Subordinate Legislation
Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (Incidental Provision and Commencement No 4) Order 2013 [Draft]
Agenda item 2 is consideration of subordinate legislation. This morning the committee will consider three affirmative instruments, and we will take evidence from the Minister for Public Health on and debate each instrument in turn before we move to the next.
Moving on to the first instrument, I welcome Michael Matheson, the Minister for Public Health, and Rosemary Lindsay, principal legal officer for food, health and community care, and Siobhan Mackay, tobacco control adviser, both from the Scottish Government. I invite the minister to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener. The purpose of this draft affirmative order is to commence section 9 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which bans the sale of tobacco products from vending machines. Although the legislation was approved by Parliament in 2010, as the committee will know this provision has been subject to a legal challenge from Imperial Tobacco and Sinclair Collis. I am pleased to say that the courts have dismissed both challenges and that we are now in a position to implement this provision, which will come into force on 29 April.
I am happy to respond to committee members’ questions.
Thank you, minister. Do members have any questions?
What discussions have you had about the order with vending machine operators, who of course were originally opposed to the measure, and what was their response?
We engaged with the companies who operate vending machines during the passage of the legislation. At the end of January, we notified them of the date when the order will come into force, which will be 29 April.
If members have no other questions, I thank the minister and his officials for their evidence.
We now move to the debate on the motion under agenda item 3. I remind members that rule 12.2.2 of standing orders allows no more than 90 minutes for the debate but I am confident that we will not need all that time. I should also say that the time for asking questions is now over and that, as we have entered the debate, Scottish Government officials may not speak.
I invite the minster to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (Incidental Provision and Commencement No.4) Order 2013 [draft] be approved.—[Michael Matheson.]
Do you wish to make any opening remarks, minister?
I simply stress that the measure is an important part of our overall tobacco control strategy to reduce smoking in Scotland, which is itself an important public health measure.
I congratulate the Scottish Government on seeing off the attempt to prevent the implementation of this important tobacco control measure. I know that I am not allowed to ask questions at this point but I would be interested in finding out whether, as I would hope, we have been awarded costs in fighting these challenges. I find it interesting that worldwide the tobacco industry challenges the implementation of every tobacco control measure—indeed, Australia and New Zealand are facing the same problem in relation to plain packaging—so I very much welcome this measure and the order that will effect such an important change.
Do you wish to wind up, minister?
I agree with Richard Simpson on the issue of costs. We are pursuing the matter and I have indicated that, should the courts decide to award us costs, the money will go back into the tobacco control strategy and will possibly go towards an education programme.
The question is, that motion S4M-05715, in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (Incidental Provision and Commencement No.4) Order 2013 [draft] be approved.
11:15
Meeting suspended.
11:16
On resuming—
Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (Requirements for Care Services) Amendment Regulations 2013 [Draft]
Agenda item 4 is consideration of another affirmative SSI. The minister has remained in his place, but he is now joined by Mike Liddle, team leader for reshaping care; Kirsty McGrath, branch head at the Scottish Government’s protection of rights unit; and Victoria MacDonald senior, principal legal officer for the food, health and community care division of the Scottish Government. Welcome to you all.
Thank you for the chance to say a few words about these draft regulations.
The committee will be aware that, over the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of care service providers experiencing financial difficulties. Most notable among those has been the Southern Cross Group and its collapse. At the time of those difficulties, the Scottish Government worked closely with colleagues at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland—the care inspectorate—to ensure that the needs of care service users were prioritised. In particular, we sought to minimise the disruption to care home residents when care homes had to shut down.
Many lessons were learned from the work that was done around the collapse of Southern Cross, and it is important that we build on that. To that end, we have continued to work with colleagues in the United Kingdom Government, COSLA, the care inspectorate and other stakeholders to put together a package of improvements in the delivery of care services, incorporating increased scrutiny, contingency planning and the development of new models of service delivery. All of that work will take time, but the draft regulations before us mark a first significant step in improving matters.
The regulations do two things. First, they remove the offence of continuing to provide a care service while the provider is in administration. Secondly, they require care service providers immediately to notify the care inspectorate of any insolvency event.
