Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I have stated, work has already commenced on engaging key stakeholders in our development of the approach to consultation. We have established a dedicated advisory group, which is actively taking forward that work. I think that I have been absolutely clear that the Government does not want to skip the step of consultation. We agree with asking the question; that is why we have committed to consulting and it is important that we do that with the sector before bringing forward the change. I therefore urge members not to support these amendments.

Our workforce is at the heart of delivering health and social care services to the people of Scotland. The bill is crucial to ensuring that the workforce feel valued and supported.

Amendment 66 by Stephen Kerr would require ministers to audit the social care workforce every seven years. However, that would create a duplication of work that is already being done, which is why I do not support it. Mr Kerr might not be aware of this, but ministers already have a duty under section 58 of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 to monitor the number of social service workers that are needed and available, as well as other matters such as the adequacy of training provision for them.

On top of that, there are annual reporting duties on ministers under the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Scottish Social Services Council produces an annual workforce report and there is also a national workforce strategy. There is no shortage of information that is already being produced that deals with exactly the matters that are talked about in Mr Kerr’s amendment.

Of course, it is important that there is good quality data to inform policy on important issues. The Parliament has legislated in previous sessions to ensure that data exists in relation to the social care workforce. As a Parliament, we have to be very mindful that we do not waste taxpayers’ money and divert public servants from serving the public by drowning them under layers of duplicative and unnecessary bureaucracy. That is what amendment 66 would do, and I urge members to reject it.

I do not support either of the amendments in this group. As I have already said, we, as a Parliament, must be mindful of the need not to impose on the public sector needless administrative burdens that waste taxpayers’ money and divert public servants needlessly away from front-line duties.

I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 39, which will allow regulations to be used to modify the integration planning and delivery principles in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Updating the principles to reflect changes to policy in the law, and maintaining the current provision for how principles are applied and monitored, will support consistency and continuity, reducing the risk of creating additional complexity to any existing principles, outcomes or standards.

Brian Whittle’s amendment 87 is a retread of the amendment that he lodged at stage 2, which the committee rightly rejected. I am disappointed to see that Mr Whittle has brought it back. The effect of amendment 87 would be to hold up the coming into force of every reform in the bill, pending further reporting.

Let me be clear: Parliament has well-established mechanisms for scrutinising the costs and impact of legislation. Indeed, Mr Whittle, as a member of this Parliament, has every opportunity to question the Government at any time on its spending decisions.

I repeat what I said at stage 2. Mr Whittle’s amendment is simply a cynical attempt to slow things down by adding to the processes that the Parliament has chosen to put in place to assess the costs of legislation.

I will briefly speak first to my own amendments in the group, which are all of a minor and technical nature to tidy up after stage 2. Amendment 10 updates a cross-reference and amendments 11 to 15 and 17 shorten the way in which breaks are referred to, as the meaning of “break” will be defined by amendment 18, which simply tidies up the definition of that expression, as agreed at stage 2.

Amendments 20 to 23 deal with the consequential repeal of provisions in the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 that are no longer needed. I was pleased at stage 2 to support Gillian Mackay’s amendment to add section 39A to the bill, which is entitled “Short break services statement”. It is important that people who care for others know how to access short breaks. At stage 2, I noted that some adjustments to the new section were needed to clarify the duties, and I discussed those with Gillian Mackay and carers representative organisations to ensure that the intention behind the original amendment is met in a way that gives clarity to local authorities, which publish those statements. Amendments 24 to 29 make those adjustments.

I turn to other members’ amendments in the group. I am pleased to support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 16, which will underline that regulations that set out what constitutes sufficient breaks for carers should recognise the importance of their having

“time for rest and leisure”.

I recognise the pressures that many carers are under and the importance of ensuring that they can access breaks to maintain and improve their wellbeing.

As I said at stage 2, the definition of sufficient breaks will be developed in partnership with carers, to ensure that their lived experience is properly reflected. Amendment 16 affirms the commitment to that in legislation, and I encourage members across the chamber to support it.

I also support amendment 1 and I thank Mr Balfour for lodging it. Amendment 1 will enshrine in legislation a duty to assist carers in accessing support, including income maximisation. We already have in place a range of supports for carers, including statutory duties on local authorities, Social Security Scotland signposting to support, and funding for local carer centres. However, I share Mr Balfour’s desire to keep improving how we support carers now and in years to come.

However, I cannot support Brian Whittle’s amendment 63. I recognise the importance of transparency in relation to spending on local carer support, but the issue has already been recognised in a previous parliamentary session. The existing powers in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 are sufficient to specify financial reporting by integration joint boards. The 2014 act also requires publication of annual performance reports, and subordinate legislation made by Scottish ministers already requires those reports to include information on the amount spent on carer support.

