Scottish Parliament, 4 February 2016

281 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

Mental Health Patients (In-patient Facilities)

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the retention of locally accessible in-patient facilities for mental health patients. (S4O-05524)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government provides funding to individual health boards, which are responsible for providing services that meet the physical and mental health needs of their local population. Some in-patient mental health care will always be necessary, but the focus in recent times has been on maximising the provision of appropriate services in the community.

Mental health is an absolute priority for the Scottish Government and we will continue to work closely with our partners, including the national health service, local authorities, the third sector, service users and carers, to ensure that we offer the best quality of life and opportunities for people with mental health problems.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and for meeting me recently to discuss the situation regarding the Darataigh facility in Stranraer, which the local health board wishes to close. If it is closed, patients in need of in-patient support will have to be transferred to Dumfries, meaning a round journey of more than 150 miles for the patients, their families and loved ones.

There is widespread public anger about the matter, and there is cross-party support for the retention of an in-patient facility in Stranraer. People’s feelings were most recently expressed at a well-attended public rally just last Saturday. Things are getting somewhat heated.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Do you have a question, Mr Fergusson?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

It is just coming, Presiding Officer.

Local councillors of all parties are keen to meet the cabinet secretary to discuss the situation. My simple question is whether she is willing to undertake such a meeting.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As the member knows, the board is now committed to engaging with local stakeholders for six months on the proposed service model, which seeks to maximise the provision of local, community-based care. I have been reassured by the chief executive that he remains personally committed to meeting any elected representatives who wish to discuss the matter.

It is a matter for the board. I am happy to continue to meet Alex Fergusson. I have also met Aileen McLeod on the matter. I can meet any other members of the Parliament who want to discuss the situation at Darataigh.

As for taking forward the consultation on the proposed service change, it is best left to the board to get on with the job of doing that, while consulting local elected members.

NHS Lanarkshire (Meetings)

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport last met NHS Lanarkshire and what was discussed. (S4O-05525)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Ministers and Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Lanarkshire, to discuss matters of importance to local people.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

How are NHS Lanarkshire and the Scottish Government responding to the outbreak of H1N1, otherwise known as swine flu, in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth area? Can the cabinet secretary say whether there is anything that the Government can do to increase uptake of the flu vaccine among the vulnerable groups who would be most at risk from the virus?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I reassure the member that we have of course been kept fully informed about the issue. There is a very, very low risk to the public, and the situation is being well managed by the local health professionals, as you would expect. I am happy to write to the member with more details on the matter, if he would find that helpful.

As for uptake of the flu vaccine, it is very important that people who are entitled to the vaccine and who would benefit from it, particularly those with health conditions that make them more vulnerable, should take it up.

There has been a lot of promotion of the flu vaccine through the uptake campaign. The vaccine appears to be a better fit this year with the flu that is out there in the community, and that is an important message.

If Mark Griffin would find it helpful for me to write to him with a more detailed response, particularly on the H1N1 issue, I will do that and I will ensure that he is fully apprised of the work that is being done locally on the issue.

Scotland’s Schools for the Future Programme

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

3. To ask the Scottish Government when work will start on the schools that are receiving funding from the recently announced £230 million investment under the Scotland’s schools for the future programme. (S4O-05526)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Government wishes to maintain momentum across Scotland for the future programme and to build on the excellent progress that has been achieved to date.

Councils have already been informed that we expect all 19 of the schools that we announced on 25 January to be delivered and to be open for business by 31 March 2020 at the very latest. Moreover, earlier delivery dates are both expected and encouraged.

As part of the project development work, councils will be working with the Scottish Futures Trust to draw up detailed programmes that capture key milestones and to ensure that the projects will be delivered by the required timeline.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Can the cabinet secretary confirm what steps will be taken to ensure that disruption to the education of pupils, such as those at Wallyford primary school, will be kept to a minimum?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is of course for education authorities to develop and implement such transition plans. We would hope and expect that any disruption to children’s education is kept to an absolute minimum when moving them from an existing school to a new one.

In the case of Wallyford primary school, East Lothian Council has indicated to Government officials that the relocation of the school will require a statutory consultation to be undertaken under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. Under the 2010 act, a council’s proposal paper must set out clearly, among other things, how it intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects that may arise from implementation of the proposal. We understand that East Lothian Council has still to carry out that very important consultation.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The First Minister announced last week that funding is now available for rebuilding Queen Margaret academy in my constituency. Can the cabinet secretary give me details of when that work will start and of the expected completion date of this rebuild project? I hope that it will be before 2020.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As I indicated in my response to Mr Beattie, as part of the project development work that is rightly being undertaken between councils and the Scottish Futures Trust, they will draw up very detailed programmes capturing all the key necessary steps and mapping out a timeline. It is the intention that all 19 of the schools will be delivered and open for business by 31 March 2020 at the very latest. I can of course write to Mr Scott with more specific information about the envisaged milestones regarding the school in his constituency.

Common Financial Tool (Personal Independence Payments)

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

4. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason personal independence payments are included for income assessment as part of the common financial tool in a bankruptcy process. (S4O-05527)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The common financial tool determines the level of contribution that a debtor can pay; ensuring the interests of debtors and creditors are considered.

It is absolutely clear both in legislation and guidance that no contribution is appropriate where income is derived solely from benefits. And where there is private income any contribution must not include any element of state benefits that are in payment.

The common financial tool guidance also makes it clear that where personal independence payment or a similar benefit is received, full account must be taken of additional expenditure that is likely to be required for care, mobility or other health related matters.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer, which I know will be of interest to a constituent of mine. How many bankruptcies have involved people in receipt of personal independence payments or similar benefits in the past year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Since April 2015, 295 bankruptcies have been awarded following a debtor application where income has included personal independence payments, disability living allowance or attendance allowance. A contribution has been applied in one of those cases to the level of private income involved. I hope that that clarifies the issue for Fiona McLeod.

Medical and Home Care (Older People)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it works with the national health service and local authorities to ensure that medical and home care for older people is adequate and sustainable. (S4O-05528)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Our legislation to integrate health and social care provides a platform for health boards and local authorities, along with the third and independent sectors, to work together to ensure that people are supported to live as independently as possible for as long as possible in their own homes.

The Public Bodies Joint Working (Scotland) Act 2014 places a duty on integration authorities to create a single strategic plan for the integrated functions and budgets that they control. The plan will set out how they will plan and deliver services for their area. The views of clinicians and care professionals, along with those of the independent and third sectors, service users and carers, will be central to shaping the commissioning and planning process.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Can the cabinet secretary clarify what progress has been made between NHS Fife and Fife Council in improving outcomes and supporting service redesign of health and social care integration and the establishment of a new joint board? Further, what share of the Scottish Government integrated care fund for 2015-16 is allocated to Fife?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Yesterday I attended the formal launch of Fife’s health and social care partnership, which was a well-attended event by people of all sectors. It was a very positive event throughout the day.

NHS Fife and Fife Council are making steady progress in relation to the integration of health and social care. I have signed off their integration scheme, which details how integrated arrangements between both organisations will work. The integration joint board was able to be legally established from 3 October 2015.

The partnership recently conducted its consultation on the strategic plan; that ran from 7 October 2015 to 6 January 2016. The consultation is now closed, and the results will be considered by the integration joint board on 10 February.

Finally, the Fife integration joint board received £6.73 million from the integration care fund in 2015-16. It will also get its share of the £250 million announced in the budget by John Swinney—if Fife Council accepts the Scottish Government deal.

Major Trauma Centres

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it expects to deliver the commitment that it made on 30 April 2014 that four specialist major trauma centres will be operational from 2016. (S4O-05529)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Good progress continues to be made in developing the right trauma network for Scotland, but there are differing views among clinicians on just how many major trauma centres Scotland needs. It is extremely important that we get the model of care right.

I have asked the national planning forum to examine what the appropriate balance of centres and responsibilities within a new trauma network would be. The new network will be developed to complement our accident and emergency departments across the country and ensure that the right specialists with the right experience are in place to save more lives in the most difficult of circumstances.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

It is very disappointing to hear that answer, because the Government made a very clear commitment in April 2014 that there would be four specialist major trauma centres. Does the cabinet secretary not understand the impact that it has on the morale of staff and the ability of hospitals to recruit staff when she reneges on that promise? I do not understand, and so perhaps she can explain, why it is that Aberdeen royal infirmary and Ninewells hospital in Dundee are now faced with that uncertainty after a very clear commitment was made by her Government two years ago.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I do not know whether Lewis Macdonald is suggesting that we just go ahead, regardless of the fact that, at the moment, clinicians do not agree what the model of care should be. Surely it is important that we listen to the clinicians across the whole of Scotland. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Maybe Lewis Macdonald does not want to hear the detail of the answer—I think that it is important that he does and that we listen to the clinicians.

As I said, good progress continues to be made with the work to develop the four major trauma centres, which may well transpire to be the right model for Scotland. There is now better data available than there was in 2013, and that is why I have asked the national planning forum to look again at the most appropriate model for Scotland, taking all of that data into account. Until that work is completed and we get the clinicians to agree on what is the best model for Scotland, I will not make a decision on the number of major trauma centres.

I am happy to keep Lewis Macdonald updated. However, I am quite surprised that, in the face of a lack of clinical agreement on the matter, he wants to push ahead. That speaks volumes about his position on the matter.

Scottish Strategy for Autism

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review the progress of the Scottish strategy for autism. (S4O-05530)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Scottish strategy for autism is a 10-year strategy, and although progress has been made there is still work to be done.

The Scottish Government reviews the progress of the strategy through quarterly meetings with the national autism governance group, which provides service expertise and strategic leadership and challenges the delivery of the strategy’s outcomes, with the aim of improving outcomes for individuals and families who live with autism. The strategy’s progress was highlighted at the annual autism conference, which was most recently held in December 2015.

The recommendations of the strategy have been reframed as an outcomes-based approach, with priorities identified for 2015 to 2017. The outcomes focus on improving services so that people with autism can live healthier lives, can have choice and control over the services that they receive, and can be supported to be independent, active citizens.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

What is the Scottish Government’s response to the report of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland into the tragic death of Ms MN, who was on the autistic spectrum and who took her own life while in a care home? How will the recommendations from that report inform the autism strategy?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I read with great sadness the report from the Mental Welfare Commission about Ms MN’s death. I accept the recommendations for the Scottish Government. The report and the recommendations will be discussed at the next meeting of the autism strategy governance group, on 11 February, and the group will consider how to take the recommendations forward. Following that, a response from the governance group and the Scottish Government will be sent to the Mental Welfare Commission to advise of actions to be taken forward. Of course, any lessons for the overall strategy will also be taken forward.

NHS Lothian (Chair and Chief Officers)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has confidence in the chair and the chief officers of NHS Lothian. (S4O-05531)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Yes.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

At NHS Lothian we have a chairman who arrogantly dismisses hundreds of emails from members of the public who are extremely concerned about the future of the children’s ward at St John’s hospital, and we have a senior officer who warned that a protracted review would increase the risk of service disruption but then agreed to such a delay, following pressure from civil servants and the cabinet secretary.

How can the public have confidence in anyone in the Scottish Government, when it is playing party politics with the health and wellbeing of children in Lothian?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

A bit of self-awareness from Neil Findlay would not go amiss.

The outcome and timing of the independent review are absolutely a matter for the board and for the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which confirmed that it has had no discussion with the Scottish Government. The review is an independent review, which NHS Lothian commissioned, the timing of which was due to the availability of experts from the royal college to carry it out.

Neil Findlay asked about the 400 members of the public who have contacted NHS Lothian. I absolutely expect NHS Lothian—whether that is the chair, the chief executive or anyone else in NHS Lothian—to listen to the concerns of those 400 individuals. I have made that clear to the chair of NHS Lothian. I hope that Neil Findlay will accept the assurance that any member of the public should be heard, whether they email, write or attend a local meeting.

The review, which I understand is going well, will be a full process, carried out by the royal college. I hope that Neil Findlay is not casting aspersions on the royal college and its role in this regard, because the royal college is engaged in a full consultation with local people. I hope that Neil Findlay will encourage constituents to attend meetings and take part fully.

The only person who is talking about closing the ward at the moment appears to be Neil Findlay. No one else is talking about that.

Flooding (Barnett Consequentials)

Lesley Brennan (Labour, North East Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what proportion of the £12 million funding for flood-hit communities derives from Barnett consequentials and when it will be distributed. (S4O-05532)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Any Barnett consequentials that accrue to the Scottish Government are added to the total funding that is available to the Scottish ministers; it is then for the Scottish ministers to decide how available resources should be allocated.

The First Minister announced a £12 million funding package on 9 January. Confirmation was received from HM Treasury on 18 January that the Scottish Government will receive £14.5 million of resource in 2015-16; that is additional to the Barnett consequentials that were received in December, which support the £4 million aid package that was announced in the budget statement. Local authorities are now actively paying out grants to people who were affected by the recent flooding.

Lesley Brennan (Labour, North East Scotland)

Whatever source the funding comes from, it will certainly go to good use, given the devastating start of the year that a number of communities in my region experienced due to flooding and its aftermath. The problems will continue for some time yet.

I acknowledge the flood recovery appeal, which has reached £300,000, due to the generous support of the public, businesses and funders. That fund is open to applications, over and above the Government funding.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Can we have a question, Ms Brennan?

Lesley Brennan (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that prevention is much better than cure? Given reports that plans for the long-awaited flood prevention scheme for Stonehaven—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Let us hear the member.

Lesley Brennan (Labour, North East Scotland)

Given reports that those plans are to be called in by the Scottish Government, can the Deputy First Minister give me an undertaking that the process will avoid significant further delays, while taking full account of the concerns of local residents and traders about the proposed development?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On the point of substance, I agree with Lesley Brennan that it is important that we have a range of flood alleviation measures in place. Some of that involves flood defences, but as the flood management strategies make clear, it also involves alleviation measures in the hill areas, before the water flows down to coastal areas such as Stonehaven.