On the first of those points, when a care home provider enters administration, the administrator will generally appoint a new provider to take over provision of the service. In certain cases in the past couple of years, however, it was clear that the best solution for residents of some homes was to allow the existing provider to continue to provide the service while in administration. That gave important reassurance and continuity of care to service users but, unfortunately, it was in breach of the rules on providing a care home service while in administration.
Following discussions with the care inspectorate, it became clear that that offence no longer served any purpose and could in fact be detrimental to care service users if it prevented the best option for service users being taken. We therefore seek to remove the offence.
It would, however, be inappropriate to remove the offence without making some provision for ensuring that the care inspectorate is fully aware of the financial position of a care service provider, hence the new requirement for care service providers to notify the care inspectorate immediately when an insolvency event has occurred or is about to occur.
We have found that the earlier the care inspectorate is made aware of the financial situation of a care service provider, the sooner it can assess the situation and respond appropriately. The response of the care inspectorate varies on a case-by-case basis but can include increasing the risk assessment of the care service, increasing the level of financial monitoring, alerting and liaising with other agencies and, if necessary, taking enforcement action to ensure adequate standards of care are maintained.
The new requirements will ensure that the care inspectorate is notified at the earliest opportunity of any financial difficulties that a care service provider may be facing and can take the appropriate steps to support the provider and, most importantly, the service users during any transition phase.
I am happy to respond to any questions that committee members may have.
I thank the minister for that opening statement. As there are no questions from committee members, will someone give me an idea of what an insolvency event is or would look like?
It could be a business that is struggling to pay some of its debts and, as a result, is getting into a position in which it may be insolvent. At that point, the business should notify the care inspectorate that it is having financial difficulties.
We have dealt with this issue and are very supportive of that type of action as a first step. If overdraft facilities were denied to a business or if there was some issue with the bank, at that point they would be in discussions with the care inspectorate—is that right?
The business would be expected to notify the care inspectorate that it was entering financial difficulties as a result of that type of thing.
How would we ensure that that happened?
There is now a requirement for that. There is a responsibility on care providers to ensure that they comply with the regulations. It is important that they notify the care inspectorate of financial difficulties as early as possible. It is difficult for the care inspectorate to be aware of the situation unless it has been notified. This is the first time that such a requirement has been placed on providers.
What happens if they do not meet that requirement?
If they do not meet the requirements in the regulations, there is always the risk that the issue will be notified later to the care inspectorate, at which point the action that it will have to take will be different. I would suggest that it is in the interests of a service provider to notify the care inspectorate as early as possible, but it is down to the service provider to do so.
Insolvency, managerial breakdown and financial crisis can have serious consequences for the residents of a care home. If a service provider is not meeting the regulations relating to the people in its care, what imperative is there for it, for its own sake, to let people know that there are problems?
There is a range of ways in which the care inspectorate can get intelligence on such issues. For example care managers in a local authority who are working with a care home provider might notice that there have been changes in the standard of care. Although they might not be aware that that is because the provider is getting into financial difficulties, they could report the matter to the care inspectorate. A requirement has been placed on providers. Ultimately, the care inspectorate could cancel their registration if they are not complying with the requirements that are placed on them under the regulations. However, it is down to providers to notify the care inspectorate of any issues.
The regulations provide reassurance about continuity of service for cared-for people in a residential setting should a company go into administration or face financial difficulties. In the past, the committee has heard that a lot of service users have thought that they would have to find another provider immediately, which created huge uncertainty.
I have a couple of questions on wider issues. If a company did not inform the care inspectorate as it was statutorily obliged to do, would that constitute a criminal offence for which the owners or the board of the company could be prosecuted?
The terminology “insolvency event” is pretty well explained in the regulations and is quite clear, so I will not ask a question on that. I want to go back a stage. We would be keen to know if there is an imminent threat of an insolvency event. However, my understanding is that even if a company knows that it is on the brink, there is nothing to compel it to inform the care inspectorate that it is potentially facing insolvency. My understanding is that the requirements come in only once it enters the insolvency process. We looked at this issue in detail before, I think, and found that there were significant difficulties in doing this, but is there any way in which the Parliament or the Government can compel care home owners to inform the care inspectorate of their financial health and wellbeing at a pre-insolvency event stage? If so, would you look to legislate on that in the future? If not, would you seek to have such powers?
