Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings.
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 the first division will be 30 seconds. 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. I advise members that time is very tight. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 1—General principles
Group 1 is on general principles. Amendment 30, in the name of Neil Bibby, is grouped with amendments 31 to 33 and 14 to 16.
Amendment 30 follows my discussions with Barnardo’s and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and reflects the concerns that those organisations raised with me. A number of other children’s charities also support the amendment because of concerns that the bill and the Government’s self-directed support strategy are too adult focused and do not sufficiently reflect the needs of children.
Greater evaluation of the evidence on self-directed support for children and young people is required. In the SDS pilots, only a small minority of the case studies received in the programme evaluation related to children. Very little research has been done on those aged 16 who manage their own care and the transition from children’s services to adult services.
More must also be done to inform families of how the bill will affect them. Many users of Barnardo’s services feel unsure about the new options, how they will work for them and what they will mean for their children. They do not believe that local authorities have the answers at present.
The bill will have a significant impact on children, young people and their families, particularly regarding the type of services available to them. That should be specifically reflected in the bill and the regulations that are made under it. I ask the minister to make a clear statement that, following the passing of the bill, the Scottish Government will ensure that children and families are at the centre of implementation plans and that statutory guidance will include reference to the specific needs of children and how a child-centred approach can be delivered by local authorities.
I also hope that the minister will make a commitment that the proposals in the bill will be aligned with the proposals in the forthcoming children and young people bill for strategic planning of children’s services by all public bodies that deliver those services, the single child’s plan and the new duty on all parts of the Government to advance children’s rights. Such commitments and the addressing of other concerns outlined by Barnardo’s Scotland and other children’s charities would strengthen the bill and clarify the type and level of support that is available to children and their families.
I move amendment 30.
Amendments 31 to 33 aim to recognise fully the role of carers in the bill’s general principles. There are estimated to be more than 650,000 unpaid carers in Scotland, which is one in eight of the Scottish population. They provide care that is worth around £10 billion per year.
Scotland’s carers strategy, “Caring Together”, states:
“Health and social care staff should have a proper appreciation of the role of carers and young carers and commit to engage with carers as equal and expert partners in the design and delivery of health and social care services.”
Amendment 31 seeks to insert into section 1 a duty for local authorities to recognise carers as key partners in the assessment of the needs of the persons who are being cared for and in the provision of care services. Amendment 32 aims to ensure that, subject to the wishes of the person who is being cared for, a carer has a right to involvement in the assessment of the needs of and the provision of services or support to the cared-for person. I believe that the definition in amendment 33 is required to clarify the meaning of “carer” for the purposes of section 1.
15:15
Those changes, which have been proposed by carers organisations, would enable both the individual and their carer to discuss what care the carer is willing and able to provide and what support, if any, the individual wants from their carer. They also represent an opportunity to ensure that carers are identified early and offered appropriate support.
I recognise that the Scottish ministers, health staff and social care staff already appreciate the role of carers and young carers. However, the bill presents an opportunity to formally recognise the role of carers and ensure that their voices are heard.
We will also support the other amendments in the group.
I will respond to the amendments proposed by Neil Bibby and Jim Hume and speak to my own.
Neil Bibby’s amendment 30 would introduce a new general principle that, in carrying out its functions under the bill in relation to a child, a local authority should take a child-centred approach that reflects the needs and wishes of the child as far as is possible. I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary, as all the general principles in the bill apply to anyone—both adults and children—who receives support under its provisions.
In carrying out its functions under the bill in respect of a child, a local authority must pay due regard to the principles of involvement, informed choice and collaboration. It must also respect the dignity of the child and their desire to participate in the wider life of the community. Therefore, I do not think that amendment 30 adds to the principles that already apply to every child who receives services under the bill.
I appreciate that Neil Bibby and the organisations that have informed the amendment want to make a difference to the way in which services are delivered to children. In seeking to underpin the child-centred approach, I encourage them to engage fully in the development of the proposed children and young people bill. I also encourage them to continue to engage with our officials on the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Bill as we move towards its implementation, particularly through the dialogue that we can have on improving the statutory guidance in this area. However, I do not support Neil Bibby’s amendment.
Jim Hume’s amendments 31 to 33 seek to ensure that carers are recognised as key partners in care and that, when the person who is being cared for so wishes, the carer must be involved in the assessment for and provision of services. It is clear to the Scottish Government that carers are key partners. That principle is already enshrined in statutory and other guidance. At the request of the national carers organisations and carers, we built on that approach in the carers strategy to make it clear that carers should be seen as equal partners.
I understand the intentions behind amendments 31 and 32. We know, from practice, that there is merit in involving carers in issues that local authorities take forward in relation to cared-for people when both the carer and the cared-for person want that. However, I am not convinced that we need to extend that provision at this stage, and we should certainly not do so without adequate consultation.