I am not familiar with the issues to do with the flood scheme in Stonehaven, but Lesley Brennan will know that all applications of that nature must go through effective public consultation and consideration, and some planning issues might not be able to be resolved in that process. I will explore the rationale for the situation in Stonehaven and write to the member to confirm the details.

Engagements

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03217)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Given that today is world cancer day, I take this opportunity to thank all our health and social care staff and those in the third sector who work tirelessly to deliver our cancer services. I know that every member in the chamber is acutely aware of the devastating impact that cancer has on people here at home and around the world, and it is therefore important for all of us to mark world cancer day 2016.

Later today, I have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I associate myself with the First Minister's remarks in their entirety.

Last night, the First Minister voted against Labour's plans to use the powers of this Parliament to stop cuts to education and vital local public services. The Scottish National Party and the Tories stood shoulder to shoulder to impose hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts on schools and communities. That goes against everything that the First Minister has ever told us that she stands for. Last year she said:

“we will use the powers we have in the Scottish Parliament to pursue a different approach”,

and she promised to halt the deeply misguided march to further austerity. Yesterday, she had the chance to stop school budgets being slashed and thousands of people losing their jobs. Why did she not take it?

The First Minister

Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

In this chamber, we have a Labour Party that wants to increase taxes for low-income and middle-income earners, and a Tory party that wants to cut taxes for high earners. They are both wrong, and they are as bad as each other.

Last night, I and my colleagues voted against a proposal that would have seen every single person in Scotland who earns above £11,000 a year paying more tax. That is a fact, whether Labour likes it or not. One could argue that, in doing so, I was only following the advice of Kezia Dugdale herself. She stood up at her party conference last October and said that

“A fairer Scotland isn’t one where everyone pays more tax”

and that we must

“stop ... tax rises on working families.”

I will concentrate on protecting—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

I will concentrate on protecting our vital public services and delivering pay rises for people across Scotland. I will leave the Labour Party to defend why somebody on £11,000 a year should be paying more tax.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Of course, the First Minister did not stand shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in the chamber only yesterday; she was in the newspapers this week using phrases such as “tax grab” and “punitive tax rises”. What about punitive service cuts and punitive job losses? She imposed £500 million-worth of cuts on local communities across Scotland yesterday.

It is always the same with the SNP: “It can’t be done,” and “We don’t have the power”—the same pathetic excuses that we heard when the party was pressed on tax credits.

The reality is this: it can be done, and we have the power. The budget process has a long way to go. We can still stop these SNP cuts to schools. At the stroke of a pen, the First Minister could stop hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of cuts and thousands of job losses. She says that education has been protected, but it was revealed this week that spending on children in our primary schools has been cut by £561 per child since she was re-elected. That is before the latest round of cuts. If she will not stop cuts to local school budgets, how on earth can she claim that education is her priority?

The First Minister

In point of fact, total revenue spending on schools has risen under this SNP Government by at least £208 million, or 4.5 per cent. That is the reality.

However, let us just focus on what Kezia Dugdale is proposing. Local authorities in the next financial year are facing a reduction of £350 million, which is offset by an investment in social care of £250 million. Instead of saying to local authorities, “Let us work together to find a 1 per cent reduction in a budget of £15 billion,” Labour wants to increase tax for every single person in Scotland who is earning more than £11,000. That is the reality.

Let me spell out to Kezia Dugdale what that means to a public sector worker. Someone who is working in our national health service right now—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

—and earning £21,000 is looking forward to a £100 increase in the minimum pay rise as a result of John Swinney’s decision. That minimum pay rise will go up from £300 to £400 in April. Every single penny of that extra £100 will be taken away by Labour’s proposals. As Gordon Brown once said, there is hardly a nurse, teacher, policeman, or council worker who will not be hit hard by an increase in the basic rate of tax.

Therefore, we will continue to take the decisions—even though the Tories are cutting our budget—to protect our NHS, to invest in social care, to pay a living wage to every social care worker in our country, to maintain teachers in our schools and to invest in attainment. I will leave Labour to defend why low-paid workers in this country should pay Labour’s extra tax.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Every one of the arguments that the First Minister just deployed was used by David Cameron at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—every one of them. It is true.

The First Minister stands there and says that Labour’s plans are unfair and workable. She should explain why union after union has come out over the past few days to say that they are fair, and council leader after council leader has come out to say that they are workable.

In the limelight of the general election, Nicola Sturgeon sent a reassuring message to voters in England. She said:

“We will demand an alternative to slash-and-burn austerity.”

Let us take a look at what one of her old advisers had to say about that today. Alex Bell said—[Interruption.] He is one of their own!

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Alex Bell said:

“If you spend your life shouting ‘fire, fire’, at some point you have to use the extinguisher. If not, then you just look like an arsonist.”

The First Minister, who built her celebrity on being the anti-austerity alternative, is now leading the attack on the only alternative to austerity. [Interruption.] Faced with the choice between using the powers of this Parliament and hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of cuts, why did the First Minister choose austerity?

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

Do you know what? Tax rises on the lowest paid in our society is not—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Sit down. There is far too much shouting across the chamber. Please let us hear the First Minister, and please let us hear Ms Dugdale.

The First Minister

Tax rises on the lowest paid in our society is not standing up to Tory austerity; it is transferring the burden of Tory austerity on to the shoulders of those who can least afford it.

Kezia Dugdale wants to trade advisers. Well, let me give her one. I was struck by the comment earlier this week by an economist who was commenting directly on Kezia Dugdale’s proposals and who said that she disagreed with them and that tax rises are just “another name for austerity.” That economist was Ann Pettifor. She is a member of Jeremy Corbyn’s economic advisory committee, and that is her view. Labour is not proposing an alternative to austerity but transferring the burden and proposing austerity by another name. We would not—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

The reality—the reality that Scottish Labour cannot and never will escape—is that we would not be facing Tory cuts right now if it had not campaigned with the Tories to keep us locked into Tory cuts.

I see Iain Gray sitting next to Kezia Dugdale. [Interruption.] Let me remind the people of Scotland what Iain Gray told them before the referendum: if Scotland was independent, John Swinney would have to increase taxes. Thanks to Labour, the Tories are in charge of our budget and now we have Labour proposing an increase in taxes. They are an utter disgrace. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Kezia Dugdale. [Interruption.] Ms Dugdale. [Interruption.] Let us hear Ms Dugdale.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Experts from the University of Stirling, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the House of Commons library and the Scottish Parliament information centre all say that Labour’s policy is fair because the poorest are protected and the richest pay the most. That matters, because Nicola Sturgeon has built her career on telling us that more powers would mean fewer cuts but she refuses to use the powers that she has when it really matters. She has staked her reputation on improving education but she cuts school budgets rather than using those powers. She has sold herself as the radical alternative to Tory austerity but yesterday she sold out the people who needed her the most.

This is the week that Nicola Sturgeon was found out. People throughout Scotland are left asking why, with all her power, the First Minister could not just do the right thing.

The First Minister

There is a difference here. It is clear that Kezia Dugdale thinks that making somebody who earns £11,000 a year pay the price of Tory austerity is the right thing to do. I do not; I think that giving those people a pay rise and getting them on to the living wage is right thing to do.

Kezia Dugdale says that her proposals are fair. She cannot explain the detail of her proposals, as we saw very clearly from Jackie Baillie. Apparently, the rebate, which is a total con, has all been worked out. I do not even know whether Kezia Dugdale knows how much it costs to administer housing and council tax benefit schemes every year. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

A scheme that caters for half a million applicants costs £41 million, yet Labour expects us to believe that a scheme that would have to deal with a million applicants will cost £1 million. It is absolute incompetence.

Kezia Dugdale says that her proposals are fair. Under Labour’s proposals, the amount of tax that I pay would go up by 2.7 per cent, but the amount of tax that a nurse, a teacher or a care worker would pay would go up by 5 per cent. That is not fair in the slightest. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

I leave Labour to argue for tax rises for the low paid to compensate for the Tory cuts that they kept us locked into. I will continue to argue for fairness, pay rises and the protection of our public services. That is the difference between us.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-03215)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have no plans to do that at present.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Let us try this from a different angle. The new powers that are coming to the Parliament have already changed the debate in Scotland. The Labour Party is going into the election threatening to put up taxes for every worker in Scotland. The Lib Dems are also going into the election threatening to put up taxes for every worker in Scotland.

The Scottish Conservatives want to protect people’s pay cheques and believe that workers in Scotland should not have to pay more than those in the rest of the United Kingdom pay. We will also try to lower taxes when it is affordable to do so.

The Scottish National Party alone keeps us guessing. There are no tax rises this year, but who knows after that? I ask the First Minister to give me a straight answer. Does she believe that Scottish workers, no matter which end of the pay scale they are at, should never have to pay more tax than workers in the rest of the UK pay?

The First Minister

For completeness, I say that the Tories are also going into the election arguing for more tax on low-paid people, because they would bring back prescription charges and make people pay for education. Let us not pretend that the Tories are not proposing some pretty hefty tax rises as well. The difference is that they want to cut taxes for people who are at the highest end of the income scale.

I will continue to argue for fairness. In advance of the election, we will put forward the sensible policies that protect our public services and household incomes. We reject the approach of Labour and we reject the approach of the Tories. Do you know what? Probably, Scotland will too.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

It looks as if I am going to have to wait a wee while for a proper answer.

A lot of the decisions that we are talking about hang on the successful conclusion of the talks between our two Governments on a sustainable fiscal framework. I believe that there is an agreement to reach and that it is in the interests of both Governments and, more important, of the people of Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that no arbitrary deadline should be set to cut the discussions short. People need to know ahead of the election what they are voting for. The talks should continue beyond the artificial February deadline if extra time is needed to hammer out the deal. Does the First Minister agree?

The First Minister

It is up to this Parliament to decide the amount of time that it needs to scrutinise any deal that is agreed. I want a deal to be agreed as quickly as possible and we will do everything that we can to reach that deal. I want the new powers, however limited they might be.

Presiding Officer, let me tell you the difference between me and Ruth Davidson. I will stand up for Scotland at the talks. I will not accept a deal that gives Scotland more powers only at a big cost to our budget. If Ruth Davidson wants a deal as well, I suggest that she gets on the phone to her colleagues today and tells them to stop arguing for a deal that would strip billions of pounds out of Scotland’s budget.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We have a constituency question from Murdo Fraser.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister should be aware of the anger and dismay that Fife businesses have felt this morning on being told that it will now be mid-March before the Forth road bridge fully reopens to heavy goods vehicles. She will recall that we were promised that the bridge would reopen fully first in early January and then in mid-February, and now we are being told that it will be in mid-March. What confidence can we have that the new date will be met, given that the two previous deadlines were not met? Given the on-going losses that Fife businesses are suffering, what further assistance can the Scottish Government offer them?

The First Minister

As Murdo Fraser and everybody else knows, the bridge is open—and has been open since before Christmas—to 90 per cent of all traffic. What was announced this morning is a partial reopening of the bridge to HGVs so that overnight, weather permitting, a limited number of HGVs—but nevertheless some—will be allowed to cross.

There has been a delay to the full completion of the works. That is partly down to something that I hope everybody recognises—the weather conditions, and particularly the high winds that we have been facing—but it is also down to the need to do further strengthening to particular parts of the bridge, which is why the mid-March date has been given by the Minister for Transport and Islands today. Some contingency is built into that to take account of possible bad weather conditions over the next few weeks.

We are working hard to get the bridge fully reopened to all HGVs and to facilitate as much traffic across the bridge as we can. We will continue, as we have been doing, to work with the haulage industry to support it as much as we can during this period.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-03212)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I start on a rare point of consensus. The First Minister is right about the Conservatives, who have £140 million-worth of stealth taxes planned, as the hole in their budget plans reveals.

The First Minister has choices, yet the SNP is imposing cuts on schools and council services. She has strong-armed councils into making those cuts, with fines if they fail to obey her, and she is refusing to use the income tax powers that she now has. She is no longer leading but is frozen to the spot, incapable of protecting our once-proud Scottish education system. Instead of blaming everyone else, will she step up and use the powers that she now has?

The First Minister

I am really surprised that Willie Rennie can bring himself to look a single Scottish voter in the eye. I remind him of what he was telling people in Scotland just a year or so ago, and this is a direct quote:

“Liberal Democrats in the UK government”—

just to remind him, they were in coalition with the Conservatives—

“are building a stronger economy ... here in Scotland with lower taxes ... This is”

what

“the broad UK shoulders enable us to deliver.”

Having misled the Scottish people that the only way to avoid tax rises was to vote no, Willie Rennie now turns round and tells people that they have to pay higher taxes anyway to pay for the cuts that his party helped the Tories to impose on us for the past five years.

Willie Rennie should be utterly ashamed of himself. He should be begging the Scottish people for forgiveness, not handing out sanctimonious lectures to the rest of us—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

—on how to deal with Tory cuts that he bears so much responsibility for.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There she goes again, blaming absolutely everyone else—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I remind her that it was the Liberal Democrats who cut taxes for those on low and middle incomes, and that she opposed those tax cuts in this chamber and at Westminster—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Let us hear Mr Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

She is not interested in those on low or middle incomes; it is all about posturing and blaming everyone else while never accepting responsibility herself. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order, Mr Stewart.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister has not grasped this properly. We can choose to invest £475 million to have a transformational effect on our education system. We can stop the cuts to schools, repair the cuts that the SNP has imposed on our colleges, expand nursery education and invest in a pupil premium.

With a penny for education, we can give every child the chance to get on, provide the skills for our economic progress and get Scotland’s education back to being the world’s best. Does she not see the opportunity in any of that?

The First Minister

We are protecting our national health service, we are investing in social care, we are paying a living wage to every social care worker in our country, we are maintaining the number of teachers in our schools, we are investing in improving attainment and we are protecting household budgets because, unlike Willie Rennie, I do not think that people on incomes as low as £11,000 a year should be paying more tax to compensate for the Tory cuts that he helped the Tories to impose.

