The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Carers (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, SP bill 61A; the marshalled list, SP bill 61AML; and the groupings, SP bill 61AG.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for that division will be 30 seconds, and thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Unusually, I am not sure whether your microphone is on. I am having considerable difficulty hearing you, which might be a bit awkward as the afternoon progresses.
Thank you, Mr Carlaw. I will take the muffler off my microphone; apparently I am usually very loud. I will try to speak more into the microphone, and perhaps members could do that as well. We will also ask for the sound to be checked.
Section 2—Meaning of “young carer”
Group 1 is on the meaning of “young carer”. Amendment 21, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would never have dreamed of putting a muffler on your microphone.
Amendment 21 was lodged because of concerns from the Scottish Youth Parliament and organisations that support young carers. Currently, if a young carer reaches the age of 18 while they are at school, the support that they receive as a young carer continues until the end of the school year. Thereafter they move to adult services.
That is not the case for young carers who are in further or higher education. The amendment would ensure that young carers who are receiving support while in college or university will continue to receive it for the academic year in which they turn 18. It is very important that young carers do not face disruption in college or university while they are learning and caring at the same time. The amendment would provide them with a degree of stability at that point.
I move amendment 21.
The definition of young carer that is presently on the face of the bill aligns with the named person service provisions as set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Ms Grant’s amendment would extend the definition of young carer beyond the age of 18 and in some cases to the age of 22, 23 or older, depending on when their course ends, which would take the young carer well into adulthood.
Extending the definition of young carer in the Carers (Scotland) Bill will create a misalignment with other legislation. For example the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 makes no statutory provision for the continuation of the child’s plan after the age of 18.
Having spoken with Ms Grant, I understand that her amendment is motivated by a shared aspiration. I recognise the need to manage effectively the transition between young carer statements and adult care support plans. That is why there is a safeguarding provision in section 16. It provides that, where a young carer statement is in place, it will continue after the age of 18 until an adult carer support plan is provided. That provision provides young carers with the knowledge that their support will continue in advance of any adult carer support plan being put in place.
I want to ensure that the transition from young carer to adult carer and, accordingly, from a young carer statement to an adult carer support plan, is not unduly delayed, with a negative impact on the young carer. Therefore I envisage using the regulation-making powers in section 14 to set a trigger for a review of the young carer statement in the period approaching the young carer’s 18th birthday, but also, crucially, to take account of the need not to cause duress to the young carer. Where, for instance, a young carer is in the middle of their school examination period, it is important that they face no disruption as a consequence of the review.
I am committed to ensuring that regulations reflect that. I expect the review also to include consideration of the young carer’s ability and willingness to sustain the caring role as they move into further or higher education. My ambition is that we support carers to achieve their full potential, just as we aspire to do that for all Scotland’s young people. That being the case, and given that amendment 21 would result in inconsistent arrangements with other legislation, I respectfully ask Ms Grant to withdraw amendment 21.
Given the reassurances that regulations will cover the point that amendment 21 would deal with, I would like to withdraw it.
Amendment 21, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 6—Duty to prepare adult carer support plan
Group 2 is on the exercise of functions and taking account of equalities matters. Amendment 1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 3, 5, 7 and 15.
These amendments arose from evidence about the needs of carers from different ethnic backgrounds. The way in which support is provided to carers has sometimes proved to be a barrier to those from different cultural backgrounds. Sensitivities with regard to culture and religious beliefs must be factored in. With an ageing population, we need to be aware of language difficulties. Stay-at-home parents, who often are caregivers, might not have had the opportunity to develop their use of the English language, so we need to ensure that they get information in a way that is accessible to them.
I am grateful to the minister for working with me on these amendments, and for the guidance and support of MECOPP—the Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project—which was keen that the bill should recognise the special needs of those with protected characteristics.
I move amendment 1.
I thank Ms Grant for lodging the amendments. As she said, we worked together between stages 2 and 3 to ensure that the amendments reinforce the importance of taking into account the needs of those in protected groups and make a meaningful difference to adult or young carers with one or more of the protected characteristics that are set out in the Equality Act 2010.
The amendments to sections 6 and 11 will mean that local authorities will need to consider whether the practical arrangements that they put in place for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements take into account any particular needs that the carer has as a result of having one or more of the protected characteristics. For example, a hearing impaired carer might need alternative arrangements to conducting by telephone the discussion on the adult carer support plan or the young carer statement discussion, and a carer with mobility limitations might need a home visit.
The amendments to sections 7 and 12 relate to the process of identifying a carer’s personal outcomes and needs for support. The amendments require the local authority to take into account the potential impact that having one or more of the protected characteristics might have on the carer. A carer with mobility limitations who assists a cared-for person with washing, for example, might have different needs from those of a carer who provides similar care but does not have mobility limitations.
Amendment 15 to section 31 will require the local authority to identify, as part of the information and advice service, information and advice that is likely to be of particular relevance to carers in protected groups.
I am pleased to support the amendments in this group and I thank Ms Grant for lodging them.
I thank the minister for those comments. These amendments are very important.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Group 3 is on the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements in relation to the delegation of functions. Amendment 22, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 25.
Amendments 22 and 25 make it possible for a local authority to allow a voluntary organisation or indeed any other organisation to complete the adult carer support plan or the young carer statement. That would mean that the organisation that was working most closely with the carer and which has the best insight into their situation could prepare the plan or statement. That would be particularly helpful to young carers who have a support worker or who take part in a young carers support group. It would also be helpful to those with protected characteristics who could have an organisation that understands their personal situation complete the plan or statement.
I move amendment 22.
I fully support the intention behind the amendments. I see great merit in carer centres and other third sector organisations being involved in the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. Rhoda Grant set out a couple of examples of why that might be appropriate. It should be said that such organisations are already doing a good job of carrying out carers assessments in some areas. I should of course add that local authorities more often than not do a good job in relation to those processes, too.
Having said that I support the intention behind the amendments, I have to say that there is no need for them. That is because section 35, “Assistance by voluntary organisations etc”, already allows local authorities to make arrangements with organisations that can assist with the carrying out of those functions. It does that by way of an amendment to section 4 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. That provision allows local authorities to make arrangements with voluntary organisations, other people or other local authorities to assist in the performance of listed functions. Section 35 of the bill amends the list of functions in section 4 of the 1968 act in order to cover functions under parts 2 and 6 of this bill, including the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements.
Crucially—this is why I oppose the amendments and hope that Rhoda Grant will withdraw them—amendments 22 and 25 would cast doubt on a local authority’s ability to make similar arrangements with the third sector in relation to other functions under the bill, or, indeed, other social care functions. For example, the responsible local authority might want the third sector to be involved in the establishment and maintenance of an information and advice service and the provision of support to carers. If we emphasise the third sector’s role in one area alone, that could lead to a danger of a legal interpretation that concluded that that was the only area in which the Parliament wanted functions to be delegated to the third sector. I do not believe that that is the outcome that Rhoda Grant hoped for.
I certainly appreciate that there are concerns about delegation and conflicts of interests and about whether the third sector can offer the self-directed support options and so on. It is my intention to issue comprehensive guidance on the matter. The national carers organisations, local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others will, of course, be involved in the production of the guidance.
Having said that I support the intention behind the amendments, I hope that Rhoda Grant will recognise the potential dangers behind the amendments, accept the concerns that I have set out and agree to withdraw amendment 22 and not move amendment 25.
I have listened carefully to what the minister has said. Given his reassurance that section 25 covers the matter, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 22.
Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 6A—Adult carers of terminally ill cared-for persons
The next group of amendments concerns timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 23, 6 and 26.
Amendments 2 and 6 are designed to provide absolute clarity about our intentions: they replace “may” with “must” in sections 6A and 11A, so that those sections will read:
“The Scottish Ministers must by regulations prescribe timescales for the preparation of”
adult carer support plans and young carer statements in relation to carers of terminally ill cared-for persons.
