30 September 2026

Social Care in Scotland: we need the case for change, not a battle for custody

If reform is to be effective, politicians must show they understand why social care really matters, writes Rachel Cackett

I listened with keen interest to both the Prime Minister’s BBC News interview with Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday and his first speech to the UK Labour Conference as PM. It’s certainly good to see social care reform at the top of his agenda. I can’t help but applaud the Prime Minister’s political tenacity and drive, whilst recognising his very personal commitment to seeing better support available for all. The renewed focus on reform acknowledges what those of us working in care and support have known for years: that the current system faces profound challenges which cannot be ignored indefinitely.

Of course, social care is a devolved policy area and the Prime Minister’s social care plans (if not his pension plans) largely relate to England. But there are important reflections to make, this side of the border, in the wake of his outline commitments from the last few days – commitments which come in the same month as our First Minister’s Programme for Government.

Now, anyone who has been working in social care in Scotland will hear the words “National Care Service” in England and experience an involuntary twitch and a slight raise in blood pressure. I would urge Health and Social Care officials in Whitehall and Dame Louise Casey to spend time in Scotland with us, and key partners, to learn the lessons from how the promise of the Feeley Report turned into the failure of the National Care Service Bill. But I would urge the Scottish Government to do the same (more on that later…).

And, yes, whilst the Prime Minister is starting to sketch out what reforms will mean for England, including an indication of how he intends to raise at least some of the money he’ll need, none of this is going to happen before the next election – and even then, his proposals will take time to deliver. This does mean that Scottish politicians need to stop hoping that Scottish social care will be saved by increased Barnett Consequentials any time soon. We don’t have time for the vague hope of extra funding that may, or may not, come after 2030.

But we do need hope and the passion to implement solutions that improve people’s lives on their terms. We also need decision-makers to understand the real purpose of social care to change those lives, and to champion the economic potential of investment in the sector. And we need consensus for bold improvements in Scotland.

And this is what really struck me in the BBC interview on Sunday: the Prime Minister’s statement that “we do have to build consensus”. Here is a man who, at least for now, is sitting in Westminster with a majority of nearly 160 – yet, who is still seeking political consensus for change.

With that in mind, let’s turn back to Scotland again.

Our governing party is seven seats short of a majority. There is no formal parliamentary agreement to boost those numbers to get the most controversial elements of public service reform through our parliament – including social care reform. We have council elections (at least, we are still assuming we do…) next May which could result in a seismic shift in local representation that may reduce the influence of the SNP to implement local change – however many councils we might have.

The fact that the National Care Service Bill failed does not mean that social care – currently the statutory delivery responsibility of local government, but with policy and funding driven by the Scottish Government – is all OK.

We need major changes even more than we did when the National Care Service Bill was laid before the Scottish Parliament. Our recent reports on funding and governance show just how complex and inefficient our systems are. Change is beyond urgent.

The Scottish Government knows this too – and that is why, in principle, we welcomed the announcement of a new attempt to reform the sector earlier this month.

But the Scottish Government needs consensus too – not because it would be nice, or good optics, or the only means to ensure longevity of change through parliamentary cycles. It needs consensus to make the parliamentary maths work.

Last time – through the National Care Service process – they just didn’t have the numbers. They entered a fight with both local government and the Trade Unions and didn’t win. They didn’t make enough concessions to opposition parties, then lost their majority with the ending of the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens. They then didn’t have the votes. They had options to improve the Bill which many of us tried to promote over three years, but which ultimately weren’t adopted. Time, drive, trust, political capital and valuable cash was wasted.

So, this time must be different. But will it?

My concern at the start of this process, is that – at worst – the same context for reform is being recreated and – at best – mixed messaging from the Scottish Government is leaving open a door for consensus that may shut through confusion and dissipation of drive.

When the First Minister stood in the chamber on the 1st September to announce his ambitious five-year Programme for Government and opened a conversation on the future of social care over three months, he said:

“I do not seek to be prescriptive, but I cannot see us resolving the fundamental challenges facing social care without a single line of decision-making, accountability and funding, with the NHS taking the lead”. 

Now that statement wasn’t in the written Programme for Government and could mean a multitude of potentials.  But, as one of my members said: “Here we go again”. And it does feel like that.

Whilst COSLA has committed to engage, battle lines have again been drawn. The COSLA statement following their initial talks with Ministers noted: “Council Leaders have once again reaffirmed that social care and social work services must remain within Local Government and be accountable to local communities”.