I know that Willie Rennie is desperate to forget the five years when his party propped up the Conservatives in government—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Or the four years that you did.

The First Minister

—but, do you know what? The Scottish people are not going to forget the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Four years.

The First Minister

If it is possible for Willie Rennie to sink any lower at the coming election, he sure as hell will do it.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr McArthur and Mr Hume, that is just enough.

Drug Assessments (Review)

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the review of national health service drug assessments. (S4F-03222)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am pleased that Dr Brian Montgomery has agreed to undertake an independent review of the Scottish Medicine Consortium’s assessment processes. His review will help us to take forward further reforms in relation to access to new medicines, building on the positive progress that has been achieved already.

Although the SMC’s reforms in 2014, together with other reforms and our own £90 million new medicines fund, have already benefited more than 1,000 families through access to life-saving and life-extending drugs, we want to ensure that the assessment system continues to evolve in order to deliver effectively for patients and the NHS.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I welcome the review and I also welcome the 26 new medicines that have been approved under the new system. However, in 2014, the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, when announcing the proposals, indicated that it was anticipated that new medicines would be made available more quickly. Will the First Minister advise whether the review will evaluate that as well as whether timescales can be further improved for the many patients for whom these medicines are a lifeline?

The First Minister

The overarching aim of the review is to provide safe and timely access to clinically effective medicines at a fair price. We think that improvements can still be made, for example by working with the pharmaceutical industry to get companies’ best offer on price earlier than sometimes happens. That will be one of the issues that the review takes into account.

All of this is about ensuring that these often very difficult decisions about access to drugs are taken as fairly as possible and that we can ensure that as many people as possible can access life-saving and life-extending drugs.

Breast Cancer

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to stop deaths from breast cancer. (S4F-03218)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We recently announced a £450,000 joint partnership with Breast Cancer Now. That will allow more Scottish-led research into breast cancer development to take place, which will help to enhance our knowledge and treatment of the disease.

In addition, our £39 million detect cancer early programme is focused on diagnosing cancer at an early stage, when the chances of survival are higher, so that we can help to save more lives every year. Currently, the number of people in Scotland who live for at least five years after a cancer diagnosis has reached a record high.

We are also committed to publishing a new cancer strategy to ensure that real improvements are made to services, and we are currently working with stakeholders and patients to develop that by spring this year. That will include further investment in cancer services.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

The First Minister will be aware of the 2050 challenge campaign that was launched this week by Breast Cancer Now. As a breast cancer survivor myself, I know how crucial that campaign is. However, I am one of the lucky ones. The First Minister will have seen earlier this week Colin Leslie’s heart-breaking account of the loss of his fiancée, Sharon, to breast cancer. No one should have to go through what he has been through, but thousands will, and for years to come, if we do not act now.

Will the First Minister agree to meet me, Colin Leslie and other campaigners to discuss how the Scottish Government can further support efforts to stop by 2050 women and men dying from breast cancer?

The First Minister

Yes. I thank Patricia Ferguson for her question, and I obviously acknowledge the personal experience that she brings to bear on the issue. I am happy to meet her and campaigners.

This is something that we have to work together on. If we are going to tackle not just breast cancer but all cancers, and improve survival rates, we need to do more to detect cancer earlier, which is what we are seeking to do.

I hope that my colleague Richard Lochhead will not mind my saying that I know that his wife has in the past weeks and months been promoting checking for and acting on early signs. That is important, but it is also important that we have the best cancer services to treat people as effectively as possible and—going back to the previous question—that we give people access to life-saving and life-extending drugs as often as possible. We all desperately want real progress on that: after all, I am sure that not a single one of us in the chamber has not in some way, shape or form experienced the devastation of cancer.

I am committed to making sure that we do everything that we can to make progress, and I would be delighted to have Patricia Ferguson’s expertise to help us with that.

Fiscal Framework (Discussions with United Kingdom Government)

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

6. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the fiscal framework. (S4F-03224)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Deputy First Minister met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday to continue negotiations, and they will meet again on Monday coming.

My position on the matter remains the same as it was when I responded to Ruth Davidson: I want Scotland to get the additional powers that we were promised, but they should not come at a cost to Scotland’s budget. I will not, as First Minister, sign up to a deal that is detrimental to Scotland, nor will I ask Parliament to approve the Scotland Bill if a fair fiscal framework has not been agreed. There remain significant differences in our views, but the Scottish Government is determined to ensure that we secure a deal that is consistent with the intentions of the Smith commission and delivers fairness for Scotland now and in the future.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

The First Minister will be aware that the Smith commission and the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee of the Parliament have both agreed that the fiscal framework that will underpin the new powers coming to Parliament must not be to Scotland’s detriment. Will she give a clear commitment that any Government that she leads will never short-change the people of Scotland--and certainly not to the tune of £3.5 billion over the next decade, as is currently being proposed by the UK Treasury?

The First Minister

The whole point of the Smith commission proposals was to give us powers and for us then to bear the risk or, indeed, to reap the benefits of our decisions to use them. There should be no detriment to Scotland either now or in the future simply from the transfer of those powers, and that issue is at the heart of the discussions about the block-grant adjustment. Other issues have still to be resolved in the discussions but, as I have said, that is the issue at the heart of the block-grant adjustment.

We will not sign up to any agreement or deal that will see billions of pounds—or, for that matter, any money—taken, regardless of the decisions that this Government takes, out of Scotland’s budget. We will not sell Scotland short, but will continue to work as hard as we can to get a deal that is fair for everyone.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Before I end First Minister’s questions, I want to say to all members that some of the behaviour in the chamber today has been quite unacceptable. I suggest that members review the footage of First Minister’s question time and consider whether they showed themselves and Parliament in the best light.

New Global Goals

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-15261, in the name of Iain Gray, on new global goals—leave no one behind. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament believes that 2015 was a critical year for people and for the planet, the year that countries around the globe committed to adopting what it considers an ambitious new development agenda that builds on the success of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); understands that the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) constitute a promise to leave no one behind and place a deadline on global commitments, including goals to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality and tackle climate change by the year 2030; congratulates the worldwide campaign, Action/2015, on what it sees as its continued advocacy of the importance of SDGs, its success in securing ambitious SDGs and calling on politicians to commit to them; commends Heather Cameron, an Action/2015 ambassador from Dunbar Grammar School, on her campaign to promote commitment to and understanding of Scotland’s role in meeting the SDGs; recognises that young people can be important ambassadors for the achievement of the goals in Scotland, and recognises that the Parliament, businesses, schools and communities can all work together to achieve them.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I was asked to lodge this motion by one of my constituents, Heather Cameron, who was one of the leading action 2015 ambassadors.

Heather Cameron comes from Dunbar grammar school, and throughout last year in her ambassadorial role she campaigned tirelessly to promote a commitment to, and understanding of, Scotland’s role in meeting the 17 United Nations sustainable development goals. Those were adopted by the UN at the 70th regular session of the general assembly in New York last September, committing members to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

I welcome Heather and her classmates to the Parliament this afternoon. Heather was one of 15 15-year-old ambassadors who helped in the United Kingdom’s launch of action 2015 in London, meeting politicians including Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, and also delivering a petition to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street. The launch mirrored similar launches of action 2015 by young people all over the world.

Heather then organised a light the way march in East Lothian with fellow Dunbar grammar school pupils and local community leaders. That took place on the eve of the UN summit meeting at which the development goals were discussed, as part of a final call for commitment from politicians to support those goals.

Heather met Kezia Dugdale towards the end of last year to ask for this Parliament to consider a motion, which we are now doing this afternoon.

I have always been proud of the UK’s significant contribution to global aid and supporting those around the world who need our support the most. Britain is a significant contributor, and last year it became the first country in the G7 to honour its commitment to ring fence 0.7 per cent of gross national income for foreign aid.

Through the support of successive UK Governments for the millennium development goals—the predecessor goals from the UN—we know that every year 17,000 fewer children are dying for reasons of poverty and that nine out of 10 children in developing countries now attend primary school. That is a significant improvement in education globally, but it is unacceptable that over 1 billion people still live on $1.25 a day or less. That is not just about Government; in fact, in some ways it is not about Government at all.

Many years ago I worked as a teacher in Mozambique, and for 12 years I worked for Oxfam. In those jobs I have seen the impact of poverty through war, drought, famine, dictatorship and even genocide, in countries as far apart as Cambodia, Chile, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. What I learned was this: no matter how difficult the circumstances, even in situations where I confess that I would have given up long before, there will always be people who will work together to find a way to improve lives for themselves, their families, their communities and their countries. It is those people who will deliver the sustainable development goals.

Our obligation is to support those people, individually, in Government and in international bodies such as the UN. That is the importance of the UK aid budget and, indeed, the Scottish Government development programme in countries such as Malawi. However, the problem is neither small, nor is it far away.

The first sustainable development goal is to end poverty in all its forms, everywhere. Heather Cameron is passionate about explaining to people that that means ending poverty here too. One in five children in Scotland lives in poverty, tens of thousands of our fellow citizens depend on food banks, and about a third of our households are fuel poor.

When I worked years ago in Mozambique in a rural school, young people from all over the country came to school and lived in the most basic conditions despite war and famine. Why? Because they believed that education was their route out of poverty. That theme runs through those sustainable development goals, and it is as true for Scotland as it is for anywhere in the world.

The most shameful of the statistics about Scotland’s poverty is that someone’s success at school still depends more on how much their parents earn than any other factor—their talent, how hard they work or which school they go to. That is why we agree across the chamber that the attainment gap in our schools must be closed. That is the greatest single step that we can take to end poverty and deliver the sustainable development goals in Scotland.

In closing, I draw attention to another theme that runs through the sustainable development goals. It is summed up in the goal that calls for urgent action to combat climate change. Around the world, we see the impact of climate change in droughts and floods. We even see it in changing weather patterns here, which have an impact on agriculture.

It is appropriate to draw attention to that point. It was a previous pupil from long ago in Dunbar’s schools, John Muir, who was the first to recognise and understand that, to end the impoverishing of humanity, it is necessary also to end the impoverishing of nature. John Muir would approve of the sustainable development goals. I am sure that he would be proud of Heather Cameron and her classmates from his home town of Dunbar. I certainly am.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

First, I thank Iain Gray for lodging the motion and securing the debate, which will undoubtedly help to raise more awareness of the UN sustainable development goals.

Exchanges in the chamber often revolve around details of very specific policy issues. It makes a welcome change to take a step back and to look at the much bigger picture elsewhere. I am pleased to speak in a debate that takes us back to what motivated many of us in the Parliament to become involved in politics—making the world a better place, even in a small way.

When the UN set its eight millennium goals 16 years ago, it directed its efforts at eradicating extreme poverty or at least reducing it significantly across the world by 2015. The millennium development goals rightly focused on matters such as education, maternal health, reducing child mortality and improving debt sustainability as separate goals alongside eradicating extreme poverty. That more holistic approach has contributed massively to their relative success. I say “relative” because, as Iain Gray has pointed out, despite the enormous progress that has been made there is still a long way to go.

As we know, civil war and anarchy in countries such as Libya, Syria and Yemen at the moment make it increasingly difficult for those countries to sustain the development progress that they had made; indeed, they are already slipping backwards.

To truly empower people’s lives takes much more than simply keeping them alive. The keys to sustainable improvement are peace and development. The outcome described in the 2015 report on the millennium development goals that struck me most is that the number of out-of-school children of primary school age worldwide has nearly halved during the programme from 100 million in 2000 to an estimated 57 million last year. That was achieved at the same time as a significant decline in the number of people living in extreme poverty from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015. However, as Iain Gray has pointed out, the fact that almost a billion people are in extreme poverty is still horrific. People are desperately trying to eke out a daily existence in a world that has more than enough to go round.

Of course, millennium development goals have now been succeeded by the all-encompassing 17 sustainable development goals. I am proud that the Scottish Government takes its role in that extremely seriously, and that it is determined to be at the forefront of achieving the new goals.

Last July, Scotland received praise for being one of the first countries in the world to sign up to the UN’s sustainable development goals. The UN goals tie in with Scotland’s development goals—which were already in place—and include the national performance framework and Scotland’s national action plan on human rights. That has allowed Scotland to hit the ground running when it comes to implementing, measuring and reporting progress.

Much of the support that Scotland provides for developing countries is provided to Malawi—a country that many people in Scotland have a strong emotional attachment to because of the historical connections.

One of the key priorities in the Scottish Government’s proposed budget for next year is the delivery of the objectives and outcomes set out in the national performance framework. For Europe and external affairs, it also contains a commitment to continue working across ministerial portfolios to support international aims, including water management, climate justice, the UN sustainable energy for all initiative and the new UN sustainable development goals.

It is important to acknowledge—as Iain Gray has already done—that poverty does not exist only beyond our shores but that there is also poverty consistently within Scotland, although not be to the same degree. That is why I am pleased that, whereas the millennium development goals focused strictly on developing countries, the sustainable development goals apply to all countries, including Scotland. There is inequality and poverty in Scotland, and addressing those issues remains a priority for the Scottish Government.

There is much more work to be done towards meeting sustainable development goals both internationally and here in Scotland. I am hopeful that Governments, organisations and individuals—such as Heather Cameron—will continue to work towards those goals so that, in 2030, we can look back at an even more successful campaign than was achieved by the millennium development goals.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I congratulate Iain Gray on securing this debate, and I welcome Dunbar grammar school to the chamber. I also thank Save the Children for providing a briefing for the debate.

To state it bluntly, I am here today because Heather Cameron asked me to be here. She is such a persuasive young individual that I am defying what is—in a way—a parliamentary convention that party leaders do not participate in members’ debates. It is a pleasure to do that.