It has always been my intention to bring forward such regulations, since we amended the bill at stage 2, but I hope that those regulations put beyond doubt the sincerity of such intentions. There will, of course, be a consultation on the draft regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Again, I give a commitment to ensure that relevant stakeholders—COSLA, local government, carers and their representative organisations—are involved in that process.
14:15The effect of amendments 23 and 26 to sections 6A and 11A respectively, combined with the effects of the existing provisions, would be that the Scottish ministers would be required to set timescales for all adult carer support plans and young carer statements and would be allowed to make different provision for plans and statements when the cared-for person was terminally ill. I understand the intention behind the amendments but, as I set out at stage 2, I am not persuaded that setting general timescales for the preparation of all adult carer support plans and young carer statements is appropriate. Doing so could result in local authorities having to devote a disproportionate amount of their resources to preparing plans in order to meet the timescales, which could limit the resources that might otherwise be available for the provision of support. There is also a risk that local authorities’ focus might shift away from the completion of good-quality plans. Because of the timescales set for some carers, the preparation of a plan will be an iterative process rather than a one-off intervention.
Nevertheless, I understand that carers will want an indication of approximately how long it will take to prepare an adult carer support plan or young carer statement. There is, therefore, already provision in the bill, in 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. That provision has been in the bill since it was first presented to Parliament. I therefore ask that amendments 23 and 26 not be moved.
I move amendment 2.
I welcome the Government’s amendments, which strengthen the wording in the bill. My amendments 23 and 26 make it clear that the Scottish Government can set timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. I have listened to what the minister said in moving amendment 2 about the strategy having to include timescales. The real concern is that those timescales might not provide the support that carers and young carers require when they need it. I ask him what steps he will take if the strategies that come forward contain timescales that are not really helpful to carers. What will he do to make sure that carers have statements and plans in a timely fashion?
I thank Rhoda Grant for her question, which is a fair one. I re-emphasise the point that I made in my opening remarks, that, since the bill was first presented to Parliament, there has been provision in the bill that, in each area, as part of the local carers strategy, carers should have an indication of how long the assessment process will take. I understand the point that Rhoda Grant makes but I hope that I have been clear, throughout stages 1 and 2, that much of this can be covered in the guidance that we issue. There will be different requirements, given the different circumstances that carers find themselves in, and local authorities will have to take account of that fact in prioritising those who have to be seen promptly, ensuring that the support is in place quickly thereafter. I think that guidance can cover a lot of that.
As I said in my opening remarks, a blunt instrument such as is proposed in these amendments—for very good reasons; Rhoda Grant’s intention is clear—could lead to a disproportionate amount of resources being allocated to meeting timescales instead of providing support, and that is the last thing that any of us in this chamber would want. I hope that I have been able to reassure Ms Grant. For all the guidance that we issue under the bill, there will be a co-operative process that will involve the carers and their representative organisations, ensuring that their voice is heard.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment 23 not moved.
Section 7—Adult carers: identification of outcomes and needs for support
Amendment 3 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Content of adult carer support plan
Group 5 is on information about future arrangements, including bereavement support. Amendment 4, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 24, 8, 27 and 14.
Amendments 4 and 8 seek to allow for the planning statement to contain information on the future care arrangements for a cared-for person. We will all have casework from elderly parents looking after adult offspring who are likely to outlive them, and we will have heard their concerns and worries about who will look after their children once they are gone or when they are no longer fit to provide care. The same is true of young people who reach a transitional time in their lives. What will happen when they go to college or university or when they decide that they need to leave home? In order for a carer to plan and prepare for the future, those aspects of their role need to be covered in their plan or the statements.
Amendments 24, 27 and 14 deal with support for carers who suffer bereavement. Carers often tell us about the impact of the death of their loved one; not only do they have to suffer that bereavement, but they find that the support that had been there disappears almost immediately. Some who have been caring for a very long time have stopped working and neglected friendships, and they therefore find themselves very isolated. Their carers allowance stops, and they are often in financial difficulties. It is important that, as bereavement comes closer, plans and statements reflect that fact and ensure that some preparation is made in that respect.
We must also ensure that there is appropriate support for the carer when bereavement happens, and amendment 14 ensures that advice and information centres also provide carers with bereavement support.
I move amendment 4.
I speak in support of amendments 14, 24 and 27. When a carer loses a loved one or someone to whom they have become emotionally attached through caring for them through a terminal illness, the experience can be devastating and leave the carer feeling quite abandoned and bereft. There are many practical as well as emotional issues to cope with after such a loss, including dealing with financial matters, navigating the benefits system and perhaps getting back into employment, and being able to discuss such matters and getting ready access to available information can make the transition from a life of caring to a normal life easier and less stressful. The amendments in question will facilitate that by requiring local authorities to include bereavement support as part of the adult carer support plans and young carer statements, so I am happy to support them.
I want to highlight the importance of carers centres in providing continued support to carers who have suffered bereavement. Many of those centres, including south-west Glasgow carers centre in my constituency, provide that service and support instinctively, and I have seen for myself evidence of carers who have continued to be supported by them. The question is how those centres can be fully supported to do the work that they know needs to be done, and that is not just a matter of legislation, but a question of giving them support.
Secondly, I seek some reassurance. There is no doubt that elderly parents with a child who has, for example, a learning disability know that there will come a time when they are not there, and they will want support for their child or loved one. Too often, however, dealing with that issue is left until a death happens and there is a crisis. What steps can be taken to ensure that such planning is done early and that there is provision in which parents can have the confidence that allows an individual to move into different kinds of supported accommodation while their parents are still around to support them in that change? Too often it feels that we respond to the crisis that arises instead of planning for the inevitability of the event, and I think that it would reassure a lot of elderly carers if that intervention happened earlier.
I thank Ms Grant for lodging these amendments. I recognise that future care planning is just as important as emergency care planning to a carer’s health and wellbeing. Carers might not be able to provide care in the long term, perhaps as a result of illness, old age or a change in circumstances, including the circumstances that members have touched on in which an elderly person, aware that they will pass on, is concerned about the future arrangements for their loved one.
The knowledge that future care plans are in place for a time when the carer can no longer care can bring peace of mind. Amendments 4 and 8 therefore make provision in sections 8 and 13 that the adult carer support plan and the young carer statement must contain information about whether the adult or young carer has arrangements in place for the future care of the cared-for person. On that basis, I am delighted to support the amendments, which mirror existing provisions in the bill on emergency care planning,
On amendments 24 and 27, in Rhoda Grant’s name, on bereavement support, it is difficult and even devastating when the carer’s role comes to an end. The focus of the bill is on assessing need and providing support to current carers and those who intend to care in the near future. The bill takes a personal outcomes approach to assessment of need for, and provision of, support. Therefore, if a carer anticipates a need for bereavement support in advance of the demise of the cared-for person—as can often be the case, depending on circumstances—that can be considered as part of the adult carer support plan or the young carer statement process. That could be appropriate in circumstances in which the cared-for person has a terminal illness, for example.
The carer may also be affected by the prospect of the cared-for person’s death such that their own health and wellbeing suffer and they cannot care. Counselling before the cared-for person’s death could help the carer to prepare and so be in a better position to provide care while the cared-for person is still alive. Such support can already be considered in the context of the adult carer support plan and young carer statement under the bill, so on that basis I do not believe that amendments 24 and 27 are necessary.
There is also an issue in respect of the definition of the term “carer”. Section 1 defines a carer as
“an individual who provides or intends to provide care for another individual (the ‘cared-for’ person)”.
Rhoda Grant’s amendments 24 and 27 are intended to introduce to the assessment process the provision of information and advice on support that is available to former carers after bereavement. That is not possible under the current definition of carer, because the carer ceases to be a carer when the cared-for person dies. To accept the amendments we would need to widen the definition of carer, which would fundamentally change the nature and scope of the bill, and its focus, from the assessment of the needs of and provision of support to the carer so that the carer can sustain the caring role, to include assessment of need and provision of support to people who are no longer carers.
