep that rate for 2017-18. There was then a return to inflationary rises.

I agree that evidence in recent years has shown that the cost of providing FPNC has increased significantly and the rate has not kept pace with that. In order to address that, for three years, above-inflation—that is, above the GDP deflator—increases were made to rates on the basis of the need to balance affordability and take into account the rising cost of care home placements. There was a return to inflationary rises last year, and I propose that this year, as last year, we use the GDP deflator.

I hope that that answers members’ questions. We are proposing an inflationary rise for next year largely due to the need to balance budget constraints with the wish to raise it at all.

The discussion on this group of amendments has been a long one, and it has been a long road to get Anne’s law right. In putting Anne’s law at the heart of the bill, in primary legislation, we are recognising our overall commitment to ensuring that people can see and spend time with loved ones. We have listened very carefully to those who have campaigned for Anne’s law and others to get to this point, and I believe that my amendment 50, which takes account of what we have heard, will ensure that people remain connected.

Importantly, amendment 50 formally recognises the role of essential care supporters, who are an integral part of the care team, as has been called for by Care Home Relatives Scotland. It places a duty on care homes to identify essential care supporters, and it provides a legal presumption that suspending visits to the person for whom they are caring will always cause serious harm to their loved one’s health and wellbeing.

I thank members for the other amendments in the group. Some of them sound reasonable on the face of it but would be unworkable, as they do not reflect current practice on the ground. Others would have unintended consequences. However, I recognise the importance of a number of areas that have been raised, so my door remains open to Jackie Baillie, other members and—crucially—Care Home Relatives Scotland to discuss those suggestions ahead of stage 3.

In summary, I ask members to support my amendment 50 and Brian Whittle’s amendment 50B, and to not support all the other amendments in the group.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee regarding a proposed amendment to the Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Regulations 2002. The draft regulations that are before the committee make routine annual increases to the rates for free personal and nursing care. Those payments help to cover the cost of those services for self-funding adults in residential care.

This year, we propose to apply an uplift that is based on the gross domestic product deflator, which has been used historically as the inflationary measure to increase the rates. It will mean that the weekly payment rates for personal care for self-funders will rise from £248.70 to £254.60, and the nursing care component will rise from £111.90 to £114.55. The most recent official statistics show that more than 11,000 self-funding residents aged 18 and above received free personal and nursing care in 2023-24. They should all benefit from these changes. I am happy to take questions from the committee.

Brian Whittle’s amendments seek to remove sections 36 to 48 of the bill. They would, in effect, remove the bill’s remaining sections, following my amendments to remove part 1, so I ask committee members not to support them.

Agreement to amendments 123 and 125, which relate to sections 36 and 37, would result in barriers to effective sharing of information and consistent use of information standards across health and social care. That would negatively impact on our ability to improve delivery of high-quality health and care services for individuals.

Amendments 134 and 135 propose the removal of the introduction of the right to breaks for unpaid carers. Establishment of that right has received an overwhelmingly positive response. It is clear that there is support for delivering it, as it will help to ensure that unpaid carers can have a life alongside their caring role, and it is likely to reduce other costs arising from unplanned hospital admissions, failed hospital discharge and additional residential care when caring relationships break down. I remain committed to delivering the crucial right to breaks in order to uphold the health and wellbeing of unpaid carers and to publicly recognise the immense value of the support that they provide.

Amendment 138 would remove provisions related to Anne’s law, which we are absolutely committed to delivering, and for which there is strong cross-party support.

Our amendment 50 includes provision for enabling care home residents to identify an essential care supporter, as has been called for by Care Home Relatives Scotland. I am grateful to that group and others for working with us on that amendment.

Brian Whittle’s amendment 139 would remove section 41, which will extend the reserved contracting process to third sector organisations in health and social care. That process will help those organisations to compete with larger for-profit ones. It will support a flexible mixed-market model for delivering social care, with decisions being made locally based on local needs. Independent and third sector organisations, both for-profit and not-for-profit ones, are and will continue to be important partners in delivering social care for Scotland.

Agreement to Brian Whittle’s amendments would halt reforms in a range of really important areas, which I believe largely command cross-party support. I cannot believe that the member would want us to halt Anne’s law and the right to breaks for carers. I therefore ask the committee not to support any of the amendments in the group.

