Scottish Parliament, 10 June 2025

357 contributions from 51 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection, and our leader today is Pete Greig, founder of 24-7 Prayer and senior pastor, Emmaus Road Church.

Pete Greig (Emmaus Road Church)

Good afternoon, and thank you so much for inviting me to share this reflection on the theme of justice.

Three years ago, I had the joy of walking 330 miles across this great nation, from the island of Iona to the Holy Island of Lindisfarne, following in the footsteps of that magnificent Celtic seventh-century saint, Aidan. Day after day as I walked, I saw so clearly how profoundly Scotland has been shaped by the interaction of prayer with politics, piety with power, and how, at its best, this has always been for the sake of a better world.

You may recall the story about how Aidan was once given a very fine horse by King Oswin. He accepted this gladly, rode out of the castle joyfully and donated it immediately to the very first beggar that he met. The king was furious until Aidan retorted, “Surely this son of a mare is not dearer to you than a son of God?” I wonder what Aidan would make of our priorities today. I wonder what he would make of the poverty that tragically continues to blight and divide us.

I suppose that a time for reflection is a moment for meditation upon one’s core mission and motives, and I am quite sure that, whatever your political leanings, you entered public life with a vision to make things better and fairer. I know from a number of friends who serve politically that it can be a thankless task, so I thank you for the significant price that you no doubt pay personally to do that.

It was probably at my grandparents’ house, in Peebles, that my own social conscience was born. I was sorting through some Christmas cards, and a Bible verse on one of them unexpectedly spoke to me. It sparked a fire that burns in me to this day. The verse, from Isaiah, chapter 58, said this:

“Your light will shine when you spend yourself on behalf of the poor and satisfy the needs of the oppressed.”

That stark challenge changed me. It motivated me, first, to work with the homeless in London, then to work with heroin addicts in Hong Kong, and eventually to become a simple pastor.

It is estimated that churchgoers in the UK give 23 million hours of voluntary service every month outside church attendance. They run 2,000 food banks and offer more youth work than any other body. The total social contribution to the British economy is valued at £55 billion per annum. Clearly, vulnerable people are looking to us—to this institution, the Scottish Parliament, and to my institution, the church—to provide help, hope and a far greater sense of justice.

So, may we, like Aidan, continue to prioritise people over things and, in the words of the prophet Micah, use the privilege and power of our position

“to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God”.

Amen.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-17892, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Tuesday 10 June 2025—

after

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

insert

followed by Oaths and Affirmations

delete

7.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

7.30 pm Decision Time—[Jamie Hepburn.]

Motion agreed to.

Oath

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is the taking of an oath by our new member. I invite Davy Russell to take the oath.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I, David Russell, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God. [ Applause .]

Topical Question Time

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the removal of dangerous building cladding, in light of the recent publications by Scotland’s cladding remediation programme. (S6T-02570)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The Scottish Government has established a comprehensive cladding remediation system. Since the essential Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 came into effect earlier this year, we have launched a £10 million scheme to support owners with building assessment. All buildings that were in the pilot programme—

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

We cannot hear the minister.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Minister, could you angle the microphone towards you?

Thank you. We will see whether that makes any difference.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

My card is in. Is that any better?

I will start again, Presiding Officer.

The Scottish Government has established a comprehensive cladding remediation system. Since the essential Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 came into effect earlier this year, we have launched a £10 million scheme to support owners with building assessment. All buildings that were in the pilot programme have had an initial review. Many do not require further action, and all others are either undergoing a statutory assessment, will be assessed by their developer or will have an assessment funded by us.

We have asked owners of social housing to confirm any buildings that are at risk and we will seek assurance that action is being taken. Where necessary, they can apply for funding to support assessment. The building safety levy, once it is enacted, will provide an important funding stream as we continue to mitigate fire safety risks.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the minister for his answer, but it has been eight years since the Grenfell tragedy brought the issue of dangerous cladding to light, and yet the Scottish Government is still dragging its heels while people are stuck in potentially dangerous properties or are unable to sell their homes without proper certification.

Can the minister finally give us a timeline for when the single building assessment will be introduced, and confirm that it will be in line with what United Kingdom lenders require?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I disagree with Mr Balfour’s points. It was essential that the new legislation that we introduced could deal with our unique tenure system and with the challenges that we have that do not exist elsewhere in the UK. Commencement of the provisions in the 2024 act has allowed us to rapidly increase the pace. For buildings for which the Scottish Government is responsible, we have taken urgent action wherever that has been recommended by a fire engineer. I mentioned the launch of the single open call, which has proven to be very successful in identifying buildings that were not known to us via any other source.

We have also concluded an exercise with local authorities and confirmed that a substantial proportion of them have appropriate mitigation measures in place. We have made substantial progress with a universal exercise across registered social landlords and are supporting RSLs to make progress with statutory assessment.

It is not appropriate to compare Scotland with other parts of the UK—it was simply not possible to make the necessary progress prior to introducing the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which gave us the necessary backstop powers to address Scotland’s unique tenure issues.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

It is deeply disappointing that the minister has not been able to answer the question about UK lenders and people who are worried about the mortgages on their properties. I will give him a second chance. A variety of stakeholders agree that a central register for affected properties is essential to properly address the issue. Can the minister explain why Scotland still does not have one? When will it finally get one, so that we know the scale of the work? When will there be an agreement between UK lenders so that the issue can be resolved?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Mr Balfour will be aware that UK lending is a reserved matter. We have had discussions with UK Finance on the issue and, along with the Welsh Government, we continue to press that point with the UK Government and UK Finance. I am happy to take up individual issues, but it is a reserved matter at the moment.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Given the number of members who have requested to ask supplementary questions, it is unlikely that I will be able to take all of them, but I request concise questions and responses.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will the minister outline further details of the next phase of the £10 million scheme and when it will be reopened? Will he also look again at exempting from the land and buildings transaction tax additional dwelling supplement people that are affected by cladding that need or want to move, such as some of my constituents who were affected by the Breadalbane Street fire last year?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

We are building on the essential statutory foundations that we put in place to rapidly address the risks associated with combustible cladding. We expect all building owners to take appropriate steps, and we are encouraging them and supporting them practically to do so.

In late March, we launched a new single open call, backed with £10 million of funding for statutory assessments. As of 5 June, we had received 83 expressions of interest, of which 36 were from registered social landlords. By the end of this month, we will move into stage 2, offering support for necessary mitigation and remediation works that are based on the assessments, and increasing their pace and breadth.

The estimates that were published on Thursday highlight again that the problem of combustible cladding on Scotland’s buildings is substantial. With the tools in place, we can now successfully respond.

I will take up Mr Macpherson’s point about LBTT with the appropriate minister and respond to him in due course.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Is the minister confident that, since the single open call, the Government finally has a comprehensive register of all buildings that are affected by the Grenfell-type combustible cladding?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Mr Griffin will be aware of the estimated number of buildings that require various levels of remediation. That information was published just last week—an estimated 1,260 to 1,450 of the residential buildings in Scotland that are 11m or more in height might require work to alleviate external wall system fire risk. Those are estimates and do not represent a list of specific buildings that might or do not need work. The numbers are based on our current best estimates and the UK systems of methodology. I am happy to engage with Mr Griffin further on that point.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I do not understand why the minister, all this time later, is still using words such as “might”. The idea that we cannot compare what has happened in our country with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom is, frankly, bizarre.

We now know that, of the at least 1,300 buildings that need remedial work, only 1 per cent have been addressed, and the Scottish Government has been sitting on UK funding all this time. Can the minister explain how he can justify asking Parliament—at this stage in the session, eight years after Grenfell—to consider a new bill, when thousands of people are living in situations that pose specific risks for them?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I reiterate that it is not possible to compare Scotland with the rest of the UK. We needed the cladding bill to introduce some of the powers that were needed, and the bill was passed.

With regard to the actions that we have taken, I mentioned the single open call and the work that we have been doing with local authorities and RSLs on that. We are also working with the social housing sector on the remediation of buildings for which it has responsibility.

I have talked before about being disappointed about the previous pace and breadth of progress, but, as I said, with the single open call and the work that we are doing, the pace of action is now increasing.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We know that the Scottish National Party is in trouble on performance when it refuses to be compared with England. The reality is that the Government is way behind. It says that it is moving at pace, but if it is moving that fast, why can the minister not give us a date, like in England, when the work will be completed?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

When we talk about cladding—Willie Rennie will know about this—one of the most important points is to get the single building assessments done and in place as soon as possible. We worked very closely with the development sector on that point, and that work was done collaboratively. The greater our ability to get the SBAs done, the quicker we can get the buildings remediated. The open call that I have talked about and the work that is taking place with local authorities and RSLs will see that pace increase.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports of claims by a whistleblower at Police Scotland that officers are being “coerced” into logging individuals in line with their gender identity, even in serious sexual assault cases. (S6T-02583)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Although decisions on how crime data are recorded are operational matters for Police Scotland, Police Scotland has been clear that it does not direct officers to record sex or gender in a way that breaches legal obligations. I also expect it to ensure that its practices are lawful and support accurate and consistent data collection.

