Chamber
Plenary, 23 Nov 2006
23 Nov 2006 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
This has been a useful debate that has left the minister in no doubt about where changes to the bill are required.
Euan Robson said that the bill is the mark of a civilised society. That may be true if it does what the Executive says it will do, but that is what concerns are being expressed about. He also said local authorities will be left in no doubt that they have a duty to take action to protect vulnerable adults. Of course, they should be doing that already. He said that the bill would work in the interests of clarity, but the system should already be clear. He also talked about the establishment of adult protection committees but, as Christine Grahame pointed out, that has happened already without the bill.
Euan Robson made a reasonable point about the need for the bill to provide for appropriate accommodation in relation to reciprocity. We all agree with that.
Roseanna Cunningham talked about how the law of unintended consequences can haunt legislation, and that is what we are concerned about. We are not being difficult when we raise concerns; as legislators, we want to ensure that the law that we pass does what it is intended to do and does not have unintended consequences from which we have later to pull back.
There is undoubtedly ambivalence about the bill, as Roseanna Cunningham said. She mentioned that various groups have expressed concern, particularly those which represent disabled people, whom the bill intends to protect. We need to listen to those who will be affected by the bill, in particular when they raise genuine concerns about the bill being patronising and taking away rights. It is the minister's duty to reassure them on those points.
Roseanna Cunningham also talked about key definitions that are flawed, which has been a theme throughout the debate. She talked about equivalent and appropriate accommodation, which is similar to a point made by Euan Robson, and the necessity for the minister to accept the Health Committee's recommendations. He has accepted some recommendations, but others will be the subject of further debate.
Janis Hughes talked about the need for significant amendments if the bill is to be fit for purpose. She said the bill should not be a policing mechanism. I totally agree with that, and it is of concern that the bill is being perceived in that way. She also made the point that 14 out of 18 respondents were concerned about the term "abuse", which the minister has said he will address at stage 2. We will need to see what he comes back with on that.
Janis Hughes also mentioned the rights to advocacy that must be included, and we agree with that. She talked about déjà vu in referring to extensive amendments at stage 2—the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 comes to mind. There were about 600 amendments to that legislation at stage 2; I hope that we will not have to deal with so many amendments at stage 2 of the bill. I would have thought that lessons might have been learned from the 2003 act. The Executive has to get a bill right at stage 1 when it can. There will always be amendments at stage 2, but the minister must acknowledge that amending fundamental parts of a bill at stage 2 shows that it was badly drafted. We should not have to redraft fundamental elements of the bill at stage 2, but that is what we will have to do.
Christine Grahame challenged us all on the need for the bill, and she made some valid points. She talked about the fact that failure in procedures and practice was at the root of the Miss X case, and she asked whether the bill would have made any difference. The jury is out on that. She also made points that had not been made previously about the terminology in the bill. She referred to visits, to the wide ability to enter any place in the course of inquiries into an adult protection case and to the fact that the examination of records could include the examination of personal information against a person's will. That takes us back to the issue of consent, which gives all of us—certainly Scottish National Party members—cause for concern.
Christine Grahame also asked whether the lack of a right of appeal where a banning order is in place had ECHR implications, which is a valid question, and she suggested that other things, such as the speeding up of the guardianship orders process, should be happening anyway. That point was worth making, as there are concerns about that process.
Christine May discussed the role of carers and their need for support. We all agree with what she said in that respect. She talked about the single point of control in the system and the creation—to an extent—of the duty to investigate. Someone will have responsibility for that duty, but it is a concern that, in Scotland in this day and age, legislation must be passed to make a duty out of something that should already be the job of someone who works in social work services. It is in that context that we must reflect on having to pass the bill. We must ensure that people are aware of their responsibilities in their work and that they receive the appropriate back-up and have enough resources to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.
Jean Turner spoke about the training that will be required to ensure that the legislation is adequately implemented. Her point was well made.
Unlike the rest of us, Helen Eadie was glowing about the bill. Perhaps she does not share the concerns that other members have, about which, as I said, the minister has been left in no doubt.
Finally, Robin Harper talked about hate crimes against elderly people. Of course I accept what he said, but I am not sure that the bill will combat such crimes. Societal attitudes must change, but we must be cautious about always looking to legislation to fix societal problems. Education is needed to change attitudes. Legislating can sometimes seem an easy answer, but it can make problems even more difficult because it is often not the answer.