Amendment 32 proposes a greater role for carers in the assessment of the cared-for person and proposes that the local authority should collaborate with the carer, subject to the wishes of the person who is being cared for. Moreover, for the purposes of the amendment, the definition of “carer” would be broadened out to mean a regular carer rather than a carer who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis, as set out in statute for the purposes of eligibility for a carers assessment. That means that carers whose caring role is regular but not intensive or substantial—perhaps they do a weekly shop or monthly gardening, or they pick up prescriptions for a friend or neighbour—could be involved in decisions about the assessment and the provision of services for the person.
Amendment 32 is incomplete in that it makes no provision for persons without capacity to express their wishes. Although I am sympathetic to some of the intention behind Jim Hume’s amendments, the omission in amendment 32 is important. As a Parliament, we would need to have a wider consultation before introducing such a provision.
I propose an alternative course of action. We have awarded a contract to Carers Scotland and the Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project to provide a carers rights charter. We will ask those two organisations to explore the principles behind the amendments through the work that they will carry out on the charter. Depending on the results of that work, we will decide whether to pursue the matter further at a more suitable time.
Given what I have said about the consequences of the amendments and about the carers rights charter, I invite Jim Hume to not move his amendments 31 to 33.
My amendments 14 to 16 make further adjustments to the general principles on independent living. As members of the committee will no doubt recall, I brought forward the independent living principles in response to a recommendation from the committee, which itself was a response to the views of the independent living community in Scotland.
As members will know, the inspiration for and ultimately the source of our understanding of independent living stem from the wider fundamental rights that are contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the European convention on human rights.
My amendments 15 and 16 convey the importance of independent living by better reflecting the rights that are conferred on individuals by those conventions. My amendment 14 adjusts the general principles in order to strengthen them. It requires local authorities to
“take reasonable steps to facilitate”
the principles. In other words, it places an obligation on local authorities to do all that they reasonably can do to ensure that people’s rights are facilitated.
I urge the Parliament to support the amendments in my name.
I call on Neil Bibby to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 30.
As I said earlier, I believe that legislation that affects children should ensure that a child-centred approach is in place. Given the minister’s reassurances and comments, I seek to withdraw amendment 30.
The member is seeking to withdraw his amendment. Does any member object?
Members: No.
Amendment 30, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 31, in the name of Jim Hume, has already been debated with amendment 30. I ask Mr Hume to move or not move his amendment.
Am I permitted to discuss amendments 31, 32 and 33 as one?
They have already been debated.
Okay. In the light of what the minister said about amendments 31 to 33, I will not move them, but I will look for assurances in the future that the minister is standing by what he said.
Amendments 31 to 33 not moved.
Section 1A—Further general principles applicable to this Act
Amendments 14 to 16 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Section 2—Support for adult carers
Amendment 34, in the name of Jim Hume, is grouped with amendment 3.
Amendment 34 seeks to strengthen the support that the bill offers to unpaid carers. As it stands, the bill provides local authorities with a discretionary power to provide services to carers to support them in their caring responsibilities following an assessment. Under the amendment, when a local authority decided to provide some form of support to a carer, they would be under a duty to offer the carer the four options of self-directed support.
I welcome the extension of self-directed support to Scotland’s carers. It is right that they receive more control and choice over the support that they receive, and the bill is an important step forward in that regard. However, many carers are worried that the bill as it stands will not deliver the necessary improvements that they need in their everyday lives.
Without the valuable contribution of Scotland’s carers, which is worth around £10 billion, the health and social care system would be unsustainable—and that staggering contribution will become even more apparent as Scotland’s population continues to age and as the balance of health and care delivery continues to shift into our communities. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that resources are used to maximum effect.
Carers Scotland argues:
“Providing small interventions at an early stage and/or at the right time can prevent a crisis and a consequent breakdown of care, necessitating the provision of significantly more costly services. Providing support at the right time can also prevent carers from having to give up paid employment and activities that sustain their life”.
I do not think that carers should have to battle to receive the support that they need to continue their caring role, and amendment 34 will give carers the right to access the support that they have been assessed as needing.
I move amendment 34.
My amendment 3 seeks to remove section 16, which gives local authorities the power to charge carers for services received when seeking self-directed support. Like other elements of the bill that relate to carers, it repeats provisions in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
At the heart of the amendment is a debate about the principle of charging carers for services in the first place. In effect, section 16 highlights local authorities’ ability to charge carers for services. Members should make no mistake: although the power is discretionary, local government is shouldering 83 per cent of the Scottish Government cuts and might have no choice but to use it.
Probably without exception, we have all paid tribute to carers and acknowledged their value to society. In economic terms, they provide £10.8 billion of worth simply by caring and save the public purse a substantial amount of money; in social terms, they sustain older people in their families, homes and communities.
The question today is whether our rhetoric will be matched by action. The Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 established the principle that carers should be given the same status as care providers and acknowledged that carers required resources and support to enable them to fulfil their caring role. As Simon Hodgson, director of Carers Scotland, has said,
“the idea that health board staff have to pay to attend a course on how to lift someone safely, or local authority staff would be invoiced for taking time off in lieu because they had earnings or savings above a certain level, would be rightly considered absurd, yet that is precisely what might happen if the legislation is not amended.”
