Care sector - proposed Freedom of Information extension: consultation advisory subgroup 2: June 2025

Attendees and apologies

External stakeholders:

• Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland
• Scottish Care
• Age Scotland
• The ALLIANCE, Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland

Internal stakeholders:

• Scottish Government, Directorate for Children and Families (DCAF) – Residential Childcare official
• Scottish Government, Directorate for Children and Families (DCAF) official
• Scottish Government FOI Unit officials

Apologies:

• Social Workers’ Union

Items and actions

Items and actions

Welcome/Introductions

The chair welcomed all sub-group members to the meeting.

Approval of previous minutes

The minutes of the previous meeting of 2 April 2025 were approved.

Matters arising

The Scottish Government FOI Unit updated on its discussion with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office, following the action recorded at the previous meeting.  It was confirmed that there is limited direct evidence of the experience of the primary care sector in relation to its compliance with FOISA.  Primary care providers do not generally submit statistics to the Commissioner’s office.  However, there is no indication that primary care providers receive large numbers of requests or that they have otherwise found their FOI obligations, in place since 2005, to be burdensome.

Action: A further action was recorded for the FOI Unit to revert again to the Commissioner’s office for further information on how the Commissioner monitors compliance with the publication scheme duty, on the part of primary care providers.

Treatment of scope in draft consultation document (questions 1-6):

The draft consultation document previously circulated to all members of the Consultation Advisory Group was discussed, with particular focus on questions 1-6.

The draft consultation document included questions to seek respondents’ views on:

• whether respondents agree with extension in principle (Q1&2)
• the role of public funding in informing the scope of any extension (Q3)
• treatment of services for children and young people (Q4&5)
• the role of organisation size in informing the scope of any extension (Q6)

There was general agreement that these were the appropriate key areas in which respondents’ views should be sought.

The following further views were expressed:

It was felt that questions 1 and 2, which ask respondents for their view on the principle of extension to care home and care at home services respectively could also provide space for respondents to set out their detailed views/reasons for these rather thank simply a Yes/No/Unsure set of options.

It was felt that question 3 could be more clearly worded to avoid ambiguity about whether ‘public funding’ and ‘local authority funding’ were the same thing and whether ‘mainly publicly funded’ implies public funding meeting more than 50% of the cost.  It was suggested that value would be added by a further follow up question asking people if they have views on the percentage of public funding for a service which should result in the provider becoming subject to FOI law.

In relation to the narrative preceding question 3 it was felt there may be room for further discussion of the extent to which the mix of public and personal funding in the care sector is unique and/or some comment on how similar challenges are handled in other sectors, in relation to FOI coverage.

In regard to question 4 it was felt that greater clarity would still be helpful regarding which children’s services would, or would not, be included in the scope of the consultation.  In particular, the consultation document should make clear that kinship care and fostering are not within scope.  The consultation should also set out the age groups to which children’s services relate.

In regard to question 6 regarding organisation size it was noted that the document did not yet contain adequate information regarding the size profile of organisations in the care at home sector.

It was further suggested that the discussion in the paper should include more detailed consideration of the needs of small organisations, and the mitigations already present in FOI law to protect against disproportionate impacts (exemptions, fees regime).  There was consideration of whether data protection issues, and their management in the context of FOI compliance, needed greater discussion in the document. 

It was suggested that an additional open question, allowing people to raise any specific challenges or opportunities they see in extending legislation to smaller providers, would add value.

There was some discussion about when/whether respite care is included within the definition of the services being discussed within the consultation (care home and care at home).  A need for greater clarity on this point was identified.

Action: FOI Unit to explore further the status of respite care, in consultation with Scottish Government social care policy colleagues.

Across all questions there was a preference for providing respondents with greater opportunity to set out their detailed views.  It was suggested a final closing question, inviting respondents to share any further thoughts, would provide an opportunity for any additional issues not already addressed to be raised.

Action: FOI Unit to propose further amendments to the draft consultation paper and questions in light of the above feedback from sub-group 2, and recirculate to all members of the Consultation Advisory Group.

Any other Business

N/A