The tone of the debate and the content of speeches by members of all parties should give the minister a clear indication of what is required at stage 2. I hope that we can make the bill into legislation that will have a practical effect and will achieve what people have set out to achieve. With the caveats that I have mentioned, we are, as I have said, happy to support the bill at stage 1.
Euan Robson said that the bill is the mark of a civilised society. That may be true if it does what the Executive says it will do, but that is what concerns are being expressed about. He also said local authorities will be left in no doubt that they have a duty to take action to protect vulnerable adults. Of course, they should be doing that already. He said that the bill would work in the interests of clarity, but the system should already be clear. He also talked about the establishment of adult protection committees but, as Christine Grahame pointed out, that has happened already without the bill.
Euan Robson made a reasonable point about the need for the bill to provide for appropriate accommodation in relation to reciprocity. We all agree with that.
Roseanna Cunningham talked about how the law of unintended consequences can haunt legislation, and that is what we are concerned about. We are not being difficult when we raise concerns; as legislators, we want to ensure that the law that we pass does what it is intended to do and does not have unintended consequences from which we have later to pull back.
There is undoubtedly ambivalence about the bill, as Roseanna Cunningham said. She mentioned that various groups have expressed concern, particularly those which represent disabled people, whom the bill intends to protect. We need to listen to those who will be affected by the bill, in particular when they raise genuine concerns about the bill being patronising and taking away rights. It is the minister's duty to reassure them on those points.
Roseanna Cunningham also talked about key definitions that are flawed, which has been a theme throughout the debate. She talked about equivalent and appropriate accommodation, which is similar to a point made by Euan Robson, and the necessity for the minister to accept the Health Committee's recommendations. He has accepted some recommendations, but others will be the subject of further debate.
Janis Hughes talked about the need for significant amendments if the bill is to be fit for purpose. She said the bill should not be a policing mechanism. I totally agree with that, and it is of concern that the bill is being perceived in that way. She also made the point that 14 out of 18 respondents were concerned about the term "abuse", which the minister has said he will address at stage 2. We will need to see what he comes back with on that.
Janis Hughes also mentioned the rights to advocacy that must be included, and we agree with that. She talked about déjà vu in referring to extensive amendments at stage 2—the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 comes to mind. There were about 600 amendments to that legislation at stage 2; I hope that we will not have to deal with so many amendments at stage 2 of the bill. I would have thought that lessons might have been learned from the 2003 act. The Executive has to get a bill right at stage 1 when it can. There will always be amendments at stage 2, but the minister must acknowledge that amending fundamental parts of a bill at stage 2 shows that it was badly drafted. We should not have to redraft fundamental elements of the bill at stage 2, but that is what we will have to do.
Christine Grahame challenged us all on the need for the bill, and she made some valid points. She talked about the fact that failure in procedures and practice was at the root of the Miss X case, and she asked whether the bill would have made any difference. The jury is out on that. She also made points that had not been made previously about the terminology in the bill. She referred to visits, to the wide ability to enter any place in the course of inquiries into an adult protection case and to the fact that the examination of records could include the examination of personal information against a person's will. That takes us back to the issue of consent, which gives all of us—certainly Scottish National Party members—cause for concern.
Christine Grahame also asked whether the lack of a right of appeal where a banning order is in place had ECHR implications, which is a valid question, and she suggested that other things, such as the speeding up of the guardianship orders process, should be happening anyway. That point was worth making, as there are concerns about that process.
Christine May discussed the role of carers and their need for support. We all agree with what she said in that respect. She talked about the single point of control in the system and the creation—to an extent—of the duty to investigate. Someone will have responsibility for that duty, but it is a concern that, in Scotland in this day and age, legislation must be passed to make a duty out of something that should already be the job of someone who works in social work services. It is in that context that we must reflect on having to pass the bill. We must ensure that people are aware of their responsibilities in their work and that they receive the appropriate back-up and have enough resources to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.
Jean Turner spoke about the training that will be required to ensure that the legislation is adequately implemented. Her point was well made.
Unlike the rest of us, Helen Eadie was glowing about the bill. Perhaps she does not share the concerns that other members have, about which, as I said, the minister has been left in no doubt.