Either carers are to be treated as care providers or they are not. Let us be clear: the amounts that we are talking about for training, respite and so on for carers are tiny in comparison with the £10.8 billion that they give back. The evidence backs that up.
Charging is also considered to undermine the principles of self-directed support, as it could deter carers from accessing support in the first place. Concerns have also been raised about adding to the postcode lottery of care that already exists with regard to charging, with 32 local authorities doing things in 32 different ways. Where, as a result of the 1968 act, charging exists, guidance on legislation has been interpreted in different ways. In some cases, local authorities already charge for care; in others, the carer’s income is taken into account when assessing the needs of the person being cared for. There is little consistency of approach.
The key point is that section 16 is not required. As the provision already exists and as charges are already made under it, the section is effectively redundant. As the power in the 1968 act has existed for some time, I am genuinely disappointed that the minister has waited until now to announce that he will introduce regulations—although I am delighted that he intends to do so. Surely those regulations should have accompanied the bill to make the intentions with regard to charging absolutely clear. At the moment, we are facing both ways, and delay simply invites local authorities to charge.
Carers are very much an integral part of Scotland’s health and social care system. They are an essential but finite resource, and they need our support to continue to care.
15:30
I will speak to amendment 34.
I agree absolutely with the Health and Sport Committee that it is extremely important that carers’ health and wellbeing be supported to ensure that they can continue to undertake their caring role. However, I also note the comment that the minister made in his response to the committee’s stage 1 report that
“Introducing a duty to support carers would inevitably be linked to strict eligibility criteria where only those carers experiencing substantial need would be supported”
and that such restrictions could go against the Government’s
“stated ambition to provide early, preventative support to carers.”
That being the case, I am concerned that carers could be worse off under Jim Hume’s amendment 34 than they are at present, and my inclination would be to resist it.
I will speak to the amendments from Jim Hume and Jackie Baillie.
Jim Hume’s amendment 34 would remove the power in the bill to support carers and replace it with a duty to support them instead. As I made clear in previous correspondence to the lead committee, that is not, in fact, straightforward.
Introducing a duty to support carers may lead to formal national eligibility criteria and a much less flexible approach. In some cases, carer support may be narrowed to the most critical level of carer need only. I want to adopt as flexible an approach as possible. That is why the bill includes a strong power that will be supported by clear and empowering guidelines to local authorities.
I turn to the arguments that Jackie Baillie put forward for amendment 3. As she is no doubt aware, charging is a complex matter. It would be wrong to assume that, simply by removing section 16, we would strengthen the position of carers with respect to charging. In fact, the opposite is true: the position of carers with respect to charging would actually be weakened.
I will also put to rest some of the misplaced speculation that the Government intends to use the bill to widen councils’ discretion to charge carers.
I plan to use the powers that are provided in section 16 to issue regulations that make it clear that all charges for support to carers should be waived in whole. To be abundantly clear, carers will not be charged for support that they receive directly under section 2 of the bill.
I welcome the minister’s intentions—I have never doubted them—but the issue for me is that section 16 is not required. The power that he will exercise is in the 1968 act.
I will come to that point. Unfortunately, Ms Baillie is wrong on that.
Our approach, for the first time, recognises carers as providers of a service to those for whom they care. I appreciate that some members may question, as Jackie Baillie does, why we wish to retain a power to charge carers when our policy is to restrict charges on them. The answer is straightforward.
If we chose to do as Jackie Baillie suggests—to dispense with section 16—we would have no legislative basis on which to make the regulations and would be left in the position that we are in right now, in which carers do not know what they might be charged for and in which carers can be charged for different services in different parts of the country.
I make it clear that section 16 creates the provision for ministers to limit the discretion of councils to charge. In other words, it allows us to narrow councils’ discretion to charge as little or as much as the Parliament wishes.
It is not that we spend our time delving into the intricacies of legislation, but I refer the minister to section 87(5) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which says that he
“may … make regulations for modifying or adjusting the rates at which payments under this section are made, where such a course appears to him to be justified, and any such regulations may provide for the waiving of any such payment in whole or in part in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations.”
He already has the power without section 16.
Again, that is actually incorrect. Local authorities are using some of their financial discretion powers in order to levy charges against carers, and the way in which we can regulate that is through the use of section 16. I am afraid that Jackie Baillie is wrong on the matter.
Additionally, regulation will provide Parliament with the flexibility to respond to any effort to circumvent our restrictions. Some local authorities are using those general powers to charge carers; my approach will limit that discretion in a much more specific way. I also point out that the Scottish Government will consult carefully and fully on the draft regulations before they are brought to Parliament and that any regulations will take effect at the same time as we commence the act.
Let me now make some wider comments following on from our discussion on the amendments in this group and on those in the previous group on the general principles.
I understand the desire of carers organisations to see improvements to policy and practice with regards to carer support. That is why the regulations that I intend to bring forward are only part of a package of support that I intend for carers. I am pleased to inform Parliament today that, in addition to my commitment on charging, I will also issue directions to local authorities about the way in which they should approach the “substantial and regular” test on access to carers assessments.