The hopes of consensus (again) seem very fragile indeed and the focus (again) seems fixed on accountability and power. This is not hopeful.

But it has left me deeply thoughtful and not just asking “how are we here again?”, but “how do we get out of these opening positions to ensure positive change?”.

My answer for a route to real change is threefold.

Last week the Minister for Community Care, Alison Thewliss MSP, came to meet our members and reform inevitably came up.  I shared that it feels, just now, like social is part of a bitter custody battle. The two big statutory partners are (again) fighting for who owns us with arguments which seem rooted in the politics of control.

But who is really setting out why social care matters?

Who is laying out their vision for what can be better for people who need social care (and I mean the 1 in 25 Scottish people who need social care each year, not only those who are waiting to be discharged from hospital) and how this could be achieved?

Who is showing supported people and their loved ones that their life outcomes matter above all else?

Who is demonstrating to (not just telling) staff who deliver care and support that they are valued for their work and for their contribution in building a caring and cohesive society?

I know that both national and local politicians care – they show this with passion when we meet. But starting a conversation with who controls the money and decision-making doesn’t communicate that publicly. It doesn’t help us reach consensus.  Indeed, dare I say, Self Directed Support legislation suggests that power and control is meant to sit entirely elsewhere.

So, in this three-month conversation period, my first plea is this: tell us why social care really matters; demonstrate an intimate understanding of the scope of social care’s potential to all who need support; show us you really understand the issues that need fixed and be honest and open about what isn’t working – and only then tell us why your option for system design is the one for us all to deliver this together.

My second point relates to the commitment to conversation.

Consensus goes beyond the balance of parliamentary votes. Change needs consensus and ownership to drive improvement from those who will deliver it. Whilst our members had an excellent meeting with the Minister for Community Care recently, this is not a replacement for in depth engagement with us on the shape of change.

It is almost one month on from the First Minister’s announcement and I still don’t know how CCPS will be engaged in detailed discussions, what questions are to be answered, and what format we can submit our ideas for improvement. I can see detailed discussions ongoing between local and national government, and clearly that matters. But this is not all that matters. Please don’t leave us till last (again). Engage in the detail with us now because the expertise, drive and experience to improve sits in organisations like CCPS and its members. Civic consensus matters if implementation is to succeed.

This brings me to the last of my three points as this conversation period continues: we won’t wait for the opportunity to speak to present itself.

Our membership is full of extraordinary leaders who work with their staff and the people they support (often against all odds) to deliver social care that works. They also know what stops them from doing so much more.

And although we don’t know exactly what the Scottish Government wants of us in this three-month period, or how we will be involved in detailed design discussions, we are getting on with setting an agenda anyway.

Already we have entered a period of intense work to develop proposals for major improvements in social care building on our members’ voices and our many years of policy work. We will draw on wider research and an autumn engagement programme with our community, our partners and politicians from across the spectrum.

Our focus, initially, is on major funding reform, significant workforce improvements and effective commissioning around families and communities. These are the three areas that we think need immediate attention to build a social care and support system that will enable people of all ages to thrive. Who runs that, and how, is the secondary question.

We are getting ahead to set an agenda for bold improvement in collaboration. We will propose credible and deliverable solutions, rooted in our passion for what social care can do.  And our members have the vision to genuinely be part of the solution in Scotland.

Back

13 November 2025

Social care spending commitment in winter plan ‘important step in the right direction’

CCPS’s CEO Rachel Cackett responds to today’s announcement from the Scottish Government on Winter Preparedness and National Planning Priorities for Health and Social Care

Responding to today’s announcement from the Scottish Government on Winter Preparedness and National Planning Priorities for Health and Social Care, Rachel Cackett, CCPS’s CEO, said:

“We welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s statement today on Winter Preparedness and National Planning Priorities for Health and Social Care.

“In particular, we welcome the pledge of £20m additional social care investment routed through NHS Boards and directed at strengthening local capacity. Although – as Mr Gray acknowledged – this is still far short of what will be needed to stabilise the sector, this spending commitment represents a significant step in the right direction, particularly ahead of the government’s upcoming spending review. We are keen to now work with national and local partners to understand the detail of how this will be distributed.

“We are also very encouraged by the Cabinet Secretary’s recognition of historic underfunding of our sector, the impact of the hike in employers’ National Insurance contributions and changes to visa rules, the need for a prevention-first focus, the importance of staff wellbeing and the strongly rights-based articulation of winter surge planning.