Finally, Robin Harper talked about hate crimes against elderly people. Of course I accept what he said, but I am not sure that the bill will combat such crimes. Societal attitudes must change, but we must be cautious about always looking to legislation to fix societal problems. Education is needed to change attitudes. Legislating can sometimes seem an easy answer, but it can make problems even more difficult because it is often not the answer.
The tone of the debate and the content of speeches by members of all parties should give the minister a clear indication of what is required at stage 2. I hope that we can make the bill into legislation that will have a practical effect and will achieve what people have set out to achieve. With the caveats that I have mentioned, we are, as I have said, happy to support the bill at stage 1.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5042, in the name of Andy Kerr, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Adult Support...
The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care (Lewis Macdonald):
Lab
We introduced the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill principally to provide support and protection for those people in our communities who are vuln...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Has the minister discussed the civil shrieval procedures that would have to take place? I see no mention of them. Will they be like interim interdicts? How w...
Lewis Macdonald:
Lab
We have taken appropriate advice on the procedures, to which I will be happy to return in the course of the afternoon to give Christine Grahame more detail o...
Shona Robison (Dundee East) (SNP):
SNP
The bill has had what I would describe as a difficult birth. Perhaps that is because, as I understand it, its origins lay with the Bichard proposals, from wh...
Mrs Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
This may be a somewhat repetitive debate.As we know, the general purpose of the bill is to provide an overall framework of support and protection for adults ...
Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD):
LD
I am particularly pleased to take part in the debate. Legislation in this important area is clearly necessary.The reforms in part 1 of the bill are, frankly,...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
It may be helpful if I indicate that at this stage in the debate I am not applying the normal time limits.
Euan Robson:
LD
Thank you. In that case, I will be slightly more expansive than I would otherwise have been.It is clear that statutory adult protection committees will be va...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
It is often said that the committee system is the heart and soul of what happens in the Scottish Parliament, combining as it does the functions of select and...
Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab):
Lab
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 enge...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
As some members might know, I come to the bill against the background of the Miss X case, in which a lady with learning difficulties suffered horrific abuse ...
Section 9, entitled “Examination of records etc”, says in subsection (1):
"A council officer may require any person holding health, financial or other records relating to an individual whom the officer knows or believes to be an ad...
Lewis Macdonald:
Lab
I seek clarification from Christine Grahame as to which places she thinks should not be included in the bill, because I think that the intention is evident.
Christine Grahame:
SNP
Such situations occur when people have capacity and against their will, but the bill would allow a council officer to go to their bank and look at their bank...
Euan Robson:
LD
The point is that if we put such committees on a statutory footing, there will be no doubt that they should exist. Although the Borders committee was born of...
Christine Grahame:
SNP
I cannot agree. The process is happening in many places in Scotland. The chief social work inspector could make plain through her guidance that that is what ...
Christine May (Central Fife) (Lab):
Lab
I think that I may be the only non-member of the Health Committee to participate in the debate so far.
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
No. Christine Grahame is not on the committee.
Christine May:
Lab
I beg Christine Grahame's pardon.It may come as a surprise to members, although I hope that it does not, to learn that we are all getting older. We hope that...
Dr Jean Turner (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind):
Ind
When I first started to read the bill, I realised that there was a need for people to be able to enter patients' homes to assess them but, as I read through ...
Christine May:
Lab
Does Dr Turner agree that some of the dreadful cases in the past have arisen because of reluctance to share such information?
Dr Turner:
Ind
Christine May is correct. People need training in how they should use and share information. I believe that people should share information. I also believe t...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I am in no doubt why the people of Scotland need the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Bill. It is clear to me, having sat through the Health Committee...
Christine May:
Lab
Yes I am.
Helen Eadie:
Lab
I am so sorry—I meant Christine Grahame, not Christine May.The response to those questions by Adrian Ward of the Law Society of Scotland was compelling. He s...
Shona Robison:
SNP
In which cases would the member think it appropriate to override the views of an adult with capacity who did not want an intervention?
Helen Eadie:
Lab
I will return to that point later in my speech. The point was covered by a Mr Graham, a physician who gave evidence to the committee on the bill.Mr Ward cont...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
During the previous session of Parliament, in 2002 to 2003, I tried to have hate crime legislation extended to all the groups that are identified under Europ...
Euan Robson:
LD
It should be clear to the minister from the debate that parts 2 to 4 of the bill will not cause him a great deal of difficulty. The interest will focus on pa...