Contents
- Attendance
- Leaving the European Union (Impacts on Health and Social Care)
- “Sport for Everyone” (Government Response)
- Subordinate Legislation
Subordinate Legislation
Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2018 [Draft]
As with all instruments that are subject to affirmative procedure, we will now have an evidence-taking session with the minister and her officials on the draft regulations. During the evidence session, there will be an opportunity for committee members to ask the minister and her officials any questions that they may have on the draft regulations.
In addition to the Minister for Public Health and Sport, Aileen Campbell, I welcome Mike Liddle, from adult social care policy, and Emma Stevenson, from the Government solicitors. Thank you for coming. I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you, convener. As you say, I am joined today by Emma Stevenson and Mike Liddle.
The draft regulations reflect our continued intention to increase free personal and nursing care payments in line with inflation. If they are approved, the regulations will continue to benefit vulnerable people aged 65 and over. The rates are calculated using the gross domestic product deflator, which is an inflation prediction tool. The regulations will increase the personal and nursing care payments for self-funding residents in care homes in line with inflation, which this year gives an increase of 1.56 per cent. The weekly payment for personal care will rise from £171 to £174 per week. The nursing care component of the payment will rise by £1, going up to £79 per week.
It is estimated that the rise will cost approximately £2.1 million. Funding of £66 million was allocated to local authorities for social care in the 2018-19 budget, taking this proposed increase into account.
The free personal and nursing care policy continues to command strong support and, as you will be aware, by April next year we will have extended free personal care to people under the age of 65.
I am happy to take questions on the draft regulations.
Alex Cole-Hamilton has the first question.
Thank you, convener. I welcome the minister and her officials. Thank you for joining us today.
To some degree of fanfare at the most recent budget, the Government announced a 3 per cent pay increase across the board for public sector workers. I am interested as to why the payments for personal and nursing care have gone up by only 1.56 per cent. Obviously, many care and nursing professionals will be public sector employees. Who is expected to meet the shortfall between the 1.56 per cent increase and the public sector pay increase of 3 per cent?
Using the GDP inflator to ensure that the level of payment is increased is not unusual; it is the approach that has been taken over a number of years. Regarding council budgets, I point to the fact that the amount going to local authorities has increased to £66 million to reflect wider social care needs. Aside from that, the wider local government settlement takes into account some of the broader pressures around staffing.
So, although it is not reflected in the payments that we are discussing, the workers who will be delivering the care will all be receiving a 3 per cent pay increase, which is to be funded entirely through an increase or uplift in the local government settlement.
The draft regulations concern the free personal care element. The measures are not unusual. This is the approach that we have taken over a number of years, and the increase is a regular thing that happens, which we have presented to the committee. Within other parts of government there has been a reflection of the wider social care needs that have been met within the Government’s budget.
I accept that the Government has used this model for uplifting these payments before, but I imagine that the majority of the payments—at £174 for personal care and £79 for nursing care—are largely staff costs and go to pay staff salaries. Obviously there are overheads included in those figures, but if we have come to a national decision that public sector workers require a 3 per cent pay increase and if, by extension, we want to ensure that the private sector social care workforce is keeping pace with that level—if that is the value that we are putting on staff costs—why is the uplift only 1.56 per cent?
That is due to the measure being about free personal care and the commitment to ensure that it increases by inflation. This is my regular appearance before the committee because of the way in which we have increased free personal care, using the GDP deflator model, which is not—
You do not think that there is a case for changing that.
If you would like to engage on that issue, that would be absolutely fair. However, we were also committed to extending free personal care to under-65s. I am happy to have a conversation with you and the committee if that is something that you want to revisit, but the instrument concerns the regular increase through the GDP deflator model to ensure that free personal care increases in line with inflation.
The payment rate shown is going to the self-funders within residential care, so it is providing an uplift to the people who are funding their own care and to the amount of public money that is paid towards their care. Additional money has been put into the budget over the past couple of years to enable payments of the living wage for social care staff.
I am not trying to be difficult, and I accept that the rate is for self-funders. However, if the cost of their care is going to increase by more than the amount of the payment that we are offering, is that not a problem?
Again, the draft regulations are about the simple matter of increasing free personal care for over-65s, which had not been increased until 2007, when we came into power. There had been no increase until then. We came into power and we decided that the right thing to do was to ensure that the payment increased by at least the rate of inflation. If there are other things that you want us to do to alter how we approach the matter, I am happy to have that discussion, but, on the draft regulations before you, I say that these measures are a fairly regular thing that we do to ensure that the rate is keeping pace with inflation.
