Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I said in the debate on the previous group, I continue to think that there would be value in having the bill make provision about independent information, advice and advocacy. My amendment 15 will therefore move section 13 into part 3 of the bill.

The amendments in group 2 are about the substance of section 13, and I ask the committee to support amendments 41 and 69 and not to support amendments 91, 70, 92, 93, 94 and 95. In some areas, however, I would like to work with members to look at revising those amendments ahead of stage 3.

On amendments 91, 92 and 95, which deal with a right to independent advocacy, I am committed to enhancing independent advocacy services as a mechanism for empowering people to have their voices heard and to participate fully in decisions about their care. However, members will be aware that such a right would require a significant expansion of capacity for providers of advocacy support to ensure that they could respond. That would take time to work through and would see a significant cost to the public purse, which must be considered carefully.

Members are also aware of my commitment to listening to the voice of people with lived and living experience, through co-design. Recent analysis of co-design work on independent advocacy has highlighted various issues, and my officials will bring me options as to how we can address those. Some of those solutions may require legislative change, using the regulation-making powers that the Government has introduced in the bill; others may not. Until I have decided which options to take forward, I will look to maintain the provisions as they are, and I therefore ask members not to support amendments 91, 92 and 95.

I offer my support for amendment 69 as part of my commitment to enhancing independent advocacy services. A regulation-making power will allow us to implement the results from co-design and engagement with stakeholders. In that way, we can use the insights that are gathered through co-design and engagement with stakeholders to ensure that the legislation supports improvements to the provision of independent advocacy in Scotland.

Amendment 41 seeks to add to the existing drafting to ensure that, as well as the possibility of independent advocacy connected to public social care services being provided for in secondary legislation in the future, independent advice and independent information can be provided for in that way. At stage 1, stakeholders asked us to make that change, and I am happy to do so. It will mean that we can gain from the insights of professional stakeholders and those with lived and living experience of accessing social care support services, and it will allow us to keep broader options open in the future.

Amendment 41 also updates the reference in section 13 to services that the national care service provides by replacing it with a reference to “public social care services”, which are defined by reference to the enactments that are listed in the schedule to the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. I trust that members will be pleased with my response to a request that was made at stage 1 and I will support amendment 41.

If amendment 41 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendment 70, and I believe that it will achieve what Gillian Mackay was intending with amendment 70—in other words, to clarify the scope of the provision in the light of the structure of the national care service. If that is not the case, I would be happy to work with Gillian Mackay.

On amendment 93, I am sympathetic to what Brian Whittle is trying to achieve in relation to advocacy service standards. I also note that amendments 92 and 95 contain similar provisions. We are all committed to ensuring the delivery of high-quality independent advocacy. However, I have some concerns about the impact that amendments 93, 92 and 95 could have on independent advocacy providers. In particular, amendment 93 appears to apply to all advocacy services, not just those that relate to social care services, and I am not sure that that is Mr Whittle’s intention. Therefore, I ask him not to move amendment 93. Instead, I would welcome the opportunity to work with the members who raised the issue to further consider advocacy service standards ahead of stage 3.

On amendment 94, I appreciate what Gillian Mackay is trying to achieve. Aspects of amendment 94 are also present in amendment 95. The importance of a clear definition of independent advocacy has come through very strongly in our co-design work and our engagement with stakeholders, but we have also heard that definitions of independent advocacy can be inconsistent and that that can limit awareness and understanding of independent advocacy services, thereby making it harder for people to access them. Therefore, I ask Gillian Mackay and Paul Sweeney not to move amendments 94 and 95 but, instead, to work with me on a stage 3 amendment to provide a definition of independent advocacy, once we have had more time to fully consider our options.

I do not agree with Brian Whittle’s proposal to scrap the legislation. I note Sandesh Gulhane and Brian Whittle’s in-principle support for many of our amendments to reform health and social care, and I urge them to vote for those.