Ministers do not issue directions lightly, so I hope that members will appreciate the importance of this step and the advantages that directions provide. As members will be aware, access to a carers assessment is the first step on the road to getting some support. Together with our work to support the national roll-out of carers assessments, the directions will result in the provision of greater consistency in the approach that is taken across the country on the provision of carers assessments.
Furthermore, as many in the chamber will know, some carers do not meet the threshold for a carers assessment. Carers in that situation should be supported on a preventative basis to maintain their health and wellbeing. I therefore intend to issue statutory guidance to local authorities about the benefits of intervening early to support carers and to encourage local authorities to provide such support. The support could include information, advice, signposting or directing the carer towards another organisation.
It is important that carers get the support that is right and necessary for them. I am confident that these further measures will help to address the issues that have been raised by the national carers organisations.
In conclusion, I do not support either of the amendments. I urge Jackie Baillie not to move amendment 3, which would make the situation worse, and I ask Jim Hume to withdraw amendment 34.
I appreciate what the minister has said about guidance. I believe that integrating health and social care services so that public resources can be put to best possible use to prevent problems from occurring could also save money further down the line. Supporting carers needs to form an important part of that move to an integrated preventative approach.
I will press amendment 34.
The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. I suspend the proceedings for five minutes.
15:38
Meeting suspended.
15:43
On resuming—
We move to the division on amendment 34.
For
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (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)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
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 (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
Abstentions
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
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)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 76, Abstentions 35.
Amendment 34 disagreed to.
Section 3—Options for self-directed support
15:45
Group 3 is on options for self-directed support. Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 18, 6, 7, 10 and 11.
I will speak first to my own amendments and then to those in Dr Simpson’s name.
Section 3 defines the self-directed support options that will be available to all individuals when they are eligible for social care.
Amendments 17 and 18 are minor technical amendments to section 3. They recognise the possibility that local authorities themselves may provide services under options 2 and 4. The proposed adjustments to those options take account of the fact that where a local authority is providing such services it does not have to make a payment to itself. That is consistent with the changes that were made to option 3 at stage 2.
I will now deal with the amendments in Dr Simpson’s name. Dr Simpson lodged similar amendments at stage 2. I said in committee that the Scottish Government could not support amendments that would
“restrict flexibility without a full understanding of the potential consequences of doing so.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 30 October 2012; c 2914.]
That is still my position.
I accept that, by proposing his amendments, Richard Simpson is attempting to address unfairness in the setting of rates between the various options, but the changes that we made at stage 2 to the provisions already ensure greater transparency in how local authorities allocate payment under the available options.
The bill as amended at stage 2 already provides for a transparent budget for all four self-directed support options. Statutory guidance, training and further implementation of the national strategy will encourage greater fairness without interfering with the bill. The guidance will fully consider issues around commissioning, procurement and finance that can lead to discrepancies in the allocation of resources.
I ask members to support amendments 17 and 18, and to reject Richard Simpson’s amendments.
I move amendment 17.
The situation as it stands is that local authorities allocate direct payments that are frequently lower than amounts paid for support under options 2 and 3, based on the assumption that a person who is taking a direct payment will employ a personal assistant. However, individuals use direct payments to buy services from organisations—the most notable example of that arose during the Edinburgh care and support retendering exercise, when service users took direct payments in order to remain with their existing service providers, rather than move to the organisations that won the retender.
Paragraph 63 of the Scottish Government’s 2007 guidance on self-directed support says:
“It is best practice for local authorities to offer an individual budget of an equivalent monetary value of a council-arranged service to allow individuals to select their chosen option.”
My amendments 6 and 10 simply state that that payment should not automatically be lower. In other words, a local authority would have a duty to look at the type of care that the individual wanted under the bill—and to do so before making up its mind about whether to offer a lower rate. I absolutely reject the Government’s position in rejecting my amendments, which was laid out at stage 2, that that would reduce the local authority’s flexibility.
The purpose of my amendments is to ensure complete transparency about the process and that a lower amount is not offered automatically for options 2 and 3. That is a reasonable approach if we are to have an open and transparent system.
Amendments 7 and 11 ensure that reasons will be given in writing. That approach is required because, as a Parliament, we need to be absolutely clear that we audit what is going on.
Both my sets of amendments need to be agreed to, so that exactly what is happening out there is clear. The amendments do not prevent in any way the local authority from giving a lower direct payment, but it must justify and demonstrate why it is doing so. My amendments are reasonable, and I intend to press them.
As I have set out, we amended the bill at stage 2 to ensure greater transparency. The bill will therefore deliver that. Through statutory guidance, we will also implement further measures to ensure greater consistency in how local authorities operate in this area.
To a large extent, rather than creating any fundamental difference in relation to how the system is delivered, Richard Simpson’s amendments would create nothing more than a paper exercise. That is why it would be better and more effective to try to address some of the issues through statutory guidance.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 6 moved—[Dr Richard Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (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)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (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)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (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)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (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)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (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)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
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)
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 (North East Scotland) (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)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
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 52, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Section 4—Choice of options: adults
Amendment 7 moved—[Dr Richard Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (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)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (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)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (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)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (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)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (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)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
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)
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 (North East Scotland) (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)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
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 53, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Section 5—Choice of options under section 4: assistance
Amendment 19, in the name of Bob Doris, is grouped with amendments 20, 21, 8, 22, 9, 25 to 27, 12, 28 and 13.
