Chamber and committees

Thank you very much, convener.

I am grateful for the committee’s continuing interest in the petition. The fundamental issue is one of local democracy in planning. I will centre my remarks on Argyll and Bute, because that is the setting for the case that the petitioner brings to you.

For members who do not know the area covered by Argyll and Bute Council, it is very disparate in nature. It includes small rural villages, island communities and substantial conurbations such as Helensburgh. The committee will not be surprised to hear that local elected members understandably take different views in different areas, based on the needs of their local communities. That causes a sense of frustration when local community members are clear about their thinking, but the planning committee, the majority of whose members do not represent their views or their area, takes an entirely contrary position.

I will give a recent example. Helensburgh community council opposed the siting of the new leisure centre in the town, because it felt that that the proposed location was wrong. Members might have seen footage of the same leisure centre losing its roof during storm Éowyn, which was captured beautifully on social media. Unfortunately, open-air swimming is now back in Helensburgh as a consequence of that storm.

On a serious note, that decision was taken by a planning committee the majority of whose members were not from the local area and in the face of almost unified local opposition to the siting. In its petition, the community council suggested that it be involved in planning decisions at local area committee level. I am very sympathetic to that. Indeed, the submission from the Scottish Forum of Community Councils talks about the ability to devolve power to local areas. I am in favour of that, but I understand that the Government does not want to legislate in that area.

I wonder whether the committee could ask a specific question about whether an easier way of achieving that aim—certainly in the case of Argyll and Bute, which would meet the petitioner’s objective—would be to have the local area committee make such decisions. There are four such committees in Argyll and Bute, which are based locally. The one for the town is Helensburgh and Lomond, which is made up entirely of local elected members. I wonder whether final planning decisions could be made there and devolved to them, rather than their being made by councillors who represent entirely different areas.

There is merit in that, if the Government would be willing to compromise even a little to enable local decisions to be taken by local elected members. I note that the convener said that the Scottish Government has issued guidance, but I am not sure that it covers that point. I wonder whether the committee would invite the Government to think again.

I welcome the opportunity to bring to the committee six amendments that seek to amend amendment 50, in the name of the minister. Taken together, my amendments would strengthen the rights of residents living in care homes to receive visits from people who are important to them.

I welcome the Government’s amendment 50, as it is better than the original provisions in the bill, but I genuinely do not believe that, as it stands, it goes far enough in protecting the rights of care home residents to see their loved ones. I am genuinely worried that too much onus is being put on care home providers to make judgments and that the checks and balances that are in place are insufficient. We absolutely must get that area right, which is why I have lodged my amendments.

As we know, Anne’s law is the result of campaigning by family members of people in care homes who were separated from their loved ones for long periods during the Covid-19 pandemic, which had devastating impacts on people’s health and wellbeing. One of the greatest and most costly failures of the pandemic took place in Scotland’s care homes. The cost in human lives was tragic, and the suffering that was caused was unimaginable. Even as restrictions for the rest of the country eased, care homes remained under repeated lockdowns, which caused harm and trauma for the residents and their families.

For many years, campaigners have been seeking a change in the law to prevent that from ever happening again, and it is imperative that we pass legislation that will end that preventable harm. I thank the care home relatives Scotland group for its continued efforts to see that change become a reality.

I will now address my amendments in turn. Amendment 50E seeks to strengthen the duty on care home providers to identify an essential care supporter for each resident to ensure that that is not an optional extra or a tick-box exercise. Amendment 50E is a serious amendment that seeks to effect change.

Amendment 50J would require that the code of practice on care home residents’ right to visits must provide that, in following those duties, the following are considered—

Of course.

I will not move amendment 132, on the basis that there will be further discussion with the minister.

Amendment 132 not moved.

Amendments 82 and 133 not moved.

Amendments 83 to 85 moved—[Gillian Mackay]—and agreed to.

Yes, that is absolutely the case. I could not have put it better myself. It is an essential role. We have seen what has happened in the past. We need to reflect on that, and we need to ensure that the legislation that we pass is as robust as possible, which is why I lodged amendment 50E.

Let me move on to amendment 50J. When it comes to care homes fulfilling the duties of the code of practice, we want the following to be considered:

“the presumption of serious harm to residents where visits with their Essential Care Supporters are denied ... the requirement for care home staff and Essential Care Supporters to work together as equals to agree how visits should be facilitated”,

which is not necessarily always the case, and

“the need for consistency of risk management processes for both staff and visitors.”

Amendments 50G and 50I are essential if we are to get Anne’s law right. Amendment 50G would require care providers to seek permission before they can suspend visits. It states that the suspension of visits may only be granted by

“Public Health Scotland on health grounds, or ... the Scottish Ministers (or a body delegated to make the decision on behalf of Scottish Ministers) for any other reason.”