Does the minister recognise that there is a continuum for a person who has cared for, cares for and then loses someone? Because they are living with the consequences of having been a carer, support for that person should continue to the point at which he or she is ready to move on. Caring does not just stop at the point of the cared-for person’s passing; there are ramifications that can go on for longer. We would be concerned if it is being suggested that that is a logical cut-off point. I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that the amendments simply acknowledge that there is a time after bereavement when the person is, in effect, still the carer because they are dealing with the consequences of loss.
I absolutely agree with the point that Johann Lamont has made. I suppose that my point is that we are not just expressing sentiments, but are making the law. There could be problems with the workability. The issue that I raised previously in relation to other amendments—which we are happy to support—in Rhoda Grant’s name, on future planning, deal with the concerns that Johann Lamont has very reasonably expressed.
I was about to come on to amendment 14, which I think will also take care of some of that concern, but I am happy to give way to Rhoda Grant.
I am listening carefully to what the minister is saying. Does he think that it would be appropriate to put in place guidance for local authorities to ensure that the care and support that would be required after the death of a cared-for person are there? That way the definition of carer in the bill would not be affected.
Again, I am quite happy to reflect on that suggestion. It is essential that we have good guidance that covers all eventualities. I have clearly made the point that the assessment process should be very much focused on the needs of the individual carer. My remarks on amendments 4 and 8, on future care planning, take care of the concerns that have been expressed. If we need to finesse provision through guidance, I am very happy to commit to our seeking to do so. I have also made a wider commitment to engage with carers and their representative organisations, which will help us to get guidance right.
14:30I am happy to say that we will support amendment 14, which was lodged by Rhoda Grant. It is important that carers can access information and advice, when they need it, on the bereavement support services that are available to them in the event of the cared-for person’s death. The information and advice service to which the amendment refers is available to all, including those who have been bereaved, without us having to tinker with the definition of carer, which could cause difficulties elsewhere. I believe that that availability takes care of the reasonable concerns that underlie amendments 24 and 27.
The information and advice service can signpost the excellent bereavement support services that are already generally available. Those include the information pack on “What to do after a death in Scotland: practical advice for times of bereavement”, which has been developed to help people through the first few days of a bereavement and is widely used across the NHS, and the bereavement zone section of the NHS inform website, which offers a lot of a practical advice on what to do after a death and on coping with grief. Both of those services offer specific advice for children and young people, which young carers may find particularly helpful.
On Johann Lamont’s point about income maximisation, that is another role for information and advice services, which I re-emphasise will be available to all, including those who could be defined—and whom I would recognise—as bereaved carers in a general sense but whom we cannot define legally as carers in the bill. National services such as Breathing Space and Cruse Bereavement Care Scotland are available to those who need someone to talk to.
I support amendments 4, 8 and 14. I support the sentiments that were expressed in relation to amendments 24 and 27, but I am concerned about their workability. On that basis, and given the clear commitments that I have set out on guidance and the workability of the other amendments that we are supporting, I respectfully ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendments 24 and 27.
I listened carefully to what the minister said about amendments 24 and 27, as I know that we are all concerned about the support that carers get when they face a bereavement. I am pleased that the minister recognises that amendments 4 and 8 cover bereavement planning, and that he will issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that they understand that.
I am pleased that we have worked together on amendments regarding future planning. The bill makes it clear that a carer must be willing to care, and that can change in the future depending on the burden on the carer. I therefore press amendment 4.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment 24 not moved.
Section 11—Duty to prepare young carer statement
Amendment 5 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.
Amendment 25 not moved.
Section 11A—Young carers of terminally ill cared-for persons
Amendment 6 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendment 26 not moved.
Section 12—Young carers: identification of outcomes and needs for support
Amendment 7 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.
Section 13—Content of young carer statement
Amendment 8 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.
Amendment 27 not moved.
Section 19—Duty to set local eligibility criteria
Group 6 is on local eligibility criteria: role of the Scottish ministers. Amendment 28, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 29 to 31. I point out that amendment 29 pre-empts amendments 30 and 31, and that amendment 30 pre-empts amendment 31.
With this group of amendments, I am giving the Parliament a range of options on how to deal with concerns about local eligibility criteria. Carers are extremely concerned that there will be a postcode lottery, with different local authorities offering support to different categories of carers. I believe that carers with the greatest need must receive support regardless of where they live. The nature of the support that they require will obviously change depending on their personal circumstances and on where they live, so it cannot be prescribed nationally, but there can be national prescription with a commitment to provide support to those with the most need. My amendments 28 to 31 seek to do that in different ways, so members have a choice.
Amendment 28, which is my preferred amendment, states that
“the Scottish Ministers must by regulations specify”
which carers must receive support. I firmly believe that carers who are in danger of being unable to continue their caring role, or who are unable to do so without support, must be given priority nationally. Amendment 29 would allow ministers to make national regulations in the same vein but, unlike amendment 28, it would not oblige them to do so.
Amendment 30 is even less prescriptive. It seeks to ensure that local authorities must comply with nationally set regulations rather than simply have regard to them. Amendment 31 is consequential to amendment 28.
I apologise to the chamber for the complexity of the amendments in this group, but they provide the Parliament with a choice. Given that they deal with one of the main concerns of carers groups, I urge the Parliament to support the principle.
I move amendment 28.
I understand the concerns that exist—I, too, was concerned about the issue. What has become clear in my time in the Parliament is that there is quite a lack of confidence among many service users, particularly members of disabled groups, that local authorities will deliver the services that they are entitled to unless that is prescribed by Parliament. They look to Parliament to protect them.
I do not want to introduce an element of discord, but there is a lack of honesty when certain members of the Opposition constantly demand local democracy and local decision taking, but talk about postcode lotteries when local authorities are given the freedom to choose.
I turn to the amendments themselves. I note the lengths to which the Government has gone to address the concerns of carer organisations. From having spoken to people in the sector, I think that the minister has gone far enough to address those concerns. Section 19(4) says:
“A local authority must, when setting its local eligibility criteria, have regard among other things to such matters as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations specify.”
Section 21, on national eligibility criteria, states that
“Regulations under this section may modify any enactment (including this Act).”
Obviously, eligibility criteria will be set by the local authorities with reference to national core principles.
Crucially, what reassures me is the fact that the bill makes further provision for national eligibility criteria to be set, and in the event that the local eligibility criteria are not working, ministers can intervene. It would be useful for the minister to tell us when he thinks that it might be appropriate for him to intervene and how likely it is that that will happen, in order to reassure some of the people who are concerned that local authorities will not deliver what is in the guidelines.
I rise to respond to what Joan McAlpine said. I recognise that there is a tension between establishing national rights and having local control and local ability to respond to local events. That has always been a tension, and we have to recognise that there are merits to having that level of flexibility at a local level.
I seek reassurance from the minister that there are basic standards of rights, so that there is not such a lottery between having very significant entitlement or none whatsoever. There are basic things that families should be able to expect.
I also ask the minister to reflect on the critical centrality of proper and full funding, to ensure that people’s rights are delivered. That is the way to ensure local flexibility, rather than having rationing that is caused by the lack of resources provided to local government.
On the last point made by Johann Lamont, I note that a financial memorandum must of course accompany any bill. When the bill’s provisions are fully in place, they will be accompanied by a substantial pocket of funding of some £80 million. That is the amount that the Scottish Government is providing to support the bill’s provisions. We will fund the bill.
The purpose of the amendments in this group seems to be to combine local and national eligibility criteria. That reflects a debate that has been taking place throughout the bill process. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by the national carer organisations, which have clearly been in dialogue with Ms Grant, as is their right.
Having what appears to be hybrid local and national eligibility criteria could cause difficulty with local implementation. I am not convinced that that is the right way to go about setting eligibility criteria. The bill requires a local authority to set local eligibility criteria after consulting carer organisations and carers—most of those carers will live in the local authority’s area.
Rhoda Grant spoke about support needing to go where there is the greatest need. Her amendments do not set out anything about the greatest need; they deal with “a category”. The notion of “greatest need” could itself be open to much interpretation.