My amendments 16 and 17, which were debated with the first group of amendments, would have the effect of removing from the bill the complaints provisions in sections 14 and 15. My view is that the complaints service that is provided for by section 14 and the associated regulation-making power that is in section 15 cannot be included without the entirety of part 1 of the bill. A new NCS complaints service will not make sense in isolation.

I make it clear, however, that I am absolutely committed to improving the complaints processes. The independent review of adult social care made it clear that, when things have not worked well for people and their rights have not been met, they must have rapid recourse to an effective complaints system and redress. The NCS that the review proposed would prioritise an improved complaints process.

So far, more than 200 people with lived experience of receiving, accessing or delivering care have been involved in co-design and engagement to consider findings from existing evidence and to identify key priorities for improvements to the complaints processes. That will enable us to identify and drive forward the improvements that are required to ensure that a rights-based approach is taken on complaints.

If the committee supports removal of part 1 of the bill, we will continue to work closely with people who are accessing and delivering care and with our stakeholders in order to identify improvements that should be taken forward. If sections 14 and 15 remain in the bill, I cannot support amendments 97, 71, 98, 72 and 99, all of which relate to complaints.

Amendment 97 seeks to limit the scope of complaints that can be dealt with by the complaints service that is required under section 14 of the bill to care services that are provided by local authorities. That would mean that the complaints service would not be able to receive complaints in all circumstances—for example, it would not be able to do so when someone was accessing social care services via self-directed support options 1 and 2. I believe that it is vital that we not limit the complaints service in that way, and that we ensure that all users of social care services are able to utilise the new complaints service.

Amendment 71 seeks to make it clear that the person who is to be allocated a complaint is not only appropriate, as is currently required by section 14(3), but is the person who will oversee its resolution. Although the amendment seeks to provide clarity, its effect is to confuse the position on who complaints should be passed to. The person who oversees the resolution of a complaint might not be the person who is best placed to address that complaint. That is particularly true when the role of oversight bodies such as the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is taken into account. I therefore encourage members not to support amendment 71.

Amendment 72 seeks to define who may make a complaint to the NCS complaints service. However, setting that out in the bill unintentionally risks interfering with existing established legal procedures. The model complaints handling procedure for public body social care complaints that has been set by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman already defines who can submit a complaint. Although who that is is deliberately broad ranging, it is defined enough to allow only relevant complaints. It includes relatives or representatives of people who use services, as well as people who come into contact with, or are affected by, services.

Amendment 72 would also limit the scope for using the associated regulation-making power in section 15 in the future. For those reasons, I ask for the amendment not to be supported.

Amendment 98 seeks to establish that a “relevant complaint” is about a

“social service as defined by section 46 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.”

It would narrow the bill’s wording by removing reference to the NCS, rather than extending it. I understand the intent of the amendment. However, I believe that it is vital that we not limit the scope of the services that are covered in that way, and that we ensure that all users of social care across the sector, whether they receive public or private provision—including those who use services for which integration is key, such as community health and prison social care—are able to utilise the new complaints service and the associated complaints-related regulations where appropriate. I therefore encourage members not to support amendment 98.

Amendment 99 provides examples of what regulations in relation to complaints handling may cover, which includes assessing complaints against a set of principles, providing guidance on handling complaints that are made in relation to the allocation of resources and assessments of eligibility, and providing timescales. Although I welcome and will further consider the examples proposed, the regulation-making power in section 15 is subject to the outcomes of a co-design process, which will enable us to develop and strengthen a consistent complaints system and associated redress. I do not wish to undermine or pre-empt the outcomes of co-design by including examples in the bill. I therefore invite members not to support amendment 99.

As was set out in my statement to Parliament on 23 January, we remain committed to delivering our Scottish national care service. However, I have concluded that we must achieve that without legislating for structural reform at this time, but must instead pursue a different means of delivering on our goals. The result of that decision is that part 1 of the bill, as introduced, requires to be removed. That would be done by amendments 1 to 39, which are in my name.

The removal of part 1 has the most significant impact on the establishment of care boards and the transfer of responsibility for community health, social work and social care services to the Scottish ministers. However, strengthening national oversight and support for the system remains a priority.

We are working to establish for the services an advisory board that will be informed by lived experience. We still intend to pursue several areas of local reform through means other than primary legislation.

We will continue to give further consideration to the national care service principles. In addition, we will proceed with publishing a co-designed charter of rights and responsibilities, independent of the bill.

