Hansard

I thank members for their speeches. I will try and cover as much ground as I can.

Although the bill has a relatively narrow focus, many of its provisions will make a difference for service users. Jenny Marra was right to talk about the constituents who approach us about many mental health-related issues. It is always important to have them in mind as we progress this work.

The bill has, at its heart, the aim of protecting service users’ rights and interests and of ensuring that the system under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 works as effectively as possible. As I have said before, I am grateful to members and stakeholders for working with the Government to get the provisions exactly right. It has been a collaborative process. We have been able to work with the Health and Sport Committee very effectively to ensure that the bill is as good as it possibly can be.

The bill is only part of the Government’s wider programme to improve mental health services. Rhoda Grant is right to say that more must be done. She and other members can be assured that my focus will always be on that. Nonetheless, it is important that those who need compulsory treatment under the act are able to access treatment quickly and to have their rights and interests protected. The bill will play a key role in doing that.

Jenny Marra raised concerns about the bill’s compatibility with the ECHR. I take seriously the responsibility to have due regard to human rights. It is essential from a human perspective; it is also a legal requirement. The bill is underpinned by various processes of appeal and rights to express a view. I believe that the bill is compatible with the ECHR. I am unaware of any ruling that says the 2003 act and this bill are not compatible with it. I assure her that I will always listen and respond to serious concerns.

Various members have raised the review of the inclusion of learning disability and autism spectrum disorder in the scope of the 2003 act. I recognise the disappointment that the review has not taken place sooner. Let me be clear: I made the commitment to that review in the Government’s response to the committee’s stage 1 report. That commitment was made in advance of amendments at stages 2 and 3. It is a serious commitment.

Work has tentatively begun to engage stakeholders. I hope that that is an indication of our serious intent. Bob Doris asked whether the approach would be rights based. He can be assured that I absolutely commit to that being the process that we will follow.

I say to Mark McDonald—and to Dr Simpson, who latched on to his suggestion—that I am absolutely open to an early stakeholder event to help move the process forward. I will ensure that Scottish Government officials move forward on that basis.

There is no disagreement across the chamber on the need for a review. The Government was not able to accept the amendment on that—amendment 1—that was debated earlier not because of the principle but because of some of the mechanisms. It contained a hard timescale, which is not necessarily helpful to ensuring that we have the fullest review possible.

More substantially, amendment 1 provided for the removal of learning disabilities from the definition of mental health disorder by way of regulations if the review concluded that that had to be done. I am not convinced that that is the best way forward because it would summarily remove all the protections and rights that people with learning disabilities have under the 2003 act without replacing them. I do not think that any of us would want to proceed on that basis. The point that was made about the need for scrutiny of any measures that might be introduced is valid, and I am not convinced that that could readily be done by introducing regulations.

Let me be clear: the review will be participative and we have not yet determined exactly how it will be conducted. We want to involve stakeholders in shaping it. I am committed to beginning it as soon as possible, and I do not want to put an artificial timescale on its conclusion. The timescale that was set out in amendment 1 might be possible. I make my commitment: I want the review to be concluded as soon as possible but it is important that we do not curtail it, especially in light of the fact that I have also committed to the review covering the use of psychotropic substances and the inclusion of psychologists in the scope of the legislation.

Jim Hume and Mary Scanlon referred to the burdens that the Parliament places on mental health officers through its legislation. I recognise the invaluable contribution that mental health officers make to improving the lives of mental health patients, their friends and their families. I said earlier that the Government has announced an additional £85 million of investment over the next five years but, taking the investment that was announced in May and November last year, our additional investment in mental health services is £100 million.

The Scottish Government has also undertaken a scoping exercise to gather evidence on the capacity of the mental health officer workforce. That includes data provided in Mental Welfare Commission reports and the Scottish Social Services Council’s most recent workforce data report on mental health officers in Scotland. We will consider the draft report of that work in due course.