���˿���

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.

Seeing and spending time with loved ones is a fundamental human need, and it is central to the provisions in the bill relating to Anne’s law. I, along with the First Minister, have been profoundly impacted by what relatives and others have told us about their experiences during the pandemic, and we have listened very carefully to those who have campaigned for Anne’s law.

As a result, I have lodged amendment 50, which ensures that people living in adult care homes can always connect with the people who are important to them, both in and out of the home, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Indeed, even where there are exceptional circumstances, the amendment requires some types of visit always to be supported, namely in end-of-life situations and where the suspension of visiting would cause

“serious harm to the resident’s health or wellbeing”

that would outweigh other risks.

Some family and friends are not simply visitors—they are essential care supporters and an integral part of the care team for their loved ones. Amendment 50 gives formal recognition to their role in providing care, support and companionship, as is called for by the care home relatives Scotland group. It provides for at least one person to be identified as an essential care supporter for every care home resident, as well as a legal presumption that suspending visits from that person will always cause serious harm to their loved one’s health and wellbeing.

The approach builds on existing practice, which is reflected in the two current health and social care standards and in guidance. I am deeply grateful to the members of the care home relatives Scotland group and others who have helped us in developing this approach, and I call on all members to support amendment 50.

I will speak to the amendments to amendment 50 in marshalled order. Amendment 50E, from Jackie Baillie, would remove the words “use their best endeavours” in relation to the duty of care homes to identify for every resident at least one individual as an essential care supporter. That would mean that care homes must identify an essential care supporter for all residents, no matter what their circumstances. I cannot support that. In practice, there will be situations in which, sadly, it is not possible to identify someone because the resident has no family or friends, and some residents who do might have a firm preference against designating someone as an essential care supporter for reasons of their own. The purpose of identifying essential care supporters is to give formal recognition to those people who actually perform that role. It is not to be a tick-box exercise in which someone’s name has to be recorded for every resident just to fulfil a legal requirement, nor is it to be an exercise in stripping care home residents of their personal autonomy. If they choose not to have an essential care supporter, that should be their right. For those reasons, I cannot support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 50E.

Amendments 50F and 50G are connected. The overall effect would be to prevent care homes from suspending visits without permission from Public Health Scotland or Scottish ministers or their delegates. I cannot support those amendments because they fundamentally misunderstand the different roles that are played by the different actors. Care providers are ultimately responsible for taking decisions about visiting, but they do not do that in a vacuum. They take advice from others, including health boards and public health teams, as well as other bodies that are concerned with matters besides public health, such as welfare issues.

Public Health Scotland does not provide advice to care homes. That is the responsibility of teams that work for the health boards, which, under the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, have duties to protect the health of the public in the health board’s area. Amendments 50F and 50G would undermine the proper role of care homes in taking decisions on visiting, taking account of public health and non-public health advice from a range of bodies. I urge Jackie Baillie not to move them.

Amendment 50A, which was lodged by Brian Whittle, is about communication with residents’ essential care supporters when visits are suspended. I thank Brian Whittle for the amendment. Communication is so important. We had already intended to include guidance on communication in the code of practice, but, having reflected on the amendment, we now think that it would be worth going further than amendment 50A, which is only about giving reasons in the context of a general decision to suspend visits. Although I therefore agree with the intention of amendment 50A, I invite Brian Whittle not to move it today and, instead, to work with me to bring forward something more comprehensive at stage 3.

Amendment 50H, from Jackie Baillie, proposes that Scottish ministers should consider

“what steps are necessary to protect care homes from legal action”

in cases in which an essential care supporter has been given access to a care home resident at a time when other visits have been suspended. It is not clear what the amendment intends to achieve. Amendment 50 ensures that, when visiting is to be suspended to prevent a serious risk, the provider must continue to support visits when they believe that the suspension of visits is causing or is likely to cause serious harm to the resident’s health or wellbeing, and that harm outweighs the serious risk that led to the suspension of visits. In considering such risks, care providers should always act on advice from local national health service board health protection teams, which have duties to protect the health of the public in their areas under the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008.

It is unclear why Scottish ministers would want to take steps to protect care providers from legal action if they have failed to follow advice—public health or otherwise—to protect people. Furthermore, it is unclear how ministers would do that in practice or, indeed, what would be required given that the amendment just obliges them to consider what steps are necessary. On that basis, I cannot support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 50H.

Jackie Baillie’s amendment 50I seeks to ensure that any decision that is made to suspend visits must be reviewed every 48 hours and remain in force for no longer than seven days. It would require an expedited appeals process to be put in place for an essential care supporter, which would be considered by the body that granted permission for the suspension of visits. No later than 72 hours after an appeal is made, it must be heard, and a decision must be issued.

Those are all matters that can be dealt with in due course by regulations in the code, and I would rather take the time to discuss them with everybody concerned before committing to an approach that might be unworkable in practice or have serious unintended consequences. Aspects of amendment 50I as drafted could go particularly wrong, not least as it is predicated on amendment 50G being agreed to, which I am against.

However, there might be principles that are set out in amendment 50I that it could be valuable to extract and express in the bill in less problematic terms. Therefore, I ask Jackie Baillie not to move amendment 50I and, ahead of stage 3, I would be very happy to discuss with her what regulation should be in the code and what further bill amendments might be useful in order to reflect such principles.