Police Scotland is already reviewing how it records and uses sex and gender data. That review was under way before the recent Supreme Court judgment, and Police Scotland will now take full account of the ruling when reaching its conclusions and making recommendations. Public bodies are also guided by advice from the office of the chief statistician, which encourages data collection based on user needs and context.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The position is far from clear. There are reports in the press that there is widespread confusion and unease among staff about how suspects who identify as transgender are recorded in official systems. Many staff say that they have to record someone and, indeed, search them based on how they present, even if that is at the moment of arrest. It appears that there is no official guidance, so staff are left to navigate sensitive and legally significant decisions without clear guidance.

A whistleblower said that that is

“putting officers and staff in a situation where they are having to do things where no one knows where this decision is coming from, and there is not an actual policy. People are just feeling kind of coerced into doing it.”

Given the press reports, is the cabinet secretary concerned about the apparent lack of clarity that is being experienced by officers on the front line about how to record the sex and gender of suspected serious sexual offenders?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I believe that there currently is clarity. Bearing in mind that this is an operational matter, I will provide the response that Police Scotland gave to the press reports. It said:

“It is inaccurate and misleading to suggest a male accused of rape would be recorded as a woman. It is inaccurate and misleading to suggest female officers and members of staff are coerced into carrying out intimate searches on male prisoners. The Chief Constable has been clear that our ongoing review of sex and gender will take into account all views, the legislation, guidance and legal advice.”

I assure the member that, notwithstanding that these are operational matters, I discuss this matter in my engagement with the chief constable, and progress is being made.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees that, in relation to sexual offences, it is critical that the offender is recorded on the basis of their sex, because to do otherwise would distort the statistics. In September 2024, the chief constable stated that offenders in rape and other sexual offence cases would be recorded on the basis of biological sex—so, we are happy. However, in a letter to me and in press reports, Police Scotland has since indicated that there is “no set policy” on how to record the sex and gender of individuals. I stand by what I said when I quoted that press report. It must be true, because there is clear confusion—that is why I wrote to Police Scotland.

Police Scotland is undertaking a review of sex and gender data. Surely the cabinet secretary must have a discussion now with Police Scotland about how it is recording the sex of perpetrators of sexual crimes. There must be clarity for police officers on the front line. Does she agree that it is critical that the Government gives proper guidance to all public services?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In September 2024, the chief constable advised the Scottish Police Authority that

“a man who commits rape or serious sexual assaults will be recorded by Police Scotland as a male.”

I acknowledge and respect that Ms McNeill has long voiced her strong and clear views on the matter, including with regard to the importance of using biological sex for data accuracy, understanding patterns of offending behaviour and shaping public policy. I also concur that the transparency and accuracy of data is important.

Police Scotland is responsible for its own guidance, which it is reviewing. It must, of course, ensure that it fully complies with the Supreme Court judgment and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission guidance, when that is published. That guidance is under review, and I understand that the review will end at the end of this month.

Further to that, the Scottish Government has a Government-wide commitment to ensuring that our recording of sex and gender is in line with the very best statistical practice and the guidance that goes with that, and that it is fully compliant with the Supreme Court judgment.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We are now in the final minute that was allocated for this item of business, so I must insist that questions and responses are brief.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Police Scotland’s review on the recording of sex and gender is on-going. However, that is not an excuse to kick the can down the road. The force provided assurances to the Scottish Police Authority that the timeline for review does not preclude any immediate improvements that have been identified and are required to internal practice or policy from being made. That is in stark contrast to what was said at the meeting that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs held with the chief constable on 30 April, in which she emphasised that Police Scotland must await EHRC guidance on the Supreme Court ruling. Will the cabinet secretary’s Government get off the fence and finally issue an urgent directive to public bodies to comply with the law and put an end to this mess?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government is taking action now, and that action is focused on ensuring that, come the issuance of guidance from the EHRC—which is, after all, the regulator—we are in a state of readiness to progress matters. That applies to the Government and to Police Scotland.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

The reports in the press are, indeed, concerning. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is equally concerned by what she has read. However, I am not convinced by what she has said to us this afternoon. I do not believe that the leadership in public bodies in this area is as she is suggesting.

The Istanbul convention obliges the Scottish Government to accurately record the sex of perpetrators. If that is not happening, that is extremely concerning. It is now eight weeks since the Supreme Court clarified the law. The fact that we are still having weekly exchanges with the Government suggests that there is still a problem. Will the cabinet secretary urgently commit to issuing that clear direction and guidance to all public bodies now?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Of course, it is not in my gift to issue guidance to all public bodies, bearing in mind that I am the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, not the regulator of the Equality Act 2010, which applies to the Scottish Government and, indeed, all our public bodies. However, there should be no doubt that the Scottish Government, our public bodies and Police Scotland are required to comply with the law—end of.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure the connectivity of local communities in the west of Scotland, in light of reports that over 400 Stagecoach drivers in Ayr, Arran, Ardrossan and Kilmarnock have begun industrial action until 21 July. (S6T-02586)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The majority of bus services in Scotland are operated on a commercial basis by private bus companies in the open, deregulated market. The Scottish ministers cannot intervene in commercial matters. However, I encourage Stagecoach West and the unions to work together to resolve the issue as soon as possible and limit the impact on the passengers who are affected by it. For the duration of the industrial action, Stagecoach will operate a limited service with the drivers who are available to it, so passengers are encouraged to check the latest timetables online.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

The problem is that the issue is not coming to any resolution. Anyone who saw the news last night will have seen that it is the elderly and vulnerable across the west of Scotland who are suffering, through no fault of their own.

Many people have sympathy with the drivers and believe that they should get a fair deal on pay. Equally, some people in my part of the world are now housebound because there is no public transport. That includes, in particular, people who do not have cars, who live in rural communities, who are on low incomes or who have disabilities.

One or two days of striking here and there is one thing, but six weeks is another. More than 30 services have been cancelled. Although the dispute is a private matter between the two parties, public connectivity is not. What is the Government doing to help to resolve the issue?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I absolutely take on board Jamie Greene’s point about the impact that the strike is having. However, I reiterate that this is about a private company in a deregulated market. The unions and the bus companies must get together to find a resolution sooner rather than later for the passengers who are affected.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Has the minister spoken to Unite the Union or Stagecoach in the past three days? I would be keen to hear an update on that in response to my supplementary question.

There is a much wider and more problematic issue here. It should simply not be the case that, in Scotland in 2025, entire communities can be cut off completely from public transport because of industrial action in a single bus company. Rural communities in particular expect and deserve more reliable services, better connectivity and more resilience in public transport.

Is the Scottish Government willing today to commit to a full root-and-branch review of rural bus services, which will look in particular at contingency planning, so that no one in Scotland is treated as a second-class citizen when industrial action takes away their only method of transport?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Jamie Greene raises a number of questions. He asked whether I have spoken to Stagecoach or the unions. No, I have not, for the simple reason that we would not intervene in a commercial matter.

The member asked what more we could do. I remind him that, when he was sitting on the Conservative benches, he was a member of the party that deregulated the bus market in the first place, and that has allowed commercial considerations to be part of the conversation.

I add that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 gives the local authority the powers to do the things that he is asking about, because they are local authority issues.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Many of my 6,000 constituents in Beith rely on buses, as there is no railway station there. Constituents cannot travel to work, to study or even to visit loved ones in hospital at this time. It is completely unacceptable.

What discussions has the minister had with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport on providing emergency bus services to ameliorate the situation? Does he agree that bus drivers in Ayrshire should be paid the same as the drivers in his constituency in Perthshire?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As I have set out before, Scottish ministers cannot intervene in such matters. I appreciate that disruption is being caused to communities in Ayrshire and I understand that there are reduced operating timetables on some routes. Again, I encourage Stagecoach West and the unions to work together to resolve the issue as soon as they possibly can, for the benefit of their passengers.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Is the minister aware that Stagecoach drivers in West Scotland are the worst paid in the United Kingdom? The latest Stagecoach offer of a 4 per cent pay rise was rejected by 98 per cent of Unite bus drivers, on an 81 per cent turnout. The unions say that, even if that offer had been accepted, West Scotland drivers would still be the poorest paid across the UK. Does the minister agree that that is completely unacceptable, that Stagecoach is a very profitable company and that we need to ensure that it makes a better offer so that our constituents are able to use that service?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am very aware of the figures that Katy Clark is telling us about, but I reiterate that this is about a commercial business that is dealing with a union. It is entirely appropriate for those organisations to come to a resolution themselves and not to have the intervention of Scottish ministers.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

With apologies to those members who we have been unable to get to, given the timings, that concludes topical question time.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-17861, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour

Groups 4 to 6: 2 hours

Groups 7 to 10: 2 hours 50 minutes

Groups 11 and 12: 3 hours 20 minutes

Groups 13 to 15: 3 hours 50 minutes—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

Care Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings for the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 17A—the marshalled list, the supplement to the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Before section 36

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 1 is on health and social care information. Amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 2A, 2B, 2C, 52, 53 and 3 to 9.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Before I speak to the amendments in this first group, I want to put on record my thanks to the minister and her officials for drafting a series of amendments and, indeed, improving my humble efforts at stage 2.

Amendments 2, 4 and 9 are designed to create a digital health and social care record. Amendment 2 will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to exercise the powers in part 2 of the bill to create an information-sharing scheme and lay down information standards. That is in order to ensure that every person who receives healthcare or a social care service in Scotland can have a digital care record. The amendment will secure the delivery of a digital care record to address the issues that were highlighted in the independent review of adult social care.

