 Fyood been asked to speak buttons now? I call on the minister, Jamie Hepburn, to speak to and move the motion minister 14 minutes or thereby. Thank you very much. I'm very delighted to open this debate on the carers' from the Scotland bill on a motion that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill. At the outset, I thank the DLGA powers and law reform committee, the finance committee and, of course in particular, the health and sport committee for their work to inform Parliament of the bill's consideration. I was very pleased to see from health and sport committees stage 1, report the committee's reports, the general principles of the bill. I will try to respond today to some of the issues raised by the committee in its stage 1 report. I also thank COSLA, national carers organisations and crucially carers themselves and their representative groups for their constructive engagement with the Government and for their considerable input to the bill today. I have tried to listen carefully to all the views expressed and they have certainly helped me to consider how the bill can be improved further or how we can take forward issues outside of the bill itself. I will outline in this speech some of the Government amendments I intend to bring forward at stage 2. As I hope it will, the Parliament sees fit to agree to the principles of the bill this evening. Several of those amendments are made as a direct result of suggestions and proposals made by particular groups that have been highlighted by the committee. I hope that carers will be able to hear their voices loud and clear throughout the bill's provisions and indeed throughout the passage of the bill through the Parliament. There are more than three quarters of a million unpaid carers across Scotland. They do an outstanding job caring for their loved ones, friends and neighbours. Whoever it may be that they provide care for it is right that we do what we can to better support Scotland's carers. The purpose of the carers Scotland bill is that adults and young carers should be better supported on a more consistent basis so that they can continue to care if they so wish, in good health and to have a life alongside caring. The bill aims to do that by extending and enhancing rights for carers in law. Within the wider context of the programme for government, the bill forms a key part of the Government's ambition to tackle inequality, promote fairness and encourage participation. Scotland has a growing population of older people successfully living longer, sometimes doing so with a range of complex and multiple physical and mental health care needs. There are also more children with complex health needs or disabilities. 47 per cent of carers in the most deprived areas care for 35 hours a week or more. That is almost double the level in the least deprived areas that we know from research that providing shorter periods of care can be positive for a person's mental wellbeing. Those providing longer hours of care report a negative effect. We need to support Scotland's carers so that they in turn can support the many people with illnesses and disabilities or who are frail. We especially need to support those who experience considerable disadvantages. Therefore, our wider work to tackle health inequalities within the even wider context of tackling economic disadvantages is crucial. The bill is also set in the context of other legislation that will complement the public bodies joint working Scotland Act 2014 and its provisions enabling the integration of health and social care. I will also work in conjunction with the Social Care Self-Direct Support Scotland Act 2013 and the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014. Of equal importance is a continued emphasis on supporting carers in ways that cannot be included in the bill, so we will continue to progress, for example, carer positive to recognise employers who actively support carers in the workforce. I want to turn now, Presiding Officer, to the bill's provisions and comments of the Health and Sport Committee in its stage 1 report. The bill introduces a wider definition of carer than exists now. We are removing the requirement that a carer be someone who provides care on a regular and substantive basis. We are also removing the requirement that the care for a person must be a person for whom they, that is the local authority must or may provide or secure the provision of community care services. All carers can ask for or as well as be offered an adult carer support planner, young carer statement under the bill's provisions. That means that carers have a right to an assessment of their needs. I want more carers to come forward than to have an adult carer support planner, young carer statement, as those are the gateway to support. Too few carers have an assessment now, so they are not getting the support that they need. The Health and Sport Committee has asked for clarification on how that additional demand will be managed. I want to reassure the committee and stakeholders for whom that is a concern that an adult carer support planner, young carer statement, must be proportionate to the needs to be met and should reflect the carers wishes, preferences and aspirations that can be what might be described like touch, where that is consistent with those needs, preferences and aspirations. The critical thing is that each individual carer should get a support planner that matches their assessed needs and additional resources for local authorities will accompany the bill. The adult carer support planner and the young carer statement will set out the carers identified needs and will record the support to be provided to meet those needs. It will also contain information about the adult carer's personal circumstances at the time of the preparation of the plan. That will include the nature and extent of the care provided, the impact of caring on the carers wellbeing and day-to-day life and, importantly, information about the extent to which the carer is willing and able to provide care. Many carers have said that knowing that the person that they care for is supported when they are unexpectedly available, it brings peace of mind. Enable Scotland has very affected the communicated impact that that can have on carers. The Health and Sport Committee also commented on that in its stage 1 report. I also recognise that that is an issue of importance to carers. Therefore, as the First Minister set out to the carers' parent, I intend to bring forward a Government amendment at stage 2 so that the adult carer support planner and the young carer statement will also contain information about emergency planning. I am pleased that we have been able to position young carers so firmly within the bill. I, along with other members, attended the young carers festival earlier this year. None of the inattentions could fail to be moved by listening to the experiences of those young carers who were there. The ambition for young carers that they should have a childhood as similar as possible to their non-carer peers. The bill introduces the young carer statement and direct response to feedback from young carers and their representative organisations to recognise the specific needs of young carers and to further this ambition. The young carer statement must contain information about the extent to which the care provided by the young carer is appropriate. The bill contains provisions that require local authorities to set local eligibility criteria. Those eligibility criteria will allow the local authority to determine whether it is required to provide support to carers. There are also powers that the Scottish ministers can specify in regulations matters that the local authority must have in relation to when setting their local eligibility criteria. Struck by the different levels of support in different places, I wonder why you have fallen in favour of having local eligibility criteria rather than establishing a baseline that could be expected right across Scotland, which local authorities could tailor to the particular needs after that. I was just about to come on to say that I recognise that there has been a debate about this particular issue. We need to recognise that local authorities are democratically accountable bodies of their own right. I recognise that it is important that we set some direction. Of course, we will do that. I have set out that we will have, by regulations matters, local authorities must have in relation to when setting their local eligibility criteria. I know that the Health and Sport Committee has asked us to consider this further, and we have done so, and we will continue to do so. Of course, I recognise that the national carers organisations have undertaken a range of work on the matter, which I thank them for. I assure them that the work that they have undertaken will certainly inform the regulations that we take forward. My clear commitment to them is to continue to work with them to make sure that we get the regulations and guidance right. Of course, the bill is only at stage 1, and I will consider anything that continues to come forward at stage 2. Local authorities are also under a duty to prepare a local carers strategy and must consult with health boards carers and carers organisations in doing so, as the Health and Sport Committee noted in its stage 1 report. Those provisions will complement those set out in the Public Bodies Joint Working Scotland Act 2014. All local authority and NHS board functions created under the bill, which relate to the delivery of services to adult carers, were required to be delegated under integration schemes under the Public Bodies Act. All local authority or NHS board functions relating to young carers will be capable of being delegated under the local authority and NHS board so choose. To complement carers bill provisions and care involvement regulations under the Public Bodies Act provides for carers to be represented on integration joint boards, on integration joint monitoring committees and to be involved in strategic and locality planning by integration authorities. I believe that it is essential that carers voices are heard locally and our legislation will help to ensure that that should happen. Local authorities will be required to establish and maintain an information and advice service. That recognises the role that timely, accurate information about issues such as income maximisation can play in enabling carers to sustain their caring role and have a life alongside caring, which is, of course, one of the fundamental aims of the bill overall. In complying with that duty, it is my intention that local authorities should pay due regard to existing provision, including the provision provided by the third sector and NHS boards. The Health and Sport Committee has recommended that the intention should be made clearer. I therefore intend to bring forward a Government amendment at stage 2 to clarify where sources of information and advice are already