A revised programme to improve complaint services will also be developed and delivered. Independent information, advice and advocacy is an area in which provision in the bill would still be helpful. Amendment 15 would therefore move section 13 to part 3 of the bill, and we will discuss amendments to it in a later group—I should say that we will discuss those amendments if Brian Whittle’s amendment 96 is not agreed to, because it would remove section 13 from the bill entirely. I urge members not to support it.

Amendments 60 to 68 are technical amendments to the remaining parts of the bill to reflect the removal of part 1. There are competing amendments for changing the bill’s short title to reflect the removal of part 1. It will come as no surprise to members that I invite them to support amendment 67 over amendment 40 from Alex Cole-Hamilton and amendment 158 from Brian Whittle.

Brian Whittle’s proposed short title of “Social Care and Support” would not be an accurate description of the bill, because it refers only to social care, whereas part 2 of the bill is also about healthcare. Alex Cole-Hamilton’s proposal for “Care and Carers” is not technically inaccurate, but it places the emphasis on carers, which, although it is an important element of the bill, is not the only important element. I have therefore proposed “Care Reform” on the basis that it is a broader description.

I move amendment 1.

I am delighted to see that there is widespread support for the principles of fair work, ethical commissioning and ethical procurement in Scotland.

On amendment 100, which was lodged by Jackie Baillie, I am not against the use of principles in legislation. The Government included principles for the national care service in part 1 of the bill, but I am unclear about the benefit of including those principles in legislation and about what consequences they could have on the wider social care system. In particular, and unlike the principles in section 1 of the bill, they do not seem to be focused on people who are receiving care and support.

I will always agree that Scotland’s social care sector will benefit from being an exemplar of fair work. Work is already being done to develop sectoral bargaining with our partners in the social care sector, and we are also working with the UK Government on changes to that area in the UK Employment Rights Bill.

The Scottish Government is providing funding to deliver the real living wage to social care workers who are delivering direct care and commissioned services. That was £230 million in the current financial year and will be £125 million next year, subject to the budget being agreed. Further, an effective voice framework is also being piloted and will be evaluated over the summer before being implemented on a national basis.

Although I agree with the people-first ethos, the principle of people before profit, although commendable, is not likely to be implementable, and it could have unforeseen consequences. The people of Scotland rely on a variety of services being delivered by a multitude of organisations, including the third, independent and public sectors. To prevent social care provision that is based on profit making would significantly risk the delivery of the support and services that our people need.

On tax avoidance, the Scottish Government recognises that a more robust and fair system of taxation could enhance the commitment to realising the human rights of service users and workers by increasing the available resources. I am not sure, however, that that principle in amendment 100 will achieve the member’s aims, and it could have other unintended consequences for other legislation, including procurement legislation.

There might be a place for such principles in legislation—we can further discuss what they could be—but they must improve the experience of those who are being cared for and supported in Scotland. I am not convinced that the principles that are set out in amendment 100 do so. I ask Jackie Baillie not to press the amendment. If she does, I ask the committee not to support it.

I do not support amendment 101, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the new social care sector duties. I understand that the amendment’s intention is to create a requirement for ministers to act in accordance with the founding principles that are set out in amendment 100 and the national strategic plan for social care services that is set out in amendment 115.

Although I agree that clarity about our aims and objectives for delivery of social work and social care services would be helpful, the problem is that the amendment would create new statutory duties for ministers in respect of social care services. That goes against the agreement that has been reached that local government will retain responsibility for delivery of social work and social care services, so it is no longer appropriate for ministers to have new duties—even very broad ones, as proposed in the amendment—in respect of them. It could make it less—not more—clear who is responsible for improving services, which is a key demand of people with lived and living experience. The amendment could create a situation in which ministers must take ultimate responsibility for delivery as a last resort, which is not wanted.

I would be happy to work with the member on alternative wording, although I must stress that a new duty for ministers is no longer needed. If there was to be an amendment along such lines, I would want to strengthen and build on health and social care integration. I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 101, but, if it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

I recognise that the intention of amendment 102, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is to bring a consistent approach to commissioning, but it is not necessarily the best way to achieve the improvement that we all seek. Ministers are not responsible for social care commissioning, and the amendment misses out the bodies that are. I know that there is an implementation gap between the intent of social care commissioning and what is ultimately delivered.

In partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a working group that includes representation from social care providers, commissioners and people with lived experience is developing principles for ethical commissioning and guidance that all commissioners can use. That work is about focusing on the outcomes for social care users and ensuring that their voices are heard during the commissioning process.