With regard to Mr Cole-Hamilton’s proposal, I ask members to instead support use of the words “Care Reform” that I am proposing, as they offer a broader description.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Responsibility for the National Care Service

Amendment 2 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Responsibility for improvement

Amendment 3 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Establishment and abolition of care boards

Amendment 4 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1—Care boards: constitution and operation

Amendment 5 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2—Care boards: application of public authorities legislation

Amendment 6 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 5—Financial assistance for care boards

Amendment 7 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 6—Strategic planning by the Scottish Ministers

Amendment 8 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Strategic planning by care boards

Amendment 9 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Care boards’ planning process

Amendment 10 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Frequency of planning by care boards

Amendment 11 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Meaning of ethical commissioning strategy

Amendment 12 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 11—The National Care Service charter

Amendment 13 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 12—Further provision about the charter

Amendment 14 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Independent advocacy

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.

I do not agree with Brian Whittle’s proposal to scrap the legislation. I note Sandesh Gulhane’s and Brian Whittle’s in-principle support for many of our amendments to reform health and social care, and I urge them to vote for those.

With regard to Mr Cole-Hamilton’s proposal, I ask members to instead support use of the words “Care Reform” that I am proposing, as they offer a broader description.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Responsibility for the National Care Service

Amendment 2 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Responsibility for improvement

Amendment 3 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Establishment and abolition of care boards

Amendment 4 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1—Care boards: constitution and operation

Amendment 5 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2—Care boards: application of public authorities legislation

Amendment 6 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 5—Financial assistance for care boards

Amendment 7 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 6—Strategic planning by the Scottish Ministers

Amendment 8 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Strategic planning by care boards

Amendment 9 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Care boards’ planning process

Amendment 10 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Frequency of planning by care boards

Amendment 11 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Meaning of ethical commissioning strategy

Amendment 12 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 11—The National Care Service charter

Amendment 13 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 12—Further provision about the charter

Amendment 14 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Independent advocacy

I ask the committee to resist all the amendments in the group.

On amendment 128, under the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, local authorities have a duty to provide social care through self-directed support, with people who are eligible for social care being offered a range of choices on how they receive their support. The delivery of care results from collaborative discussion, which might not be compatible with the timescale that the amendment sets out. The provision of social care and the timelines for delivery are the responsibility of the local authority. The assessment of needs is for the local authority to undertake, and there is no statutory definition of “critical need”. Amendment 128 would result in ambiguity and uncertainty, so I resist it.

I do not support amendment 129, given that it could interfere with current powers under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The purpose of amendment 152 is to add to section 46 corresponding provisions for regulations relating to amendment 129, so I do not support that amendment, either. However, I am keen to work with Paul Sweeney before stage 3 to consider how we could take the matter forward.

I understand the intention behind amendments 130 and 153. The point of need should absolutely be consistent and transferable across Scotland, as is already stipulated in legislation. However, given that local authorities have the statutory right to implement their own policies in relation to eligibility and assessment, and that they have a duty of care for those within their jurisdiction, it would not be feasible to provide care without completing suitable assessments or evaluations of needs. For that reason, I resist amendments 130 and 153.

I ask the committee to resist all the amendments in the group.

You are very reasonable.

I ask the committee not to support amendments 116 to 122 and 124, and to support my amendments 42 to 44.

Brian Whittle’s amendment 116, the intention behind which I appreciate, seeks to mandate regulations for an information-sharing scheme under section 36. As such regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, parliamentary approval of draft regulations would be required.

If ministers were under a duty—rather than having a power—the duty would require ministers to keep returning to Parliament until Parliament was content to approve a draft instrument. In some cases, it is clear that a duty is required, but ministers will create regulations to set out the details of the scheme under section 36 in any event. In those circumstances, I do not consider that anything more than a power is needed.

The spirit and intention of section 36 is to create the scheme based on the need for reform in health and social care, as identified in the independent review of adult social care. Our intention on that was clearly set out in the accompanying documents when the bill was introduced. I therefore invite members not to support amendment 116.

On amendment 117, lodged by Brian Whittle, the mandated creation of a single digital platform is not necessary to achieve the objective of better information sharing. An appropriate legal gateway, along with interoperable systems underpinned by common information standards, will achieve the same intent. A single digital platform could create issues for health and social care organisations that do not have the right infrastructure or funds to implement a digital system. It would also represent a significant risk in respect of so-called vendor lock-in, which would create unacceptable financial and resilience risks. I invite members not to support amendment 117.

My amendments 42 to 44 will identify the scope of the information-sharing provision. They simplify the scope by setting out what public health and social care services will be encompassed, without reference to organisational structures. I ask the committee to support my amendments.

