���˿���

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.

Brian Whittle’s amendments seek to remove sections 36 to 48 of the bill. They would, in effect, remove the bill’s remaining sections, following my amendments to remove part 1, so I ask committee members not to support them.

Agreement to amendments 123 and 125, which relate to sections 36 and 37, would result in barriers to effective sharing of information and consistent use of information standards across health and social care. That would negatively impact on our ability to improve delivery of high-quality health and care services for individuals.

Amendments 134 and 135 propose the removal of the introduction of the right to breaks for unpaid carers. Establishment of that right has received an overwhelmingly positive response. It is clear that there is support for delivering it, as it will help to ensure that unpaid carers can have a life alongside their caring role, and it is likely to reduce other costs arising from unplanned hospital admissions, failed hospital discharge and additional residential care when caring relationships break down. I remain committed to delivering the crucial right to breaks in order to uphold the health and wellbeing of unpaid carers and to publicly recognise the immense value of the support that they provide.

Amendment 138 would remove provisions related to Anne’s law, which we are absolutely committed to delivering, and for which there is strong cross-party support.

Our amendment 50 includes provision for enabling care home residents to identify an essential care supporter, as has been called for by Care Home Relatives Scotland. I am grateful to that group and others for working with us on that amendment.

Brian Whittle’s amendment 139 would remove section 41, which will extend the reserved contracting process to third sector organisations in health and social care. That process will help those organisations to compete with larger for-profit ones. It will support a flexible mixed-market model for delivering social care, with decisions being made locally based on local needs. Independent and third sector organisations, both for-profit and not-for-profit ones, are and will continue to be important partners in delivering social care for Scotland.

Agreement to Brian Whittle’s amendments would halt reforms in a range of really important areas, which I believe largely command cross-party support. I cannot believe that the member would want us to halt Anne’s law and the right to breaks for carers. I therefore ask the committee not to support any of the amendments in the group.

As was set out in my statement to Parliament on 23 January, we remain committed to delivering our Scottish national care service. However, I have concluded that we must achieve that without legislating for structural reform at this time, but must instead pursue a different means of delivering on our goals. The result of that decision is that part 1 of the bill, as introduced, requires to be removed. That would be done by amendments 1 to 39, which are in my name.

The removal of part 1 has the most significant impact on the establishment of care boards and the transfer of responsibility for community health, social work and social care services to the Scottish ministers. However, strengthening national oversight and support for the system remains a priority.

We are working to establish for the services an advisory board that will be informed by lived experience. We still intend to pursue several areas of local reform through means other than primary legislation.

We will continue to give further consideration to the national care service principles. In addition, we will proceed with publishing a co-designed charter of rights and responsibilities, independent of the bill.

A revised programme to improve complaint services will also be developed and delivered. Independent information, advice and advocacy is an area in which provision in the bill would still be helpful. Amendment 15 would therefore move section 13 to part 3 of the bill, and we will discuss amendments to it in a later group—I should say that we will discuss those amendments if Brian Whittle’s amendment 96 is not agreed to, because it would remove section 13 from the bill entirely. I urge members not to support it.

Amendments 60 to 68 are technical amendments to the remaining parts of the bill to reflect the removal of part 1. There are competing amendments for changing the bill’s short title to reflect the removal of part 1. It will come as no surprise to members that I invite them to support amendment 67 over amendment 40 from Alex Cole-Hamilton and amendment 158 from Brian Whittle.

Brian Whittle’s proposed short title of “Social Care and Support” would not be an accurate description of the bill, because it refers only to social care, whereas part 2 of the bill is also about healthcare. Alex Cole-Hamilton’s proposal for “Care and Carers” is not technically inaccurate, but it places the emphasis on carers, which, although it is an important element of the bill, is not the only important element. I have therefore proposed “Care Reform” on the basis that it is a broader description.

I move amendment 1.

I am glad to hear that Jackie Baillie’s—and, I presume, other Labour Party members’—support for the proposed legislation extends to voting for it and against wrecking amendments.