“The announcement today makes clear that not-for-profit social care organisations are regarded by the Scottish Government as vital system partners – as they are and should be.

“It acknowledges all the work that CCPS has done, with its members, in drawing attention to the real jeopardy our sector currently faces, and the unacceptable level of risk being carried by people who receive care and support throughout Scotland.

“In that light, we continue to be ready to work with the Scottish Government, CoSLA and local partners to share insight and solutions so that these major challenges can be resolved, and that people who need support can enjoy independent and fulfilling lives.”

Back

21 December 2023

When will we see the government’s values of ‘community, equality and opportunity’ reflected in investment in social care?

Our CEO Rachel Cackett responds to publication of the 2024-25 Budget

Responding to Tuesday’s announcement of the 2024-25 Budget, Rachel Cackett, CEO of CCPS, said:

“It’s very disappointing to see the social care sector overlooked, under-discussed and lacking in committed investment.

The government says public services need reform to be sustainable, particularly the NHS.

Government needs not-for-profit social care providers to deliver more prevention and early intervention for that to happen.

But to do that, providers need to still be here and to be sustainable.

Announcements yesterday reiterated that the base rate of pay would increase to £12 per hour for care and support staff starting in April 2024.

That means pay for our regulated, trained and largely female workforce will continue to remain unacceptably low in the context of rising living costs, a sector recruitment and retention crisis, and ever-growing demand for social care services.

This budget doesn’t address the current crisis in social care and doesn’t invest for the future.

Tougher budgets mean tougher decisions, but choice is what governs decision-making. And choices reflect the true values of the Scottish Government.

If the Scottish Government wants to be true to its words on ‘community, equality and opportunity’, we must see those values reflected in investment in our sector.

But this isn’t over: there is still time invest in the future of Scotland.

We are calling on the Scottish Government to Rethink To £13 per hour, at least, for social care and support staff as a first step in a timetable to equity.”

CCPS is currently analysing the full budget to assess the real terms impact of the announcement on social care spending across government portfolios.

Resources:

Link to our Rethink To 13 campaign

Link to Scottish Budget

Back

19 September 2023

4 Steps Guest Blog: “Our staff deserve recognition for their drive, passion and commitment”

Immediate action and appropriate funding is needed to ensure children’s social care services can deliver for their workforce as they deliver for Scotland’s children, argues Capability Scotland’s Ben Bradbury

Capability Scotland work with disabled children and their families across Edinburgh, Dundee, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire in a range of settings including holiday support, community services and residential care. We are committed to delivering outstanding care, support, and opportunities for the young people we work with and key to that is our workforce.

By their nature services for school age children and young people tend to have unusual working patterns. With children attending school during the week the support we offer is, with the exception of school holiday provision, in the evening or at weekends. This presents challenges to recruitment and retention of staff as the hours required of staff to deliver this support do not always sit comfortably alongside raising their own families or maintaining a healthy work life balance. In addition, the qualification and experience levels expected of staff in these services is often higher than in their adult equivalents, for example our day care of children registered managers must be qualified to degree level. There are good reasons for this, indeed we often work with some of the most vulnerable individuals in society, but it adds to the challenge of maintaining appropriate staffing levels of the required skill and competency.

In spite of these challenges our children’s services staff are enthusiastic, creative, playful and without exception go above and beyond to deliver exceptional services for the young people in their care. Whether it be attending training sessions at weekends to fit in with delivery of holiday support or working late on an evening to enable a trip to the cinema to take place we ask a lot of our teams, and they rise to the challenge.

However, since the pandemic an additional challenge has presented itself for organisations such as ours. The pandemic rightfully shone a light on the pay levels for social care staff, the response from the Scottish Government and local authorities has focused entirely on adult social care staff. The government, through the various Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs), has provided additional funds to raise the minimum rate of pay for staff in adult social care roles. These uplifts had the effect of keeping the minimum rate of pay for staff in adult services above the Scottish Living Wage throughout the pandemic and in line with the living wage in 2023.

Unfortunately, no such uplifts have been forthcoming for our children’s services. Unlike with adults, services for children and families tend to be commissioned by the local council rather than the HSCP. There has been no reciprocal offer from the Scottish Government for children’s services, the knock-on effect has been that many of our children’s services have had no universal uplift to the rates paid by local authorities during a period of high wage and price inflation. During this period Capability Scotland has met the cost of increasing wages for children’s service staff in line with their adult service counterparts. However, this state of affairs is not sustainable indefinitely.

