 Maen nhw'n f dt troi iolaeth digosi Australia, yn unig o welshau iawn yml�oedd computerau i laeth n bounds i llid o IEP yn dd軍ent. A siŵr y drafnion yn ddyn ni'n języ settlementol a'r gw plaisiad nhw ond traddwg corect ffgrff sjeistau yng proposing i mi mwyrengol a'rucau ei weld am ffraedd, aau yn gwahoddiworkr o'r bwysigoo? Rydw i'ch gwaith amser i chi whiff ar swallowedg zkiyeidwydder wrth uwchyn yn hygynnu'r a mor hwnnau diwethaf hyn hastbyniad. Mae'n graidsio hon yn gw sexych aikkordb sydd yn g темfiddwyr riferion Gwysig againn y gwerth produ enghraifft trenes geniant yn darliad gyd wych yn adwg rydw 명 Aud Code 611A, the Marshall list, SP Bill 61AML, and the groupings, SP Bill 61AG. The division bell, as ever will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon, period of voting for that division will then 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 the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group, and I would be cadw iawn i dwybarth i Llywodraeth yng Nghymru. Rwyfodaeth y cwrw pwysig fe yw un o'r iawn ar hyn i gael. Pwylltu fodr, Jackson Carlaw. I'm usually, Presiding Officer. I'm not sure that, if your microphone is on, I'm having very considerable difficulty hearing which might be a little bit awkward as the afternoon progresses. Thank you, Mr Carlaw. I will take this muffler off my microphone because, apparently, I'm very loud usually I will try to speak more into the microphone, maybe members could do that as well, and we will ask for the sound to be checked. Thank you very much. Group 1, meaning of Young Hero, and I call amendment 1 in the name of Rhoda Grant. Sorry, amendment 21 in the name of Rhoda Grant in a group on its own, and I ask Rhoda Grant to move and speak to amendment 21. Please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would have never dreamt of putting a muffler on your microphone. This amendment was made because of concerns that the youth parliament and organisations supporting young carers had. Currently, if a young carer reaches the age of 18 while 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. This is not the case for young carers who are in further or higher education. The amendment therefore works to ensure that those young carers who are receiving support while in college or university will continue to receive that for the academic year in which they turn 18. It is really 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. Many thanks. No other member has requested to speak. The definition of young carer presently on the face of the bill aligns with the named person service provisions that was 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, the age of 22 or 23 or older, depending on when the course ends, taking the young carer well into adulthood. Externally, the definition of young carer on the carers 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. I understand, having spoken with Ms Grant, the motivation behind her amendment is motivated by a shared aspiration. I recognise very much the need to manage the transition between young carer statements and adult carer support plans effectively. That is why there is a safeguarding provision in section 16. That 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 provides young carers 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 accordingly from a young carer statement and adult carer support plan is not unduly delayed with a negative impact on the young carer. I therefore envisage using the regulation making powers at 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, taking account of not adding duress to that young carer. If such a young carer is, for instance, in the middle of their school examination period, then it is important that they face no disruption as a consequence of the review. I am committed to ensuring regulations reflect that, too. I expect this review to also 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, Presiding Officer, is that we support young carers to achieve their full potential just as we aspire to for all of Scotland's young people. That being the case, given that the amendment would result in inconsistent arrangements with other legislation, I respectfully ask Ms Grant to withdraw her amendment. I ask Ms Grant to wind up, please, and to indicate whether she is going to press or withdraw. Given those reassurances that regulations will cover this point, I will withdraw the amendment. The member seeks to withdraw amendment 21. Does any member object to that amendment being withdrawn? In which case amendment 21 is withdrawn. That brings us to group 2, exercise of functions taking account of equalities matters. I now call amendment 1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, group with amendments 3, 5, 7 and 15. I ask Rhoda Grant to move amendment 1 and to speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. I move amendment 1 and speak to others in the group. Those amendments arose from evidence about the needs of carers from different ethnic backgrounds. Sometimes the way in which support is provided to carers has proved a barrier to those with different cultural backgrounds. There are also sensitivities with regard to culture and religious beliefs to factor in. In an ageing population, we need to be aware of language difficulties. The stay at home parent who is often the caregiver has not had the opportunity to develop their use of the English language. Therefore, we need to make sure 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 MECOP, who are keen that the bill recognises the special needs of those with protected characteristics. Many thanks. No other member has asked to speak, so I call the minister. I thank Ms Grant for bringing those amendments forward. As she mentioned, we were able to work together between stages 2 and 3 to ensure that they 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 set out in the Equality Act 2010. The amendments that are being brought forward to section 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 care support plans and young carer statements take into account any particular needs that a carer has as a result of having one or more of the protected characteristics. For example, a hearing impaired carer might need alternative arrangements other than the conduct of the adult care support plan and the young carer's statement discussion. A telephone or 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. Those 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 with mobility limitations might have different needs for support in relation to the way that they can assist the carer for person for example on another carer who provided similar care but did not have mobility limitations. The amendment to section 31 will require local authorities, part of the information advice service, to identify information advice that is likely to be of particular relevance to carers and protected groups. I am therefore very pleased to support the amendments in this group. I would thank Ms Grant for bringing them forward. I now call on Rhoda Grant to wind up and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw. I will just thank the minister for those comments. I think that those amendments are very important on press, amendment number 1. That case question is that amendment number 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. That brings us to group 3, preparation of adult care support plan and young carer's statement delegation of functions. I call amendment 22 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which is group with amendment 25. I ask Rhoda Grant to move amendment 22 and please speak to both amendments in the group. I move amendment 22 and speak to both 22 and 25. Those amendments make it possible for a local authority to allow a voluntary sector organisation or indeed any other organisation to complete the adult carer support plan or the young carer's statement. That would mean that the organisation working most closely with the carer and has the best insight to their situation could prepare the plan or statement. That would be especially helpful for young carers who have a support worker or who take part in a young carer support group. It would also be useful for those with protected characteristics who could have an organisation who understands their personal situation complete the plan or statement. Many thanks. No other member has asked to speak. Once again I call the minister. Thank you very much. I will reply to the amendments in Rhoda Grant's name. I begin by saying that I fully support the intention behind those amendments. I see great merit in carer centres and other third sector organisations being involved with the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer's statements. Rhoda Grant set out a couple of examples as to why that might be particularly relevant and appropriate, and it should be said that they are already doing a very good job with carrying out carer's assessments in some areas at this moment. I should of course add local authorities too, more often than not, to do a good job in those processes as well. Having said that I support the intent behind the amendments, I should say that there is no need for those amendments though. That is because section 35 in the bill, assistance by voluntary organisations, et cetera, already allows for local authorities to make arrangements with such organisations for them to assist in carrying out those functions. It does that by way of an amendment to section 4 of the social work at Scotland Act 1968. That provision allows local authorities to make arrangements with a voluntary organisation, another person and another local authority to assist in the performance of listed functions. Section 35 of the bill, a men's list of functions in section 4 of the 1968 act in order to cover functions under section 2 and 6 of the bill, including the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. Crucially, and that is why I oppose the amendments, and I hope that Ms Grant will agree to 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 may want the third sector to be involved with the establishment and maintenance of an information advice service and a provision of support to carers. If we emphasise their role in one area alone, that could lead to a danger of legal interpretation that this was the only area that Parliament wanted a role in functions being delegated to the third sector. I do not believe that this is the outcome that Rhoda Grant hopes for. I certainly appreciate that there is concern about delegation, conflicts of interest, whether the third sector can offer the self-directed support options and so on. It is my intention to issue comprehensive guidance on this. The national carers organisations, local authorities, COS and others will of course be involved with the production of the guidance. Having said that I support the intent behind this amendment, I hope that she will recognise the potential dangers of the amendment, recognise the concerns that I have set out on that basis that Rhoda Grant withdraws amendment 22 and does not move amendment 25. I now invite Rhoda Grant to wind up and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw. I have listened carefully to what the minister said and given his reassurance that section 25 covers this, I will withdraw amendment 22. The member seeks to withdraw amendment 22. Does any member object to that amendment being withdrawn? Since no member objects, amendment 22 is therefore withdrawn. That brings us to group 4, timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements. I call amendment 2 in the name of the minister, which is group with amendments 23, 6 and 26. I ask the minister to move amendment 2 and speak to all of the amendments in the group. Thank you very much. There are two small amendments to provide absolute clarity about my intentions. Amendments 2 and 6 replace me with must in section 6A and 11A, so that those sections now read the Scottish Minister's must by regulations prescribed timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements in relation to carers of terminally ill care for persons. Let me be clear that it has always been my intention to bring forward such regulations since we amended the bill at stage 2, and I hope that those amendments put beyond doubt the sincerity of such intentions. There will, of course, be consultation on the draft regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Again, my commitments are ensuring relevant stakeholders. COSLA, local government carers and their representative organisations are involved in that process. I turn to amendments 23 and 26. The effect of those amendments to section 6A and 11A when combined with existing provisions would be that Scottish ministers would be required to set timescales for all adult carer support plans and young carer statements, and we would be allowed to make different provisions for plans and statements where the care for person is terminally ill. Let me say that I understand the intention here, 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 and preparing plans to meet the timescales, and that 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 timescale set. For some carers, the preparation of a plan will be an iterative process rather than a one-off intervention. However, I do understand that carers will want an indication of approximately how long it will take to prepare an adult carer support plan or a young carer statement. There is therefore provision in the bill already to section 22f that a local carer strategy must set out the authorities' intended timescales for preparing adult carer support plans and young carer statements. That has been in the bill since it was first presented to Parliament, Presiding Officer. Therefore, it would ask that amendments 23 and 26 are not moved, and I move amendment 2 in my name. I invite Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 23 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the Government amendments that strengthen the wording in the bill. My amendments 23 and 26 obviously make it clear that the Scottish Government can set timescales for the preparation of the adult support plans and young carer statements. I listened to what the minister said while moving his own amendments about the strategy having to include timescales. I think that the real concern is that those timescales might not provide the support that carers and young carers are requiring within the timescales they need. I would ask him what steps he would take if the strategies come forward showing timescales that are not really helpful to carers. What would he do to make sure that he would have statements and plans in a timey fashion? No other member has requested to speak, so I ask the minister to wind up, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you, Rhoda Grant, for her question. I think that it is a fear. The first thing that I would emphasise, re-emphasise the point that I made was the opening remarks that, since the outset of presenting this bill to the Parliament, there has been provision on the face of the bill that, in each area, as part of the local carer strategy, carers should have an indication of how long it will take for the preparation of the assessment process. I understand the point that Rhoda Grant makes. I have been hopefully clear that stage 1 evidence and stage 2 process is that much of that can be covered in the guidance we issue. Clearly, there will be different requirements given the very different circumstances that many carers will find themselves in compared to other carers. Of course, local authorities have to take account of that fact in prioritising those who have to be seen promptly and ensure that the support is in place quickly thereafter, too. I think that guidance can cover a lot of that. I go back to the point that I made in my opening remarks. A blunt instrument, as is proposed in those amendments, for very good reasons. I think that the intent that Rhoda Grant has brought on forward is clear. It could lead to a disproportionate amount of resources being allocated to meeting timescales, rather than providing support. I think that that is the last thing that any of us in this chamber would want. I hope that I have been able to reassure and make the point that, in any of the guidance that we take forward from the bill, there will be a co-operative process that will involve carers and their representative organisations and their voice will be heard. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 23 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 2. I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 5, information about future arrangements, including bereavement support, and we will continue to do so. We will continue to do so. We will continue to do so. We will continue to do so. We will continue to do so. We will continue to do so. We will continue to do so. I call amendment 4, in the name of Rhoda Grant, as it is grouped with amendments 24, 8, 27 and 14. I ask Rhoda Grant to move amendment 4, please, and to speak to all of the amendments in the group. Thank you. I move amendment 4 and to speak to the others in the group. Amendments 4 and 8 allow for the plan and statement to have information with regard yn gyfloguol ar y bydd, a allo yn gyflewyd o'r oedd gargogurau o'r gwrthdydd hynny, gan hwnnw i'r brosesi nhw, ond rydym yn ei hunain o'r chynyddog rydym yn ymgwylliant o'i rhan. Y nid yw i ddefnyddio ar gyfer â'r rhoi i'r gynrychiol oherwydd mae hynny yn yn eich gyfliwyd ei gweithio yn gweithredu i gyflogu o'i awr oeddiadau, oedd mae ei maes ydw i'n dywod i'n mynd. oedd amser cyntafol i gyflosiau sydd wedi gw Armenian oedd hyfforddiol ac mae'n ddiogel a fyddwch gydag i ddweithio, ac mae'n rhai o'r cywpeth o enw i gyd yn y cyfodd â'u trafod o'i gyrsr gorabodau. Amesunatelyn 24, 27 ac 14 ofiad ddiogel o ddweithio ddweithio o'i ddweithio cael eu ddweithio o'r ddweithio amser ac oedd. O'i ddweithio isxell i ddweithio i ddweithio i ddweithio of their loved one, not only are they suffering a bereavement, but the support that had been there disappears almost immediately. Some of them have been caring for a very long time and have stopped working neglected friendships and found themselves very isolated. Their carers allowance stops and they are often in financial difficulties. It is really important at a time when bereavement is coming closer that plans and statements reflect this and ensure that there is a degree of preparation for it. We also need to ensure that there is appropriate support for the carer when it happens. Amendment 14 ensures that advice and information centres can also provide carers with bereavement support. Many thanks. I have two requests to speak in this section. I call Nanette Millen to be followed by Joanne Lamont. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wish to speak in support of Rhoda Grant's amendments 14, 24 and 27. Having a loved one or someone whom you have become emotionally attached to through caring for them through a terminal illness can be a devastating experience and leave the carer feeling quite abandoned and bereft. There are many issues to cope with following such a loss, not only emotionally but practically, like dealing with financial issues, navigating the benefits system and perhaps getting back into employment. Being able to discuss those matters and getting ready access to available information can make this transition from a life of caring to resuming normal life easier and less stressful. Those amendments will facilitate that by requiring local authorities to include bereavement support as part of the adult care support plans and young carer statements. I am therefore happy to support those amendments. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I just wanted to highlight the importance of carer centres in continued support for carers who have suffered bereavement. Many of those centres, including the one-in-one constituencies south-west carer centre, do that instinctively and provide that service and support. I have seen myself evidence of carers who have continued to go to be supported. However, how can those carer centres be fully supported to do that work that they no need to be done when it is not just about legislation but giving them support? Secondly, I think that the other question I would want to ask for some reassurance on. There is no doubt that elderly parents with a child, for example, with a learning disability, recognise that there will come a time when they are not there and they want support for their loved one, their child. However, too often it is left to the point where there is a crisis and where a death happens. What steps can be put in place to ensure that that planning can be done early, that there is a provision, that the parents can have confidence in so that the person can move in to different kinds of supported accommodation while the parent is still there to support them in that change? It feels too often now the situation is that we respond to the crisis rather than planning for the inevitability of it. I think that a lot of elderly carers would be given a lot of reassurance if that intervention was in an earlier stage. The amendments that I recognise that future care planning is just as important to the health and wellbeing of a carer as an emergency care planning carers may no longer be able to provide care in the long term, perhaps through illness, old age or a change in circumstances, including the circumstances that the members have touched upon, whereby they may be an elderly person and they themselves may pass on and have concerns about the future arrangements for their loved one. The knowledge that there are future care plans in place for a time when a carer could no longer care can bring peace of mind. Those amendments therefore make provision in sections 8 to 13 that the adult carer support planning or care statement must contain information about whether the adult or young carer has arrangements in place for the future care of the care for person. On that basis, I am very delighted to support those amendments that mirror existing provisions in the bill about emergency care planning. Turning to the amendments 24 and 27 in Ms Grant's name on bereavement support, I recognise that it can be difficult, even devastating, when the carer's role can come 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 the assessment of the need for and provision of support. Therefore, if a carer anticipates the need for bereavement support in advance of the demise of the care for person, as can often be the case, depending on the circumstances, that can of course be considered as part of the adult carer statement and young carer's statement process. That could be appropriate in circumstances where a carer is caring for a care for person with a terminal illness. For example, they may also be affected by the prospect of the care for a person's death that their only health and wellbeing is suffering, so they cannot care. Effectively, it may be that some counts of them before the person's death could help the carer to prepare and so be in a better position to provide care while the person is still alive. Such support can already be considered in the context of the adult carer support plan and young carer's statement of the bill as it currently stands. On that basis, I do not believe that amendments 24 and 27 are necessary. There is also an issue in relation to the definition of carer in the bill in section 1. Bill carers defined as an individual who provides or intends to provide care for another individual—the care for person. If misgrants amendments were intended to provide for the provision of information advice about the support that is available to former carers after they have been bereaved by the assessment process, that is not possible in the current definition of carer. That is because a carer ceases to be such when the care for person dies. If the amendment were to be accepted then we would have to widen the definition of carer. That would fundamentally change the nature and the scope and the focus of the bill from the assessment of need and provision of support to the carer so that they can sustain their care and role to include the assessment of need and provision of support to those who no longer care, of course. Do Ann Lamont recognise that it is simply a continuum of somebody who has cared, is caring and loses the person that they care for? That support for them should continue to the point where they are ready to move on because they are living with the consequence of being a carer. It does not stop at the point of the person passing because there are ramifications that go on for a little bit longer. I think that we would be concerned if what people describe is that cut-off point that we are suggesting is logical. I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that it is just simply recognising that there is a time there where the person is still in effect of carer because they are dealing with the consequence of loss. I absolutely agree with the points that Johann Lamont is making. I suppose that the point that I am making here is that we are not just passing sentiments to the visible, we are actually passing the law and there could be problems with the workability of the particular amendments and the issue that I raised previously in relation to the other amendments that are in the name of Ms Grant, which we are happy to support today about future planning. I think that we should take account of much of the concerns that Johann Lamont has raised very reasonably. I was just about to come on to amendment 14, which I think will also take care of some of those concerns, but I am happy to give way to Ms Grant. I am listening carefully to what the minister says. Would he think it appropriate to put guidance in place to say that the care and the support that will be required after the death of a cared-for person would be given to local authorities to make sure that support was there? That would mean that the definition of carers within the bill would not be affected. Yes. Again, I am quite happy to reflect on that point. I think that it is essential that we have good guidance that covers eventualities having made the point. I have been very clear that the assessment process should be very much focused on the individual needs of the individual carer and as having made the remarks in relation to the amendments in Ms Grant's name, amendments 4 and 8, about future care planning, I think that that takes care of the concerns being expressed. If we need to finesse that and guidance, I am very happy to commit to us looking to do so again with my wider commitment that, of course, we engage with carers and their representative organisations to get that guidance right. Turning to amendment 14, which I am happy to say that we will be supporting, which has been brought forward by Rhoda Grant, it is important that carers can access information and advice when they need it about what bereavement support services are available to them in the event of the care for persons death. The information and advice service that is described in that amendment is available to all, including those who have been bereaved without us having to tinker with the definition of care, which could cause difficulties for us elsewhere. That is why I believe that it takes care of the concerns, the reasonable concerns that have been expressed behind amendments 24 and 27. The information and advice service consign post to the excellent bereavement support services, which are already generally available, include when someone has died information pack, which has been developed to help people through the first few days of bereavement, which is widely used across the NHS in Scotland, the bereavement zone and the NHS informed website, which offers a lot of practical advice after a death and coping with grief. Both of these services offer specific advice for children and young people, which young carers may find particularly helpful on the point that Johann Lamont correctly raised about incumum maximisation. Of course, that is also another role for information and advice services, which I emphasise would again be available to all, including those who are. I recognise in the general sense that it could still be defined as carers, bereave carers, but in the legal sense I do not think that we can define as carers on the face of the bill. There are also national services such as bereaving space and cruise bereavement, care Scotland, which are available to those who need someone to talk to. I support amendments 4, 8 and 14. I support the sentiments that are expressed behind amendments 24 and 27. I am just concerned about their workability. On that basis, with the clear commitments that I have set out around guidance and the workability of the other amendments that we are supporting, I respectfully ask Ms Grant not to move amendments 24 and 27. I listened carefully to what the minister said about amendments 24 and 27, because we all are concerned about the support that carers get when they face a bereavement. I am pleased that he recognises that 4 and 8 cover bereavement planning and that he will issue guidance to local authorities to make sure that they understand that. I am also pleased that we have worked together on amendments on future planning, because the bill makes it clear that a carer has to be willing to care, and that can change going into the future, depending on the burden on them. I therefore will move amendment 4. In which case, the question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 24 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 4. I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. Not moved. I now call amendment 5 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 1. I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. Moved. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 25 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 22. I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 6 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 2. I ask the minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 26 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 2. I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. Not moved. I therefore call amendment 7 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 1. I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. Moved. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 8 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 4. I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. Moved. The member has moved. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 27 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 4. I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. Not moved. Thank you. That brings us to group 6. Local eligibility criteria role of the Scottish ministers. I call amendment 28 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which is grouped with amendments 29, 30 and 31. I point out that amendment 29 pre-empts amendments 30 and 31, and I also point out that amendment 30 pre-empts amendment 31. I ask Rhoda Grant to move amendment 28 and to speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 28, and I wish to speak to the others in the group. With those 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 own personal circumstances and also on where they live, so it cannot be prescribed nationally. However, the commitment that those with the most need must receive support can be. Those amendments seek to do that in different ways, and here is the choice. Amendment 28, my preferred amendment, states that the Scottish Government 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 continue their caring role without support must be given priority nationally. Amendment 29 allows ministers to make national regulations in the same vein. However, unlike 28, it does not oblige them to do so. Amendment 30 is even less prescriptive in only ensuring that local authorities must comply with nationally set regulations rather than simply to have regard to them. Amendment 31 is consequential to amendment 28. I apologise to the chamber for the complexity of this group of amendments, but they provide the Parliament with a choice. Given that this is one of the main concerns of carers groups, I would urge the Parliament to support those amendments in principle. I understand the concerns and was concerned about the issue. What has become clear in my time in this Parliament is that there is quite a lack of confidence among a lot of service users, particularly disabled groups, that local authorities will deliver the services that they are entitled to unless they are prescribed to do so by Parliament. They look to Parliament to protect them. I do not want to introduce an element of discord here, but there is a certain lack of honesty when certain members of the opposition constantly demand local democracy and local decision-taking. However, when local authorities are given freedom to choose, they talk about postcode lotteries. Obviously, I have had a look at this and I note the lens that the Government has gone to address the concerns of carers organisations and having spoken to people in the sector. I think that the minister has gone far enough to address those concerns. I note that, in section 19, the local authority must, when setting its local eligibility criteria, have regard among other things to such matters that the Scottish ministers may by regulation specify. It refers in section 21 to the national eligibility criteria and 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, the thing that reassures me is that the bill makes further provisions for national eligibility criteria to be set. In the event of that local eligibility criteria, it is not working that ministers can intervene. It would be useful to hear from the minister when he thinks that it might be appropriate for him to intervene and how likely that that is likely to happen so that he could reassure some of the people who are concerned that local authorities will not deliver what is there in the guidelines. Thank you very much. Just to rise in response to what John 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. Certainly, we have been able to have that kind of flexibility at a local level. However, I would look for a reassurance from the minister that there are basic standards of rights so that the lottery is not such a stretch. It is not that you either have a very significant title or you have none whatsoever, but there are basic things that families cannot expect. I would also ask the minister to reflect on the critical centrality of proper and full funding to ensure that people's rights are then delivered, because that is the way in which you can ensure that you have local flexibility, and not with a rationing that is caused by a lack of resources that is provided to the local government itself. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. On the last point by Johann Lamont, what I can say is that through the financial memorandum, with any bill of financial memorandum, when the bill's provisions are fully in place, the bill will be accompanied by a substantial pocket of funding of £88 million provided by the Scottish Government to support the bill's provisions. We will fund the bill. The purpose of the amendments in the group seems to be to combine local and national eligibility criteria. That reflects a debate that has been taken place throughout the bill process. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by national care organisations that 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 implementation locally. I am not convinced that that is the right way to go about setting eligibility criteria, which is to have local authority set local eligibility criteria. After consulting with carers organisations and carers, which is of course set out in the face of the bill that they must do, most of whom will live locally in local authority area, Rory Grant talked of needing support those with the greatest need. I should say that her amendments do not set anything out about the greatest need, but I will talk about category. Of course, greatest need could be open to lots of interpretation in itself. There might be though quite creative and meaningful ways to have thresholds for support locally. There is the opportunity, for instance, to consider the concept of a threshold to be drawn in a more nuanced way than just everyone above this line must receive support. Everyone below it does not have to. I have already made clear before and I do so again today that I want to work with all key interests, including the national carers organisations, causal and local authorities, to ensure the workability of local criteria. Having local eligibility criteria also does not mean unnecessary variation in the approach to eligibility criteria, but we will work with local authorities on a consensual basis regarding eligibility criteria. During 2016-17, before the bill is commenced, we will work with causal local authorities, the national carers organisations and carers themselves to share ideas and views about eligibility criteria. The aim is, of course, for local authorities to learn from each other and those other bodies about eligibility criteria before they undertake consultation with bodies representative of carers and the involvement of carers, as I have set out, specified in the bill. Of course, it is worth mentioning section 94 of the bill, which requires each local authority when setting its local eligibility criteria to have regard among other things to such matters as the Scottish ministers may by regulations specify this. It provides ministers with scope to make regulations to strengthen consistent approaches where that is needed. I have said to the national carers organisations that I am greatly impressed with the work that they undertook, the examples of indicators that impact on and risk to carers outcomes matrix included in their draft framework for national eligibility thresholds. Those will be considered in national matters to be set out in regulations and also in guidance. Even in agreeing to local eligibility criteria, we are ensuring that such is overlaid by matters 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, made an important point. I know that it is unusual to have him. I will try not to make a habit of it. I can assure you that. He made an important point during the stage 1 debate. He said that some people suggest that national criteria or local criteria, whichever they are, must be effective. I agree with that statement. I believe that the outcome is what is important rather than the mechanism. What I will say is that the bill includes section 21 for ministers to make regulations, setting out national eligibility criteria. It is a reserve or a fallback position. If you like Joan McAlpine asked me what circumstances might be in which we would consider utilising them. I should say that I hope that this Government does not have to utilise them. However, what I can say to the chamber is that COSLA wanted this section removed from the bill. It remains in the bill in monitoring the efficacy of the approach that we take in the bill through local eligibility criteria. I will have no hesitation in using the power and institutionally national eligibility criteria, if it is found to be necessary. On the basis of all that I have set out, I urge that Rhoda Grant does not move the amendments in her name and, if she does, that Parliament rejects the amendments in this group. Thank you minister. I now invite Rhoda Grant to wind up and advise if she intends to press or withdraw. The amendments get to the core of the concerns about the bill and that is the gap in funding. COSLA tells us that, even before the bill faced a half billion cuts of its budget, the funding that was put forward for the bill was inadequate to cover its costs. Carers groups are concerned about that as well because they believe that, without the funding, the bill will not have the impact that it is supposed to. COSLA is keen to support carers but, without the funding to do so, it feels that the funding going into carers support will come out of care for a person, which then puts the onus back on the unpaid carer to provide that support. With regard to the prescription about those who are most in need, I would have hoped that the minister would prioritise the needs of those when setting national criteria and that that would not be on the face of the bill. I would urge the Parliament to support amendment 28, which will make a big difference to guaranteeing carers some level of support. I presume that you wish to press that amendment. Amendment 28. In which case, the question is that amendment 28 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, this is the first division of the stage and therefore I will suspend for five minutes and thereafter on resuming it will be a 32nd amendment. Order. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 28. This is a 32nd division. Could members please cast their votes now? Order. The result of the vote on amendment 28 is yes, 48, no, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 29. I have ordered please in the chamber for those who have just joined us. I now call amendment 29, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 28, and I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. I also remind members that if amendment 29 is agreed to, then I cannot call amendments 30 and 31 as there is a preemption. Question is that amendment 29 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, there will be a division, this is a 32nd division. Please vote now. Order. The result of the vote on amendment 29 is as follows. Yes, 56, no, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 30, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 28, and I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. I now call amendment 30, in the name of Rhoda Grant, as there is a preemption. Question is that amendment 30 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, there will be a division, a 32nd division. Please vote now. Order. The result of the vote on amendment 30 is as follows. Yes, 56, no, 60. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. I now call amendment 31, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 28, and I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not to move. We now move to group 7, provision of support breaks from caring. I call amendment 32, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which is grouped with amendments 9, 33 and 34. I ask Rhoda Grant to move amendment 32, and please speak to all of the amendments in the group. I move amendment 32 and speak to others in the group. 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 giving them a rest. I think that the worst case that I ever heard and I make no apology for repeating it. Rhoda Grant, please take the conversations out of the chamber. 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 convalescence and should not lift or bend. When she arrived home, the two replacement carers left and she asked for additional support but was told that her annual allocation of respite had already been used up while she was in hospital. It is not acceptable. Of course, there must be replacement care 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 the other amendments in the group as well. I thank the minister to speak to amendment 9 and the other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will speak first to Rhoda Grant at amendment 32, which I do not believe is required. There are a number of reasons for this. Section 231 of the bill makes it clear that support may be providing the form of a break from caring where that is to meet the carers' identified needs rather than those of the cared-for person. If this amendment is included in the bill, the local authority and potentially in some circumstances, ultimately the court would have to consider what the primary purpose of a particular form of support is. That phrase also implies that there could be secondary other purposes. The bill has a carefully thought-through structure where support is determined based on the consideration of personal outcomes, identified needs, eligibility criteria and the interaction between carer and cared-for support. It is clear that any support must be designed to achieve the grade personal outcomes. I am concerned that introducing an idea of primary purpose risks confusing the issue. Rhoda Grant's intention is that local authorities should provide what might be considered proper breaks. I am not sure whether the amendment achieves that. It says that the primary purpose of the break must be for the benefit of the carer being able to go to a necessary medical appointment, but it is not necessarily what we would want to achieve here, and it may have nothing at all to do with the carers' personal outcomes or identified needs. It leaves it open for a council to say to a carer that they may claim that it is for their benefit, but they do not think that it is for the primary purpose of doing that and refuse to provide it to the carer. That is not an outcome that I believe that either I or Ms Grant desire. I think that we all want to ensure that a carer whose personal outcome is to have some time to hymer herself to recharge his or her batteries gets that through support, which delivers some genuine protected time rather than time that will be taken up with other routine appointments and tasks such as medical appointments. That seems to come down to the process of ensuring that the support provider will be capable of delivering the outcome in practice. We will consider whether it might be possible to use the regulation-making power in sections 7 and 12, which relates to personal outcomes and needs for support to help to achieve that. On that basis, I would ask Rhoda Grant to withdraw amendment 32. Amendment 9 is a minor drafting point. It is designed to tidy up the wording in the bill following amendment stage 2. I have heard from the national carers organisations and carers who often say that they like to know that they have breaks planned in advance. Amendment 33 will ensure that local authorities must have regard to the desirability of breaks from caring being provided on a planned basis. Amendment 34 helps to ensure that there is sufficient choice of short breaks available to carers in each local authority area by emphasising section 92 of the self-directed support act. In the face of the bill, there will be clarity for local authorities and other service providers that local authorities should be promoting a variety of support and support providers that will deliver a break from caring. I am committed to working collaboratively with key stakeholders in the production of the guidance that is underpinning those amendments. On that basis, I support the amendments in the mill's name, amendments 33 and 34. I would ask Rhoda Grant to withdraw amendment 32, given the concerns that I have set out. Amendment 33 and 34 are intended to help to make the breaks from caring that may be delivered through support under the bill more effective. Section 231 of the bill requires a local authority in determining which support to provide to a carer under section 224 to consider in particular whether the support to take the form of or include a break from caring. Amendment 33 means 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 then have certainty about when they will have breaks and this provides peace of mind to them in the knowledge that they have breaks to look forward to. Amendment 33, however, does not prevent breaks 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 places a new subsection within section 3 of the carers bill provision of support to carers breaks from caring to put beyond doubt that section 192 of the SDS act includes support that takes the form of a break from caring. I know that carer organisations would welcome this in order to make clear the policy intention that local authorities should promote a variety of options for services that provide such breaks, both in terms of services provided by the local authority directly and other service providers. I would like to see local authorities encourage the provision of all forms of support in the community, including short breaks. For example, if they know that there are local play schemes for children that could perhaps do more to make themselves accessible to disabled children, for example, by employing specialist play workers in order to provide a break for the carers of disabled children, the local authority could promote the possibility of play workers on Rhoda Grant's amendment. The example that she gave in her speech clearly indicates why I think that this is an amendment that is required. I am waiting here for Rhoda Grant to say in response to the minister's comments. I move amendment 33. I have two members indicating at this stage that they wish to contribute to this group, because I asked them to be brief. Malcolm Chisholm, to be followed by Jim Hume. 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 the conditions for care for people to receive a quality or quantity of care less than what they need and deserve. It is, of course, the purpose of this bill to enshrine and strengthen carers' rights, and I will support the amendments that do so, but at the same time I would like some clarification about how amendment 32 will achieve the two-fold purpose of A, giving carers the appropriate break type and length the need, and B, not leaving carers with less care than they need. I look forward to receiving some clarification from Rhoda Grant regarding the net melons and the minister's amendments. We shall be supporting them. In response to Jim Hume, the bill makes clear that replacement care will be provided when the unpaid carer takes a break, so that is already there. If an unpaid carer gets a break, they can either choose to take the care for a person with them and maybe get some additional help, or that that will help and support to replace the care that they normally give will already be in. I listened carefully to what the minister said about regulations, and I very much welcome him putting that into regulation, because it is rather a blunt instrument to put it on the face of the bill, given that carers and the people they care for are individuals and need that support, and that support can take various forms. I believe that regulations would probably be better for making that clear rather than having something on the face of the bill. Because of that, I will not press my amendment. I would again speak in support of the net melons amendment. Advanced planning of breaks is really important to ensure that the carer gets the most benefit from them. Rhoda Grant seeks to withdraw amendment 32. Does any member object to that amendment being withdrawn? Since no member objects, amendment 32 is withdrawn. I now call amendment 9 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 32, and I ask the minister to please move formally. I move, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 33 in the name of the net melon, already debated with amendment 32, and I invite the net melon to move or not move. I move. Thank you. Question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 34 in the name of the net melon, which has already been debated with amendment 32, and I invite the net melon to move or not move. Move. Thank you. Question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 8, eligibility for support review, and I call amendment 35 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which is grouped with amendments 36, 46 and 47, and I ask Rhoda Grant to move amendment 35 and to please speak to all of the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 35. Amendment 35, into the bill, is a review and appeals process. It means that when a carer believes that their need has not been met in their plan or statement, they can ask for a review of the decision. The amendment allows ministers to set out the process and timescales for the reviews and regulations. It allows a shorter timescale for reviews when a carer is looking after someone who is terminally ill. Those reviews are when a carer believes that something has been missed that could be easily resolved, but does not take place of a complaints procedure. Thank you. I now invite Jackson Carlaw to speak to amendment 36, and to other amendments in the group, please, Mr Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When a carer is told that they do not meet eligibility for support, this amendment is designed to offer two things. One, clarity as to why that decision was arrived at, and, in a less onerous way than in Rhoda Grant's amendment, to put in place a process for review and appeal. The lives of carers are very complex. They can travel great distances. They can have other dependents who rely upon them. And it's important that we do everything we can to try and support those carers and ensure that if they are eligible for support, that we've put in place a process which will ensure that that support is then delivered. I accept there may be other means in which this can be achieved, so I will look forward with interest to what the minister has to say. Many thanks, and no other member has asked to speak. I therefore call the minister. I begin by thanking Ms Grant and Mr Carlaw for bringing forward their amendments on the point that Mr Carlaw makes about the necessity for clear information behind any decision that has been made. I would absolutely accept that. And again, I think that this is something that we can deal with through clear guidance that we will work on as we seek to implement the bill. I think that the point is well made, though, that whatever the decision is made, the carer should know what the rationale behind that decision was. I agree that it is important that there is 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 Service Ombudsman under the revised process and the order would extend the decisions that are made under the carers act. That will include decisions about whether an individual's carers identified needs meet the local eligibility criteria. The intention under the draft order is that the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman will set out a model complaints handling procedure, including timescales, which local authorities must follow as part of the process involved, as well as ultimately having redressed to the ombudsman if required. Any carer can first ask for a decision to be reviewed within the local authority, which will require a more senior council officer to undertake that process. If a carer remains dissatisfied thereafter, they can then go to the public service ombudsman who will have the power to investigate the matter, including in relation to the professional judgment of social work staff and make recommendations to the local authority and decisions that they have made. The draft order has been laid and is currently being considered by the Health and Sport Committee. We anticipate that the committee will report on time for the Parliament to decide whether to approve the order before the march. Assuming that the Parliament approves the order, which I sincerely hope it will, the new procedures will operate from 1 April 2017, the beginning of the same financial year that this bill will take effect. I know that carers have been calling for some time for a more streamlined and timely complaints procedure in which the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman can make recommendations about decisions by social work staff. I believe that the changes outlined that I have outlined will deliver what carers have been seeking and also will deliver the essence of the amendments in this group and seek to legislate for them. On that basis, I therefore ask Ms Grant to withdraw her amendment 35 and not move 46, and Mr Carlaw does not move those amendments in his name. Many thanks. I now invite Rhoda Grant to wind up and indicate please if you intend to press or withdraw. Given the process and procedure that has been outlined by the minister, I would seek to not move or withdraw amendment 37, because I believe that that appeals process will work for carers. Could we just clarify that you are seeking to withdraw amendment 35? Apologies, 35. Many thanks. Rhoda Grant seeks to withdraw amendment 35. Does any member object to that amendment being withdrawn? Since no member objects, amendment 35 is withdrawn. I now call amendment 36 in the name of Jackson Carlaw, which has already been debated with amendment 35, and I ask Jackson Carlaw to move or not to move. Not moved. Many thanks. That then brings us to group 9, reporting on support and scrutiny of support services, and I call amendment 37 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which is group with amendment 38, and I ask Rhoda Grant to move amendment 37 and speak to both of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 37 and speak to both amendment 37 and 38. Amendment 37 sets up a three-yearly reporting process that will allow Scottish ministers to review the impact of the bill. 