Chamber and committees

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.

No, thanks.

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.

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.

My amendments 16 and 17, which were debated with the first group of amendments, would have the effect of removing from the bill the complaints provisions in sections 14 and 15. My view is that the complaints service that is provided for by section 14 and the associated regulation-making power that is in section 15 cannot be included without the entirety of part 1 of the bill. A new NCS complaints service will not make sense in isolation.

I make it clear, however, that I am absolutely committed to improving the complaints processes. The independent review of adult social care made it clear that, when things have not worked well for people and their rights have not been met, they must have rapid recourse to an effective complaints system and redress. The NCS that the review proposed would prioritise an improved complaints process.

So far, more than 200 people with lived experience of receiving, accessing or delivering care have been involved in co-design and engagement to consider findings from existing evidence and to identify key priorities for improvements to the complaints processes. That will enable us to identify and drive forward the improvements that are required to ensure that a rights-based approach is taken on complaints.

If the committee supports removal of part 1 of the bill, we will continue to work closely with people who are accessing and delivering care and with our stakeholders in order to identify improvements that should be taken forward. If sections 14 and 15 remain in the bill, I cannot support amendments 97, 71, 98, 72 and 99, all of which relate to complaints.

Amendment 97 seeks to limit the scope of complaints that can be dealt with by the complaints service that is required under section 14 of the bill to care services that are provided by local authorities. That would mean that the complaints service would not be able to receive complaints in all circumstances—for example, it would not be able to do so when someone was accessing social care services via self-directed support options 1 and 2. I believe that it is vital that we not limit the complaints service in that way, and that we ensure that all users of social care services are able to utilise the new complaints service.

Amendment 71 seeks to make it clear that the person who is to be allocated a complaint is not only appropriate, as is currently required by section 14(3), but is the person who will oversee its resolution. Although the amendment seeks to provide clarity, its effect is to confuse the position on who complaints should be passed to. The person who oversees the resolution of a complaint might not be the person who is best placed to address that complaint. That is particularly true when the role of oversight bodies such as the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is taken into account. I therefore encourage members not to support amendment 71.

Amendment 72 seeks to define who may make a complaint to the NCS complaints service. However, setting that out in the bill unintentionally risks interfering with existing established legal procedures. The model complaints handling procedure for public body social care complaints that has been set by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman already defines who can submit a complaint. Although who that is is deliberately broad ranging, it is defined enough to allow only relevant complaints. It includes relatives or representatives of people who use services, as well as people who come into contact with, or are affected by, services.

Amendment 72 would also limit the scope for using the associated regulation-making power in section 15 in the future. For those reasons, I ask for the amendment not to be supported.

Amendment 98 seeks to establish that a “relevant complaint” is about a

“social service as defined by section 46 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.”

It would narrow the bill’s wording by removing reference to the NCS, rather than extending it. I understand the intent of the amendment. However, I believe that it is vital that we not limit the scope of the services that are covered in that way, and that we ensure that all users of social care across the sector, whether they receive public or private provision—including those who use services for which integration is key, such as community health and prison social care—are able to utilise the new complaints service and the associated complaints-related regulations where appropriate. I therefore encourage members not to support amendment 98.

Amendment 99 provides examples of what regulations in relation to complaints handling may cover, which includes assessing complaints against a set of principles, providing guidance on handling complaints that are made in relation to the allocation of resources and assessments of eligibility, and providing timescales. Although I welcome and will further consider the examples proposed, the regulation-making power in section 15 is subject to the outcomes of a co-design process, which will enable us to develop and strengthen a consistent complaints system and associated redress. I do not wish to undermine or pre-empt the outcomes of co-design by including examples in the bill. I therefore invite members not to support amendment 99.

I do not agree with Brian Whittle’s proposal to scrap the legislation. I note Sandesh Gulhane’s and Brian Whittle’s in-principle support for many of our amendments to reform health and social care, and I urge them to vote for those.

With regard to Mr Cole-Hamilton’s proposal, I ask members to instead support use of the words “Care Reform” that I am proposing, as they offer a broader description.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Responsibility for the National Care Service

Amendment 2 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Responsibility for improvement

Amendment 3 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Establishment and abolition of care boards

Amendment 4 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1—Care boards: constitution and operation

Amendment 5 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2—Care boards: application of public authorities legislation

Amendment 6 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 5—Financial assistance for care boards

Amendment 7 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 6—Strategic planning by the Scottish Ministers

Amendment 8 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Strategic planning by care boards

Amendment 9 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Care boards’ planning process

Amendment 10 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Frequency of planning by care boards

Amendment 11 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Meaning of ethical commissioning strategy

Amendment 12 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 11—The National Care Service charter

Amendment 13 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 12—Further provision about the charter

Amendment 14 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Independent advocacy

I ask the committee to resist all the amendments in the group.

On amendment 128, under the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, local authorities have a duty to provide social care through self-directed support, with people who are eligible for social care being offered a range of choices on how they receive their support. The delivery of care results from collaborative discussion, which might not be compatible with the timescale that the amendment sets out. The provision of social care and the timelines for delivery are the responsibility of the local authority. The assessment of needs is for the local authority to undertake, and there is no statutory definition of “critical need”. Amendment 128 would result in ambiguity and uncertainty, so I resist it.

I do not support amendment 129, given that it could interfere with current powers under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The purpose of amendment 152 is to add to section 46 corresponding provisions for regulations relating to amendment 129, so I do not support that amendment, either. However, I am keen to work with Paul Sweeney before stage 3 to consider how we could take the matter forward.

I understand the intention behind amendments 130 and 153. The point of need should absolutely be consistent and transferable across Scotland, as is already stipulated in legislation. However, given that local authorities have the statutory right to implement their own policies in relation to eligibility and assessment, and that they have a duty of care for those within their jurisdiction, it would not be feasible to provide care without completing suitable assessments or evaluations of needs. For that reason, I resist amendments 130 and 153.

I ask the committee to resist all the amendments in the group.

You are very reasonable.