available within the local authority area. There is no requirement to create additional information and advice service, although the recount will still be there to maintain such a service. Finally, I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify the position in relation to the waving of charges and replacement care. That is an important issue for carers. I am pleased to confirm that carers will not be charged for replacement care meeting their assessed needs. Neither will the care for person be charged for support that meets carers' eligible needs. The care for person's views will be taken into account decisions and services that are delivered to him or her in order to meet the carers' needs. When the carers' bill commences, local authorities will be required to waive charges for support provided under section 22 of the carers' bill. Minimal amendments to existing regulations and waving charges will be required to reflect that change. I want now to say a few words about the implementation of the bill. The effective implementation of the carers' bill will be hugely important, as there is so much in it of benefit to carers that enshrines within it, a number of significant carers rights. I want to restate my commitment to key stakeholders to work together to ensure that implementation of the bill is firmly grounded in reality. As I said earlier, the feedback and views that we have had thus far have been hugely important to us. I look forward to continuing to work constructively together to deliver the regulations and guidance under the bill. I want to thank the Parliament once again for the opportunity to set out what I expect this bill to do to achieve for carers, although I have mentioned some of the issues raised by the Health and Sport Committee in its report. I know that there are other issues there, and I am sure that that will be covered over the course of this afternoon's debate. I look forward to continuing to hear the views of the committee as we move forward to stage 2, and I look forward to hearing what other members have to say on the important issue in the open debate today. I move that the Parliament agrees the general principles of the carers' Scotland bill. Many thanks. I now call on Duncan McNeill to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee. I miss him nearly of 10 minutes or thereby, please. Presiding Officer, the majority of us here in this chamber have been or will at some point in their lives be carers. For some of us, it will be a lifelong commitment. For others, it will be something that we do intensely for a few months. That will change our lives dramatically and then it will be over. Being a carer, of course, is born out of love and support for those closest to us. It can bring a source of satisfaction by life-affirming and deepened relationships. However, it can also be a role that is not only physically demanding but requires huge emotional strength, and it can also have a detrimental effect on both the individual's physical mental health and their friendships, relationships and employment. We, as a committee, welcome and support the general principles of the bill in seeking to provide better support and rights for carers. It is important to ensure that they continue to care in good health and have a life alongside caring. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks and the committee's thanks to all the witnesses, especially those carers who gave of their precious time to engage with the committee. We were fortunate to meet carers from far and wide, Shetland, Falkirk, Glasgow and Skye. We also met young carers, many of whom had been caring since their primary school days and older carers in their 70s and 80s. Those meetings gave us an invaluable insight into their daily lives, as well as their hopes and aspirations for receiving better support. There is much to be welcomed in the bill, including the broadening of the definition of carer and the provision of a universal entitlement to an adult care support plan, or a young carer's statement, as reflected in the minister's speech. We also welcome the agreement that has been reached between the Scottish Government and COSLA, which will ensure that charges for replacement care will be waived. That follows on, of course, from the finance committee's scrutiny of the financial memorandum. We also welcome the further clarification that has been provided by the Government on Replacement Care Cost. The figure of £16 million has now been regarded as the maximum estimate. That was something that the committee was keen to achieve before today's vote. An area that was explored in some detail during the scrutiny that we carried out was the eligibility criteria that was referred to by my colleague in an intervention in and around the eligibility criteria. We used to determine which carers are provided support by the local authority, should we say, at a local or a national level. We recognised from a committee and the evidence that we took the concerns on both sides with regard to setting out eligibility criteria. On the one hand, carers wanted criteria to be set out by the Scottish Government on a national basis from the outset that they believed that that would provide equity, a degree of certainty for carers right across Scotland and prevent what many described as a postcode lottery. On the other hand, COSLA and the local authorities were concerned that they needed to be able to prioritise support in line with local needs. Our report calls for the Scottish Government to give further consideration, as the minister mentioned, to whether the balance of eligibility criteria between Government and local authorities is appropriate. The minister had made it clear that he believes at this point that the right balance has been struck, but I take encouragement from his remarks today that that discussion will continue. However, if it stayed the way it was—the way the minister stated and there is not any substantial movement there—the focus becomes on the assessment and monitoring of the approach. People need to be assured that the issues that they worry about are being tackled. We need to be able to ensure that the approach that is taken is delivering what we expect on the ground. However, I welcome the commitment from the minister in his response to the committee's report that he will continue to work with COSLA, local authorities, national carers organisations and carers to share their ideas and views about eligibility criteria and how it is monitored and how it is success. I look forward to hearing the outcome of those discussions. In relation to other areas in the bill, there are several where the minister has listened to our evidence and we welcome that. The commitment to bringing forward changes in the bill at stage 2—we look forward to hearing how we will do that and bringing forward changes to the bill at stage 2 in the light of our findings. Firstly, our recommendation that consideration would be given to prioritising assessments for carers caring for someone at the end of life. Secondly, our recommendation that it should be made clearer that the focus should be on supporting and enhancing existing carer information and advice services and that any new services should only be established where necessary, as he has referred to in his speech. Thirdly, our recommendation that adult care support plans and young carer statements should include consideration of emergency planning arrangements. We look forward to assessing the details of the Government's amendments in those areas at stage 2. I am also pleased that the Scottish Government is supportive of our recommendation that there should be a greater emphasis in the bill on the role of the national health service. However, I ask for further information from the minister this afternoon on the issue of hospital admissions and discharge. We have heard on several occasions, and we know from our own case work, that concerns from carers and carer organisations that the lack of consultation with carers when a person for whom they are caring is admitted are more importantly discharge from hospital. That often results in crisis situations and ultimately leads to unnecessary readmissions in many cases back into hospital. We ask the Government to respond to the call to include provisions in the bill that place a duty on health boards to involve carers in hospital admissions and discharge procedures. The Government has confirmed that health admissions and discharge protocols will highlight the importance of consulting carers in the process of hospital admissions and discharges. However, the Government has also highlighted that local authorities are required to take into account the views of the carer should the community assessment need to be revised so far as it is reasonable and practicable to do so. That would appear to suggest that there may be instances where there is not a reasonable or practicable to take carers' views into account before the cared person is discharged. The question arises from that minister and, hopefully, he will be able to give us some examples of where he thinks that that approach would be appropriate not to consult carers at the point of discharge. Several provisions in the bill with the minister have indicated that further detail will be provided by the way of regulations. That includes further clarification on what is considered a short break for carers. Is the minister able to provide further detail on that approach to the regulations? Will draft regulations be published? What will be the consultation process? We must ensure that, just because they are not in the face of the bill, that there is scope for the Parliament and those who will be directly affected by those proposals are able to engage and shape those plans. In conclusion, we believe that the bill is an important step to delivering an appropriate care and support to carers in 21st century Scotland, and we recommend that the Scottish Parliament supports the general principles of the bill. I now call on Rhoda Grant. Ten minutes are there by, please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also add my thanks to those who give evidence to the committee and, indeed, to the carers organisations who have been working alongside committee members, both at committee and in other locations, giving us advice and information about the bill and what they believe should be in it. I am very much grateful for that. We welcome the bill. The sentiments and general principles are easy to support. Carers need to be recognised for the role they play in looking after families and friends, giving and continuing to give, even when that is at their detriment. It is estimated that the value of that in monetary terms is around £10.3 billion per annum, but the value of what they provide in personal terms is absolutely priceless. They do that because of love and compassion. They do not want to see their loved ones going without support and, in turn, I believe that we must support