Your first point was about notification. That would be a breach of the regulations, which are to do with a provider’s registration as a care service provider. If the company failed to comply with the regulations, it would be for the care inspectorate to start the process of looking at its registration and whether it would have to take enforcement action. Members will appreciate, I am sure, that it is difficult for the care inspectorate to have day-to-day oversight of a care service provider’s financial situation. The new step is to require providers to give notification should they find themselves in an insolvency event.
The wider issue around the financial stability of care service providers is part of the discussion that has been taken forward with COSLA and other stakeholders as part of the national care homes contract. We have been considering whether more work can be done around the diligence process for care agencies and providers on the financial factors around their businesses. We are continuing work with COSLA to see whether measures can be put in place to consider further these types of issues when local authorities are looking to place contracts with care service providers. That is an area of work that we are still taking forward. How that materialises—whether in regulations or as part of the national contract—has yet to be decided. If there are measures that we can take that will help to make the system more robust, there is a willingness on the part of the Government to take them, but we have to find the mechanism for achieving that.
I am completely reassured by what you said about the discussions with COSLA. The committee has seen the difficulties in working out how to measure and monitor the financial robustness of any business involved in the care sector.
You said that it would be a breach of the registration requirements if a provider did not inform the care inspectorate of an insolvency event. This might not be within the powers of this Parliament, but I would have thought that there should be a duty beyond the registration process for a company to inform the care inspectorate—or whoever within the Parliament and Government—if they were experiencing an insolvency event. I would like to think that that could go beyond the scope of registration, meaning that their registration was withdrawn, and that other consequences could befall individuals in breach of the requirement. Has the Scottish Government considered that?
11:30
We are still considering the different models of care provision and it will prove difficult, I imagine, to define when a business has financial difficulties. We can clearly identify an insolvency event, but different businesses will view their financial situations differently, so part of the challenge in trying to ensure that care service providers notify the care inspectorate at the earliest opportunity is to define in regulations when service providers have to notify the inspectorate.
That can be addressed partly through the routine, continuing work that the care inspectorate carries out with individual care providers. It discusses their financial situation with them, and if there is an indication that problems exist, it will decide whether further scrutiny is needed and whether it needs to place enforcement requirements on the providers.
Part of the challenge is how we define when a care service provider has financial difficulties and the point at which it has to notify the care inspectorate of that.
I have a question along the same lines. Perhaps there are a couple of questions rolled into what I am about to say.
Private companies have a duty of care in relation to health and safety and all sorts of other things but not in relation to insolvency. In business, companies hold that information really close to their chest. It might be about a short-term cash-flow situation that they will get over, so they try not to put it out into the wider public domain. Do the regulations incorporate such a duty of care for care home providers? It seems like that to me.
Normally, we get to hear about insolvency or cash-flow problems because suppliers or employees of the company concerned blow the whistle and say that they are not getting paid. That has happened frequently in football teams. I am sure that the care inspectorate would not have the powers to go into a private company and audit its books. I do not think that that happens in any other instance. Therefore, the duty of care kicks in and somebody needs to notify the inspectorate.
If a complaint came in from an outside body, a supplier or an employee that a care provider was not fulfilling its financial obligations, would the care inspectorate go in and ask for information about the financial situation?
Gil Paterson raises an important point. Often, if commercial businesses have financial difficulties, they keep the information close to their chest because of the implications that it can have for their business, particularly in relation to competitors.
If a company that supplied a care provider with a particular service notified the care inspectorate that its bills were not being paid, the inspectorate could ask for financial information from that care provider if there was a suspicion that it was having financial difficulties. The care inspectorate could also increase its risk assessment of that care provider as a result.
The care inspectorate would take a largely intelligence-based approach to the evidence that it received from the company that was not being paid and the further financial information with which the service provider provided it. Such intelligence could be used as one piece of information to indicate that there were problems. The care inspectorate would then consider what action might be appropriate and proportionate, such as whether it would need to increase its risk assessment of the care provider and request information from it to determine whether problems existed.
I know how it works. Companies in this field have competitors—there are always competitors.
If such a situation arose, would the care inspectorate quietly assess what was happening and whether the business was experiencing a short-term problem? Would it go in quietly or would it go in with all guns blazing? Would the public get to know about the situation smart-ish, or would it be handled sensitively?
