National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/148)
Agenda item 6 is more subordinate legislation and we will consider two Scottish statutory instruments that are subject to the negative procedure. The first instrument is SSI 2014/148. There has been no motion to annul the regulations and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comments on them. As members have no comments on the regulations, does the committee agree to make no recommendations on them to the Parliament?
Members indicated agreement.
National Health Service Superannuation Scheme (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/154)
The second instrument is SSI 2014/154. There has been no motion to annul. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has drawn the instrument to the attention of the Parliament—the details are outlined in the committee papers. Does the committee agree to make no recommendations on the regulations?
Members indicated agreement.
I suggest that we suspend the meeting briefly while we set up for the minister, who will give evidence under agenda item 7.
10:43 Meeting suspended.National Confidential Forum (Prescribed Care and Health Services) (Scotland) Order 2014 [Draft]
Under agenda item 7, we have one affirmative instrument before us. As usual with affirmative instruments, we will take evidence from the minister and his officials and, once all our questions have been answered, we will have the formal debate on the motion.
I welcome the Minister for Public Health, Michael Matheson, and his officials: Ailsa Garland, principal legal officer for food, health and community care, and Sue Moody of the survivorScotland team in the care, support and rights division, both from the Scottish Government. I give the minister an opportunity to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener, for the chance to say a few words about the order.
The order sets out what a care or health service means for the purpose of eligibility to take part in the national confidential forum. Members may recall that, at stage 2 of the bill that became the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, I made a commitment to the committee that we would aim to offer the opportunity to take part in the forum to as many people as possible who were in institutional care as children in Scotland.
The order meets that commitment, and we have sought to prescribe as broad a range of care and health services as possible. We have also tried to reflect the different types of care and health services that have existed in the past 80 years. We want to ensure that everyone who is alive today who was in institutional care as a child at any time can take part in the forum.
The order makes no distinction between private and public providers of institutional care, nor does it distinguish between arrangements made by the state and private arrangements made by families. In that respect it is, again, designed to enable as many people as possible who were in institutional care as children to participate regardless of their circumstances.
The order potentially includes services that were not designed exclusively or mainly for children. We know that children have in the past been placed in adult facilities, including prisons and poor law institutions. In article 2, the order prescribes
“health services provided in—
(a) a hospital;
(b) an independent clinic;
(c) a sanatorium.”
A range of care services are prescribed in article 3, which members can find on page 2 of the order.
The prescribed services in the order should be read alongside the conditions that are set out in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 with regard to eligibility to participate in the forum. For example, one of the conditions is that the care or health service in question included residential accommodation for children.
I reiterate that the intention is to include a wide range of services to make the forum as accessible as possible, and I am happy to answer any points that the committee wishes to raise.
Thank you, minister. I open the session for questions from committee members. Are there any questions for the minister?
On the minister’s comment about residential care, what happens to those who were not in residential care? Do they still have rights to access the forum?
Members may recall that we discussed such issues, including kinship care, at stages 1 and 2 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill. The Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland undertook some work in that area, but there was a very low response to its consultation on whether care provision outwith an institutional setting should be included in the national confidential forum.
Given the findings, it was decided that it would not be appropriate for the national confidential forum to include those from what would be considered non-residential settings, so the forum is focused on institutional settings. There is scope for anybody who was in a non-residential setting to raise concerns with the appropriate authorities. However, the forum has been focused on institutional settings right from the outset, when the time to be heard pilot was established.
Okay. I am just thinking of schools and the like.
As long as there is a residential element, it is included in the care definition set out in the order.
Okay, but that does not include an ordinary school.
Not if it does not have a residential setting.
The briefing note indicates that about 450 stakeholders took part in what was quite a substantial consultation exercise but that there were only 12 “substantive replies”. Why were there so few?
Are you referring to the CELCIS consultation work?
Yes. The policy note states:
“Over 450 stakeholders, including survivors, support organisations, Child Health Commissioners, service providers and purchasers, academic experts and regulatory bodies”
were consulted but only “12 respondents” gave “substantive replies”. The policy note does not say specifically that the work was done by CELCIS, but that may be the case.
The respondents’ replies indicate that there is general support for what is set out in the order. I am not sure whether the figures that you quoted are from the CELCIS consultation, but I know that it had a very low return. However, a significant portion of those who responded were in support of kinship care and foster care being included in the national confidential forum.
That is helpful. Thank you.
As there are no other questions, we now move to agenda item 8, which is the formal debate on the affirmative SSI on which we have just taken evidence. I refer to my earlier warning on a previous order about the difference between having questions and having a debate on the order, so I do not need to repeat that. I invite the minister to move motion S4M-10414.
Motion moved,
That the Health and Sport Committee recommends that the National Confidential Forum (Prescribed Care and Health Services) (Scotland) Order 2014 [draft] be approved.—[Michael Matheson.]
Motion agreed to.
I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance.
I will suspend the meeting briefly before we take agenda item 9, on the Food (Scotland) Bill, for which the minister is staying.
10:53 Meeting suspended.Previous
Petition