That record will be crucial in ensuring that the right people have access to the right information at the right time. It will help to reduce the upset and frustration that are caused to people who receive care when they have to retell their story again and again across all points of their care. A digital care record will also empower individuals by giving them the ability to more easily access their own health and care information and contribute to it where it is appropriate to do so.

Amendments 4 and 9 make technical adjustments to make references to health and social care information throughout part 2 of the bill consistent with the definition that will be inserted by amendment 2.

I move amendment 2.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Brian Whittle to move amendment 2A and speak to all amendments in the group.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I did not expect digital integrated health and care records to receive as much attention as they did during stage 2, and nor did I expect so many of my colleagues to agree with me that creating such records is a step that must be taken now to give the national health service and social care providers the tools that they need to do their jobs safely in the modern era.

In answer to a written question that I submitted on whether legislation is required to deliver an integrated social care and health record, as referenced in the Scottish Government’s “Care in the Digital Age: Delivery Plan 2024-25”, Neil Gray answered:

“The Scottish Government ... can confirm that legislation is not required to create such a record. However, Part 2 of the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill, if passed, will create the enabling conditions for success of a digital health and care record by improving information sharing and usage between individuals and organisations within the health and social care system.”—[Written Answers, 22 May 2025; S6W-37823.]

I have been vocal about my disappointment with the bill, but it is a consolation that it takes steps to enable the use of digital integrated health and care records in the future. In that spirit, I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2, and we will be happy to support it, even though I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2 that was turned down.

My amendments 2A, 2B and 2C seek to add important clarity on the digital care record. All those amendments have the support of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and Community Pharmacy Scotland. Amendment 2A places emphasis on the fact that the record will be an “integrated” health and social care record to ensure that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the records will no longer be managed and used separately. It is important for healthcare providers and social care providers to have that information so that they can make safer decisions for patients, leading to better patient outcomes. The amendment also has the support of Pharmacy in Practice.

Amendment 2B specifies that, although no specific technological solution will be required by the bill, any technology solution must be “interoperable”. That is important as it will facilitate information sharing between social care providers, pharmacies, general practitioners, secondary care, hospitals and beyond. At the moment, the way that records are shared and kept varies between services and health boards. The amendment ensures that each professional who should have access to the care record will be able to deploy the technological solution.

The amendment also has the support of Pharmacy in Practice, which feels very strongly that it is vital that, in this context, the shared record is a technologically agnostic interoperable solution. In pharmacies and beyond, we are seeing an arms race to offer care record solutions, many of which we do not need, among private providers. Confusion in information sharing increases the risk to patients.

Amendment 2C seeks to give examples of the types of health information that should be included in the digital care record, but it is not exhaustive. I understand that the minister might feel that doing so is redundant, but it is important to list in the bill the minimum level of service that the records should supply information about, with the caveat that is provided by subsection (2) in amendment 2, which sets out that the sharing of information is contingent on comparability and existing data protection principles.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 53 gives individuals and their guardians control over access to their digital care records and ensures that records are provided in an accessible format. That is an important addition to the bill, and I support the amendment.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Mark Ruskell to speak to amendment 53 and other amendments in the group.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I recognise that I am stepping in on the bill at quite a late stage. I am here because Gillian Mackay is on maternity leave at the moment, but I am very much progressing the amendments that she pursued at stage 2. I am sure that Gillian Mackay would concur with Jackie Baillie’s comments that the dialogue with the minister about the amendments has been very constructive.

Section 36 of the bill outlines information-sharing requirements for professionals who work in public health and social care services. In order to create a care record system that is person-centred, that section of the legislation could be amended to outline measures that ensure that citizens have control of and access to their data as part of a real digital choice approach.

I do not want to disappoint Brian Whittle, but I will not move amendment 53 today. Following discussions with the minister between stages 2 and 3, I have carefully considered the concerns raised, in particular those concerning the potential implications for data protection law, which is reserved. There is a risk that the amendment could prevent health and care providers from sharing personal data in situations in which it is currently legal and appropriate to do so, especially if they are acting in the best interests of a person, including children or vulnerable adults. I recognise the concern that requiring consent in such cases might be impractical and even counterproductive.

However, I acknowledge Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2, which shares a similar aim of enhancing data safeguards. It makes progress in that sensitive area, and the Scottish Greens will support that amendment and Mr Whittle’s amendment 2A.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to speak to amendment 3 and other amendments in the group.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I am pleased to begin today on a note of consensus. I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2, which places a duty on ministers to ensure that everyone who receives healthcare or social care in Scotland can have a digital care record. As members will be aware, the integration of health and social care records is a long-term ambition of the Scottish Government, which the powers in part 2 of the bill were always intended to support. Amendment 2 enshrines that ambition in law, recognising that a digital care record would improve outcomes for the workforce and individuals throughout Scotland.

Brian Whittle has proposed three amendments to Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2. Amendment 2A would change the label from “digital care record” to “digital integrated care record”. I recognise that the spirit of the amendment is to underline the need for integrated care, so I am happy to support it.

However, I cannot support amendment 2B, which would add the words “technology-agnostic interoperable solution” to amendment 2. As a matter of law, it is not clear what that phrase means. Although it is right that we should be aiming for a flexible digital infrastructure in health and care, and I agree with the intent, I am concerned about putting something that is so unclear into law.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I really appreciated the minister taking the time to have the conversation that we had yesterday, but the phrase in amendment 2B just means that the technology solutions across the care sector, whatever they might be, must speak to one another. It is really straightforward and simple, and I do not understand why on earth we would produce a platform that did not do that.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

A simple google would show that there are different interpretations of the term’s meaning. In particular, the term “technology-agnostic” could cause confusion, because there is neither a legal definition of it nor a common understanding of what it means.

The bill’s provisions on information standards exist in order to achieve the interoperability that Mr Whittle is seeking through amendment 2B and that my pharmacy colleagues are seeking, too. The provisions, which will also apply to providers of information technology products and services, will allow ministers to ensure that interoperability is a necessity when supplying to health and care providers. Ultimately, the point of setting information standards is to ensure a certain degree of consistency in how data is used in order to achieve the integration to which Mr Whittle’s amendment 2A refers.

I cannot support amendment 2C, which would add a list of things that are to be treated as health and social care information. In the context of amendment 2, there is no need for a non-exhaustive list of what is to go into a digital care record.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister talked about her pharmacy colleagues. Does she recognise that amendments 2A, 2B and 2C have the support of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and Community Pharmacy Scotland?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I recognise that Brian Whittle has worked with pharmacy colleagues, but I am sure that they will understand what I am saying, because they will be as pedantic about this as I am. I am, after all, still a registered pharmacist—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

If we put a term into law, it is really important that it has a legal definition and that there is a common understanding of what it means. There is neither for the term that Mr Whittle wishes to include in the bill. However, I believe that the aim of Mr Whittle’s amendments has been achieved by the bill that we are voting on today.

As I said, I cannot support amendment 2C, which would add a list of things that were to be treated as health and social care information. In the context of amendment 2, there is no need for a non-exhaustive list of what is to go into a digital care record. Amendment 2 sets the scope of the ambition and appropriately leaves the detail to be worked out through co-design with stakeholders, including members of the public. Requiring that a digital care record must include health records or social care records, for example, as amendment 2C sets out, could cause confusion, as a digital care record is the person’s record.

Jackie Baillie’s amendments 4 and 9 will extend the definition of health and social care information in amendment 2 for the purposes of all sections in part 2 of the bill. Amendment 2C would therefore be harmful in the context of section 37A because of the definition that it would set. I expect that that was not Mr Whittle’s intention.

I am afraid that I will not support Mr Whittle’s amendment 52, which would turn the power in section 36 to make regulations for an information-sharing scheme into a duty to do so. As we have discussed, Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2 will place a duty on ministers to use the powers in part 2 of the bill, including the section 36 power, to ensure that there can be a digital care record for everyone. Amendment 2, which I support, will place a duty on ministers to use the section 36 power for that purpose. If the intention is to require ministers to use the section 36 power for the purpose that is covered by amendment 2, amendment 2 is all that is needed. If amendment 52 were also to be agreed to, it would create an implication in law that ministers must use the section 36 power for a purpose over and above what amendment 2 requires, and it is not clear what that purpose would be. I therefore invite Mr Whittle to support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2 and not move amendment 52.

I am sympathetic to the principles behind Mark Ruskell’s amendment 53, but I cannot support it. The way in which the amendment is framed would bring the bill into the reserved subject matter of data protection, and I cannot support any amendment that would risk putting the bill outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I am grateful to Mr Ruskell for highlighting the importance of individuals having a say in who accesses information in their records and of ensuring that health and social care information is accessible. Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2 already recognises that in a way that is within Parliament’s competence. I assure Mr Ruskell that, even without that statutory encouragement, those considerations are very much at the forefront of our minds. On the basis that it is unnecessary and jeopardises the lawfulness of the whole bill, I invite Mr Ruskell not to move amendment 53.

Finally, I turn to my amendments in the group. I will be brief, because they are technical. Amendment 3 is simply to make it clear that regulations under section 36, which establish an information-sharing scheme, can lay down the acceptable uses for the information that is shared through the scheme. Amendment 7 expands the range of persons who can be made subject to information standards to cover various NHS contractors, such as general practitioners.