I would like to think that the care inspectorate would proceed quietly until it had built up a body of evidence on any issues that existed. If, once it had undertaken an assessment, it felt that other parties—for example, the local authority or other service users—needed to be involved in considering a response to the financial difficulties that the company had, it would look at engaging with them to consider what action could be taken.
The first step in the process would be to gather as much evidence as possible and to assess what response was necessary and who else might require to be involved in any response. That could be the local authority or other service users. Issues such as whether the process should be extended to the notification of residents and families of residents would have to be dealt with on an individual basis, depending on the circumstances, with the care inspectorate responding to issues as it saw appropriate at the time.
Thanks for that, minister.
I should declare an interest in that I have had a relative in a care home that was one of a group of three that was in administration.
I very much welcome the proposed change, because I think that it is inappropriate for it to be an offence to continue such a business under the administrator—that is what happened quite satisfactorily in the case of my relative’s care home.
However, I am slightly concerned that we will place only a duty on the provider to notify the care inspectorate of an insolvency event. Why did you decide not to make it an offence to fail to notify the care inspectorate? It seems to me that notification is the important issue, so it might have been more appropriate to make failure to notify an offence. Could you outline the thinking behind the Government’s position? Perhaps one of your officials could do so, as it is a slightly complex issue.
The approach that is being taken, in consultation with the care inspectorate, is to tie the issue to the registration requirements that a care service provider must meet. The change that is being made will mean that a company must give such notification as part of their registration as a care service provider. In the care inspectorate’s view, that was the most pragmatic way in which to deal with the issue. In my view, it appears to be a proportionate way of doing things.
The focus must be on ensuring that we maintain the quality of care for service users. We see tying notification to registration as a way of helping to reinforce that.
In the future, the committee might want to hear from you about how well that system is working, because I have some residual concerns. Bob Doris’s questioning was along a similar line. We need to ensure that such companies provide notification. If a company is going out of business anyway, what is in it for it to provide notification? It will lose its care registration anyway. The administrator will take over the business. Why should a company bother notifying the care inspectorate in the first place, when there is no comeback? I have slight concerns about that.
Part of the challenge relates to determining at which point further down the chain we could require information to be provided to the care inspectorate if a company was experiencing financial difficulty. For different businesses, the threshold will be different. Different companies will experience financial difficulties in different circumstances. That is probably quite difficult to define, but I think that the earlier notification takes place, the better.
One way in which we can help to make improvements in this area relates to the way in which local authorities, through the national contract, undertake the diligence process that they go through when they are looking to use a particular service. I think that there is room for further progress to be made in that area. It is clear from the feedback that we have had from COSLA that that is an area in which it wants further progress to be made. That could help us to address some of the concerns—which I think are legitimate—that members raise.
Thank you.
It is reassuring to hear the minister say that there are some concerns.
We all need to bear it in mind that, if a care home is not up to standard, the nuclear option is to close it down, which will impact on the continuity of care for the residents. I am struggling to understand how the measure will not lead to the same conclusion. If a care home hits a temporary financial crisis, decides not to report it, becomes insolvent and loses its accreditation—Richard Simpson described that—or if it is found out later that a home did not report an insolvency event that it had and it loses its accreditation because of that, the measure will, in effect, bring about the closure of those homes.
I do not see how the measure will change behaviour. We all support the changing of behaviour and the early flagging up of financial problems in order to get discussions going with the residents, but I am not convinced that what is proposed will do that.
I am not suggesting that the regulations are a panacea to deal with all the issues around the financial challenges that care service providers face. What we are discussing are just two of the initial steps that we are taking to try to address issues that have been highlighted in the learning from the Southern Cross experience. We are still undertaking work with the UK Government to look at other models of service provision and we are taking forward work with COSLA and the sector. This is not the end of the process. If anything, it is the beginning. We are discussing a couple of examples of immediate steps that we can take.
As things stand, there is no requirement on care service providers to notify the care inspectorate if they have an insolvency event. I had an issue a number of years ago when a care service provider in my constituency literally brought down the shutters on a Friday afternoon and the local authority had to step in and try to help many of those whom the provider cared for. There was no requirement on the provider to notify anybody about the situation.