Given the positive steps that are already being taken in relation to ethical commissioning, further provision as set out in amendment 102 is not necessary, but I would be happy to work with the member on an appropriate amendment for stage 3. I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 102, but, if it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

The purpose of amendment 103, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is to place a duty on Scottish ministers and relevant public authorities in relation to the code of practice that is proposed in amendment 102, so that they give it due regard in the design, commission, delivery and review of social care services.

As I mentioned, work is already under way on ethical commissioning principles and guidance, which will assist in closing the implementation gap between commissioning intent and what is delivered in practice. However, as with amendment 102, I would be happy to work with the member on an appropriate amendment for stage 3. I therefore ask the member not to move amendment 103, but, if it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

In response to amendment 104, in the name of Jackie Baillie, I am committed to delivering ethical procurement and I am confident that we already have the legislative powers to deliver it. Although I sympathise with what the amendment is trying to achieve, it duplicates existing procurement regulations. Procurement legislation and policy, such as the sustainable procurement duty, already provide details on how procurement should be carried out, which include key considerations for public sector bodies.

Scottish ministers are required to publish guidance that is specific to health and social care, which contracting authorities must have due regard to. It is through that statutory guidance that we will embed ethical procurement practices. Therefore, the Government’s position is to oppose amendment 104. It is unnecessary and it risks further complicating the procurement landscape for people, providers and public sector bodies, so I ask members not to support it.

On amendment 105, it is vital that care service providers meet all their legal obligations, no matter how they are funded. Amendment 105 is substantially a duplication of the requirements that are set out in regulation 19 of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015, so it would have no practical effect. As drafted, the amendment would also put requirements on public sector bodies when procuring a wide range of services—it is not limited to community health and social care, which is the focus of the bill, and the reference to social care providers does not achieve that. Therefore, I invite Jackie Baillie not to move amendment 105. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

Amendment 106 was also lodged by Jackie Baillie. Although I support the establishment of sectoral bargaining arrangements for the social care workforce, I cannot support the amendment. The limitation of legislative competence in relation to employment law means that the Scottish Parliament cannot establish statutory requirements for participation in sectoral bargaining. We have had only a short time to consider the amendment, but we have serious concerns that it is outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence. The Government has not stood still on the important element of fair work. The fair work in Scotland group has been working to develop a voluntary sectoral bargaining model that provides a mechanism for determining pay terms and conditions on a voluntary participation basis.

The Scottish Government is also engaging with the UK Government on the Employment Rights Bill, which we hope can create a legislative basis for a Scottish national social care negotiating body and fair pay agreements in Scotland. I invite the member not to move amendment 106. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

On amendment 107, which was lodged by Carol Mochan, I am delighted to see the interest in international recruitment. However, the amendment would add an additional burden on social care and would potentially not improve the situation in Scotland for international workers. We already demonstrate our commitment to ethical recruitment through our code of practice for the international recruitment of health and social care personnel in Scotland. In a similar vein to its position on fair work and employment powers, the UK Government continues to resist calls for the responsibility for immigration policy, as far as it affects Scotland, to be passed to the Scottish ministers. Without responsibility for immigration policy, we continue to press the Home Office for robust and regular data on international workers and their visas.

We will continue to do what we can within the Scottish Parliament’s current competence, and policy work is under way in the sector to raise awareness, to support displaced visa holders and to look at improvement and system change. However, as this is an important issue and I agree with the spirit of the amendment, I am happy to look at the issue further and to consider, before stage 3, whether improvements could be made that would require legislation. I invite Carol Mochan not to move amendment 107. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

On Carol Mochan’s amendment 108, the Scottish Government already publishes fair work first guidance, to which public bodies and other public sector partners should give due regard. Therefore, amendment 108 is not necessary. Again, I invite Carol Mochan not to move the amendment. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

The intention behind Carol Mochan’s amendment 109 is unclear. It seeks to provide a regulation-making duty for ministers to specify acts and omissions of a contracted provider that constitute a reportable breach of contract in relation to fair work standards. Amendment 109 would result in information being gathered, but no practical action would be enabled as a result. It is therefore challenging to see how and where the proposed provision would exert real change for care workers and supported people, which is what the bill is really about. If the intention behind the amendment is to require standard actions to be taken as a result of contract breaches, I point out that common law already provides long-established remedies for dealing with breaches of contract, which include rights of termination. The procurement rules also include provisions regarding compliance with employment law, and those measures can result in the exclusion of bidders who fail to comply.