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 providing that support. Doing this every third year cuts down costs. It also allows time for the bill to bed in, but more importantly, it gives a transparent account of how the bill is working. Amendment 38 seeks to bring support services for carers under the jurisdiction of the inspectorate. Carers need support, but they also need good quality support, and a number of carers will themselves be vulnerable and need services to be of a high quality suitable to their needs. We need a mechanism to do this, and I believe that the care inspectorate is the most suitable and independent body that is available. Regarding amendment 38, the provision of a service becomes more effective when the right measurement tools are in place that show the benefit and cost analysis. I note that the national carer organisation cautioned that this amendment may be difficult to implement as a lot of the support that will be provided could be non-quantifiable, such as emotional support. Although there may certainly be benefits that can potentially be measured, this amendment may be placing too much pressure on reaching certain thresholds and obtaining good review results, rather than focusing all the efforts on public services to provide the best support possible. I would like to, if Rhoda Grant could address that. We shall be supporting amendment 37, if moved. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will reply to the amendments in Rhoda Grant's name. Amendment 37, as she has set out, places her duty on local authorities to publish a report providing details on how certain provisions of the bill have been put into practice. I understand the aim here 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. I do not believe however that the amendment brought forward by Rhoda Grant would produce the result that we are looking for. As Grant's amendment is about the collection of quantitative data, however it does not take account, for example, of the number of carers in the area in order to provide a context for the number of plans prepared. There is a concern that this amendment could simultaneously be too narrow in the criteria to be assessed and the data to be collected, but too broad in the range of data to be collected on that narrow range of identified criteria. Rhoda Grant's amendment also requires the preparation and publication of the first report on support to be calculated by reference of the date of royal assent, not the date, when the provision relating to adult care support plans, young care statements and the provision of support come into effect. I agree with the commendable aim of Rhoda Grant's amendment. There is, in my view, another better way to achieve the same. We will want to sit down with COSLA, local authorities, the national carers 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 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. I just consider it important to get the bodies that I have set out around the table to agree the process fully first on the basis of what I have set out. Rhoda Grant, can I ask that data that will be gathered will be published and made available to the Parliament to scrutinise? I am entirely relaxed about committing to that end, Ms Grant. I see no reason for us not to share it publicly and to make it available to Parliament. I think that there is nothing to fear in us 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 and that we are still engaging the process of 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 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 the information gathered public will reassure her. I would like to respond to Rhoda Grant's amendment 38. The amendment appears to be intended to ensure that services provided to carers are brought within the definition of care services in part 5 of the public services format 2010. All such services, including those provided by carers centres and others in the third sector under the bill's provision, would therefore be subject to care inspectorate registration and inspection. I agree that it is important that carers services are fit for purpose and delivered to a good standard. However, Mr Hume's comments were very well made. I think that there is also work that needs to be done to thoroughly investigate and resolve policy issues such as working with stakeholders to understand the implications for carers services of care inspectorate registration. It might not be appropriate or necessary, for example, to register all carers services with the carers inspectorate. I want to ensure that, in carers services, there is an appropriate balance between the resources that are required for registration and reporting the resources that are available for the delivery of quality services. I am sure that that is an ambition that Rhoda Grant would share. I am proposing that this work will be undertaken as part of a wider review of the definitions of care services that the carers inspectorate and the Scottish Government are taking forward rather than by making a premature amendment to the bill. If, following that review, the definitions of care services need to be changed, there is a power in the public service reform act to do so by order. Such an order is subject to affirmative procedure. Parliament would have an opportunity to consider what is proposed at that stage. Given the amendment and the work that is under way, I do not believe that it is necessary to make the provision that is set out in this amendment on the face of the bill. I would therefore ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 38. Many thanks. I invite Rhoda Grant to wind up and indicate if you intend to press her with draw please. I welcome that the cosland carers organisations are going to look at what data needs to be monitored to make sure that the bill is working and to ensure that it is delivering for carers. I will not press amendment 37. I have listened to the concerns about amendment 38 and, indeed, some concerns made directly to me by carers organisations. I believe that it is really important that carers get high-quality services. However, I do not want to inadvertently include much more carer-driven services in that group where it is self-help and support is being delivered. For that reason, I will not move amendment 38, but I look forward to seeing how those services can be monitored and ensured that they are of the standard required. Ms Grant, could you just advise me if you are pressing amendment 37? I do not move amendment 37. You would wish to withdraw then. The member seeks to withdraw amendment 37, and I ask if any member objects to that amendment being withdrawn. Since no member objects, amendment 37 is withdrawn. I call amendment 38 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 37, and I ask Rhoda Grant to move or not move. I do not move. That brings us to group 10, duty to involve carers in hospital discharge of cared for person. I call amendment 39 in the name of Nanette Millen, which is grouped with amendments 40 and 45. I ask Nanette Millen to move amendment 39 and speak to all of the amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I speak to amendments 39, 40 and 45. I cannot stress enough the importance of carers being fully involved in the hospital discharge planning of the person they care for 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 of involving carers and asked to work with me to ensure that my amendment could be further developed with the aim of having these stage 3 amendments in my name. I met with the minister on three occasions to discuss those 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 subsection 4a of section 25 from the bill, so that my stage 2 amendment is removed completely. However, it is now in a new section on its own, which gives 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 that would not be easy to follow. Amendment 40 inserts a new section after section 25. The purpose of 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, of course, 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 makes it clear that a health board fulfills 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 he will confirm today. Subsection 2B requires a health board to take account of any views given by the carer in making decisions relating to the discharge of a cared for person so far as is reasonable and practicable to do so. 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 to avoid the current experience of many carers who do not receive the information that they need on either admission diagnosis or discharge. Subsection 4 defines health board and included within the definition is the state hospital's board for Scotland. Subsection 5 defines hospitals to mean a health service hospital and where people receive accommodation or services in a hospital that is not a health service hospital such a hospital. Amendment 45 inserts a provision into section 36, an interpretation, to ensure that the interpretation of health board in this new section about carer involvement in hospital discharge of cared for persons includes the state hospital's board for Scotland. I move amendment 39. I begin by thanking Annette Milne for bringing forward the amendments. As she set out, we have been able to engage in a number of useful and productive discussions around the matter following stage 2. I would like to make clear that I fully support carers being involved in the hospital discharge planning of the person they care for. That should happen as soon as it is reasonably practical to do so. By involving carers, carers will be able to provide their views about a whole range of matters relevant to the discharge from hospital of the care for person. That might include, for example, consideration of its service being put in place to support the carer to continue to care of the carer's circumstances change because of new issues arising when the care for person is at home. After a hospital, for example, they can, under the bills provisions, request a review of their adult care support plan or young care statement. Equally important, as involving carers in hospital discharge planning is ensuring that there are no delays in hospital discharge, there is a wide range of evidence that shows us that any delay in leaving hospital once someone is ready to go home can be detrimental to their physical and mental wellbeing. Once someone is clinically ready to be discharged from hospital, it is best for their wellbeing to be at home or care for in another homely setting. That is why I was very keen to work with Ms Mill to further develop her stage 2 amendment to make sure that it included all the relevant definitions and circumstances that I know that there is. I provided some examples directly to Ms Mill and the Finance and Sport Committee. I know that there is very good practice in involving carers in discharge across the country. I have already heard about and seen what the new health and social care partnerships with health boards and local authorities are doing in that regard. I want the good practice to become Scotland's wide practice. The success of care and involvement hospital discharge planning relies on a great extent on achieving cultural change in 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 Annette Millan's name and a thank her for bringing them before us today. I very much appreciate the minister's acceptance of my real concern about discharge planning. He did not say anything about guidance on the actual time when care planning would start. I initially wanted that to be as soon as possible after admission to hospital. I realised that there could be problems with that. I think that the minister did indicate that that might appear in guidance, so I must speak to him afterwards about that. The minister is wishing to intervene. Are you taking the intervention? Yes, I will. Let me apologise to Ms Millan, because she did. We did discuss that at station of a clear commitment. Ms Millan is correct to say that she initially had a slight concern about some of the wording. If I remember correctly, I do not have it immediately in front of me. She wanted a provision that this discussion should start as soon as the care for person was admitted to hospital. There were concerns about that approach, but not least the efficacy of an approach whereby you might have to say to a carer immediately after the person they care for is in hospital that they need to start talking about getting them out of hospital. I am not sure that every carer would appreciate that type of dialogue, but I think that the sentiment is the correct one. 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. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 40 in the name of Nanette Millan, which has already been debated with amendment 39, and I ask Nanette Millan to move or not move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That then brings us to group 11 local carer strategies, and I call amendment 10 in the name of the minister, which is group with amendments 11, 41, 42 and 20. I ask the minister to move amendment 10 and speak to all of the amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be bringing forward an amendment that further underlines my commitment. This Government's commitment to emergency care planning on the face of the bill. I have listened to the views of carers and the national carers organisations that it is clear that this is an issue of great importance to carers and the people that they care for. I know that worry about not having a plan in place for the care of a carer for person, the event of an emergency can affect carers' health and wellbeing. The bill already provides that the adult carer support plan, a young carer statement must contain information about whether the adult or young carer has arrangements in place for the care of the carer for person in an emergency. We added that at stage 2, having listened to concerns of organisations such as enabled. There is already emergency care planning provision in the bill that deals with emergency care planning on an individual basis. Amendment 10 provides for emergency care planning at a more strategic level. My proposed amendment to section 28 requires 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 for persons in emergencies. Amendment 20 adds 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 Ms Grant for working with me on the very important issue of prevention and for bringing forward amendment 11, the reduction of any negative impacts on a carer's own health and wellbeing because of its caring role. It is one of the prescribed national outcomes for an integrated health and social care system, consistent with the national outcome. The bill already contains provisions that promote a preventative approach, enabling people to request an adult carer support plan or a young carer statement. As soon as they become a carer, they can result in an early assessment of their need for support and thereby reduce the risk of any need for crisis intervention at a later stage. The Scottish ministers can, under section 94, set out on regulations the matter that a local authority must have regard to when setting its local eligibility criteria at a point that I made earlier in an earlier debate in the earlier group. That could include the desirability of taking a preventative approach to avoid carers' needs escalating to a more severe level. However, I see merit in underlining the importance of prevention, and I am therefore delighted to support Ms Grant's amendment to section 28, which requires local authorities and health boards jointly to set out in their local carer strategy an assessment of the extent to which their plans for supporting carers may reduce any impact that caring has on carers' health and wellbeing in support of amendment 11. I thank Rhoda Grant for bringing forward amendments 41 and 42, which require consultation with post-16 education bodies before the local authority and health board prepare their local carer strategy. There are provisions of the bill as it stands, which could be used to contribute to that outcome. Section 28, 4A and B provide that preparing the local carer strategy, the local authority and health board must consult such persons and bodies representative of carers as they consider appropriate and to take steps to involve relevant carers. That list is not exhaustive, so 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, 2C of the bill provides that a local carer strategy must set out the support available to relevant carers in the local authorities area. That includes support available from the local authority, the health board and such other persons and bodies as the authority and health board consider appropriate. That may also include support for young and adult carers available from educational bodies in the local authority area. However, the bill is not the only activity contributing to achieving the outcome that we are seeking 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 to better identify and support student carers. Colleges are proactively identifying carers through the application process and establishing whether further support is required. Borders College, for example, has a dedicated webpage specifically for carers and carer leavers, and many colleges have dedicated student and support services that are available to student carers. Discussing the matter with Ms Grant after stage 2, I understand that some of our concerns were about how the educational maintenance allowance was being applied for young carers. Guidance was issued in May 2014 to all colleges and schools by the then Cabinet Secretary for Training, Youth and Women's Employment Minister, Angela Constance MSP, and the then Minister for Public Health, Michael Matheson. That guidance encourages schools and colleges to consider young carers as vulnerable young people and to ensure that they did not miss out on educational 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 Service Alliance. We intend to clarify the position on young carers as a vulnerable group in that guidance, as it is not currently clear. We will promote that to the education sector. Taking all that into account in the significant degree of 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 if our student carers not do. I think that that would necessarily be achieved by amendments 41 and 42. I will, of course, continue working together with our partners in pursuit of that aim. I will set out best practice in the guidance underpinning the bill. I have set out carers and their representative bodies will be fully involved in that process. I would ask Roderang not to move amendments 41 and 42 and to move amendment 10 in my name. Many thanks. I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 11 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 11 is to ensure that local carers' strategies examine ways in which policies can be put in place that will enable carers to continue their caring role in order that the impact of that caring role on the carers' health and wellbeing is reduced. We are all aware of the impact on a carers' health and wellbeing of being unsupported in their caring role. That amendment means that anticipatory support will be put in place and that strategies will adopt a preventative approach. I very much thank the minister for working with me on this amendment. 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 carers' strategy. Young carers at college and university often do not get the support that they require to continue in education, and we must ensure that they do. I very much welcome that guidance will be made clear to colleges and universities that they must look at how they operate their EMA systems to ensure that young carers who may miss college or college because of their caring role fallfile of the guidance. I would also ask the minister when he is issuing that guidance to encourage best practice, because there are good examples of support for carers out there from colleges and universities, but that needs to go through all the further and higher education system. I support the amendments in the name of the minister that allow for emergency carer arrangements to form part of the local carers' strategy. Too much, because I made a number of extensive remarks in opening this group. Let me be clear. I think that the point made by Rhoda Grant was a good one, that clearly we want to see best practice rolled out. That is not confined to the educational sector, but it is right across the gamut of the bill's provisions. Of course, we will work to that end. I very much appreciate the rest of the comments that were made by Ms Gannadine. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 11, in the name of Rhoda Grant, to move or not? The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Call amendment 41, in the name of Rhoda Grant, to move or not? Not moved. Not moved. Thank you very much. Call amendment 42, in the name of Rhoda Grant, to move or not? Not moved. Thank you. I will now move to group 12. Call amendment 12, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19. Minister, to move amendment 12 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Those amendments build on the carers charter provisions in section 32A of the bill. I was pleased to support Rhoda Grant's stage 2 amendments and thank her for bringing them forward. It is important for carers to know about their rights and where to find out about them. This is especially so for people who are new to caring and who we know very little about their rights. The charter will set out the rights of both adult and young carers. That is, of course, very important. At stage 2, I suggested that section 32A might need some further refinement, and that is what those amendments seek to do. Amendments 12 and 13 amend section 312A so that the information and advice service must provide information and advice about the rights of carers, including those set out in the carers charter. That changes the emphasis slightly from section 312A, as I amended at stage 2, which could have implied that the charter itself was more significant than the right set out in it. Amendments 16 and 18 make it clear that the charter will set out the rights for carers that are in or under the Carers Scotland Act and might also contain other information that is considered appropriate. Such other information could include, for example, rights in other legislation and any other relevant information. Amendments 16, I believe that there could be some concerns about the way that it has been presented, removes the reference to rights under any other enactment. I was very clear at stage 2 that the enactment is broad enough to cover any other UK law since changes to those laws are not all under the control of the Scottish ministers. The risk is that the information of the charter could quickly become out of date. That is why amendment 18 instead gives ministers power to include any other information that is considered appropriate in the charter. That information can, of course, include information about rights that arise elsewhere, including from UK law. We had to make amendment 18 wide ranging as we want to be able to give full consideration to the inclusion of rights in the carers charter that exists in legislation other than the carers' bill and the inclusion of other appropriate information. Amendment 17 ensures that the rights of carers set out in the charter are rights that exist in law already and that the charter does not rise to new rights or alter existing rights. I think that it is important that we do not seek to circumvent—I am sure that the Parliament would agree that it is important that we do not seek to circumvent proper parliamentary scrutiny where we seek to alter the rights that are set out in primary legislation. Finally, amendment 19 widens the consultation provisions currently in section 32A, so that, before preparing the carers' charter, the Scottish ministers must, in addition to consulting carers' represented bodies and involving carers as appropriate, also consult such other persons as Scottish ministers consider appropriate. I have in mind bodies such as COSLA, local authorities and health boards. There may well be others. Those wider consultation arrangements will be helpful in ensuring support for the charter from a wide range of organisations. I hope that the Parliament will agree that those amendments certainly enhance the current carers' charter provisions. I move amendment 12 on my name. I am grateful for the discussions about those amendments to the carers' charters. Can I ask just for one piece of reassurance with regard to amendment 16? Can the minister reassure me that it does not mean that the charter cannot include rights from other pieces of legislation? It is important that the charter is as comprehensive a document as possible, giving a clear indication of carers' rights. If it were not allowed to include rights under other pieces of legislation, then it would be difficult to pull all that into one place. As I am happy to respond to that, I can give Ms Grant in the chamber that assurance that it does not preclude the inclusion of other rights, including those that may arise from UK legislation under the amendments that we have presented. Those can be included in the charter. It is my intention that we do seek to include them, but I wanted to do it in such a fashion that we did not run the risk of falling foul of our own legislation by making it mandatory to do so. However, it is my clear intention that the charter contains as full a range of information as possible. It is also my clear commitment to ensure that we maintain and update that charter as regularly as possible, to ensure that it is as up-to-date as possible and as relevant as possible for carers across Scotland. The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, to move. The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 14, in the name of Rhoda Grant, would a grant to move or not? The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 15, in the name of Rhoda Grant, would a grant to move or not? Thank you very much. The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Now move to group 13, in the name of Rhoda Grant, in a group on its own, to move and speak to amendment 43, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 43. There is a theme running through the evidence that we received about the impact on the health of unsupported carers of their caring role. GPs are often in the front line of healthcare for the cared for person, but often do not see the person that is behind them, the unpaid carer who is supporting them. That is true of both adults and children alike. Those people need to have their own health looked after to make sure that they can continue their caring role. Therefore, a register would ensure that all carers are recognised and that their health is proactively protected. Thank you. Regarding amendment 43, in the name of Rhoda Grant, I am concerned that the pressures would potentially outweigh the benefits on this occasion. While creating the possibility for carers to register as such would be easier for their annual health check, that is also under amendment 43. I believe that any person would have to identify as a carer in order for the register to be relevant and useful. Additionally, I am wary about placing an ever-growing amount of responsibilities on health boards, GPs