Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (Cancellation of Registration) Order 2026: equality impact assessment

Key Findings

Overall, the anticipated impacts are positive or neutral, with the greatest benefits expected for individuals who rely most heavily on regulated care services. Any potential risks relate primarily to how the cancellation of a service is managed in practice. These risks can be mitigated through the Care Inspectorate’s established continuity‑of‑care procedures and the forthcoming detailed guidance that will set out expectations for transition planning and provider support.

Across most settings, the strengthened enforcement powers are expected to deliver broadly positive impacts across protected characteristics by enabling quicker regulatory action where services cannot sustain required standards. This will support safer, stable and more consistent care, with clear benefits for older people and disabled people, who are among the groups most reliant on regulated services.

A key risk relates to possible disruption of services however, this can be mitigated through established continuity‑of‑care procedures, coordinated transition planning, and accessible communication.

For sex, pregnancy and maternity, impacts are generally neutral. No direct discrimination is anticipated for service users. The predominantly female social care workforce means that any employment effects from service closures could indirectly affect women, though proportional, last‑resort use of cancellation powers will minimise this risk. Pregnant women, new mothers and intersecting groups (such as younger or disabled parents) are not expected to experience differential impacts, but may require additional consideration in implementation.

For gender reassignment and sexual orientation, the policy itself does not create direct impacts. However, recognising that trans and LGBTQ+ people may have higher levels of service avoidance or face stigma in care settings, the EQIA highlights the need for sensitive, inclusive communication and staff awareness to ensure transitions between services are handled respectfully and do not reinforce existing barriers.

For race and religion or belief, no discriminatory impacts were identified. The main considerations relate to cultural or linguistic barriers that may affect understanding of service changes, and the need to ensure that transitions respect religious or cultural practices. Providing clear information in accessible and, where necessary, multilingual formats will help maintain equitable access.

Overall, impacts across protected characteristics are predominantly positive or neutral, with no evidence of unlawful discrimination. Where risks exist, these can be effectively mitigated through continuity planning, inclusive communication, and proportional, rights‑based application of the new powers.

Intersectional and Human Rights Impacts

Older disabled people (especially in care homes) and children (espeicially in foster/residential settings) may be more exposed to disruption during cancellations; compounding effects arise where geography (rurality), poverty, or language barriers intersect with protected characteristics.

Women are over‑represented in the workforce and women and older people are over‑represented among service users; any negative employment effects from provider exits or any disruption in service continuity are therefore differentially experienced by women and older adults.

Hidden disabilities and mental health: transitions can be particularly destabilising for those with trauma histories or addictions, amplifying risk without careful transitions.

Human Rights

The policy intent aligns with human rights principles (dignity, safety, and protection from degrading treatment) by enabling timely action against services that jeopardise wellbeing.

Operationalisation must uphold participation and information rights—clear, accessible communications and continuity‑of‑care planning are therefore integral to the CI guidance commitment.

Identified gaps/limitations

• Qualitative evidence gaps regarding race, religion/belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment.
• Incomplete workforce ethnicity data.
• Limited data on digital skills/access among service users and informal carers, which can affect how they receive and understand communications about service changes.

Mitigation and follow‑up actions

• Targeted engagement (Nov–Dec 2025) and webinar discussions captured provider perspectives and informed CI’s commitment to publish clear guidance (decision criteria, escalation, scenarios, continuity planning).
• Accessible communication to be embedded at implementation, with a trauma‑informed approach for children/young people and people with mental health or addiction needs.
• Ongoing monitoring post‑launch (2026) with CI to surface any equality issues arising in practice and adjust guidance/implementation accordingly.
• Explore workforce training/awareness sessions to strengthen inclusive practice during any transitions.