The purpose of setting information standards under section 37 is to ensure that health and social care information is handled securely and in a consistent way. Given the criticality of the information that is held by those who provide services under contract to the NHS, it is important that the standards can be applied to them.

Amendments 5, 6 and 8 are minor drafting changes in consequence of amendment 7.

In summary, I support and welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 2 and the connected amendments 2A, 4 and 9. I urge members to support my amendments 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and to reject Brian Whittle’s amendments 2B, 2C and 52 and Mark Ruskell’s amendment 53.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Jackie Baillie to wind up on amendment 2.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I will be quick. This is an important series of amendments, and I urge members to support amendments 2, 4 and 9 in my name and the amendments in the minister’s name. Although I might be more relaxed than the minister about Brian Whittle’s amendments, I suspect that my suggesting that we support them might not do Brian any favours. I note that Mark Ruskell does not wish to move amendment 53.

By agreeing to the amendments, we will improve the integration of health and social care information with digital records, and drag ourselves into—are we in the 21st century?—whatever century we are in.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members to use full names. I call Brian Whittle to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 2A.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I press amendment 2A.

Amendment 2A agreed to.

Amendment 2B moved—[Brian Whittle].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 2B be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

As this is the first division of the stage, I suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to the vote on amendment 2B. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Choudhury. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Mundell. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It appears that my vote has been recorded, but I am not certain. Just to be clear, I note that I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I confirm that your vote was recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2B disagreed to.

Amendment 2C moved—[Brian Whittle].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 2C be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am unable to connect. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Somerville. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Bear with me for one moment, Ms Gilruth. I am just going to request that your microphone be switched on.

If you would like to use Mr Mason’s microphone, that would be helpful. Thank you.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I was unable to connect. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Gilruth. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect, either. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Stevenson. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 67, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2C disagreed to.

Amendment 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 36—Care records

Amendment 52 moved—[Brian Whittle].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 52 disagreed to.

Amendment 53 not moved.

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

After section 36

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to group 2, on freedom of information. Amendment 54, in the name of Katy Clark, is grouped with amendment 86.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I am pleased to speak to my amendments on freedom of information.

Significant amounts of money are spent on care in Scotland and the private sector care industry has grown significantly in recent years. Ownership structures have become ever more complex and opaque. For example, data obtained from Registers of Scotland by The Ferret shows that, at the end of 2019, at least 44 Scottish care homes were owned by companies based in tax havens including Jersey, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar.

I will speak more about that later in the debate in connection with my amendments on tax transparency, but I mention it now because it highlights the importance of changes in the sector that mean that more of the sector is now outwith the scope of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Katy Clark raises the important point that, as the industry becomes more complex and its ownership more diverse, the people whom it should be caring for are much more remote from their data and information. The amendments that she has lodged, along with other amendments on freedom of information, would, at last, allow people to know what information is being held and how decisions are being made. Does the member agree with that?

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The member makes an incredibly important point. The challenges of Covid demonstrated the importance of having an enforceable right to information. During Covid we saw that providers in the care sector, which care for some of our most vulnerable people, followed very different rules depending on whether ownership was in the public sector or elsewhere. We found that the families of those who were in care homes run by local authorities were able to access information but that it simply was not possible to get information from homes owned by private sector companies.

That is one reason why there is such a body of opinion in favour of extending freedom of information to cover the care sector. However, ministers have thus far refused to use their section 5 powers under the act.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am interested in Katy Clark’s amendments because Liberals care passionately about freedom of information.

However, I am also anxious about blurring the lines between public and private accountability. We have freedom of information so that elected members and officials can be made to justify their decisions, but I think that it becomes a dichotomy when we start extending that to cover private companies, which have a right to conduct commercially sensitive business or to keep their profit margins private. That also almost misses the original intent of freedom of information, which was to have democratic accountability for local decision making.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Indeed. The intention of the 2002 act was to provide transparency about public services—that is, services that are paid for by the taxpayer. My proposals relate to the activities of private companies only in so far as they provide public services. The intention of the 2002 act was always that it would be possible to designate care providers in the private and non-profit-making sectors. However, we have seen a failure by Governments over more than 20 years to extend into those areas. It was always envisaged that such services that are provided and paid for by the state would be covered by freedom of information, but in recent years we have seen the outsourcing of services and, increasingly, services being provided by organisations that are not public authorities such as local authorities.

Independent polling that the Scottish Information Commissioner undertook in 2024 confirmed that there is overwhelming public support for legal change, with 93 per cent believing that freedom of information should cover publicly funded services such as care homes. The essential point is that services that were originally provided in the private sector are now being provided by multinationals and care homes that are owned by offshore trusts.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful to Katy Clark for giving way again. I am keen to tease this out. Surely the point that her amendments seek to address is really subject to due diligence by the local authorities that commission the care. When public money is used for the delivery of care, councillors and council officers should ensure that they are satisfied that they are getting the best value for money and the best quality for money. Katy Clark’s amendments could set a precedent whereby any private provider that is in receipt of public funding would be subject to freedom of information. That might be where she wants to take this, but that is potentially a bigger debate than the one that we have in front of us.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The member seems to be arguing for contract compliance. Under freedom of information, it often happens that, when a local authority or the Scottish Government has to provide information that is requested, it will obtain that information from an organisation that it has contracted with. My amendments are about individual members of the public having a direct right to obtain information from an organisation that is providing a service that is paid for by the taxpayer.

The important point in relation to private companies is that only the services that are paid for by the taxpayer would have to be compliant with freedom of information. Anything else that the organisation did—for example, the same care home could contain a place that was paid for privately and in a different way—would not be within the scope of freedom of information. However, the reality is that many care homes only have places that are funded by the taxpayer.

During Covid, we saw that, where a care home was a local authority care home, information was provided to families, which was of great significance to them and gave them a great deal of comfort. We have a lack of transparency where services are provided by other types of organisation, such as a care home that is owned by a multinational. We know that many organisations have very vulnerable systems. Southern Cross Healthcare was perhaps the most noteworthy example of that. At the end of the day, it is the family and the person in care who suffer when such an organisation goes bust. I might have an opportunity to talk about that later when I speak to my amendments on tax transparency.

My amendments in group 2 seek to address the transparency deficit by extending the requirements of the 2002 act to the care sector. Amendment 54 seeks to designate the relevant care homes as defined under the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.

Amendment 86 would require that the provisions would come into force two years after royal assent. The impact of the amendments would be that individuals would be able to exercise and enforce FOI rights directly with service providers; the amendments would also strengthen legal clarity for the Scottish Information Commissioner and indeed for designated bodies and requesters.

I hope to say a little bit more about the changing nature of the care sector later on in the debate, but I would argue that it is that changing nature that makes the amendments so important.

I appreciate that the Scottish Government is likely to say that it is not opposed in principle to the amendments but that it wishes to undertake a consultation with the sector. These amendments would enable consultation with the sector on how FOI rights are extended to it, not on whether they should be extended. I would say that it is a principle that, if it is the taxpayer who is paying for a service, the public should have that right to information. When the 2002 act was passed, it was always the intention that taxpayer-funded public services would be covered by FOI. After a 20-year delay, these amendments would guarantee that, within two years of royal assent, publicly funded care would be covered by FOI and the public would have more rights to know how their money was being spent.

I move amendment 54.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I am grateful to Katy Clark for engaging with me since stage 2 on the issue of FOI extension. I welcome the greater clarity that she has provided regarding the services to which she seeks to extend FOI law. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government cannot support these amendments. We have already made a clear public commitment that we will consult on the extension of the 2002 act to most of the services to which these amendments relate. Indeed, work has already commenced to engage key stakeholders in developing the approach to consultation through the establishment of a dedicated advisory group, which is actively taking forward work on this area.

The Scottish Government recognises the importance of access to information and the value of the statutory rights that are provided by the 2002 act. That is why we have committed to consult on the extension of those rights in this sector.

Designation under the 2002 act brings a number of clear statutory obligations. Those obligations are intended to be proportionate. However, we must fully consider and consult affected stakeholders about the impact on organisations before making them subject to FOI law. For that reason, ministers are required by section 5 of the 2002 act to consult before exercising their order-making power to extend FOI law to organisations that were not previously covered.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Further to my exchange with Katy Clark, the Liberal Democrats are interested in supporting these amendments, largely because Katy Clark has eloquently identified a gap in the information that is provided, in particular to care residents and their relatives, in respect of private providers.

It does not seem as though the Government is entirely closed off to the idea but would rather consult on further policy down the line. However, does the minister recognise that there is a gap right now?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The Government recognises that there is a gap. That is why we are consulting on it. That is why we are keen on consulting. We have stated our intent and we have committed to consult on the extension to the sector because we recognise that there is a gap.