them. Carers are used to warm words and appreciative statements when they really need support. On the face of it, the bill offers that, but it needs to be strengthened to make sure that it delivers real support for carers. Carers' lives are as different as the individuals themselves, therefore their needs will always be different. They cope in circumstances that are often difficult to comprehend. The bill seeks to support carers in their role. Adult carers need to be able to have a life of their ability to work and decide on the extent of their caring role. Young carers need support to be children, to have a childhood and have that role recognised. The bill talks about removing the caring role from preschool children. Young carers' organisations disagree and believe that young children need to be allowed to care but only to a degree that is appropriate for their age and wishes. That is a principle that holds true for all carers. They must be given the choice of whether they are carers and, if so, what amount of care they provide. That is turning current practice on its head. At the moment, carers are expected or often forced to care and do so with very little support. They do not have a choice in the matter. I have heard of constituents who are at breaking point, collapsing from the stress and exhaustion of caring yet receive no support. They cannot attend to their own health needs because no one is there to pick up that caring role. I have also heard of carers who suffer of violence because their loved one no longer knows who they are and reacts badly to them. Yet there is no protection for them and they are told that they must continue to care because there is nowhere that can house a violent person to be cared for. We hear from young carers have to choose between education and their caring responsibility. Every child needs a childhood and every child has a right to education and it should not be compromised by their caring role. Their caring role must be replaced to allow them to access that without the threat of taking them into care. Families need support, not fear. Can I turn to the finance supporting the bill or possibly not supporting the bill? Both consular and carers organisations are concerned that the financial memorandum is not realistic about the cost of providing support to carers. One carer told me about the cost of providing replacement care to allow her a break would run to thousands of pounds if that was provided for a week and the financial memorandum does not reflect those costs. I welcome that the Government has said that there will be finance to replace care but their costings need to be realistic. They have committed £16 million but it is not clear if that is from the funding already allocated to the bill or is this new money. There are other aspects of the bill that are also unrealistically costed. The cost of carrying out an assessment itself runs to many hundreds of pounds, something that the financial memorandum does not reflect. Neither does the bill take account of the burden on social workers who are already overworked in completing those assessments. I wonder if other organisations or professionals could carry out the care assessments. Could that be a new role for carers centres that would relieve the pressure of social workers? I want to turn to the changes that I believe would strengthen the bill. Eligibility criteria is something that has been mentioned by a number of people and both cosla and carers organisations are really concerned about that. Councils are under huge financial pressure, taking on more of the burden for a smaller share of the finance. They are concerned that the bill is yet another unfunded demand. They do understand the needs of carers and they empathise. However, they worry that the services for carers will mean fewer services for the cared for person if that is not properly funded. Were that to happen, the burden would fall back on carers and we would enter a vicious circle. They do not want nationally set criteria for support to carers because they are afraid that that would be unaffordable for them. Therefore, carers are concerned that there will be a postcode lottery with regard to support for carers if the criteria is set locally. The minister said that carers organisations have been looking at that and they have come up with a possible solution to the problem. The ability to set the setting of national standards to prioritise the needs of carers that are unable to continue their caring role without support for those who are on the verge of having to give up the role or indeed having to choose between employment and caring and those who are looking after someone at the end of their lives. They suggest that those people should be eligible for support through national criteria. The terms of the support must be person-centred but can be locally decided while delivering the outcome that allows the carer to continue to care. They suggest that support for carers more widely could be set using local criteria, but that would ensure that the most vulnerable needs were prioritised. That is something that has also been backed by unison in order to suggest similar to what has been made by unison. It is especially important in the early stages of delivery of the outcome of the bill, because even Government admits that only a small percentage of carers will have their needs met in the early days of the bill, so it is important to make sure that those are the ones that are most in need. The bill provides for short breaks but lacks a definition of what a short break will be. Will it be an hour to nip to the shops? Will it be an afternoon to meet friends? Will it be a week away to go on holiday? None of it is clear in the bill. What is clear is that carers are the only people in our society that are expected to work unsupported 24-7. A short break needs to be a break from caring. However, it should not be seen as the only support that a carer receives to live their lives. I have a number of constituents who have raised that as a concern to me. One was told when she was going into a hospital that she would receive respite care to allow her to get into hospital. Despite being told and discharged from hospital that she should do nothing strenuous for a number of months, her adult daughter was returned to her immediately without any additional support. Her daughter had mobility problems and needs to be lifted as part of her care. My constituent was told that she had used up her annual allocation of respite and, basically, to get on with it. Another one being offered a hospital appointment for an operation organised replacement care herself. That involved a family member travelling from abroad and booking into a respite care bed. All that had been organised only for her own operation to be cancelled at short notice without the ability to change any of the care that she had put in place to replace her own contribution. Can I turn to young carers? The bill specifically entitles them to a young carer statement, but it is unclear what that statement will provide. As a minimum, it must assess support to ensure that the young person is a childhood and fully engaged in education. The Scottish Youth Parliament reports a costly youth highlights the impact that caring has on education. Young carers are concerned that that statement will be placed with their child's plan if they have one or passed to their named person. If the statement is carried out correctly, it will have details about the support that the young carer needs and it also may give details about their home circumstances. They are not always happy that their headteacher, the default named person, would have access to that. It will obviously vary depending on the child's relationship with their headteacher and the support that they receive from the headteacher. However, I believe that the minister needs to look at that again. I fear that the lack of confidentiality could mean that young carers avoid having a statement and asking for support. It is really important that the school knows that there is a young carer to provide educational support, but it should be up to the young person that a level of information is provided to the school regarding their home circumstances. The bill also needs to look at accountability and enforcement. A carer's life is challenging enough without having to fight for the support that they are entitled to. We need to acknowledge that things do not always work well. Carers need a simple, straightforward appeals process. The current system is too complicated and takes too long to work for. A carer simply does not have the time to navigate through a complicated process, especially if they are looking after someone who is terminally ill. An appeal system that is accessible and simple will benefit carers and allow them to access the support that they need. Both the assessment and delivery of support must be subject to appeal. I would ask that that be included in the bill. I am noticing that I am possibly running out of time. You can have a little more time if you want. The minister mentioned emergency planning, and I welcome his commitment to amend the bill at stage 2 to allow for emergency planning. Something that must be included in that is transitions and transition planning. Many elderly carers look after their offspring. They know that their offspring are much more likely to outlive them and worry about what is going to happen to them when they are no longer around. Emergency plans are essential, especially in those situations with elderly carers. The assessment needs to look at transition planning so that people have comfort. We need security for advice and information services. Again, I welcome the minister's commitment to an amendment at stage 2, but I think that it should be a little bit more secure rather than no requirement on local authorities to establish services. Possibly a commitment that they should support services, because carers' information services are independent of local government. Much of the support that is coming through local government is important to have an independent voice supporting them. We need equality statements as part of the carers' plans from local authorities. We need a bill of right for carers so that they know what they are entitled to. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, we welcome the bill and hope that the Scottish Government will listen to our concerns and work with us to improve it. If we do that as a Parliament, we can go much further than warm words and show carers how much we value what they do. I am very pleased to see the bill making its way through the parliamentary process, and although it will require a number of amendments as it goes forward, Scottish Conservatives will be supporting it at stage 1. I echo the thanks already expressed to the many witnesses who have given evidence to the Health and Sport Committee, many of them carers themselves, for letting us know where they support the bill's provisions and where they have concerns. The care provided by the many thousands of adult and young carers today is valued at a massive £10.3 billion per year, and for us there are already various strategies and pieces of legislation in place to help to improve carer identification and support. The bill seeks to achieve better and more consistent support for all of Scotland's carers 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 have a childhood similar to their non-carer peers. The aims of the bill are laudable, and if they are achieved, they should make a significant improvement to the lives of the carers who make such a valuable contribution to our society. Having said that, the Health and Sport Committee did hear serious reservations about parts of the bill from the witnesses who gave written and oral evidence, and I note the minister's response to them and his welcome decision to introduce a number of amendments as the bill proceeds through Parliament. I will touch on just a few of those concerns during the remainder of my speech. The broadening of the definition of carer and the entitlement to an adult carer support plan, or a young carer statement, which should enable more carers to seek support, is generally welcomed. However, that has led to concern, as we have heard, about how local authorities will manage the expected increase in demand for an adult carer support plan, or a young carer statement, in accordance with carers' wishes and their level of need. Although the ministerial response gives some comfort that there will be additional resource available to support the management of demand, there are still serious concerns about the adequacy of the funding to be made available. There is no timescale specified in the bill for providing an adult carer support plan or a young carer statement, and there are cases where those are required urgently, such as when a carer is supporting someone at the end of life. I am pleased that the minister has taken that on board, and I look forward to his stage 2 amendments. In this context, Mary Curie points out that the bill is drafted will not support carers whose caring role has come to an end, following bereavement, for example, and asks the Government to consider an amendment to ensure that support is available for people as they make the transition away from their caring role. Guidance is also required to give all carers an understanding of the expected timescale for receiving an assessment after one is requested. That should be reasonable and should ensure some consistency across all councils so that all carers receive a support plan as soon as possible. The bill would place an explicit duty on councils to provide support to carers who meet eligibility criteria and discretionary powers to support those who do not. Those criteria would be set locally. It is fair to say that the proposal was met with very sharply polarised response from witnesses, with carers very strongly in favour of nationally set criteria to ensure equity across Scotland, and council representatives wanting them set locally. Although the Government is satisfied that those proposals are appropriate, the minister has pledged to work with all stakeholder groups to share ideas and opinions about eligibility criteria. I have no doubt that this is an issue that we will hear a lot more about at stage 2. Of great importance to carers, is the availability of an information and advice service that is local, independent and expert? Such services are already provided within the third sector, and there is strong feeling that the focus should be on funding and supporting them, and only setting up new services where necessary. So I look forward to the Government's promise stage 2 amendments to clarify that, where such a service is already available locally, there is no reason to duplicate it, although the local authority will be required to ensure that it is maintained. The bill would move the duty to prepare a local carer strategy from health boards to councils, and many of our witnesses felt that there should be a greater role for the NHS in identifying carers and signposting them to services and support, particularly as we know in light of the on-going integration of health and social care. Again, I look forward to seeing the Government's promise stage 2 amendments to give effect to that. There is also a call for the bill to include a duty on health boards to involve carers in hospital admission and discharge procedures, because it is very valid concerns that a crisis situation can develop if, before discharge, hospital staff do not identify carers and establish that they are willing and able to provide the necessary care. I hope that this is something that the Government will consider. There are particular issues with young carers who are less likely to identify themselves as carers and who, depending on their age, may not even realise that they are carers. There is a general welcome for young carers' statements, but, as Rhoda Grant has said, there is a lack of clarity as to how those will link into children's plans, and there are some concerns about information in them being shared with a young carer's named person. I think that the young carer should have control over where that information goes. There are several other issues that I do not have the time to deal with in detail, such as emergency planning. However, I simply cannot conclude without reiterating the many concerns that are expressed about estimated costs of implementing legislation. The finance committee is seriously concerned about how, with current proposals, charges can be waived for services that support carers, including replacement care, which is often required to enable carers to take the short breaks, which are so essential if they are able to continue with their caring role without detriment to their wellbeing. Those financial issues simply must be resolved if the bill is to be effective. As I said at the outset, we will support the general principles of this very important bill, but there is clearly still some way to go to ensure that it becomes the effective piece of legislation that is envisaged by the Government in its policy memorandum. We now move to the open debate. Six-minute speeches all thereby. I call on Graeme Day to be followed by Joanne Lamont. We have a very modest amount of time available, so six minutes all thereby. There are, in relation to this bill, two things that unite the chamber, first, the fact that we welcome its intent, and secondly, a shared desire to ensure that, when it is finished with, it delivers as much as is feasible and practically possible to improve the lives of carers, measures that lead to better identification of carers and their needs, and the placing of a duty on local authorities to support carers in a variety of ways that are as welcome as they are needed. A wider sense of the reduced budget that is available to this Parliament in turn to local authorities restricts our ability to go as far as we might want in giving carers the kind of deal that they deserve. However, this Government's commitment to increasing the carers allowance and it is successfully pushing the UK Government to bring forward amendments to the Scotland bill to provide autonomy over defining carers allowance eligibility, coupled with this bill, is, I think, further evidence of the direction of travel that the SNP has committed to as far as carers are concerned. I acknowledge that there are many MSPs in other parties who share the desire to create a framework that better recognises and supports the work of carers. I very much commend the stage 1 report produced by the Health and Sport Committee, and I say that not in any way because I am currently a substitute member of the committee, because I played no part in the scrutiny process, but it is an excellent piece of work. I also welcome the Scottish Government's response to it. We started out on the right track with this bill. The committee and the minister in their response to the report and in its remarks today have put fresh impetus into that jummy. Although, of course, there are main areas of the bill where I think that there is scope for further improvement, the Government's intention to bring forward amendments to ensure that adult carer support plans and young carer statements will contain information about emergency planning is again as welcome as it is necessary. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of carers recognises that concern. What would happen if I had to go away or go into hospital myself and the anxiety it causes? The plan staged two amendments regarding settling timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements, where the care for the person is eternally ill, similarly as a step in the right direction. However, the whole point of the scrutiny process, which today forms part of, is to consider how we might further improve the bill, and there are a number of opportunities in that regard, I feel. Waiting times for adult carer support plans and young carer statements and the duty relating to hospital discharge are two of those. I am concerned that there is no national time limit to be set on the production of carers assessments. As we know already, there can be wide variations in performance in this area and, frankly, ridiculous delays stretching not just into months but into years. I think that we need to send a message through the bill process that we want to see greater consistency reflecting best-practiced examples. I am not sure that intended timescales being included in each local carer strategy will on its own necessarily deliver that. The issue of hospital admission and discharge is well dealt with in Paragraph 106 to 108 in the Stage 1 report. I note what the minister says in his written response about the existing bill provision supporting the involvement in carers in hospital admission and discharge procedures, and that he says that accompanying guidance will highlight the importance of involving carers in that process. However, twice within that report, the minister uses the phrase where it is reasonable and practicable to do so. Although I do not doubt the minister's intention in this area, I wonder whether, as Duncan McNeill has, if we do not need to strengthen this part of the bill, who will determine when the circumstances are such that it is reasonable and practicable to take the views of the carer account? Her asked ward staff, the busy social work team member, I share the concerns that are expressed by carer organisations that the reality may differ from what is intended, and I would hope that this could be considered again, difficult though nailing it down might actually be. The minister has agreed to bring forward amendments to put beyond doubt the role of the NHS in preparing local carer strategies and identifying carers. I wonder whether we might be able to tighten things up somehow in this area. In a similar vein, but without necessarily seeking an amendment, I would also