However, there might be some creative, meaningful ways of having local thresholds for support. For instance, there is the opportunity to consider the concept of a threshold that is drawn in a more nuanced way than simply saying that everyone above a certain line must receive support and everyone below it does not have to receive it.
As I have previously made clear, I want to work with all key interests, including the national carer organisations, COSLA and local authorities, to ensure the workability of local criteria. Having local eligibility criteria does not mean having unnecessary variation in the approaches taken to them. We will work with local authorities on a consensual basis regarding the criteria. During 2016-17, before the bill is commenced, we will work with COSLA, local authorities, the national carer organisations and carers themselves to share ideas and views about eligibility criteria.
The aim, of course, is for local authorities to learn about eligibility criteria from one another and from other bodies before they undertake consultation with bodies that represent carers. The involvement of carers is specified in the bill, as I said.
Section 19(4) states:
“A local authority must, when setting its local eligibility criteria, have regard among other things to such matters as the Scottish Ministers may by regulation specify.”
That provides ministers with scope to make regulations to strengthen the consistency of approach, where that is needed.
I have said to the national carer organisations that I am greatly impressed with the matrix showing
“examples of indicators”
and the
“impact on and risk to carers’ outcomes”
that is in their draft framework for national eligibility thresholds. Those indicators will be considered among national matters to be set out in regulations and guidance. We will ensure that local eligibility criteria are overlaid by matters that will be set out on a national basis. I believe that that is the right balance.
Neil Findlay, who is not here to hear me praise him—
Members: Oh no!
I know that it is unusual; I assure members that I will try not to make a habit of it. Mr Findlay made an important point during the stage 1 debate when he said:
“Some people suggest national criteria; others suggest local criteria. Whichever they are, the criteria must be effective”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2015; c 80.]
I agree with that statement. I believe that what is important is the outcome, rather than the mechanism.
14:45The bill includes a power in section 21 for ministers to make regulations setting out national eligibility criteria. That is a reserve position—a fallback, if you like. Joan McAlpine asked me about the circumstances in which we would consider using such regulations. I hope that the Government does not have to use them. COSLA wanted that section to be removed from the bill, but it remains in it. We will monitor the efficacy of the approach in the bill of using local eligibility criteria, and I will have no hesitation in using the power and instituting national eligibility criteria if that is found to be necessary.
On the basis of all that I have set out, I urge Rhoda Grant to seek to withdraw amendment 28 and not move amendments 29 to 31. Otherwise, I urge the Parliament to reject the amendments.
The amendments get to the very core of the concerns about the bill, which is the gap in funding. COSLA tells us that, even before the £0.5 billion cut in their budget that local authorities face, the funding that is to be provided for the bill will be inadequate to cover its costs. Of course, carers groups are concerned, too, because they believe that, without the funding, the bill will not have the impact that it is supposed to have. COSLA is keen to support carers, but without the funding to do so, it feels that the funding that goes into carers support will come out of funding for the cared-for person, which will then put the onus back on the unpaid carer to provide support.
With regard to the prescription about those most in need, I would have hoped that the minister would prioritise their needs when setting national criteria and that that would not be in the bill.
I urge the Parliament to support amendment 28, which will make a big difference in guaranteeing carers some level of support.
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, I will suspend proceedings for five minutes. Thereafter, on resuming, divisions will be of 30 seconds.
14:48 Meeting suspended.
We move to the division on amendment 28.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 48, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Amendment 29 moved—[Rhoda Grant].
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Amendment 30 moved—[Rhoda Grant].
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 30 disagreed to.
Amendment 31 not moved.
Section 23—Provision of support to carers: breaks from caring.
The next group of amendments is on provision of support: breaks from caring. Amendment 32, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 9, 33 and 34.
Amendment 32 makes it clear that a break from caring must be for the benefit of the carer. We often hear of respite breaks being taken to accommodate other aspects of a carer’s life rather than to give them a rest. The worst case that I have ever heard of, which I make no apology for repeating—[Interruption.]
Order. Members must hold their conversations outside the chamber.
The case was of a mother with an adult daughter who was given respite to allow her to have a major operation. When she left the hospital, she was told that she needed a couple of months to convalesce and should not lift or bend. When she arrived home, the two replacement carers left. She asked for additional support but was told that her annual allocation for respite had been used up while she was in hospital.
That is not acceptable. Replacement care must be provided when a carer needs to attend to their own health, but their break from caring must be just that—a break from caring.
I support amendments 9, 33 and 34. I move amendment 32.
I do not believe that amendment 32 is required, for a number of reasons. Section 23(1) of the bill makes it clear that support may be provided in the form of a break from caring when that is to meet the carer’s identified needs, rather than those of the cared-for person. If amendment 32 were to be agreed to, the local authority—and in some circumstances the court—would have to consider what the primary purpose of a particular form of support was. The phrasing of the amendment also implies that there could be secondary purposes.
The structure of the bill has been carefully thought through: support is determined on the basis of a consideration of personal outcomes, identified needs, eligibility criteria and the interaction between carer and cared-for support. That makes it clear that any support must be designed to achieve the agreed personal outcomes. I am concerned that introducing the idea of a primary purpose would risk confusing the issue.
15:00If Rhoda Grant’s intention is that local authorities should provide what might be considered proper breaks, I am not sure whether the amendment would achieve that. It says that
“The primary purpose of any break ... must be for the benefit of the carer.”
Getting to a necessary medical appointment would be for the benefit of the carer, but it is not necessarily what we would want to achieve through such provisions and it might have nothing at all to do with the carer’s personal outcomes or identified needs.
Such wording would leave it open for a council to say to a carer, “You may claim that this is for your benefit, but we do not think that that is the primary purpose,” and refuse to provide the break to the carer. That is not an outcome that I desire or that Ms Grant desires. We all want to ensure that a carer whose personal outcome is to have some time to himself or herself to recharge his or her batteries gets that through support that delivers some genuine protected time, rather than time that would be taken up with routine appointments and tasks such as medical appointments.
The aim seems to come down to having a process to ensure that the support that is provided is capable of delivering the outcome in practice. We will consider whether it might be possible to use the regulation-making powers in sections 7 and 12, which relate to personal outcomes and needs for support, to help achieve that. On that basis, I ask Rhoda Grant to withdraw amendment 32.
Amendment 9 concerns a minor drafting point. It is designed to tidy the wording of the bill following amendment at stage 2.
Turning to Nanette Milne’s amendment 33, I have heard from the national carer organisations and often from carers that carers like to know that they have breaks planned in advance. Amendment 33 would ensure that local authorities
“must have regard to the desirability of breaks from caring being provided on a planned basis.”
Amendment 34 would help to ensure that a sufficient choice of short breaks is available to carers in each local authority area. Emphasising section 19(2) of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 in the bill would provide clarity for local authorities and other service providers that local authorities should be promoting a variety of support and support providers that deliver a break from caring.
I am committed to working collaboratively with key stakeholders on the production of the guidance that would underpin the provisions in amendments 33 and 34. On that basis, I support amendments 33 and 34 in Nanette Milne’s name and I ask Rhoda Grant to seek to withdraw amendment 32, given the concerns that I have set out.
Amendments 33 and 34 are intended to help make the breaks from caring that may be delivered through support under the bill more effective. Section 23(1) of the bill requires that
“A local authority, in determining which support to provide to a carer under section 22(4), must consider in particular whether the support should take the form of or include a break from caring.”
Amendment 33 would mean that, in providing support by virtue of subsection (1),
“a local authority must have regard to the desirability of breaks from caring being provided on a planned basis.”
The benefits of properly planned breaks for carers are clear. They have certainty about when they will have breaks, which provides peace of mind, as they know that they have breaks to look forward to.
Amendment 33 would not prevent breaks from being provided for immediate need, perhaps in response to a crisis situation, as well as enabling provision over a period of time. Section 19 of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 concerns the promotion of options for self-directed support.
Amendment 34 would insert a new subsection in section 23 of the bill, which is on the provision of support to carers by providing breaks from caring. That would put it beyond doubt that section 19(2) of the 2013 act includes support that takes the form of a break from caring. I know that carer organisations would welcome that, to make clear the policy intention that local authorities should promote a variety of options for services that provide such breaks, including services that are provided by the local authority directly and those from other service providers.
