Skip to main content
Loading…
Chamber and committees

Justice 2 Committee, 30 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 30, 2004


Contents


Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000

The Convener:

Fairly voluminous submissions on the act have been received and all of them are extremely interesting. I am grateful to the clerks for preparing a helpful summary of that evidence. Members will see that common and recurring themes are emerging. What does the committee think that we should do now? I am happy to welcome contributions.

Karen Whitefield:

The clerks' report is helpful and highlights common themes. The committee might have to return to the act, but I am not sure whether now is the time to do that. I would prefer the committee to note the evidence, pass it on to the Executive and ask the Executive to consider it.

We should await completion of the work on the act's implementation that Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia is undertaking on the Executive's behalf. I understand that the Executive will receive a report on that in September, when the committee will be in a better position to assess the work that we need to do on post-enactment scrutiny. That might ensure that any work that we do is effective and would avoid our grasping at some of the themes that are apparent from the written evidence. I do not think that we will want to concentrate on or pursue all those themes.

The Convener:

That proposal is constructive. I am conscious of our time commitments from now until the end of June. Even if we wanted to do something, it would be difficult. As Karen Whitefield was correct to say, Alzheimer Scotland is preparing a report for the Executive. It would be sensible to draw all the threads together.

Maureen Macmillan:

I agree with the convener and Karen Whitefield. Some of the concerns that have been expressed were debated when the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee considered the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. I would not like to provide just another occasion for people on different sides to rehearse the same arguments—I am thinking in particular about the question whether a sheriff or a tribunal should be involved in decision making. Other matters that the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee raised have been mentioned, such as availability of legal aid, training and awareness raising. I would like to follow up those matters, but not to engage in the debate that was dealt with when that bill came to Parliament.

The Convener:

That point is valid. The debate at that time was not uninformed—it might have taken place against a backdrop of the best information available. However, what has happened since the statute was enacted can inform the debate.

Does everyone agree with Karen Whitefield's proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

We will ask the clerks to proceed on that basis.