The bill is founded on the principle that every person in receipt of social care has the right to make their own choice about how they receive that care and support. Sections 5 and 15 of the bill build on that.
Section 5 requires the local authority to
“take reasonable steps to enable the supported person”
to choose their self-directed support option. It also requires the local authority to take “reasonable steps” to identify people who are able to assist a supported person who has a mental disorder or who has communication difficulties due to a physical disability.
Section 15 imposes a similar duty on the local authority to identify people who are able to assist at an earlier stage, when a person’s needs are being assessed under section 12A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
My amendments are concerned with the assistance provided by the people identified by the local authorities. Amendments 21 and 27 remove the qualification that the persons assisting need to have a prior interest in the care of a supported person. That is an unnecessary limitation on the people who may be able to help.
My other amendments deal with the type of assistance that may be provided by such persons. As members will appreciate, there is a subtle but important distinction between making a decision and communicating a decision. Some people may have a mental disorder that makes it particularly difficult for them to understand and make decisions, whereas others may have a physical disability that makes it particularly difficult for them to communicate decisions.
Capability Scotland has approached me with a view to making that distinction clearer in sections 5 and 15, and that is what my amendments seek to do. Their effect would be to make sections 5 and 15 clearly reflect the two distinct types of assistance that a person may give: assistance to someone with a mental disorder in relation to assessments and making decisions about self-directed support; and communication assistance in relation to those matters for someone with a physical disability that affects their communication abilities.
I am grateful to Capability Scotland for informing me that those amendments would be beneficial. I commend them and my other amendments to the Parliament and invite members to support them.
I move amendment 19.
I will deal first with the amendments in the group that are not in my name. We welcome and support Bob Doris’s amendments 19 to 22 and 25 to 28, which arose from earlier discussions.
My amendments in this group relate to issues that the Law Society of Scotland has raised with us. It is concerned that the bill does not provide the necessary safeguards, or place any obligation on an authority, to protect against undue influence being exerted over the assisted person.
My first pair of amendments—amendments 8 and 12—would require reasonable steps to be taken to ensure that any person who was appointed to assist would be suitable in accordance with proposed new section 5(5).
Amendments 9 and 13 seek to provide a definition of how the assisted person should be looked at. The intention is to ensure that we have a situation in which those who do not qualify under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 or the vulnerable adults legislation, but who might be vulnerable and whose position in having a disability is not completely robust, are protected from undue influence from individuals who might be unsuitable. We know that such unsatisfactory cases have been reported in the press. My amendments would provide protection that the Law Society thinks that it would be appropriate to include in the bill.
I will respond to Bob Doris’s and Richard Simpson’s amendments.
As Bob Doris said, his amendments address a point of clarity that was raised by Capability Scotland. I consider that sections 5 and 15 would benefit from the small adjustments proposed, so I recommend that the Parliament supports Bob Doris’s amendments.
Richard Simpson lodged similar amendments at stage 2. I recommended then that the committee should reject them, and that remains my view. His amendments would require any person who provided assistance to an individual in undertaking their assessment or making their choices to be “suitable” in the view of the local authority. They would place a duty on the local authority to be satisfied that the supported person would not come under undue influence from the person who provided them with assistance in agreeing to that assistance and in selecting an option for SDS.
In addition, Richard Simpson’s amendments would require the local authority to have regard to the accessibility of the person to the supported person, the ability of the person to assist the supported person in the decision-making process, any likely conflict of interest between the person and the supported person, and any likely undue concentration in the person of power over the supported person.
Richard Simpson’s amendments are well intentioned. He stated at stage 2 that some relatives can act in a manner that is overly restrictive of individuals who have capacity. As I understand his position, he is seeking to place on the face of the bill formal tests that would have to be gone through before an individual would be allowed to provide assistance.
However, we must return to the purpose of the provisions, which is to enable and encourage local authorities to maximise individuals’ capability to understand, make decisions and communicate decisions, and to identify persons who, with the agreement of the supported person, can assist. The challenge in that respect is to define and articulate in statutory guidance appropriate and inappropriate forms of assistance. I intend to elaborate on that in the statutory guidance that will accompany the bill.
I recommend that Parliament supports Bob Doris’s amendments and rejects Richard Simpson’s amendments.
16:00
I thank the minister for accepting the amendments in my name.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendments 20 and 21 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[Dr Richard Simpson].
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (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)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (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)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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, 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)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (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)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (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)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
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)
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 (North East Scotland) (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)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
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 54, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 disagreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.
Amendment 9 not moved.
Section 6—Choice of options: adult carers
Amendment 10 not moved.
Section 7—Choice of options: children and family members
Amendment 11 not moved.