However, I do not think that we can skip the step of consultation. We are statutorily required by section 5 of the 2002 act to consult before exercising the order-making power to extend FOI law to organisations that were not previously covered. The consultation that is being developed therefore remains appropriate and essential in the Scottish Government’s view, and supporting Katy Clark’s amendments would remove the opportunity for the important process of consultation to continue.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Greens are also sympathetic to this very limited extension of FOI law. Will the minister say a bit more about the consultation? Will it be a consultation specifically on extending FOI law to the social care sector? When will it be concluded? When should we expect any particular changes to FOI law to be brought forward on the back of the consultation, should the Scottish Government agree to take this further?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

As I have stated, work has already commenced on engaging key stakeholders in our development of the approach to consultation. We have established a dedicated advisory group, which is actively taking forward that work. I think that I have been absolutely clear that the Government does not want to skip the step of consultation. We agree with asking the question; that is why we have committed to consulting and it is important that we do that with the sector before bringing forward the change. I therefore urge members not to support these amendments.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Katy Clark to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 54.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I press amendment 54.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 83, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 54 disagreed to.

Section 37A—Power to produce standards

Amendment 4 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Section 37B—Persons to whom standards may apply

Amendments 5 to 8 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 37E—Interpretation of Chapter 1

Amendment 9 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Section 38—Rights to breaks for carers

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 3 is on carers. Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 11 to 29, 1 and 63.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I will briefly speak first to my own amendments in the group, which are all of a minor and technical nature to tidy up after stage 2. Amendment 10 updates a cross-reference and amendments 11 to 15 and 17 shorten the way in which breaks are referred to, as the meaning of “break” will be defined by amendment 18, which simply tidies up the definition of that expression, as agreed at stage 2.

Amendments 20 to 23 deal with the consequential repeal of provisions in the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 that are no longer needed. I was pleased at stage 2 to support Gillian Mackay’s amendment to add section 39A to the bill, which is entitled “Short break services statement”. It is important that people who care for others know how to access short breaks. At stage 2, I noted that some adjustments to the new section were needed to clarify the duties, and I discussed those with Gillian Mackay and carers representative organisations to ensure that the intention behind the original amendment is met in a way that gives clarity to local authorities, which publish those statements. Amendments 24 to 29 make those adjustments.

I turn to other members’ amendments in the group. I am pleased to support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 16, which will underline that regulations that set out what constitutes sufficient breaks for carers should recognise the importance of their having

“time for rest and leisure”.

I recognise the pressures that many carers are under and the importance of ensuring that they can access breaks to maintain and improve their wellbeing.

As I said at stage 2, the definition of sufficient breaks will be developed in partnership with carers, to ensure that their lived experience is properly reflected. Amendment 16 affirms the commitment to that in legislation, and I encourage members across the chamber to support it.

I also support amendment 1 and I thank Mr Balfour for lodging it. Amendment 1 will enshrine in legislation a duty to assist carers in accessing support, including income maximisation. We already have in place a range of supports for carers, including statutory duties on local authorities, Social Security Scotland signposting to support, and funding for local carer centres. However, I share Mr Balfour’s desire to keep improving how we support carers now and in years to come.

However, I cannot support Brian Whittle’s amendment 63. I recognise the importance of transparency in relation to spending on local carer support, but the issue has already been recognised in a previous parliamentary session. The existing powers in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 are sufficient to specify financial reporting by integration joint boards. The 2014 act also requires publication of annual performance reports, and subordinate legislation made by Scottish ministers already requires those reports to include information on the amount spent on carer support.

If Mr Whittle feels that all the information that he wants is not already provided through that mechanism, I would be pleased to discuss with him the changes that should be made to ensure that the information is provided. However, amendment 63 is the wrong way to go about getting it. It risks creating confusion and puts unnecessary burdens on bodies that are already subject to statutory duties to provide such information. Therefore, I ask him not to move amendment 63. My door is always open to him, as it is to all members across the chamber, to explore how we can improve financial transparency within an already comprehensive statutory system.

I move amendment 10.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 16 and other amendments in the group.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I, too, thank the minister for responding to a number of the amendments at stage 2 of the bill. Scottish Labour supports the Government’s amendments in this group.

I turn to amendment 16. It is essential that carers are supported to have a life alongside caring and to protect their wellbeing. I have therefore been clear in my support of the proposed right to breaks for unpaid carers. I have also previously highlighted a desire for a clear definition of “sufficient breaks”. I am supportive of the minister’s intention to consult on the content of regulations to further define the meaning of “sufficient breaks”, so that carers—and those who support them—have the opportunity for input.

We all agree that carers need time to recharge and relax—time to help them look after themselves. I lodged amendment 16 to ensure that, whatever form that definition takes, it recognises the need for unpaid carers

“to have time for rest and leisure”.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I, too thank the minister for her constructive engagement over the past few days. I recognise that I am late to the show on this matter, but I think that amendment 1 is important, and I ask members to agree to it this afternoon.

We all want unpaid carers to be able to maximise the amount of money to which they are entitled. We hear often from constituents that they go to one public body and fill out a form and then they have to go to other public bodies and do the same. For people who already have stressful, busy lives, that can put them off maximising the benefits to which they are entitled. Amendment 1 will ensure that, for that reason, the first appropriate body that someone goes to will be responsible for not only signposting but helping them to complete the necessary forms.

That already happens in local authorities in many cases, but we have heard many stories of local authorities not being able to provide those services, or of people slipping through the net. In addition, local authorities are not responsible for any work with external bodies. The same is true for Social Security Scotland, which is getting good at signposting individuals to the benefits that they are entitled to in Scotland but has no duty to signpost to local authorities or other appropriate groups.

Amendment 1 will clarify the situation. It will allow stakeholders, the Government and other interested parties to make sure that we get the regulations right when they are made and that they are correctly consulted on. I hope that the Parliament will accept the amendment.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Brian Whittle to speak to amendment 63 and all amendments in the group.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

My amendment 63 seeks to improve reporting on spending on carer support and was co-drafted with, and is supported by, the Coalition of Carers in Scotland. The amendment seeks to provide transparency in relation to how funding is spent to ensure that it delivers for carers.

I understand that integration joint boards and health and social care partnerships already report on the spending that is used to support carers in their annual accounts and other reports. However, that reporting is not detailed enough to understand the impact of the spending on carers. Equally, in some cases, IJBs and HSCPs have been unable to break down spending on the implementation of the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 in response to FOI requests. That means that they are unsure how money is spent to deliver support for carers.

We heard evidence in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that money that is designated as spending to support carers is not reaching them. We must support carers, and we must make sure that they receive the support that they need.

I will move the amendment—

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Yes.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

My intervention will develop what Brian Whittle is talking about.

The minister said that there should be confidence that information is available through other means and via other vehicles. Does Brian Whittle share my concern that that is not actually the case, and that people are sometimes unable to obtain crucial parts of the information? Amendment 63 creates a duty to prioritise, in one place, the reporting of the information that people need to understand how the money is spent and what the effect of that spending is. It covers any misunderstandings that there might be about what should or should not be disclosed.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Martin Whitfield is absolutely right. If the money has been designated as spending that is to be put into carers’ pockets, we must be able to follow that money and make sure that it enters their pockets. We heard in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that, currently, that is not necessarily happening. All that amendment 63 is trying to do is to make sure that that information is readily available.

I also lend my support to amendment 1, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. In 2024, Policy in Practice reported that 529,000 carers who were eligible for carers allowance across the United Kingdom had not claimed it. Scottish figures do not exist, but, when we factor in Scotland’s share of the UK population, that equates to around 42,000 carers who are missing out on an average of £4,259 per annum. Mr Balfour’s amendment seeks to facilitate access to that benefit if a carer presents themselves to a relevant body. If you ask for help, help should be facilitated. I support that, and I am glad that the Government supports it as well.

We are minded to support the Scottish Government amendments in the group, with a caveat regarding amendment 10. If the minister could explain to us why that amendment leaves out subsection (10) from section 38 and inserts subsection (10A), and what will be missed out by that, that would be helpful to our deliberations.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Just to be absolutely clear, the Government is happy to support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 16 and Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 1.

I have concerns about amendment 63. I share Brian Whittle’s concern; ministers and officials repeatedly hear concerns from carer stakeholders about there being a lack of transparency in relation to spending on carer support. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has agreed to work with local authorities and IJBs to improve that. We are committed to improving the financial transparency of integration authority spending, including on social care. However, the amendment that Mr Whittle has lodged will not do that. In fact, it will cause confusion around and duplication of reporting requirements, which runs counter to the intent behind the amendment.

Amendment 63 also refers to health and social care partnerships, but HSCPs are not a legal entity; they are simply working arrangements between the various actors that are involved in the delivery of community health and social care services. The amendment also refers to “unpaid carers”. That term is not used in the 2016 act.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The IJBs are in the control of and are funded by the Scottish Government. It is their responsibility to ensure that any finances that are to go into carers’ pockets make it into their pockets. Surely it is the IJBs’ responsibility to follow that money.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

IJBs have a responsibility to publish transparent information on finances. We have said repeatedly at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and at the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it is really important that we are able to follow the money. We do not feel—not even I feel—adequately empowered to follow the money with regard to the spending that relates to the 2016 act.

However, I do not think that the amendment will improve the situation. We need to work with stakeholders and partners, including our local authority colleagues and IJBs, to make sure that we can spot where the money goes and follow it through from source to spending. I share the frustration of carers organisations that they are unable to do that. As I said, the amendment will not bring any more clarity to the powers that we already have.