If Mr Whittle feels that all the information that he wants is not already provided through that mechanism, I would be pleased to discuss with him the changes that should be made to ensure that the information is provided. However, amendment 63 is the wrong way to go about getting it. It risks creating confusion and puts unnecessary burdens on bodies that are already subject to statutory duties to provide such information. Therefore, I ask him not to move amendment 63. My door is always open to him, as it is to all members across the chamber, to explore how we can improve financial transparency within an already comprehensive statutory system.

I move amendment 10.

I will begin with the amendments to section 41 of the bill. Section 41 will allow public bodies that contract for health and care services to confine the competition to win those contracts to third sector organisations. I believe that it is important for the health and social care services market that contracting authorities can, where appropriate, carve out a space that would allow third sector organisations to win contracts without always having to compete with the for-profit giants in the sector.

I also reiterate what I said at stage 2: we need to have a mixed-market model if we are to effectively deliver adult social care. That model must include third sector, for-profit and public sector providers, and section 41 will not prevent that. It will be up to individual contracting authorities to decide which contracts to award through that reserved process, based on their knowledge of the local market and of particular issues in their area.

Amendments 40 and 41 in my name are technical amendments that will extend the range of contracts that can be made subject to that reserved process to include contracts for services to health boards and special health boards, as well as those services that are provided under the functions that are listed in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. That will ensure that the policy intent of extending reserved contracting processes to health and social care services is met.

Brian Whittle’s amendment 64 would entirely remove section 41 from the bill, which would mean that there could not be a reserved contracting process for third sector organisations. That reflects Mr Whittle’s view that there should be no reserved contracting process to support third sector organisations. That is his position. As I have said, it is not mine, nor was it the committee’s position at stage 2, when the committee rejected an identical amendment from Mr Whittle. For that reason, I do not support his amendment 64, and I urge members not to support it.

I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 42, which seeks to place a duty on ministers to issue guidance on ethical commissioning for integrated health and social care services. We know from Derek Feeley’s report and from feedback that we have had from providers, commissioners and people with lived experience of using those services that experiences differ between local authority areas. We do not want the quality of the care that is delivered to be dependent on a person’s postcode. Commissioners, social care providers and those who use those services have told us that a single set of national guidance that sets out the principles of ethical commissioning and details of practical implementation would be beneficial, so I encourage members to support amendment 42.

I also welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 43, which would require contracting authorities with expenditure of more than £5 million per annum to produce procurement strategies that set out how they intended to meet specific requirements of regulated procurement. Amendment 43 pulls together those procurement strategies with integration authority strategic plans so that a contracting authority that plans to carry out procurement for a health and social care integration authority would have to say in its procurement strategy how it would go about that in a way that was consistent with the integration authority’s strategic plan.

Integration authorities have told us that the separation between their function of setting aims and objectives and the delivery function, which rests with local authorities and health boards, can give rise to tension. Amendment 43 would help to close the implementation gap between strategy and delivery by requiring the procuring authority to demonstrate consistency with the strategic plan of the integration authority.

In conclusion, I encourage members to support my amendments 40 and 41 and Jackie Baillie’s amendments 42 and 43, and to reject Brian Whittle’s amendment 64.

I move amendment 40.

I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendments. I am committed to increasing the understanding of social care needs to inform and support health and social care reform.

Last week, the Scottish Government published an analysis of self-reported unmet care and support needs in older adults aged over 65. Amendment 46 will build on our evidence-led approach, requiring ministers to periodically evaluate how needs might change in the coming years and to continue to develop our approaches to further increase understanding, particularly around the kind of needs that are unmet and why that might be the case.

As I have said in the discussions about other groups this afternoon, I am pleased to support data and evidence gathering with a purpose. I encourage all members to support amendments 46 and 51.

I am pleased to begin today on a note of consensus. I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2, which places a duty on ministers to ensure that everyone who receives healthcare or social care in Scotland can have a digital care record. As members will be aware, the integration of health and social care records is a long-term ambition of the Scottish Government, which the powers in part 2 of the bill were always intended to support. Amendment 2 enshrines that ambition in law, recognising that a digital care record would improve outcomes for the workforce and individuals throughout Scotland.

Brian Whittle has proposed three amendments to Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2. Amendment 2A would change the label from “digital care record” to “digital integrated care record”. I recognise that the spirit of the amendment is to underline the need for integrated care, so I am happy to support it.

However, I cannot support amendment 2B, which would add the words “technology-agnostic interoperable solution” to amendment 2. As a matter of law, it is not clear what that phrase means. Although it is right that we should be aiming for a flexible digital infrastructure in health and care, and I agree with the intent, I am concerned about putting something that is so unclear into law.

As I said, we are keen to ensure that the requirement to provide information is proportionate and minimal so that it does not place a burden on people who operate in the sector. We are keen to have a healthy market in Scotland—particularly in the Highlands, which is an area that is very close to my heart—and to ensure that we do not dissuade people from coming into the sector.