Good morning and welcome to the 32nd meeting in 2015 of the Health and Sport Committee. As I usually do at this point, I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones, as they can interfere with the sound system. I also note that members are using tablet devices instead of hard copies of the papers.
We have received apologies from Bob Doris, and we expect Mike Russell to join the committee at some point.
The first item on the agenda is stage 2 consideration of the Carers (Scotland) Bill. We have with us the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health, Jamie Hepburn—I welcome him—and from the Scottish Government’s bill team Moira Oliphant, team leader; Lynn Lavery, delivery manager; Ruth Lunny, a lawyer; and Ian Young, depute Scottish parliamentary counsel.
Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill, as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments, which was published on Friday, and the groupings of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated.
There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment, and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate in the usual way. The debate on the group will be concluded by my inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.
Given that we will not dispose of all the amendments at today’s meeting, I propose to finish this item around 11 am. Any outstanding amendments will be considered at next week’s meeting.
Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of and schedule to the bill, so I will put a question on each at the appropriate point.
Sections 1 to 5 agreed to.
Section 6—Duty to prepare adult carer support plan
Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 92, 8 to 10 and 93.
I am very happy to be here for stage 2 of the Carers (Scotland) Bill, and I place on record my thanks to the committee for all its work at stage 1.
As the provisions in sections 6 and 11 are currently drafted, they could imply that there are circumstances in which the duty to offer a person an adult carer support plan does not apply or does not have to be fulfilled. For example, if the responsible local authority or responsible authority is simply asked by a carer for direction to low-level support services that are available generally in an area, such as information and advice services, the duty to offer an adult carer support plan or young carer statement does not apply or require to be fulfilled.
Amendments 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 put beyond doubt that, once a person has been identified to or by a responsible local authority as a carer or young carer, that identification in itself triggers a separate duty on the authority to offer that carer an adult carer support plan. It is the acceptance of that offer of a support plan that triggers a subsequent duty to prepare the relevant support plan or young carer statement.
I turn to amendments 92 and 93. It was clear in the original consultation on the bill that the vast majority of respondents, including many local authorities, favoured the support plan being available to all carers. Even now, a number of local authorities do not use the test to see whether a carer offers regular and substantial care, which is the statutory requirement now, and offer the carer’s assessment to all carers. Therefore, we have removed what is called the regular and substantial test in the current legislation, whereby only carers who provide or intend to provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis are eligible for the carer’s assessment.
I am not inclined to introduce another way to regulate demand, which would seem to be the intended effect of amendments 92 and 93. I understand that there will be increased demand for the adult carer support plan and the young carer statement, and that is a good thing. It is a preventive measure so that carers can be assessed early in the caring journey. Even if a carer does not require any support to meet the identified needs, the process for a good-quality, empathetic support plan or statement is beneficial in itself.
The support plan and statement process also helps to identify carers who, even if they do not need support now, may need support in future. I do not think that amendments 92 and 93 would save resources, if that is why they have been lodged. There would have to be an assessment process in order to determine whether a carer is in need of support. On that basis, I respectfully ask Nanette Milne not to move amendments 92 and 93.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 92 applies to adult carers, and amendment 93 would have the same impact for young carers. The amendments, which have been suggested by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, aim to construct a means of ensuring that assessment and support are targeted at those for whom caring has the greatest impact on their ability to maintain their health and wellbeing and lead a life alongside caring. They would allow councils to manage demand for assessment, with reference to the eligibility criteria that the bill requires councils to publish in consultation with carers and carer organisations. That would ensure that assessment resources are targeted at those with the greatest need and would prevent resources from being lost on applicants who cannot be granted a support plan.
COSLA reasons that, as the bill is currently drafted, prioritising comes later, in sections 19 and 22. COSLA would like another layer of prioritising to be introduced, which would come earlier, at the assessment stage covered by sections 6 and 11. It would not replace sections 19 and 22 but would sit alongside them, giving a two-stage process. That would allow prioritisation of those who will receive the full adult carer support plan or young carer statement provided for in sections 6 and 11, if amended, followed by those who will be eligible for support services, as provided for in sections 19 and 22.
I have sympathy with what Nanette Milne is trying to do but I am concerned that it would stop carers getting an assessment when they require it. A real issue that is not dealt with by the bill is how to prioritise carers. We all know, from casework, that there are carers who are on the verge of breakdown. They need to be given priority, especially in the early stages of implementation of the bill. If we do not give them priority, the risk is that some carers will break down, while others, who may not have the same need, are seen first.
At the same time, I am not minded to support Nanette Milne’s amendments because I think that they could be used as a loophole not to provide carers with the assessment that they may need. However, I am keen that, especially in the early stages of the bill, some kind of priority should be given to those in most need.
I, too, am not minded to support Nanette Milne’s amendments. However, I have talked to COSLA about them and I understand its concerns. It comes down to the financial implications. Although I cannot claim to be totally on top of the twists and turns of the financial memorandum, it would be useful to have a comment on the financial implications of assessing everyone, because I think that that is pretty central to COSLA’s concerns. Nevertheless, I will not support amendments 92 and 93 because they seem to contradict a fundamental principle of the bill.
No other members want to speak but I have one small point that the minister might want to address in his response. Some carers also expressed concern that they would see a shift in priorities; it was not just COSLA and others. If you could say something about that, minister, that would be great.
I will pick up on what has been said. On Mr Chisholm’s comments, I have been clear through the entire process that, as far as we are concerned, the financial memorandum is the most robust estimate that we can make. It was based on all available information, much of which has come from local authorities. We have established a finance group to keep looking at the assumptions that have been made thus far. I am not aware of the group having brought forward any evidence that would cause me to question the assumptions in the financial memorandum.
I accept that case loads will still need to be prioritised once we have legislated, as I hope we will, albeit with my amendments to what is in the bill. I know that carers have raised the issue as well and that you, convener, have been pursuing it. It will be incumbent on us to make clear in guidance how prioritisation should be taken forward. It is not beyond local authorities to prioritise their case loads. We are already responding to certain circumstances and later will debate some amendments regarding carers for people who are deemed to be terminally ill and prioritisation in that respect. We can respond to such concerns.
