Seòmar agus comataidhean

I cannot support either of the amendments in the group. Amendment 89 would place a duty on ministers to make regulations that would impose requirements on care service providers that are publicly funded, but it is unclear what the limits to that power would be. At face value, the amendment suggests that the requirements could be about anything, which seems to be rather broad.

There are two particular things that amendment 89 says the regulations would have to impose requirements about—“tax status” and “transparency of ownership”. It is unclear what those requirements would be or what could be done to a provider that does not comply with whatever the requirements are.

It is also unclear which services the regulations would apply to. Beyond the challenges that are posed by its drafting, amendment 89 has the potential to cause problems regarding compliance with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which Katy Clark’s colleagues at Westminster have refused to abolish.

It might be that some, or all, of what Katy Clark seeks to achieve with amendments 89 and 90 can already be done. Public bodies already have powers to exclude providers through regulation 58 of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015 and regulation 9 of the Procurement (Scotland) Regulations 2016. The powers include the power to exclude providers that have breached their obligations relating to payment of taxes or social security contributions.

My door is always open, if Katy Clark wants to discuss further what can be done to address any specific concerns that she has, but I believe that amendment 89 is the wrong answer to those concerns.

Amendment 90 would extend the requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to persons

“providing publicly funded care services”.

I understand the desire to improve access to information about care services. I agree that access to information is critical in fostering public trust and ensuring effective delivery of services. That is why the Government has already committed to consulting on extension of the freedom of information law to private and third sector care homes and care-at-home services.

Amendment 90 is not the way to take forward such a change; the right way to take forward change in the area is the existing power under section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. That allows for and requires specific consultation, thereby ensuring that any extension of freedom of information law would be properly planned and tailored to the sector’s specific needs. It means, in particular, that there would be an opportunity to consult in order to get an appropriate definition of the bodies that we would make subject to the freedom of information requirement.

The expression “publicly funded care services” that is used in amendment 90 is unclear and, I think, might cover more bodies than Katy Clark intends it to cover. Around 11,000 care services are registered with the Care Inspectorate, and many are delivered in partnership with private and third sector providers of varying sizes.

Being subject to freedom of information laws also comes with certain resource implications, which have to be carefully considered when we are deciding which bodies to extend the laws to, especially in the context of a sector that is already facing substantial financial challenges following the recent national insurance hike. I note that the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland—CCPS—has indicated to the committee that it does not support amendment 90, citing concerns about the resource implications of new obligations being placed on providers.

Therefore, I ask Katy Clark not to move amendment 90. I will be pleased to discuss with her, in advance of stage 3, the work that the Government already has under way on access to information rights in the sector, and the other avenues for making progress on this important issue.

I cannot support either of Sandesh Gulhane’s amendments. They would require ministers to make regulations for matters that are already dealt with by the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.

I do not know what additional powers Sandesh Gulhane envisages the regulations would give the Care Inspectorate. It is not clear what sanctions the regulation-making power could put in place to back any new powers that it gives the Care Inspectorate, nor is it clear how those new powers would sit alongside those that are already in the 2010 act.

If Dr Gulhane feels that there are specific gaps in the Care Inspectorate’s powers, I am happy to discuss what can be done to address that ahead of stage 3. However, requiring ministers to use subordinate legislation to make unspecified changes for a vaguely defined purpose in an area where primary legislation already governs what can be done by the Care Inspectorate—and, indeed, by other bodies, including the Scottish Social Services Council and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman—is legally and constitutionally the wrong way to go about closing whatever the perceived gap might be.

I ask the committee not to support Sandesh Gulhane’s amendments 142 and 154.

I cannot support any of the amendments in this group. I understand the intention behind amendment 143, which would require an annual report to be made on the provision of personal care to under-65s. I, too, value robust data collection. However, I can confirm that the information that is required by amendment 143 is already published annually in relation to personal care, therefore the intention behind the amendment is already being met. If the member’s intention is to require the publication of additional information, the amendment would fail to do so, and I consider that it should not be supported.