You asked about amendment 10 and its reference to subsection (10A). Is the clarity that you are seeking to do with the definition of breaks?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Speak through the chair, please.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I just want to understand why we are removing subsection (10) and inserting subsection (10A). What is the difference between subsection (10) and subsection (10A)?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Subsection (10A), which was introduced at stage 2, removes the concern that the current definition encompasses breaks that are unrelated to the caring role. It explicitly confirms that breaks can be taken with the cared-for person, and it describes different arrangements for such breaks when taken together and how they are linked to the caring role.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendments 11 to 15 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 38A—Duty to prepare adult carer support plan

Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 38B—Duty to prepare young carer statement

Amendment 21 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 39—Enactments relating to carers: minor modifications

Amendments 22 and 23 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Section 39A—Short break services statement

Amendments 24 to 29 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

After Section 39A

Amendment 1 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Section 40—Visits to or by care home residents

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 4 is on care homes: rights to visits. Amendment 30, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 31, 32, 55, 33 to 36, 56, 57, 37, 38, 58 to 61, 61A and 62.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

This group of amendments relates to Anne’s law. The amendments set out a clear system that will protect the rights of family members to visit their loved ones in care homes. I pay tribute to the care homes relatives Scotland group, Campbell Duke, who is Anne’s husband, and their daughter Natasha for their patience and for getting us here today.

I will speak to amendments 30 to 32 and 35 to 38. With amendment 30, I wish to remove the words “use their best endeavours” in relation to the duty on care home providers to identify for every resident at least one individual as an essential care supporter. That would strengthen the duty on care home providers to identify an essential care supporter for each resident, to ensure that that is not an optional extra or a tick-box exercise.

That said, I understand that, in practice, there will be situations in which, sadly, it will not be possible to identify someone because a resident has no family or friends. Of course, some residents might not wish to identify someone at all. To allow for those circumstances, I have lodged amendment 31 in addition to amendment 30. Following on from amendment 30, which would remove the words “use their best endeavours”, I wish to ensure that care home providers take into account people’s wishes and circumstances when identifying an essential care supporter. Therefore, I have suggested some exceptions to the identification of an essential care supporter, namely in circumstances where the resident does not want one or where

“nobody can be identified who is able and willing”

to take on that role. I am sure that everyone will agree that, although it is important that everybody has the right to identify an essential care supporter, they also have the right not to choose someone.

I turn to amendment 32. The vital role of the essential care supporter is the essence of Anne’s law. With this amendment, I seek to put beyond doubt that the identification of the essential care supporter will be undertaken in a consultative manner with the care home resident and others. That will mean that care home providers will not make those decisions on their own and will be required to consult with relatives and others to identify an appropriate essential care supporter.

On amendments 35 and 36, I think that we can all agree that the process of suspending visits should require a high bar. We need to get this right. I have listened to care home relatives’ concerns on this issue and I know that the minister has, too. That is why I lodged amendments 35 and 36, which ensure oversight of decisions on visiting. They have been developed in consultation with relatives and others, including the Care Inspectorate.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I think that with these amendments we have come to the meat of the legislation. They are the principal reason that it will enjoy the Liberal Democrats’ support.

I offer Jackie Baillie the support of the Liberal Democrats for her amendments in this group and in particular the amendments on decisions to suspend care home visiting. We can all agree that when the story of our pandemic is written, the tragedy of that story will be in our care homes, because of the suspension of visits and the isolation that people felt when they were deprived of the love and support of their family members and those close to them. It led to the exacerbation of things such as dementia. Does Jackie Baillie agree that, with her amendments, we will take a big leap forward to ensuring that a story like that can never be told again?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I absolutely agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton’s comments, and I have to say that I think that the chamber would unanimously agree with them. The suspension of care home visits cast a long shadow during the pandemic, and I very much welcome the collaborative approach that the minister has taken with care home relatives Scotland and the Care Inspectorate to get these amendments over the line.

In finishing talking about amendments 35 and 36, I set out to members that they require care homes to review, when asked to do so, a decision about the suspension of visits, and to notify the Care Inspectorate when they decide to suspend visiting. Amendment 36 ensures that those provisions are included in the code of practice that will be published by Scottish ministers.

I turn to amendments 37 and 38. Anne’s law will be realised only if care home staff work collaboratively with people who are living in care homes and their friends and family, including essential care supporters. That is why I have lodged amendment 38 and the related amendment 37. Amendment 38 will allow Scottish ministers to include in the code of practice what they consider to be best practice in how that work should be done. It will mean that visits are facilitated in a way that best supports residents’ needs, which puts them and their families at the heart of decisions.

Taken together, my amendments in this group will strengthen Anne’s law so that we do not have a repeat of the experience of relatives trying to visit loved ones during the pandemic.

I move amendment 30.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will not move amendment 55, because it is a similar amendment to Jackie Baillie’s amendment 35.

I was happy to work with the minister and her officials on amendments 57 to 60 and 62, which I will move.

Amendment 57 will ensure that, in respect of Anne’s law and the code of practice, there will be timely written communication about any changes to visiting arrangements with the people who are affected, such as those who are living in care homes and their friends and family, including essential care supporters. That communication should include the reasons for any changes and they must be provided in writing. I am pushing for written communication to be part of the code of practice so that those who are in care and their essential care supporters have a record of why a visit has been denied. We learned much from our experience during the pandemic, and I think that the need for such records is an important part of what we learned.

Amendment 59 will create a mechanism for feedback on Anne’s law and the code of practice, and will ensure that ministers have to consider that feedback during revision of the code. It is important that the experience of those who are most affected by a code of practice on care home residents’ rights to visits—the residents themselves and their family and friends as well as providers of care home accommodation and their staff—is taken into consideration when each review of the code is undertaken. In addition, the Care Inspectorate is uniquely placed to offer an informed view of how well the code is working in practice and any changes that could improve it.

During stage 2, my amendment that required Anne’s law to be published publicly and “in easy read format” was agreed to. Amendment 58 omits the term “easy read format”, which I recognise does not have any concrete legal meaning. Amendment 60 sets out a better description of an easy-read format. It is essential that the code of practice for Anne’s law can be understood by a wide range of people, including people with learning difficulties or other conditions that affect how they process information. That is why I lodged amendment 60, which requires that, when ministers publish the code of practice for Anne’s law, a version is produced that can be

“understood by people with learning difficulties or other conditions affecting how they process information.”

On amendment 62, it is vital that we know whether Anne’s law is working as intended and that we ensure that any learning is captured and acted on in a meaningful and systematic way. I am glad that the minister has supported my view that a requirement to produce a report on the operation of Anne’s law should be included in the bill. I know that that view is supported by the Law Society of Scotland, which has noted that the current provisions in the bill lack

“a process of review or redress”,

although I highlight that the Law Society does not take a specific view on individual amendments. I hope that my amendments 62, 59 and 57 can help to address that.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

This group of amendments on Anne’s law is particularly important. It is everyone’s job to ensure that Anne’s law is delivered in practice. That is why the amendments focus on ensuring additional oversight and support around decisions on visiting, and on ensuring that the vital role of the essential care supporter in supporting wellbeing is fully recognised. I am grateful to Opposition members for lodging the amendments and for working with me to get them right. I thank members of care home relatives Scotland and many others for their constructive engagement with us to get the bill right.

I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendments 30, 31 and 32. I recognise the role that essential care supporters play in providing their loved ones with regular care and support. I agree that it is only right that the identification of the individual is undertaken in a consultative manner and that it involves the resident and those closest to them. I also agree that there is a need for limited exceptions to the requirement to identify such a person. The amendments provide the appropriate flexibility.

I also support Jackie Baillie’s amendments 35 and 36. Based on our learning from the pandemic, there is general agreement that more should be done to ensure that there is greater oversight of decisions on suspending visiting. The amendments provide a requirement for care home providers to review a decision about the suspension of visits and notify the Care Inspectorate when it decides to suspend. The amendments will ensure that there are appropriate checks and balances in relation to providers’ decisions.

I cannot support amendment 55, which has been lodged by Brian Whittle. However, as he said, the amendment is not necessary, because it broadly duplicates the notification process that is provided for by amendment 35. I appreciate Mr Whittle’s confirmation that he will not move amendment 55.

I will also not support Sandesh Gulhane’s amendment 56. The code of practice will be primarily for care home providers to have regard to in fulfilling their duties under Anne’s law. The code of practice cannot be used to create a new complaints process. There is an existing legal framework for complaints, which would include decisions relating to visiting. The code of practice will also set out how the requirements to review and notify that are imposed by virtue of amendment 35 are to be met.

I welcome amendments 37 and 38, which are in Jackie Baillie’s name. I agree that Anne’s law will work in practice only if care home providers work collaboratively with residents and their friends and family. By having guidance in the code on how staff should do just that, residents’ care plans will fully reflect their needs.

I turn to Brian Whittle’s other amendments in the group. I am pleased to support his amendment 57. I agree that residents and families should always be informed timeously about any changes to visiting.

I welcome amendment 59. From my experience of working with groups such as care home relatives Scotland during the preparation of the bill, I know the value of lived experience in developing and reviewing legislation and policy. Therefore, I recognise that gathering their feedback is vital in order to ensure that any review of the code is meaningful.

I support Brian Whittle’s amendments 58 and 60. I agree that it is essential that the code of practice can be understood by the widest possible range of people, including people with learning difficulties or other conditions that affect how they process information.