It will come down to having robust guidance and I am happy to speak to any member about their particular concerns, as that could help to influence the guidance that we propose. We will also speak to the national carer organisations and COSLA.
At the end of the day, this comes down to the fundamental point that I made at the outset and that Nanette Milne’s amendments would move the bill away from, which is the importance of offering the process to all carers. That is our ethos in the bill.
On that basis, I urge the committee to support my amendments. I ask Nanette Milne not to move her amendments and, if she does, I ask the committee not to support them.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 70, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 71, 5, 74, 75, 13, 83, 64, 89, 66 and 67. If amendment 83 is agreed to, amendment 39 cannot be called.
Amendments 70 and 71 would put into the bill the timescale within which an adult carer’s assessment must be completed. A different timescale would be set for people who are caring for someone who is terminally ill, which recognises that time is limited and carers will be facing a quickly changing situation that will also be emotionally stressful for them. It is important that they receive support quickly and that that support changes to meet their changing needs.
Amendments 74 and 75 would make similar amendments for the young carer statement, ensuring a timeframe for an assessment and an expedited process for those who are caring for someone who has a terminal illness.
The Government has lodged alternative amendments in respect of carers of people who are terminally ill only, giving them the power to set the timescales in guidance. I would like to learn what the Government thinks those timescales should be. I would also like to know why the Government has not put down a timescale for carers of people who are not terminally ill, because there should be a maximum wait.
Amendments 83 and 89 are consequential amendments that provide a definition of “terminally ill”, which is very similar to the one that the minister has proposed.
I move amendment 70.
The minister will speak to amendment 5 and all other amendments in the group.
Thank you, convener, and I thank Ms Grant for lodging her amendments. I am concerned that setting timescales for the preparation of all adult carer support plans and young carer statements would result in local authorities having to use much of their resources to prepare plans within set timescales. That could limit the resources that might otherwise be available for the provision of support and there is also a risk that local authorities’ focus might shift from being on the completion of good-quality plans. For some carers, the preparation of a plan will be an iterative process, rather than a one-off intervention.
The discussion that we have just had about the need to prioritise case loads is germane to the present discussion about setting hard and fast timescales. Such timescales could cause local authorities difficulties.
09:45I understand, however, that carers want to have an indication of approximately how long it will take to prepare an adult carer support plan. Ms Grant suggests that there is nothing on the face of the bill about that. That is not quite the case: there is a provision at section 28(2)(f) that a local carer strategy must set out
“the authority’s intended timescales for preparing adult carer support plans and young carer statements”.
I also agree with Ms Grant that there is merit in prioritising the preparation of an adult carer support plan or young carer statement for those carers who are caring for someone who is terminally ill. I thank Marie Curie for its suggestion about that.
I undertook in response to the committee’s stage 1 report to lodge amendments to legislate for that. Amendments 5 and 13 introduce additional regulation-making powers for Scottish ministers so that timescales can be set for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements where the cared-for person is terminally ill.
Amendments 66 and 67 add the regulation-making powers to the list at section 37(2). The regulations made under that power are subject to the affirmative procedure. There are a number of significant issues that need to be resolved and set out in both regulations and guidance. It is therefore right that the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure so that they receive due parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendments 5 and 13 also introduce a definition of terminal illness. The definition is taken from that set out in section 66(2)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 on attendance allowance for the terminally ill. It states:
“a person is ‘terminally ill’ at any time if at that time he suffers from a progressive disease and his death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected within 6 months”.
Ms Grant asked about how we might use the regulations. It is important that we get them right. I have not got a specific timescale in mind. It is important that the Administration consults those who will be interested in the matter, such as COSLA, individual local authorities and the national carers organisations. I am also committed to involving the committee in that process.
On that basis, I ask the committee to support amendment 5 and the other amendments in my name in the group and I urge Ms Grant to withdraw amendment 70 and not to move the other amendments in her name.
I call Rhoda Grant to wind up and press or withdraw her amendment.
I am grateful for the explanations given, although I am concerned that we do not have a timescale for the assessment of carers who are looking after someone who is terminally ill.
I seek leave to withdraw amendment 70. I will have further talks with the minister to try to get some reassurance on that point and to discuss the timescales for carer assessments for those who are not terminally ill.
Amendment 70, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendment 92 not moved.
Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 7, 12, 15, 18, 19, 28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38, 45, 46, 59, 61 and 63.
The bill currently provides that in most cases the local authority for the area where the carer resides is responsible for preparing the adult carer support plan and young carer statement and for providing support under both.
During stage 1, the committee heard concerns from COSLA and local authorities that it would be difficult to consider the adult carer support plan and young carer statement alongside the cared-for person’s assessment, if the plan and statement were prepared and support was administered under them by different local authorities from those that were administering the cared-for person’s assessment. Taking that into account, I have lodged amendment 4 to amend the definition of “responsible local authority” so that responsibility for preparing the adult carer support plan will lie with the local authority where the cared-for person resides. With regard to young carers, in order to align with arrangements for the administration of the child’s plan as set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, the local authority where the young carer resides, or in some cases the health board or directing authority, will continue to have responsibility for preparing the young carer statement.
Amendment 12 changes the “responsible local authority” referred to in section 11(7), which must agree and administer any support under a young carer statement, from the local authority where the young carer resides to the one where the cared-for person resides. That means that, for the small number of cases in which the young person and the person whom they care for do not live in the same local authority area, it is expected that both the responsible local authorities will work with each other to ensure a co-ordinated approach. Both amendments will enable local authorities to create complementary packages of support that meet the support needs of both the adult carer or young carer and the person whom they care for.