and local authorities without resources to back them up. It may be the case about placing the responsibility of an annual operation by GPs or health boards to write to and invite thousands of people for a health check-up that might prove more burdensome to those services than utilising the existing routes and resources for carers. I would like to hear more about the benefit that an additional level of responsibility on public authorities would add to the bill from Rhoda Grant before supporting the amendment or not supporting it. I will reply to amendment 43 in Rhoda Grant's name. Rhoda Grant brought forward a similar amendment at stage 2. I said at the end that I fully understand and appreciate the need to promote and protect carers' health and wellbeing. Indeed, the provisions in the bill and its entirety are designed to ensure that the health and wellbeing of carers is of paramount importance. The identification of carers' personal outcomes in the context of the adult care support plan and the young care statement is absolutely central to achieving that objective. We introduced an amendment to section 28 of the bill at stage 2 so that a local care strategy must be jointly prepared by each local authority and relevant health board. The health board's role is crucial regarding the health and wellbeing of carers. I spent some time at stage 2 talking about wider developments of relevance to supporting carers' health and wellbeing. I 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 a real impetus and necessity to free up GP time for face-to-face contact with patients. Those patients, of course, include carers who are able to ask for health checks where they think that that is right for them. Again, Mr Hume's remarks about that as a blanket requirement for every single carer could be somewhat disproportionate. It is also important that we reflect on the fact that it is not just GPs where there is an important interface with carers and not should it only be GPs. The traditional model of care where patients are reliant on healthcare professionals for information diagnosis referral with intervention to sideway healthcare professionals does not always suit the patients. There are carers, indeed, the aspirations of the workforce, the future model of carers, an empowered patient and carer in a shared decision making partnership with the healthcare professional enabling supported self-management where appropriate allows the person to regain control of their own health. There is also a real and growing potential to harness the support of friends, families and local and online communities to help inform decisions. Healthcare services need to be person-centred and responsive, co-ordinated and integrated in the type of care that treats a person with dignity, respect and compassion, which facilitates the change in the conversation by a transfer of power between the individuals and the healthcare professionals. GP practices can identify carers and agree with individuals what is important to the individual and how they can be helped to achieve it. That means helping carers to make and follow through with decisions that are right for them. Allied health professionals, too, have an important role. Professionals such as dieticians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists can all support carers' health and wellbeing, so it is with a real impetus in improving our approach to the healthcare needs of the pupil of Scotland. Yes, of course. He mentions a lot of healthcare workers. Many of those will be going into the home to support the care for a person. How would he make sure that they see the needs of the carer as well when they are doing that? I referred earlier to one of the other changes that we made that is to build my clear commitment and to restate it about workforce development. That is a critical part of the work that we need to take forward to ensure that there is that widespread understanding not only and quite understandably of the critical needs of the care for person, but also the needs of the carer, too. Again, I think that with the new needs that we put in place, we can have that type of co-operative relationship, putting the person at the centre of decision making. On that basis, I am not convinced about the need for the amendment and road of grants name. Crucially, carers are represented on integrated joint boards and other integration arrangements and can, with GP practices, influence the work to plan and develop GP services for the local community. I am pleased to be able to confirm that I have provided a grant to the coalition of carers in Scotland to work with carers on the integration joint boards in 2016-17 to support them in their endeavours. I am again further to the issue around workforce development. As I said at stage 2, I proposed a right to health force to encourage them to identify carers and support them in all health settings. Those health settings include GP practices, but other health settings such as hospitals and community pharmacists are just as important in supporting carers' health and wellbeing. Of course, the home environment is important there as well. Some health boards are also using carer information strategy funding to help to identify and support carers in a wide range of health settings, including GP practices and hospitals. I was pleased also to be able to confirm this week that carer information strategy funding will continue for the coming financial year. That will help to continue the vital work to identify and support carers in health settings and to support the fantastic work of carers' centres and other local voluntary organisations that support carers in many different ways to improve their health and wellbeing on the basis of what I have said. I respectfully ask Rhoda Grant to consider withdrawing amendment 43. I thank the minister for his comments and I am somewhat reassured that he is going to write to health boards and make sure that they are aware that they need to do more work with carers. I think that that will be on-going, because I think that we need to keep reminding health boards and health professionals of the needs of carers. Given what he said, I will withdraw amendment 43. Thank you very much. Rhoda Grant seeks to withdraw amendment 43. Does any member object? There is no member does. We will move on to the next group, which is group 14. Call amendment 44, in the name of Rhoda Grant in a group on its own. I move amendment 44. Carers often tell us about their struggle to get help for themselves and, indeed, for the person they care for. Their time is often taken up by their care and role, and there is very little left for them to go and do battle. Yet it seems that we are asking them to do that all the time to get the services that they need for the person that they are looking after. Therefore, there is very little time left for themselves to look for the services that support their needs. The provision of advocacy services would enable carers to have someone to speak for them and to do some of the work that is required to access the support that they need and therefore a move amendment 44. We must ensure that the advocacy support for carers is targeted at those carers who need it most. Not all carers will want to require an independent advocate in every instance. I am not convinced that providing a right to advocacy to all carers as Rhoda Grant's amendment seems to envisage would be a proportionate or cost-effective measure. Carers will want to access support from a range of sources, including carers organisations. Indeed, people will want to access a variety of support at different times. We need a solution that promotes the sustainable development of advocacy services and recognises the important place within a wider framework of support services. The carers bill provides for information advice services in every local authority area on a statutory basis. They will be there to provide the wide range of information and advice that they can. However, at section 31.2 day of the bill, it sets out that it must provide information advice in particular about advocacy for carers. I know that there could be more independent advocacy for carers. I accept that it can be patchy, but I am also aware that some local authorities and health boards are investing in carer advocacy services, carer information strategy plans, show investment in carers centres that provide carers with information advice, which can include advocacy services. I can let Ms Grant and the rest of the team of my officials have been working with the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, the Coalition of Carers in Scotland and others, to produce carer advocacy guidance. COSLA has seen and is content with the draft guidance, and we aim to publish it very soon. We will ensure that the carer advocacy guidance is referenced and highlighted in the guidance companies bill. We are providing resources for support to be provided to carers under the bill, which will include any form of support to meet carers' personal outcomes, which could include advocacy. We have also funded Carers in Scotland to produce a self-advocacy toolkit for carers. The toolkit is available on the Carers in Scotland website, on the basis of the work that is under way in our commitment. We are necessarily wide-ranging nature of Rhoda Grant's amendment. I am grateful for that information about the carers advocacy guidance. I am sure that many carers will find that useful. Given that advocacy is already covered in the bill and that there will be the self-advocacy website, I very much hope that the website will also point carers in the direction in which they can find advocacy services on a more personal basis, because sometimes they need people to do that legwork. Given those reassurances, I will seek to withdraw amendment 44. Rhoda Grant seeks to withdraw amendment 44. Does any member object? As no member does, amendment 44 is withdrawn. Amendment 16, 17, 18 and 19, on the name of the minister and all previously debated, to move amendments 16 to 19 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 16 to 19? As no member does, the question is that amendment 16 to 19 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I now call amendment 45, in the name of the net mill, already debated with amendment 39, the net mill to move or not. Thank you. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I now call amendment 20, in the name of the minister to move formally. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I now call amendment 46, the name of Rhoda Grant to move or not. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 47, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, Jackson Carlaw, to move or not. Not moved. Thank you. That ends consideration of amendments. Thank you all. I now move the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15561, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the Carers Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would further invite members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly, please. I call on Jamie Hepburn to speak to and move the motion. Mr Hepburn, you have 10 minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this stage 3 debate on the Carers Scotland Bill. If the Parliament agrees to the bill, as I hope it will, after the debate, then today marks a key change in our recognition of the contribution of carers across Scotland. It also extends carers' rights in order to improve carers' health and wellbeing so that they can continue to care if they so wish and to have a life alongside caring. I am sure that we can all agree that these are outcomes worth achieving. I am sure that colleagues in the chamber will join me in acknowledging Scotland's 745,000 adult carers and 44,000 young carers under the age of 18, almost 800,000 carers in all for what they do every day. I thank colleagues on the Health and Sport Committee, the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their diligent and expert scrutiny of the bill. I extend my thanks to those members who have discussed the bill with me and those who have brought forward a range of amendments at stage 2 and today. I also thank many key interests with whom I have engaged during the passage of the bill through Parliament and who have generously given of their time and experience to help enhance the bill and include the national carers organisations, Carers Scotland, the Coalition of Carers in Scotland, the Carers Trust Scotland, Shared Care Scotland, MECOP, the Scottish Young Carers Service Alliance and Crossroads Scotland. I also thank Mary Curie, Enable Scotland, local authorities, health boards and COSLA. I believe that the process of engagement and parliamentary scrutiny has improved the bill. As introduced, it was a good piece of legislation. I believe that it has been enhanced further at stage 2 and as an even better bill now we debate its final stage in Parliament today, again having been amended at this stage 3 process. Above all, I thank the hundreds of thousands of carers across Scotland, those who have engaged with the bill and helped to improve it and the many others who play an important role for their loved ones, their communities and our society. I am sure that this Parliament would want to record its collective thanks to Scotland's carers, some of whom care in very challenging circumstances. The bill does not sit in isolation from the world in which it will operate, although many of the key drivers for change to support carers on a much more sustainable basis are within. The wider economic, social and educational context in which it will operate is also important. Scotland has a growing population of older people who are successfully living longer but often do so with a range of complex and multiple physical and mental health care needs. We need to support Scotland's carers so that they can in turn support, if they so wish, many people with illnesses and disabilities or who are frail many with dementia. The integration of health and social care is one of Scotland's major programmes of reform at its heart. Health and social care integration is about ensuring that those who use services get the right care and support whatever their needs at any point in their care journey. That includes carers, whether as service users themselves or as providers of care. We want the health and social care workforce to fully recognise and value carers, the same two in schools, colleges and universities, where young carers can be fully encouraged and supported to value the caring role but also to ensure that they are children and young people first and foremost. Implementation of the children and young people of Scotland Act 2014 has a key role in ensuring that that happens too. The social care, self-directed support of Scotland Act 2013, has an important role too in forming the basis of good support, providing people with flexibility, choice and control. Carers like everyone in our society will benefit from the range of actions that this Government has taken to encourage a flourishing economy and a healthier nation. We are continuing to support both adult and young carers in 2017-17, subject to the Parliament's final approval of the budget that we are providing over £8 million in 2016-17 for the voluntary sector shop breaks fund, health board care information strategies and other initiatives such as a grant to Sharecare Scotland for the innovative hospitality pilot linking to the hospitality industry to the provision of shop breaks, a grant to the coalition of carers in Scotland to work with carers on the integrated joint boards and other strategic partnerships, continued workforce development, a record ninth annual young carers festival and the carer positive scheme to recognise employers who support carers in the workforce as well as another carers parliament. The bill extends the rights of carers in law. The right to an adult carer support plan of young carers statement is open to all who fall within the now much wider definition of carer that we are legislating for many more carers than ever before can request or be offered a plan or statement and an assessment of their needs for support. The bill is based on the principle of prevention, providing small interventions at an early stage or the right time can prevent a crisis and a consequent breakdown in care. Enabling people to request an adult carer support plan or a young carer statement as soon as they become a carer can result in an early assessment of their need for support and thereby reduce the risk of any need for crisis intervention at a later stage. Carers have said to me, Presiding Officer, how important it is that they are involved as individuals in discussions about their own support and about support for the person they care for. I recognise that the principle of carer involvement is a theme that runs through many of the bill's provisions. Carers have to be consulted on an individual basis and also at the strategic level such as in the preparation of the local carer strategy, the carers charter and the carers services. An important amendment, brought forward by Nanette Milne at stage 2, and further finessed today at stage 3, provides carers with the right to be involved with the discharge process from hospital of the person they care for. Short breaks are a key form of support to help carers to recharge their batteries, as they often say themselves. With my support, Nanette Milne brought forward important amendments today regarding short breaks. The bill requires local authorities to set local eligibility criteria, matter that we debated at the amendment stage. Those eligibility criteria will allow the local authority to determine whether it is required to provide the support to carers. There is a view that eligibility criteria should be set nationally again. I refer to the debate that we just had. I understand that view. I have concluded that individual local authorities, as bodies democratically accountable to their own electorates, should be able to make decisions based on the needs of their caring population. Local eligibility criteria? In the view of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, he has put very severe limits on what local authorities can do, whether they are funded or not, by a package that will lead to cuts. I am afraid that I would not agree with Ms Lamont what I would reflect on. Given that we are talking about care today, I might reflect on the fact that we are providing a substantial package of support. I am £250 million, half of which will go towards ensuring that those who work in the care sector are paid the living wage. I would have thought that you would have welcomed Ms Lamont, but I have heard Scant welcome from your benches. However, I regret that intervention, I have to say. I want to try to move forward on the basis of the broad consensus on which we have approached the subject matter today. Local eligibility criteria will enable each local authority to determine whether it cares if I need to call for the provision of support, taken into account the total resource that is available to meet local demand for support. However, I want to ensure the consistency of approach across Scotland. I believe that that can be achieved through the national matters that will be set out in regulations in which we will underpin local eligibility criteria. As I made clear in my response, the health and sport committee stage 1 report, the national carers organisations work on national set criteria will help to influence the regulations relating to these national matters. Again, I set that out again. Today, I am committed to continuing to work with key stakeholders to share ideas and views about how local eligibility criteria should work in practice. That will inform development of the regulations and guidance under the bill. Let me be clear, we will be looking closely at the efficacy of the approach taken. I have retained the power in the bill that ministers can, by way of regulations, introduce national eligibility criteria if it is felt necessary down the line of power that I described earlier as when we are holding in reserve. Let me be clear, the Government will not hesitate to use that provision should it find it has to. Finally, a word about implementation. Resources to support bill implementation are set out. In the financial memorandum, I have confirmed to the finance committee that the Scottish Government expects to use the maximum cost set out in the financial memorandum for planning purposes. Those are £19.4 million in 2017-18, rising to £88.52 million in 2021-22 and on a recurring basis thereafter. That is, I believe, a substantial commitment to the bill. The passage of the bill is only part of the journey. We have done much to try and support Scotland's carers outwith the bill and will continue to do that. In the weeks and months ahead, we will make a significant effort to ensure that we, with key interests, including carers and their representative organisations, pave the way for the convention of the bill in 2017-18. There will be challenges ahead. I am committed to working collaboratively with stakeholders to undertake the necessary planning and to co-produce a significant number of regulations and guidance. Let me extend that offer to members of the chamber if they want to speak to me about any of those matters. I am always willing to hear that. I know that there is a genuine desire from all parties in the chamber to see the bill implemented successfully and to achieve positive outcomes for carers to which the bill aspires and to which we all collectively aspire to. On that basis, it gives me great pleasure to move that the Parliament agrees that the Carers Scotland bill should be passed. I thank the minister for his constructive approach, and I believe that the bill will be better, because all parties have worked together to get the best bill that we can for carers. I also want to thank his officials for their role in making that work as well. I want to thank most of all carers, groups and representatives. The many groups and individuals in the highlands and islands that have contacted me and took the time to share their experiences with me that give me a real insight into what was needed in the bill and also to the national carers organisations listed by the minister, but who worked closely with all parties during the process in forming the debate. Personally, I would also like to thank Clare Lally for her help and advice to me. She has been a star and made the process much easier for me. There are many parts of the bill that we agree with, but there are still areas of disagreement, and I think that the greatest of those is the funding allocated to the bill. It is woefully inadequate. We are really concerned that the bill, while offering hope on one hand, will not deliver because of the lack of funding. Local councils are facing half a billion cuts to their budget this year, and they are being forced to cut support rather than increase it. Carers tell us continually that they want more than warm words. I really hope that the bill will not just be only warm words. We need to be clear that more funding is required to make the bill work for carers, more funding for assessments, more funding for support, for breaks and for replacement care. We are told that the estimates used are wrong, and that needs to be kept under review and funding allocated where it is required to make sure that the bill works. The bill also allows local authorities to set their own criteria for who will be supported under the bill and to decide on what kind of support that will be offered. We tried to set some national criteria for who should be given priority for support in the face of the bill in order to ensure a minimum level of support for carers. Coslau did not support the approach. It was clear that they wanted support to support carers. They really value their role. Their concern was that the funding for increased services for carers would lead to cuts in service for the cared for person because the bill was not properly funded. If support is cut for cared for clients, that would simply increase the burden on carers. Carers fear that their lack of national criteria will mean a postcode lottery for them. That is the case with support for cared for clients. Different local authorities offer different levels of service and levy different charges for those services. A care package depends on where you live and not the level of support that you need. The criteria that we tried to set nationally was very modest. It guaranteed the support in which they were in the greatest of need of urgent support carers whose role was going to end or was at risk of ending because they could no longer continue without support. We all want to support carers long before they reach the stage, but surely when they do reach the stage they must be given support. If they are not, the likelihood is that both the carer and their loved one will be required to be cared for by the state, and that is simply a false economy. With the right funding, the bill could make a real difference and change the lives of carers, carers who look after their loved ones and give up their own careers quite often their social lives to support family and friends. Elderly parents looking after adult children are worried sick about who they will like after them when they no longer can. We know carers as young as three years old whose lives revolve around caring for parents and siblings. One teacher told me about a pupil in her school. He was usually sleepy and unkempt, but one day he seemed a bit animated watching the clock with a sense of anticipation. Seeing this interest, she made the most of the situation and asked him, was he doing something nice after school. He said that he knew that there was a delivery waiting for him when he got home. She asked, what was it, expecting him to say a gift from somebody at a distance, but he told that it was a hoover. That hoover had broken some weeks ago, and he had just managed to save enough money from the family budget to buy a new one, and it was hopefully going to be there when he got home that night. It was the first indication that she had that he was a young carer and of his caring role. We also know that carers neglect their own health because their loved one cannot be left to look after themselves in their absence. We know of carers who are abandoned in a situation without any help. I have a constituent who was sent home in the middle of the night with the person that he was then going to have to care for who could no longer walk or talk very suddenly. All he was given on that discharge was a post-it with a phone number on it. That phone number did not lead to anybody who could provide him with any information or help at all, and that was absolutely shocking. That must change, and I hope that the bill will be the start of a change to support carers. We also must, and many of us have spoken this afternoon about the role of the voluntary sector, and that must be protected because quite often they are the only people supporting carers. That role has often grown in our communities, often led by carers themselves or people who were carers previously who have seen the gap in support and when their caring role has ended have come forward to provide that support to others. Carers really value those services because they are local and they do understand the situations that they are in. While the provisions of the bill fall on local authorities, I am sure that there is time on joint boards and lead agencies for them to provide. I very much hope that they will use the expertise in the voluntary sector and in the carers groups that will deliver those services and support. In conclusion, I want simply to pay tribute to the work carried out by carers. They save the public purse £10.3 billion every year, and what they are asking in return is a drop in the ocean in comparison. Let's not disappoint them. Many thanks. Am I calling Dr Annanette Milne in five minutes or thereby, Dr Milne? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would endorse the thanks already given to all those who have helped with the progress of this bill through its parliamentary stages. When I first entered Parliament nearly 13 years ago, I knew almost nothing about carers, even though I and other family members had been involved in looking after loved ones following serious illness under the terrible stages of life. We did not recognise ourselves as carers but just wanted to give support to our relatives and outside agencies were rarely involved. I remember after my granny died many years ago now, having lived with us for the last two years of her life when she had severe dementia. My mother was a physical and emotional wreck, having been with her day and night and coping with soiled clothes and bedding without even a washing machine at that time. Thankfully, things are not like that nowadays, although many carers still do not recognise themselves as such, and although help is available, many still do not receive the support that they deserve in carrying out their caring role. As we know in Scotland today, there are an estimated 745,000 adults and 44,000 young carers, and the value of the care that they provide is reckoned to be around £10.3 billion per year. Clearly, they are invaluable and indispensable, but caring can have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of a carer, and that can ultimately have an adverse impact on the person who is being cared for. At the present time, local authorities have a duty to assess a carer's ability to care and the power to provide support where necessary. Health boards can also be required to publish a carer information strategy setting out how carers will be informed of their right to request an assessment, but it is accepted that that is not enough, and many carers are still not identified as such. The carers bill aims to provide better and more consistent support to all carers, both young and adult, by enshrining their rights and law so that they can continue to care if they so wish, in good health and able to have a life besides caring, and in the case of young carers, to find a childhood similar to their non-carer peers. The bill, as introduced at stage 1, was warmly welcomed by carers and carer organisations, although it was accepted that it would require significant amendment if it were to achieve its very laudable aims of improving the lives of the many carers who make such a valuable contribution to our society. Of the concerns expressed, financial provision was to the fore, because legislation like this cannot be successful unless the entitlements that it promises are properly and adequately funded. I am not convinced that this has been fully resolved yet and could be a hurdle in providing proper support and services to those entitled to them, particularly at a time of significant constraints on council funding. This is something that the next Parliament and Government should monitor extremely carefully. The amendments that we have approved at stages 2 and 3 have strengthened the bill significantly, and I am pleased that they are to the satisfaction of those at the coalface of caring. I would like to focus briefly on my own stage 3 amendments, because I think that they should make a real difference to carers. I felt strongly for some time that hospital discharge could be better planned in many instances by identifying the main carer and starting the discharge planning as early as possible in the patient's journey through hospital care. There are, of course, many examples of good practice in this respect, but the reverse is all too common, and legislation should ensure that good practice is the case everywhere. I will give just two examples to illustrate my point, one of which I mentioned at stage 2 and which shocked me. At a meeting that I attended as I drove a grant to discuss this legislation, a carer told us about getting just two hours' warning of her husband's discharge from hospital on oxygen, which, as we know, is a flammable substance. The home was heated by an open gas fire, and it had a gas cooker, both of which had to be quickly disconnected before her husband's arrival home. It took several days until alternative heating and cooking facilities could be installed. Clearly, that is no way to treat a carer or a care for person. My other example concerns a friend of mine with dementia, who is cared for by her husband. Following admission and treatment for an acute illness, she would have been discharged home without discussion or planning, had not their daughter, who lives in another town, refused that, because she felt that her father could no longer cope without support. It took some considerable time to get a care package in place, and that resulted in a classic case of delayed discharge, because no thought had been given early on in my friend's stay in hospital as to what might be needed when she went home. I am pleased to say that there is a happy ending, because my friend's husband is delighted with the support that he is getting now at home. Moreover, care home respite has been provided for a few days on a regular basis, which allows him to plant her a couple of days away from his caring role when he needs them. He now feels that he can cope much better, and his own health is no longer being put at risk, because he can look forward to regular short vex when he can resume a more normal life. Those are just two examples, but replicated across the country, the legislation that we will hopefully pass today, could make for a better life for many people who might otherwise suffer adverse effects from being a carer, and they might indeed have to curtail their caring role, because of its impact on their health and wellbeing. Time will tell if the Carers Scotland Bill has the desired effect on improving the lives of carers, both young and adult, hopefully it will do so. It may not yet be perfect, but by and large, it has the approval of carer organisations, and on-going work between them and the minister in preparing regulations and guidance will, I hope, refine it further. Scottish Conservatives appreciate very much the help and co-operation that we have received from the minister and his officials, and we will be happy to vote for the Carers Scotland Bill at decision time this evening. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate, and I call on Joan McAlpine to be followed by Joanna Lamont. Four-minute speeches or thereby, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and it gives me very great pleasure to speak in this debate today. Just before the debate, I met a group of carers who came here with enable to celebrate the inclusion of emergency planning and future planning in the bill, which had been an enable campaign, and you cannot exaggerate the sense of achievement that people feel in achieving not just emergency planning, but also in the bill itself, which gives them rights, proper rights for the first time. I think that the psychological shift in that is really important, because many people, particularly of a certain generation, do not like asking for help. I think that there is a shift when you know that you have these rights enshrined in law, and the fact that emergency planning is now part of those rights has made a really big difference. It was a year ago that enable came to the cross-party group on carers, which I co-convened and presented a piece of work called picking up the pieces, which surveyed the extent of emergency and long-term planning for carers across the country. It also identified the difficulties faced by carers when an emergency stops them caring. That emergency can be long or short-term. It is usually unexpected, and that could be as simple as something like a car breaking down or a bus not turning up so that the cared-for person doesn't get the help that they need, but it can also obviously be much more serious, such as a hospital admission and accident or sudden illness. That can result in the cared-for person being separated from essential support, and it is particularly acute if there is no wider family support, and if the care-for persons needs are so great that they cannot be left alone to look after themselves. Fear of such a situation occurring is a constant source of stress for the carer, and related to that, for older carers in particular, what if the crisis is not resolved, what happens if there is no long-term plan where their loved one will be placed in accommodation that is unsuitable? For example, a young person with a learning disability has been put into residential accommodation for older folk, or will they be moved away from the area altogether, away from their friends, their routine, their support network, their leisure activities, everything that they enjoy and which is essential to their quality of life? Obviously, putting a long-term plan in place for suitable accommodation in a place that they know and feel happy with is absolutely essential. Cross-party group reaction to Naible's presentation clearly struck a chord with all the carers present, and not just those involved in caring for a person with a learning disability. Picking up the pieces was not just about carers looking after someone with a learning disability. They found that the emergency planning varied across the country. There were some very good examples, but there are some bad examples as well. It was at that point that the cross-party group identified emergency planning as a priority for the forthcoming bill. While initially there was disappointment that the emergency planning was covered in regulations, the minister listened carefully and knew that he had representations from Naible and other carers groups and individual MSPs like myself. I am very pleased that he took on board the arguments and that he has put emergency and long-term planning on the face of the bill. It is difficult to exaggerate the sense of achievement that this has brought to campaigners and the emphasis that the minister has given to it in his speech in his comments today, and the fact that he obviously sees it as so important and is very welcome in it. I would just like to quote Jen Savage, the director of campaigns and external affairs, at Naible, who said that Naible Scotland is absolutely delighted with the announcement. We congratulate the First Minister, who of course initially announced the change in emergency planning for listening to the voices of carers of people who have learning disabilities about their worries about the future and deciding to change the carers bill to make things better. Already Naible Scotland is very much on the ball because they have already prepared a toolkit to take forward the emergency planning. I have got it here, I know that I am not really supposed to do that, but it is very well worth MSPs taking a look at it. There is also an emergency plan that goes with the toolkit and it encourages people to answer the questions that they all have in their head about the needs of the person that they care for, but they do not necessarily always articulate to it, and it is really important that the plan is not just in your head that it is written down, and as I say, I can recommend it to everyone in the chamber. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it is a privilege to for me to be involved in this debate, and over the years to have met with and worked with carers, whether in one family, as a schoolteacher or now, carers who are determined to change their lives of those for whom they care and to ensure that the needs of carers are fully addressed. I recognise the importance of this stage for them in that campaign, because of course there is a blunt truth. The work of carers saves the state of fortune and the level of impact on carers, their lives, their ability to work, their ability to have time for themselves, the sense sometimes of isolation that they suffer is hard fully to appreciate, and I know that across the Parliament I believe that there is a recognition of the role of carers in supporting their loved ones, in shaping a proper understanding of the needs of those being cared for and carers themselves, and they have been at the forefront of creating better understanding of those needs for those with disability or illness, for those who need help and how that support should be delivered. Whether it is the rights of people with learned disabilities to live as independently as possible, or recognising the rights of siblings in a family with a child with disabilities, or the needs of those living with dementia, we have seen great change, and that has been driven by carers and campaigning organisations themselves. John McAlpine is absolutely right to highlight the campaign by enable, because it speaks to an issue that is not really about resources, it is about understanding how the simple things can make a huge difference to people, and we recognise, of course, the determination of carers to ensure that the voices of those being cared for are fully heard and understood. But someone who meets regularly with carers, I know as they know that there is a long way to go. Carers still talk of battle, of struggle, of being overstretched with insufficient respite and anxieties about the quality of the care, and we should understand the financial and emotional impact of them and their families. There is no one here who wishes to oppose carers' rights, and I recognise in what John McAlpine said that there is that breadth of support to make sure that we do the right thing. However, I have to say that, as I said in the stage 1 debate, creating rights, carers' rights must be rights that are enforceable if they are to be rights at all. Anything else would be a cruel deceit, and the challenge will be for all of us to ensure that those rights are enforceable. Of course, over the last week while we have been exercised by the debate on taxation and the impact on local government of cuts to their funding, but if there ever was a doubt about the importance of that debate, it is when reflecting on the needs of carers. The funding of local government is not knockabout, it is not an academic debating point, it is about the real world and real lives, it is about care workers losing their jobs, it is about remaining care workers left to support more people with less time and fewer resources who will know how much it matters. Critically, in this debate, if you are a carer, those cuts will mean... I appreciate what she says about care workers and the importance of care workers. Since she raises the issue, can she tell us whether she will be encouraging Labour local authorities to support the package that gives £250 million to pay care workers the living wage? The commitment of the Labour Party to the living wage and to respect for care workers, the point that I would make to you is that care workers will lose their jobs, so they will not have the living wage in order to recognise it, and it is about centrally about funding local government properly. I say it as a carer. Those cuts will mean being left to pick up the slack, fill the gaps in care, manage the strains on paid care support and, with cuts to the very support that you can gain through carer centres and others, which help to sustain you. That is how serious it is and central it is to the lives of people who care. I do not deny the minister's sincerity in the recognition of the importance of carers, but it is his job, more than anyone else in this chamber, to translate that commitment to the reallocation or the allocation of proper resources. Of course, we can support the bill's intention, but I emphasise again that the intention will only be realised if resources are made available. I am concerned at the lack of response to COSLA's on-going view that the bill's intentions are not funded, set in the context of a local government settlement, identified by COSLA as a £500 million cut for this year alone. I am sure that he would abhor, as I would, an approach where we as a Parliament confer rights, do not resource those rights and then denounce local government when those rights are not realised. Do not get me in wrong. I know that local government can fall short and they have had to understand fully how they should probably deliver their services in a better way, but we need to respond to the question of resources. I am happy to support the bill as a recognition of the stage that carers have got in making their case to the Parliament. I welcome its aspirations, but we really need to have a serious reflection of the consequence for carers and others of an aspiration that remains only that. That is the debate that we need to have—how we resource what we all are committed to is delivering for carers across Scotland. I am happy to see that it has reached stage 3 as amended to its current form. The bill will provide a framework of support for the 745,000 adult carers and more than 44,000 young carers. That figure may just be an estimate. It may actually be double that. By implementing that framework and the bill in this amended current form, hundreds of thousands of people without doubt will find the support that they need. It is important not to forget that caring for someone can have both a physical as well as a mental toll on a person. Marie Curie notes the importance of providing such support to carers of people with terminal illness both during and after their caring role is over. A number of amendments lodged to the effect seek to provide those person-centred and specialised services. A major framework of action and support that has the potential to provide those specialised services is, of course, the upcoming integration of health and social care. Joint boards will have the opportunity to provide those services, while avoiding duplication of work and giving carers more options. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing those amendments forward. I also note, and I thank Melon in her absence for her amendments at stage 2. Those actually provided far more involvement of carers in NHS procedures. The admission, care and discharge of a person can best be supported and facilitated when the information of what is best for them is also presented. Carers are the ones who can provide this information best. I have been encouraged to see that a better definition for the timescales for preparation of support plans was agreed also at stage 2. The minister's amendments set a better timescale for both young and adult carers, I believe. However, there are still components of the bill that we should have considered at this stage, notably the discussion on whether eligibility criteria should be local or national and decide in favour of the local formulation in my view. Will it allow for flexibility and adaptation to local needs and circumstances? I would like to point out that, should any review of the bill go ahead in the future, that element may be worth revisiting. The goal should be, of course, to make sure— Of course. I mean Mr Hulman will have heard my remarks, and I hope that, except from a good faith, we will be monitoring the efficacy of the approach that we have legislated for very clearly, and if we find that the approach that is taken is not working on the ground, we will not hesitate to use the reserved position that I have retained in the face of COSLA's opposition, that we can institute national eligibility criteria by way of regulations. I very much appreciate the minister for putting that on the record. Of course, never doubted that he would bring forward his revisiting and reviewing it in very good faith, so I am glad to hear the minister's words. The goal should be to make sure that a minimum level of service is provided and that carers across Scotland and, in any way, victims of any postcode lottery, so I am glad that the minister will keep an eye on that. Another topic that I am wary of is the amendment of Rona Grant on the scrutiny of support services provided to carers. A national carer and, of course, was not supported. A national carer organisation said that we would caution that amendment, which may be difficult to implement, so I am glad that that was not pushed. Further note was the Public Bodies Joint Working Act 2014. There are multiple existing channels to monitor carers' experiences without adding an extra layer of inspection, and to go ahead and add to that extra layer of inspection would have meant that we would probably provide the support and backup for this to work. We would also have to provide that. That is an issue that I also was identified with amendment 43, which was also not pushed. We know that councils and other public bodies are seeing their budgets being cut, adding more responsibilities to already stretched resources, so that would not have been a wise choice. In principle, the ability to invite every person on the register of carers for an annual health check is, of course, welcome. We, of course, needed to be realistic. I think that the register will exist only for those willing to self-identify and agree for their name to be registered and in trying to fulfil that positive purpose of the register is the wish of diverting resources away from where they would be needed most. I am glad to see that we have reached this stage in the carers' bill. I hope that it shall pass the stage through. We will certainly be supporting it. Its implementation will be swift and straightforward, and, of course, will be to the benefit of all that it seeks to help. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Legislation, though it can take a long time to work its way on to the statute books, is just the tip of an iceberg. Underneath it, a host of people and organisations from all walks of life have been striving to improve situations that impact on them in different ways. That is especially true for the carers' bill. Only a few short weeks after being elected in 2007, I was invited along to meet the South Lanarkshire Carers Network, where it spoke about a carers' bill at that point being an aspiration. Just over a year ago, I joined Robert Anderson, the chairman of the South Lanarkshire Carers Network and Jamie Hepburn, the minister to officially open South Lanarkshire Carers Network's new headquarters, although, in fact, the organisation itself had been started in 1998 by Robert. Robert, characteristically, says that his recognition with an MBE awarded to him is a testament to solid partnership working. That is something that we have seen in this bill. Last January, when he accepted that MBE, he said, Presiding Officer, above anything else, I hope that receiving this MBE underlines to people in a caring role that they are not alone and help and support is available to them. Robert knows what it is like to be someone's unpaid carer. His wife, Nan, suffered two strokes. Sadly, Robert said goodbye to Nan after many years of caring for her just a few weeks ago. He also said that it was a full-time salesman at the time but was suddenly thrust into a new world. The new responsibilities from cleaning the house, managing finances to helping my wife's needs. It was then that I realised that there was not a lot of support or information available for people in my situation, especially when the chips were down. Robert also added that the caring role often feels overwhelming and can leave the person feeling very isolated as they can soon become cut off from peers and friends because of the demands. He said that I realised things then needed to change. He also said that I have been profoundly impressed by the depth and scale of commitment coming from everyone involved. Unpaid carers are immensely giving and generous. For those who get paid this bill, and I hope that, along with the budget, it brings a prospect of a decent pay improvement. Although Westminster makes a great hue and cry about its fantastic new national wage of £7.20 an hour, the Scottish Government has instead taken on the guidance of the Living Wage Foundation and increased the rate to £8.25. That is a difference of £36 in an average week—a huge difference to people who take on the caring role as their profession. The origins of the bill, as I said, for some people has went back almost a decade in my experience—probably many more for others—but it has been two years since a formal consultation for legislation to support carers and young carers in Scotland and a great deal of input has been taken on board. We have heard that from the many contributions this afternoon. As we have heard, there are an estimated 745,000 adult carers with some 44,000 of them being young carers. The Scottish Government has recognised that. However, it is easy for us to look on at carers to admire them and to take them for granted. They deserve better than that. They deserve the right to lead a life that is fulfilling, properly paid and which offers support and advice in a professional and accessible way. Presiding Officer, if only my own mother had had that level of support looking after my father when he had motor neurone disease 30 or years ago, we might have had a much easier life growing up, but we managed. That is what happens. We have grown up a lot from that outdated perception of the dutiful, stoical, unpaid carers who never reached break-in point and had no redress to the state support of any kind. Since 2007, there has been lots of interventions and investment in that. We have seen that manifest itself in that bill. That bill is a very practical and important way to help carers to get a better deal and proper recognition. The evolution so far is that the Scottish Government has been working towards improving outcomes for carers in the range of initiatives such as reshaping care for older people, the change fund, the voluntary sector short breaks fund, which has helped over 32,000 carers and the carer information strategy. Funding of health boards has achieved significant progress with carer identification and support. That was one thing that South Lancer carers network did very well. I pay tribute to South Lancer carers network, if you notice, to another organisation that supports young carers called Covi and my constituency, to all of the organisations that we have heard of today. Again, that is just the start of another journey and I hope that the bill brings the life that carers need. The responsibility is on us to ensure that we deliver that. There are almost 800,000 carers in Scotland. Around 30,000 to 40,000 people stop caring for a loved one each year, but they are replaced by a similar number, so the overall number hardly ever varies. According to Carers UK, the economic value of that unpaid care is in excess of £10 billion, but that is an enormous amount of money saved from our public services. The emotional value of that support and care is inestimable. I know that many of us here today will have our own experiences of the role that carers play. If one's friends or family were affected, few would hesitate to help. However, the responsibility of caring for a vulnerable person often goes way beyond helping. It can be more demanding and stressful and go on for much longer than carers predict at the outset of their caring responsibilities. The care that is needed and provided is vital and is too often not apparent to others. It goes on behind closed doors and away from those agencies who can provide help. Indeed, many carers do not even recognise themselves as such. They simply think that they are doing what is right. As a consequence of that care, the value of that care is not always recognised for the public or by those who provide public services. In fact, the care is often taken for granted. Too often, support service providers do not even know that someone is a carer. People often care for loved ones alone, with little or no external support or engagement with support services. We need to identify carers at the earliest possible stage so that they know what support is available to them. It is common for carers who have additional support needs not to be identified. One of the challenges that organisations wish to support young carers, in particular, is to identify who and where they are, since many young people either do not see themselves as having that role or would not want to ask for help. That is why it is so important that there is a multi-agency approach at all stages of the care process and that this is enshrined in law to ensure that all agencies know their roles and responsibilities in this field. Underpinning how we can change that for the better is the importance of the NHS and local government in preparing carer strategies. The NHS can provide a great deal of support for not just the person who is being cared for but for carers themselves. Far too often, however, carers are not aware of the support that is available to them. The needs of carers must be at the forefront of all of our minds and at the centre of policy in this field. It is clear what is needed is a coherent multi-agency approach for most carers. At stage 2 of this bill, my colleague Rhoda Grant was able to introduce a carers charter into the bill to ensure that carers know their rights. However, many gaps in the bill need to be addressed and they remain. I support all of the amendments in Rhoda Grant's name as they begin the process of addressing the gaps in the bill. The amendments cover the inclusion of bereavement support, the introduction of the requirement to provide future planning, a duty to bright advocacy, a GP register for carers, the creation of appeals mechanisms, the introduction of equality clauses and the ensuring of a degree of national criteria for assistance. Many people have questioned the national standards required by the amendments made at stage 2 of this bill. I am pleased that Rhoda Grant has looked at this closely and worked with local authorities and carers organisations to find a solution to the problem. I, along with the health and social care alliance, are concerned that the proposed introduction of eligibility criteria defined locally by local authorities will lead to a postcode lottery. As they put it, while local best practice and scope for local variations to satisfy varying needs and caring trends are to be fully supported, we do not believe that there is any justification for a variation on the levels of need that trigger an entitlement to carers support. Rhoda Grant's amendments were not supported today by the Government, but I note the minister's willingness to address this matter should it become apparent that it is an issue for carers in the months and years to come. The introduction of a duty to support carers linked to eligibility criteria is a gateway to new rights for carers. In light of that, those must be clear rights available to all, not at the discretion of local criteria. Supporting carers and those to whom they provide care to consider what arrangements should be put in place should an emergency situation arise is a vitally important preventative measure. Effective emergency and future planning is another hugely important aspect of the bill. The security that comes with knowing that there is a plan in place should unexpected events happen is hugely positive for carers. Marie Curie has raised the important issue of what happens to carers who are nearing the end of their caring role. Marie Curie believes that planning for the end of caring role should begin as soon as is appropriate and be part of the adult carer support plan and young carer statement. They are also surely to correct to raise the issue of the lack of information and advice available for those at the end of their caring role. We should look to improve the framework that is contained in the bill, not just at this stage but continuously in the future. Carers issues should be part of the policy making process. I hope that the bill will result in the improvement of carers lives, but we must recognise that there is so much more for us to do. Thank you very much. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Jackson Carlaw, a generous four minutes. Which I may disappoint you in not fully utilising. In an afternoon in which we now draw the deliberations in relation to this bill to a conclusion, can I acknowledge the importance of this bill? It is one that has enjoyed cross-party support throughout. It has involved and engaged a great many organisations that have had high hopes and expectations of all that it may achieve and have been involved in many of the discussions that have taken place with all parties as we have progressed amendments and moved to this afternoon's final conclusion. Many of them have been named individually by members, both during the amendments stage this afternoon and in this short debate that we have just had. It is a bill that will improve the lives of some 800,000 carers and the very many people to whom they offer that support and care. As Nanette Milne said, it is quantified as being some hidden benefit to the country of over £10 billion. That really is a remarkable fact and a remarkable testament to the commitment that so many people so willingly give. It is a bill that has been improved by amendments, not least the amendments that have come mainly from Rhoda Grant and my colleague Nanette Milne in her case and the important issue of the involvement of carers in hospital discharge and in relation to short breaks. Those amendments have been made possible with the support of the minister, who has been engaged in a consensual basis with all those who have sought to improve the bill throughout. It is a bill that the future funding of which will be an issue in determining its ultimate success. Although I do not seek to pursue that argument this afternoon, I acknowledge the important remarks and comments that Joanne Lamont made in her contribution. It is a bill in which one finds himself able to commend the minister who has promoted the bill as an example to his colleagues, sometimes more bullish in their approach of what can be achieved on a cross-party basis on a measure in which there is a considerable basis of agreement to start. Nanette Milne made reference to her mother's experience in times past. I will not put it any more specifically than that. In which her experience of her mother, Nanette Milne's grandmother, is one that, in years to come, many more people will find that they are involved in the care of relatives and loved ones. That bill is designed to ensure that their experience is very much better than that that those generations past found themselves experiencing. I commend the bill and confirm that Scottish Conservatives are delighted to support it at decision time tonight. I now call on Rora Grant in six to seven minutes, if you wish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a good debate. Many of us can draw on our own experiences. Many of us have been carers at one point or another. However, we would not be here in this chamber if we had a long-term caring role. Jane Baxter said that many have this role for a lifetime—a very long time. Parents of disabled children, carers of those with long-term conditions, see their caring role not ending but continuing almost as part of their day-to-day lives. It is very hard for us to appreciate what that means, especially if that role is unsupported. People are facing huge difficulties doing that. I have a constituent whose own health is failing and finds it really difficult to see what the future holds, because how long can she continue to care and what support is there for her? We all agree that carers need more support, but there are dividing lines, and I just want to go back to those. The eligibility criteria—we were really keen that this be set nationally for the carers most in need so that they did not face a postcode lottery and that they got care when they needed it. There are powers to impose a national eligibility criteria. The minister should consider using them if need be, but the problem would be that he would then have to fund that. Sometimes the funding and national eligibility criteria are very much two sides of the same coin. We need to make sure that carers get the support that they need, because Johann Lamont said that rights need to be enforceable, or that they are not rights at all. That is really important here. If there is not the funding available locally to provide the care, then the support for carers is not going to be support at all. We had evidence at committee about the cost of carrying out a basic assessment that was hugely underestimated in the financial memorandum. Short breaks, there has been more funding put into short breaks, but one carer told me that to replace her for a week was going to cost thousands of pounds because of the complex needs of the person she was caring for. Carers do save the state of fortune, as Johann Lamont said, but we need to make sure that when they need our support, we reckon that the carer was saving thousands of pounds to the state because of their caring role, and because of that, we are really not seeing how they were going to get a break at all because of the cost of replacing the care that they give. Annette Milne, in her speech and in her amendments, talked about discharge planning from hospital. We both heard the case that she referred to about the person being sent home on oxygen, meaning that they could not use their gas fire, they could not use their cooker, they could not eat and they were freezing cold. How on earth did someone think that they could put somebody home in those situations? We often hear of people being discharged where their house is not appropriate for them anymore. They maybe do not have access to bedrooms and bathrooms and they are like so. A lot more thought has to be gone into how we send people home, but also how the carer is going to cope when we do that. Emergency and feature planning, of course, are really important. I am glad that the minister pointed out that bereavement, support and bereavement planning will be part of that future planning because it needs to be thought through. How we support carers who are dealing with caring in a palliative situation is difficult enough, but what happens after they lose the person that they love is really difficult. We cannot abandon them there. Short breaks really have to be for the good of the carer, not respect for the cared for person, because that is sometimes really important. The cared for person maybe needs to get away, maybe needs to have a change of scene and a break from their surroundings. That is not a short break for their carer, that is for the cared for person. We need to think separately and differently about breaks for the carer. A number of people talked about the workforce, and we need to involve all different bodies and voluntary organisations in preparation of the plans and statements, because they have a real insight into that. More than that, there are not enough social workers to do that work. That was one of the financial worries about the bill. Where were you going to find all the social workers who were going to do that? That is because they are already overworked. Plans and statements need to be based on the need of the carer rather than on budgets. The GMB was telling me that when their members are looking at support plans for the cared for person, they often omit interventions because they know that they cannot be funded in the budget, and that is really not right. Joan McAlpine talked about the living wage for care workers. We on these benches have been asking the Government to do it, and they have voted down attempts for us to bring that in. Joan McAlpine talked about the £200 million for community care, but that money is going into the health budgets, not the local government budgets, so it will do nothing to help local government in their funding crisis. As much as there is a point of information, that funding will go to health and social care partnerships with which local government is an integral partner. It is important to place that in the record, Presiding Officer. Indeed, it will go to health and social care partnerships, but it is going through the health budgets, not the local government budgets. It is the health boards that have control over that money and how it is spent. Local governments will hopefully have some influence, but they are not being given that money. That might be a political point, so that health budgets are not cut, as was promised by this Government, rather than where the funding goes at the end of the day. I will take Joan McAlpine. The number of hours and years that we have spent discussing health and social care integration, the care packages are delivered in the community by people on the joint boards. Surely she is not suggesting that the health board is directing social workers who deliver the care packages? Many of the joint boards will not be set up until April. The money is going to health boards, not to local government, as they keep saying. The health boards are expected to put that into the joint partnerships, but there is no control by local government over that money. They are dependent on health boards putting that into the joint pot. If he wanted to give that money to local government, why was it not in the local government budget? It is either political expediency or a way of punishing local government for saying that you are cutting their budgets. That takes us away from the support of carers, but it is really important that smoke and mirrors are not used for that money. We recognise that local government will bear the cost of the bill and it will be for them to deliver what is being asked. A number of speakers talked about carers and their need to self-identify, but Jane Baxter pointed out that often carers do not recognise that they are indeed carers, especially young carers. Carers need to be asked what we can do to support them. They need to be referred to services, not signposted or asked to self-refer. We need to take the burden of carers for their own support. In conclusion, we owe it to carers that the bill is not the last word. It is an important step, but we are far from there. We owe it to carers to continue to seek better ways in which we can support them going into the future. I thank all those who have spoken today. All members who have contributed to the debate have done so with genuine respect for Scotland's carers. I welcome the insight that has been shown and the helpful and informative contributions that have been made. I think that there is a clear sense of cross-party support for the bill, but more importantly, in many ways, there is a clear collective sense of support for Scotland's carers. I thank all those who have taken part in the bill's progress through. Many have spoken in debates served on various committees considering the bill and raised amendments to the bill, often on behalf of carers or carers representative groups. All those efforts and engagement have, in my opinion, significantly enhanced the bill, thanks to that interest, care and attention that the bill takes the form in which the part will vote today. At decision time, I think that it would not go amiss to thank again or the key interest that has helped to shape the bill as it currently stands. Of course, I thank carers for providing their input directly or through their representative organisations. It would be very amiss of me not to pick up on the point of Christina McKelvie. I was very glad to meet Robert Anderson on two occasions to discuss not only the bill but the wider work of the South Lancer carers network. He is a very good example of that process of interaction with the legislative process. I know that Christina McKelvie put it on the record, but I was aware that she had sadly lost his wife. Recently, I would like to place on the record my condolences to Robert Anderson. I agree totally with Rhoda Grant in the net mill and Jackson Carlaw that the process of engagement within the Parliament has ensured the bill now at stage 3 is better than it was when it was introduced at stage 1. I am loath to point out to anyone in particular, but I believe that the man on which Ms Grant and Ms Milne have engaged in seeking to amend the bill has been a particularly co-operative one. That emphasises that improving the lives of Scotland's carers is a shared agenda. It is right that we recognise that Scotland's carers are integral to our society. They provide vital care and support to their families, friends and neighbours often in very challenging circumstances. The current legislation that we are seeking to change and widen to all carers today requires that carers must care on a regular and substantial basis and that the person that they care for must be eligible for a community carer assessment before the carer can request a carers assessment. We know that there are very few assessments carried out across Scotland compared to the number of carers. Even when a carers assessment is undertaken, the local authority has discretion about whether or not to provide support. I am very pleased that, when the bill passes, as I am sure it will, it will mean that many more people can ask for or be offered an adult carer support plan or a young carer statement as a means of assessing their need for support. Further and more, the bill widens the definition of carers that those who care intermittently, perhaps because the person that they care for has an illness that does not occur, can regularly ask or be offered an adult carer support plan or a young carer statement. The adult carer support plan and young carer statement will record the outcome of the discussion with the petitioner on identifying the carers' personal outcomes and identified needs and any support that is to be provided by the local authority. To meet those needs, however, the adult carer support plan and young carer statement can also be of therapeutic value. If many carers feel a sense of loneliness or isolation and an empathetic assessment can help the carer to feel more supported. There are also circumstances in which the adult carer support plan and the young carer statement needs to be prepared quickly. If many carers care for people with terminal illness or provide end-of-care life, I was very glad that the issue was raised directly with us as an administration by Marie Curie. We have amended the bill to provide powers for the Scottish Minister to bring for regulations to put in place an expedited process for such carers. I was also very glad to hear voices calling for changes in recognising the needs for emergency planning. Indeed, future planning is part of that assessment process. Joan McAlpine spoke of the role of enable. I would like to acknowledge that as well. It is very heartening to hear. They clearly expect us to pass this bill today because they have already worked on their emergency planning toolkit. I congratulate them for that endeavour. I have to say I am behind the curve a little, unlike Ms McAlpine. I have not seen that toolkit, but it is good to see them engage in that process. I look forward to seeing that. I think that that is the type of creative work that we need to see happening across Scotland. As a Government, we will be happy to engage in that process. The bill also places a duty on local authorities to provide support to the carers' identified needs and meet the local eligibility criteria, since consideration has to be given in the first instance to whether a carer's needs can be met by the provision of services that are available generally in the community or by services provided to the carer for a person. Even a carer who has lower level needs might get some support quite different from the position today. One general service, which the bill provides, is the information advice service. The information advice service of each local authority will provide information and advice. A range of issues of importance to carers include information advice about income maximisation, education and training, advocacy, carers' rights and health and wellbeing, taking account of the views of carers. It also includes information and advice about emergency care and future planning. The information advice service will be available to all. Having amended the bill to add advice on bereavement service, it is important to recognise that former carers who are transitioning into a life without a carer role can also take advantage of the support offered by the service. That is what the bill allows for. An important amendment was made at stage 2 to clarify that local authorities do not need to set up services from new. There are many good third sector information advice service already in existence and we want to encourage local authorities to build what is already available. They do not need to reinvent the wheel. They can use existing services. The bill also makes specific provision for young carers in recognition of their particular needs. The definition of young carers has been extended so that young carers who reach the age of 18 while at school can continue with the young carer statement while it is still at school to help young carers with the transition to an adult carer support plan to ensure that there is no gap in revision, the young carer statement will continue to have effect until an adult carer support plan is in place. I already spoke today about our commitment to ensure that good guidance is in place to further support the transition arrangements. Presiding Officer, there is also the local carer strategy, which we are legislating for, which has to involve carers and their representative organisations. Again, that is another important step forward. A number of members have raised the issues around the resourcing for the bill. Let me first of all say quite clearly that it was interesting that it is the first time I have heard that Rhoda Grant was suggested, or maybe I was not listening before, but I certainly do not recall it having been raised that considering the attractiveness of national eligibility criteria there was some form of financial consideration. I want to be absolutely clear that that did not factor in to my determination about the way forward. I think that that would be evidenced by the fact that we have retained the provision that may subsequently allow for us to institute national eligibility criteria by way of regulation. I want to be clear that we will resource the bill. In the financial memorandum that we presented, there is £19.4 million in 2017-18, rising to £88.52 million in 2021-22, and a recurring basis thereafter. That is set out in the financial memorandum. I still consider the financial memorandum, of course. Given the number of concerns and real concerns that have been followed up by facts, people are half by the resourcing of the bill and the costs of delivering the bill. If it proves that the costs in the financial memorandum and the money that is put into the bill does not cover the cost of the bill, will he revisit that? Intervention is welcome, as it was. It was unnecessary, because let me go on to say what I was going to say. I still consider the financial memorandum as our best estimate. It has been largely informed by local government and COSLA figures. Johann Lamont said to me—or said in the debate that I have not responded to COSLA's concerns. That was a surprise to me, because I met COSLA in advance of stage 1. I heard the concerns that they had. I asked COSLA for alternative figures. I am still awaiting them from that meeting. Further taking on board the further concerns that have been expressed, I established the financial review group of which COSLA is set on and are a key member. Again, I have heard nothing from that review group to question the assumptions on the face of the financial memorandum. Any financial memorandum is always our best estimate. I stand by that financial memorandum and I have seen nothing that would cause me to question the assumptions made therein. Of course, I am happy. Johann Lamont, I wonder whether COSLA comes forward with further figures that confirm that there is a problem. Will he give a commitment that he will look at that and change the financial memorandum to ensure that the rights that we all want to establish are properly resourced? That might have been a case of reading between the lines that I have invited. I specifically said to COSLA that I am happy to take any figures that they provide. I am still waiting for them. I have also established the financial review group on which COSLA is set. If they come forward with any new information, of course I will consider it. That is my clear commitment to those involved in that process and to this. In conclusion, I have introduced the bill because I want to accelerate the pace of change building on what has already been achieved. I believe that the bill is a huge step forward in helping to ensure that carers can continue to care if they so wish and good health and have a life alongside caring. Those are aims that we all want to see achieved. I hope that tonight we unite to back the Carers Scotland Bill. That concludes the debate on the Carers Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 14673, in the name of Richard Simpson, on alcohol licensing, public health and criminal justice. Justice Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate, to press a request, to speak buttons in the call and Dr Simpson to speak to and move the motion 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be opening today's stage 1 debate on my alcohol licensing, public health and criminal justice Scotland Bill, though I very much regret the brevity of the time that has been allowed for this debate. It is a multi-purpose bill with 10 different strands, all of which are the aim of dressing the effects of alcohol over consumption. The common purpose of most of them, and I emphasise this throughout the committee's evidence sessions, is not to address the needs of the serious dependent drinker, which the Government, to be fair, has actually made significant attempts to tackle, but to intervene at an early stage where individuals may be at risk of developing a dependency and to assist in preventing this from progressing. There is, I think, universal acceptance that Scotland does need to go further than it has done so far to tackle alcohol over consumption. I continue to believe that most of the proposals in the bill can yield real benefits and do deserve this Parliament's support. I am very disappointed that the Scottish Government has signalled its opposition to all 10 measures in the bill, alongside the majority of the Health and Sport Committee. I am grateful to the minority of members in the committee who supported eight out of the 10 proposals in the bill. Before I move on to discuss some of the details in the bill and the very brief time I have got, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Finance Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee, the Law Reform Committee for their considered scrutiny of the bill. In particular, despite my disagreement with the conclusions of the majority, I would like to thank the Health and Sport Committee for their thorough scrutiny and for recognising, as they did, that we all share the common aim of searching for the best ways of tackling Scotland's problematic relationship with alcohol. My thanks are also due to all the organisations and indeed individuals who responded to my consultation and then subsequently gave evidence to the committee. I would like to especially put on record my thanks to the Parliament's members' bill unit, without whose prodigious efforts and support this bill would never actually have been tabled. It is the longest private member's bill since the Parliament started in 1999. I lodged the draft proposal in March 2012 and this was partly in response to the Government's acknowledgement that their core proposal for tackling alcohol of minimum unit price was, in their own words, not a magic bullet and was at that time in some doubt because of the going to the European court and I hope that that will be resolved in June when the final decisions are made by the Scottish court. The original proposal, in fact, related to 14 different measures, but following consideration of the responses to the consultation, which in fact was broadly supported in the main, but after also discussion with the Government about alternative routes to achieve some of the objectives in the bill, I decided to focus on 10 of what I believe to be the most effective measures. In May 2014, the final proposal received cross-party support. The length of time between the original consultation and the final submission was partly due to delay when I was off for a year with cancer treatment. The aims of the bill are in line with the terms of my final proposal to promote health