The Government is taking a wider look at a number of different policy areas across the piece to ensure that adult social care is keeping pace with the change of need. We can consider the matter, if you or the committee so desire.
There has also been agreement between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the care providers on an uplift to the national care home contract for this year. That will find its way through to putting extra money into the pockets of those care workers, too.
Good morning to the panel. In your opening statement you mentioned what is known as Frank’s law. Will you give us and update on Frank’s law and the regulations that will extend free personal care? Do you envisage those being brought to the committee in April? Any update that you have on that would be useful.
That was the timescale that we publicly set out. April will be the deadline for that, and work is on-going. The group that is considering the matter has met twice, and it will meet again next week—Amanda Kopel is due to present at that meeting. Engagement work is on-going to keep up the pace to ensure that we make good on that commitment.
So you expect local authorities to deliver that provision from April next year.
Yes.
As there are no further questions from members of the committee, we will move to the next item on the agenda, which is the formal debate on the affirmative Scottish statutory instrument on which we have just taken evidence. I remind committee members that there is no opportunity at this stage for further questions. You may of course offer debating points, but there will be no questions as such, and we will then move to a conclusion.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations [draft] be approved.—[Aileen Campbell.]
Motion agreed to.
12:27 Meeting suspended.12:28 On resuming—
Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 (Adult Carers and Young Carers: Identification of Outcomes and Needs for Support) Regulations 2018 [Draft]
Self-directed Support (Direct Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/29)
Carers (Waiving of Charges for Support) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/31)
Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 (Short Breaks Services Statements) Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/32)
Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 (Review of Adult Carer Support Plan and Young Carer Statement) Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/33)
Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/34)
Agenda item 4 is a further session on subordinate legislation. I welcome Peter Stapleton, from carers policy, and Ruth Lunny, from the Scottish Government’s solicitors department, who are supporting the minister for this item. We again welcome Aileen Campbell. This set of SSIs includes one instrument that is subject to affirmative procedure in draft, and five instruments that are subject to negative procedure.
Once again, I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement in relation to the affirmative instrument and the five other sets of regulations.
12:30
I do not think that I will be as brief as I was for the previous item, as there are a number of sets of regulations to refer to. As you have mentioned, I am joined by Peter Stapleton and Ruth Lunny.
It is just over two years since the Parliament passed the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 with unanimous support, putting in place an important new approach to supporting carers. The 2018-19 budget includes an additional £66 million to support additional expenditure by local government on social care, including the implementation of the 2016 act. We expect the full amount to be transferred to integration joint boards for those purposes, in line with their delegated responsibilities.
This batch of six statutory instruments are the final ones required to enable implementation from the start of April, and I will say a few words about our approach to each set of regulations.
The transitional regulations provide for carers who receive support under the existing system to move to the new system under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. They require local authorities to continue providing support to existing carers and to continue to waive charges, until the carers move to the new system or cease to need carer support. Local authorities must keep that support under review until the carers move to the new system.
The regulations allow the transition to the new system to be phased in within three years, or within a year for young carers. Those carers must be offered an adult carer support plan or young carer statement sooner where there is a change that has a material impact on the care that they provide. They have a right to request an adult carer support plan or a young carer statement at any stage.
Those transitional arrangements are designed with three principles in mind: to provide continuity of support during the transition process for carers already receiving support; to allow a managed transition, so that existing carers move into support under the 2016 act on a phased basis and over a reasonable timescale; and to be responsive to the circumstances of individual carers.
The short breaks services statements regulations add further requirements to the 2016 act’s duty for local authorities to prepare statements of the short breaks services available in Scotland. In particular, they require local authorities to consider the views of carers and carer representatives when preparing the short breaks services statement, and to provide contact details for the responsible department regarding publication. That will help to ensure that statements are appropriate to the needs of local carers, and that they know who to contact for further information. Following last year’s consultation, the regulations also require the first statements to be published by the end of December, so as to allow adequate time for the information to be assembled and for local discussion to ensure that the statements are as useful as possible.
The two sets of amendment regulations on the waiving of charges and on direct payments update legal references in 2014 regulations so that they refer to carer support under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. When the new duty to support carers takes effect from 1 April, the amendment regulations will maintain the existing requirements for local authorities to waive charges in relation to carer support and not to means test carer support delivered via a direct payment.