Amendments 7 and 15, which are consequential on amendments 4 and 12, make it clear that where the adult carer or young carer does not reside in the same local authority area as the person whom they care for, information about support will be available to the adult carer or young carer in the area where they live, and will also be included in the adult carer support plan or young carer statement. Amendments 18 and 19 are also consequential on amendments 4 and 12.
Amendments 28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38 and 45, which make amendments to section 28 on local carer strategies, are consequential on the changes to sections 6 and 11 made by amendments 4 and 12. Those amendments will result in the local carer strategy being prepared for what are termed “relevant carers”—in other words, carers who reside in the area of a local authority, whether or not they provide or intend to provide care for cared-for persons in that area, and carers who do not reside in the authority’s area but who provide or intend to provide care to cared-for persons in that area. Amendment 46 provides the definition of “relevant carers”.
Amendment 59 has a similar effect to the amendments on local carer strategies by amending section 31(1), which relates to the information and advice service, to ensure that local authorities establish and maintain an information and advice service for relevant carers. Amendment 61 provides the definition of “relevant carers” for the purposes of section 31 by referring to the definition that I propose to insert into section 28 through amendment 46.
Finally, amendment 63 is consequential on amendments 4 and 12 and amends the definition of “responsible local authority” in section 36, which sets out how various terms in the bill are to be interpreted.
I move amendment 4.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment 71 not moved.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
After section 6
Amendment 5 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8—Content of adult carer support plan
Amendment 72, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 76.
Amendment 72 gives the adult carer control over their caring role by stipulating that the adult carer support plan must indicate the hours and time that the carer is willing to commit to caring, and amendment 76 gives similar control to young carers. Carers often tell me that they have no choice about their caring role—they are expected to take it on, often to the detriment of their own work or education—and these amendments will ensure that carers have choices about their caring commitments and will allow them to continue to work or attend school, college or university.
I move amendment 72.
I thank Rhoda Grant for lodging amendments 72 and 76. As she has explained, they stipulate that the number of hours a week for which the adult carer or young carer
“is able and willing to provide care”
must be included in the information contained in the adult carer support plan or the young carer statement. However, section 8(1)(b) and section 13(1)(b) of the bill already provide that the adult carer support plan and young carer statement must contain
“information about the extent to which”
the adult carer or young carer
“is able and willing to provide care for the cared-for person”,
which I believe takes account of the not unreasonable concerns that Rhoda Grant has expressed. Those particular sections already allow for the number of hours for which the carer is willing to provide care to be included in the adult carer support plan and young carer statement if that information is considered to be relevant and appropriate to the individual carer.
In any case, the adult carer support plan or young carer statement is personal to the carer and relevant to their personal circumstances, which can change in respect of the nature of the care provided and the amount of time devoted to caring. There might be circumstances in which the nature of the caring role makes it difficult to quantify the amount of time that is devoted to caring, such as where a person provides care to more than one person or where the circumstances of the cared-for person are such that the hours of care that they require differ from week to week. It is therefore not appropriate for a carer to have to specify the number of hours they are willing and able to provide care in each and every circumstance.
I recognise the concerns that have caused Rhoda Grant to lodge her amendments. However, the bill as worded should take account of them, because it already provides for the need to establish the extent to which the adult carer or young carer is willing and able to provide care for the cared-for person. I therefore ask Rhoda Grant to withdraw amendment 72 and not to move amendment 76, but in so doing, I make it clear that I am happy to speak to her on this matter to see whether I can reassure her about the provisions in the bill or, if some change is indeed needed, to discuss that with her to see whether we can agree a way forward.
I think that everyone agrees that it is really important that carers have a choice about their caring role and that they are able to continue with their lives. However, I have heard what the minister has said, and I will take him up on his offer of further discussions on the issue.
I will therefore withdraw amendment 72 and not move amendment 76.
Amendment 72, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 6, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 73, 14, 77 and 60.
Enable Scotland and others have raised concerns that the bill as worded does not take account of carers who might, for a number of reasons such as illness, find themselves unable to care for the person who usually relies on them for support. Understandably, that can be a huge source of anxiety and concern for carers, as the safety and support of the people for whom they care is of paramount importance.
In order to address that issue, as I said I would in response to the committee’s stage 1 report, I have lodged amendments 6 and 14, which amend sections 8(1) and 13(1) respectively to provide that the adult carer support plan and young carer statement must contain information about emergency planning. That means that as part of the adult carer support plan and young carer statement process the carer will be asked whether they have in place arrangements for the provision of care that they would normally provide to the cared-for person if an emergency should arise, and that information will have to be recorded as part of the adult carer support plan or young carer statement.
Amendments 73 and 77, lodged by Rhoda Grant, seek to amend sections 8(1) and 13(1) to ensure that the adult carer support plan and young carer statement contain
“information about whether the adult carer has arrangements in place for the future care of the cared-for person”.
I believe that that approach has some merit. The bill might already allow for it, but I certainly agree that it is worth considering further. On that basis, I ask Ms Grant to withdraw amendments 73 and 77 and to meet me so that, together, we can consider and work on the matters further, potentially with a view to lodging at stage 3 amendments with similar effect.
10:00Amendment 60 amends section 31(2) to ensure that the information and advice service for carers provided for in section 31 provides information and advice on
“emergency care planning and future care planning”
in addition to the other issues in section 31(2) on which information and advice must be provided. I know that emergency care and future care planning are important for carers, and I recognise that carers’ health and wellbeing can be affected if they are worried about how care will be provided to the cared-for person if, because of an emergency or other unforeseen circumstances, they are unable to provide the care that they normally provide or if they are no longer able and willing to provide care.
I move amendment 6.
Amendment 73 ensures that the adult carer support plan includes transitional arrangements for circumstances in which the carer is unlikely to be able to continue their caring role, and amendment 77 has the same effect for the young carer statement. I support the Government’s amendments 6 and 14 with regard to emergency care planning, but I am concerned about the fact that future care planning will be left to the advice and information service.
