���˿���

The Feeley review made it clear that, although there are some areas of good practice, procurement needs to improve: it needs to be ethical, outcome focused, person led, flexible and collaborative, and to embed fair work. Although I am confident that the current suite of procurement legislation already provides the flexibility to deliver most of the improvements that are needed, there are two areas where changes to legislation would be of benefit—first, extending the reserved contracting process to third sector organisations that meet the listed criteria for services and, secondly, providing a new ministerial power to amend the light-touch regime threshold.

Before turning to the detail of my amendments on the reserved contracting process, I take this opportunity to reiterate my appreciation to all providers that deliver vital services to our communities. I am aware that there has been some concern about what this process will mean for the market, so I want to be clear that we need a mix of third sector, for-profit and public sector organisations to provide social care throughout Scotland. The extension of the reserved contracting process will not change that. Providers that do not meet the criteria to participate through that process will still have access to other contract opportunities through different procurement routes.

I turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment 51 will remove the limit on the duration of contracts that can be made subject to the reserved process. Representatives of the third sector have told us that the five-year limit that was proposed in the bill as introduced would be unhelpful. As a result of amendment 51, the decision on the length of a contract that is subject to the reserved process will be made on a case-by-case basis by the relevant public body.

Amendment 52 is a tidying-up amendment to replace a reference to services being provided

“to or on behalf of the National Care Service”,

in consequence of the removal of part 1 of the bill.

Amendment 53 will broaden the definition of the bodies that will qualify to bid for contracts through the reserved process. That reflects extensive work that has been undertaken with stakeholders to ensure that the criteria fulfil the policy intention of ensuring that third sector organisations, including social enterprises, can bid through the process. I thank all the stakeholders involved for their invaluable feedback.

Amendment 54 will make a minor drafting adjustment.

Before I move on from the reserved process, I urge members not to support Brian Whittle’s amendment 53A. The purpose of section 41 is to create a process for bidding for certain contracts that is open only to third sector organisations, so that they are not always crowded out by big for-profit companies. Last week, Brian Whittle made it clear in speaking to his amendment 139, which would remove section 41, that he is opposed to that approach in principle. His amendment implies that the state should have no role in providing a level playing field to ensure that the sector has an appropriate mix of for-profit and not-for-profit providers.

Mr Whittle’s amendment 53A is more of the same. It would allow companies that are principally set up to make profit for their shareholders or members to enter the reserved process, provided that they say that they do not intend to use the profits from reserved contracts for private gain. That would still be opening up the reserved process to organisations beyond third sector organisations, which are the organisations that section 41 was designed to benefit. That is understandable from Brian Whittle, who we know is opposed to the whole principle behind section 41, but members who are not opposed to that should vote against amendment 53A.

Finally on this group, I turn to my amendment 55. Procurement legislation details the rules that apply when public sector bodies purchase from external providers. It sets thresholds at which rules, such as requirements for specific competitive processes, apply. The rules depend on the type and value of what is being purchased. For health and social care services, the light-touch regime threshold and rules apply. There is currently no mechanism for changing the threshold of the light-touch regime, and the current threshold has been in place since 2015.

Amendment 55 provides a power to change the threshold by regulations for health and social care contracts. Any future changes to the threshold must be exercised in compliance with international law, including trade agreements, and would be subject to the negative procedure.

I move amendment 51.

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.

The GDP deflator, which is a measure of general inflation in the domestic economy, has historically been used to increase the free personal and nursing care payments annually.

As I stated in response to Dr Gulhane’s earlier question, inflationary increases were made from 2011 to 2015. The rate remained static in 2016-17 due to forecasts of inflation rates being too high, and ministers agreed to keep that rate for 2017-18. There was then a return to inflationary rises.

I agree that evidence in recent years has shown that the cost of providing FPNC has increased significantly and the rate has not kept pace with that. In order to address that, for three years, above-inflation—that is, above the GDP deflator—increases were made to rates on the basis of the need to balance affordability and take into account the rising cost of care home placements. There was a return to inflationary rises last year, and I propose that this year, as last year, we use the GDP deflator.

I hope that that answers members’ questions. We are proposing an inflationary rise for next year largely due to the need to balance budget constraints with the wish to raise it at all.

The discussion on this group of amendments has been a long one, and it has been a long road to get Anne’s law right. In putting Anne’s law at the heart of the bill, in primary legislation, we are recognising our overall commitment to ensuring that people can see and spend time with loved ones. We have listened very carefully to those who have campaigned for Anne’s law and others to get to this point, and I believe that my amendment 50, which takes account of what we have heard, will ensure that people remain connected.

Importantly, amendment 50 formally recognises the role of essential care supporters, who are an integral part of the care team, as has been called for by Care Home Relatives Scotland. It places a duty on care homes to identify essential care supporters, and it provides a legal presumption that suspending visits to the person for whom they are caring will always cause serious harm to their loved one’s health and wellbeing.