Jackie Baillie’s amendment 50J would add to the matters that are listed in the code of practice that care home providers must treat as “paramount considerations” when fulfilling the duties that are described in proposed sections 78A(1) and 78B(1). I agree whole-heartedly that the matters identified in amendment 50J are important, but framing them as paramount considerations in relation to both duties is the wrong drafting approach. The point of the current framing is that there are two absolutely crucial paramount considerations, which have overarching effect across the duties to identify essential care supporters and to facilitate visits.

In summary, the absolutely crucial paramount considerations that are relevant to both duties are respecting and promoting residents’ dignity, wellbeing and human rights, and recognising and supporting the vital role that people who are not care home staff, such as close relatives and friends, play in providing regular care. Creating a long shopping list of paramount considerations risks detracting from the two considerations’ paramountcy. If everything is a paramount consideration, nothing is.

The paramount considerations that amendment 50J specifically proposes cannot have overarching effect across the two duties. In relation to the first duty, none of the proposals whatsoever is relevant; in relation to the second duty, they are relevant only in limited circumstances. Amendment 50J would simply put the matters it mentions in the wrong place in the bill.

Beyond that, I do not think that the mentioned matters’ specifics are quite right. The first would make a paramount consideration of the presumption that suspending essential care supporter visits would cause serious harm. However, amendment 50 makes that a legal presumption, so it will be the law that care home providers have to apply it. It makes no sense that they must “have regard to” a presumption that they are legally required to follow.

The second proposed further paramount consideration is a requirement for staff and essential care supporters

“to work together as equals to agree how visits should be facilitated”.

I am unclear what that would mean in practice and I am quite troubled by there being no reference to involving the resident.

The last proposed further paramount consideration is

“the need for consistency of risk management processes for both staff and visitors.”

Obviously, staff are not the same as visitors. Risk management processes for staff will flow from their obligations as regulated professionals and their employment contracts. If the suggestion is that staff are not to be made subject to any risk management processes that visitors cannot be subjected to, that would cause serious problems.

Amendment 50 already covers most of the ground that amendment 50J would deal with. Again, I am very happy to speak to Jackie Baillie ahead of stage 3 about how we could make explicit the matters that the code must address. However, the way that amendment 50J is constructed—both in terms of where it would insert the extra paragraphs and in what they say—is a problem, and I urge Jackie Baillie not to move it.

I turn to Brian Whittle’s amendment 50B with good news for him: I support it. It would require the code of practice to be published in

“a manner that is accessible to the public, and includes a version in an easy read format”.

The Government intends to do just that, so I am happy to support an amendment saying so. However, we might have to revisit the use of the phrase “easy read” at stage 3, as it does not have a concrete legal meaning—naturally, we will want to ensure that there is certainty about what the duty requires.

In less good news for Brian Whittle, I do not support his amendment 50C, which would require ministers to review the code of practice if a “significant number of complaints” were received about it. That would judicialise a political matter in a way that is good for neither law nor politics. Amendment 50 already provides for the periodic review of the code. If any Government were to hear significant discontent about the code’s terms, it would use its powers to review it and change it if necessary, but involving courts in the matter and asking them to adjudicate on whether a number of complaints received—the amendment does not say by whom—is a significant number is not necessary or a good idea.

I am afraid to say that I also cannot support Brian Whittle’s amendment 50D. It would require ministers to report every year, forever, on the implementation of sections 78A to 78C in every local authority area. That would be a significant drain on public resources, and I am not sure what the benefit of a routine reporting cycle like that would be. I hope that Brian Whittle will be reassured to know that the Care Inspectorate will assess care providers’ compliance with the regulations and that the Government already has plans to ensure learning and improvement through a national oversight group for Anne’s law.

I move amendment 50.

No.

Amendment 58 agreed to.

To strike a note of consensus, I agree that the social work profession is vitally important and that the professional leadership that is provided by the office of the chief social worker should be recognised and have an appropriate status. The grade of that individual is not specified in the bill, and, although I agree with the premise of what Sandesh Gulhane has said, I do not think that it is necessary to specify the grade of the chief social worker in the bill.

I think that we are getting into controversial territory here. As the member will understand, ministers do not specify the grades of civil servants in the Government. I am happy to discuss the situation with him between now and stage 3, but I do not think it appropriate to specify the grade in the bill.

Although I welcome Brian Whittle’s focus on delayed discharge, which is a key priority for the Scottish Government, I urge members not to support amendment 145.

I am absolutely clear that the current numbers of people being delayed in hospital and the considerable variation in the level of such delays in different parts of Scotland are unacceptable, and I agree that every feasible option that would support a reduction must be considered. However, I do not believe that having a statutory target in the bill would drive such a reduction. We know that shifting the balance of care from hospitals to the community and ensuring the use of best practice in integrated discharge processes will make a difference. That will require careful work across health and social care systems.

The statutory duty to provide social care services sits with local authorities and the challenge in addressing delays is complex. That is why efforts to drive improvement must be rooted in collaborative engagement and support, not in arbitrary targets. Since last July, the Scottish Government has been working collaboratively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with health and social care partnerships to explore the challenges that local systems face, offer support to those with the highest levels of delays and identify and promote best practice. That work will be supported by the commitments in our latest budget to enhance the hospital at home service, improve frailty pathways and ensure that people get the care that they need, in the right place for them.

Regarding reporting and the requirement suggested in amendment 145 for a parliamentary statement, we already have monthly reporting on delayed discharge by Public Health Scotland and members will be well aware that there are regular exchanges in the Parliament chamber about those figures and the challenges associated with improving flow and integration across health and social care services. It is not clear what more such a requirement would add to accountability, including to the local accountability of local authorities.

On that basis, I cannot support Brian Whittle’s amendment 145 and I urge members not to do so.