 Good afternoon and welcome to the 10th meeting of 2016. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting. This is because we provide meeting papers in digital format. Agenda item 1 is to decide whether to consider item 4 in private. Item 4 relates to our draft report on today's business. Are members agreed? In which case, we move on to agenda item 2, subordinate legislation. This substantive item is to take evidence in motion S4M-15895 in the name of Richard Simpson. I welcome Derek Mackay, minister for transport and islands, and Graham Thompson from Transport Scotland and Ann Cairns from the Scottish Government. Before we take evidence from the minister, I welcome Richard Simpson, who will join the committee for agenda items 2 and 3, and I invite him to make a statement to the committee. Thank you, convener. I'm sorry to drag the committee here on such a busy day. This is a new experience for me. I've not actually moved an annulment to an SSI previously, and I'm grateful to the committee for the opportunity to address the members on this SSI. I would not normally be scrutinising an SSI table with another committee, but the issues of the scope of the blue badge schemes as they pertain to those with a mental illness and learning disability is one in which I've had some correspondence and an interest arising from my previous occupations in general practice and psychiatry. While the SSI is commendable in attempting to address a difficult area to include some of those with a mental disorder who have little or no awareness of the danger from traffic, the pilot, as proposed in the SSI, has failed to include two categories of individuals whom I believe should have been considered. The two requirements for a blue badge as proposed are for the individual to have a mental disorder under section 328 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003, but they must also be in receipt of the highest or middle rate of the care component of disability living allowance, the higher or lower rate of attendance allowance or been assessed for personal independence payment as having severely limited ability or limited ability to carry out daily living activities in respect of communicating verbally, reading and understanding signs, symbols and words and engaging with other people face to face. Those in care homes who meet the first criteria, either in receipt of free personal care or in receipt of full funding from a local authority, will not be in receipt of any of the second group of criteria. However, those who are not eligible for free personal care by reason of age may be, as they may be, in receipt of an attendance allowance. Many otherwise eligible care home residents and long-term, mainly learning disabled patients in NHS facilities value their family or friend or, in some cases, be frienders being able to safely take them out into the community. A blue badge could be important for them and they will not be eligible as the SSI is currently written. I acknowledge that we cannot simply allow anyone with, for example, a diagnosis of dementia or depression or learning disability who happens to be in a care home to be eligible, but to exclude this group if they might otherwise be eligible in the community by virtue of being able to obtain one of the additional benefits required as the eligibility threshold, that those individuals will not be able to go out except with care organisation staff on an organisational blue badge. The badge that the member should note cannot be passed on or lent to a private person such as a friend or relevant relative, so this is not an alternative for these individuals. As I have already indicated, those concerns do not just arise for those in care homes, although that is probably the most important group. There are some 40,000 individuals in care homes and 4,500 people with learning disabilities, but those same concerns arise in respect of those in long-term NHS hospital continuing care. In those circumstances, I am not even certain that the NHS actually does possess an organisational blue badge to be able to take such individuals out. I am basically seeking assurances from the minister that those flaws will be remedied early in the new Parliament with a further amendment to the SSI and not wait until the end of the pilot a year from April. I appreciate that it is a pilot and there is a potential possibly for evaluation, but unless those groups are fully considered, they will not be able to be subject to the completion of the SSI next year. I would ask in addition whether the scheme will cover children with learning disability who are of an age when they would normally be expected to be aware of the dangers of traffic but are not, by virtue of their learning disability, aware of such dangers. It is not just an age-related matter, but it is a matter of the extent and nature of their learning disability. I am thinking particularly of children with autism spectrum disorder who are often unable to actually be aware of those things. I am hoping that the minister will be able to give us sufficient reassurance. I would thank him for his letter, which the committee I think is getting a hard copy of just now, but may not have had the time to consider. I will address that once we get to the… I hope… Can I just check with the community that I have an opportunity to respond to the minister? No. You do not have the opportunity to respond to the minister until we get to the moving of your motion and then you will be able to say what you want to say at that point. That is excellent. I will conclude at that point in that case. Are there any questions for Dr Simpson, committee members? No. In which case, minister, would you like to make a statement, please? Thank you, convener. I welcome the opportunity to speak today at one point of immediate clarification on the question that was put in relation to children. Yes, they would be covered in circumstances for the avoidance of doubt. Now, I will turn to the other areas that have been raised by Dr Simpson. The decision to lay these amendments, these amendment regulations before parliament, was based on a recommendation by a working group set up by Transport Scotland. This working group made up from disabled people's organisations, local authority representatives and healthcare professionals. It was recommended to me that eligibility be extended to people with a diagnosed mental disorder initially on a pilot basis that would allow the impact of change to be monitored and ascertain how to affect a change on a permanent basis. At the outset, convener, I do not like some of the terminology that is used, but we have to use it in terms of what has already understood mental disorders, one example of the terminology. I might not be too keen on that, but that is what we have to use. I am grateful to Dr Simpson for highlighting two areas of concern. Firstly, he identified that those who receive free personal care and reside in a residential care home lose their entitlement to attendance allowance after 28 days and therefore would be ineligible for a blue badge. It is not possible to determine exactly how many people that would be because not all people in this situation will meet the eligibility descriptor or want to apply for a badge. The concerns of Dr Simpson were discussed by the working group specifically, including Alzheimer Scotland last week. They felt that people in this situation, such as those with severe dementia, would often be eligible for a badge on mobility grounds and that some may be unable to leave the care home at all. Therefore, they felt that, at this stage, it would be appropriate to proceed with the pilot as planned. If I could also address Dr Simpson's second concern relating to people who are in receipt of either NHS continuing healthcare or hospital-based