The requirement that we are discussing places an obligation on providers as part of their registration to ensure that the care inspectorate is notified. It is important that, as soon as it is notified, it assesses what action is appropriate. Alongside that, if there is an issue about managing the care setting at that time using the existing staff, the regulations provide an opportunity for that to happen without anyone committing an offence. That will allow continuity of care for service users.
This is very much a first step. It is not the final answer to the wider issue of the financial challenges in the care sector.
My question follows on from Gil Paterson’s question. If someone makes a complaint about the care in a home, it will be registered with the care inspectorate and I understand that it will go up on the website, even if it is then investigated and found to be incorrect, or regardless of whether it is upheld, partially upheld or not upheld. I do not think that that is inappropriate, because things should be open and transparent, although I know that some care homes are concerned about that because people can make complaints that are not appropriate.
It is one thing to do that in relation to the quality of care, but it is another thing to do it in relation to financial quality. A creditor might complain because their bill has not been paid, but it may be that the bill is in dispute. If that goes up on the website, it might trigger other creditors to say, “Hang on a minute. We need to rush in here.” It might force an insolvency that would not otherwise have happened. Gil Paterson hinted at the fact that it might create a degree of uncertainty and expose the person’s business in a way that we would not really want.
Will creditor complaints be treated differently from other complaints, or not?
I tried to explain to the committee, in response to Gil Paterson’s question, that I would expect the care inspectorate to use the piece of intelligence to check with the care service provider whether there were financial issues, to request financial information, and to deal with it sensitively. It is a good point: there could be unintended consequences if you go in with “all guns blazing”, as Gil Paterson said, and make everyone aware of the issue. If a particular creditor has not been paid, it is for the care inspectorate to identify the reasons for that, be it a disputed bill or that the person just does not have the money to pay. If it is the latter, we need financial information to consider what further assessment we have to make of the risks for the business.
11:45
It is difficult to lay down a single black-and-white policy for all those issues, because they will materialise in different ways and will have to be dealt with individually and case by case. The approach must be intelligence-based and ensure that, where there is an issue, action that the care inspectorate should take is identified as a result of the information that is provided.
I hope that that provides reassurance that the process is not about creditors using it as a way of embarrassing the company to get a disputed bill paid, but that it is used by the care inspectorate to find out where a business has a genuine problem, rather than there just being a dispute between a creditor and the purchaser.
Thank you for that answer. I am sure that you are aware that our questioning is based on the committee’s work. It is useful to record that the committee recognises that this is an issue and that early information about the financial status of such homes—indeed, information at the time of their accreditation—is very important for continuity of care. We are at one on that, and it is interesting.
My final point is to suggest that, as a result of this discussion and the committee’s work, we might create an opportunity for you to come back and discuss the issue more widely, rather than just within the confines of the SSI. That might put you in a better position to discuss all that is happening and the Government’s intended progress. I hope that you will agree to that happening at a future date.
Of course. I am sure that I or the cabinet secretary would be more than willing to do that.
Thanks for that.
As we have no other questions, we move to agenda item 5, which is a debate on the affirmative instrument on which we have just taken evidence from the minister. I invite the minister to make any opening remarks and move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (Requirements for Care Services) Amendment Regulations 2013 [draft] be approved.—[Michael Matheson.]
I invite other members to take part in the debate.
I will make a few observations that link into what the convener said. The regulations are positive. It seems odd that if, say, a high-street company that sells jeans goes into administration, the administrator can still open the doors and sell jeans, whereas technically, under the current rules, a care home would have to close its shutters, cease trading and cease supporting the most vulnerable people in society. It is vital that we implement the regulations and I certainly will support the motion.
The wider conversation has been around the inquiry into the regulation of care for older people that the committee carried out not that long ago. That was one of the most rewarding Parliamentary inquiries that I have been involved in, because the Government responded to concerns raised before we had even completed our inquiry. That shows how this Parliament’s committees can work with the Government to improve the system of regulation for older people. It is important to put that on record.
It is also important during this small debate to put it on the record that, because of our inquiry, we recognise the significant difficulties in identifying a company that could be at financial risk and the point at which it would be appropriate for the care inspectorate or others to analyse that. I am delighted that work is on-going with COSLA to see whether we can flesh out a way to overcome those difficulties.
I also put it on the record that if there is a case in which a care provider can just pull the shutters down, lock the door, and not inform the care inspectorate, perhaps we have to look at determining what fate should befall the owner of that company, outwith preventing them from registering as a care home provider in the future.