Section 8—Provision of information about self-directed support
Group 5 is on independent advocacy. Amendment 23, in the name of Michael Matheson, is grouped with amendment 1.
During the stage 1 debate I told Parliament that I would give full consideration to how we could enhance section 8 with regard to advocacy. Amendment 23 makes explicit the Scottish Government’s position that local authorities should provide information on how to access advocacy services to anyone who would benefit from that type of support.
The amendment builds on existing legislation in the form of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which already provides a right to advocacy for everyone—adults and children—with a mental disorder, as defined in the act, including people with learning disabilities and mental ill health.
On Drew Smith’s amendment 1, we must ensure that advocacy support is targeted at those who will benefit from it. Not everyone will want or require an independent advocate in every instance and I am not convinced that providing a right to advocacy to everyone who receives social care, as Drew Smith proposes, would be a proportionate measure.
I am aware that many people will want to access support from a range of sources, such as carers organisations and user-led support organisations. Indeed, people will want to access a variety of support at different points on their SDS journey. We need a solution that promotes the sustainable development of advocacy services and recognises their important place within a wider framework of support services.
I hope that Drew Smith will support my amendment 23. Accompanied by statutory guidance, it will support social work professionals in using their professional judgment to consider whether advocacy is required each time that they have a discussion with or assess an individual.
I ask Drew Smith not to move his amendment 1. If it is pressed to a vote, I ask members to reject it.
I move amendment 23.
I welcome the minister’s amendment 23, which puts the term “independent advocacy” in the bill. I withdrew a previous amendment following the debate at stage 2, in which the minister indicated that he would be willing to think again about the matter. I thank him for his and his officials’ time in meeting me to discuss the amendments last week.
The issue of independent advocacy goes to the heart of the values that underpin the bill. As I said at stages 1 and 2, our intention is that those who use the services have choice and control, but that choice and control must be exercised meaningfully. The service users’ needs, frustrations and aspirations must be heard loud and clear during the needs assessment process, which underpins the move to greater self-direction. Amendment 23 will considerably improve the bill as drafted, and the minister has moved some way.
I turn to my amendment 1. I will briefly set out the difference between the minister’s approach and the approach that I have taken.
The purpose of my amendment 1 is to ensure not only that independent advocacy is enshrined in the bill in name, but that a right of access to it is established for everyone who might need it. Currently, health boards and local authorities throughout Scotland have a duty to ensure that independent advocacy is available in their area. Infrastructure is already in place, but only half the local authorities have advocacy services that are available to service users with a physical but not a mental disability. If the right and the corresponding duty that my amendment proposes do not exist, it is likely that, in half the local authorities, people who think that their voice is not being heard will not be able to find an independent advocate to help them articulate their views in the process.
I recognise that not everyone who gave evidence to the committee thought that there was an absolute need for a right to advocacy if there was a clear commitment to the services being in place. At stage 2, some members expressed concern that a right was going too far and that it would place a greater burden on authorities to provide services that would not be necessary for the majority. To be clear again, that would not be the effect of amendment 1. There would be no need for people to see an advocate in order to determine that one was not needed.
I said that I valued the minister’s time and I welcomed the progress that we have made. I have carefully considered whether to not move amendment 1 in favour of supporting amendment 23, but my view remains that a principle is being debated. Amendment 23 puts a duty on local authorities to provide information about independent advocacy wherever the council considers it appropriate to do so. I have spoken about the issue to other members who have been contacted by their constituents, and I continue to believe that information about advocacy should be readily available to all and that a right of access to advocacy should exist for all who consider that they need it.
We are tight for time and three other members wish to speak to this group of amendments. I can allow them one minute each.
I rise to speak to Drew Smith’s amendment 1.
In the committee, I made it clear that I thought that the amendment that Drew Smith lodged at stage 2 involved an element of putting the cart before the horse, and I still think that that is the case with amendment 1. Paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of the new section that the amendment would insert clearly state that the securing of the availability of advocacy services comes ahead of any determination of whether the individual requires or wishes the advocacy service to be provided. The minister’s amendment 23 will strengthen the bill, but I ask Drew Smith not to move his amendment, as he has not provided the clarity that I asked for in the committee.
The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance has pointed out that, as it stands, the bill would lead to discrimination against some individuals because the provision of independent advocacy for anyone who does not have a mental disorder is not universally available. Half of Scotland’s local authorities have no provision available beyond the statutory duties provided for in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, and the SIAA reckons that 56 per cent of SDS claimants in those areas will have no right of access to independent advocacy. Although not everyone will want or need independent advocacy support, without a right of access, those who want or need such support will not always be able to access it. Therefore, I am happy to support Drew Smith’s amendment 1. I also support the minister’s amendment 23.
I support Drew Smith’s amendment 1. Including in the bill a right of access to independent advocacy would not mean that everyone applying for self-directed support would be required to use independent advocacy services, but I believe that the decision to access such a service should be made by service users and not by professionals, as the minister suggested. That principle would genuinely build on the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.
