Care home and 'care at home' service providers - FOISA extension: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

Section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) allows the Scottish Government to extend the legislation to further organisations, including those that provide public functions, even if they are not part of the public sector. Between 5 January and 30 March 2026, the Scottish Government held a public consultation on proposals to extend FOISA to care homes and ‘care at home’ services in the private and third sectors.

Local authorities, NHS Boards and Integration Joint Boards (which together form local Health and Social Care Partnerships) are already subject to FOISA, meaning they must respond to requests for information they hold about the services they commission or provide. The consultation document sets out duties on public bodies under the Act, such as to proactively publish certain information about their work, provide information in response to requests within 20 working days, and to provide advice and assistance to requesters of information. It notes Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) provide similar rights, in relation to environmental information. Both FOISA and EIRs contain provisions to protect sensitive information, including personal data.

Previous section 5 extensions have included private prison contractors (2016 Order) and registered social landlords (2019 Order). The proposal to extend FOISA to care homes and ‘care at home’ services in the private and third sectors reflects the Scottish Government's commitment to effective rights of access to information about all public services, recognising that these services are often supported by significant public funding.

A public consultation on the Extension of Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) to private and third sector providers of care home and ‘care at home’ services was open from 5 January to 30 March 2026. The Scottish Government sought stakeholders’ views on whether FOISA should be extended to such services, how extending FOISA could be achieved in practice to ensure this was proportionate and did not create an excessive burden on providers, and how it would meaningfully enhance those rights of access to information regarding the delivery of social care services in Scotland.

Respondent profile

In total, 136 consultation responses were received. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately and included in the analysis by the research team.

Individuals provided 67 responses to the consultation; the remaining 69 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped according to the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

The analysis also included notes collated from two consultation events. These events were an open forum for attendees to discuss the proposals but were not structured around the consultation questions. The discussion at the events aligned very closely with the themes arising in the formal consultation responses, so most are not reported separately here. However, where unique perspectives were raised, these have been noted in this report.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report. Some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

The purpose of this report is not to restate the detail of the consultation proposals and questions. Full details of the proposals, and the questions put to respondents, can be found in the consultation paper itself.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included seven closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the closed question results based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 136 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The percentage response among those answering broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”).

A full breakdown for each question, including a breakdown by each type of organisation answering, can be found in Appendix A. A full list of the consultation questions can be found in Appendix B. Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the full manual coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.
• Organisations in the category ‘care provider’ either provide care home or ‘care at home’ services or both. They may also provide other types of support, such as information, and wellbeing support. As a result, there may be some overlap with the ‘support / information’ category. However, organisations in the ‘support / information’ category do not provide care home or ‘care at home’ services.
• Organisations, other than to attribute quotes, are not named except for the regulatory bodies that responded to the consultation - the Scottish Information Commissioner and the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC).
• At times, qualitative comments do not align with responses to the quantitative questions. For example, a respondent may agree in principle but use their open comment to caveat their agreement or suggest an alternative approach. In addition, respondents who disagreed with a FOISA extension were more likely to provide detailed explanations compared to those who agreed.
• In a few instances where a response received via email contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Where appropriate, quotes are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents, 25 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 15 and 24 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between five and 14 respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number, fewer than five respondents, a less common theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.