complex clinical care, I do not believe that this is a significant issue. People in this situation are no different from anyone else in hospital for a considerable length of time who would have their benefits stopped. It should also be noted that blue badges cannot be awarded for a period of less than 12 months, and indeed during this pilot, badges will be awarded for a fixed term of a year. One of the reasons that the working group recommended a pilot was because it was not possible to determine exactly how many people would apply for badges. By running an evaluation alongside the pilot, we are looking to test how eligibility is determined, the impact on applicants and the potential applicants and the blue badge scheme as a whole, and that will help the working group and myself to determine how to affect a change on a permanent basis. Finally, a number of people have been very interested to move on to the pilot study so that we can take it forward. I encourage the committee to make progress here so that we can extend the issue and make the progress that we all want to see. Thank you. Any questions for the minister? No. In which case, thank you to you all. We now move on to agenda item 3, which is the formal consideration of motion S4M-15895. Just to set out the procedure here, Dr Simpson will first speak to and move his motion. There will then be an opportunity for members to debate the motion. We will have up to 90 minutes for that. Following our debate, the minister will be invited to wind up the debate and, finally, Richard Simpson will be given an opportunity to respond to any points and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his motion. Dr Simpson, can I ask you to speak to and move motion S4M-15895, please? Thank you, convener. I think that it is important to recognise that we are dealing with individuals here. We tend to get lost in Parliament in dealing with categories, so when the minister says that there are not significant numbers, frankly, if there is one patient in a care home who might be eligible because of the fact that they are mobile enough but do not have the capacity to recognise the dangers of traffic, then that is one person too many. I appreciate that this is a pilot. I appreciate and welcome this SSI. I think that there are important changes, but I do know of patients—and I did know of patients—who would otherwise be eligible and will not be eligible as this SSI is currently formulated. I would therefore hope that the minister would agree and that the working party would quickly examine a careful evaluation of those who might be eligible were they issued to be extended in some way to allow them to qualify other than the grounds of mobility? In other words, if they receive free personal care, they are sufficiently requiring support, and if they have a mental disorder on top of that, of a degree and severity that would render them find it difficult to recognise the dangers of traffic, I think that they should be eligible. I have to say that I have had a relative in this position, so I am not just speaking from a professional point of view, a political point of view, but also a personal point of view. In turning to the NHS continuing care group, again, the minister said that this group would not be significant. The reason for leaving them out is because they might not be eligible for 12 months. I refer him to the Mental Welfare Commission report on those with learning disability, where the delay in discharging these patients into the community has been extremely significant. Over 35 per cent of patients with learning disability have not been discharged in an adequate time. If you examine the code 9 discharges, that is, those waiting for complex packages in the community, the delays can often be over 12 months. For those individuals, to be effectively incarcerated in hospital and unable to be taken out is simply not acceptable. Therefore, I urge him in his final response to provide the committee with a guarantee that both these groups will be evaluated fully within or alongside the pilot scheme, because unless I receive that assurance, I will be pressing this annulment. I have really no wish to do so, because, as the minister has indicated, this would delay a pilot that is extremely worthwhile, extremely valuable, but, nevertheless, I feel that the exclusion of these individuals is wholly inappropriate. I move the motion of my name. Dr Simpson has moved the motion. Can I ask for contributions from members, please? No. In which case, minister, please? I would just want to outline to the committee that you have options here. A request has been made of me that I can certainly agree to, which is that the on-going pilot will be kept under review, but I have taken my advice from the working party. I have outlined the membership of that working party. It is not my decision or Transport Scotland's decision in isolation, but the working party has informed the nature of this pilot to make progress. Progress that was demanded of me by other members of Parliament, including Labour members as well. It would be rather strange to now not proceed and for many people to be denied access to the scheme. I, of course, would not support annulment, because that would stop the pilot happening. That means that we do not extend it at all. I will, for as far as I can, keep it under review. If I am not the minister, I am sure that any successor minister would keep it under review. However, I would encourage the committee to proceed so that we can evaluate the position and see what we can do to assist in the spirit that was requested of the Government last time we debated the subject. That is the offer that I make to Dr Simpson to keep it under review, but I have been led by and formed by the working party, which has representatives on it, including Alzheimer Scotland. I think that it has been a very fair, proportionate and reasonable approach. Dr Simpson, can I ask you to respond and to pressure withdrawal, please? First of all, I welcome the fact that the minister is bringing forward this SSI at every stage that I have said that I support it. I do not wish to interrupt it. I think that starting this pilot is important. However, I hope that he will keep the evaluation under review so that he will indeed find a means of examining how the group could be included in the evaluation in some form, rather than waiting until the end of the year. I do not believe that the numbers are going to be very large, which is important because the local authorities will not want to deal with large numbers. However, I do believe that the group, if it is excluded, will be damaging to their health if it is not included and therefore should be included. However, given the minister's assurances that he will keep it under evaluation and in the hope that the working group itself will undertake a review of this in greater detail and perhaps undertake some research to examine how many patients might be affected, how many individuals might be affected in the care home, how many patients in the long-stay residences and perhaps consulting groups like the Mental Welford Commission in this respect. The minister might care to look at that and see if that would be helpful. However, on the basis of that, I will not press my motion to annul. Richard Simpson has indicated that he wishes to withdraw motion S4M-15895. Are members agreed? Thank you. I just say, Dr Simpson, that this committee has kept a very close eye on this. I believe that the original date of its discussion was given to you. I have to say that I am quite disappointed that we are having to deal with this at the very end of a session. With that, I say that we conclude our consideration of agenda item 3. I thank committee members for their forbearance here today and we move into private session.