On amendment 118, which Gillian Mackay lodged, I understand the intention in seeking to expand the scope of section 36. That is what I aim to achieve in my amendments 42 to 44. Without a definition of care services in the legislation, it would be difficult to interpret and accurately assess the effect of amendment 118. I therefore encourage members not to support amendment 118, if it is moved.

I recognise the spirit of the provisions that Gillian Mackay’s amendment 119 suggests. However, the true effect in legislation means that I cannot support the amendment. Existing legislation that refers to the UK Government sets out an individual’s rights as to how their information is processed and provides for accessibility. As amendment 119 is about the control of information, we consider that it relates to the reserved matter of data protection and that it would therefore be outwith this Parliament’s competence.

Although I agree that individuals should have a say in who accesses information in their records, it would not be practical to promise that they could exercise full control over that. Indeed, it would not be in the public interest. For example, when providing emergency care, it is important that health and care professionals are able to access records without explicit consent. I invite Gillian Mackay not to move amendment 119 and, if it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

Turning to Jackie Baillie’s amendment 120, I understand the motivation behind legislating for a digital shared care record, but I do not agree with the proposal. The amendment relates to the control of information, which I consider to be a reserved matter of data protection. That is therefore outwith the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. I invite Jackie Baillie not to move amendment 120 and, if it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

I cannot support amendment 121, which was lodged by Sandesh Gulhane, as drafted. Paragraph (b) in the amendment is unclear as to its scope and intent. Specifically, it is unclear whether it relates to the portability of assessments or whether the intention is that services in a particular local authority should be able to access information that has been created or is held by other local authorities. Although I cannot support the amendment, I assure the member that digital access to personal health and care information for members of the public is a priority that we are actively pursuing.

Parliament will be aware that the First Minister recently announced that the first release of our digital front door will be available in Lanarkshire from December this year. The first release will include the ability for people to access part of their core health information and, over time, more and more health and care information about an individual will be fully accessible to them via digital means. I invite members not to support amendment 121, if it is moved.

On Brian Whittle’s amendment 122, I fully recognise the importance of accountability and transparency, particularly in relation to matters that involve citizens’ sensitive personal information. However, I ask the committee to resist the amendment on the ground that information breaches are likely to arise from being in breach of other relevant data protection legislation rather than the scheme that is provided for. I do not believe that it is possible to accurately assess the financial costs that are associated with information breaches.

With regard to the Scottish Government’s approach to setting out plans to prevent future information breaches, I direct Brian Whittle to our data strategy for health and social care. In addition, I believe that existing arrangements for holding ministers to account, such as parliamentary questions, are suitable ways for the member to receive regular updates. I therefore ask him not to move amendment 122. If it is moved, I invite the committee not to support it.

On amendment 124, I understand Brian Whittle’s motivation for legislating for a single electronic health and care record, but I do not agree with the proposal and I urge the committee not to support the amendment. First, section 36 is not about the creation of such a record; it is about creating the legal gateway by which a range of reforms to information sharing in health and social care can be brought forward.

Secondly, a single record would offer a significantly less attractive proposition than an integrated record, because the latter allows for flexibility in the procurement of digital systems to meet the needs of local organisations and mitigates a multitude of risks. The challenges that are posed by the creation of a single record, particularly in relation to fiscal and technical design considerations, would be prohibiting factors in mandating that within the timeframe.

My amendments 45 and 48 will clarify what can be considered to be an information standard and allow standards to be set by reference to documents that do not yet exist. The amendments also provide for details on the duty to make the standards publicly available and on separately withdrawing them, so that Scotland may keep in line with the dynamic movement of the standards landscape.

My amendments 46 and 47 recognise proposed amendments to part 1 of the bill and will update the chapter on information standards accordingly, while also adding the power for Scottish ministers to modify by regulation the people and organisations to whom section 37 applies. Amendment 47 will also allow for a civil sanctions regime to be introduced where breaches are incurred.

My amendment 49 provides definitions for the new chapter on information standards.

My amendment 64 is a technical amendment to apply the affirmative procedure to the regulation-making powers in amendments 46 and 47.

I urge members to support my amendments 45 to 49 and 64.

I move amendment 45.

No. I am content.

Amendment 45 agreed to.

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, if 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.