I want to share how I met Heather Cameron. When I became leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, we organised a competition called “My Scotland”. We wrote to every secondary 5 and 6 pupil and invited them to take part in an essay competition to share their vision for the future of Scotland—whether that be in 10, 15 or 20 years.

Heather Cameron made it into the final of that competition by writing an essay about how important the sustainable millennium goals were, not just to Scotland but to countries around the world. Her passion and dedication brought her to our attention.

The 10 finalists of that competition came together one day and were put through a number of training exercises. They were exposed to some leading journalists in Scotland, including Lindsay McIntosh from The Times, and Patrick McGuire from Thompsons Solicitors. They helped each of the finalists to develop their ideas and their campaigning abilities, so that they could come up with new ways to communicate what they believe and what they stand for. Heather’s talents shone through on that occasion.

I want to commend Heather, not just for the work she has done to highlight the work of action 2015 and all that she has done on leading marches through Dunbar, but also for never giving up on making the case—on a day-to-day basis—for why this issue is so important.

I will refer in detail to the UN sustainable development goals. There are 17 in total. I will not go through all of them, but three stand out to me:

“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”,

“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”,

and

“To promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all”.

I know that many of us stand for all of those things.

In preparation for today’s debate, I reflected on my views on gender equality and how important they are to my politics. I have stood in the chamber many times to talk about the need to progress gender equality. If we do not do that, we will lock women and girls out of the jobs of the future and in to low-paid, low-skilled work. It is very important that we tackle that issue in Scotland, but it has to be set against the context—which Iain Gray set out in his opening remarks—of the circumstances in which women and girls find themselves in so many countries around the world, where they are still fighting for the right to go to school. That is what is so important about the work that Heather Cameron is doing and the work that all of the ambassadors involved in action 2015 are taking part in on a daily basis.

On that note, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate, and I wish Heather and all her colleagues the very best with the campaign ahead of them.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Iain Gray for what I thought was an excellent speech. I should probably thank Heather Cameron for securing the debate.

I had my own debate on millennium development goals 4 and 5 on international midwives day in 2009, which called for more to be done to tackle infant mortality and poor maternal health in Scotland and overseas. Looking back, I remember that I also spoke on millennium development goals in a members’ business debate by Labour’s Des McNulty back in 2005.

As Iain Gray said, the millennium development goals are proving that when the international community works together, we can tackle some of the world’s most pressing problems. I put on the record that my party fully agrees that education is, without a shadow of doubt, the route out of poverty.

At Westminster, the Government has taken a leading role on the post-2015 framework in working alongside other UN member states to secure international agreement on the ambitious and compelling sustainable development goals, which are centred on eradicating poverty. The UK was the second largest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development donor of overseas development aid in 2014, spending £11.7 billion, which was an increase of 2.6 per cent on the previous year. In fact, the foreign aid programme even drew praise from the Scottish National Party at Westminster. Mhairi Black, on a visit to Kenya last week, said:

“Britain is one of the better countries in terms of commitment to foreign aid ... having seen the difference it makes to people’s lives, I think it’s highly important that we maintain that level of support.”

As Iain Gray said, the UK enshrined the 0.7 per cent commitment to overseas development aid in law when the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 received royal assent in March last year.

The work of Heather Cameron has deservedly been commended by Iain Gray. I have no doubt that she would not have been as successful if it were not for the support of Dunbar grammar school. As an MSP for the Highlands and Islands, I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the pupils of Forres academy in Moray, whose human rights day petition I signed last week. Among other things, the pupils are campaigning for the right to education for the 57 million children worldwide who have no access to education.

Millennium development goal 5 is to support pregnant women through to birth and reduce maternal mortality. More than 1 million children are left without mothers due to maternal death, and 20 million women experience potentially fatal complications during childbirth. In 2005, in East Africa, only 34 per cent of births were attended by skilled health attendants. Millennium goal 5 set the target to reduce maternal mortality by 75 per cent and to achieve universal access to reproductive health by 2015. The conclusion is that progress has been made, but it has been too slow to achieve all the goals. Nonetheless, I think that we should acknowledge the progress that has been made. Fewer children under five are dying from preventable causes.

However, given that about 800 women die from pregnancy or childbirth-related complications around the world every day, we also need to be aware of the campaign to end fistula. I am sorry that Richard Simpson is not in the chamber because he is hugely supportive of the campaign. Fistula is a rupture in the birth canal that occurs during prolonged obstructed labour. It leaves women incontinent, isolated, socially excluded and ashamed. It is estimated that, for every woman who dies of maternity-related causes, at least 20 women experience a maternal morbidity, one of the most severe forms of which is obstetric fistula. Given that nine out of 10 fistulas can be successfully repaired, that issue also needs to be addressed.

In my final minute, I want to mark two other areas of progress. One is that global measles immunisation coverage is now at 84 per cent among children between 12 and 23 months, which has to be acknowledged. The second is that, in Afghanistan, between 2002 and 2012, the mortality rate for under-fives dropped from 257 to 97 deaths for every 1,000 live births. I mark that progress. I thank Iain Gray for securing the debate and I appreciate that more needs to be done.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank Iain Gray for bringing the motion to Parliament. I also thank Dunbar grammar school and Heather Cameron, whom I look forward to meeting, if I can, after the debate. I have not met Heather before, but from what everybody has said so far and from her emails in my inbox, one of which I received yesterday, which provided additional briefing, she seems like a force of nature.

I agree with Iain Gray and Kezia Dugdale that it is incredible to see our young people taking forward such initiatives, because it gives us great hope for the future. We can often be downcast because of the scale of the challenge, but when young people like Heather Cameron—there are many more across our constituencies, including in Forres—take forward such initiatives and are not defeated by the scale of the challenge, it provides hope where there is often not much hope at all, and that drives us. To give credit where it is due, I say that if Heather had not approached Kezia Dugdale and Iain Gray, who knows whether we would be discussing the sustainable development global goals at all? Heather might be a future politician in the making. Who knows? By the way, that was meant as a compliment and not an insult, as some might perceive it.

It is a pleasure to talk about the sustainable development goals. I was struck by what Kenny Gibson said in his opening sentences; he is absolutely right that this is why most of us went into politics in some way, shape or form. If we cast our minds back to when the seed was planted in our heads about entering front-line politics, whether as a councillor, an MP or an MSPs—whatever our position was—we will remember that we talked to our partners, friends and family about it and reflected on it internally, but I am sure that we all chose to go into politics, ultimately, because we wanted to make the world a better place, whether in Scotland or the world at large. It is good to be reminded of that, because it can get lost in the robust debates that we have in Parliament about things that are, of course, important but are not quite on the scale of importance of the global goals that we want to achieve.

It is worth re-emphasising and reiterating the point that the global goals are unique, not just in themselves but because they apply to all countries across the world. In that regard, they are different from their predecessors—the millennium development goals—which just apply to the developing world. That is exceptionally important, given that we in Scotland have poverty and inequality that we must challenge, too. Therefore, I was delighted that, in the summer of 2015, the First Minister was one of the first leaders in Europe to commit, in an article that she wrote for the Sunday Herald, to definitely incorporating the sustainable development goals in our national economic strategies and so on. There is work to be done on that. How will we do it? We are already working on our national performance framework to see how we can incorporate the goals in our legislation and our practices in Government.

I want to touch on a couple of the goals—I will not go through all 17 of them. There are goals that we are already helping to take on through the Scottish Government’s international development fund.

Mary Scanlon seems to have been surprised—I was not—when Mhairi Black praised the UK Government’s efforts. I do not think that I have been anything other than effusive in my praise for the DFID’s work. Although I often have different views on how that work should be carried out, that is incidental in the grand scheme. Successive UK Governments have had a good record when it comes to their commitments on international development. We should support the UK Government where we can. We should also be proud of the non-governmental organisations, the schools and the public agencies that do international development work. Regardless of how small the scale of their work may seem, the impact is undoubtedly huge.

On our work in Scotland, we have a £9 million international development fund spread over seven countries. Malawi is probably the primary relationship because of the people-to-people links that exist. We work together on tackling a number of the goals. Members have spoken about goal 5, which is on achieving gender equality. That is hugely important, because we all recognise that we get more bang for our development buck if we are helping to tackle and reduce the inequality gap between men and women. We know that if we educate a man, we educate a single individual, but that if we educate a woman, the chances are that we will educate an entire family and then a nation, as a result of that. A lot of work must be done to reduce gender inequality; we are committed, through our international development fund, to doing that.

Iain Gray touched on climate energy, climate justice and climate change. Goals 7 and 13 are particularly pertinent to those issues. I reiterate that, from a Scottish Government perspective, we are committed to ensuring that we tackle climate change and take on climate justice. I have been to Malawi a couple of times, and I have been struck by what a difference renewable and sustainable energy can make to people’s everyday lives. For example, I viewed a micro hydroelectric project in which power that is obtained from the Mulange mountains is being provided to villages in the area, which has led to a woman being the first in her village to give birth in a room with a light bulb. Incredibly, that was in 2013. When I visited villages in Malawi more recently, I saw that, instead of having paraffin or kerosene lamps, people have a sustainable solar-panel lit energy-efficient light bulb, which means that the children can study for longer and are not inhaling smoke. I was struck by how the small things can make a huge impact.

I will finish with two points. Going back to Heather Cameron and the pupils at Dunbar, it is so important that we teach our young people about the challenges that the world faces. Any country can lose itself by being too insular; Scotland is not immune to that, so we must teach our young people about the challenges. We can do that through the curriculum for excellence, which has a global citizenship module. I have seen the development education centres in action, teaching our teachers how they can make an impact through that module. We have to do that, because too often I read newspapers, blogs and Twitter and Facebook posts that ask why, when we have challenges here, we are giving money to other countries across the world that are suffering. We must communicate to our young people why it is important that we continue to tackle those issues.

My last point is about a point that was well made by Iain Gray in his excellent speech, when he spoke about his own experiences. He made the point that we should never lose hope. That is an important point. I, like many other members here, watch a constant news cycle. It would be easy, with all the challenges that the world faces, to commit ourselves to a downwards spiral, but Iain Gray was correct when he said that as long as we have good people—people like Heather Cameron and the many others who are always willing to stand up against injustice and for humanity and compassion—and those people outweigh the bad people, we do not need to be in a downwards spiral. There will always be hope. There will always be goodness. That was a great point and a good one to end on.

I again thank Iain Gray for securing the debate. My special thanks go to Heather Cameron and Dunbar grammar school, and all the good people across Scotland and beyond, wherever they may be, who are working to promote the global goals.

13:05 Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

Business Motion

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S4M-15562, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Carers (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Carers (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 5: 45 minutes

Groups 6 to 9: 1 hour 40 minutes

Groups 10 to 14: 2 hours 15 minutes.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

Carers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Carers (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, SP bill 61A; the marshalled list, SP bill 61AML; and the groupings, SP bill 61AG.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for that division will be 30 seconds, and thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Unusually, I am not sure whether your microphone is on. I am having considerable difficulty hearing you, which might be a bit awkward as the afternoon progresses.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Carlaw. I will take the muffler off my microphone; apparently I am usually very loud. I will try to speak more into the microphone, and perhaps members could do that as well. We will also ask for the sound to be checked.

Section 2—Meaning of “young carer”

Group 1 is on the meaning of “young carer”. Amendment 21, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would never have dreamed of putting a muffler on your microphone.

Amendment 21 was lodged because of concerns from the Scottish Youth Parliament and organisations that support young carers. Currently, if a young carer reaches the age of 18 while they are at school, the support that they receive as a young carer continues until the end of the school year. Thereafter they move to adult services.

That is not the case for young carers who are in further or higher education. The amendment would ensure that young carers who are receiving support while in college or university will continue to receive it for the academic year in which they turn 18. It is very important that young carers do not face disruption in college or university while they are learning and caring at the same time. The amendment would provide them with a degree of stability at that point.

I move amendment 21.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The definition of young carer that is presently on the face of the bill aligns with the named person service provisions as set out in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Ms Grant’s amendment would extend the definition of young carer beyond the age of 18 and in some cases to the age of 22, 23 or older, depending on when their course ends, which would take the young carer well into adulthood.

Extending the definition of young carer in the Carers (Scotland) Bill will create a misalignment with other legislation. For example the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 makes no statutory provision for the continuation of the child’s plan after the age of 18.

Having spoken with Ms Grant, I understand that her amendment is motivated by a shared aspiration. I recognise the need to manage effectively the transition between young carer statements and adult care support plans. That is why there is a safeguarding provision in section 16. It provides that, where a young carer statement is in place, it will continue after the age of 18 until an adult carer support plan is provided. That provision provides young carers with the knowledge that their support will continue in advance of any adult carer support plan being put in place.

I want to ensure that the transition from young carer to adult carer and, accordingly, from a young carer statement to an adult carer support plan, is not unduly delayed, with a negative impact on the young carer. Therefore I envisage using the regulation-making powers in section 14 to set a trigger for a review of the young carer statement in the period approaching the young carer’s 18th birthday, but also, crucially, to take account of the need not to cause duress to the young carer. Where, for instance, a young carer is in the middle of their school examination period, it is important that they face no disruption as a consequence of the review.

When, for instance, a young carer is in the middle of their school examination period, it is important that they face no disruption as a consequence of the review. I am committed to ensuring that regulations reflect that. I expect the review also to include consideration of the young carer’s ability and willingness to sustain the caring role as they move into further or higher education. My ambition is that we support carers to achieve their full potential, just as we aspire to do that for all Scotland’s young people. That being the case, and given that amendment 21 would result in inconsistent arrangements with other legislation, I respectfully ask Ms Grant to withdraw amendment 21.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Given the reassurances that regulations will cover the point that amendment 21 would deal with, I would like to withdraw it.