Carers, especially elderly parents looking after offspring who are likely to outlive them, worry about what will happen to their loved ones when they are no longer able to care, and it is important that they know what will happen and that any transitions will be managed. The lives of many vulnerable people are changed beyond recognition while they deal with bereavement. Although occasionally that cannot be foreseen, it can on many occasions be planned for.
The same is true for young people who might want to go on to further and higher education; they need to know what will work for their loved ones and that they will be looked after in their absence. That is why future care planning should be part of support plans and statements. Such planning needs to be person centred and properly managed, and thought needs to be given to it.
Given what the minister has said, I am willing to withdraw amendments 73 and 77 and to discuss the matter further, but I point out that the provisions are really important and should be included in the bill.
I welcome Ms Grant’s comments, and I look forward to having that discussion. I am sure that we will be able to agree a way forward.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendment 73 not moved.
Amendment 7 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
Section 11—Duty to prepare young carer statement
Amendment 8 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendment 74 not moved.
Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendment 93 not moved.
Amendment 11, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 94 to 96, 16 and 97 to 99. If amendment 96 is agreed to, amendment 16 cannot be called.
I will address the two amendments that are in my name before turning to those that are in Ms Grant’s name. Several stakeholders have expressed concern about the provision at section 11(6) under which, when a young carer is offered or requests a young carer statement,
“the responsible authority must notify the young carer’s named person.”
Members will recall that that issue was a feature of the stage 1 debate. Similar concern was expressed about section 15(2)(b), which requires the responsible authority to provide the information that is contained in the young carer statement to
“the young carer’s named person”.
I fully sympathise with those concerns. I recognise that there will be circumstances where the young carer will wish to protect his or her privacy. Equally, I expect that, in many cases, it will be helpful for the named person service provider to know that the young carer has been offered or has requested a young carer statement and that one has been put in place.
I have considered those issues carefully, and I lodged amendment 11 to remove section 11(6). That will remove the requirement for the responsible authority to notify the young carer’s named person if a young carer statement is offered or requested.
I lodged amendment 16 to remove section 15(2)(b). That will remove the requirement for the responsible authority to share with the named person the information that is contained in the young carer statement.
We do not require section 15(2)(b), because section 26 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 covers that area. Under that act, the information that is contained in a young carer statement can be shared with a young carer’s named person service provider only if that information is relevant to or necessary for the exercise of the named person’s functions. In effect, that means that the information can be shared with the young carer’s named person service provider, but that sharing is by no means automatic.
When deciding what information to share, the local authority or health board with the responsibility for the young carer statement must have regard to the views of the child or the young person, while bearing in mind his or her age and maturity. The young carer’s views must be sought where it is reasonably practicable to do so, and the responsible authority must have regard to those views. We will set it out in guidance that we fully expect the young carer’s views to be sought. However, it might not be reasonably practicable to do that if, for example, the young carer was out of the country.
There are further protections for young carers. The responsible authority will need to respect the common-law duty of confidentiality, the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the right to private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
We have consulted young carers’ interests. They appear to support our proposal as a pragmatic way forward.
I will now respond to Rhoda Grant’s amendments. Her amendments have the same intention as the Government amendments in the group, so I argue that they are not required.
The substantive effect of amendments 94, 96 and 97 would be that the responsible authority no longer needed to provide the information that is in the young carer statement to the named person. However, amendments 95 and 98 would retain the requirement for the responsible authority to notify the named person that a young carer statement or revised statement had been prepared.
Amendment 95 would duplicate section 11(6) of the bill, which the committee should note that I propose to remove with amendment 11. I have made the case to the committee that we do not require a provision that requires the named person to be notified of the preparation of the young carer statement, because that will be covered by the information-sharing provision that is set out in section 26 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.
Amendment 99 is a consequence of amendment 96 and would in effect reinstate as a new section provisions that amendment 96 seeks to remove. Amendment 99 would provide that the information that is contained in the young carer statement could be shared with any other person the young carer requested that it be shared with. However, the proposed new section has no equivalent of section 15(4), which requires the information to be provided as soon as practicable after the statement or revised statement is prepared.
I ask the committee to support the Government amendments in the group and I urge Rhoda Grant not to move her amendments.
I move amendment 11.
I listened carefully to what the minister said. The difference between my amendments and his amendments is that my amendments would put in the hands of the young carer control of who has information about them. The only piece of information that they would not control would be about whether a young carer statement existed. It is important that the named person is informed that a young carer statement exists, because the named person is normally a headteacher, who needs to know that the young person is a young carer so that they can put measures in place in school to ensure that the young person has access to education. It would be very much down to the young carer to decide who had access to any other information, which would give them comfort.
My understanding of the Government’s amendments is that information would not be automatically shared with the named person but, if it was deemed important to share information, it would be shared with the named person regardless of whether the young carer wished that to happen. That would improve the situation under the bill at the moment, but it would not go far enough to give the young carer full control. I ask the minister to have further discussions to see whether we could give young carers more control of who has access to the content of their statement. If I got reassurance on that, I would not move my amendments.
I am pleased that the Government has lodged amendments 11 and 16. The minister’s explanation of them shows respect to young carers and shows that the amendments will give them more control. As I said, his interpretation is respectful to young carers.
I think that we are all on the same page on the issue. I reassure Ms Grant that I share her perspective, because it is important that the named person is informed that a young carer statement exists. The provisions under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 that I set out should allow for that.
I am happy to discuss the matter further with Ms Grant, and that offer is open to any committee member at any time as we move towards stage 3. In having that discussion with her, I hope that I can reassure her that the approach that we are taking through amendments 11 and 16 will address all the concerns that she expressed.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendment 75 not moved.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
After section 11
Amendment 13 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 13—Content of young carer statement
Amendment 76 not moved.
Amendment 14 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendment 77 not moved.
Amendment 15 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
Section 15—Young carer statement: provision of information to carer etc
10:15Amendments 94 to 96 not moved.
Amendment 16 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendments 97 and 98 not moved.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
After section 15
Amendment 99 not moved.
Sections 16 to 18 agreed to.
After section 18
Amendment 78, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 90.