and reduce alcohol-related offending through restrictions on the retailing and on the advertising of alcohol drinks, through changes to the licensing laws, through obligations on the ministers to issue guidance and report on its alcohol education policy and directing certain offenders towards treatment or towards restricting their alcohol consumption. As part of a comprehensive approach, the bill is about tackling both the health issues and revising the criminal justice system to properly focus on those whose drinking is causing problems, both for themselves and for others. Prior to the publication of the committee's stage 1 report, I reflected on some of the evidence that has been presented to the committee, and I recognised that some of the measures were not being unanimously supported or, indeed, could reasonably be modified. I subsequently wrote to the committee to share developments in my thinking in a number of areas. My attention was that the adjustments that I proposed would leave the bill stronger and more generally supported measures in place. The bill was always a series of incremental measures. The revisions would represent a further reduction in the number of measures from my original draft proposal. I wrote to the committee setting out the proposed revisions. Most significantly, I advised that I would be prepared to withdraw the strands related to the act of alcohol education policy statement, because I recognised that there was already scope for monitoring and evaluation in the alcohol framework for action and that there was only limited support for my proposal. On notification of offenders' GPs, which is a measure that I strongly believed in, nevertheless both the courts and general practitioners did not support that and therefore decided that it would be appropriate to drop it at stage 2 if we reached that point. The third measure was on the restriction of advertising where the in-house, that is in the off-sales retailers' restrictions, was already largely covered by legislation, and my proposal in section 8 would not actually add much to the bill, so it was reasonable to withdraw it. I also drew the committee's attention to the fact that, in a multi-strand bill such as this one, it should be possible to remove any individual measure by amendment at stage 2 if the Parliament felt that that was inappropriate to be supported. Even if the committee had only supported a minority of the 10 measures proposed, it could still have recommended that the general propinciables be agreed at stage 1 to allow those measures that are broadly supported by the public or by specialist organisations to proceed to the amending stages. I am really disappointed that neither the committee nor the Government have chosen to follow this course of action. Frankly, the message is clear that this Government is not in a hurry to act, and I would urge the members in the chamber today to reverse this decision and vote in favour of the general principles so that those measures that received a favourable reception might still be taken forward by way of legislation. Presiding Officer, I have only a brief moment to turn to some of the individual members and I will use my closing speech to examine some measures in greater detail, but what I want to deal with is the minimum pricing of packages. This Parliament made it absolutely clear that it wanted to end the practice in both on-sales and off-sales of volume discounting, and yet the retailers have quite legitimately, legally, got round this by multi-products being sold on the basis that they weren't selling a single container of the same product. That means that they continue to have multi-bys in beer and cider, whereas in wine, where that is much more difficult, there has been a substantial reduction in consumption along the lines of the Sheffield report as a result of the measure that we introduced in 2010. My proposal still doesn't close this off completely because it is very difficult to do so, but what it would do is mean that someone buying a four-pack of beer would not actually gain a substantial advantage by then buying a 12 or 18-pack, whereas at the moment the 18-pack is actually discounted to a huge degree, and that means that people who are more able to afford that can actually go ahead and buy it. The second measure that I want to address is the banning of age discrimination under 21. It is quite clear from the research that the consumption of alcohol and problems associated with that are not about 18 to 21-year-olds, it is actually more about 21 to 25-year-olds who have a greater disposable income, and therefore any discrimination against under 21s when the law says that you can drink or buy drink at 18 is inappropriate. We tried to close that loophole in 2010, but it was not completely closed and, indeed, advice from the Government indicated to boards that they could do it on a licence-by-license basis. The actors we passed only banned it on a wider basis. On the caffeine levels, I have amended my proposal to allow ministers to bring that in on the basis of a limitation rather than on a total ban in caffeine as occurs in America. The research on that in America is very clear. I accept that research here is not as clear, but there is no doubt that there is a cultural problem in the west of Scotland in relation to premixed alcohol caffeine drinks, and those cause considerable criminal problems, and therefore some limitation seems to be appropriate. The bottle tag in measure was well supported by the police, and the evidence given to the committee about the operation of that in Newcastle, I think, was very positive. Not to punish the retailers, but to support staff in the retail outlets in reducing the amount of proxy purchasing by giving the police the necessary intelligence that they needed to follow this up. Proxy purchasing is not being handled well in Scotland at the moment. It is nobody's fault unless we have the intelligence that really cannot be managed. Ensuring that the communities have a greater involvement in licensing decisions, I wanted to address the fact that those areas that do not have a community council, and they are mainly in deprived area, like John Mason, who mentioned this in a previous debate, would have the right to have a say in invadiation in licences, and I think that this was an entirely appropriate measure. The last one that I will talk about today is the advertising restrictions. At the moment, we have a restriction on the areas around licenced premises that one can advertise, but denormalising alcohol is one of the WHO objectives, and within the limited powers that we have to actually ban this within 200 metres of schools would mean effectively we were banning billboard advertising in Scotland, which is a small step towards denormalising alcohol. There are other measures here, drink banning orders, which I do not have time to address, and also the fixed penalty diversion. Already working in Fife, already working in Newcastle, but we were proposing a pilot in an urban area to test whether it worked there. We know that it reduces re-offending, and I cannot see why the Government would actually oppose that measure. I think that it is very regrettable. So, in conclusion, I deeply regret that we have not had time for a fuller debate, which might have allowed me to consider some of the measures in greater detail. However, I still hope that the Parliament might, at the end of the day, allow this to go forward to stage 2 in order that some of the measures at least could be introduced. Thank you very much. I now call on Duncan McNeill to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee up to seven minutes, please, convener. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin with some verse. That is the risky business, I suppose. Oh, thou demon drink, thou fell destroyer, thou curse of society and its greatest annoyer. What has thou done to society? Let me think. I answer, thou has caused the most of ills, thou demon drink. Questions might be asked about the quality of William McGonagall's verse and his advocacy of temperance movement, some of the sentiments that were expressed over 100 years ago regarding alcohol remain true today. We, as a society, are still wrestling with the demon drink and how best to tackle Scotland's relationship with alcohol. As a committee, we are in agreement that we must continue to strive to reduce our high alcohol consumption rates in Scotland. We must also tackle the resulting detrimental impact that this can have on anti-social behaviour and people's health. I would like at this point to take the opportunity to thank all those who gave written and oral evidence to the committee on the bill. I would also like to extend thanks to Newcastle City Council and Northumblia Police for facilitating a very useful visit to Newcastle to get better insight into the policies and approaches that they have taken on alcohol. In relation to Dr Simpson's bill, as a committee, we have considered in detail each of its 10 provisions. Time today does not allow me to cover them all this afternoon, however. I wish to share with the chamber the headline findings. A majority of the committee does not support the general principles of the bill. A majority of the committee is not persuaded that the bill is an effective and workable package of measures to tackle alcohol misuse. A majority of the committee believes that the Scottish Government's forthcoming updated alcohol strategy offers a more effective route to consider changes to alcohol policy. In contrast, a minority, as has been mentioned, of the committee believe that the general principles of the bill should be supported. A minority of the committee believes that the bill would introduce a series of useful additional tools and approaches to support the current alcohol policy regime and would further tackle alcohol misuse in Scotland. One area that the committee is unanimous on is that, irrespective of whether the bill proceeds, we have asked the Scottish Government to address the merits of all the proposals in the bill as a part of its alcohol strategy. Looking at some of the specific provisions in the bill, it gives some insight into the differences of views among the committee members. In relation to the provision on minimum pricing of packages containing more than one alcohol product, we, as a committee, acknowledged that there is a loophole in the current legislation, which means that a ban on bulk purchasing discounts can be sidestepped for beer and cider. A majority of the committee does not support the provision and believes that it could have unintended consequences. In contrast, a minority of the committee believes that action should be taken now to address the problem and support the provision. Looking at another of the bill's proposals, that of introducing drinking ban in orders, we, as a committee, believe that alcohol is a contributing factor in a significant level of disorderly, antisocial and indeed criminal behaviour. A majority of the committee believe that there is already a number of tools, including ASBOs, which perform the same function as those proposed by Dr Simpson's drinking ban in orders. Therefore, a majority of the committee believes that they were not needed. In contrast, a minority of the committee believes that drinking ban in orders should be introduced as it would be a useful additional measure. In our report, we ask for further information on the number of ASBOs which local authorities have issued, which include a ban from licence premises. I thank the minister for providing those statistics on the advance of today's debate. In the past five years, there have been 23 ASBOs issued across all 32 local authorities that have included a ban from licence premises. Is the minister able to confirm today what percentage this is of the overall number of ASBOs that were issued in this five-year period? Those figures are considerably lower than Dr Simpson's estimates that there would be around 25 drinking ban in orders per year. The reason that I am keen to seek clarity in this matter is to seek assurances that those ASBOs are serving the same purpose as proposed by drinking ban in orders. It would be helpful if a minister could respond to this point in her speech. Given the time that other provisions that were considered by the committee were the bill's proposals for restricting advertising on alcohol, a majority of the committee do not support the bill's proposals on advertising. A majority believe that alcohol advertising and marketing should be considered in the context of the Scottish Government's alcohol framework. A minority believe that provisions should be supported as alcohol marketing can lead to increased consumption. Regardless of whether the bill progresses or not, the committee believes that the time is right to give further consideration to the regulation of alcohol advertising and sponsorship in Scotland. I welcome the minister's comments in the response to her report that it is engaging a network of international experts in the field of advertising and sponsorship. I ask the minister if she is able to provide further information this afternoon on the work of those experts and what they are doing for government and the timescales for feeding into the next phase of the alcohol framework. The demon drink remains an on-going issue in terms of the impact it can have. The committee the majority, while supporting the aims of the legislation, could not support the detail of the proposals and minority of the committee. However, I believe that the bill should be progressed. As members are aware, the Scottish Government does not support the bill progressing to stage 2. I note that, from the stage 1 report, the majority of the health and support committee agree with me and also do not support the bill progressing to stage 2. However, I welcome the detailed consideration and report from the committee. It is the conclusion that the bill should not progress to stage 2 is welcome. The committee has by now seen my response to their report. I would, however, like to thank Richard Simpson for raising the issues and his huge commitment to the subject over the years. We welcome the intent behind the bill, because although we have seen some improvements in recent years, we know that there is still a far way to go. I want to start by outlining the journey that we have been on. We recognise that the scale of the alcohol-related harm that we saw in Scotland required a bold response and that we did not shy away from that. We have taken considerable and comprehensive action through our alcohol framework. The framework contains over 40 measures, and I will highlight some of them. We introduced the quantity discount ban, which saw alcohol sales reduced by an estimated 2.6 per cent. We legislated to ban irresponsible promotions. We made a record investment of more than £319 million since 2008. We introduced a lower drink drive limit. We improved substance misuse education through curriculum for excellence and introduced a nationwide alcohol brief interventions programme with over 569,000 ABIs delivered to date. The framework is aligned with world health organisation priorities, and it is well regarded by those working in the field both here and internationally. Indeed, in recognising our approach to alcohol policy, the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance chose Scotland to host its conference last October. We welcomed representatives from over 60 countries who were keen to hear of the work that we had undertaken and to learn from our approaches. Part of Richard Simpson's proposals that we have heard related to advertising and the conference that happened last year provided an opportunity to meet a number of international experts. Recognising that advertising is one of the key areas for tackling alcohol-related harm, we have informed a network of experts from the conference who are looking at the issue of advertising and sponsorship. That work will feed into the next phase of the alcohol framework to help inform our future approach in Scotland. We welcome the intent behind the advertising measures in the bill. Members will be aware that parts of the control of advertising is reserved to Westminster, and we have pressed the UK Government to do more in that area. In the absence of that co-operation, we agree with the committee that the time is right to give further consideration to the regulation of alcohol advertising and sponsorship in Scotland, as I have outlined that that work is under way. I wonder whether she could just clarify for Parliament when she expects her group of experts to report what her timescale is for that, and when the proposals on the back of that will be put before Parliament. Well, clearly, as I have said, the conference was last October, last year. We have set out up the network of experts in the field, and they will feed into the next part of the framework of the alcohol policy. Obviously, that will be post-election. The framework has shown, through the MESAS evaluation, that it is having a positive impact. Most recently, in November, the Four Nations report, which assessed the approaches taken across the UK, recognised that Scotland has led the way on implementing evidence-based alcohol policy. The Four Nations report highlights Scotland's leading role, for example, in the implementation of ABIs, the lowering of the drink-drive limit and the increased access to treatment. The Four Nations report also highlights Scotland's approach in the pursuit of effective evidence-based pricing policy. The evidence on the link between affordability and harm is clear, and that is why we will continue to make the case for minimum unit pricing. We know that we are taking the right approach, and we have seen improvements. Where we have seen a particularly positive shift is amongst young people. The latest figures show that the proportion of 13 and 15-year-olds who reported drinking alcohol in the last week is at the lowest level since 1990, a trend that I hope will continue. As well as the potential impact on our young people, tackling alcohol-related harm has the potential to help address Scotland's wider health inequalities. While alcohol-related issues impact on all socio-economic groups, the greatest harm is experienced by those who live in the most deprived areas. We have seen inequality in alcohol-related harm narrow in recent years, but there is still more to be done. We have a track record on delivering on alcohol, but we know that there is still a way to go, which is why later this year we will be introducing the next phase of the alcohol framework, if allowed. That will build on the progress that we have made so far in ensuring that measures are embedded, developing what is already in place and looking at where we might want to take a different approach on some issues. As part of that work, we will be examining the measures in the bill, looking at how they might be developed or adapted and, potentially, incorporated in the next phase of the alcohol framework. I have already touched on the advertising aspects of the bill. Another measure that we will be taking forward is the measure in the bill concerning applications for or to vary a premises licences. We have already committed to reviewing the relevant regulations, the Licensing Procedure Scotland regulations 2007, which are included in secondary legislation. Updating those does not require primary legislation. I can also advise members that we plan to examine in more detail the evidence from the pilot schemes in Fife and Newcastle on alcohol awareness training as an alternative to fixed penalty notices. As well as looking at the measures from Dr Simpson, I am very happy to listen to ideas from all members in the chamber today and outside, which might help to tackle alcohol-related harm. To sum up, the Government supports the intent of Dr Simpson's bill. We believe that the issues raised are better addressed via the next phase of the alcohol framework. I therefore ask members not to support the alcohol licensing, public health and criminal justice Scotland bill progressing to stage 2. I rise on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party to support the stage 1 process of alcohol licensing, public health and criminal justice Scotland bill. I first of all acknowledge the significant effort on behalf of Dr Richard Simpson to develop the contents of the bill and to commit over years his knowledge and experience to try and improve the circumstances in which Scottish culture deals with alcohol. I am pleased to hear the minister's acknowledgement of Dr Simpson's commitment. I am also pleased, in spite of the fact that she indicates that she will not be supporting the bill at this stage, that she will take full cognisance of all the aspects that Dr Simpson has brought to her attention in that regard. However, I am disappointed that she sees no virtue in supporting the bill at this stage and allowing it to develop at stage 2 into a significant impact in our relationships with alcohol. It is important that we discuss the bill today and I am disappointed that time is short. Only this week, the Office of National Statistics and Alcohol Related Deaths reported that Scotland has the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths in the United Kingdom. Deaths peaked in 2000 and, thankfully, the trend has been down over the next 15 years. Nevertheless, there are approximately 20 people a week in Scotland dying as a result of alcohol-related outcomes. That amounts to 1,152 Scottish deaths. 784 of them were men, 368 were women, so alcohol is no respecter of gender. In addition, I will bring to the minister's attention that a rest across Scotland year on year shows that it is hardly ever the event that someone appears at the bar of a police station in Scotland who is not under the influence of alcohol and or drugs. The impact for a Scottish society has been estimated at costing somewhere in excess of £2.47 billion per year. That is an urgent issue. It affects all levels of society, as the minister has acknowledged, but there is no doubt that members in the chamber today will know that those who are subject of poverty and subject of difficult circumstances are the worst affected by the involvement with alcohol. Dr Simpson has outlined the measures contained in the bill, which I think are proportionate and well thought through and are deserving of legislation, in order that we commit the seriousness with which this Parliament views our relationship with alcohol and acknowledges that, although steps have been taken in the past five years, the reduction of the limits for driving et al, there is much more to be done, and we are losing people each year as we try to decide what to do next. It is a disappointment that, although there is a forum for experts to gather opinion, we need to wait until later in the year before the Government can respond to that opinion and take us to the next stage. For five years in the life of this Parliament, we have been extremely keen to see the next stage in place. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of discussion about minimum unit pricing and a great deal of controversy. Unfortunately, it is deflected from the other elements that Dr Simpson sets out in relation to the minimum pricing of packaging, the restriction on the level of caffeine, the banning of age discrimination and off sales, the container marking of bottles and cans so that we know where those products come from, and we support those who retail them within many of our housing estates. A greater community involvement and influence in deciding the location of licences within communities, the drinking banning orders, alcohol awareness training, all elements that have been well thought through and well rehearsed. It is disappointing that the majority on the committee decided that they could not support the way forward. Dr Simpson has indicated a willingness to change his approach to advertising. He is happy to drop the alcohol education policy that he contained within his proposals, and he dropped his approach in relation to the notification of members of the public offending as far as GPs were concerned. I would like to think that at the end of our debate this afternoon, short as it is, we could get general support at stage 1 in order that it can be further examined at later stages. I commend Richard Simpson's tenacity during the almost four years since he lodged a draft proposal for a member's bill to prevent and tackle various aspects of alcohol misuse, a matter that has concerned him for many years and which he is keen to address without further delay in order to reduce the negative impact of the harmful drinking, which is still a problem in Scotland today. After consultation and refining of his draft proposal, the current bill was introduced to Parliament on April 1 last year. As we know, it has ten broad proposals on which the Health and Support Committee took evidence from a wide range of witnesses. The evidence that we received was mixed on most of the proposals, except for the requirement in section 31 of the bill for courts to notify an offender's GP when alcohol was a factor in offending behaviour. That provision was widely opposed by witnesses, and I am pleased that Dr Simpson has offered to remove that part from the bill. Much though I would like to go into detail on the bill's other proposals, I am afraid that that will be impossible in the five minutes allocated to me in this regrettably very short debate, which cannot possibly do justice to Dr Simpson's painstaking work over many months. However, after detailed review of all our evidence, I am bound to say that I have not been convinced that this bill is the best way to tackle alcohol misuse at this time and believe that the Government's forthcoming updated alcohol strategy is likely to be more effective. On minimum pricing of packages containing more than one alcoholic product, there is still a concern that that would not have the desired effect of reducing alcohol consumption because the ban on buying discounts could still be circumvented by retailers selling only large multi-packs. Until minimum unit pricing can be introduced, I feel that the Government's commitment to give further consideration to volume discounting during its review of the alcohol framework should be supported. On the premixed alcohol and caffeine drinks, there are clearly differing views on whether there is a link between alcoholic drinks with a high caffeine content and dangerous behaviour. Further research is needed before a ban can be justified as a public health measure. I do not agree with section 53 of the bill that would remove the power of which licensing boards currently have to impose an age requirement in alcohol sales, because that can be useful on occasion to deal with problems in particular premises and it is a power of which licensing boards have indicated that they would wish to retain. I can see the medicine container marking schemes used in a targeted way, but their usefulness is limited because finding marked bottles in the possession of underage drinkers does not rule out proxy purchasing by adults. The newcastle scheme certainly works well on a voluntary and partnership basis and could be rolled out into other areas, but I am not persuaded that schemes like that need to be legislated for. Likewise, I do not think that primary legislation is necessary in order to provide alcohol awareness training, which can be addressed within the alcohol framework, nor am I persuaded of the need to legislate from an annual report to Parliament on alcohol education and information programmes and I welcome Dr Simpson's withdrawal of this proposal. I do agree that the regulation of alcohol advertising and sponsorship need to be looked into further, but I again think that that should be done in the context of the alcohol framework and informed by work, which is already under way. I cannot see the need for drink banning orders now that we have evidence that local authorities have been using antisocial behaviour orders to ban individuals from licensed premises for antisocial conduct whilst under the influence of alcohol. In my own city of Aberdeen, Asbo has banned individuals from the city centre