Amendment 21, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 6—Duty to prepare adult carer support plan

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on the exercise of functions and taking account of equalities matters. Amendment 1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 3, 5, 7 and 15.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

These amendments arose from evidence about the needs of carers from different ethnic backgrounds. The way in which support is provided to carers has sometimes proved to be a barrier to those from different cultural backgrounds. Sensitivities with regard to culture and religious beliefs must be factored in. With an ageing population, we need to be aware of language difficulties. Stay-at-home parents, who often are caregivers, might not have had the opportunity to develop their use of the English language, so we need to ensure that they get information in a way that is accessible to them.

I am grateful to the minister for working with me on these amendments, and for the guidance and support of MECOPP—the Minority Ethnic Carers of People Project—which was keen that the bill should recognise the special needs of those with protected characteristics.

I move amendment 1.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Ms Grant for lodging the amendments. As she said, we worked together between stages 2 and 3 to ensure that the amendments reinforce the importance of taking into account the needs of those in protected groups and make a meaningful difference to adult or young carers with one or more of the protected characteristics that are set out in the Equality Act 2010.

The amendments to sections 6 and 11 will mean that local authorities will need to consider whether the practical arrangements that they put in place for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements take into account any particular needs that the carer has as a result of having one or more of the protected characteristics. For example, a hearing impaired carer might need alternative arrangements to conducting by telephone the discussion on the adult carer support plan or the young carer statement discussion, and a carer with mobility limitations might need a home visit.

The amendments to sections 7 and 12 relate to the process of identifying a carer’s personal outcomes and needs for support. The amendments require the local authority to take into account the potential impact that having one or more of the protected characteristics might have on the carer. A carer with mobility limitations who assists a cared-for person with washing, for example, might have different needs from those of a carer who provides similar care but does not have mobility limitations.

Amendment 15 to section 31 will require the local authority to identify, as part of the information and advice service, information and advice that is likely to be of particular relevance to carers in protected groups.

I am pleased to support the amendments in this group and I thank Ms Grant for lodging them.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for those comments. These amendments are very important.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 3 is on the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements in relation to the delegation of functions. Amendment 22, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 25.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendments 22 and 25 make it possible for a local authority to allow a voluntary organisation or indeed any other organisation to complete the adult carer support plan or the young carer statement. That would mean that the organisation that was working most closely with the carer and which has the best insight into their situation could prepare the plan or statement. That would be particularly helpful to young carers who have a support worker or who take part in a young carers support group. It would also be helpful to those with protected characteristics who could have an organisation that understands their personal situation complete the plan or statement.

I move amendment 22.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I fully support the intention behind the amendments. I see great merit in carer centres and other third sector organisations being involved in the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. Rhoda Grant set out a couple of examples of why that might be appropriate. It should be said that such organisations are already doing a good job of carrying out carers assessments in some areas. I should of course add that local authorities more often than not do a good job in relation to those processes, too.

Having said that I support the intention behind the amendments, I have to say that there is no need for them. That is because section 35, “Assistance by voluntary organisations etc”, already allows local authorities to make arrangements with organisations that can assist with the carrying out of those functions. It does that by way of an amendment to section 4 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. That provision allows local authorities to make arrangements with voluntary organisations, other people or other local authorities to assist in the performance of listed functions. Section 35 of the bill amends the list of functions in section 4 of the 1968 act in order to cover functions under parts 2 and 6 of this bill, including the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements.

Crucially—this is why I oppose the amendments and hope that Rhoda Grant will withdraw them—amendments 22 and 25 would cast doubt on a local authority’s ability to make similar arrangements with the third sector in relation to other functions under the bill, or, indeed, other social care functions. For example, the responsible local authority might want the third sector to be involved in the establishment and maintenance of an information and advice service and the provision of support to carers. If we emphasise the third sector’s role in one area alone, that could lead to a danger of a legal interpretation that concluded that that was the only area in which the Parliament wanted functions to be delegated to the third sector. I do not believe that that is the outcome that Rhoda Grant hoped for.

I certainly appreciate that there are concerns about delegation and conflicts of interests and about whether the third sector can offer the self-directed support options and so on. It is my intention to issue comprehensive guidance on the matter. The national carers organisations, local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others will, of course, be involved in the production of the guidance.

Having said that I support the intention behind the amendments, I hope that Rhoda Grant will recognise the potential dangers behind the amendments, accept the concerns that I have set out and agree to withdraw amendment 22 and not move amendment 25.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have listened carefully to what the minister has said. Given his reassurance that section 25 covers the matter, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 22.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 6A—Adult carers of terminally ill cared-for persons

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next group of amendments concerns timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 23, 6 and 26.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Amendments 2 and 6 are designed to provide absolute clarity about our intentions: they replace “may” with “must” in sections 6A and 11A, so that those sections will read:

“The Scottish Ministers must by regulations prescribe timescales for the preparation of”

adult carer support plans and young carer statements in relation to carers of terminally ill cared-for persons.

It has always been my intention to bring forward such regulations, since we amended the bill at stage 2, but I hope that those regulations put beyond doubt the sincerity of such intentions. There will, of course, be a consultation on the draft regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Again, I give a commitment to ensure that relevant stakeholders—COSLA, local government, carers and their representative organisations—are involved in that process.

The effect of amendments 23 and 26 to sections 6A and 11A respectively, combined with the effects of the existing provisions, would be that the Scottish ministers would be required to set timescales for all adult carer support plans and young carer statements and would be allowed to make different provision for plans and statements when the cared-for person was terminally ill. I understand the intention behind the amendments but, as I set out at stage 2, I am not persuaded that setting general timescales for the preparation of all adult carer support plans and young carer statements is appropriate. Doing so could result in local authorities having to devote a disproportionate amount of their resources to preparing plans in order to meet the timescales, which could limit the resources that might otherwise be available for the provision of support. There is also a risk that local authorities’ focus might shift away from the completion of good-quality plans. Because of the timescales set for some carers, the preparation of a plan will be an iterative process rather than a one-off intervention.

Nevertheless, I understand that carers will want an indication of approximately how long it will take to prepare an adult carer support plan or young carer statement. There is, therefore, already provision in the bill, in section 28(2)(f), that a local carer strategy must set out the authority’s intended timescales for preparing adult carer support plans and young carer statements. That provision has been in the bill since it was first presented to Parliament. I therefore ask that amendments 23 and 26 not be moved.

I move amendment 2.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the Government’s amendments, which strengthen the wording in the bill. My amendments 23 and 26 make it clear that the Scottish Government can set timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. I have listened to what the minister said in moving amendment 2 about the strategy having to include timescales. The real concern is that those timescales might not provide the support that carers and young carers require when they need it. I ask him what steps he will take if the strategies that come forward contain timescales that are not really helpful to carers. What will he do to make sure that carers have statements and plans in a timely fashion?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Rhoda Grant for her question, which is a fair one. I re-emphasise the point that I made in my opening remarks, that, since the bill was first presented to Parliament, there has been provision in the bill that, in each area, as part of the local carers strategy, carers should have an indication of how long the assessment process will take. I understand the point that Rhoda Grant makes but I hope that I have been clear, throughout stages 1 and 2, that much of this can be covered in the guidance that we issue. There will be different requirements, given the different circumstances that carers find themselves in, and local authorities will have to take account of that fact in prioritising those who have to be seen promptly, ensuring that the support is in place quickly thereafter. I think that guidance can cover a lot of that.

As I said in my opening remarks, a blunt instrument such as is proposed in these amendments—for very good reasons; Rhoda Grant’s intention is clear—could lead to a disproportionate amount of resources being allocated to meeting timescales instead of providing support, and that is the last thing that any of us in this chamber would want. I hope that I have been able to reassure Ms Grant. For all the guidance that we issue under the bill, there will be a co-operative process that will involve the carers and their representative organisations, ensuring that their voice is heard.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 23 not moved.

Section 7—Adult carers: identification of outcomes and needs for support

Amendment 3 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Content of adult carer support plan

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 5 is on information about future arrangements, including bereavement support. Amendment 4, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 24, 8, 27 and 14.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendments 4 and 8 seek to allow for the planning statement to contain information on the future care arrangements for a cared-for person. We will all have casework from elderly parents looking after adult offspring who are likely to outlive them, and we will have heard their concerns and worries about who will look after their children once they are gone or when they are no longer fit to provide care. The same is true of young people who reach a transitional time in their lives. What will happen when they go to college or university or when they decide that they need to leave home? In order for a carer to plan and prepare for the future, those aspects of their role need to be covered in their plan or the statements.

Amendments 24, 27 and 14 deal with support for carers who suffer bereavement. Carers often tell us about the impact of the death of their loved one; not only do they have to suffer that bereavement, but they find that the support that had been there disappears almost immediately. Some who have been caring for a very long time have stopped working and neglected friendships, and they therefore find themselves very isolated. Their carers allowance stops, and they are often in financial difficulties. It is important that, as bereavement comes closer, plans and statements reflect that fact and ensure that some preparation is made in that respect.

We must also ensure that there is appropriate support for the carer when bereavement happens, and amendment 14 ensures that advice and information centres also provide carers with bereavement support.

I move amendment 4.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I speak in support of amendments 14, 24 and 27. When a carer loses a loved one or someone to whom they have become emotionally attached through caring for them through a terminal illness, the experience can be devastating and leave the carer feeling quite abandoned and bereft. There are many practical as well as emotional issues to cope with after such a loss, including dealing with financial matters, navigating the benefits system and perhaps getting back into employment, and being able to discuss such matters and getting ready access to available information can make the transition from a life of caring to a normal life easier and less stressful. The amendments in question will facilitate that by requiring local authorities to include bereavement support as part of the adult carer support plans and young carer statements, so I am happy to support them.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I want to highlight the importance of carers centres in providing continued support to carers who have suffered bereavement. Many of those centres, including south-west Glasgow carers centre in my constituency, provide that service and support instinctively, and I have seen for myself evidence of carers who have continued to be supported by them. The question is how those centres can be fully supported to do the work that they know needs to be done, and that is not just a matter of legislation, but a question of giving them support.

Secondly, I seek some reassurance. There is no doubt that elderly parents with a child who has, for example, a learning disability know that there will come a time when they are not there, and they will want support for their child or loved one. Too often, however, dealing with that issue is left until a death happens and there is a crisis. What steps can be taken to ensure that such planning is done early and that there is provision in which parents can have the confidence that allows an individual to move into different kinds of supported accommodation while their parents are still around to support them in that change? Too often it feels that we respond to the crisis that arises instead of planning for the inevitability of the event, and I think that it would reassure a lot of elderly carers if that intervention happened earlier.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Ms Grant for lodging these amendments. I recognise that future care planning is just as important as emergency care planning to a carer’s health and wellbeing. Carers might not be able to provide care in the long term, perhaps as a result of illness, old age or a change in circumstances, including the circumstances that members have touched on in which an elderly person, aware that they will pass on, is concerned about the future arrangements for their loved one.

The knowledge that future care plans are in place for a time when the carer can no longer care can bring peace of mind. Amendments 4 and 8 therefore make provision in sections 8 and 13 that the adult carer support plan and the young carer statement must contain information about whether the adult or young carer has arrangements in place for the future care of the cared-for person. On that basis, I am delighted to support the amendments, which mirror existing provisions in the bill on emergency care planning,

On amendments 24 and 27, in Rhoda Grant’s name, on bereavement support, it is difficult and even devastating when the carer’s role comes to an end. The focus of the bill is on assessing need and providing support to current carers and those who intend to care in the near future. The bill takes a personal outcomes approach to assessment of need for, and provision of, support. Therefore, if a carer anticipates a need for bereavement support in advance of the demise of the cared-for person—as can often be the case, depending on circumstances—that can be considered as part of the adult carer support plan or the young carer statement process. That could be appropriate in circumstances in which the cared-for person has a terminal illness, for example.

The carer may also be affected by the prospect of the cared-for person’s death such that their own health and wellbeing suffer and they cannot care. Counselling before the cared-for person’s death could help the carer to prepare and so be in a better position to provide care while the cared-for person is still alive. Such support can already be considered in the context of the adult carer support plan and young carer statement under the bill, so on that basis I do not believe that amendments 24 and 27 are necessary.

There is also an issue in respect of the definition of the term “carer”. Section 1 defines a carer as

“an individual who provides or intends to provide care for another individual (the ‘cared-for’ person)”.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments 24 and 27 are intended to introduce to the assessment process the provision of information and advice on support that is available to former carers after bereavement. That is not possible under the current definition of carer, because the carer ceases to be a carer when the cared-for person dies. To accept the amendments we would need to widen the definition of carer, which would fundamentally change the nature and scope of the bill, and its focus, from the assessment of the needs of and provision of support to the carer so that the carer can sustain the caring role, to include assessment of need and provision of support to people who are no longer carers.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the minister recognise that there is a continuum for a person who has cared for, cares for and then loses someone? Because they are living with the consequences of having been a carer, support for that person should continue to the point at which he or she is ready to move on. Caring does not just stop at the point of the cared-for person’s passing; there are ramifications that can go on for longer. We would be concerned if it is being suggested that that is a logical cut-off point. I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that the amendments simply acknowledge that there is a time after bereavement when the person is, in effect, still the carer because they are dealing with the consequences of loss.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I absolutely agree with the point that Johann Lamont has made. I suppose that my point is that we are not just expressing sentiments, but are making the law. There could be problems with the workability. The issue that I raised previously in relation to other amendments—which we are happy to support—in Rhoda Grant’s name, on future planning, deal with the concerns that Johann Lamont has very reasonably expressed.

I was about to come on to amendment 14, which I think will also take care of some of that concern, but I am happy to give way to Rhoda Grant.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am listening carefully to what the minister is saying. Does he think that it would be appropriate to put in place guidance for local authorities to ensure that the care and support that would be required after the death of a cared-for person are there? That way the definition of carer in the bill would not be affected.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Again, I am quite happy to reflect on that suggestion. It is essential that we have good guidance that covers all eventualities. I have clearly made the point that the assessment process should be very much focused on the needs of the individual carer. My remarks on amendments 4 and 8, on future care planning, take care of the concerns that have been expressed. If we need to finesse provision through guidance, I am very happy to commit to our seeking to do so. I have also made a wider commitment to engage with carers and their representative organisations, which will help us to get guidance right.