If appropriate funding arrangements aren’t arrived at there will be negative consequences on our ability, and the ability of organisations like ours, to continue delivering high quality care and support for disabled children across Scotland. Much has been made of the need to support Fair Work practices across the public sector, as an employer we fully embrace this approach, and we believe our staff deserve recognition for their drive, passion and commitment. As an organisation we welcome the First Minister’s recent statement regarding an uplift to £12 an hour which appears to be inclusive of staff across both adult and children’s services. However, there remains much uncertainty about the timescales and mechanisms by which this will be delivered.

What is needed now is immediate action and appropriate funding to enable us to deliver for our staff as they deliver for Scotland’s children.

Back

11 September 2023

4 Steps Guest Blog: “On pay for social care staff, I see only despair and anger”

Last week the First Minister announced plans for a rise in baseline pay for social care staff to £12. Where does this leave supervisory staff – and who will recognise their skills? asks Stephen McLellan, Chief Executive of Recovery Across Mental Health

I want to refer to a couple of conversations I have had with colleagues recently to help put the context of developing a career in social care into some perspective.  I shall be retiring shortly, after 47 years in Health and Social Care, so I feel I have some background in this.

Few people will have heard of RAMH – Recovery Across Mental Health, as we are a local organisation, operating mainly in Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire and Argyll and Bute. However, we probably reflect the reality of many third sector organisations in Scotland: local delivery by local people to meet local needs.

We employ around 180 staff, 50 volunteers and support over 5,000 people every year.

The first comment by a colleague pretty much sums up the description above:

“We just do it. We turn up and we don’t give up.’’

This very simple description defines what society requires from care, support and health workers. We expect services when and where we need them, no questions asked, because that’s the right thing to do, isn’t it?

To rhetorically answer my own question, yes it is. But how can we continue to expect this if we are not able to acknowledge the value of what we ask?

We expect people to work at the barest minimum rate of pay, with a token nod towards pensions. We put people in stressful, challenging and often demanding situations and offer them £10.90 an hour.  Colleagues who provide supervision and management are expected to do this at rates that are in relation to colleagues in health, paltry.

This takes me onto the conversation with another colleague, yesterday.  She has been offered and is taking a job as a Social Work Assistant, in a local authority. She doesn’t want to leave, but the increase in salary and the security of a pension leaves her little choice. As she explained, “You guys gave me training and experience that meant I was able to apply for this job. I feel awful, but I can’t turn down the money’’.

I will not disagree with colleagues in statutory organisations who argue for better terms and payment. Good luck to them. However, I cannot understand what value there is in governments not understanding that every time health colleagues receive an increase, it only widens the gap for social care staff, which in turn encourages more people to leave and discourages new entrants.

The First Minister recently announced the 2023-24 ‘Programme for Government’. He noted the potential for a baseline payment of £12 an hour, perhaps from April 2024? I refer back to my comments above: where does this leave supervisory staff? Who will recognise their skills and their needs?

There is no moral, or fiscal argument that justifies this myopic policy. It is purely a short term, transactional arrangement that is creating despair and anger across a huge swathe of the voting population.

Back

25 July 2023

4 Steps Guest Blog: “What is the ethical defence of unequal pay?”

Old concepts of moral principle, politics and logic help explain the absence of fair work in social care, says Ron Culley

Ethos, demos and logos were concepts used by the ancient Greeks to make sense of the world around them: ethos referred to the development of a moral principle or argument, rooted in human values; demos referred to the body politic, to the rules of self-government; and logos referred to reason and rationality, the logical flow of an argument.

Two-and-a-half-thousand years later, and it seems to me these concepts are still useful in making sense of the world around us. The principle of fair work in social care, and the limited political progress that we have made towards it, can be helpfully understood by applying these concepts.

Ethos

The ethical argument for fair work in social care is plainly put. If social care workers across different sectors are delivering similar taxpayer-funded public services, why should the level of pay be different? Given that care workers are providing work of equal value, is the Scottish Government justified in mandating that a Healthcare Assistant in the NHS be paid £14 per hour, a homecare worker in a council £16 per hour, a support worker in a not-for-profit social care provider £10.90 per hour, and a care worker in a private sector care home £10.90 per hour? All of these jobs are comparable in terms of skill and responsibility.