Amendment 50I would put in place important checks and balances regarding the suspension of visits, with any decision to grant a suspension being

“reviewed once in every 48 hour period by the body that granted”

it, and the suspension remaining

“in force for a period of no longer than 7 days”.

As it stands, there is a lack of an appeals process, which is why amendment 50I would allow for an expedited

“appeal to be heard and a decision issued no later than 72 hours after the appeal has been made.”

Amendments 50G and 50I are critical, because the process of suspending essential care supporters from visiting residents should require a high bar and appropriate authorisation. Some people might argue that the renewal process for applications and the appeal process are much too burdensome, but I fundamentally disagree. We need to get this right and ensure that previous mistakes are not made again.

Amendment 50F is consequential to amendment 50G, and amendment 50H would require the Scottish ministers to consider

“what steps are necessary to protect care homes from legal action against them in cases where ... an Essential Care Supporter”

has visited the care home while all visits have been suspended. That is important, because we need to give the sector the confidence and reassurance that it will be backed in taking action to guarantee the right of residents to be visited by their essential care supporter.

The Feeley review identified the need for stronger protections for care home residents to maintain meaningful connections with loved ones, even during challenging situations such as outbreaks of disease. It is therefore crucial that we ensure that stronger protections are enshrined in the bill.

It is important for us to get the balance right. I am not convinced that the minister has yet gone far enough, but I am more than happy to work with her, as she knows. I urge the Government to seriously consider the detail of my amendments. We have been talking about this for years now. The opportunity to strengthen amendments should not be missed. We can and should go further. I will agree to not move amendments 50I and 50J, and I am prepared to not move amendment 50E and all the others if we have further discussions with the minister on the whole suite of amendments prior to stage 3.

I move amendment 50E.

It is estimated that 700,000 to 800,000 unpaid carers live in Scotland. Scotland’s care service is struggling. Many carers are unable to access the support that they are entitled to. As a consequence of that, unpaid carers take on a greater role in supporting the needs of loved ones.

I am concerned about the lack of detail and I share Gillian Mackay’s concerns about the lack of detail in the bill as introduced around the right to breaks. I have therefore lodged amendment 132, which calls for a clear definition of “sufficient breaks”. I have suggested that carers should receive a minimum—not a ceiling, but a minimum—of two weeks’ break. However, the committee and the minister will recognise that this is a probing amendment. I would be delighted if the minister went further, but it would be helpful to establish what would be deemed to be sufficient in terms of breaks.

I am content, on the basis of the minister’s concluding remarks, not to press amendment 50E or to move my other amendments in the group.

Amendment 50E, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 50F and 50G not moved.

I welcome the opportunity to bring to the committee six amendments that seek to amend amendment 50, in the name of the minister. Taken together, my amendments would strengthen the rights of residents living in care homes to receive visits from people who are important to them.

I welcome the Government’s amendment 50, as it is better than the original provisions in the bill, but I genuinely do not believe that, as it stands, it goes far enough in protecting the rights of care home residents to see their loved ones. I am genuinely worried that too much onus is being put on care home providers to make judgments and that the checks and balances that are in place are insufficient. We absolutely must get that area right, which is why I have lodged my amendments.

As we know, Anne’s law is the result of campaigning by family members of people in care homes who were separated from their loved ones for long periods during the Covid-19 pandemic, which had devastating impacts on people’s health and wellbeing. One of the greatest and most costly failures of the pandemic took place in Scotland’s care homes. The cost in human lives was tragic, and the suffering that was caused was unimaginable. Even as restrictions for the rest of the country eased, care homes remained under repeated lockdowns, which caused harm and trauma for the residents and their families.

For many years, campaigners have been seeking a change in the law to prevent that from ever happening again, and it is imperative that we pass legislation that will end that preventable harm. I thank the care home relatives Scotland group for its continued efforts to see that change become a reality.

I will now address my amendments in turn. Amendment 50E seeks to strengthen the duty on care home providers to identify an essential care supporter for each resident to ensure that that is not an optional extra or a tick-box exercise. Amendment 50E is a serious amendment that seeks to effect change.

Amendment 50J would require that the code of practice on care home residents’ right to visits must provide that, in following those duties, the following are considered—

I will make a tiny contribution. I have sympathy with Brian Whittle’s frustrations, although I do not believe that the committee should support his amendments. It is the case that the right to breaks for carers and Anne’s law could have been introduced much sooner. I hesitate to point out that the minister has already rejected amendments on embedding human rights in the bill. I, of course, hope to work with the minister, but I recognise Brian Whittle’s frustrations, although I do not advocate support for his amendments.