I am happy to say that we will support amendment 14, which was lodged by Rhoda Grant. It is important that carers can access information and advice, when they need it, on the bereavement support services that are available to them in the event of the cared-for person’s death. The information and advice service to which the amendment refers is available to all, including those who have been bereaved, without us having to tinker with the definition of carer, which could cause difficulties elsewhere. I believe that that availability takes care of the reasonable concerns that underlie amendments 24 and 27.

The information and advice service can signpost the excellent bereavement support services that are already generally available. Those include the information pack on “What to do after a death in Scotland: practical advice for times of bereavement”, which has been developed to help people through the first few days of a bereavement and is widely used across the NHS, and the bereavement zone section of the NHS inform website, which offers a lot of a practical advice on what to do after a death and on coping with grief. Both of those services offer specific advice for children and young people, which young carers may find particularly helpful.

On Johann Lamont’s point about income maximisation, that is another role for information and advice services, which I re-emphasise will be available to all, including those who could be defined—and whom I would recognise—as bereaved carers in a general sense but whom we cannot define legally as carers in the bill. National services such as Breathing Space and Cruse Bereavement Care Scotland are available to those who need someone to talk to.

I support amendments 4, 8 and 14. I support the sentiments that were expressed in relation to amendments 24 and 27, but I am concerned about their workability. On that basis, and given the clear commitments that I have set out on guidance and the workability of the other amendments that we are supporting, I respectfully ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendments 24 and 27.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I listened carefully to what the minister said about amendments 24 and 27, as I know that we are all concerned about the support that carers get when they face a bereavement. I am pleased that the minister recognises that amendments 4 and 8 cover bereavement planning, and that he will issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that they understand that.

I am pleased that we have worked together on amendments regarding future planning. The bill makes it clear that a carer must be willing to care, and that can change in the future depending on the burden on the carer. I therefore press amendment 4.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Amendment 24 not moved.

Section 11—Duty to prepare young carer statement

Amendment 5 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Section 11A—Young carers of terminally ill cared-for persons

Amendment 6 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Amendment 26 not moved.

Section 12—Young carers: identification of outcomes and needs for support

Amendment 7 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Content of young carer statement

Amendment 8 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 27 not moved.

Section 19—Duty to set local eligibility criteria

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on local eligibility criteria: role of the Scottish ministers. Amendment 28, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 29 to 31. I point out that amendment 29 pre-empts amendments 30 and 31, and that amendment 30 pre-empts amendment 31.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

With this group of amendments, I am giving the Parliament a range of options on how to deal with concerns about local eligibility criteria. Carers are extremely concerned that there will be a postcode lottery, with different local authorities offering support to different categories of carers. I believe that carers with the greatest need must receive support regardless of where they live. The nature of the support that they require will obviously change depending on their personal circumstances and on where they live, so it cannot be prescribed nationally, but there can be national prescription with a commitment to provide support to those with the most need. My amendments 28 to 31 seek to do that in different ways, so members have a choice.

Amendment 28, which is my preferred amendment, states that

“the Scottish Ministers must by regulations specify”

which carers must receive support. I firmly believe that carers who are in danger of being unable to continue their caring role, or who are unable to do so without support, must be given priority nationally. Amendment 29 would allow ministers to make national regulations in the same vein but, unlike amendment 28, it would not oblige them to do so.

Amendment 30 is even less prescriptive. It seeks to ensure that local authorities must comply with nationally set regulations rather than simply have regard to them. Amendment 31 is consequential to amendment 28.

I apologise to the chamber for the complexity of the amendments in this group, but they provide the Parliament with a choice. Given that they deal with one of the main concerns of carers groups, I urge the Parliament to support the principle.

I move amendment 28.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I understand the concerns that exist—I, too, was concerned about the issue. What has become clear in my time in the Parliament is that there is quite a lack of confidence among many service users, particularly members of disabled groups, that local authorities will deliver the services that they are entitled to unless that is prescribed by Parliament. They look to Parliament to protect them.

I do not want to introduce an element of discord, but there is a lack of honesty when certain members of the Opposition constantly demand local democracy and local decision taking, but talk about postcode lotteries when local authorities are given the freedom to choose.

I turn to the amendments themselves. I note the lengths to which the Government has gone to address the concerns of carer organisations. From having spoken to people in the sector, I think that the minister has gone far enough to address those concerns. Section 19(4) says:

“A local authority must, when setting its local eligibility criteria, have regard among other things to such matters as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations specify.”

Section 21, on national eligibility criteria, states that

“Regulations under this section may modify any enactment (including this Act).”

Obviously, eligibility criteria will be set by the local authorities with reference to national core principles.

Crucially, what reassures me is the fact that the bill makes further provision for national eligibility criteria to be set, and in the event that the local eligibility criteria are not working, ministers can intervene. It would be useful for the minister to tell us when he thinks that it might be appropriate for him to intervene and how likely it is that that will happen, in order to reassure some of the people who are concerned that local authorities will not deliver what is in the guidelines.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I rise to respond to what Joan McAlpine said. I recognise that there is a tension between establishing national rights and having local control and local ability to respond to local events. That has always been a tension, and we have to recognise that there are merits to having that level of flexibility at a local level.

I seek reassurance from the minister that there are basic standards of rights, so that there is not such a lottery between having very significant entitlement or none whatsoever. There are basic things that families should be able to expect.

I also ask the minister to reflect on the critical centrality of proper and full funding, to ensure that people’s rights are delivered. That is the way to ensure local flexibility, rather than having rationing that is caused by the lack of resources provided to local government.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On the last point made by Johann Lamont, I note that a financial memorandum must of course accompany any bill. When the bill’s provisions are fully in place, they will be accompanied by a substantial pocket of funding of some £80 million. That is the amount that the Scottish Government is providing to support the bill’s provisions. We will fund the bill.

The purpose of the amendments in this group seems to be to combine local and national eligibility criteria. That reflects a debate that has been taking place throughout the bill process. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by the national carer organisations, which have clearly been in dialogue with Ms Grant, as is their right.

Having what appears to be hybrid local and national eligibility criteria could cause difficulty with local implementation. I am not convinced that that is the right way to go about setting eligibility criteria. The bill requires a local authority to set local eligibility criteria after consulting carer organisations and carers—most of those carers will live in the local authority’s area.

Rhoda Grant spoke about support needing to go where there is the greatest need. Her amendments do not set out anything about the greatest need; they deal with “a category”. The notion of “greatest need” could itself be open to much interpretation.

However, there might be some creative, meaningful ways of having local thresholds for support. For instance, there is the opportunity to consider the concept of a threshold that is drawn in a more nuanced way than simply saying that everyone above a certain line must receive support and everyone below it does not have to receive it.

As I have previously made clear, I want to work with all key interests, including the national carer organisations, COSLA and local authorities, to ensure the workability of local criteria. Having local eligibility criteria does not mean having unnecessary variation in the approaches taken to them. We will work with local authorities on a consensual basis regarding the criteria. During 2016-17, before the bill is commenced, we will work with COSLA, local authorities, the national carer organisations and carers themselves to share ideas and views about eligibility criteria.

The aim, of course, is for local authorities to learn about eligibility criteria from one another and from other bodies before they undertake consultation with bodies that represent carers. The involvement of carers is specified in the bill, as I said.

Section 19(4) states:

“A local authority must, when setting its local eligibility criteria, have regard among other things to such matters as the Scottish Ministers may by regulation specify.”

That provides ministers with scope to make regulations to strengthen the consistency of approach, where that is needed.

I have said to the national carer organisations that I am greatly impressed with the matrix showing

“examples of indicators”

and the

“impact on and risk to carers’ outcomes”

that is in their draft framework for national eligibility thresholds. Those indicators will be considered among national matters to be set out in regulations and guidance. We will ensure that local eligibility criteria are overlaid by matters that will be set out on a national basis. I believe that that is the right balance.

Neil Findlay, who is not here to hear me praise him—

Members: Oh no!

I know that it is unusual; I assure members that I will try not to make a habit of it. Mr Findlay made an important point during the stage 1 debate when he said:

“Some people suggest national criteria; others suggest local criteria. Whichever they are, the criteria must be effective”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2015; c 80.]

I agree with that statement. I believe that what is important is the outcome, rather than the mechanism.

The bill includes a power in section 21 for ministers to make regulations setting out national eligibility criteria. That is a reserve position—a fallback, if you like. Joan McAlpine asked me in about the circumstances in which we would consider using such regulations. I hope that the Government does not have to use them. COSLA wanted that section to be removed from the bill, but it remains in it. We will monitor the efficacy of the approach in the bill of using local eligibility criteria, and I will have no hesitation in using the power and instituting national eligibility criteria if that is found to be necessary.

On the basis of all that I have set out, I urge Rhoda Grant to seek to withdraw amendment 28 and not move amendments 29 to 31. Otherwise, I urge the Parliament to reject the amendments.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The amendments get to the very core of the concerns about the bill, which is the gap in funding. COSLA tells us that, even before the £0.5 billion cut in their budget that local authorities face, the funding that is to be provided for the bill will be inadequate to cover its costs. Of course, carers groups are concerned, too, because they believe that, without the funding, the bill will not have the impact that it is supposed to have. COSLA is keen to support carers, but without the funding to do so, it feels that the funding that goes into carers support will come out of funding for the cared-for person, which will then put the onus back on the unpaid carer to provide support.

With regard to the prescription about those most in need, I would have hoped that the minister would prioritise their needs when setting national criteria and that that would not be in the bill.

I urge the Parliament to support amendment 28, which will make a big difference in guaranteeing carers some level of support.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, I will suspend proceedings for five minutes. Thereafter, on resuming, divisions will be of 30 seconds.

14:48 Meeting suspended.

14:53 On resuming—

We move to the division on amendment 28.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 48, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 disagreed to.

Amendment 29 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 disagreed to.

Amendment 30 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 56, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 30 disagreed to.

Amendment 31 not moved.

Section 23—Provision of support to carers: breaks from caring.

The next group of amendments is on provision of support: breaks from caring. Amendment 32, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 9, 33 and 34.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 32 makes it clear that a break from caring must be for the benefit of the carer. We often hear of respite breaks being taken to accommodate other aspects of a carer’s life rather than to give them a rest. The worst case that I have ever heard of, which I make no apology for repeating—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order. Members must hold their conversations outside the chamber.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The case was of a mother with an adult daughter who was given respite to allow her to have a major operation. When she left the hospital, she was told that she needed a couple of months to convalesce and should not lift or bend. When she arrived home, the two replacement carers left. She asked for additional support but was told that her annual allocation for respite had been used up while she was in hospital.

That is not acceptable. Replacement care must be provided when a carer needs to attend to their own health, but their break from caring must be just that—a break from caring.

I support amendments 9, 33 and 34. I move amendment 32.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I do not believe that amendment 32 is required, for a number of reasons. Section 23(1) of the bill makes it clear that support may be provided in the form of a break from caring when that is to meet the carer’s identified needs, rather than those of the cared-for person. If amendment 32 were to be agreed to, the local authority—and in some circumstances the court—would have to consider what the primary purpose of a particular form of support was. The phrasing of the amendment also implies that there could be secondary purposes.

The structure of the bill has been carefully thought through: support is determined on the basis of a consideration of personal outcomes, identified needs, eligibility criteria and the interaction between carer and cared-for support. That makes it clear that any support must be designed to achieve the agreed personal outcomes. I am concerned that introducing the idea of a primary purpose would risk confusing the issue.

If Rhoda Grant’s intention is that local authorities should provide what might be considered proper breaks, I am not sure whether the amendment would achieve that. It says that

“The primary purpose of any break ... must be for the benefit of the carer.”

Getting to a necessary medical appointment would be for the benefit of the carer, but it is not necessarily what we would want to achieve through such provisions and it might have nothing at all to do with the carer’s personal outcomes or identified needs.

Such wording would leave it open for a council to say to a carer, “You may claim that this is for your benefit, but we do not think that that is the primary purpose,” and refuse to provide the break to the carer. That is not an outcome that I desire or that Ms Grant desires. We all want to ensure that a carer whose personal outcome is to have some time to himself or herself to recharge his or her batteries gets that through support that delivers some genuine protected time, rather than time that would be taken up with routine appointments and tasks such as medical appointments.

The aim seems to come down to having a process to ensure that the support that is provided is capable of delivering the outcome in practice. We will consider whether it might be possible to use the regulation-making powers in sections 7 and 12, which relate to personal outcomes and needs for support, to help achieve that. On that basis, I ask Rhoda Grant to withdraw amendment 32.

Amendment 9 concerns a minor drafting point. It is designed to tidy the wording of the bill following amendment at stage 2.

Turning to Nanette Milne’s amendment 33, I have heard from the national carer organisations and often from carers that carers like to know that they have breaks planned in advance. Amendment 33 would ensure that local authorities

“must have regard to the desirability of breaks from caring being provided on a planned basis.”

Amendment 34 would help to ensure that a sufficient choice of short breaks is available to carers in each local authority area. Emphasising section 19(2) of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 in the bill would provide clarity for local authorities and other service providers that local authorities should be promoting a variety of support and support providers that deliver a break from caring.

I am committed to working collaboratively with key stakeholders on the production of the guidance that would underpin the provisions in amendments 33 and 34. On that basis, I support amendments 33 and 34 in Nanette Milne’s name and I ask Rhoda Grant to seek to withdraw amendment 32, given the concerns that I have set out.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Amendments 33 and 34 are intended to help make the breaks from caring that may be delivered through support under the bill more effective. Section 23(1) of the bill requires that

“A local authority, in determining which support to provide to a carer under section 22(4), must consider in particular whether the support should take the form of or include a break from caring.”

