Chamber and committees

Again, that will be picked up in the code of practice. My officials might want to say something specific on the timescales.

Yes. There is a requirement for ministers to review the operation of Anne’s law after, I think, two years, and to review the code after five years. That work will be on-going. Of course, the Care Inspectorate will also have a role to play, so there will be on-going engagement and scrutiny. Further, it will be for Parliament to decide what it does, but I imagine that it will continue to maintain a strong interest in the matter.

I encourage the committee to support the draft regulations.

I move,

That the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommends that the Care Home Services (Visits to and by Care Home Residents) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.

Motion agreed to.

Good morning. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak about a proposed amendment to the Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Regulations 2002.

The draft regulations will make routine annual increases to the rates for free personal and nursing care. The payments help to cover the cost of those services for self-funding adults in residential care. This year, we are again proposing to apply an uplift based on the gross domestic product deflator, which has been used historically as the inflation measure to increase the rates. That means that the weekly payment rates for personal care for self-funders will rise from £254.60 to £260.30 and that the nursing care component will rise from £114.55 to £117.10.

The most recently available official statistics show that a reported 10,920 self-funding residents aged 18 and above were in receipt of free personal and nursing care payments in 2024-25. Those residents should all benefit from the changes.

I do not disagree with your point about the value of investment in social care. Investment in social care is of tremendous benefit and value for the individuals who receive social care and for the wider health and social care system. Much of the longer-term strategic work that has been undertaken, and on which I think there is broad political consensus, is in recognition of the value of social care and ensuring that—notwithstanding the significant challenges that we operate under with regard to the public finances—we are working constructively to ensure that enough resource is going into the system.

In the budget that is making its way through the Parliament, there is an increase in investment in health and social care—specifically social care—and local government. There is broad recognition and shared understanding of the value of social care and the importance of investment in it.

As I said earlier, I recognise the importance and value of investment in social care, in and of itself as a good, and a deliverer of high-quality services to individuals, and also because of its importance as part of the overall functioning of our health and social care system.

We operate in a challenging and pressurised environment for public finances. In recent years, across multiple sectors, challenges have ensued from economic and fiscal turbulence. That is well understood and well documented. We are committed to engaging constructively with providers and local partners to ensure that we can maximise the resource that is available in the system.

Ultimately, it is for any member to engage with the budget process in the Parliament if they wish to make representations to the Government for additional resources.

I recognise the points that committee members have made with regard to the financial pressures that we are all operating under, and I welcome members’ support for the instrument.

That is set out clearly in the regulations. I would draw the committee’s attention to the following regulation, which says that

“A provider of a care home service for adults must … identify for every resident of accommodation provided by the care home service at least one individual as an Essential Care Supporter”

and then provides further detail on circumstances in which that would not happen. It is set out in the regulations.

I will ask officials to come in on that in a moment. However, I will highlight—this might also come up in subsequent questioning—that a lot of the operational detail is set out in the code of practice. That will be published ahead of time and it will provide answers to many of those questions.

The regulations have been developed through close engagement with a range of stakeholders, including providers, and they include the point about external visits, clarifying the obligations on a provider and what the expectations would be. A lot of work has been undertaken to ensure that the regulations provide the legal framework, but how that is operationalised will be reflected within the code of practice.

My officials can respond to your specific question.

In those circumstances, it would be for the provider to respond to the specific events and context that led to the decision being made. Regulation 4 says:

“A provider of a care home service for adults may suspend visits (either to and by all residents in the care home or to and by specific residents) only if the provider has reasonable cause to believe that it is essential to do so to prevent a serious risk to the life, health or wellbeing of—

in the case of internal visits, any person at the accommodation,

in the case of external visits, the resident, any other person at the accommodation, or persons at the place where the visit would take place.”

I am taking the time to read that out, so that it is set out clearly on the record, but the context is already set out in the regulations. A responsible provider will draw on a range of advice and expertise in taking such decisions.

The code, which will be published ahead of the regulations coming into force, will provide further information on that process. My officials may want to add to that.