The review regulations set out circumstances in which young carer statements and adult carer support plans must be reviewed—in particular when the carer or cared-for person moves, or if there is another change that the authority decides has or could have a material impact on the care provided by the carer. Examples of such circumstances will be discussed and outlined in guidance.
Finally, the draft regulations on the identification of carers’ needs and personal outcomes, which the committee is considering under the affirmative procedure, set out requirements that align those responsibilities with those for the preparation of young carer statements and adult carer support plans. As discussed in the policy note, the draft regulations are essential to the definitions of “identified personal outcomes” and “identified needs” under the 2016 act, so that the key duties in relation to adult carer support plans, young carer statements and carer support can work as intended.
In summary, supporting the proposed changes will enable the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 to be implemented from the start of April and will put in place important new rights for carers as part of the structured, personalised approach to carer support envisaged under the act.
I am happy to take questions on this suite of regulations.
Thank you. I remind colleagues that we are again in a two-stage process. There is now an opportunity for questions to the minister and her officials. When we move to the formal debate, there will be no such opportunity. If there are questions, this is the time to ask to them.
I have had a number of constituents call me about carer assessments and the requirements for those assessments. I am interested to know whether the instruments actually lay out how an assessment should be undertaken. Is that part of the process?
A lot of local work will be happening to ensure that design and local circumstances are reflected in how the assessments take place. Perhaps Peter Stapleton would like to offer Ms Harper some ideas on how that is happening in a practical sense.
There is quite a lot in the 2016 act on the content of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. There is a lot of detail on what they need to cover: emergency planning, identifying needs, personal outcomes and so on. We have supplemented that in the guidance, which is due to be issued very shortly. It has been out in draft for a while for local areas.
We are taking a conversational approach with carers so as to understand their needs, what is important to them and the personal outcomes that should be focused on in the adult carer support plans and young carer statements. That is not outlined in the instruments before you, but there is quite a lot in the act and the supporting guidance, both on the content and on the approach to developing the plans.
There is a lot of attention on the young carer element to ensure that those provisions are implemented in an age-appropriate way and are understandable for the young people who are in need of that support. I have seen a lot of engagement, with different local authorities doing different things to ensure that that engagement is happening and that it is inclusive and as facilitative as it can possibly be, depending on the age of the young carer.
I invite the minister to respond to concerns that she, too, will have received from carers organisations and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, for example, on overall funding for implementation of the 2016 act. It is fair to say that there is a view on the part of those involved in the provision of care that the act has not been adequately resourced. Some people believe that there will be a potential shortfall of tens of millions of pounds by the end of year 5. Will the minister address those concerns? I appreciate that she said that local authorities have a duty to provide support, but I would like to hear her views on what the Scottish Government could be doing to help and to allay those concerns around the financing of the act.
The 2018-19 budget includes an additional £66 million to support that expenditure by local government on social care, which takes into account the pressures around implementation of the 2016 act. It is important to note that that will take the overall package of additional direct investment in health and social care integration to more than £550 million in 2018-19.
There is on-going dialogue around the financial implications of the 2016 act. That is why we have the carers act finance group, which is led by ourselves in Government and includes COSLA, local government services and national carer organisations. It includes the suite of people who have an interest in ensuring that implementation happens in as good a way as it possibly can.
There is also a bit of work around the uncertainty of future demand. Part of that work will involve assessing the true impact of the act as it is implemented. Preparatory work is happening so as to get a much more accurate baseline of support, and work is on-going so that we can gain a much more detailed level of understanding about the impact. That will allow the carers act finance group to look into that and to understand what the financial impact might be—if it is higher or lower than set out in the financial memorandum, or right on the money. It is important to recognise that it was understood that in years 1 to 5 there would be an increased need as a result of the implementation of the act.
There is money in the system, and there is a recognition that we need to continue to monitor things. Work is being done to ensure that our understanding is adequate. We have set out the anticipated costs within the financial memorandum, which take into account additional requirements.
It is worth highlighting COSLA’s specific concern about the waiver of charges and short-term and replacement care. You have made no allocation for those directly, in the sense that you have assumed that they will be picked up by local government through flexibilities. If that proves not to be the case, will you revisit that matter before next year’s regulations are brought to the committee?
That is why there is benefit in having the carers act finance group, which brings together COSLA and NCOs, which have also expressed some concerns. There is also the monitoring that we have put in place to get a better understanding of the impact of the bill. That will include the waiving element—it covers the act in its totality. We can consider those matters.