I would like local authorities to encourage the provision of all forms of support in the community, including short breaks. For example, if local authorities know that there are play schemes for children that could do more to make themselves accessible to disabled children by employing specialist play workers, which would provide a break for the carers of disabled children, they could promote the possibility of play workers.
The example that Rhoda Grant gave clearly indicates why her amendment 32 is required. I will wait to hear what she has to say in response to the minister’s comments.
Two members have indicated that they wish to speak to the group. I ask them to be brief.
I do not wish to speak to the group.
In that case, I have one member who wishes to speak. Mr Hume, do you wish to speak to the group?
I do. I am very supportive of the principle behind amendment 32. I would like to ensure that any rights that are given to carers do not create conditions whereby cared-for people receive a quality or quantity of care that is less than they need and deserve. Of course, the purpose of the bill is to enshrine and strengthen carers’ rights, and I will support amendments that do so. However, I would like some clarification of how amendment 32 would give carers an appropriate type and length of break without leaving cared-for people with less care than they need. I look forward to receiving some clarification from Rhoda Grant.
We will support the amendments in the names of Rhoda Grant and the minister.
I will respond first to Jim Hume’s comments. The bill makes it clear that replacement care will be provided when the unpaid carer takes a break. That provision is already there. If an unpaid carer gets a break, they can choose either to take the cared-for person with them and maybe get some additional help or to get support to replace the care that they would normally give.
I listened carefully to what the minister said about regulations, and I would very much welcome his putting such provisions in regulations. The bill is rather a blunt instrument for them, given that carers and the people for whom they care are individuals and the support that they need can take various forms. I believe that regulations would make the position clear and would probably be better than having something about such support in the bill. Because of that, I will not press amendment 32.
I support Nanette Milne’s amendment 33, as advance planning of breaks is really important in ensuring that the carer gets the most benefit from them.
Amendment 32, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 9 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Nanette Milne]—and agreed to.
After section 24
That brings us to group 8, on eligibility for support: review. Amendment 35, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 36, 46 and 47.
Amendment 35 would build into the bill a review and appeals process that means that, when a carer believes that their need is not being met in their plan or statement, they can ask for a review of the decision. The amendment would allow ministers to set out the process and timescale for the reviews in regulations, and it would allow a shorter timescale for reviews when a carer is looking after someone who is terminally ill. Those reviews would happen when a carer believes that something has been missed that could be easily resolved, but they would not take the place of a complaints procedure.
I move amendment 35.
My amendment 36 is designed to offer two things when a carer is told that they do not meet the eligibility criteria for support: first, clarity as to why the decision was arrived at, and secondly, a process for review and appeal in a less onerous way than under Rhoda Grant’s amendment 35. Carers’ lives are complex. Carers can travel great distances and have other dependants who rely on them. It is important that we do everything that we can to support carers and, if they are eligible for support, to put in place a process to deliver that support. I accept that there might be other means of achieving that, so I look forward to what the minister has to say.
I thank Ms Grant and Mr Carlaw for lodging their amendments. I absolutely accept Mr Carlaw’s point about the necessity for clear information on any decision that has been made. We can deal with that through guidance, which we will work on as we implement the bill. The point was well made: whatever decision is made, the carer should know the rationale behind it.
I agree that it is important to have a mechanism through which carers can seek to have decisions reviewed. The Scottish Government has recently consulted on a draft order about social work complaints. The role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman under the revised process in that order will extend to decisions made under the bill, including decisions about whether an individual carer’s identified needs meet the local eligibility criteria.
The intention under the draft order is that the SPSO will set out a model complaints-handling procedure—including timescales—that local authorities must follow. As part of the process, any carer could first ask for a decision to be reviewed within the local authority, as well as ultimately having redress to the ombudsman as required. A more senior council officer would be required to undertake the review. If a carer remained dissatisfied thereafter, they could go to the SPSO, which would have the power to investigate the matter—that would include considering the professional judgment of social work staff—and to make recommendations to the local authority on decisions that it makes.
The draft order has been laid and is being considered by the Health and Sport Committee. We expect that committee to report in time for the Parliament to decide whether to approve the order before the end of March. If we assume that Parliament approves the order—I sincerely hope that it will—the new procedures will operate from 1 April 2017, which is the beginning of the financial year in which the bill will take effect.
For some time, carers have been calling for a more streamlined and timely complaints procedure through which the SPSO can make recommendations about social work staff. The changes that I have outlined will deliver what carers have been seeking and will deliver the essence of what the amendments in the group seek. On that basis, I ask Ms Grant to seek to withdraw amendment 35 and not to move amendment 46, and I ask Mr Carlaw not to move the amendments in his name.
I believe that the appeals process that the minister outlined will work for carers, so I seek to withdraw amendment 35.
Amendment 35, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 36 not moved.
Group 9 is on reporting on support and scrutiny of support services. Amendment 37, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 38.
Amendment 37 sets out a three-yearly reporting process that will allow the Scottish ministers to review the bill’s impact. It provides that local authorities must report on the number of plans and statements that they have prepared, and the number of short breaks that have been provided and the cost of that support. Reporting every third year cuts down costs and allows time for the bill to bed in. More important, it will give a transparent account of how the bill is working.
Amendment 38 seeks to bring support services for carers under the jurisdiction of the Care Inspectorate. Carers need support, and that support needs to be of good quality. A number of carers will themselves be vulnerable and will require high-quality services that are suitable to their needs; we need a mechanism to ensure that they get those, and the Care Inspectorate is the most suitable independent body that is available.
I move amendment 37.
15:15
In relation to amendment 38, the provision of a service becomes more effective when the right measurement tools are in place to show the benefit and cost analysis. I note that the national carer organisations caution that amendment 38 may be difficult to implement, because a lot of the support that will be provided could be non-quantifiable, such as emotional support. Although there may be benefits that can potentially be measured, the amendment may be placing too much pressure on reaching certain thresholds and obtaining good review results, rather than focusing all efforts on public services to provide the best support possible. I would like Rhoda Grant to address that issue.
We will, of course, support amendment 37.
I will reply to the amendments in Rhoda Grant’s name. As she has set out, amendment 37 would place a duty on local authorities to publish a report providing details on how certain provisions of the bill have been put into practice. I understand that the aim is to establish monitoring data, including on the number of breaks from caring that have been provided as a form of support. I fully agree that it is important to have access to data in order to monitor and evaluate the bill’s implementation, but I do not believe that amendment 37 would produce the result that we are looking for.
Amendment 37 is about the collection of quantitative data. However, it does not take account of, for example, the number of carers in the area in order to provide a context for the number of plans prepared. There is a concern that the amendment could simultaneously be too narrow in the criteria to be assessed and the data to be collected, and too broad in the range of data to be collected on that narrow range of identified criteria. The amendment would also require the timing of the preparation and publication of the first report on support to be calculated by reference to the date of royal assent, not the date when the provisions relating to adult care support plans, young carer statements and the provision of support come into effect.
Although I agree with the commendable aim of amendment 37, there is in my view a better way to achieve that aim. We want to sit down with COSLA, local authorities, the national carer organisations and others to discuss and agree the type of important monitoring data to be gathered. The finance advisory group that I have established is also considering what baseline data to collect for 2016-17. There will be monitoring and evaluation of the bill’s provisions—Ms Grant and other members can be assured of that—but I consider it important to get the bodies that I have mentioned around the table to agree the process fully on the basis that I have set out.
Will the data that is gathered be published and made available to the Parliament to scrutinise?
I am entirely relaxed about committing to that end. I see no reason for us not to share that data publicly and make it available to the Parliament. There is nothing to fear in doing so, so I readily commit to that.
The point that I am making is that it is important that we ensure that what we are seeking to monitor is right. We still need to engage in dialogue with those who will be involved in that process of monitoring the bill’s efficacy before we are in a position to say exactly what data it is that we will need to collect.