So is it fair that the Scottish Government and Local Authorities have decided in favour of unequal pay? And let’s consider the fact that most people working in the care sector are women and that, on average, women continue to receive lower pay than men. Is it right that the Scottish Government and Local Authorities have not gone further to correct this injustice? Were there to be a reprioritisation of political choices, tens of thousands of women could be taken out of a low wage job. In short, the ethical defence of unequal pay is very difficult to present.

Demos

To explain why this situation nonetheless persists, we need to understand Scottish politics. The reality – however much we might want to pretend otherwise – is that the NHS is politically more important to the Scottish Government than the social care sector. It’s why many arguments about investing more in social care are actually framed around alleviating pressure on the NHS, and not about supporting people to realise their rights as citizens or to give expression to their personal agency. By this argument, social care is only important because to get it wrong damages the NHS, and a struggling NHS is a vote loser.

The other way democratic politics plays into this is in the stewardship of the public finances. There simply isn’t a strong enough tax intake to fund the health and social care system that many people would like, so we have developed a system that supports the cheap outsourcing of public services to the third and independent sector (euphemistically referred to as ‘best value’). That would be fine if it were a level playing field and all providers (including monopolistic providers like NHS Boards and Councils) had to compete for business on the same terms. But that would risk violating one of the golden rules of Scottish politics, that public sector delivery is best (despite evidence that the third sector consistently delivers higher quality care and support).

Logos

The problem with all of this is that it contains flawed logic and makes for poor strategy. What happens if we pay public sector care workers significantly more than third or independent sector workers? The answer is there is a migration of talent and experience from one to the other. As a result, the third and independent sector is weakened, especially given that the labour market has been structurally imbalanced by Brexit and Covid.

How will providers in the third and independent sector respond? I doubt there will be a dramatic implosion – there’s too much market diversity for that to happen. Rather, what we’ll see is a gradual reduction in service delivery across the sector – less care delivered by less people. That in turn will generate more unmet need. And where will those people go? I would imagine social work, GPs and Emergency Departments. Only this time, there’ll be no-one else to turn to.

Ron Culley is CEO of Quarriers, a member of CCPS’s Board and Chair of our Committee on the National Care Service

Find out more about our 4 Steps to Fair Work campaign

Back

24 March 2023

Vison and priorities for social care: Humza Yousaf responds to our questions

One of the three candidates vying to be Scotland’s next First Minister has outlined his commitments.

Humza Yousaf, one of three candidates competing to be Scotland’s next First Minister and leader of the SNP, has responded to a letter sent by our CEO Rachel Cackett and Board chair Andrea Wood.

In the letter, sent on 7 March, the candidates were asked three questions:

  • Will you commit to our 4 Steps to Fair Work?
  • Will you commit to implement social care reform and meet with us, within your first month in post, to discuss constructive ideas for positive and urgent change?
  • How would you articulate your own vision for social care reform in Scotland?

In response Mr Yousaf, who has been Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care since 2021, said:

“Thank you for taking the time to contact me as a candidate in the SNP leadership contest and for your patience in waiting for a response.

Currently as Cabinet Secretary of Health and Social Care, the issues you raise are important to me and would continue to be so if elected as First Minister.

There are two key commitments I want to make in regards to the Health and Social Care sector.

We need to make sure that our staff are properly paid – not only to recruit staff but to retain them.

Secondly, we have some reform to do in our NHS which will see as many people as possible treated as close to home as possible, leaving our hospitals available for emergencies only. This means that investment in our Social Care sector is at the heart of NHS reform and for bettering the conditions of work for social care workers.

If we have social care that has the right workforce, that is working for people, then we can stop them from coming in the front door of hospitals or GP practices, but we can also work on stopping the exit block and see people getting out the doors of hospitals as soon as they are fit to do so and back into their community, keeping as close to home as possible.

Therefore, reforming health care and social care has to be at the heart of my leadership. That is why I am passionate about the idea of a National Care Service – although I recognise that current proposals will need amendments, via dialogue with Local Government, Trade Unions, and membership organisations to make sure it works for everyone.

The principle of the National Care Service, where we have fair pay for our social care workers, where we have national collective sectoral bargaining, and where we have ethical commissioning – these markers will solidify a national social care system that is worthy of the name.”

Our letter also argued that a legislative pause could be an opportunity for the new First Minister to look afresh at social care reform based on our model, and to drive forward Fair Work and sustainable funding.

Ash Regan and Kate Forbes have yet to respond.

Back