The amendments would ensure that all public authorities had to identify carers and would mean that, if a carer was identified by a general practitioner, a hospital, a school or a nursery, the authorities had to act to ensure that the carer was getting the support and the healthcare that they needed. We hear too often of GPs who are caring for a cared-for person not being aware of who looks after them and whether the carer is getting the support that they require. All our local authorities need to take a holistic approach to the people they deal with, to look below the surface and to take responsibility for carers. We need to make sure that a referral is made and that carers receive support. Amendment 90 is consequential to amendment 78.
I move amendment 78.
Rhoda Grant’s amendment 78 aims to introduce a new regulation-making power about how public authorities should refer an adult carer or a young carer to a responsible local authority or a responsible authority. Many public authorities are listed in schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. They include health boards, national health service trusts and primary medical services—including GPs—and many other bodies such as procurators fiscal and the National Library of Scotland. On the face of it, it would not make sense to impose such a duty on many of those public authorities.
The bill sets out provisions that relate to carer identification. Section 28(2)(a) provides that local authorities must set out their plans for identifying carers in the context of their local carer strategy and must consult health boards before preparing that strategy. Government amendments are being lodged to place a duty on each local authority to prepare a local carer strategy for its area jointly with health boards. That is the appropriate way forward, rather than conferring a general power on all public bodies to identify carers. I ask the member to withdraw amendment 78 and not to move amendment 90.
I did not really receive comfort from the minister’s comments. The issue that has been raised in evidence is that the NHS is quite often at fault. Last week, some MSPs met a group of carers who talked about the NHS involving carers when someone was about to leave hospital, to ensure that they were referred to services and were receiving support. That made a huge difference to the lives of carers, and that was contrasted with the position of carers who had not received that level of support.
I am really concerned that what the minister said does not address that problem. However, I take on board the point that some of the organisations listed might not deal with carers, so I will withdraw amendment 78. However, I may come back at stage 3 with an amendment that would put a duty on at least the NHS, because that is sometimes where things fall down.
Amendment 78, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 19—Duty to set local eligibility criteria
Amendment 100, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 101.
The committee took conflicting evidence about whether eligibility criteria should be set nationally or locally. COSLA was concerned that that should be done locally and cited the lack of funding to implement the bill. My understanding is that the funding for the bill, other than that for replacement care, is around £3 million. Carers believe that the criteria should be set nationally, as there would otherwise be a postcode lottery for the support that they get.
Amendments 100 and 101 would strike a balance between those two conflicting concerns by giving the Scottish Government the power to set a level of need at which carers would be entitled to support. The form that that support took would be decided locally, but carers would know that they would receive support. Carers who are at risk of having to give up their caring role should be in that category; they need support before their caring role breaks down, so they must have a nationally set entitlement to support.
I move amendment 100.
I thank Rhoda Grant for lodging her amendments. I recognise that, as she said, this has been the subject of much debate. Members will know that the arguments on local versus national eligibility criteria are finely balanced, and I think that I am right in recalling that the committee’s stage 1 report reflected that, although it did not make a recommendation either way.
There is an argument for national eligibility criteria. However, individual local authorities, as democratic bodies that are accountable to their own electorates, should be able to make decisions that are based on the needs of their caring population and the resources that they have available to meet those needs. I want to ensure that there is consistency across the country, which I believe can be achieved through the national matters that we will set out in regulations and which will underpin local eligibility criteria.
The issue is of paramount importance for carers and for the national carer organisations, which I thank again for their input. I assure them and the committee that the work that they have undertaken will be fully considered as we develop the regulations on national matters. As we move towards that position, I am inclined to include in the regulations the specific indicators that are set out in those organisations’ draft framework. That approach would mean that a local authority had to have regard to the importance of those indicators in assessing the impact of caring on a carer’s wellbeing and day-to-day life and in deciding whether it was required to provide support, although the local authority would retain control over the exact level of impact that would lead to a duty to provide support and the nature of the support to be provided. That would encourage the setting of local thresholds for support that are creative and take into account similar factors across the country.
I draw the committee’s attention to the fact that the intended effect of amendment 100 is not entirely clear. It is not linked to the duties to provide support to meet carers’ eligible needs, which are set out in section 22, so it is not clear whether the amendment would introduce a requirement for the local authority to support the types of carers covered by the amendment. Regardless of the issues that relate to the amendment’s practical application, I am persuaded that the eligibility criteria for supporting carers should be determined by individual local authorities but with consistency brought to that approach through the national matters set out in regulations that will be produced in partnership with the national carer organisations, COSLA, local authorities and health boards. I expect and appreciate that the committee will take an interest in what might be in those regulations.
I remind committee members that the committee asked clearly about how we will monitor the efficacy of local eligibility criteria. I responded clearly that we will monitor how effective that approach is. We have the provision in the bill to introduce national eligibility criteria by way of regulation if that is felt necessary in the future.
Neil Findlay made the point in the stage 1 debate that what is important is not whether there are local eligibility criteria or national eligibility criteria but whether the approach on the ground for carers is effective. The committee can be assured that we will take the greatest interest in the approach that is taken and that, if it is not effective, we will respond accordingly. I therefore ask Ms Grant to withdraw amendment 100 and not to move amendment 101.
I am glad that the minister acknowledged that the issue is about resourcing and that local authorities are really concerned about the resourcing of the bill. I believe that carers who are in critical need of support should get that support, which should be a national entitlement. I will therefore press amendment 100.
The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
The vote is tied. I will use my casting vote against the amendment, on the basis that the committee has not made a specific recommendation on the matter. I do that in the hope that further, meaningful discussions can take place with members who support the proposal, to get a resolution to this difficult issue.
Amendment 100 disagreed to.
Amendment 101 not moved.
Section 19 agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
Section 22—Duty to provide support
Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 102, 20 to 23, 79 and 68.
I will address the amendments in my name first before I turn to the amendments that were lodged by Nanette Milne and Rhoda Grant.
