Hansard

In my time on the Health Committee, we have scrutinised a raft of legislation on many subjects, and the bill is definitely up there with those that have engendered the most debate. As we have heard, the committee deliberated long and hard over its stage 1 report. It seemed that we had to determine not only whether the bill was good law, but whether it was necessary to introduce a new bill or whether existing legislation was sufficient to cover the areas that the bill seeks to address.

In common with the rest of the committee, I welcome the measures that have been included in parts 2 and 3 of the bill. They are sensible amendments to existing legislation and they will ensure that the bill delivers its stated policy aims. However, part 1 of the bill is more contentious and raises the most significant concerns. I share the committee's view—and other members have raised the issue—about the powers contained in section 3 to 38.

It is often said that a civilised society is defined by how it looks after its more vulnerable citizens. We have a duty to ensure that the bill lives up to its name and offers protection to those citizens. Although I do not doubt that the bill could be worthwhile legislation if it is eventually passed, it is clear to me that it will require significant amendment if it is truly to be fit for purpose.

I whole-heartedly agree with the minister's assertion to the committee in his letter of 17 November that

"there are some individuals in our society who do cause harm intentionally and it is critical that this bill introduces measures that prevent this."

The question for the committee is whether or not the bill as it stands introduces those measures in an appropriate way.

There must be a careful balancing act to ensure that we protect those in our society who are vulnerable, but allow individuals the right to live their lives as they choose. The bill should certainly not be a policing mechanism. Because of the definitions of the terms "adults at risk" and "abuse", I hope that the minister will agree that the bill requires some refinement. I will elaborate more on that shortly.

During one of our evidence sessions, the committee heard from Kevin Morris, disabled students officer for the National Union of Students; he has already been quoted. Kevin told us that he was

"scared by the general principles of the bill and the school of thought that lies behind it. The fact that it is all-encompassing is very dangerous. That scares many disabled people."—[Official Report, Health Committee, 19 September 2006; c 3043.]

That is why I was pleased to note from the aforementioned letter that the minister is

"willing to narrow the definition of adults at risk to make clear that it will not relate to all people with disabilities."

Sometimes it might be necessary to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but this is not one of those times. I hope that the minister also takes into account the committee's views, which echo those of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, on deleting that part of the bill that permits the definition of adults at risk to be amended by subordinate legislation. That is a very important recommendation.

I would like to minister to clarify the definition of "abuse". Fourteen of the 18 respondents who made substantive comments on that had clear concerns about that definition. The committee felt strongly that the term implies intentional, perhaps even malicious harm and, although that does happen—we are not saying that it does not—the situation is often more one of benign neglect. To label someone as an abuser in those circumstances would be unhelpful in the extreme.

The minister has now told the committee that he is

"willing to reconsider the use of the term ‘abuse' throughout the Bill",

and I hope that the Executive will lodge significant amendments on that point at stage 2. The alternative term, "adults at risk of serious harm", was suggested during our stage 1 deliberations and I am sure that there will be many other suggestions. I look forward to hearing the minister's amendments.

The bill is aimed at widening the raft of protection measures previously put in place by the Parliament for those who are covered under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. The acts ensure that those people have a right to independent advocacy services. As we have already heard from Nanette Milne, that is not the case with the bill that we are discussing today. It is vital that those who would be covered under the bill have the same rights as those who are covered by other, similar acts. I hope that we hear a commitment to that from the minister today.

Having said all that, I support the bill's aims because I believe it to be well intentioned, and I now believe it to be necessary, although I was not convinced of that at the outset. However, I agree with Shona Robison's comments about the number of amendments that are likely to be necessary at stage 2. I have a sense of déjà vu, because this is not the first health-related bill that I have been involved with to be in this position. I hope that the minister and his civil servants take that on board.

I urge Parliament to support the bill at stage 1. I also urge the Executive to work with the committee to deliver legislation that will not stigmatise Scotland's vulnerable adults but will provide the necessary support to help them.