note the committee's comments on the role of GP practices in identifying and supporting carers. I appreciate entirely that GP practices are under considerable pressure and welcome the fact that carer identification will be covered in the guidance. However, I just make the point that, if I have found in my constituency some GP practices won't even display posters directing patients to carer support services, there may be work to be done in ensuring that they go beyond even that basic action. Can I also wipe the net mill touch upon an important issue raised by Marie Curie regarding supporting the needs of those carers whose caring role has come to an end? As they say, many carers will need support after they have finished caring. I know from my work locally with the carer centre on our road and hosting visits to Parliament by carers from all over Angus, that the support network and camaraderie and offer—never mind the advice and practical assistance provided by staff from those organisations—is vital in helping people cope with their caring responsibilities. There is also surely a need for access to such when those responsibilities end and they seek to move on in their lives. The Angus carer centre in my constituency extends access to their services for two years after the person's caring responsibilities have come to an end. I am sure that the minister would be interested in whether that is typical across Scotland. If it is not, perhaps we need to explore how we can provide support to former carers in that position. I hope that the minister, as I am sure he will, takes my contribution in the spirit that is intended. As I said earlier, the bill is drafted and provided an excellent starting point. The stage 1 report for the health and sport committee, along with the response to it by the minister, offers to move that along. With a will to take that further, which I am sure exists, I think that we can end up with a piece of legislation that has the potential to really make the kind of tangible difference to the lives of carers that we would all of us want. Thank you so much. I now call on Johann Lamont to be followed by Linda Fabiani. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. We know that there is significant support for carers across the chamber and that some of us will have been carers in our lives or perhaps at some point in the future. We will certainly have met people across our communities who undertake the most immense burden in difficult times, and they have our admiration. Carers through love and, occasionally, as I have been told by accident, have been caught up in a caring role. Go far beyond what most can imagine, disrupting their own lives to give people the care that they need. It is no doubt, since the establishment of this Parliament, that carers' voices have been heard. They have been at the heart of many of our debates, and the campaigning, caring organisation, the carers themselves should be congratulated for how effective they have been. However, there is a challenge for this legislation, and we need to ask, are we not just hearing but listening to what carers are telling us? We will be damned if we settle for rhetoric and not actually delivering on the aspirations of carers themselves. There needs to be a will to make a real difference. If one word is put food on the table, carers in particular would be feeding on a banquet every night, and that is a challenge, I think, for all of us. I am proud of the work that Labour did when it empowered, in particular, the establishment of carer centres, understanding the need for support that was flexible, reached out to people and supported people when they themselves, in circumstances, found it difficult to get through process. I want particularly to pay tribute to Glasgow south-west carer centre in my constituency, who not only provide practical support to carers, to young carers, but also support carers who no longer have a caring role and are very much offering friendships to people as they come to terms with bereavement. They have highlighted a number of specific points, as they often do with me when I meet them, which I think would be useful for me to raise with the minister, and I want to raise some points from the cross-party group on carers as well. Then I would like to make a number of broader observations about the bill. There is a frustration expressed by many carers that some of the care support that they need is not big stuff. It may be time to go to the hairdresser, it may be time to go to the library, it may be time to go to church or spend a little time with your friends. There is a frustration that often access, even to a little bit of respite or support, can involve a very long and complicated process, which in some cases will be more expensive to fund than the actual cost of the support itself. An example of a woman who cares for her husband wanted to go to her granddaughter's wedding. It took more than nine months to establish whether she was going to be able to get that time off, and even then she lacked the confidence in the care that was going to be offered to her husband to allow her to go. Surely we can find a way, minister, of finding a process, a fund that could be established that, with speedy access for small amounts of money, which would make a huge difference to people in their ordinary lives, would help them to sustain their care and role. Also it was highly to me problems with the carers' information monies, and I understand the plan to take that from the health boards and give it to local authorities. However, there is a concern that the monies currently have, on some occasions, been handed back, unspent, and therefore have not been given the opportunities to support carers. What mechanism is the minister considered with the plan change to local authorities to ensure that the funding gets as close to carers as possible, so that it does not get lost in process, but it is actually directed towards those who need it most? In relation to young carers, there are very practical issues that need to be addressed, including attendance conditions and educational maintenance allowance in schools. What work has been done to ensure that colleges and universities understand the particular barriers that young people face if they are carers, they need the liberation and support of education almost more than most young people do, and we should be sure that we are talking to those authorities about that. I, like others, accept the support for the bill at this stage, but it cannot be enough. We need to be honest about the tough context in which carers are now working. I have been struck by the dilemma that emerges in the bill with the proposal to open up the identification of carers and assessment of their needs. I understand the rationale of early identification, but we must reflect on the fear expressed that such a broadening may dilute the support available to carers who are already in need. In truth, a right that is unenforceable is unacceptable. We need not just to declare the right, but to deliver the means. That is a practical challenge to the Government and to the Minister. It is not good enough for us here to create a right and then sit back and denounce local authorities when they fail to deliver on it. I also recognise the emphasis on the identification of young carers. That can be a challenge in my last teaching post, working to support young people to stay in mainstream education. I met many young people who were carers and some of them were entirely and inappropriately carers. I know that understanding a young person's situation, where they may be reluctant even to talk about the reality of their family life, is more likely. There is a strong guidance team, a strong attendance officer team, behaviour support, learning support and classroom assistance. Those are the people who have the intelligence and the understanding to reach out and see perhaps that young person is struggling because of what is happening in their home. One of the worst moments that I had in teaching myself was when a young girl came into my class each day in the morning late. I had justised her for being late every morning, because no-one had provided me with information to tell me that she was a carer. It was absolutely awful, and that is where the system breaks down. Two brief points. We need to have more confidence in giving our teachers information that they are treated professionally. If they do not treat it appropriately, we need to deal with them because they have behaved in an appropriate way. The point that I make is that the intelligence in schools is very often garnered by those who are not simply teachers. At that very moment, our schools are being stripped of those very supports because of the pressures of their budgets. We need to see carers in the context of a real world that is increasing with stress for them. If they are working, their tax credits may now be getting removed, and increased flexibility has been demanded of them by their employer zero hours contracts being available for longer, which means that they are unable to guarantee that they can care for their loved one. People are forced out of work because of the lack of proper support. I want to raise the particular problem of kinship carers in my city. I am sure that the minister is aware that 32 per cent of all children supported in kinship carers' situations are in Glasgow. I simply ask him to look again at the funding that is needed to match our aspiration that kinship carers should have parity with foster carers. Please give me a guarantee that we do not sit and all blame each other for that situation. We need to work together to get a solution, particularly for kinship carers. We understand the central role of local authorities in offering support for carers. Therefore, it is essential whether it is in health, in education or in social work, wherever it might be, that we are honest about how we are going to ensure that local authorities are properly supported. Across the chamber, we have a responsibility of saying that local authorities must deliver good quality care. We need to have a fundamental look at how much we regard local authorities and how we fund it. That would be, for me, a key commitment to any bill that says that it wants to give increased support to carers. I welcome the Carers Scotland bill. After so many years of everyone in the Parliament coming together to try to get the best rights for carers, we are now looking at a bill that will enshrine carers' rights in law for the first time in Scotland. However, many people have said that it is absolutely right that the minister himself said that implementation is hugely important. That covers implementation right at the start, but the on-going, the monitoring, the funding, the guidance, the regulations, the mix between guidance and legislation. I hope that the minister is having on-going discussions with COSLA and local authorities as to how that can best be implemented and