Care sector - proposed Freedom of Information extension: consultation advisory subgroup 1: 22 April 2025

Attendees and apologies

External stakeholders:

• Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland
• Scottish Information Commissioner’s office
• UNISON Scotland
• Member with Lived Experience
• Scottish Social Services Council
• COSLA – Policy Manager

Internal stakeholders:

• Scottish Government Procurement Services Division official
• Scottish Government FOI unit officials

Apologies:

• Scottish Care
• Glasgow City Council

Items and actions

Items and actions

Minutes of previous meeting

The chair started by asking for thoughts of participants on the meeting minutes.

It was noted that a concern had been raised that the terms in which the minutes had been drafted might cause readers to erroneously infer the position on particular issues taken by particular participants or their organisation.  Whilst drafted without attributing views directly to participants, it was felt that the wider context in which divergent perspectives were described might lead readers to draw inferences about the views of particular participants, which would not in fact be accurate.

There was a discussion about whether the minutes should in fact simply attribute views and comments to particular participants.  The general view that the existing approach (not directly attributing) should be maintained, but that care should be taken not to invite inferences about the views of particular participants.

A revised version of the minutes will be circulated.

Feedback on key insights of previous discussion.

The chair gave a summary of issues raised at the last meeting, such as:

• Perceived burden of FOISA designation on organisation,
• Perceived lack of transparency in the care sector and approach to enhance transparency considering existing support in the sector
• Constructively engaging with the sector

The chair noted the difference of perspectives from the previous discussion in terms of the value of consultation and whether extension is a ‘done deal’.

There was a discussion around the suggestion recorded in the minutes of using a workshop(s) for the consultation.  It was agreed that the suggestion made in the previous meeting had been to use a workshop(s) instead of a traditional written consultation, rather than to supplement it.  However, this approach has not so far been agreed.  There would be a need to consider carefully whether any approach lacking a formal written consultation could be sufficiently robust, and accessible. 

It was then pointed out that the Consultation Advisory Subgroup 3 (transparency of approach) would discuss constructive engagement in detail.

In the previous meeting, clarification was provided as to the exclusion of Day Centre from the proposed extension. However, more insight was sought on the services to be included in the extension and the definition of care at home services.

Preparedness of care home and care at home sectors for any FOI roll out

Views were sought on the current gaps in the sector and possible support to organisations to reduce potential impact on the sector.

It was suggested that a twin track approach may be required, looking both at how Scottish public authorities including local authorities/Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs) can be supported to proactively publish greater information and at the support needed by private and third sector care providers to adopt new statutory obligations under FOISA.

It was also suggested that if local authorities/HSCPs are to proactively publish more information about the commissioning of care services, they would need to increase resources in commissioning teams.

Comments were made on the need for a comprehensive understanding of the legal requirement of FOISA designation. Observations were made on contract monitoring and the need for additional resources and capacity for organisations to comply with the designation. It was highlighted that now would be a good time for organisations to gather initial thoughts on the changes the proposed extension would bring.

It was suggested that both existing Scottish public authorities and new organisations becoming subject to FOISA should allow their proactive publication efforts to be shaped by the priorities of enquirers/requesters i.e. they should prioritise publishing the information that they are most frequently being asked for.

There was a discussion around the non-government amendment to the Care (Reform) Scotland Bill which had been proposed by Katy Clark MSP at Stage 2 of the Bill.  The possibility of a further amendment at Stage 3, effecting extension through the Bill rather than through secondary legislation as currently proposed, was raised.  The issue of whether the Scottish Government had carried out a financial assessment of such an amendment was also raised.  It was confirmed that no such assessment has yet been undertaken by the Scottish Government.

Clarification was provided to funding support for the organisation for the proposed extension. It was explained that there are no specific funds for organisations. However, the Scottish Government would provide finances to support the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner for the first year of roll out to newly designated bodies for training of individuals and organisations. Further funding was then provided by umbrella organisation and the networks of the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner.

Other point made re organisation Preparedness of care home and care at home service providers for FOI roll out, was the need for:

• Raising awareness of the proposed extension
• Assessing the potential impact of the proposed extension
• Providing reassurance to organisations re the perceived impact
• Developing guidance for signposting
• Detailing out the requirements of organisations and staff (FOI officer) of care organisation under designation
• Ease the anxiety perceived by organisations by addressing concerns on managing GDPR and their privacy rights
• Elaboration of the legislative requirement of organisation under the proposed extension
• Support for staff on actioning FOI requests.

Emphasis was made on the care service providers playing crucial roles in the consultation. A point was made on following up with the care inspectorate and CCPS, ensuring we had input from these organisations on the proposed extension.

Next steps: How engagement with the sectors will be used to fill gaps in knowledge.

In relation to the needs of care providers becoming subject to FOISA, it was suggested that ‘myth-busting’ guidance would be of value.  It will also be necessary to provide assurance directly to the workforce.

A point was made on providers being in touch with the community in which they provide services, as awareness, engagement and alertness to the needs of the community would lead to a proportionate decrease in the number of FOI requests.

There was a discussion around the scope to draw more substantially on the experiences of Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to inform the approach to engaging with the care sector – noting the information already provided to the group about the one year on work.  It was suggested that in any roll out, mentoring relationships between RSLs and care providers could add value.

It was suggested that engagement with service users must be accessible and as friendly as possible. Adopting communication styles such as sign language, interpretation services to ensure inclusivity.

Any other business

No date for a follow up meeting was set. 

A meeting date for the full Consultation Advisory Group will be convened in due course.

End of meeting

Meeting ended at Tuesday 12:04.