On that basis, I hope that Ms Grant will withdraw amendment 37. I hope that the commitment to make public the information that is gathered will reassure her.
Rhoda Grant’s amendment 38 appears to be intended to ensure that services that are provided to carers are brought within the definition of care services in part 5 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. All such services, including those that are provided by carer centres and others in the third sector under this bill would therefore be subject to Care Inspectorate registration and inspection.
I agree that it is important that carer services are fit for purpose and delivered to a good standard. However, I think that Mr Hume's comments were very well made. Work also needs to be done to investigate thoroughly and resolve policy issues such as working with stakeholders to understand the implications for carer services of Care Inspectorate registration; it may not be appropriate or necessary to register all carer services with the Care Inspectorate. I want to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the resources that are required for registration and reporting and the resources that are available for the delivery of quality carer services. I am sure that Rhoda Grant shares that ambition.
I propose that that work be undertaken as part of a wider review of the definitions of care services that the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Government are taking forward, rather than by making a premature amendment to the bill. Following that review, if definitions of care services need to be changed, there is a power in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 to do so by order. Such an order is subject to affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have an opportunity to consider what was proposed at that stage. Given that that work is under way, I do not believe that it is necessary to make the provision in the bill as set out in the amendment. I therefore ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 38.
I welcome the fact that COSLA and carer organisations will look at what data needs to be monitored to ensure that the bill is working and is delivering for carers. I will therefore seek to withdraw amendment 37. I have listened to the concerns about amendment 38; indeed, some concerns were expressed directly to me by carer organisations. I believe that it is very important that carers get high-quality services. However, I would not want inadvertently to include more carer-driven services in that group where it is self-help and support that is being delivered. For that reason, I will not move amendment 38 and look forward to seeing how those services can be monitored and how it can be ensured that they are of the standard required.
Amendment 37, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 38 not moved.
Section 25—Duty to involve carers in carer services
The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 10 is on a duty to involve carers in hospital discharge of a cared-for person. Amendment 39, in the name of Nanette Milne, is grouped with amendments 40 and 45.
I cannot stress enough the importance of carers being fully involved in the hospital discharge planning of the person for whom they care to ensure that appropriate support arrangements are in place before that person is discharged from hospital.
Following acceptance of my stage 2 amendment by the Health and Sport Committee, the minister confirmed his support for involving carers and asked to work with me to ensure that the amendment could be further developed, with the aim of having these stage 3 amendments in my name. I met the minister on three occasions to discuss the amendments and I also received his written comments. It is of course very important to ensure that there are no delays in hospital discharge as a result of amendments or for any other reason.
Amendment 39 removes section 25(4A) so that my stage 2 amendment is removed completely. However, the provision will now be in a new section on its own, which will give it more prominence, making it easier for members and others to see what it does, rather than having a number of amendments to a section, which would not be easy to follow.
Amendment 40 inserts a new section after section 25. The purpose, as set out in subsection (1), is for each health board to ensure that, before a cared-for person is discharged from hospital, it involves any carer of that person in the discharge planning. The duty is conferred on the health board; in practice, that duty will be implemented within the wider context of integration, in partnership with the local integration joint board and the local council.
Subsection (2) of the new section makes it clear that
“A health board fulfils the duty in subsection (1)”
by taking appropriate steps to
“inform the carer ... of the intention to discharge the cared-for person”
and inviting the carer
“to give views about the discharge”.
The carer is to be informed of the intention to discharge the cared-for person
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
I welcome the minister’s assurance that further detail on that will be covered in guidance, which I hope that he will confirm today. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) requires a health board to take account
"so far as it is reasonable and practicable to do so, of any views given by the carer in making decisions relating to the discharge of the cared-for person."
Subsection (3) qualifies the application of the section in that the health board must be able to identify the carer "without delay" and the cared-for person must be likely to require care following discharge. I hope that that will lead to dialogue with carers as soon as possible during the patient’s journey in hospital and avoid the current experience of many carers, who do not receive the information that they need on admission, diagnosis or discharge.
Subsection (4) defines “health board” and includes within the definition the State Hospitals Board for Scotland. Subsection (5) defines “hospitals” to mean
“a health service hospital”,
or,
“where a person receives accommodation or services in a hospital other than a health service hospital … such a hospital.”
Amendment 45 inserts a provision into section 36, on interpretation, to ensure that the interpretation of “health board” in this new section on carers’ involvement in hospital discharge of cared-for persons includes the State Hospitals Board for Scotland.
I move amendment 39.
I thank Nanette Milne for lodging these amendments. As she said, we have engaged in a number of useful and productive discussions on this matter following stage 2.
I make clear that I fully support carers being involved in the hospital discharge planning of the person for whom they care, and I believe that that should of course happen as soon as it is reasonably practicable. By being involved, carers should be able to provide their views on a range of matters that are relevant to the discharge from hospital of the cared-for person. That might include, for example, consideration of services that are put in place to support the person to continue to care if the carer’s circumstances change because of new circumstances that arise when the cared-for person returns home. Under the bill’s provisions, they can request a review of their adult carer support plan or their young carer statement.
Of equal importance to involving carers in hospital discharge planning is the need to ensure that there are no delays in hospital discharge. A wide range of evidence shows us that any delay in leaving hospital can be detrimental to the physical and mental wellbeing of someone who is capable of leaving hospital. Once someone is clinically ready to be discharged, it is best for their wellbeing to be at home or to be cared for in a homely setting. That is why I was keen to work with Nanette Milne to further develop her stage 2 amendment to ensure that all the relevant definitions and circumstances are included.
I know that there is good practice across the country in involving carers in discharge—I provided some examples to Nanette Milne, the Health and Sport Committee and the Finance Committee. I have seen what the new health and social care partnerships between health boards and local authorities are doing in that regard. I want the good practice to become Scotland-wide practice. The success of carer involvement in hospital discharge planning relies to a great extent on achieving cultural change within the paid health and social care workforce so that staff recognise the value and the necessity of involving carers in care arrangements. I therefore intend that the provisions in the bill should also be supported by an improvement programme including workforce development.
I support the amendments in the name of Nanette Milne, and I thank her for bringing them to Parliament.
I appreciate the minister’s acceptance of my genuine concern about discharge planning. He did not say anything about guidance on when care planning would start. Initially, I wanted that to be as soon as possible after admission to hospital, but I realise that there could be problems with that. I think that the minister indicated that that would be addressed in guidance. I might speak to him afterwards about that.
I apologise to Nanette Milne. She is correct to say that, initially, she expressed concern about the wording. I do not have a record of our discussion in front of me, but I recall that she wanted a provision that required the planning to start as soon as the person was admitted to hospital. There were concerns about that approach, not least about the efficacy of an approach that involved a scenario whereby, as soon as a cared-for person enters hospital, the hospital starts talking to the carer about the need to start thinking about getting them out of hospital. I am not sure that every carer would appreciate that type of dialogue. However, the sentiment is correct because, of course, that process has to begin as soon as possible, and good guidance can be worked on and issued to accompany the amendments that we will, hopefully, pass in a few moments.
I thank the minister for that clarification.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
After section 25
Amendment 40 moved—[Nanette Milne]—and agreed to.
Section 28—Local carer strategies
Group 11 is on local carer strategies. Amendment 10, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, is grouped with amendments 11, 41, 42 and 20.
15:30
I am pleased to have lodged an amendment that will further underline in the bill my commitment—and the Government’s commitment—to emergency care planning. I have listened to the views of carers and the national carer organisations and it is clear that the issue is of great importance to carers and the people for whom they care. Worry about not having a plan in place for the care of a cared-for person in the event of an emergency can affect the carer’s health and wellbeing.
The bill already provides that the adult carer support plan or young carer statement must contain information about whether the adult or young carer has in place arrangements for care of the cared-for person in an emergency. We added that at stage 2, having listened to the concerns of organisations including Enable. There is, therefore, in the bill already provision for emergency care planning on an individual basis.
