Meeting of the Parliament 24 June 2015
I think that we were collaborative in 2003, as well.
Clearly, the bill is an amending bill, so in due course there might well be a need for a wider review, not only of the learning disability issue—I hope that that review will proceed without delay—but, in the longer run, of how the mental health legislation interacts with the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, given the different and overlapping functions and the different definitions of incapacity.
Obviously, the discussion is set against the backdrop of the principles of the 2003 act, including those on reciprocity and the least restrictive alternative. All the things that we have discussed today relate to what was set up in the 2003 act—for example, the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, the named person and advocacy rights. On the progress that has been made, it is good that changes were made at stage 2. The proposal in the bill to extend short-term detention from five days to 10 days was reversed, and the proposal for a default named person was also rejected at committee.
Today, we have made progress on suspension of detention and—through two Richard Simpson amendments—on statistical information and the review of deaths in detention. On advocacy, we have had perhaps one of the most welcome advances today, and all credit to the minister for that. We have also had Bob Doris’s amendment about health boards publicising support for people to make advance statements. However, we in the Labour Party are disappointed that there is not a stronger duty to promote advance statements. We are also disappointed with the limited progress on levels of security, although I will not rerun that debate now.
I am very disappointed that there was no movement on psychologists. At one point—perhaps it was in committee—the minister invoked the fact that it is not appropriate to deal with that issue in an amending bill, but the proposal was for a very discreet change, particularly given that it was to be done through regulations. It was unfortunate that the minister completely rejected that opportunity.
Some recommendations in the McManus review have not been taken up, although we welcome the fact that many of them have been. The 2010 Equal Opportunities Committee report on McManus is worth looking at, as it focuses very much on the equality issues in McManus and the original legislation. Equality was one of the 10 Millan principles, but there are still concerns about equality issues for some groups in relation to the legislation; for example, we know that there is still an issue about young people in adult beds. McManus and the Equal Opportunities Committee also highlighted the duties of local authorities under sections 25 to 31 of the 2003 act to promote the wellbeing and social development of all persons in their area who have or have had mental disorders. That is outwith the scope of the amending bill, but we should not forget those wider aspects of mental health.
My final point is made just to remind us of that. I welcome all the progress that has been made on mental health, but we have all seen the horrifying story on today’s front pages about a postnatal depression tragedy that arose in my area because a service was not available for the woman in question.
We know that there is a lot still to do, but we welcome the progress that has been made on mental health in general and in the bill.
18:30