Seòmar agus comataidhean

The minister makes a really interesting point about collaborative working, which is exactly how the problem should be tackled. It is a problem that the Government already committed to eradicate some time ago, so whatever the Government is doing now is not working. Some of that collaborative work should be about the implementation and adoption of technology, which was the subject of another of my amendments that the minister asked members to vote against.

I am trying to create a focus on delayed discharge because it is a significant issue, not only for social work but in the NHS. I think that a reduction of 25 per cent per year is eminently doable if we do the right things and if we do the collaborative work that the minister suggests, so I press amendment 145.

My concern with amendment 53 is that the change may compromise the discretion of care commissioning bodies in their efforts to deliver services in the most efficient and effective way. I am concerned that that might lead to the forcing of imperfect choices being made and to delivery of less service for the same taxpayer costs.

Amendment 53A is a probing amendment, but it would broaden the set of organisations qualifying for reservable contracts by requiring only the area of operation in relation to the reservable contract to be of a non-profit nature, rather than the whole organisation. As I said, the amendment would tighten the language on reservable contracts. I accept that it is a probing amendment, and I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to respond to that.

The minister’s comments on my intention to leave out the whole of section 41 were not reflective of what I was trying to do, which was to take out of the bill all the sections that are left, to start again and to deliver a better bill than currently exists. However, as we discussed last week, I will not move amendment 139, at this stage.

Amendment 139 not moved.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

After section 41

Amendment 55 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Before section 42

Like Jackie Baillie, I am really pleased to see the minister’s amendment 50, although I agree that more clarity is required, because it does not go far enough in supporting Anne’s law.

As the minister has said, amendment 50A would set a requirement for care home service providers to provide a written reason to both the resident and the essential care supporter in any case in which a visit is denied. It represents an effort to ensure that records are retained that could be used as evidence for any future inquiries or for evaluation of the implementation of the law, which is pertinent to amendment 50D.

I welcome the minister’s comments about her intention to go further than what is proposed in amendment 50A and her offer to have further discussions on how we could strengthen the amendment. Therefore, I will not move amendment 50A.

Amendment 50B would place a requirement on the Scottish ministers to publish the code of practice in such a manner that it is publicly available and to provide it in an easy-read format. I welcome the minister’s support for that amendment and her intention to strengthen it. It is important that an accessible and easy-read version of the code of practice is available. Given that many care home residents will experience greater mental decline than the average population, it is especially important that the code is accessible to them.

Amendment 50C would place a requirement on ministers to revise the code if a significant number of problems have been reported. That is extremely important—we want to be able to trigger revisions to the code if it is clear that it is not working as intended. Amendment 50C would also trigger revisions in a timely manner.

Amendment 50D would place a requirement on ministers to publish a report on the implementation of Anne’s law, broken down by council area, each year. Given what we are trying to do with amendment 50A, I do not think that that would be a particularly onerous requirement, as we will be gathering evidence as we go along. Amendment 50D would improve parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of Anne’s law and would help to identify any areas in which additional support is needed to make sure that Anne’s Law is in place for every person who receives care in a care home and their families, which, surely, is what we are all here to try to do. Therefore, I intend to move amendment 50D.

The amendments have been prompted by recommendations from the stage 1 report. That report says:

“Irrespective of the model of accountability, the Committee believes proposals for the creation of a National Care Service need to be accompanied by a reinforced role for the Scottish Parliament in undertaking regular, structured scrutiny of its implementation and the extent to which it is achieving its defined objectives. To support this reinforced scrutiny role, the Committee calls for the Bill to include provisions enabling the Scottish Government to keep the Scottish Parliament regularly updated on the operation of the National Care Service including, in particular, an assessment of the extent to which this is contributing to improved outcomes for those in receipt of social care.”

That is, I suggest, what the bill is all about.

Amendment 143 would place on ministers a duty to report on Frank’s law, again to improve parliamentary scrutiny of its implementation. That will help to identify any areas that need additional support for implementation to ensure that that law is in place for every person who is entitled to personal care.

On amendment 144, which would place a duty on ministers to publish a report on the equality of social care services by local authority area, the Government’s original intention behind the bill was to reduce the inequality in care services across Scotland. I am—along with everybody else, I am sure—supportive of reducing health inequalities, including those occurring in care spaces, and it is important to gather data on where services are unequal if we are to be able to know how to address that problem in the future.

It is also important to measure the bill’s impact on equality of services. Amendment 147 would, therefore, place a duty on ministers to report to Parliament outcomes that are contained in the bill. Much of the bill will have been revised at stage 2, and if it passes fully, it is important to understand what it is achieving for all those who are in need of social care and for those who work in the sector.

On amendment 157, during the evidence sessions on the bill, stakeholders were very concerned about its financial aspects, and the committee had particular concerns about the financial memorandum with regard to part 2, on health and social care information. Given the significant number of amendments and revisions that are being made to the bill, it is important that its costs be quantified. That will ensure that the Government is able to budget appropriately in the future and that the bill’s provisions are funded, unless the Government chooses otherwise.

I move amendment 143.

Although we will obviously support an increase in care payments, there is a valid concern about the long-term sustainability of these types of increases, especially if the underlying financial pressures on the care system are not addressed. I therefore have the same concerns as my colleague Sandesh Gulhane around why we use this particular method to ensure these increases. There is conditional support, but I would definitely like to understand how we ensure long-term sustainability as we go forward.

Given the minister’s helpful comments on revisiting the issue, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 50A not moved.

Amendments 50H to 50J not moved.

Amendment 50B moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to.

Given the minister’s comments, I will not move amendment 50C at this stage, but it relates to an important area that needs to be explored further.

Amendments 50C and 50D not moved.

Amendment 50, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 138 not moved.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

After Section 40

I hear what the minister says about amendment 144 and I welcome the opportunity to discuss that further. However, I find it strange that she says that there are already reports containing the information that would be required by amendment 143, given that the committee’s recommendation was that there is a need for a reinforced role for the Scottish Parliament to undertake regular structured scrutiny. What the minister says goes against what the committee found. The fact that we are not collecting the data is not a reason why we should not collect it. If we have on-going managed collection of data, accountability is much easier and it is much easier to deliver a report.

I also find it very strange that we would not understand how much the bill will cost before we enact it. When we are deploying public money, it is really important that we understand where that money is going and how much it will be, so I find the minister’s arguments against amendment 157 quite puzzling.

I press amendment 143.

I will take the opportunity to work with the minister on that one. At this point, I will not move it.

Amendment 144 not moved.