Section 23, on “Provision of support to carers: breaks from caring”, was included in the bill, as introduced, in order that the local authority must consider in particular whether the support that is provided to a carer should take the form of or include a break from caring. We also introduced a regulation-making power principally to deal with the issue of the waiving of charges for replacement care that meets the identified needs of the carer. I made it clear to the committee that the requirement to waive charges will be made through minimal amendments to the existing regulations on the waiving of charges, and that remains the case. My clear policy intention is that neither the carer nor the cared-for person will be charged for what we called replacement care meeting the carer’s assessed needs. Members will recall that, in stage 1 evidence, Mr Lyle in particular was interested in pursuing that issue with me.
Amendment 20 means that the terminology “replacement care” will no longer be used in the bill. I thought that it was confusing; instead, I prefer the wording “provision of care for the cared-for person”, which is provided to enable the carer to have a break from caring. That describes exactly what is being provided to enable the carer to have a break from caring.
Amendment 17 provides that the power and duty to provide support to a carer do not apply where the carer’s needs can be met through the provision of services or assistance to the cared-for person. Therefore, if a carer’s needs could be met by, for example, a bath hoist for the cared-for person, that should be agreed through the community care assessment for the cared-for person. However, there is an exception to that rule in circumstances in which care is provided to the cared-for person in order to give the carer a break from caring.
Amendments 20 and 21 give further effect to that policy by amending the regulation-making power so that it focuses specifically on circumstances in which care is provided to the cared-for person in order to give the carer a break from caring.
Amendment 22 removes section 23(2)(b)(ii), as it is no longer necessary given the other amendments to sections 22 and 23.
10:30Amendment 23 corrects a technical problem in the drafting of section 23(3) to make it clear that any support that is provided to a carer in order to provide a break from caring is provided under section 22 and not under section 23. Support is provided under section 22, albeit that it is provided following specific consideration of whether the carer requires a break from caring, which is required under section 23.
A further policy intention is to secure the involvement of the cared-for person in relation to decisions about the provision of care to the cared-for person to enable the carer to have a break from caring. I believe that that is important, as it would be inappropriate for a cared-for person to be forced to receive care that could involve personal or intimate care without being involved in that decision-making process.
There are, however, a number of practical issues to be considered regarding the involvement of the cared-for person in decision making about the provision of care that enables the carer to have a break from caring. Those include, in particular, whether the cared-for person should have to provide their express consent. I propose that regulations on those matters will be made using the powers at section 23(2)(b)(i). I want the procedure for those regulations to be affirmative. Amendment 68 gives effect to that.
Turning to amendment 102, in the name of Nanette Milne, I fully understand just how beneficial breaks from caring are in supporting carers. A break from caring can allow the carer to get some rest and recharge their batteries. Those breaks can make all the difference for carers being able to maintain their caring role. Through the bill, the outcomes that carers would like to achieve and the support that is required to meet those outcomes will be identified. That is the core purpose of the bill. In many cases, that will include a break from caring.
The intention behind amendment 102 appears to be that carers should have access to a market that provides a range of short breaks to meet the individual needs of carers. However, existing provision, under section 19 of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, already requires local authorities to promote a variety of support and support providers to deliver short breaks. As a result of amendments that are being made by the schedule to the bill, it is clear that the reference to support in that section covers support to both adult and young carers under this bill.
Amendment 102 appears also to place a duty on local authorities to ensure individual carers are provided with sufficient short breaks. The person-centred approach to adult carer support plans, young carer statements and subsequent support will ensure that individual carers are provided with adequate support to meet their needs. That would include short breaks. However, I would like to get a better understanding of the issues underlying the amendments in the name of Nanette Milne. On that basis, I ask her not to move amendment 102 and to meet me to discuss the issue ahead of stage 3. If necessary, the issue can be returned to then with a similar amendment.
I do not believe that amendment 79, which was lodged by Rhoda Grant, is required to section 23(1). It already makes it clear that support may be provided in the form of a break from caring where that is to meet the carer’s identified needs rather than those of the cared-for person. The framework of the adult carer support plan and young carer statement schemes—in particular the personal outcomes approach and obligation to identify the nature and extent of caring—should make it easier to identify whether support is to meet the needs of the carer or the cared-for person. I ask the member not to move amendment 79.
I move amendment 17.
The first part of amendment 102 provides for an obligation that must be fulfilled by the local authority in the context of thinking about the services that a person may or must receive. The second part specifies short breaks. Overall, the amendment provides a sufficient duty to ensure that short breaks are used not just as a crisis intervention. It promotes collaborative working between local authorities and other stakeholders to provide more capacity and choice, taking into account available resources. However, having listened to the minister, I would be happy to meet him between now and stage 3 and, on that promise, I am prepared not to move amendment 102 at this stage.
Amendment 79 makes it clear that the break from caring has to be for the needs of the carer, and indeed has to be to the benefit of the carer. Too often, we have heard that carers are given a respite break to allow them to attend to their urgent medical needs. That should, of course, be catered for, but it should not be about somebody’s entitlement to a short break. The minister said that the bill says that the short break is about the carer’s identified needs. That could be for the carer to go to work or hospital and the like. We should make it clear in the bill that this is a break from caring for the carer. It is not for them to attend to something else; it is for them to have some time off in which to rest and recuperate.
I hope that the minister will discuss that further before stage 3. If he is willing to do that, I will not move amendment 79 but will come back with another amendment at stage 3. It should be clear that the break is for the carer’s benefit so that they can have a rest and do something different from attending to other identified needs.
Could the minister indicate that there is already clear legislation to protect carers and to provide the breaks that Rhoda Grant is referring to? If we go ahead with her amendments, would it not create a complicated situation for the health and social care joint boards when they are progressing their local needs and identifying what works best for carers and the people for whom they care? If the minister can outline existing legislation, there will be no need to pass Rhoda Grant’s amendment.
On Mr Robertson’s point, in my opening remarks I made the point about the provisions that exist in the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013. On top of any legislative provision, we have invested a considerable amount in the provision of and support for short breaks. I hope that that indicates the great importance that we invest in ensuring that carers are provided with a short break.
