Seòmar agus comataidhean

I find it odd that the minister talks about wrecking when she has removed section 1 of the bill and has lodged multiple amendments that, in effect, wreck the original bill that the Scottish Government laid.

I declare my interest as a practising NHS GP.

A GDP deflator, which has been used previously, was used as the measure, and I note that, in the past, the Scottish Government has put in more money than the GDP deflator said was owed. Is the uplift of 2.37 per cent sufficient for personal care to continue as it is? Why are we using the GDP deflator as opposed to other economic measures?

It is important that we give the Care Inspectorate commensurate powers to be able to deal with all of what is happening under the legislation. We are able to strengthen its hand, provide for the creation of a system of complaints to go the Scottish Care Inspectorate and increase resources, as required, for the extra work that the Care Inspectorate is going to be doing. Amendment 154 simply makes that an affirmative process.

I move amendment 142.

The role of the national chief social work adviser sits in the Scottish Government at deputy director level. The minister is looking to create a national social work agency around the national chief social work adviser with that person at deputy director level, which undermines the person who does that role. For equality among our healthcare professionals, especially considering how vital social workers are to the care sector, we need the post to be at director level to enable the postholder to access all meetings and to sit at a level commensurate with other professions. I worry that all this work is being put on somebody who really should be sitting at director level, as is the case with similar roles.

Would the minister consider increasing the grade of the national social work adviser to that of director?

I will go back to my second question. Why is the Government using the GDP deflator as opposed to any other economic measure?

It is very important that we create a complaints system. The Care Inspectorate seems to be a good route for that to happen and to improve local standards. However, I heard what the minister said, and I seek to withdraw amendment 142.

Amendment 142, by agreement, withdrawn.

The minister speaks of her commitment, and the Government’s commitment, to Anne’s law. Where was that commitment three and a half years ago, when Anne’s law could have been brought in and would have sailed through Parliament? Where was the minister’s commitment to the right to breaks for carers three and a half years ago?

Those measures are in amendments that the minister has lodged. Quite simply, they are being introduced on the back of a failed NCS bill, instead of being front and centre in the original bill. They could have been front and centre standing on their own in a bill that, again, would have sailed through, because the measures command the full support of Parliament. This is not the way to do it.

It is important that we look at what the situation is like right now across our country. It is clear that local authorities up and down our country are slashing care for people who need it. It is clear that, across our country, people who are desperately in need of care—when they want to leave hospital, when they want to live in their own home and when their care needs to be changed—are not receiving the urgent care that they need. Amendment 128 looks to ensure that we are able to give people a reassuring timeline. Six weeks is a very long time, and we would not want it to be that long, but at least there would be a timeframe within which people would have to get their care. That is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

On amendments 129 and 130, we agree with Paul Sweeney and we are keen to see those provisions in the bill.

I move amendment 128.

The data is not ours. The data is not the NHS’s. The data that is held belongs to the individual—the patient, the person—and it is important that full access to that data is available to that individual. It is very important that we do not lose sight of that and that we do as much as we can to provide that reassurance.

The minister said that Gillian Mackay’s amendments 119 and 118 might hinder emergency care, but it is clear that people who are participating in a scheme would be told that the full data will be accessible in emergencies and when they see their GP, as that is absolutely vital. However, I do not think that the care worker who comes to someone’s door to help them needs to see that person’s full care or health records, so under the amendments, an individual would be able to choose whether such a person would see them.

We are in full support of all the amendments in the group. The minister said that Brian Whittle’s amendment is not necessary and that a single platform is not required. From the perspective of someone on the front line, who sees patients and who, a month later, as a GP, is unable to see what the hospital has said, I cannot tell you how important that single data platform is. When I was working in psychiatry, cross-covering paediatric psychiatry, I was unable to see or write in the patient notes. That is not safe and it is not acceptable in 2025. It is simply not a position that we should be in.

Lastly, the minister spoke about my amendment 121, which looks at portability—that is, allowing an individual to move with their data and local authorities to be able to see it. However, I do not think that it would be the worst thing for local authorities to be able to see anyone’s data as long as they were given permission to do so by the individual.