Amendment 33 would mean that, in providing support by virtue of subsection (1),

“a local authority must have regard to the desirability of breaks from caring being provided on a planned basis.”

The benefits of properly planned breaks for carers are clear. They have certainty about when they will have breaks, which provides peace of mind, as they know that they have breaks to look forward to.

Amendment 33 would not prevent breaks from being provided for immediate need, perhaps in response to a crisis situation, as well as enabling provision over a period of time. Section 19 of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 concerns the promotion of options for self-directed support.

Amendment 34 would insert a new subsection in section 23 of the bill, which is on the provision of support to carers by providing breaks from caring. That would put it beyond doubt that section 19(2) of the 2013 act includes support that takes the form of a break from caring. I know that carer organisations would welcome that, to make clear the policy intention that local authorities should promote a variety of options for services that provide such breaks, including services that are provided by the local authority directly and those from other service providers.

I would like local authorities to encourage the provision of all forms of support in the community, including short breaks. For example, if local authorities know that there are play schemes for children that could do more to make themselves accessible to disabled children by employing specialist play workers, which would provide a break for the carers of disabled children, they could promote the possibility of play workers.

The example that Rhoda Grant gave clearly indicates why her amendment 32 is required. I will wait to hear what she has to say in response to the minister’s comments.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Two members have indicated that they wish to speak to the group. I ask them to be brief.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I do not wish to speak to the group.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

In that case, I have one member who wishes to speak. Mr Hume, do you wish to speak to the group?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I do. I am very supportive of the principle behind amendment 32. I would like to ensure that any rights that are given to carers do not create conditions whereby cared-for people receive a quality or quantity of care that is less than they need and deserve. Of course, the purpose of the bill is to enshrine and strengthen carers’ rights, and I will support amendments that do so. However, I would like some clarification of how amendment 32 would give carers an appropriate type and length of break without leaving cared-for people with less care than they need. I look forward to receiving some clarification from Rhoda Grant.

We will support the amendments in the names of Rhoda Grant and the minister.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will respond first to Jim Hume’s comments. The bill makes it clear that replacement care will be provided when the unpaid carer takes a break. That provision is already there. If an unpaid carer gets a break, they can choose either to take the cared-for person with them and maybe get some additional help or to get support to replace the care that they would normally give.

I listened carefully to what the minister said about regulations, and I would very much welcome his putting such provisions in regulations. The bill is rather a blunt instrument for them, given that carers and the people for whom they care are individuals and the support that they need can take various forms. I believe that regulations would make the position clear and would probably be better than having something about such support in the bill. Because of that, I will not press amendment 32.

I support Nanette Milne’s amendment 33, as advance planning of breaks is really important in ensuring that the carer gets the most benefit from them.

Amendment 32, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 9 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Nanette Milne]—and agreed to.

After section 24

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That brings us to group 8, on eligibility for support: review. Amendment 35, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 36, 46 and 47.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 35 would build into the bill a review and appeals process that means that, when a carer believes that their need is not being met in their plan or statement, they can ask for a review of the decision. The amendment would allow ministers to set out the process and timescale for the reviews in regulations, and it would allow a shorter timescale for reviews when a carer is looking after someone who is terminally ill. Those reviews would happen when a carer believes that something has been missed that could be easily resolved, but they would not take the place of a complaints procedure.

I move amendment 35.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

My amendment 36 is designed to offer two things when a carer is told that they do not meet the eligibility criteria for support: first, clarity as to why the decision was arrived at, and secondly, a process for review and appeal in a less onerous way than under Rhoda Grant’s amendment 35. Carers’ lives are complex. Carers can travel great distances and have other dependants who rely on them. It is important that we do everything that we can to support carers and, if they are eligible for support, to put in place a process to deliver that support. I accept that there might be other means of achieving that, so I look forward to what the minister has to say.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Ms Grant and Mr Carlaw for lodging their amendments. I absolutely accept Mr Carlaw’s point about the necessity for clear information on any decision that has been made. We can deal with that through guidance, which we will work on as we implement the bill. The point was well made: whatever decision is made, the carer should know the rationale behind it.

I agree that it is important to have a mechanism through which carers can seek to have decisions reviewed. The Scottish Government has recently consulted on a draft order about social work complaints. The role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman under the revised process in that order will extend to decisions made under the bill, including decisions about whether an individual carer’s identified needs meet the local eligibility criteria.

The intention under the draft order is that the SPSO will set out a model complaints-handling procedure—including timescales—that local authorities must follow. As part of the process, any carer could first ask for a decision to be reviewed within the local authority, as well as ultimately having redress to the ombudsman as required. A more senior council officer would be required to undertake the review. If a carer remained dissatisfied thereafter, they could go to the SPSO, which would have the power to investigate the matter—that would include considering the professional judgment of social work staff—and to make recommendations to the local authority on decisions that it makes.

The draft order has been laid and is being considered by the Health and Sport Committee. We expect that committee to report in time for the Parliament to decide whether to approve the order before the end of March. If we assume that Parliament approves the order—I sincerely hope that it will—the new procedures will operate from 1 April 2017, which is the beginning of the financial year in which the bill will take effect.

For some time, carers have been calling for a more streamlined and timely complaints procedure through which the SPSO can make recommendations about social work staff. The changes that I have outlined will deliver what carers have been seeking and will deliver the essence of what the amendments in the group seek. On that basis, I ask Ms Grant to seek to withdraw amendment 35 and not to move amendment 46, and I ask Mr Carlaw not to move the amendments in his name.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I believe that the appeals process that the minister outlined will work for carers, so I seek to withdraw amendment 35.

Amendment 35, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 36 not moved.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 9 is on reporting on support and scrutiny of support services. Amendment 37, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 38.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 37 sets out a three-yearly reporting process that will allow the Scottish ministers to review the bill’s impact. It provides that local authorities must report on the number of plans and statements that they have prepared, and the number of short breaks that have been provided and the cost of that support. Reporting every third year cuts down costs and allows time for the bill to bed in. More important, it will give a transparent account of how the bill is working.

Amendment 38 seeks to bring support services for carers under the jurisdiction of the Care Inspectorate. Carers need support, and that support needs to be of good quality. A number of carers will themselves be vulnerable and will require high-quality services that are suitable to their needs; we need a mechanism to ensure that they get those, and the Care Inspectorate is the most suitable independent body that is available.

I move amendment 37.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

In relation to amendment 38, the provision of a service becomes more effective when the right measurement tools are in place to show the benefit and cost analysis. I note that the national carer organisations caution that amendment 38 may be difficult to implement, because a lot of the support that will be provided could be non-quantifiable, such as emotional support. Although there may be benefits that can potentially be measured, the amendment may be placing too much pressure on reaching certain thresholds and obtaining good review results, rather than focusing all efforts on public services to provide the best support possible. I would like Rhoda Grant to address that issue.

We will, of course, support amendment 37.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I will reply to the amendments in Rhoda Grant’s name. As she has set out, amendment 37 would place a duty on local authorities to publish a report providing details on how certain provisions of the bill have been put into practice. I understand that the aim is to establish monitoring data, including on the number of breaks from caring that have been provided as a form of support. I fully agree that it is important to have access to data in order to monitor and evaluate the bill’s implementation, but I do not believe that amendment 37 would produce the result that we are looking for.

Amendment 37 is about the collection of quantitative data. However, it does not take account of, for example, the number of carers in the area in order to provide a context for the number of plans prepared. There is a concern that the amendment could simultaneously be too narrow in the criteria to be assessed and the data to be collected, and too broad in the range of data to be collected on that narrow range of identified criteria. The amendment would also require the timing of the preparation and publication of the first report on support to be calculated by reference to the date of royal assent, not the date when the provisions relating to adult care support plans, young carer statements and the provision of support come into effect.

Although I agree with the commendable aim of amendment 37, there is in my view a better way to achieve that aim. We want to sit down with COSLA, local authorities, the national carer organisations and others to discuss and agree the type of important monitoring data to be gathered. The finance advisory group that I have established is also considering what baseline data to collect for 2016-17. There will be monitoring and evaluation of the bill’s provisions—Ms Grant and other members can be assured of that—but I consider it important to get the bodies that I have mentioned around the table to agree the process fully on the basis that I have set out.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the data that is gathered be published and made available to the Parliament to scrutinise?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am entirely relaxed about committing to that end. I see no reason for us not to share that data publicly and make it available to the Parliament. There is nothing to fear in doing so, so I readily commit to that.

The point that I am making is that it is important that we ensure that what we are seeking to monitor is right. We still need to engage in dialogue with those who will be involved in that process of monitoring the bill’s efficacy before we are in a position to say exactly what data it is that we will need to collect.

On that basis, I hope that Ms Grant will withdraw amendment 37. I hope that the commitment to make public the information that is gathered will reassure her.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 38 appears to be intended to ensure that services that are provided to carers are brought within the definition of care services in part 5 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. All such services, including those that are provided by carer centres and others in the third sector under this bill would therefore be subject to Care Inspectorate registration and inspection.

I agree that it is important that carer services are fit for purpose and delivered to a good standard. However, I think that Mr Hume's comments were very well made. Work also needs to be done to investigate thoroughly and resolve policy issues such as working with stakeholders to understand the implications for carer services of Care Inspectorate registration; it may not be appropriate or necessary to register all carer services with the Care Inspectorate. I want to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the resources that are required for registration and reporting and the resources that are available for the delivery of quality carer services. I am sure that Rhoda Grant shares that ambition.

I propose that that work be undertaken as part of a wider review of the definitions of care services that the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Government are taking forward, rather than by making a premature amendment to the bill. Following that review, if definitions of care services need to be changed, there is a power in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 to do so by order. Such an order is subject to affirmative procedure, so Parliament would have an opportunity to consider what was proposed at that stage. Given that that work is under way, I do not believe that it is necessary to make the provision in the bill as set out in the amendment. I therefore ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 38.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the fact that COSLA and carer organisations will look at what data needs to be monitored to ensure that the bill is working and is delivering for carers. I will therefore seek to withdraw amendment 37. I have listened to the concerns about amendment 38; indeed, some concerns were expressed directly to me by carer organisations. I believe that it is very important that carers get high-quality services. However, I would not want inadvertently to include more carer-driven services in that group where it is self-help and support that is being delivered. For that reason, I will not move amendment 38 and look forward to seeing how those services can be monitored and how it can be ensured that they are of the standard required.

Amendment 37, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 38 not moved.

Section 25—Duty to involve carers in carer services

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Group 10 is on a duty to involve carers in hospital discharge of a cared-for person. Amendment 39, in the name of Nanette Milne, is grouped with amendments 40 and 45.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I cannot stress enough the importance of carers being fully involved in the hospital discharge planning of the person for whom they care to ensure that appropriate support arrangements are in place before that person is discharged from hospital.

Following acceptance of my stage 2 amendment by the Health and Sport Committee, the minister confirmed his support for involving carers and asked to work with me to ensure that the amendment could be further developed, with the aim of having these stage 3 amendments in my name. I met the minister on three occasions to discuss the amendments and I also received his written comments. It is of course very important to ensure that there are no delays in hospital discharge as a result of amendments or for any other reason.

Amendment 39 removes section 25(4A) so that my stage 2 amendment is removed completely. However, the provision will now be in a new section on its own, which will give it more prominence, making it easier for members and others to see what it does, rather than having a number of amendments to a section, which would not be easy to follow.

Amendment 40 inserts a new section after section 25. The purpose, as set out in subsection (1), is for each health board to ensure that, before a cared-for person is discharged from hospital, it involves any carer of that person in the discharge planning. The duty is conferred on the health board; in practice, that duty will be implemented within the wider context of integration, in partnership with the local integration joint board and the local council.

Subsection (2) of the new section makes it clear that

“A health board fulfils the duty in subsection (1)”

by taking appropriate steps to

“inform the carer ... of the intention to discharge the cared-for person”

and inviting the carer

“to give views about the discharge”.

The carer is to be informed of the intention to discharge the cared-for person

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

I welcome the minister’s assurance that further detail on that will be covered in guidance, which I hope that he will confirm today. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) requires a health board to take account

"so far as it is reasonable and practicable to do so, of any views given by the carer in making decisions relating to the discharge of the cared-for person."

Subsection (3) qualifies the application of the section in that the health board must be able to identify the carer "without delay" and the cared-for person must be likely to require care following discharge. I hope that that will lead to dialogue with carers as soon as possible during the patient’s journey in hospital and avoid the current experience of many carers, who do not receive the information that they need on admission, diagnosis or discharge.

Subsection (4) defines “health board” and includes within the definition the State Hospitals Board for Scotland. Subsection (5) defines “hospitals” to mean

“a health service hospital”,

or,

“where a person receives accommodation or services in a hospital other than a health service hospital … such a hospital.”

Amendment 45 inserts a provision into section 36, on interpretation, to ensure that the interpretation of “health board” in this new section on carers’ involvement in hospital discharge of cared-for persons includes the State Hospitals Board for Scotland.

I move amendment 39.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Nanette Milne for lodging these amendments. As she said, we have engaged in a number of useful and productive discussions on this matter following stage 2.

I make clear that I fully support carers being involved in the hospital discharge planning of the person for whom they care, and I believe that that should of course happen as soon as it is reasonably practicable. By being involved, carers should be able to provide their views on a range of matters that are relevant to the discharge from hospital of the cared-for person. That might include, for example, consideration of services that are put in place to support the person to continue to care if the carer’s circumstances change because of new circumstances that arise when the cared-for person returns home. Under the bill’s provisions, they can request a review of their adult carer support plan or their young carer statement.

Of equal importance to involving carers in hospital discharge planning is the need to ensure that there are no delays in hospital discharge. A wide range of evidence shows us that any delay in leaving hospital can be detrimental to the physical and mental wellbeing of someone who is capable of leaving hospital. Once someone is clinically ready to be discharged, it is best for their wellbeing to be at home or to be cared for in a homely setting. That is why I was keen to work with Nanette Milne to further develop her stage 2 amendment to ensure that all the relevant definitions and circumstances are included.