On amendment 62, I agree with Brian Whittle that reviewing the regulations’ operation after two years will provide an opportunity to check and follow what is working as intended. That will sit alongside other mechanisms for sharing, learning and best practice, locally and nationally, such as our national oversight group for Anne’s law, which brings together relatives, care home providers and health and social work professionals in order to share learning in a collaborative way.

However, I am unable to support amendment 61, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane. Amendments 59 and 62 will provide sufficient mechanisms for reporting and feedback on the delivery of Anne’s law. When carrying out a review of the code of practice, Scottish ministers will be required to consult the Care Inspectorate on all the points that are specified in amendment 61. The Care Inspectorate will naturally be significantly involved in the report on the operation of Anne’s law. I consider that imposing a further requirement—the production of an annual report on Anne’s law—on the Care Inspectorate would be excessive and not the best use of resource.

I turn briefly to my own amendments. Anne’s law will mean that, even when general visits need to be suspended due to risks to life, health or wellbeing, some visits should always be supported. That would include end-of-life situations, as they might be the last chance for family and friends to see and interact with the resident. Amendment 33 provides that visits should also be supported for people who have undergone, or are expected to undergo, a significant deterioration in their physical or mental condition, which can be very frightening. It is reasonable to expect that any such resident would want or need the support of their family or friends. Although the resident’s death might not be anticipated in that period, it might be the last opportunity for them to interact with their family and loved ones.

Amendment 33 is based on feedback from a number of stakeholders, including care home relatives Scotland. It is vital that care home residents can spend time with their loved ones outside of the care home and engage in the community if that is their wish and it is appropriate for them to do so, which is why Anne’s law will include a duty on care home providers to facilitate visits, both in and out of the home.

I have listened to stakeholders, including Scottish Care, that have highlighted a concern that a duty to facilitate visits might be taken to impose a positive obligation on care home service providers to physically take residents out on visits or arrange or pay someone else to do so. That was not my intention, so to address that concern, the limits on facilitating external visits are now clearly expressed by amendment 34.

In summary, I support and welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendments 30 to 32 and 35 to 38. I also support Brian Whittle’s amendments 57 to 60 and 62. I urge members to support my amendments in the group—33 and 34—and reject Brian Whittle’s amendment 55 and Sandesh Gulhane’s amendments 56 and 61.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Sandesh Gulhane to speak to amendment 56 and other amendments in the group.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP.

Amendment 56, in my name, seeks to ensure that there is a clear process of recourse in Anne’s law for those who are affected. It is essential that there is an explicit route of recourse that creates clear accountability for complaints and a clear process for dispute resolution. Stakeholders have been clear that they want proportionate oversight for Anne’s law. The minister has argued that a framework is already in place for social care complaints. However, it is clear that outlining in the code a specific process for Anne’s law would provide clarity and transparency for all who are involved. Anne’s law is a key element of what is left of the bill, and we must take the opportunity to strengthen it as far as we can in order to protect care home residents, their families and care supporters. Amendment 56 is fully supported by the British Association of Social Workers

Amendment 61, in my name, would ensure transparent reporting on the suspension of care home visits. It would establish a duty on the Care Inspectorate to share that data and analysis and to make recommendations on changes to the code. Such monitoring would ensure that any suspensions to care home visits would be applied proportionately. The minister surely agrees that denying care home residents access to visits has significant consequences. Regular reporting would allow any disproportionate use of the power to become evident, which would enable changes to the code to be made when they are needed. As I mentioned, it is vital that we do all that we can to ensure that Anne’s law is as robust as it can be for those affected. Amendment 61 is also fully supported by the British Association of Social Workers.

Manuscript amendment 61A, in my name, is a technical amendment.

We will support all the amendments in the group. Given that the biggest part of the bill is Anne’s law, we need to make it as robust and effective as possible, especially as it has taken us three years to get here.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I support Jackie Baillie’s amendments and the other amendments in the group. This has been a long time coming and it is really important that we get it right.

I join colleagues in paying tribute to Anne Duke’s family, including Campbell Duke, who is in the gallery and is one of my constituents from East Kilbride, and to members of the care home relatives Scotland group, including Cathie Russell and Alison Leitch, who are also in the gallery. This has been their fight, and it has been a fight for all the people in Scotland who did not have a voice during the pandemic. We hear a lot about having to learn the lessons of Covid-19. The care home relatives Scotland group has had, I think, more than 150 meetings with the Scottish Government. Its members have made Scotland proud, and we all owe them a debt of thanks. [ Applause .]

There have been delays in getting here, but it is right that we get the details right, so I listened with interest to the points that Brian Whittle and Sandesh Gulhane made. This has always been about human rights, dignity, love, human connection and all that was lost during the pandemic. No one ever dismissed concerns about safety, but what happened during the Covid years was unsafe and destroyed people’s mental health. People such as Anne could not have time with their families in their final days of life. I listened to Natasha Hamilton, Anne’s daughter, on the radio at 6.45 this morning, before I came to work, and she made a very strong case for Anne’s law to be passed.

There has always been cross-party work in the Parliament on the issue, including by Paul McLennan, Miles Briggs, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Gillian Mackay and many others, and the Government has a mandate, because Anne’s law was a very prominent promise in the Scottish National Party’s 2021 manifesto.

However, today is not a day for politics; it is about getting Anne’s law over the line. I remind colleagues of what I said in the chamber back in February 2021:

“I hope that we get to a place where the Parliament can unite and support Anne’s law, which would ensure that people never again have to spend a year in isolation without access to their loved ones.”—[Official Report, 16 February 2021; c 56.]

I hope that today is the day that we can give effect to Anne’s law and learn those lessons.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 30.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I associate myself with Monica Lennon’s comments. There is cross-party consensus on the amendments in the group, which will give practical effect to Anne’s law. I thank the minister for her work and co-operation on this key part of the bill. Again, I thank members of the care home relatives Scotland group for their persistence, and I thank Anne’s husband, Campbell, and her daughter, Natasha, for all their campaigning. All their combined efforts have led us to amendments that, taken together, should ensure that we do not have a repeat of relatives in care homes being kept away from loved ones, as we witnessed during the Covid pandemic. I urge members to support all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendments 31 and 32 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 55 not moved.

Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Amendments 35 and 36 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 56 moved—[Sandesh Gulhane].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Robison. I will make sure that that vote is recorded.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will make sure that that is recorded, Mr Whittle.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Stevenson. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is the same for me. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Smith. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Findlay. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 66, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 56 disagreed to.

Amendment 57 moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to.

Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Amendments 58 to 60 moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to.

Amendment 61 moved—[Sandesh Gulhane].

Amendment 61A moved—[Sandesh Gulhane]—and agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 61, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am still having some difficulty. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Robison. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies, but my app did not work in time. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Stewart. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 61, as amended, disagreed to.

Amendment 62 moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to.

After section 40

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to group 5, on health and social care integration principles. Amendment 39, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is the only amendment in the group.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Amendment 39 is a small amendment, so I should be quick.

At present, we have no power to update or amend the primary set of principles that apply to the planning and delivery of integrated health and social care services. Amendment 39 seeks to create a regulation-making power to amend the integration planning and delivery principles, which are set out in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Any such regulations would be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. The 2014 act sets out how those principles should be applied by local authorities, health boards and integration authorities. In creating that power, which allows us to amend existing principles, rather than creating new and separate ones, we will avoid adding complexity to the existing landscape of principles, outcomes and standards.

I move amendment 39.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 39, which will allow regulations to be used to modify the integration planning and delivery principles in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Updating the principles to reflect changes to policy in the law, and maintaining the current provision for how principles are applied and monitored, will support consistency and continuity, reducing the risk of creating additional complexity to any existing principles, outcomes or standards.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 39.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I press amendment 39.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am still having technical problems. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Robison. Your vote will be recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr McArthur. Your vote will be recorded.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Rowley. Your vote will be recorded.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that my phone is even more tired than me. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Kidd. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 92, Against 24, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Amendment 63 moved—[Brian Whittle].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 50, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 63 disagreed to.

Section 41—Reserving right to participate in procurement by type of organisation

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We turn to group 6, which is on care commissioning. Amendment 40, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 41, 64, 42 and 43.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I will begin with the amendments to section 41 of the bill. Section 41 will allow public bodies that contract for health and care services to confine the competition to win those contracts to third sector organisations. I believe that it is important for the health and social care services market that contracting authorities can, where appropriate, carve out a space that would allow third sector organisations to win contracts without always having to compete with the for-profit giants in the sector.

I also reiterate what I said at stage 2: we need to have a mixed-market model if we are to effectively deliver adult social care. That model must include third sector, for-profit and public sector providers, and section 41 will not prevent that. It will be up to individual contracting authorities to decide which contracts to award through that reserved process, based on their knowledge of the local market and of particular issues in their area.

Amendments 40 and 41 in my name are technical amendments that will extend the range of contracts that can be made subject to that reserved process to include contracts for services to health boards and special health boards, as well as those services that are provided under the functions that are listed in the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. That will ensure that the policy intent of extending reserved contracting processes to health and social care services is met.

Brian Whittle’s amendment 64 would entirely remove section 41 from the bill, which would mean that there could not be a reserved contracting process for third sector organisations. That reflects Mr Whittle’s view that there should be no reserved contracting process to support third sector organisations. That is his position. As I have said, it is not mine, nor was it the committee’s position at stage 2, when the committee rejected an identical amendment from Mr Whittle. For that reason, I do not support his amendment 64, and I urge members not to support it.