Amendment 10 provides for emergency care planning at a more strategic level. The proposed amendment to section 28 will require local authorities and health boards jointly, as part of their local carer strategies, to set out their
“plans for helping carers”
in their area to
“put arrangements in place for the provision of care to cared-for persons in emergencies”.
Amendment 20 will add the meaning of the term “relevant carers” to the list at section 36. The term was added to the bill at stage 2, so it is useful to have a definition in section 36.
I thank Rhoda Grant for working with me on the very important issue of prevention and for lodging amendment 11. Reduction of any negative impacts on a carer’s health and wellbeing caused by their caring role is one of the prescribed national outcomes for an integrated health and social care system. Consistent with that national outcome, the bill already contains provisions that promote a preventative approach. Enabling people to request an adult carer support plan or young carer statement as soon as they become carers can result in an early assessment of their need for support and thereby reduce the risk of any need for crisis intervention later.
Under section 19(4), the Scottish ministers can set out in regulations the matters that a local authority must “have regard ... to” in setting its local eligibility criteria—a point that I made in the debate on an earlier group of amendments. Those matters could include the desirability of taking a preventative approach to avoid carers’ needs escalating to a more severe level. I see merit, however, in underlining the importance of prevention. I am therefore delighted to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 11, which will require local authorities and health boards jointly to set out in their local carer strategy
“an assessment of the extent to which plans for supporting relevant carers may reduce any impact of caring on relevant carers’ health and wellbeing”.
I thank Rhoda Grant for lodging amendments 41 and 42, which would require consultation of post-16 education bodies before the local authority and health board prepare their local carer strategy. There are in the bill as it stands provisions that could be used to contribute to that outcome. Sections 28(4)(a) and 28(4)(b) provide that, in preparing their local carer strategy,
“the local authority and relevant health board must jointly consult such persons and bodies representative of carers as they consider appropriate, and take such steps as they consider appropriate to involve relevant carers”.
The list is not exhaustive and therefore, if a local authority and health board believe that it is necessary to consult any educational body in that area, they can choose to do so.
Section 28(2)(c) provides that a local carer strategy must set out
“the support available to carers in the authority’s area”.
That includes support available from the
“the authority ... the relevant health board”
and
“such other persons and bodies as the local authority considers appropriate”.
That may also include support for young and adult carers that is available from educational bodies in the local authority area.
However, the bill is not the only activity that is contributing to achieving the outcome that we seek for carers who are also students. There is already a significant amount of policy work under way to promote the interests and needs of carers and young carers at colleges and universities. There is good evidence that many educational institutions are developing and implementing their own policies in order better to identify and support student carers. Colleges are proactively identifying carers through the application process and are establishing whether further support is required. Borders College, for example, has a dedicated webpage specifically for carers and care leavers, and many colleges have dedicated student support services that are available to student carers.
From discussing the matter with Rhoda Grant after stage 2, I understand that some of her concerns were about how the education maintenance allowance is being applied for young carers. In May 2014, the then Cabinet Secretary for Training, Youth and Women’s Employment, Angela Constance, and the then Minister for Public Health, Michael Matheson, issued guidance to all colleges and schools. That guidance encourages schools and colleges to consider young carers as vulnerable young people and to ensure that they do not miss out on education maintenance allowance payments as a result of their caring responsibilities.
Further concerns have been raised that young carers may still be missing out on such payments as a direct result of their caring responsibilities. With the Scottish young carers services alliance, we intend to clarify the position on young carers as a vulnerable group in the guidance, because it is not currently clear. We will promote that to the education sector.
Taking all that into account, and in view of the significant progress that has already been made, I do not believe that it is necessary to legislate further to require colleges and universities to develop policies specifically for student carers, nor would amendments 41 and 42 necessarily achieve that. We will, of course, continue to work with our partners in pursuit of that aim, and I will set out best practice in the guidance that will underpin the bill. Carers and their representative bodies will be fully involved in that process.
I ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendments 41 and 42.
I move amendment 10.
Amendment 11 seeks to ensure that local carer strategies examine ways in which policies can be put in place that will enable a carer to continue their caring role so that the impact of that role on the carer’s health and wellbeing is reduced.
We are all aware of the impact that being unsupported in the caring role has on a carer’s health and wellbeing. Amendment 11 means that anticipatory support will be put in place and that strategies will adopt a preventative approach. I thank the minister for working with me on it.
Amendment 41 seeks to include colleges and universities in the list of bodies that must be consulted as part of the preparation of the local carer strategy. Young carers at college and university often do not get the support that they require to continue in education, so we must ensure that they do. I welcome the minister’s statement that the guidance will make it clear to colleges and universities that they must consider how they operate their EMA systems in order to ensure that young carers who miss college or university because of their caring roles do not fall foul of the guidance. I ask that the minister encourage best practice when he issues that guidance. There are good examples of support for carers from colleges and universities, but that practice needs to be spread through the whole further and higher education system.
I support amendment 10 in the minister’s name, which allows for emergency care arrangements to form part of the local carer strategy.
I will not say too much, because I made extensive remarks in my opening speech on the group of amendments. Rhoda Grant made the good point that we want best practice to be rolled out. That is not confined to the education sector, but applies to the whole gamut of the bill’s provisions. We will work to that end. I appreciate the rest of the comments that Ms Grant made.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.
Amendments 41 and 42 not moved.
Section 31—Information and advice service for carers
We move on to group 12. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19.
The amendments in the group build on the carers charter provisions in section 32A. I was pleased to support Rhoda Grant’s amendments in that regard at stage 2 and thank her for lodging them.
It is important that carers know where to find out about their rights. That is especially the case for people who are new to caring, who might know little about their rights. The charter will set out the rights of adult carers and young carers, which is important. At stage 2, I said that section 32A might need further refinement: that is what the amendments in group 12 seek to do.
Amendments 12 and 13 will amend section 31(2)(a) to require the information and advice service to provide information and advice about
“carers’ rights, including those set out in”
the carers charter. That slightly changes the emphasis in section 31(2)(a) as amended at stage 2, which could have implied that the charter is more significant than the rights that are set out in it.
Amendments 16 and 18 make it clear that the charter will set out rights under the bill and may contain other information that is considered appropriate, which might include rights in other legislation. I understand that there might be concerns about amendment 16, which will remove a reference to rights “under any other enactment”. I made it clear at stage 2 that the term “enactment” is broad enough to cover any other United Kingdom law, and given that changes to UK laws are not all under the control of the Scottish ministers there is a risk that the information in the charter could quickly become out of date. That is why amendment 18 will give ministers the power to include
“such other information as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.”
That information can, of course, include information about rights that arise elsewhere, including from UK law. We had to make amendment 18 wide ranging, because we want to be able to give full consideration to the inclusion in the carers charter of rights other than the rights in this bill, and we want to give full consideration to the inclusion of other appropriate information.
Amendment 17 will ensure that the rights of carers that are set out in the charter exist in law already, so that the charter does not give rise to new rights or alter existing ones. It is important that we do not circumvent proper parliamentary scrutiny in relation to altering rights that are set out in primary legislation—as, I am sure, Parliament agrees.
Amendment 19 will widen the consultation provisions in section 32A(4)(a), so that before preparing the carers charter the Scottish ministers must, in addition to involving carers as appropriate and consulting their representative bodies, consult
“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”.
I have in mind bodies such as COSLA, local authorities and health boards; there might well be others. The wider consultation arrangements will help to ensure that there is support for the charter from a wide range of organisations.
I hope that Parliament will agree that the amendments in group 12 will enhance the provisions on the carers charter.
I move amendment 12.
I am grateful for the discussions about amendment to the carers charter. Can the minister reassure me that amendment 16 will not mean that the charter cannot include rights that exist under other legislation? It is important that the charter is as comprehensive as possible in giving a clear indication of carers’ rights. If it were not allowed to include rights that exist under other legislation, it will be difficult to pull all that information into one place.
I am happy to assure Rhoda Grant and Parliament that amendment 16 will not preclude the inclusion of other rights, including those that arise from UK legislation. Such rights can be included in the charter and it is my intention that they will be included, but I did not want us to run the risk of falling foul of our own legislation by making inclusion of such rights mandatory. It is my intention that the charter contain as wide a range of information as possible.