I know that there is good practice across the country in involving carers in discharge—I provided some examples to Nanette Milne, the Health and Sport Committee and the Finance Committee. I have seen what the new health and social care partnerships between health boards and local authorities are doing in that regard. I want the good practice to become Scotland-wide practice. The success of carer involvement in hospital discharge planning relies to a great extent on achieving cultural change within the paid health and social care workforce so that staff recognise the value and the necessity of involving carers in care arrangements. I therefore intend that the provisions in the bill should also be supported by an improvement programme including workforce development.

I support the amendments in the name of Nanette Milne, and I thank her for bringing them to Parliament.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I appreciate the minister’s acceptance of my genuine concern about discharge planning. He did not say anything about guidance on when care planning would start. Initially, I wanted that to be as soon as possible after admission to hospital, but I realise that there could be problems with that. I think that the minister indicated that that would be addressed in guidance. I might speak to him afterwards about that.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I apologise to Nanette Milne. She is correct to say that, initially, she expressed concern about the wording. I do not have a record of our discussion in front of me, but I recall that she wanted a provision that required the planning to start as soon as the person was admitted to hospital. There were concerns about that approach, not least about the efficacy of an approach that involved a scenario whereby, as soon as a cared-for person enters hospital, the hospital starts talking to the carer about the need to start thinking about getting them out of hospital. I am not sure that every carer would appreciate that type of dialogue. However, the sentiment is correct because, of course, that process has to begin as soon as possible, and good guidance can be worked on and issued to accompany the amendments that we will, hopefully, pass in a few moments.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for that clarification.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

After section 25

Amendment 40 moved—[Nanette Milne]—and agreed to.

Section 28—Local carer strategies

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Group 11 is on local carer strategies. Amendment 10, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, is grouped with amendments 11, 41, 42 and 20.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am pleased to have lodged an amendment that will further underline in the bill my commitment—and the Government’s commitment—to emergency care planning. I have listened to the views of carers and the national carer organisations and it is clear that the issue is of great importance to carers and the people for whom they care. Worry about not having a plan in place for the care of a cared-for person in the event of an emergency can affect the carer’s health and wellbeing.

The bill already provides that the adult carer support plan or young carer statement must contain information about whether the adult or young carer has in place arrangements for care of the cared-for person in an emergency. We added that at stage 2, having listened to the concerns of organisations including Enable. There is, therefore, in the bill already provision for emergency care planning on an individual basis.

Amendment 10 provides for emergency care planning at a more strategic level. The proposed amendment to section 28 will require local authorities and health boards jointly, as part of their local carer strategies, to set out their

“plans for helping carers”

in their area to

“put arrangements in place for the provision of care to cared-for persons in emergencies”.

Amendment 20 will add the meaning of the term “relevant carers” to the list at section 36. The term was added to the bill at stage 2, so it is useful to have a definition in section 36.

I thank Rhoda Grant for working with me on the very important issue of prevention and for lodging amendment 11. Reduction of any negative impacts on a carer’s health and wellbeing caused by their caring role is one of the prescribed national outcomes for an integrated health and social care system. Consistent with that national outcome, the bill already contains provisions that promote a preventative approach. Enabling people to request an adult carer support plan or young carer statement as soon as they become carers can result in an early assessment of their need for support and thereby reduce the risk of any need for crisis intervention later.

Under section 19(4), the Scottish ministers can set out in regulations the matters that a local authority must “have regard ... to” in setting its local eligibility criteria—a point that I made in the debate on an earlier group of amendments. Those matters could include the desirability of taking a preventative approach to avoid carers’ needs escalating to a more severe level. I see merit, however, in underlining the importance of prevention. I am therefore delighted to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 11, which will require local authorities and health boards jointly to set out in their local carer strategy

“an assessment of the extent to which plans for supporting relevant carers may reduce any impact of caring on relevant carers’ health and wellbeing”.

I thank Rhoda Grant for lodging amendments 41 and 42, which would require consultation of post-16 education bodies before the local authority and health board prepare their local carer strategy. There are in the bill as it stands provisions that could be used to contribute to that outcome. Sections 28(4)(a) and 28(4)(b) provide that, in preparing their local carer strategy,

“the local authority and relevant health board must jointly consult such persons and bodies representative of carers as they consider appropriate, and take such steps as they consider appropriate to involve relevant carers”.

The list is not exhaustive and therefore, if a local authority and health board believe that it is necessary to consult any educational body in that area, they can choose to do so.

Section 28(2)(c) provides that a local carer strategy must set out

“the support available to carers in the authority’s area”

That includes support available from the

“the authority itself ... the relevant health board”

and

“such other persons and bodies as the local authority considers appropriate”

That may also include support for young and adult carers available that is from educational bodies in the local authority area.

However, the bill is not the only activity that is contributing to achieving the outcome that we seek for carers who are also students. There is already a significant amount of policy work under way to promote the interests and needs of carers and young carers at colleges and universities. There is good evidence that many educational institutions are developing and implementing their own policies in order better to identify and support student carers. Colleges are proactively identifying carers through the application process and are establishing whether further support is required. Borders College, for example, has a dedicated webpage specifically for carers and care leavers, and many colleges have dedicated student support services that are available to student carers.

From discussing the matter with Rhoda Grant after stage 2, I understand that some of her concerns were about how the education maintenance allowance is being applied for young carers. In May 2014, the then Cabinet Secretary for Training, Youth and Women’s Employment, Angela Constance, and the then Minister for Public Health, Michael Matheson, issued guidance to all colleges and schools. That guidance encourages schools and colleges to consider young carers as vulnerable young people and to ensure that they do not miss out on education maintenance allowance payments as a result of their caring responsibilities.

Further concerns have been raised that young carers may still be missing out on such payments as a direct result of their caring responsibilities. With the Scottish young carers services alliance, we intend to clarify the position on young carers as a vulnerable group in the guidance, because it is not currently clear. We will promote that to the education sector.

Taking all that into account, and in view of the significant progress that has already been made, I do not believe that it is necessary to legislate further to require colleges and universities to develop policies specifically for student carers, nor would amendments 41 and 42 necessarily achieve that. We will, of course, continue to work with our partners in pursuit of that aim, and I will set out best practice in the guidance that will underpin the bill. Carers and their representative bodies will be fully involved in that process.

I ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendments 41 and 42.

I move amendment 10.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 11 seeks to ensure that local carer strategies examine ways in which policies can be put in place that will enable a carer to continue their caring role so that the impact of that role on the carer’s health and wellbeing is reduced.

We are all aware of the impact that being unsupported in the caring role has on a carer’s health and wellbeing. Amendment 11 means that anticipatory support will be put in place and that strategies will adopt a preventative approach. I thank the minister for working with me on it.

Amendment 41 seeks to include colleges and universities in the list of bodies that must be consulted as part of the preparation of the local carer strategy. Young carers at college and university often do not get the support that they require to continue in education, so we must ensure that they do. I welcome the minister’s statement that the guidance will make it clear to colleges and universities that they must consider how they operate their EMA systems in order to ensure that young carers who miss college or university because of their caring roles do not fall foul of the guidance. I ask that the minister encourage best practice when he issues that guidance. There are good examples of support for carers from colleges and universities, but that practice needs to be spread through the whole further and higher education system.

I support amendment 10 in the minister’s name, which allows for emergency care arrangements to form part of the local carer strategy.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I will not say too much, because I made extensive remarks in my opening speech on the group of amendments. Rhoda Grant made the good point that we want best practice to be rolled out. That is not confined to the education sector, but applies to the whole gamut of the bill’s provisions. We will work to that end. I appreciate the rest of the comments that Ms Grant made.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendments 41 and 42 not moved.

Section 31—Information and advice service for carers

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We move on to group 12. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The amendments in the group build on the carers charter provisions in section 32A. I was pleased to support Rhoda Grant’s amendments in that regard at stage 2 and thank her for lodging them.

It is important that carers know where to find out about their rights. That is especially the case for people who are new to caring, who might know little about their rights. The charter will set out the rights of adult carers and young carers, which is important. At stage 2, I said that section 32A might need further refinement: that is what the amendments in group 12 seek to do.

Amendments 12 and 13 will amend section 31(2)(a) to require the information and advice service to provide information and advice about

“carers’ rights, including those set out in”

the carers charter. That slightly changes the emphasis in section 31(2)(a) as amended at stage 2, which could have implied that the charter is more significant than the rights that are set out in it.

Amendments 16 and 18 make it clear that the charter will set out rights under the bill and may contain other information that is considered appropriate, which might include rights in other legislation. I understand that there might be concerns about amendment 16, which will remove a reference to rights “under any other enactment”. I made it clear at stage 2 that the term “enactment” is broad enough to cover any other United Kingdom law, and given that changes to UK laws are not all under the control of the Scottish ministers there is a risk that the information in the charter could quickly become out of date. That is why amendment 18 will give ministers the power to include

“such other information as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.”

That information can, of course, include information about rights that arise elsewhere, including from UK law. We had to make amendment 18 wide ranging, because we want to be able to give full consideration to the inclusion in the carers charter of rights other than the rights in this bill, and we want to give full consideration to the inclusion of other appropriate information.

Amendment 17 will ensure that the rights of carers that are set out in the charter exist in law already, so that the charter does not give rise to new rights or alter existing ones. It is important that we do not circumvent proper parliamentary scrutiny in relation to altering rights that are set out in primary legislation—as, I am sure, Parliament agrees.

Amendment 19 will widen the consultation provisions in section 32A(4)(a), so that before preparing the carers charter the Scottish ministers must, in addition to involving carers as appropriate and consulting their representative bodies, consult

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”.

I have in mind bodies such as COSLA, local authorities and health boards; there might well be others. The wider consultation arrangements will help to ensure that there is support for the charter from a wide range of organisations.

I hope that Parliament will agree that the amendments in group 12 will enhance the provisions on the carers charter.

I move amendment 12.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful for the discussions about amendment to the carers charter. Can the minister reassure me that amendment 16 will not mean that the charter cannot include rights that exist under other legislation? It is important that the charter is as comprehensive as possible in giving a clear indication of carers’ rights. If it were not allowed to include rights that exist under other legislation, it will be difficult to pull all that information into one place.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am happy to assure Rhoda Grant and Parliament that amendment 16 will not preclude the inclusion of other rights, including those that arise from UK legislation. Such rights can be included in the charter and it is my intention that they will be included, but I did not want us to run the risk of falling foul of our own legislation by making inclusion of such rights mandatory. It is my intention that the charter contain as wide a range of information as possible.

I am committed to ensuring that we maintain the charter and update it regularly, so that it is as up to date and relevant as possible to carers in Scotland.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Amendments 14 and 15 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

After section 31

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to group 13. Amendment 43, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

A theme that ran through the evidence that we received was about the impact that performing an unsupported caring role can have on carers’ health. General practitioners are often in the front line of healthcare for the cared-for person, but they often do not see the person behind the cared-for person: the unpaid carer who supports them. That is true of adults and children alike. Unpaid carers need to have their health looked after to make sure that they can continue their caring role, and a register would ensure that all carers were recognised and that their health was proactively protected.

I move amendment 43.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I am concerned that pressures created as a result of Rhoda Grant’s amendment could outweigh the benefits. Creating a possibility for carers to register would make it easier for them to get a health check, but a person would have to identify as a carer for the register to be relevant and useful.

I am wary about placing an ever-growing number of responsibilities on health boards, GPs and local authorities without resources to back that up. The responsibility for an annual operation by GPs and health boards of writing to thousands of people to invite them to a health check might prove more burdensome to those services than using the existing routes and resources for carers. Before I decide whether to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment, I would like to hear more about the benefit that an additional responsibility on public authorities would add.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Rhoda Grant lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, when I said that I fully understood and appreciated the need to promote and protect carers’ health and wellbeing. Taken in their entirety, the provisions in the bill are designed to ensure that the health and wellbeing of carers are of paramount importance. The identification of carers’ personal outcomes in the context of the adult carer support plan and the young carer statement is central to achieving that objective.

At stage 2, we introduced an amendment to section 28 to ensure that a local carers strategy must be jointly prepared by each local authority and relevant health board. The health boards’ role in the health and wellbeing of carers is crucial. I spent time at stage 2 talking about the wider developments that are relevant to supporting carers’ health and wellbeing, and I re-emphasise some of those considerations today.

The new way ahead for the GP contract will enable GPs to have more—not less—contact with carers. That is because there is an impetus—it is a necessity—to free up GPs’ time for face-to-face contact with patients. Those patients include carers.

Carers will be able to ask for a health check when they think that that is right for them. As Mr Hume suggested, having a blanket requirement for every single carer could be somewhat disproportionate.

It is important that we reflect the fact that GPs are not and should not be the only important interface with carers. The traditional model of care—in which patients rely on healthcare professionals for information, diagnosis and referral and in which interventions are decided on by healthcare professionals—does not always suit patients, their carers or the aspirations of the workforce.

The future model of care involves an empowered patient and carer and a shared decision-making partnership with the healthcare professional. That will enable supported self-management, where appropriate, and allow the person to regain control of their health. There is also a real and growing potential to harness the support of friends, families and communities—locally and online—to inform decisions.

Healthcare services need to be person centred and responsive. Co-ordinated and integrated care treats a person with dignity, respect and compassion, which facilitates a change in the conversation through a transfer of power between individuals and healthcare professionals.

GP practices can identify carers and agree with an individual what is important for them. GPs and individuals can also agree how the individuals can be helped to achieve the desired outcomes. That means helping carers to make decisions that are right for them and to follow through with those decisions.

Allied health professionals also have an important role. Professionals such as dieticians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists can all support carers’ health and wellbeing.

We have an impetus to improve our approach to the healthcare needs of the people of Scotland.