The intention behind amendment 144, as drafted, is not clear, and I cannot support a duty that I do not understand. Having heard what Brian Whittle has had to say about the amendment, I am not sure that “equality of ... services” is the right expression to use, and if the amendment were to be agreed in its current terms, its legal effect would be unclear. I therefore invite Brian Whittle not to move it, and I will be happy to discuss the particular proposal in advance of stage 3.

Amendment 147 would require publication of a report on the act’s operation every two years for ever more. I cannot support that perpetual drain on public resources that would have no clear purpose. The delivery of the national care service will, as I have explained, be about so much more than what is done through the bill alone. A report of the type that is envisaged would therefore tell only part of the story, and it would be a very disjointed story at that, given that most of what is in the bill amends existing legislation. It is hard to understand what sort of report Brian Whittle envisages, as it would comment on arrangements only to the extent that the legislation that underpins them will be amended by the bill. A report in the terms that are proposed would be bizarre and it would add nothing to the existing mechanisms that are available to this Parliament and the public to scrutinise the health and social care system overall. I therefore urge members to reject amendment 147.

I also urge members to reject amendment 157, which would prevent the act that results from the bill from being commenced until ministers had prepared a report on the estimated costs arising from it. Like the amendments to leave out all the bill’s sections, that is simply another wrecking attempt by Mr Whittle, and I urge members to reject amendment 157 as they rejected those other amendments.

The financial implications of the bill as amended at stage 2 will be subject to scrutiny in the usual way when the supplementary financial memorandum is produced. The Finance and Public Administration Committee will scrutinise that in the usual way, and there are ample routes for this committee or any member to obtain information about costs from the Government at any time. Amendment 157 is simply an attempt to put a completely unnecessary procedural hurdle in the way of getting on with improving the flow of information through our health and social care systems, delivering breaks for carers and delivering Anne’s law.

We have always either used the GDP deflator itself or used it to calculate an above-inflation rise. Over the number of years that we have done this, we have used it either in it itself or to calculate an increased rate. The reason that we are not having an above-inflation rise this year is the challenging financial context in which we are operating. In that context, I am pleased that we are able to raise it in line with the GDP deflator and make an increase that will benefit all the people who are accessing personal care and social care and paying for it themselves.

Adult support and protection is everyone’s business. We all have a responsibility to support and protect the most vulnerable people in our society, and we want to make it as easy as possible for those at risk of harm to receive the right support at the right time.

For clarity, I note that local health and social care partnerships continue to hold overall responsibility for investigating and supporting adults who might be at risk of harm.

I have heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including those from health, social work and police sectors, that the variation in how adult protection guidance, including profession-specific guidance, is applied across Scotland can leave them unsure of the most appropriate action to take when they have concerns about an adult at risk.

Amendment 58 seeks to address that by clarifying that, where there are concerns about an adult at risk, information can be shared quickly, proportionately and safely between independent healthcare providers, including private providers, and the local authority. It will allow relevant healthcare services to contribute to adult protection committees, which take strategic action on improvements to governance and planning. The amendment will improve consistency and reduce variation in relation to supporting and protecting our most vulnerable adults in Scotland.

I move amendment 58.

The member is absolutely correct to say that the GDP deflator was used in previous years—from 2011 to 2015—and we then had a number of years when the rates remained static, before we went back to the GDP deflator. Over the past few years, including during the pandemic, there have been above GDP deflator increases. There was an increase of 7.5 per cent in 2021-22, of 10 per cent in 2022-23 and of 9.5 per cent in 2023-24. In 2024-25, we went back to the GDP deflator increase, which, in that year, was 6.68 per cent. Historically, we have used that measure as the benchmark for the uplift, and we are very pleased that we have been able to allocate additional resources to fund free personal and nursing care.

The member will understand that we are operating in an extremely challenging financial context. As such, although there is no doubt that I would have preferred to increase it beyond that, it is simply not possible this year.

There is no need to wind up.

No, thanks.

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.

Yes.