Rhoda Grant’s point about it being necessary to make it clear that a break is for the benefit of the carer rather than the person who is being cared for should be taken account of in the way in which the bill is drafted. However, I hear her point and I am happy to meet her, as I have already agreed previously, to discuss this further issue.
I also thank Nanette Milne for providing clarity about her thinking on where she wanted her amendment 102 to take us. We can use that as the basis for discussion in advance of stage 3.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendments 18 and 19 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Section 23—Provision of support to carers: breaks from caring
Amendment 102 not moved.
Amendments 20 to 23 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendment 79 not moved.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
After section 24
Amendment 80, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 91.
Amendment 80 will allow a carer who has had an assessment to appeal the outcome of that assessment. The timescales are different for carers who are looking after terminally ill people, which acknowledges that their time is limited. The timescales are shorter than the time taken to carry out the assessment—which was covered in amendment 70, which I withdrew—because the work will already have been done. It is a shorter review period. It is important that carers have the ability to appeal the outcome of their assessment if they do not agree with it. That is in line with other legislation that deals with assessments.
I move amendment 80.
Carers and carer organisations are concerned about circumstances in which the local authority determines that the carer does not have eligible needs and therefore the duty to provide support does not apply. As Rhoda Grant set out, amendment 80 seeks to introduce a separate decision review mechanism for carers who face that situation.
I do not believe that it is necessary for carers to have a separate, specific method for raising a complaint that is distinct from existing systems. We are in the process of changing the complaints procedures that apply to social work decisions. The changes that are being made to complaints procedures will benefit all service users, including carers, in order to improve accessibility and deliver real outcomes. We are consulting on a draft order for social work complaints that will extend the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to investigate complaints involving the professional judgment of social work staff, as well as maladministration.
If agreed to by Parliament, the changes to social work complaints will mean a shorter, more person-centred complaints procedure. No matter who a person complains to, their complaint should be handled in a joined-up manner. The person who is making the complaint will receive a co-ordinated response. The ombudsman will have the power to make recommendations to a local authority on a decision that has been made, and it will be able to lay a special report to the Scottish Parliament should its recommendations not be acted on. We aim to have the new procedures for social work complaints up and running by early April 2017, when this bill’s provisions will come into effect.
As Ms Grant set out, amendment 91 is a consequence of amendment 80. Again, I say that I would be happy to meet Ms Grant to reassure her that what we have in mind with the order that we are consulting on takes account of her concerns. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw amendment 80 and not move amendment 91.
I would like more detail about what the minister is proposing. My understanding is that the ombudsman currently looks at procedure. The minister said that the ombudsman will also look at professional judgment. It is not clear whether that means that decision making and the outcome of decision making will be looked at. It is also not clear whether the ombudsman will be able to overturn an assessment decision and entitle a carer to support. The aim of amendment 80 is that, if a carer does not agree with the level of support that they are being given, they will be able to appeal and overturn the decision.
Given the offer of further discussion, I will seek to withdraw amendment 80 and I will not move amendment 91. It is important that someone reviews decision making. Given the financial situation surrounding the bill, there is concern that decisions will be driven by finance rather than need, so we need robust systems in place to ensure that carers get the support they need.
Amendment 80, by agreement, withdrawn.
10:45
Amendment 81, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 69.
Amendment 81 seeks to bring services for carers under the inspection regime of the Care Inspectorate. It is right that an independent body can review the services and ensure that they are fit for purpose. The Care Inspectorate carries out that role for services for the cared-for person, so it is familiar with the situations that carers find themselves in and would be best placed to inspect services for carers. It is important that such services are high quality and that carers receive the support that they require.
I move amendment 81.
I thank Rhoda Grant for introducing amendment 81. My officials have been in contact with the Care Inspectorate, and I agree that there might indeed be merit in amending schedule 12 to bring more services that support carers into the registration regime. However, there are significant policy considerations to be resolved before doing so at present. Services that support carers caring for cared-for persons because of age, disability or drug and alcohol dependency issues have to be registered with the Care Inspectorate. Those services might cover training or other support that is focused particularly on the vulnerability of the cared-for person—for example, a service that trains carers in how to lift the elderly or a support group helping those with alcohol-dependent partners.
I therefore want to consider the implications for service providers and, indeed, the impact on the Care Inspectorate in terms of its resources and expertise before deciding whether it is appropriate to make all such services subject to registration requirements. The Care Inspectorate has made recommendations to Scottish ministers about a number of changes that it considers could be made to the scope of care services under the bill. I have agreed that that should be considered as part of the wider review of care services that the Care Inspectorate has been considering. If it is decided that more services to carers should be brought within the definition of care services, it will be possible to do that using order-making powers in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. In my view, amendment 81 is therefore not required, so I ask Ms Grant to withdraw it at this stage. I would be happy, of course, to discuss the matter further with her to set out in greater detail the work that will be under way.
Scottish Government officials have also discussed amendment 69 with the Care Inspectorate. I have introduced amendment 69 to add functions under the bill to the list of social work service functions in schedule 13 to the 2010 act. I want to ensure that any services provided by a local authority in undertaking the functions listed in schedule 13 and any service that is provided with others, such as third sector providers, in connection with arrangements with a local authority will be social work services and social services within the meaning of part 5 of the 2010 act.
Amendment 69 will give the Care Inspectorate a power to inspect services that are provided by, or on behalf of, local authorities in the exercise of functions under the bill, most significantly the adult carer support plan and the young carer statement, the local carer strategy and information and advice service functions. Amendment 69 will also require local authorities to provide information to the public on request about the services that are provided in the exercise of those functions. I hope that the committee will agree that those are sensible arrangements.
I will wait to find out more information about the minister’s thinking on that. Perhaps he can give me some written thoughts ahead of a meeting, because otherwise it will be a very long meeting. It would be good to have those thoughts before a meeting so that I can discuss them with stakeholders and then discuss with him the best way to take the issue forward.