The minister claims to be building on the 2003 act, but the problem is availability, as Nanette Milne and Drew Smith have indicated. We know that in 50 per cent of local authorities, only those who have a statutory right under the 2003 act can access advocacy. What will that 50 per cent of local authorities say? They have an obligation to give information, but what information will they give? Will they say that, because their advocacy service is for mental health users, others cannot access that service? That does not seem to me to take us much further forward.
Under rule 9.8.4A, I will allow the debate on this group to continue beyond the time limit in order to avoid unnecessarily constraining debate.
I have listened carefully to members’ comments, but I go back to the committee’s stage 1 report, which highlighted that not everyone would require access to independent advocacy and that people may wish to make use of other services. I believe that my amendment 23 strikes the right balance, and I ask the Parliament to support it.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
After section 8
Group 6 is on provision of information to children. Amendment 24, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
There is considerable scope to extend the benefits of self-directed support to children, and I am pleased both that section 7 will give children the opportunity to express their views about their support and that those views must be considered by the local authority, in so far as that is reasonably practicable.
My amendment 24 complements those provisions by placing a duty on the local authority to give a child an explanation of, and information relating to, the options for self-directed support in a form that is appropriate to the child and which takes into account their maturity and needs. In practice, that means that when a child is given the opportunity to express a view on his or her support, they will receive information in a way that will genuinely help them to understand the implications of any views that they might express. That will allow children under 16 an appropriate degree of informed choice and control over their support. I am grateful to Barnardo’s Scotland and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for bringing this important matter of detail to my attention.
I move amendment 24.
As no one has asked to speak on amendment 24, would you like to wind up now as well, please?
I ask members to agree to amendment 24.
Amendment 24 agreed to.
Amendment 1 moved—[Drew Smith].
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (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)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (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)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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, 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)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (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)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (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)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
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)
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 (North East Scotland) (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)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
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 54, Against 63, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 13—Power to make further provision about direct payments
Group 7 is on a scheme for regulation of quality of support. Amendment 2, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendments 4 and 5.
16:15
Amendment 2 is about regulation of personal assistants. The issue has, rightly, been the subject of much interest and debate in the committee and beyond. The intention behind amendment 2 is that we achieve a balance between the disabled people who will be empowered and able to choose their own personal assistants and the people who might have complex conditions and who would be considered to be more vulnerable.
I celebrate the fact that the bill is about empowering people who are cared for to have more choice, more flexibility and more control over their lives. The fact that a person is in a wheelchair does not mean that he or she cannot exercise control and decide whom to employ as a personal assistant, just as any employer would do. I do not think that any member has a problem with that.
I accept that disability organisations and disabled people themselves do not want regulation. Rather than rely on legislation, they want training and support to become good employers and to recruit safely. Indeed, some disabled people do not need any of that support.
My concern is about people who have very complex needs, who might be deemed to be very vulnerable. Such people want the flexibility that self-directed support gives them and they want to exercise choice about how and when their care is provided. That is absolutely right. However, there might be a need for additional safeguards, which afford a degree of protection when it comes to employing staff.
There is no doubt that the relationship with personal assistants is critical and is based on trust. It is unfortunate that history is littered with examples of that trust being breached. I am thankful that such cases are in the minority, but they happen. The question is, therefore, whether sufficient safeguards are in place to enable us to feel confident that a balance has been struck between preserving the empowerment that the bill will give to the majority, and protecting the small group of people who might be considered to be vulnerable.
It is for Parliament to weigh up potential risks. We have received correspondence from concerned parents who are worried about the safeguards that are in place and who want the reassurance of registration to give them peace of mind about their son’s or daughter’s wellbeing. We need to acknowledge that there have been incidences of abuse that have shocked us all. Such cases have not been confined to residential care homes.
I am struck that the Government agency that is responsible for regulation and registration, the Scottish Social Services Council, thinks that we need a system of regulation. In its submission to the Health and Sport Committee, the SSSC argued for registration and “minimum induction training”, and for distinguishing
“complex care and care for particularly vulnerable service users”,
to enable that area to be regulated without limiting personal choice for everyone else. In effect, there would be regulation for a small proportion of personal assistants.
The minister does not want to overprofessionalise personal assistants—I agree with that view. However, the Health and Sport Committee and I think that more could be done to reduce risk. Amendment 2 would not set out a scheme of regulation in the bill. That would be entirely inappropriate, because there are complex considerations, which are best left to professionals and disabled people to work through. Rather, amendment 2 attempts to offer a proportionate approach, by giving the minister the power to make regulations, should they be required.
Amendments 4 and 5 relate to amendment 2 and are technical; they would ensure that regulations would be subject to affirmative procedure, in order to ensure greater scrutiny. I hope that the Government and Parliament will accept the need for a balanced approach and support the amendments.
I move amendment 2.
I agree with Jackie Baillie; amendment 2 would provide a safeguard for the most vulnerable groups, as has been highlighted by Barnardo’s and parents of severely disabled people who have complex needs. I know that some disability groups are quite against regulation of personal assistants and I agree that many people do not need the protection that is envisaged. However, the safeguard is needed for the most vulnerable people.
