Care sector - proposed Freedom of Information extension: consultation advisory subgroup 3 minutes: April 2025

Attendees and apologies

External stakeholders

• Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership 
• Scottish Care 
• Common Weal 
• Alzheimer Scotland 
• Transparency International (UK) 
• Social Work Scotland 
• UNISON Scotland 

Internal stakeholders

• Scottish Government Improvement and Public Engagement Division (IPED)
• Scottish Government FOI unit 

Apologies

Scotland Excel

Items and actions

Items and actions

Welcome/Introductions

In the spirit of transparency, the chair declared an interest outwith their Scottish Government role, as a member of the board of trustees of a Scottish social care charity.

The chair provided an overview of the key issues to be discussed in the meeting, in relation to extension of FOISA and the relationship to wider issues of transparency in the care sector.  The chair reminded participants that some groups and individuals had expressed concerns during Covid that residents/family members in private care settings were less able to access information than residents/family members in local authority care settings. Those concerns were part of the background to the discussion. 

Current issues regarding transparency and access to information in the social care sector – what do we already know?

One group member expressed the view that concerns about access to information during the Covid pandemic had been fair.  However, the wider position has moved on since then e.g. in relation to ‘Anne’s Law’.

Another highlighted that the existing Data Protection obligations of providers already provide significant access for individuals to information about their own care.  The perceived value of FOI is principally in relation to systemic issues.

Scope for stronger approaches apart from FOI designation (emerging theme from first Consultation Advisory Group discussion).

• Members expressed a range of perspectives regarding the relative importance of FOI extension and other approaches to promoting greater transparency.  These included reflections on:
• the need to understand what the problem is, in order to suggest solutions. 
• the importance of proactive publication.
• the progress made by the sector since the Covid pandemic and uncertainty following the Independent Review of Adult Social Care. Issues in relation to wider reform of the sector are complex.  This wider context needs to be fully understood in the discussion around transparency in the sector.
• insights from work undertaken by the Office of the Chief Designer and the potential to draw relevant learning from it.
• the need to consolidate understanding of the information, which is already reported and available, regarding care services. 
• the value of being able to pull together such information into one place and/or make it more accessible to people. However, there is need to balance this against the risk of being seen to ‘data dump’ (i.e. to push data out without giving people the context or tools necessary to make sense of it).
• concern that proactive publication does not necessarily reduce request numbers but merely changes the focus of requests. Nevertheless, there is a need to identify useful information for proactive publication.
• the importance of international examples of good practice. Work by the World Health Organisation and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and International Conference of Information Commissioners looking at transparency in care/related fields, specifically on proactive publication.  It is unclear whether any other countries or territories have extended FOI to private and third sector care providers.  However, Canada and New Zealand may be countries to look at further, to understand how they have addressed these issues in view of their wider approaches to access to information rights, which are considered strong internationally.
• the importance of standardisation across providers (Eurostat cited as an example).
• the importance of getting insight from wider interested groups.  User researchers are doing similar work in care. There is need to understand data already being collected in the care sector to help inform what information should be stored.
• that providers will only create and retain the information they need for business purposes.  Concern that FOISA designation could act as a disincentive to providers to create and/or retain information in the first place.
• scepticism about whether FOISA could be extended to services which are arranged and paid for by individuals on a purely private basis.  One group member felt this might overstep the mark in terms of respect for individuals’ privacy.
• that improving the quality of publication schemes (and adherence to them) on the part of Scottish public authorities involved in the delivery and commissioning of care should be the ‘first port of call’ to improve transparency. Outsourcing services should not hinder an organisations transparency.  The policy for transparency should be embedded in the contracts. Public authorities should do the ‘heavy lifting’.
• that there is a room to consider both extension of FOISA and wider/non-statutory approaches to improving transparency in tandem.  They do not need to be alternatives.
• the complexities of contractual arrangements and shared service agreements in the sector, and the challenges this could pose.

Wider questions of transparency in consultation document – setting the discussion of FOI in context

• the Chair introduced the discussion by reflecting on the importance of the consultation process.
• two members emphasised the need for effective consultation with the sector.
• another member suggested engagement with wider groups, including service users and providers.
• another emphasised having ‘positive engagement’ with the care sector and ensuring that their feedback is used to form the consultation.

Engaging openly – how to carry out an inclusive consultation process

• the importance of understanding the audience for the consultation and ensuring the voices of the care sector are heard, was emphasised. This should include setting up discussions with care providers, users of care services, care home staff.
• it was highlighted that stakeholders outside of the sector also have interests e.g. the media, parliamentary researchers.
• one group member raised a concern regarding the sensitivities of the sector given the nature of the services it provides and the vulnerability of service users and the possible impact of publishing information, which can have both positive and negative consequences.
• there was a discussion about the balance between the need to publish greater information with the need to respect privacy and data protection rights.

Any other business

Proposed date for next meeting: WC 21 April

End of meeting

Meeting closed at 15:10.