Amendment 81, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 25—Duty to involve carers in carer services
Amendment 103, in the name of Nanette Milne, is grouped with amendment 24.
Amendment 103, on hospital discharge, would strengthen the bill by focusing on patient outcomes. It would mean that patients would be consulted and involved in designing the patient’s care plan and would ensure that adequate time was taken to design the care plan so that it was in place before the patient was discharged from hospital. That would result in the avoidance of the sort of dreadful experience that I heard about just last week from a carer whose husband was discharged, on oxygen, with only two hours’ notice. The gas cooker in their home had had to be disconnected and the family was without cooking facilities for a week after his return home. Such appalling situations should not be allowed to happen. They would not happen with proper discharge planning while the patient was in hospital.
My amendment aims to cover the general carer involvement. It differs from Rhoda Grant’s amendment to section 8, which would require information about hospital admission and discharge to be discussed in an adult care support plan.
I move amendment 103.
Amendment 24 is a minor drafting point that removes an unnecessary “of” from section 27.
I thank Nanette Milne for her points on amendment 103. I fully support the involvement of carers in hospital admission and discharge processes, as I also support taking account of carers’ views when making decisions about the discharge from hospital of the people they care for. I agree that planning for discharge should begin as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so after a person’s admission to hospital. Carers can then be supported when the patient is back home.
I have considered this important issue carefully, but I am not inclined to support amendment 103 for two reasons. First, we cannot delay hospital discharge. Evidence clearly demonstrates that delaying discharge when someone in hospital is ready to go home is harmful to their wellbeing and that is why we are investing considerable effort in improving the effectiveness of discharge arrangements in local systems. Amendment 103, which would require carers to be identified and consulted in every circumstance, could inadvertently cause some delays in hospital discharge. That would not do anyone any good. Secondly, this Government will take forward a comprehensive package of measures that is intended to tackle carer identification and carer involvement in hospital admission and discharge processes.
We agree on the issues, but not on how to deal with them. From 2016, we will implement project work with the aim of changing attitudes and culture, and adopting positive practice in the health workforce. The work will be locally led and will involve carers and other key stakeholders, with local solutions shared nationally. The work will be developed within the living well in communities portfolio led by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which is about reducing hospital bed days and delayed discharge. That will benefit from working in partnership with carers to find the best way forward.
In 2016, we will update and reissue statutory guidance on hospital discharge, with a particular emphasis on carer identification and involvement in hospital discharge. We will follow up with integrated joint boards the role for carers in the strategic planning of services and discussions at local level, in localities acknowledged as the engine room of the integration reform agenda where the greatest impact and outcomes can be achieved. It will include discharge from most in-patient hospital services.
In 2017-18 and 2018-19 we will continue and enhance the work with further workforce development.
In 2017, before commencement of the bill’s provisions, as part of the statutory guidance on the Carers (Scotland) Bill, we will include sections on the content of the adult carer support plan and the young carer statement concerning the circumstances in which the plan is to be reviewed. If individual carers want the adult carer support plan or the young carer statement to be reviewed when the cared-for person is discharged from hospital, then that will happen.
In light of the substantial effort that we are making, I invite the member to withdraw amendment 103.
I want to speak in support of Nanette Milne’s amendment 103. I was at the meeting when the situation she mentioned was discussed. It was not only the gas cooker but the gas fire that was disconnected, so the family had no heating or cooking facilities for a fortnight. They were given only two hours’ notice about the disconnection. You would not want anyone to return home to that situation, far less to have a carer having to deal with the matter.
We have heard about situations arising when vulnerable people have been sent home in the middle of the night in a taxi without it even being checked whether a carer is at home to meet and look after them. It is important that a duty is placed on health services to ensure that admission and discharge planning is carried out properly, and especially to ensure that needs are met and adaptations are in place. There are far too many horror stories going around. We need to do something about the situation.
I believe that the duty is already there and I am not sure that amendment 103 would change what is perhaps bad practice.
I acknowledge that the integrated joint boards and the work that they will do with the health and social care services will address the particular issues that Nanette Milne and Rhoda Grant raised. I suspect that the situation that they identified was more to do with poor practice than something that can be addressed through legislation.
Minister, you have an opportunity to respond to what members have said.
That is very kind of you, convener. It is obviously very difficult to speak about individual circumstances without having all the information. Clearly, the specific case that Ms Milne and Ms Grant referred to was not acceptable, but the point that Mr Robertson made is germane to our discussion. There is already a set of procedures out there that should be adhered to. We have ahead of us a range of work: I have set out what we will do in the coming months and years to further improve performance on the ground.
I assure the committee that I think that it is essential and vital that carers are involved as far as they possibly can be in the admission and discharge process, but we cannot do anything that would inadvertently exacerbate delayed discharge, because that would have a negative impact on the person who has been admitted to hospital.
On that basis, given the range of work that is under way and the reasonable point that Mr Robertson made, I ask Nanette Milne to withdraw amendment 103.
There are far too many cases of bad practice, as we heard from Rhoda Grant. I feel strongly that there should be a real emphasis on discharge planning almost as soon as the patient is admitted to hospital, when that is possible. Many of the problems with delayed discharge are a result of the fact that that discharge planning does not get going soon enough.
Although I hear what the minister says, I feel quite strongly about the issue, so I will press amendment 103.
The question is, that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
We have a tie, and I have a casting vote. I recall that our stage 1 report recommended
“that the Scottish Government responds to the calls from carers and carer organisations to include provisions in the Bill that place a duty on health boards to involve carers in hospital admission and discharge procedures.”
On that basis, I support amendment 103.
Amendment 103 agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
Section 27—Care assessments: duty to take account of care and views of carers
Amendment 24 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
I previously indicated that we would not conclude our consideration of amendments today, and I think that this would be an appropriate point at which to break.
I thank the minister and his colleagues. We will continue our stage 2 consideration of the bill next week.
10:58 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance