Chamber and committees

We have to deal with the amendments before us. However, I share the member’s concerns.

My amendments are about the perpetrators of domestic abuse. Individuals who carry out such abuse may be attracted to an easier-to-access GRC process, specifically as part of a pattern of coercion of an existing partner, or to aid concealment of their identity from new partners. Some may see adopting a female persona as a way of gaining women’s trust and being able to show that they have gone all the way to obtaining a GRC as part of obtaining that trust.

There are routes for an interested person to challenge, after the event, a GRC that was falsely obtained. However, I ask colleagues, just for a moment, to put themselves in the shoes of a woman who has been subjected to coercion, control and abuse. If we do that, I think that we can acknowledge just how stressful it would be to engage with that process. Further to that, abusers may—as we occasionally see with custody and family courts—see engaging in such a process as an extension of the patterns of control. My amendments aim to prevent perpetrators of domestic abuse from doing that. I commend them to the Parliament.

Will Maggie Chapman acknowledge that she is the only person in the chamber who is conflating trans people and criminals? She is the only person who has mentioned that. My amendments are about predatory men and are not about trans people.

These amendments ask for more protection at the start of the process for vulnerable adults and require the registrar general to have regard to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, as well as to the importance of inclusive communication and the promotion of equality and non-discrimination, by ensuring that information and support are provided in a way that supports capacity and decision making in line with the principles of the 2000 act.

The amendments would require the provision of information, advice and support in relation to understanding the effect and consequences of obtaining a GRC, including for people with powers under a welfare power of attorney or guardianship order.

The 2000 act is the key legislation that enables other parties to make decisions for people who do not have legal capacity to make decisions for themselves due to a mental disorder, which might include mental illness, learning disability or personality disorder, or who cannot communicate because of a physical disability. A person is considered incapable if they cannot act, make a decision, communicate a decision or understand or retain memory of a decision.

As an experienced mental health officer told me, it is important that incapacity is not seen as a blanket judgment and, rather, that it is decision specific. For example, someone might still be able to manage their money but might not be able to decide on welfare matters.

I acknowledge that the bill provides ways for a person with an interest to challenge a GRC, but there is nothing included at the front end of the process. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee made some general comments about the need for guidance for all applicants, looking mainly at 16 and 17-year-olds, but the situation of vulnerable adults did not appear to be considered. A general duty in that area would prevent their needs from being overlooked. Stronger provision is possible for those people who are covered by formal arrangements than for those who are not.

The aim of my amendments is to build safeguards at the application stage to reduce the risk of a later successful challenge in the sheriff court on grounds of incapacity to understand.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It is unclear whether I connected. I would have voted no.

Not moved.

Amendment 35 moved—[Edward Mountain].

To ask the Scottish Government how citizens can influence energy consent planning decisions made under the section 36 application process. (S6O-01640)

I recently met constituents in Lylestone, who told me that they feel that they are in a David and Goliath-scale fight with a company that is proposing to build a large solar farm on farmland next to their village. They expressed worry and anger about the fact that the company concerned is acting as though the project is a foregone conclusion.

I seek reassurance from the Scottish Government that that is absolutely not the case and that the concerns and objections of residents of the village who would be most impacted by the proposed development will be taken seriously and acted on.

The minister has talked about implementation gaps. We know that we have good policy and law, but the fact is that the experience of our citizens sometimes does not reflect the good intentions. We cannot ignore the resource aspects of the implementation gaps, so how will the national care service help in that respect?

Convener, my next question will probably not surprise you. I think that everyone would subscribe to the idea that we need to prevent problems before they happen; the real challenge is moving finance and resource from crisis to prevention. How will the national care service help us to do that?

That is helpful.