I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 42, which seeks to place a duty on ministers to issue guidance on ethical commissioning for integrated health and social care services. We know from Derek Feeley’s report and from feedback that we have had from providers, commissioners and people with lived experience of using those services that experiences differ between local authority areas. We do not want the quality of the care that is delivered to be dependent on a person’s postcode. Commissioners, social care providers and those who use those services have told us that a single set of national guidance that sets out the principles of ethical commissioning and details of practical implementation would be beneficial, so I encourage members to support amendment 42.

I also welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendment 43, which would require contracting authorities with expenditure of more than £5 million per annum to produce procurement strategies that set out how they intended to meet specific requirements of regulated procurement. Amendment 43 pulls together those procurement strategies with integration authority strategic plans so that a contracting authority that plans to carry out procurement for a health and social care integration authority would have to say in its procurement strategy how it would go about that in a way that was consistent with the integration authority’s strategic plan.

Integration authorities have told us that the separation between their function of setting aims and objectives and the delivery function, which rests with local authorities and health boards, can give rise to tension. Amendment 43 would help to close the implementation gap between strategy and delivery by requiring the procuring authority to demonstrate consistency with the strategic plan of the integration authority.

In conclusion, I encourage members to support my amendments 40 and 41 and Jackie Baillie’s amendments 42 and 43, and to reject Brian Whittle’s amendment 64.

I move amendment 40.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Amendment 64 relates to section 41 of the bill. I note that the Scottish Government has slightly amended that section, but it is not immediately clear to me how the stated aim of having a more flexible and mixed market would be achieved through a mechanism that would allow one set of providers to be locked out of that market for certain contracts.

I have sought to query that with the minister and, although I received responses—almost all of which were keen to emphasise that the ultimate responsibility for the use of that mechanism would lie with local authorities—I am not sure that the Scottish Government has managed to make the position any clearer.

I have also had discussions with various stakeholders, who have ranged from being broadly in favour to being moderately concerned, with a fairly substantial number simply being ambivalent. I was sufficiently frustrated by the lack of detail on the practical application of section 41 that I felt it necessary to raise the matter in Parliament again. Ultimately, however, the third sector care providers that I spoke to about section 41 seem to be broadly supportive of it. As the minister knows, I hold the third sector in very high regard, and its broad support for the section is the reason why I have decided that I will not move my amendment 64.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

My amendments 42 and 43 follow amendments that Carol Mochan and I lodged at stage 2. Amendment 42 seeks to address the gap that was highlighted in the independent review of adult social care between the commissioning intent and what is ultimately delivered. Although ministers are not themselves responsible for commissioning social care, the amendment will place a duty on them to publish national ethical commissioning guidance in order to provide consistency of approach across Scotland. In preparing that guidance, ministers will have to consult each local authority, health board, integration authority and integration joint monitoring committee, as well as representatives from various stakeholder groups that are involved in the delivery and receipt of care. That should ensure that the guidance is meaningful and takes account of practical considerations.

Amendment 43 will require the contracting authority’s procurement strategy to be informed by the integration authority’s strategic plan. It will basically close the implementation gap between policy and procurement practice by ensuring that the population needs assessment, commissioning decisions and plans that are designed with service users during the strategic planning process are actually reflected in the approach to procurement. Requiring procurement strategies to consider how procurement will deliver the strategic and commissioning objectives of integration authorities will empower procurement professionals to focus on practice that meets those authorities’ priorities, thus furthering integration by providing alignment on the partnership’s shared strategic objectives.

I urge members to support my amendments 42 and 43 and the minister’s amendments in the group, and to reject Brian Whittle’s amendment 64.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I will speak briefly to amendment 42. Jackie Baillie and the minister have worked very hard to include international workers in new section 53A of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. It is important to acknowledge that the treatment of international workers can be less favourable, and we must combat that through ethical commissioning.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call the minister to wind up on the group.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I confirm that I encourage members to support my amendments 40 and 41 and Jackie Baillie’s amendments 42 and 43. I was pleased to hear that Brian Whittle does not intend to move amendment 64.

Amendment 40 agreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[Maree Todd]—and agreed to.

Amendment 64 not moved.

After section 41A

Amendments 42 and 43 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Before we move on to the next group, I wish to correct the record on a previous vote in group 4. The result of the division on amendment 61, as amended, was in fact: For 51, Against 66, Abstentions 0. That does not change the result of the vote.

After section 43

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 7 is on care inspectorate powers. Amendment 65, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane, is in a group on its own.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

The intention behind amendment 65 was to expand the enforcement powers of the Care Inspectorate with a view to improving standards of care, ensuring resources are available for increased use of inspection volunteers. However, after further discussions, I will not press amendment 65.

Amendment 65 moved—[Sandesh Gulhane].

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The provisions in amendment 65 were in an amendment that was lodged at stage 2, which I was unable to support in the end because it required ministers to make regulations dealing with matters that are already dealt with by primary legislation passed by this Parliament.

I am grateful that Sandesh Gulhane is not going to press amendment 65, and I suggest that we all breathe a sigh of relief.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Sandesh Gulhane to wind up by pressing or withdrawing amendment 65.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

I seek to withdraw amendment 65.

Amendment 65, by agreement, withdrawn.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 8 is on the social care workforce.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

On a point of order, I understand that amendment 79 in this group, lodged by Jackie Baillie, contains provisions that are outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as they relate to employment rights and duties and industrial relations, which are, of course, reserved matters under schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.

In line with rule 9.10.5 of the standing orders, which establishes four criteria for the admissibility of amendments—proper form, relevance, consistency with general principles and consistency with decisions already taken—can the Deputy Presiding Officer please confirm that legislative competence is not included in those criteria and that neither the assistance of parliamentary clerks in drafting an amendment nor the selection of an amendment for debate is an indication that an amendment is within the legislative competence of this Parliament?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank Ms Haughey for her point of order. I advise that, as members will be aware, whether the subject matter of an amendment is within the legislative competence of the Parliament is not one of the criteria that will determine its admissibility.

The Presiding Officer takes a view on the legislative competence of a bill at its introduction. Thereafter, it is a matter for the Parliament to decide whether to agree to an amendment that someone views as being outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence. Whether that amendment is or is not outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence can only be definitively determined by a court. Once a bill has been passed, various processes are in place—as set out in the Scotland Act 1998—that may be initiated if someone views a bill or any of its provisions as being outwith the Parliament’s legislative competence. I trust that that responds to the member’s point.

I would now like to turn to group 8—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to respond to the point of order that has just been made. I had intended to deal with the matter during the debate, but I feel that there is a gap in the Parliament’s procedures. I wonder whether, when determining competence beyond stage 1, rather than leaving it to the Scottish Government to advise, there is a role for Parliament. I wonder whether we could refer the issue to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and ask it to report back to Parliament on that issue at a later stage.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank Ms Baillie for her point of order. I have stated clearly the current position of the Parliament. If the member wishes to promote a real change in the Parliament, the member knows exactly how best to go about that, given her years of experience in this place.

I hope that I can now turn to group 8, which is on the social care workforce. Amendment 66, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 76, 77, 79 and 80.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Like some other members who have lodged and spoken to amendments at stage 3, I, too, come late to the party, as it was put earlier. However, I feel, after reading the bill as it stands, that there is an opportunity for us to strengthen the workforce planning element of social care. I therefore seek members’ support for amendment 66, which seeks to introduce a reoccurring statutory audit of the social care workforce. It is a reasonable and measured proposal that is designed to strengthen the delivery and long-term sustainability of social care services in Scotland by ensuring that workforce planning is based on robust, regularly reviewed evidence.

The bill rightly focuses on empowering service users, strengthening rights and improving outcomes, but we must recognise that none of that is achievable without a stable, supported and adequately resourced workforce. The success of the reforms for which we are legislating now will, ultimately, rest on the shoulders of those who are delivering care in our homes, communities and institutions. That is why we need a clear picture—not once, but repeatedly—of the state of that workforce, where the gaps and challenges are and where investment and reform are most needed.

Amendment 66 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to conduct an audit of the social care workforce every seven years. The audit must not only report on the state of the workforce, including concerns around capacity and retention, but include a plan to address any issues that are identified. It is a duty not just to analyse, but to act.

The seven-year timeframe is deliberate and considered. It is not about adding bureaucracy or duplicating existing short-term reporting; rather, it is about enabling deep, strategic assessments to inform major reform cycles. It aligns with long-term workforce planning horizons and would ensure continuity across sessions of Parliament and ministers. It would avoid the risk of constant short-term tinkering, while ensuring that there is regular and predictable scrutiny of what remains one of the most critical components of our care system.

Importantly, the definition of “social care workforce” in amendment 66 is broad and inclusive; it recognises not just those who are employed in traditional settings, but personal assistants, support workers and others who are working through self-directed support. It acknowledges that the sector is pluralistic and is delivered across the public, private and third sectors, and that it is increasingly shaped by individual choice and flexibility.

Any audit must reflect that complexity if it is to be useful. That is significant in particular for rural, remote and island communities, where workforce fragility is most acute. In such areas, a single staff vacancy can jeopardise service continuity, and workforce shortages can force unnecessary hospital admissions, isolate individuals and place intolerable burdens on unpaid carers.