However, it is important to say that the waiving was not part of the 2016 act; it was already in place before the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 came into being. Local authorities are already spending about £200 million on that aspect—on respite and on the waiving.
We can continue to consider that, and we can continue to have a dialogue on it. The finance group offers us an opportunity to have that on-going dialogue.
My other question is more technical in nature, but it is still important. A drafting error in the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 (Review of Adult Carer Support Plan and Young Carer Statement) Regulations 2018 (SSI 2018/33) has been drawn to the attention of the Government by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I understand that the Government has no plan to make a further instrument to correct that error. I wonder if either the minister or her officials could explain their reasoning for not offering an immediate amendment regulation, as we have seen in response to other drafting errors in recent weeks.
Do you want to understand why we have used a correction slip, as opposed to revoking the SSI?
Sadly, we had another drafting error in a set of regulations that came before us recently, and the Government issued a second instrument to cover the same territory, which immediately replaced the first one.
Corrections slips are appropriate to use when the necessary change is deemed to be a minor one. There has been discussion between the Government and the Queen’s printer, which did not take any issue with us using that approach. From our perspective, that approach would seem to be appropriate and proportionate to the correction that needed to be made, which was essentially a bullet point number change. The mistake did not change anything fundamental within the legislation; it was a simple typo. We think that we made the change in a proportionate way—particularly given the pressing deadline of 1 April for implementing the 2016 act.
I do not know whether Ruth Lunny wishes to add anything, but we certainly think that that was a proportionate response to the error that was made.
It was a matter of timing. If they are passed—granted, we need to have your agreement—the regs will enable us to implement the act, as agreed in 2016.
I echo the minister’s comments on that. It was regarded as a minor error that did not affect the ability to interpret the instrument as it is meant to be interpreted. There has been no issue taken with the printers on progressing in that way. In fact, I believe that that is in progress at the moment.
I appreciate the explanation. It is important for the committee and for Parliament to have correctly drafted instruments coming before us, and that every measure should be taken to ensure that errors of that kind do not happen. We have now had three such errors in the past few weeks, and we would be keen to have that issue addressed.
I will certainly take that point on board. Nobody wants there to be mistakes in legislation, regardless of whether it is a simple typo or something more fundamental. We will ensure that the wider Government understands that that needs to be examined.
I am grateful.
We move to agenda item 5, which is the debate on the instruments. As before, this is an opportunity for members to take part in a debate, but no further questions will be permitted.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 (Adult Carers and Young Carers: Identification of Outcomes and Needs for Support) Regulations 2018 [draft] be approved.—[Aileen Campbell.]
I invite contributions from members to the debate on the motion, and on the negative instruments associated with the draft regulations. There being none, I therefore put the question to the committee—
Convener.
My apologies.
I am sorry, but just to clarify: are we debating the affirmative instrument as well?
The affirmative instrument is the matter on our agenda.
I would like to make a brief comment, if I may.
Absolutely.
I will not vote against the passage of these instruments, should it to come to a vote, because I would not wish unnecessarily to hold up the uplift of payments, but I want to put a marker down. Although I accept that there is a standard model for increasing the payments in line with inflation, which I think is a good thing, when there is an exceptional shift—
12:45
Excuse me. Sorry, but are your comments about the deflator?
That is what I am asking about.
That was the previous instrument.
Yes, but we—
We have debated that one.
We have done that one.
Oh—I have missed the boat on that. My apologies.
I am grateful for your vigilance, minister. I had failed to notice that the member was repeating a previous matter.
That is fine.
On this item, to be clear, the motion that the minister has just moved relates to approval of the draft Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 (Adult Carers and Young Carers: Identification of Outcomes and Needs for Support) Regulations 2018.
Motion agreed to,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 (Adult Carers and Young Carers: Identification of Outcomes and Needs for Support) Regulations 2018 [draft] be approved.
We now turn to the negative instruments. The minister made comment on them but, as they are negative instruments, I simply need to seek the committee’s approval. There has been no motion to annul any of the instruments and, in the case of four of the five instruments, there has been no comment from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, the exception being SSI 2018/33, as I mentioned in my final question to the minister—and you have heard the minister’s response to the comments made on that.
I invite any comments from committee members. As there are no further comments, do we therefore agree that the committee should make no recommendations on any of the instruments?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the agenda item. I thank the minister and her officials for their attendance.
We now move into private session—we have two brief items to discuss.
12:46 Meeting continued in private until 13:00.