I thank members for the other amendments in the group. Some of them sound reasonable on the face of it but would be unworkable, as they do not reflect current practice on the ground. Others would have unintended consequences. However, I recognise the importance of a number of areas that have been raised, so my door remains open to Jackie Baillie, other members and—crucially—Care Home Relatives Scotland to discuss those suggestions ahead of stage 3.

In summary, I ask members to support my amendment 50 and Brian Whittle’s amendment 50B, and to not support all the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 56 will give the Scottish Social Services Council a power to compel written information from various sources, such as employers, witnesses and other public bodies, when that is pertinent to the exercise of its functions, including fitness-to-practise investigations. That will mean that it will no longer need to make an application to the court under section 1(1) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 and chapter 3, part 1, of the Act of Sederunt (Summary Applications, Statutory Applications and Appeals etc Rules) 1999 for such information when it is not provided voluntarily, thereby reducing the time that is taken for an investigation and the costs involved.

I move amendment 56.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee regarding a proposed amendment to the Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Regulations 2002. The draft regulations that are before the committee make routine annual increases to the rates for free personal and nursing care. Those payments help to cover the cost of those services for self-funding adults in residential care.

This year, we propose to apply an uplift that is based on the gross domestic product deflator, which has been used historically as the inflationary measure to increase the rates. It will mean that the weekly payment rates for personal care for self-funders will rise from £248.70 to £254.60, and the nursing care component will rise from £111.90 to £114.55. The most recent official statistics show that more than 11,000 self-funding residents aged 18 and above received free personal and nursing care in 2023-24. They should all benefit from these changes. I am happy to take questions from the committee.

I welcome the intention behind Gillian Mackay’s amendments 73 to 80 and 83 to 85, which is to ensure that the new rights to breaks can include the provision of breaks taken together with a cared-for person. Although I consider that the existing provisions do not prevent the carer and the cared-for person from taking short breaks together, I support the amendments to ensure that that is absolutely clear.

I am, however, concerned by one potential consequence of the definition of breaks that is proposed in amendment 85, which is that it could allow local authorities to give effect to the right by providing a carer with breaks that are unrelated to their caring role. I am sure that that was not the intention, so I would like to work with Gillian Mackay ahead of stage 3 to develop a definition that does not risk undermining the right that we are trying to confer.

I am also happy to support amendment 81, which would turn the regulation-making power to make further provisions about breaks into a duty to make regulations. It was always the intention to make regulations, so turning that “may” into a “must” does no harm.

Amendment 82 is intended as a minor drafting amendment to add the word “also” as a consequence of agreement to amendment 81. It is not necessary or helpful as a consequential change and so I do not support it. If Gillian Mackay thinks that it is more than a consequential change, however, I would be happy to discuss with her what she means it to do and how it could be more clearly expressed.

I have a number of concerns about Gillian Mackay’s amendment 131 and Jackie Baillie’s amendment 132, which set rules about how the regulations should define sufficient breaks. In both amendments, there are aspects of the wording that do not work. For example, amendment 131 uses the term “working hours”, which is an employment law concept. That is not how we would draft regulations that are related to unpaid care.

I should also emphasise that I consider a provision that requires recognition of article 24 as drafted raises questions of legislative competence, especially given the reservation of international relations under the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 132 talks about a minimum entitlement of a two-week break. It is unclear what is to constitute a break in that context and whether it means two weeks consecutively or cumulatively, and what period it will be for—a month, a year or a lifetime.

Beyond the wording, some of the principles behind the amendments are inconsistent with feedback from carers in our previous consultation. Overwhelmingly, responses favoured personalisation over standardised entitlements. There is also the concern that, by setting rules about what regulations that define sufficient breaks have to say, the amendments would pre-empt the intended consultative process. By imposing rules about what regulations have to say now, we might end up preventing the regulations setting out a definition in the terms that carers, delivery partners and other consultees want to see. Although I cannot support either amendment 131 or 132, I would be happy to discuss what might be possible with Gillian Mackay and Jackie Baillie ahead of stage 3, so that we end up with a definition of “sufficient breaks” in regulations that is workable, that reflects the views that will be expressed through the intended consultative process and which can be adapted in the future, if required.

Amendment 133 is consequential on amendment 131 and, as I do not support amendment 131, I ask members not to support amendment 133.

Finally in this group, I am pleased to support Gillian Mackay’s amendment 88, which would extend the range of information that a short break service statement must contain and so increase transparency around the availability of different types of short break services and what local authorities are doing to meet demand. There are some ambiguities in the drafting of amendment 88, which I would like to resolve at stage 3. I will be pleased to work with Gillian Mackay to do that.