and, therefore, from every on-or-off-sales premises within that locality. Moreover, they can be made for an indefinite period of time, whereas the proposed drink banning orders would have a maximum duration of two years. To conclude, I agree with the policy intention of much of the bill. I believe that, in many areas, further statutory provision is not necessary and that the aims of the bill can be best served within the Government's alcohol framework, which is currently being revised. I welcome the Government's commitment in its response to our stage 1 report that, as it develops the next stage of the framework, it will explore the merits of all the proposals in the bill, take into account the evidence obtained by the committee and, also, wider evidence to inform how further progress can best be made. Finally, and I think that, importantly, I have regard to the frequently raised concerns that the bill would add further complexity to an already cluttered legislative landscape in relation to alcohol licensing law. Aberdeenshire Council went so far as to say that the whole system has become so piecemeal that it probably needs reappraisal through a single act, something that I hope the next Government might consider taking forward. My sincere opinion is that adding further piecemeal legislation to an already complex and confusing set of laws is not desirable. However, I warmly commend Richard Simpson's work and I accept his policy intention. I cannot accept most of the bill's provisions, and if I do not feel able to support it at stage 1, although we are minded to abstain at decision time. Many thanks. I have one member requesting to speak. I will call Christian. I will add four minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. For the members who may be surprised to see me speaking as I am not a member of the committee, I would like just to put on the record that Bob Doris, the deputy convener, could not make it because he just had a son called Cameron. So we have to, as the members, congratulate him having been a father, him and Janet for young Cameron. And that's important to try to see that this kind of debate is about a future generation and it's important to think about it. And some members will know how close to my heart is this topic. I will want to agree with Dr Simpson and bring forward this bill, but unfortunately, like others have said before me and the Minister for Public Health. I found it, but it's a little bit piecemeal and it will not work very much in the framework of the Scottish Government because let's be clear, the Scottish Government has done a lot and its approach into tackling alcohol-related harm has been recognised globally, as the Minister says, and it's very important that we realise that and we support the Government on this. I know I had several meetings with Dr Simpson and I do remember him challenging the Scottish Government view on the minimum pricing policy. I'm quite happy and I'm delighted today to see that he embraces that policy because it's a very important policy and it will be important once he goes through the court that will have that as part of the tool to combat this problem that we have in Scotland because we have a problem in Scotland and it's so important to recognise that we are one of the countries where alcoholism is one of the most the biggest problem and as some members said before me, it's not because the exit tragedy have contributed to deaths in Scotland are failing faster than in the rest of the UK that we have to realise that there is much more to do. You know, when we compared to 30 or 40 years ago, we are drinking as much as twice more now and it's so important to realise where we are and how important it is. One thing, particularly degrees with Dr Simpson, if I say it and maybe encourage the government to follow on my remarks, it's blaming the individual and adding more of blame to the individual and trying to prosecute him or ban the individual who have a problem with alcohol. I think that that's the last thing we should do. I think we've got already an armory of isolation and we shouldn't do it. What I'm delighted about Dr Simpson is that he decided not to pursue education part of the bill of what he wanted to put on education because very good work was happening on education just now and I think it's one of the reasons why we see as the contributed deaths in Scotland are falling faster than in the rest of the UK. And we should be quite delighted about that but we need to do much and much more. Why we need to do much more and I said it already is because we're in a very different place than other countries and one point when we need to do much much more is on advertising. It's not acceptable when it's day or night in football for example linking to sports but there is so much advertising and alcohol that needs to stop away or another. And the same thing regarding broadcasting. I know that some views as we should maybe have a watershed. I don't really agree with watershed. I think we shouldn't have alcohol at all advertising on television. Other countries have done it but there's no other countries who have a lot less death related to alcohol than ours have done it. Why not Scotland? I think we shouldn't do it and in conclusion what I would like to say is that noting the chief executive of the Scottish licensed trade association Paul Waters said that we are a nation of take home drinkers. I think we are a nation of drinks and it's what we've got to accept. We accept responsibility all over us whatever we are drinking or not and blaming our friends and family members or worst if it's been intended to further prosecute or ban them. It's not the answer. The answer, which is very important, is that parliament will change the regime of alcohol and the Scottish government strategy to do just that. Thank you very much. I turn to closing speeches and I call on Jackson Carlaw for minutes please. 300% increase in alcohol liver disease mortality over the last 30 years. Over 35,000 alcohol related stays in Scottish hospitals, the majority of them emergency admissions in the last recorded year. Scottish deaths from chronic liver disease among the highest in Europe and an enormous cost detailed by Graham Simpson. A fifth more alcohol sold in Scotland than England Wales, 45%, some 75% indeed of prisoners were drunk at the time of the offence for which they were committed. Scottish Conservatives have a conundrum in this debate. The last time we discussed alcohol in this Parliament was on 4 June 2015 and that in itself was the first time since May 2012, three years since this parliamentary chamber had discussed alcohol and by June this year it will be over four years since the minimum unit pricing legislation that we passed in this chamber. Richard Simpson is absolutely right because throughout all the torrid passage of that bill Alex Salmond stood at the dispatch box trying to touch our hearts trying to make glass eyes weep across Scotland with his personal commitment to changing the relationship Scotland had with alcohol and yet no debate for three years in this chamber, a debate last summer at the request of opposition parties and a debate today truncated to be the shortest member's introduction stage one bill of any of the last five that this Parliament has considered. No, I won't. We have a difficulty because we don't doubt Richard Simpson's commitment over a great deal of time and as he himself said he was motivated today by the recognition of the Government itself back in 2012 that MUP alone was not going to be the solution. Indeed all the parties in here offered to work on a cross-party basis to support the discussion about that change in the relationship with alcohol which sits above in many respects the technical measures that we can pass underneath that, but we therefore regret that the evidence is mixed in relation to the proposals that he has made and we recognise that the route forward will have to be through the updated alcohol strategy, but I've got to say to this Government if it's not being complacent and I don't accuse it of complacency it's hardly however been leading from the front with a real passion on the agenda to change this relationship with alcohol it's been too technical there's been no passion we don't just want a pedestrian defensive measures some of which are now as long in the tooth as the government is itself what we want to see is some of the zealous evangelical passion that ministers could find to raise in the subject of independence bring that to the subject of changing Scotland's relationship with alcohol we don't just want a package and an energy from the minister that has all of the energy of a wet paper bag so I'm saying to the minister when you stand up in a few moments you show us more in what that zealotry that evangelicalism that passion that this Government is going to bring to changing the relationship with Scotland and alcohol and not just talking quietly behind the scenes about a few wee bits and pieces here important as they are attitudes have to change and it'll take more than I've heard so far from the government during the course of this parliament if we're going to see that happen thank you and I call on Jenny Marra for minutes please thank you Presiding Officer Presiding Officer it is with great regret that I rise to close this debate on behalf of the Labour Party this afternoon great regret because as Jackson Carlaw has just very powerfully put alcohol is continues to be one of the biggest challenges facing not only this country but every family it affects my family I'm sure it affects your family Presiding Officer and every family in this chamber every family in Scotland so I agree with most of what Jackson Carlaw said there that it's extremely disappointing that there has not been over the last five years more focus from this government on alcohol it seems to me that the no I won't at the moment thank you but it seems to me that at the moment the government has placed all its eggs in one basket looking for a big hit public health policy trusting the MUP would be that I see the minister huffing and puffing but I think Jackson Carlaw put it very well that there has not been much concentration on alcohol and prevention as Dr Simpson has said in our communities but if she wants to if she wants to tell me what it is I'm happy to take an intervention from her Dr Simpson as other speakers has has said has spent many years and I think it is a great shame that the government is pushing back on on this bill tonight because in a way they're pushing back on all the expertise that he brings to bear and it's not just public health here Dr Simpson's expertise on offenders and how this all plays into the criminal justice system any of MSPs who have been to a sheriff court can see the massive human cost of alcohol in our court system but also the massive cost to the public purse or alcohol crimes and the massive amount of those going through our sheriff courts today. Presiding officer I think it's deeply regretful that the government wasn't able to look at this bill it was specifically designed as 10 different measures some of which the government could have rejected they've rejected all of them but those with a lot of public support and where there's evidence and good public support could have been pursued such as the alcohol advertising restrictions which has a good lot of public support and further restrictions as Dr Simpson said in his opening remarks on volume discounting. I think the committee have done a good job scrutinising this bill but again it is regretful that the majority of members there have not been able to support it. You know the minister in her opening remarks welcomed Dr Simpson's huge commitment to this over the years but then really I think did that a disservice by not being able to give a time frame for her group of experts looking at advertising. This proposal as Dr Simpson said in his opening remarks has been the longest member's bill in this Parliament. His proposals have been lodged in this Parliament for nearly four years now so why is it that it's only over the last few weeks since that conference in November that she's commissioned a group of experts to look at alcohol advertising? I think it is deeply regretful. Presiding officer whatever happens at the election in May this is not the last that the Scottish Parliament will hear from the Labour Party on alcohol advertising and I think we really need to question that 20 or 30 years into the future will we still find it acceptable and will we not think we should have acted earlier on football players in our country running round with alcohol advertising on their shirts the fact that alcohol can be advertised right outside the school gates the fact that we are still seeing cultural events sponsored by alcohol companies we have reached a tipping point on tobacco advertising and I would ask the minister in her closing remarks to really address one of the key points and if she can't support Richard Simpson's bill maybe she can tell us what she feels on the key points around one of the measures in Richard Simpson's proposals with the most public support around advertising what her own thoughts are ahead and with her discussions with her group of experts on that thank you thank you very much and I call on morning what six minutes minister thank you very much presiding officer and I'm very grateful to parliamentary colleagues for their contributions and what has been an interesting debate however short members have complained about that but I can't remember any opposition to the bureau motion for today's business I'd like to say start by saying to Jackson carlaw that if there was a silver bullet I would be up at the ramparts of Edinburgh castle firing at dawn tomorrow the point is that there isn't a silver bullet if there was I'm sure we would have found it by now but the proposals while the press and opposition concentrate on minimum unit pricing that is one of only 40 or so measures in the alcohol framework and much of it is going on at a local level and at national level very much under the radar for example you know I was out in a pub before Christmas supporting the introduction of smaller measures for wine and spirits the promotion for example of the young scot card carrying out the review of test purchasing the the promoting citizenship through the football initiative I could spend the rest of my time going through the other parts of the alcohol framework that are making real progress and while alcohol deaths are a huge concern we know that we have the and we are the worst rates in the whole of the UK we have the fastest decrease in rates from alcohol deaths since they peaked in 2000 so no not at the moment thank you so we are doing lots and in terms of inequalities that Graham Pearson mentioned the ratio of alcohol related mortality between the most and the least deprived areas has reduced from 12 to 1 in 2002 to 6 to 1 in 2013 so the evidence is there but it is something that's a slow burn unfortunately it's not a case of firing the magic bullet so yes Dr Simpson Dr Simpson don't deny the progress that we've made since 2001 with and I'll refer to that up I have a major concern about the current budget in that the ADPs that the alcohol and drug partnerships are having their funding cut by 23% unless unless the minister can give a guarantee on the record today that health boards will be required to make that money up from their general revenue because the transfer from justice has not been ring fenced and there is a 23% cut coming to alcohol and drug partnerships which will endanger both the alcohol programme and the drug recovery programme minister the member will be aware that in many in some cases the health boards were not passing on to the alcohol and drug partnerships the justice related money to the ADPs so we know that the health boards can make up that funding so that there will be no reduction to the level of funding for the ADPs so we are not working alone in terms of taking forward measures in relation to tackling the misuse of alcohol that we have in our society and in relation to advertising as I said in my opening statement we will take forward the work of the people involved in the research but we've got to do it on an evidence-based approach for example when I was talking to the experts from France much of what was in the Luwet-au-Van which Dr Simpson and I discussed when I was in front of the committee much of that has been rolled back since its introduction so we've got to make sure that we put in place advertising controls that will work and that they're evidence-based that we will work that it will work and Nanette mill I thought made a very considered speech in relation to many of the aspects of the bill which perhaps I should go into in a bit more detail for example the minimum price for packages containing more than one alcohol product and Nanette mill is right that the supermarkets and other sales outlet will try and get round any legislation that we put in place which we've seen with multi packs and the effect could be that you can't even buy one single unit of alcohol that it has to be part of a multi pack and that's why minimum unit pricing would help in that area and Scotland's medical organisation chap in relation to alcohol containing caffeine and I see Dr Rice and Eric Carling in the gallery today suggested that the evidence regarding caffeine-nated alcohol was highly variable and focus should be on overall consumption but we agree that it's increasing availability affordability and excessive consumption of high strength drinks which cause the problems in Scotland and contribute as Graham Pearson said to much of the problems relating to people who are up in court for offences so focusing on one product really misses the real problem of excessive consumption in relation to age discrimination in off sales we believe that it's right that powers exist to ensure that restrictions can be applied limiting off sales at outlets with particular problems or for those who have been found guilty of an infraction of the law this doesn't mean that a blanket condition such as this should exist for the entire local authority area and I'm glad that the committee agreed with that in terms of container marking the bill proposes allowing the police to request that licensing boards make off sales premises participation container marking scheme and we know about the pilot projects in Newcastle and in Fife we are concerned that the widespread use of container marking would be disproportionate and we're not convinced that legislation is currently required I'm glad that Richard Simpson has decided to withdraw the alcohol policy statements Nanette Milne made a good point about drink banning orders and everybody should go and have a look at what Aberdeen have managed to do it used to be a place where you wouldn't go for a night out and now it's very much a safe place to go for a night out so we do recognise the intent and welcome the intent of Dr Simpson's bill but are not convinced that this is the way to do it thank you minister Richard Simpson to wind up the debate Dr Simpson until 6 15 please thank you Presiding Officer I hope my voice holds out until then unfortunately I've got a slight cold can I say I thank members for participating in this debate I am still concerned that it's the briefest debate of any member's bill certainly for some considerable time and since the bill was actually the longest bill since 1999 this is still very disappointing and even if we didn't vote against it because of the substantial pressures towards the end of the session nevertheless I think a little more time could have been devoted to it because as Jackson Carlos said we really haven't had much in the way of debate in this parliament on on the issue of alcohol and Duncan Neil reminded us that we can take you a little later once I get a bit further in Duncan Neil rightly reminded us that as a society we still have far too high consumption of alcohol and the damaging consequences which may be costing us two and a half three billion pounds is very significant. Graham Pearson drew the attention to the fact that Scotland has a much higher level of deaths and higher level of consumption as as Dr Calderwood said in her annual report which has just come out an excellent report I have to say you know that the alcohol remains one of the major public health issues that we are facing and Jackson Carlos also enunciated the question of hospital admissions he talked about the number of people who get into trouble with alcohol and become involved in the criminal system these are all massive costs to the individual to their families and to our society it therefore behoves us as a parliament to maintain the pressure on the subject and that was part of the reason for moving my bill because I felt despite the assurances given to us in 2011 that on passing the minimum unit pricing that it would not be a magic bullet my feeling was at that point that the government would sit on its laurels for the next few years until minimum unit pricing was brought in and I have to say that apart from the drink driving ban reduction which I very much welcome that is exactly what happened and that was one of the reasons for looking at what are the small issues these are not huge things I'm proposing these are a number of small incremental measures which would allow us to advance the situation but equally important would allow us to actually have a good debate on this topic yes I'll give away I thank Dr Simpson for taking the intervention and you have been describing that these were a series of small measures would you accept that the fairly extensive work the committee did discovered from witnesses amongst a wide variety of stakeholders that the problem with the various small measures proposed in the bill lay in the detail and that the committee or the majority of members in the committee could not ignore the numerous Dr Simpson has very little time Mr Mackenzie Dr Simpson and I actually I regret the fact none of the SNP members on the committee were able to speak in this debate it might be interesting to hear this point and argued in a little more detail but you know we have been on a journey since 2001 when the drug when the alcohol deaths were really peaking and the numbers had gone up as again as Jackson Carlaw said the number of problems with liver liver for example had gone up absolutely massively and as justice minister I instigated the Nicholson review which led to the licensing act in 2005 I got approval from the law justice for test purchasing which was I have to say not without difficulties it was somewhat opposed to begin with and there were real difficulties about introducing it but it's proved successful in supporting a system whereby we don't actually have much in the way of underage purchasing but we are left with proxy purchasing which is one of the reasons for actually suggesting that the alcohol container marking scheme which was supported by the police as being a useful addition to the toolbox now some of the things in the in the submissions on this were really quite interesting I was heartened by the committee's reaction to its visit to alcohol watch in Newcastle and the view that the bottle marking scheme was well received by licence holders as it could help vulnerable staff in licensed premises to feel more confident to refuse to sell to underage young people but also to identify proxy purchasing but contrary to a apparent misconception in some areas it was never the intention as the minister sort of hinted in her speech that this should be rolled out on a national basis it would actually be introduced at a local level only in a limited number of licensed premises only where the police had intelligence of underage purchasing or proxy purchasing and it would not apply to all alcoholic drinks but to those that the police identified as being most likely to be the subject of underage purchasing or proxy purchasing so the costs involved for each retailer as we've seen in Newcastle was not going to be high now the minister has said this could be done without legislation it was done without legislation and done d but it was abandoned as being too bureaucratic so I hope that even before the framework comes in that she will actually support the police in trying to ensure that this is actually brought in on a wider basis dr simpson one moment there's far far too much chatting from members who have just come into the chamber please do dr simpson the courtesy of at least listening to him dr simpson thank you very much now we've been waiting in limbo for the introduction of m up and we'll wait now to june for the court to decide in scotland whether it's going to it's going to be legal or not but in the meantime the labour party through chancellor allister darling introduced a duty escalator on alcohol now that is a much better measure because it actually attacks all alcohol at all levels and as there are more hazardous drinkers in the upper deciles of income groups than in the lower deciles of income groups increasing price overall which we're all agreed does have an effect on consumption was an effective measure and so indeed it proved drug deaths from alcohol has continued to reduce in scotland but across the rest of the united kingdom unfortunately that escalator was first abandoned by the coalition government and then was reversed by the current conservative government and i can see no justification for reducing the tax on beer or in fact reducing the tax on spirits in terms of the alcohol problems that this country is a whole faces and scotland faces in great to a greater degree now the minister has has talked about the fact that the committee as a whole supported the looking at advertising restrictions in greater detail and i welcome the expert framework and i welcome the fact that we should be looking at advertising but we could have taken that small step to to ensure that there was no effectively no billboard advertising in scotland so that we began the process it's all about increment it's all about continuing the pressure we began the process to denormalise alcohol now one of the measures i dropped from the original 14 that i had in the first proposals was a rest referral and i'm still not clear as to whether the government's undertaking to me when i dropped it that this would be rolled out to every area has in fact been fulfilled but that's another program which is effective and useful and needs to be needs to be undertaken we need to wind up dr simpson thank you very much so in conclusion i would say that as jenny maras said what we need from the government is a clear timetable that if that following the election no matter who the government is the preparation and groundwork is laid by the civil servants to update both the alcohol framework and to consolidate the licensing bill we must keep the pressure up on tackling our alcohol problem it is still one of the largest public health issues and requires to be tackled effectively i thank the members for at least listening to my proposals i hope still that they will actually have a change of heart and allow this to go to stage 2 whether we can where we can amend it as substantially as the government feel to be appropriate but actually introduce now those measures to keep the pressure up on our alcohol problem thank you dr simpson that concluded to be on alcohol licensing public health and criminal justice scotland bill the next side of business is decision time there are two questions to be put as a result of today's business the first question is it motion number 15561 in the name of jimmy hetburn on the carers scotland bill be agreed to are we all agreed the motion is therefore agreed to and the carers scotland bill is passed the next question is it motion number 14673 in the name of Richard Simpson on alcohol licensing public health and criminal justice scotland bill be agreed to are we all agreed parent is not agreed to move to vote membership cast the votes now the result of the vote on motion number 14673 in the name of Richard Simpson is as follows yes 36 no 59 there were 12 abstentions the motion is therefore not agreed to that concludes decision time and I now close its meeting