Perhaps the committee needs to return to that. However, it is important to say that those instances are few and far between and that virtually all the care providers, irrespective of who owns the care homes, are putting their residents first and working closely with local authorities and other partners to provide the best possible service. In raising the concerns that I have, I would not want to overstate the case. It is about ensuring that the system is as comprehensive as it can be, and I certainly support the regulations.
I do not come from a health background, but I will try to put myself in the position of a business, as the institutions are, broadly, businesses. There are bad or good reasons for people going bust. That is often not their fault—I am not talking about Southern Cross in that regard. If someone has a big debtor who does not pay them and their cash flow goes AWOL through no fault of their own, that could threaten their business. That is why I asked about going in quietly.
I have found banks to be very helpful with my business through this bad time. I hear everybody’s doom and gloom about banks, but that is not my experience: they have been good for my company. If a person has a short-term problem, they can approach a bank or other creditors and say, “Somebody has taken me to the cleaners here. I’ve lost a pot of money. Can you give me a bit more time?” That is what typically happens in every other business, and I see the same thing happening in the sector that we are discussing.
There is one thing that I do not agree with. I think that company law prevents anyone from going into a company to examine its books and I do not think that we could make that stand up, if we tried to do that. That could be challenged, and my view is that we would lose that challenge. A company has the right to run its business and it needs to keep many things from its competitors. It would be strange if we took one sector out of every other sector and said, “This is how you’re going to be treated.” I do not think that that could happen.
However, I very much support what is proposed. Businesses would have continuity, and the end result will be people in care being looked after at a very traumatic time so that another buyer for the business could be found. I do not like private buyers and sellers in this market; rather, I would love it all to be in the public sector. That is my position but, nevertheless, that is the world that we are in.
A business needs continuity and there needs to be continuity for the individuals who are being cared for, so I very much welcome what is proposed, and I like the idea of pressure on businesses regarding a duty of care. I do not think that a lot of people know how important that is and how most responsible businesses react to it. I see including in the framework a duty of care in relation to finances as quite a powerful weapon. That does not happen anywhere else. If we can make that stack up, we will have a potent weapon.
As no other member wishes to take part in the debate, the minister may respond with closing remarks.
Very helpful comments have been made. Both contributions illustrate the complexities of the issue.
We must continue to look at how we can improve the way in which we operate with private care service providers on financial difficulties that may arise from problems that they have as businesses. It is fair to say that the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 created the offence of a company in administration continuing to provide care because it was considered that such a company would not meet the fit and proper person test. It is only recently that practical experience has shown that that could be an inhibitor to maintaining individuals’ care, rather than always getting something in the best interests of the service user. The new regulations allow us to ensure that we learn from that experience and put in place measures that make the system robust and focus on maintaining the quality of care that service users receive.
The question is, that motion S4M-05716, in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (Requirements for Care Services) Amendment Regulations 2013 [draft] be approved.
Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013 [Draft]
Item 6 on our agenda is evidence on a third and final affirmative SSI. I invite the minister to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I will be brief. The draft affirmative order reflects the Scottish Government’s commitment to increase free personal and nursing care payments in line with inflation. If approved, the order will continue to benefit vulnerable older people. Last year, we increased the personal nursing care payment for residents in care homes in line with inflation. The regulations will further increase, in line with inflation, the weekly payment for personal care by £3 to £166 per week and will increase the additional nursing care payment by £1 to £75 per week. In line with our partnership agreement with local Government, councils will meet the costs of the inflationary increase totalling around £1.8 million in 2013-14. An additional £1.5 million annually was added to the funding for local authorities in October 2012 to cover those additional costs in the current spending review period up to 2014-15. The free personal care and nursing care policy continues to command strong support, and I hope that the draft order will receive the committee’s support.
Thank you for that, minister. Are there any questions from members?
Members: No.
Agenda item 7 is a debate on the affirmative instrument on which we have just taken evidence from the minister. I invite him to make any opening remarks and move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013 [draft] be approved.—[Michael Matheson.]
As the minster does not wish to make any further remarks and no member wishes to debate the motion, I will put the question. The question is, that motion S4M-05713, in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
11:58
Meeting suspended.
11:59
On resuming—