The Scottish Government does not support the amendments. Amendment 2 would introduce a regulation-making power to enable ministers to establish a scheme that would regulate the quality of support that is provided by personal assistants who are employed through a direct payment. I did not support similar amendments at stage 2 and I do not support these amendments at stage 3.
A number of disabled people’s organisations have made it clear that a scheme to require registration of personal assistants would remove from individuals decision-making power over whom they employ to meet their support needs. The bill and current direct payment practice do not function on their own, but are part of a wider legal framework.
A framework of protection already exists to provide proportionate safeguards to protect people who employ or receive support from a personal assistant without restricting their choice. A personal employer who chooses to employ a PA who is a member of the protecting vulnerable groups scheme is entitled to see that person’s scheme membership statement to confirm that they are not barred from doing regulated work with adults or children. Social workers have clear adult and child protection duties, including a responsibility to ensure that a personal employer—whether they are the supported adult, the parent of a supported child or the guardian of an adult who lacks capacity—understands the importance of PVG scheme membership.
It is true that taking on the role of a personal employer brings with it significant responsibility. Social workers need to be confident that the person who chooses that route understands the safeguards that the PVG scheme brings, which include rules on seeking and sharing information, and understands the risks of employing an unsuitable person. The update to our guidance on self-directed support last year addressed those matters. The framework that I have outlined strikes an appropriate balance that keeps people safe while respecting their right to make decisions about their care.
In any case, if a future Government changed the policy, it would already have the mechanism to do what Jackie Baillie wants via its regulation-making powers under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001, which contains powers to provide for registration and regulation of different types of social service workers. I stress again that we have no plans to use such a power—for the clear policy reasons that I have outlined—but, if it was necessary in the future, that other power could be used to enable the Scottish Social Services Council to regulate personal assistants.
It would be unnecessary—and, more important, it would be undesirable—to include in the bill a regulation-making power that was intended to be used to regulate PAs, for the good policy reasons that I have outlined. As I do not support Jackie Baillie’s first amendment in the group, which is clearly not required, I do not support her other amendments in the group, either.
I listened carefully to the minister’s comments. Social workers might have a responsibility to advise people about the protecting vulnerable groups scheme, but the duty does not extend to ensuring that disabled people employ only personal assistants who are part of that scheme. If we are being frank, social workers already have huge case loads. Given all their other responsibilities, it is not realistic or reasonable to lay such a burden on them.
The bill is—rightly—about ensuring choice and flexibility for the majority, but we in Parliament have a responsibility to balance the undoubted opportunity that the bill presents with the risk. We need to strike a balance and recognise disabled people’s legitimate view that they should be able to make their own choices about personal assistants. However, we have an equal responsibility to safeguard people who might be vulnerable.
I draw members’ attention again to the clear view of the Scottish Social Services Council—the Government’s agency for regulation. It has not said that we already have sufficient powers; it has said that regulation is needed in limited circumstances.
We do not have a monopoly on wisdom. We should listen carefully to what the regulators tell us. I intend to press amendment 2.
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (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)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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)
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)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (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)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (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, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (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)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (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)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
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)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (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)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
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)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
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 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Section 15—Assessments under section 12A of 1968 Act: assistance
Amendments 25 to 27 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.
Amendment 12 not moved.
Amendment 28 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.
Amendment 13 not moved.
Section 16—Power to charge for services provided under section 2
Amendment 3 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
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)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
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)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (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)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
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)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
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 (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
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 42, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Section 17—Promotion of options for self-directed support
Group 8 is on the duty on local authorities to promote variety of providers and support. Amendment 29 is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 29 would place a duty on local authorities to promote diversity of provision of social care in their areas. Members of the lead committee will recall that I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, which sought to place a duty on local authorities in relation to providing a suitable variety of providers. I withdrew my amendment on the basis that I would have further discussions with the minister prior to today’s stage 3 debate; amendment 29 follows on from those discussions.
As it stands, section 17 will impose a duty on authorities
“to promote the availability of the options for self-directed support.”
Local authorities have a key role to play in using the information and resources that are available to them to shape the range of choices in line with the desires of social care users. In short, local authorities must base their approach to commissioning on the diverse needs of individuals.
Amendment 29 would add a further and specific duty in that respect, to promote diversity in the providers that are available to provide support and promote diversity in the range of support that is provided by authorities and other relevant organisations.
The amendment will encourage genuine choice for individuals by encouraging a proactive approach to commissioning that is based on the diverse needs and desires of populations.
I move amendment 29.
16:30
I welcome amendment 29. The bill is about choice and, to deliver real choice, local authorities must strive to encourage suitable diversity in the choices that are available to people. Nanette Milne lodged an amendment on the topic at stage 2. However, as members of the Health and Sport Committee will recall, although I agreed with aspects of that amendment I had difficulty with others. I was glad to meet her to discuss a way forward, which has found us with the amendment that is before us today. I am happy to support amendment 29 and urge Parliament to do likewise.
I think that the amendment will give genuine choice to people, which is a main function of the bill.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Section 20—Regulations: general
Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.
That ends consideration of amendments—with five seconds to spare.