I am committed to ensuring that we maintain the charter and update it regularly, so that it is as up to date and relevant as possible to carers in Scotland.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment 13 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Amendments 14 and 15 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.
After section 31
We move to group 13. Amendment 43, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.
15:45
A theme that ran through the evidence that we received was about the impact that performing an unsupported caring role can have on carers’ health. General practitioners are often in the front line of healthcare for the cared-for person, but they often do not see the person behind the cared-for person: the unpaid carer who supports them. That is true of adults and children alike. Unpaid carers need to have their health looked after to make sure that they can continue their caring role, and a register would ensure that all carers were recognised and that their health was proactively protected.
I move amendment 43.
I am concerned that pressures created as a result of Rhoda Grant’s amendment could outweigh the benefits. Creating a possibility for carers to register would make it easier for them to get a health check, but a person would have to identify as a carer for the register to be relevant and useful.
I am wary about placing an ever-growing number of responsibilities on health boards, GPs and local authorities without resources to back that up. The responsibility for an annual operation by GPs and health boards of writing to thousands of people to invite them to a health check might prove more burdensome to those services than using the existing routes and resources for carers. Before I decide whether to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment, I would like to hear more about the benefit that an additional responsibility on public authorities would add.
Rhoda Grant lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, when I said that I fully understood and appreciated the need to promote and protect carers’ health and wellbeing. Taken in their entirety, the provisions in the bill are designed to ensure that the health and wellbeing of carers are of paramount importance. The identification of carers’ personal outcomes in the context of the adult carer support plan and the young carer statement is central to achieving that objective.
At stage 2, we introduced an amendment to section 28 to ensure that a local carers strategy must be jointly prepared by each local authority and relevant health board. The health boards’ role in the health and wellbeing of carers is crucial. I spent time at stage 2 talking about the wider developments that are relevant to supporting carers’ health and wellbeing, and I re-emphasise some of those considerations today.
The new way ahead for the GP contract will enable GPs to have more—not less—contact with carers. That is because there is an impetus—it is a necessity—to free up GPs’ time for face-to-face contact with patients. Those patients include carers.
Carers will be able to ask for a health check when they think that that is right for them. As Mr Hume suggested, having a blanket requirement for every single carer could be somewhat disproportionate.
It is important that we reflect the fact that GPs are not and should not be the only important interface with carers. The traditional model of care—in which patients rely on healthcare professionals for information, diagnosis and referral and in which interventions are decided on by healthcare professionals—does not always suit patients, their carers or the aspirations of the workforce.
The future model of care involves an empowered patient and carer and a shared decision-making partnership with the healthcare professional. That will enable supported self-management, where appropriate, and allow the person to regain control of their health. There is also a real and growing potential to harness the support of friends, families and communities—locally and online—to inform decisions.
Healthcare services need to be person centred and responsive. Co-ordinated and integrated care treats a person with dignity, respect and compassion, which facilitates a change in the conversation through a transfer of power between individuals and healthcare professionals.
GP practices can identify carers and agree with an individual what is important for them. GPs and individuals can also agree how the individuals can be helped to achieve the desired outcomes. That means helping carers to make decisions that are right for them and to follow through with those decisions.
Allied health professionals also have an important role. Professionals such as dieticians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists can all support carers’ health and wellbeing.
We have an impetus to improve our approach to the healthcare needs of the people of Scotland.
The minister mentioned a lot of healthcare workers, many of whom go into the home to support the cared-for person. How will he make sure that, when they do that, they also see the needs of the carer?
In relation to a change that we made to the bill earlier, I referred to my clear commitment to workforce development. I restate that commitment now, because a critical part of the work that we need to take forward is ensuring that there is widespread understanding not only of the needs of the cared-for person—understandably so—but of the needs of the carer, too. The new arrangements that we have put in place will lead to a co-operative relationship that truly puts the person at the centre of decision making. On that basis, I am not convinced of the need for Rhoda Grant’s amendment.
Crucially, carers are represented on integration joint boards and other integration arrangements and can, with GP practices, influence the planning and development of GP services for the community. I am pleased to confirm that I have provided a grant to the Coalition of Carers in Scotland to work with carers on the integration joint boards in 2016-17 and support them in their endeavours.
Further to the issue of workforce development, I said at stage 2 that I propose to write to health boards to encourage them to identify carers and support carers in all health settings, including not only GP practices but hospitals and community pharmacies, which are just as important in supporting carers’ health and wellbeing. Of course, the home environment is important in that respect, too.
Some health boards are using carer information strategy funding to identify and support carers in a wide range of health settings, including GP practices and hospitals. I was pleased to confirm this week that carer information strategy funding will continue for the coming financial year, which will help to continue the vital work of identifying and supporting carers in health settings and to support the fantastic work of carers centres and other local voluntary organisations that in many ways support carers to improve their health and wellbeing.
On that basis, I respectfully ask Rhoda Grant to consider withdrawing amendment 43.
I thank the minister for his comments, and I am somewhat reassured by his comment that he will write to health boards to make them aware that they need to do more work with carers. The work will be on-going, because we need to keep reminding health boards and health professionals about carers’ needs. However, given what the minister has said, I will seek to withdraw amendment 43.
Amendment 43, by agreement, withdrawn.
The next group is group 14. Amendment 44, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.
Carers often tell us about their struggle to get help for themselves and for the person who they care for. Their time is often taken up by their caring role, with little left for them to go and do battle, yet it seems as though we are asking them to do that all the time to get the services that they need for the person who they are looking after. Little time is left for carers to look for the services that support carers’ needs. The provision of advocacy services would enable carers to have someone to speak for them and do some of the work that is required to access the support that they need.
I move amendment 44.
We must ensure that advocacy support for carers is targeted at carers who need it most. Not all carers will want or require an independent advocate in every instance, and I am not convinced that providing a right to advocacy to all carers, as Rhoda Grant’s amendment 44 seems to envisage, would be a proportionate or cost-effective measure.
Carers will want to access support from a range of sources, including carer organisations. Indeed, people will want to access a variety of support at different times. We need a solution that promotes the sustainable development of advocacy services and recognises the important place of support services in a wider framework.
The bill provides for information and advice services in every local authority area on a statutory basis. Local authorities will provide as wide a range of information and advice as they can, and section 31(2)(d) sets out that they must provide information and advice about advocacy for carers.
I know that there could be more independent advocacy for carers and I accept that services can be patchy, but I am also aware that some local authorities and health boards are investing in carer advocacy services. Carer information strategy plans show investment in carers centres, which provide carers with information and advice, including information about advocacy services.
I let Ms Grant and the rest of the chamber know that my officials have been working with the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, the Coalition of Carers in Scotland and others to produce carer advocacy guidance. COSLA has seen and is content with the draft guidance, which we aim to publish soon. We will ensure that the guidance is referenced and highlighted in the guidance that accompanies the bill.
We are providing resources for support to be provided to carers under the bill. That will include any form of support to meet carers’ personal outcomes, which could include advocacy. We have also funded Carers Scotland to produce a self-advocacy toolkit for carers. The toolkit is available on the Carers Scotland website.
On the basis of the work that is under way, our commitments and the unnecessarily wide-ranging nature of amendment 44, I ask Rhoda Grant to consider withdrawing the amendment.
I am grateful for the information about the carer advocacy guidance, which I am sure many carers will find useful. I very much hope that the self-advocacy website will also point carers in the direction of where to find personal advocacy services because, sometimes, they need people to do that legwork. Given that advocacy is covered in the bill, given that there will be the self-advocacy website and given the reassurances, I seek to withdraw amendment 44.
Amendment 44, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 32A—Carers’ charter
Amendments 16 to 19 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Section 36—Interpretation
Amendment 45 moved—[Nanette Milne]—and agreed to.
Amendment 20 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.
Section 37—Regulations
Amendments 46 and 47 not moved.
That ends consideration of the amendments. Thank you all.
Previous
Business Motion