Amendment 109 would add little or nothing to existing law other than, perhaps, an obligation to report such a breach and keep a register. It is unlikely that that would have any greater effect on contractor behaviour than the existing measures that are in place, and it would create a further administrative burden with no benefit, despite there being a cost to the public purse. Therefore, I invite Carol Mochan not to move amendment 109. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

I have sympathy with the intention behind amendment 110, which was also lodged by Carol Mochan, but I do not believe that it is necessary, and we have serious concerns that it is outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. Contracted providers already have responsibilities to comply with their legal obligations on employment and labour relations, and there are already laws that protect workers’ rights to trade union membership and to participate in trade union activity, so provisions that deal with victimisation already exist. However, the Scottish Parliament does not have the competence to extend the scope or intent of labour laws, even when there is cross-party agreement on delivering fair work. Therefore, I invite Carol Mochan not to move amendment 110. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

Although we whole-heartedly support the aim of maximising the realisation of human rights for workers and people who access care, amendment 111 would not do that. Public bodies are already required to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of citizens, including people who work in and use social care services. The amendment would introduce measures relating to tax avoidance, but such measures raise questions about legislative competence and would be out of the bill’s scope, and the broad range of regulations across the spectrum of human rights that would be placed on ministers would be inappropriate and unachievable.

Amendment 111 focuses on the profit that is made by, and the tax practice of, care providers. There is already a wealth of legislation regarding legal requirements for tax practices, and there are powers in procurement legislation to exclude providers if they have not met their tax obligations and have not self-cleansed, so the amendment would add no further practical application to that which is already available. The amendment also refers only to social care services, so it would risk undermining our existing legislation on integrated health and social care, whereas we should be building on and strengthening that.

Therefore, it is my view that the power could not be used in the way in which Carol Mochan might have intended. Amendment 111 would risk the passage of the bill because of questions about legislative competence, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate, so I invite her not to move it. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

I understand what Carol Mochan wants to achieve through amendment 112. However, at the moment, there are no agreed fair work indicators, which would need to be agreed with the sector to enable effective and proportionate measurement. The Scottish Government already publishes fair work first guidance, to which public bodies and other public sector partners should give due regard. Furthermore, given that the burden of any new reporting requirements would fall on the social care sector, especially local government, health and social care partnerships and social care providers, it would be useful to consult stakeholders on the need for and the impact of the amendment. I would be happy to work with Carol Mochan on those issues before stage 3, but, for now, I invite her not to move amendment 112. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

As is the case with amendment 112, amendment 113, which was also lodged by Carol Mochan, would rely on new data—this time, from commissioning authorities on workforce engagement. That would mean that there would be another new burden and cost on the social care sector. Again, I understand what Carol Mochan wants to achieve, so, as I set out in relation to amendment 112, I would like to consult the sector to understand the impact of the amendment, and I would be happy to work with her before stage 3. For now, I invite her not to move amendment 113. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

As I understand it, amendment 114, which was lodged by Jackie Baillie, would introduce an interpretation section to provide clarity on the terms that are set out in the amendment and used in the new section that she proposes to add. It might well be a useful addition, but we would like to review, following stage 2, what, if any, interpretation section is required. Therefore, I ask Jackie Baillie not to move amendment 114. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

Brian Whittle’s amendment 146 seeks to place a duty on the Scottish ministers to review ethical commissioning guidelines and to lay a report before the Scottish Parliament once in every five-year period following royal assent. It is unclear what guidelines are being referred to, so I would welcome the member clarifying that. As is set out, our intention is for ethical commissioning principles and guidance to support an improvement in services in a way that is flexible in response to need and can be reviewed and revised easily over time. To place a duty to report on a review of guidelines therefore seems unduly burdensome and not in keeping with the flexible approach to improvement that is our aim, so I invite Brian Whittle not to move amendment 146. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

I turn to amendments 149, 150 and 151. Jackie Baillie’s amendment 149 and Carol Mochan’s amendments 150 and 151 have the same purpose, which is to provide that any regulations under the proposed new section’s ethical procurement, reportable breaches of contract and fair work indicators are subject to affirmative procedure. Those relate to the earlier amendments 104, 109 and 112, respectively. I ask committee members not to support amendments 104, 109 and 112, f they are moved. If those amendments are not agreed to, amendments 149, 150 and 151 should also not be agreed to. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendments 149, 150 and 151, if they are moved.