monitored. Stage 1 in any debate is a really good opportunity to raise particular issues, perhaps missed areas for improvement and identification of potential unintended consequences that sometimes come up. The report of the health committee highlighted some of that, and the commitment already by the Government to introduce amendments at stage 2 is welcome, such as that for emergency planning. I want to raise two particular kinds of carers today to make sure that their particular circumstances have been well considered fully through the consultation process and the drawing up of the bill for introduction. The first one is carers of adults with learning difficulties. That has been raised many times by myself and others in the chamber over the years, and there are particularly active elderly carers in my constituency of East Kilbride who have helped very much to force improvements in some of that. Where you have carers who are parents of their own children, who are now adults and who have learning difficulties, it puts into stark relief the needs of some of the things that we are talking about here. Support plans are absolutely necessary, and there is an issue about not being any statutory timing put on the introduction of those support plans. I think that that is hugely important when you are looking at particular categories of carers, and that is one. That leads on to emergency plans. We have talked for many years of the good practice of having crisis plans and emergency plans, but the theory does not always translate into practice. I have seen examples of that. The stress on someone who is perhaps 80 or above, as you know, the absolute terror of something happening to them and their child, regardless of age, their child with vulnerabilities coming home and mum and or dad not being there anymore, and they are not being a proper plan in place is a huge stress for those carers to deal with. I would like to see support plans and emergency plans for this particular category of carer being given absolute priority. I think that it is so very, very important. I also think that it was Duncan McNeill that raised it. Yes, of course. Richard Simpson. When you agree with me a part of health and social care integration, it is absolutely vital that those emergency plans are on the GP record, because when the individual is admitted, they add up the parent. If the GP knows that there is an emergency care plan that they can call on, it actually makes life a lot easier for absolutely everybody. Linda Fabiani? Yes, I absolutely agree with that. I was going to come on to that. It is about the joined-up way of looking at health and social care. I noticed that Inclusion Scotland also had a concern that, as carer support plans will be statutory, they will take precedence over social care packages, which are discretionary. We have got to make sure that we really do have a joined-up system to the benefit of the people who need it. It is so very, very important. We started well with the integration of health and social care. Here is another way that we can truly look at preventative measures of real stress and real crisis. The other group of carers that I would like to bring up is one that I have fairly recent knowledge of. I had not really thought it through before, but I have been giving it a lot of thought for circumstances in the constituency. That is about the families of those who end up suffering from early onset dementia. Obviously, we have to talk lots about dealing well with people with dementia generally, but there are very particular issues that come when someone has early onset dementia. For example, there could be someone in their 40s or even 30s or 40s or 50s. Their partner is still working as a carer. Again, it is about the interaction between the social care, the home care package and the part-time caring responsibilities that the partner or the adult children in the house may well have. We have to try and get that right. We should not be assuming that someone will give up work to be a full-time carer, because that might not well be in the best interests of the person who requires the care. As a constituent said to me, I want to be able to take her in holiday. I want to be able to take her out and about. I want to be able to afford, in older age, through my pension to do those things, because she loves it and it gives her a great sense of wellbeing. That is absolutely hugely important. Again, we have to look at the needs of the person and the needs of the carer and take full account of what is best for the wellbeing of that entire family unit. What I am calling for here is a consistency in how we deal with such things, a recognition that not every case is textbook and can have a box ticked and then say that we have dealt with it. I have another constituent who has caring duties both for a parent with dementia and a child with very special needs. The on-going difficulty is that you have two branches of the same social work department in the council who do not communicate and therefore this woman never gets a day off. There surely must be better ways of doing things. We can surely do that through the support plan, but only if we know that support plans will timelessly be put in place. I believe that the bill has the potential to improve the lives of thousands of people. This is an opportunity to change the way carers are seen and supported and to make their lives easier through the lives of the people that they care for. We have been discussing the changing demographics in Scotland in the chamber. The pensionable age population is projected to grow by 47 per cent in some areas in the next 25 years. Of course, people are living longer, but we need to make sure that they are living healthier as well. Currently, a large part of the responsibility for elderly people or people who are not fully capable to take care of themselves or people who have mental problems or disabilities lies with their carers. Both paid and unpaid, nearly 800,000 carers in Scotland provide support to the loved ones with an estimated value of about £10.3 billion. That is 745,000 adult carers and 44,000 young carers under the age of 18. It is important for care to be delivered at home and to be consistent. We need to recognise the negative effects that caring has for people. I am glad to be supportive of those principles of the bills that put a layer of support and protection to the carers. The Scottish health survey analysis of mental wellbeing among carers showed that mental wellbeing scores decrease as hours of care increase, with 177,000 people over the age of 16 providing more than 35 hours of care each work. There is a clearly need to act proactively and prevent a decline in their mental wellbeing. I am looking forward to seeing the successful implementation of the relevant bill provisions for adult carer support plans and the young carer statements. I think that it is vital at the starting point and we have to make sure that the mental health of carers is in good condition. Unfortunately, as we know, timely treatment is not the easiest thing for people to obtain. I have repeatedly called for preventative spending on mental health and I want to see that such spending and relevant services and treatments are available for anyone who is a carer as well. Similarly, the carers coalition warns that the waiting times for an adult carer support plan must be cut down. Time scales must be spelled out and reasonable and seek to fulfil the purpose of supporting carers. Taking through unnecessary paperwork and more waiting times is the last thing that they need on top of all their responsibilities. Addressing the issue of the young carer statement, it has been mentioned that there needs to be a stronger system for advocacy, redress and appeal, and more involvement of young carers in the development of those statements. I argue that those are one of the preventative measures that we can take to ensure that young people have a say in their own plans. I am supportive of other similar provisions in the bill, such as supported short breaks, replacement care and right to advocacy, especially for young carers. However, I am aware that a common thread of concern has been the postcode lottery for some of those services. Health inequalities will not reduce if we compound them with unequal treatment of carers. I would like to see in the next stage of the bill, should it proceed, and I am sure that it will, that we are taking the right steps to address issues such as local eligibility criteria that might undermine need because of financial restraints in any particular area. We cannot ensure that decisions are taken locally. We must empower carers and councils to take them, but we must also make sure that equality is prescribed in that actual law. Otherwise, we might risk seeing health inequalities only grow further. I think that carers belong to a very special group of people whom we cannot allow to remain in the margins any longer. Their concerns have to be taken at face value, but I want to point to the fact that the health and social care integration going live next year should and hopefully will act as a gateway for increased involvement. GPs may have a role to play in identifying carers and assigning them to services, and support perhaps is the first step. I believe that that is one of the main concerns of the national carer organisations. That current strategy, such as the national carer strategy, has not perhaps taken that on board yet. Subsequently, involving carers in the NHS processes, such as hospital admissions and discharge, is useful. It saves time and money and is better, of course, for the patient involved. There are calls and proposals for further involvement and, in fact, a responsibility on health boards to inform and involve carers in their decisions for hospital admissions and discharge. It has been proven that carer involvement reduces the need for re-admission as they know best what the person they care for needs in their daily lives. I stress again that that must include both adults and young carers. Deputy Presiding Officer, I just like the majority of individuals and organisations that support the principles of the bill. I want to see that the details are set up on the outset. We can achieve that by taking into account the views of the numerous organisations representing carers, right, but also the carers' Parliament. I hope to see the bill proceed to stage 2, where views on how to strengthen and improve its provisions will, I think, be welcome and look forward to being part of that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Now, Colin Sander White, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you very much, too. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to be speaking in this debate on the bill, and although I am not a member of the committee who took evidence on this bill, I think that it is really important, not just to me but to the many groups and constituents that I represent that we look to the rights of both adult and young carers, and has already been stated that there are an estimated 745,000 adult carers and 44,000 young carers in Scotland. I really do think that it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians and the Parliament as well to encourage and empower carers of all ages to exercise their rights. As I mentioned previously, there are an estimated 745,000 adult carers in Scotland, and it really is those carers that I want to concentrate on my contribution on, albeit that the contribution will make a small percentage of those 745,000 carers. Nonetheless, I think that most people would think that there is also an extremely important percentage of carers, and Linda Fabiani raised the issue in one of her constituents and raised it very passionately in her contribution. Presiding Officer, as convener of the cross-party group in older people age and ageing, I am acutely aware of carers over the age of 70 years and over the age of 80 years, as has already been stated by Linda Fabiani, who are caring for older people. Some of the older people are caring for our pensioners, some who have older people, some who have disabilities and some who need care. Those older people come along to our cross-party group, and I know that Roder Grant has been present at the cross-party group, where they have great difficulty in trying to get care for their older children. As Linda Fabiani said, it does not matter what age they are, they are still their children, and I will go on to explain in regards to care or break or respite, as we call it, is a very difficult thing for an older person to get when they are caring for older people also. I recognise that reshaping care for older people changes funding the carer component. I recognise the fact that money has been put there, and specifically for the carer component of it. It has made a very big difference with many groups, and I will not mention all the groups and projects that involve carers in shaping of services, development and local strategies, and generally providing a better quality life for both carers and those that they care for. I know that it has been raised previously in other contributions. The net mill raised the fact that we really need to look at strategies. I would hope that the involvement that has been so successful throughout Scotland would continue, and I am sure that it will continue, but I really hope that it would continue with the help of the carers involved that I have already mentioned. Once a local authority's duty is placed on them, I ask the minister, possibly through amendments, would there be any checks and balances? Perhaps that is the wrong word, I do not know, but would there be any checks and balances put on this involvement by local authorities to ensure that carers are involved the way they are already in strategies? It would be interesting to see if that is still continued once the duty is placed on local authorities. I would like the minister perhaps in his closing remarks, if he could mention that as well. The Rhoda Grant mentioned the short breaks, as it is called, and we always call them respite, and I think that they are still called respite as well. I think that that is a really, really important issue. The net mill also pointed it out in her contribution and mentioned about the finances of that and the finance committee's comments on that. I note the finance committee's comments, particularly on the care component of respite, which involves cosla carers and those that they care for as well. I wonder if the minister has an update on that particular position, along with cosla, just to see if we can find out exactly what will happen, not just to the care that I have in the short breaks of the respite, but obviously to the people who are being cared for. I think that that is an important component of that. As I mentioned before, it takes into account carers of all ages, but the small percentage might not be that small of carers of 80, 80 to 84. It is something that is not raised that often, and it should really be put at the top of the agenda when we are looking at the carers component. I want to finish off in the conclusion. It has not been mentioned today, but I will mention it. We talked about the Smith commission and the recommendation that the Scottish Parliament has complete autonomy over carers allowance eligibility. That is a really important one, particularly when we see the recent amendment that has been tabled to the Scotland bill, which I would hope would achieve that, which was put forward by the Scottish Government in the first place. However, I would like to ask—I do not know if the minister can find us out. I am sure that we will, through Westminster when it is debated on Monday, I think it is. I would ask that we get complete assurances that the elderly carers who are themselves pensioners who get benefits and other entitlements do not miss out on those entitlements because of the new carers allowance and the eligibility. I think that that is important. Everyone should be entitled to that. I would not like to see the fact that, because you have another benefit where we do not have control over, it might adversely affect the benefits that pensioners who are already caring for their sons and daughters who are pensioners may lose out. I will leave you with that thought. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. I now call Jackie Baillie to be followed by Bob Dorris. Other members in the chamber have spent much time on the particular provisions of the bill and the importance of supporting carers. I do not want to repeat that because we have had powerful speeches already from Duncan McNeill, Johann Lamont and others across the chamber. Rather than do that, I want to spend my time looking at the financial aspects of the bill. I do so with a genuine concern that expectations have rightly been raised by the bill, but there may be insufficient resources to meet those expectations. I have two carers centres in my constituency—carers of western bartender and the Helensbrunn-Lomond carers centre. Both do a tremendous job without question. In both cases, the number of carers that they support is constantly increasing. There are about 10,000 carers who live in western bartender. Per head of the population, we have the highest numbers in Scotland, according to the latest census. Western bartender also has the highest number of people per head of population with one or more long-term conditions. A high proportion of them will be carers, which result in them managing their own health alongside their caring role. Western bartender carers supported 1,060 individual carers last year. 385 of them were new referrals, and the organisation dealt with something in the order of 4,600 inquiries, so demand is rising. In Helensbrunn-Lomond, the number of new carers registered last year was 91. That number has already been exceeded, and we are only just halfway through this year. Overall, they are supporting some 800 carers, and demand here too is rising rapidly. It is great news that both are reaching more carers than ever before. However, funding is becoming increasingly difficult. Year-to-year contracts, uncertainty about future funding sources, the consequent effect that it has on staff retention is making it incredibly difficult for the very organisations that deliver for carers, and we need to find more effective ways of supporting them. In Helensbrunn-Lomond, funding for the very successful young carers initiative comes to an end in April 2016. They have been unable to secure funding to continue this valuable service, leaving 150 young carers facing a future without that essential support. Members will be aware that the carers information strategy funding finishes as I understand it in March 2016. The information that carers centres have received suggests that the funding for the bill will not kick in until 2017, so it does not take a genius to work out that there is a gap. As far as I am aware, what has been said about it has not been a great deal, but is making people nervous about what happens between 2016 and 2017. That represents core support posts for carers, funded by the strategy, and the real concern on the ground is that those will be terminated unless there is money available on a transitional basis to bridge the gap. I wonder whether the minister could, in his summation, advise the chamber of what provision will be in place from April 2016 to April 2017 to avoid that unnecessary and disruptive interruption to the service. I understand that the guidance accompanying the bill is likely to say that there will be money for two additional posts. The carers organisations I have spoken to are genuinely concerned that those posts are not, in fact, additional. We can all agree that the impact of the bill will undoubtedly raise awareness, but for those carers organisations to cope with the rising demand that I have already described, on a standstill staffing assumption, is just not tenable. It is not just a rising demand that they are faced with now but that they will be faced with ever more so in the future, but that the carers that they are dealing with are requiring more contact and more intense support than before. Although the new carers legislation is absolutely welcome, it might be undermined if the support within the community is depleted or vanishes. I would be grateful for the minister's comments on that in his closing remarks. The minister will be aware that the Finance Committee thought that there were deficiencies with the financial memorandum and that the clarity required for costs were not as we would have wished, and I suspect that he shared that as well. Indeed, the committee suggested that the time bring forward a supplementary financial memorandum between stage 2 and stage 3. The minister agreed at the time but changed his mind and he believed that he would bring forward proposals to give effect to the waving of charges through secondary legislation and put the financial consequences in a policy note. Members will appreciate that this is without precedent. I very much welcome the further clarity that the minister provided in his letter to the Finance Committee on 26 October that the cost of replacement care will be a maximum of £16 million per year in the first year of the bill's implementation. That £16 million aims to meet the cost of any additional replacement care that is put in place to meet the assessed needs of carers, but I confess to being confused. Am I right to assume that that is to cover what is already in place, which is welcome? Or is this about how we meet new demand? Given his announcement, does he intend to bring forward a supplementary financial memorandum and does he now not need to bother with the policy note and regulations or the financial information in the policy note? The minister says that the £16 million will be accommodated within the overall cost envelope set out in the financial memorandum. Carers organisations are very concerned that that leaves very little remaining in the financial envelope for everything else. The national care organisations are concerned that that takes no account of any new demand that might arise from the increased number of adults and young carers receiving an assessment. If you take year 1, the Scottish Government anticipates, according to the financial memorandum, spending £19 million in 2017-18. If £16 million is the cost of replacement care to be found in 2017-18, from that amount, it leaves a mere £3 million for everything else. I hope that the minister will tell me that I have got my sums wrong and provide the reassurance that everybody is looking for out there, because the bill will raise awareness, it will raise expectation and, on the evidence before us, there may not be sufficient resources to turn those good intentions that I know the minister has into reality. Recognition for the important work of carers across the chamber has been heard this afternoon, but let's back that up with the resources to enable them to do their job. Many thanks. I now call on Bob Doris to be followed by Jane Baxter. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. There's a lot of good in this bill, so carers rights will be enshrined in law fully for the first time. When broadening and widening the definition of a carer and easing what that threshold is for providing a caring role, there will be a more systematic process of assessing carers needs and providing support for them. We'll be placing a statutory duty in local authorities to involve carers and their representatives in planning and the delivery of support, and there will be, yet again, further progress to expand short breaks and a break in caring for carers. That will happen. The bill will drive progress in supporting with adult and young carers. What we're talking about this afternoon is the extent of that progress and the extent to which we will improve the lives of carers out there. It is surely a good thing. Additional monies are being provided. The lives of carers will be improved. What we're debating is to the extent to which the lives of carers will be improved. We should embrace that this afternoon on a cross-party basis in this Parliament. Of course, there is a financial context to the whole thing. I won't be drawn into the Yabw politics of yesterday and this morning at First Minister's Questions in relation to the financial constraints on this Parliament and other cuts coming down the line, but we can't deal with the financial reality across all sectors of government without looking at the entire funding package to Scotland from the UK. Of course, that will be tough to deliver and implement and fully fund, but the Scottish Government is committed to doing that and the lives of carers will improve. That is just a fact, because more money is being provided. That is also a fact. In relation to kinship carers, which we heard about earlier from Johann Lamont, I see that she's no longer in the chamber at the moment, saying that the needs of kinship carers hadn't been met. I just double-checked my facts. In 10 September, the Scottish Government announced that £10.1 million was given to councils to raise kinship carer allowances to the same level as foster carers, benefiting 5,200 vulnerable young children—many of them in the constituencies that I represent—so Johann Lamont was just wrong. I know what Jane Baxter is here, who has championed the cause of kinship carers. Undoubtedly, there has been huge progress since 2007, when the Scottish Government took office and it has been done on a cross-party basis. Don McAlpine? Notwithstanding the comment about cross-party basis, he draws attention to the fact that the Government has put this money in place. It is my experience that some Labour councils are not actually taking forward that money and getting it where it is supposed to go, to the kinship carer, certainly in Dumfries and Galloway. That is the case. I wonder if it is also the case with the Labour council in Glasgow. Bob Doris? I have to say that there has been progress made with the Labour council in Glasgow. They used to give no money to kinship carers who have looked after children in the city. It was my intervention to Stephen Purcell that got a £40 a week allowance for the first time in Glasgow. There is more to be done in Glasgow, but there has been progress to be made. Given the fact that the local authority might be criticised by myself later in the speech, I think that we have to get in credit for the arm-making progress. I have to say that, but I want to look at the details of the bill. I want to look at the increase of adult carer assessments and young carer support plans that will be generated and resourcing concerns were there. I am glad that the ministers addressed those today. I am also glad that the minister's response to the committee makes clear that local authorities will be able to prioritise how quickly they address some carer assessments and young carer support plans. We still want more details on the expected timescales around that. I notice that the minister says that, because the expected timescales will be published by each local authority, that will drive consistency. It might drive consistency, but at some point we might have to step to ensure consistency. However, I have an additional suggestion on the drawing up of carer assessments. The Health and Sport Committee is currently involved in a palliative care inquiry. I wonder if the minister would give consideration every time a carer assessment has been drawn up if those assessing care will give cognisance to whether there is unidentified palliative care taken place by that carer and if so, if that could drive change in that sector. I think that that would be very important if we could do that. The committee looked in some detail over eligibility criteria. I found that there was a lot of confusion by stakeholder groups in relation to eligibility criteria and what would be national and local. There was confusion over what the threshold would be to receive care or care support, or what the level of care or care support would be. It was my understanding—I think that the committee's understanding—that we were not saying that every local authority in the country would provide the same provision of support. However, we were looking for, as a committee, to make sure that those of similar needs all had support provided at a local authority level, but, importantly, local authorities have the flexibility to prioritise the level of support that is available. Perhaps that is something that we have to look at as well. In relation to information advice services—this is an important point, some third sector organisations were worried that the requirement for information advice services made to local authorities tendering or contracting out existing contracts and undermining their role. I am delighted that the minister has said that he is quite clear that that is not the situation, that that will not be the case and that that will be clarified in a stage 2 amendment. Local authorities have forum in relation to this. I say to Joan McAlpine that I will mention Glasgow City Council, because local authorities have been known to use and abuse Scottish Government legislation, namely self-directed support. We are very vulnerable adults who have learning disabilities and are forced into a personalisation agenda and key services are thrown to them. When they asked why they were told that it is because of the Scottish Government's self-directed support legislation, that was absolutely wrong. We have to make sure that there are no unintended consequences to the bill, and that is why it is very important that the Government brings forward that amendment in relation to information and advice services at stage 2. The final thing that I would like to say—I know that lots of it is important, but I promise you that it is vitally important—is that there is much discussion around how we can better support carers in relation to hospital admission and discharge and making sure that they are part of that process. However, what we do not really talk about enough is that those who come into hospital and there are carers there that have been yet to be identified and admission to hospital by someone should be a trigger to identify whether there is an unidentified carer and a carer's assessment offered. That is an opportunity that we have within the bill. That will improve the law of carers. Together as a Parliament, let's get together to improve and enhance this bill and deliver for all of our constituents in the vital job that carers do in my city of Glasgow and right across Scotland. I am not a member of the Health and Sport Committee, so I have not been involved in the detailed scrutiny of the bill, but I am very pleased to speak today about what is a very important bill. The bill has the potential, if we get it right, to transform the lives of carers and by association those they care for across Scotland. Estimates vary, but it is widely accepted that there are almost 800,000 carers in Scotland. According to Carers UK, the economic value of this unpaid carer is in excess of £10 billion, but the emotional value of such carer is incalculable. Many of us will have witnessed or indeed had our own experiences of the role that carers play. When it is your friends or family who are affected, of course, few would hesitate to help, but the responsibility of caring for a vulnerable person often goes way beyond helping and may be more demanding and stressful and go on for much longer than carers can offer without additional support. The care that is needed and provided is vital and is too often not apparent to others, and as a consequence the value of that care is not always recognised or valued. Too often, support services 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 also common for carers who themselves have additional support needs to not be identified as such. Underpinning how we can change that for the better is the importance of the NHS in preparing carer strategies. The NHS can provide a great deal of support, not just to the person being cared for, but for carers themselves. Far too often, however, they are not aware of the support available to them. In the interests of both the care for person and the carer, the centrality of the NHS to supporting carer needs and carers need to be formally recognised in this legislation. In considering the issue of carers being invisible, I want to say something about young carers. Ever since I was a councillor in Fife, I have supported the campaign to recognise the important role played by those young people. It was not something that I have much experience of, but Fife councillor ran an awareness raising campaign for staff and councillors. The council knew that although it was likely that there were thousands of young carers in Fife, the reality was that very few of them are known to the services that could help and support them. Although, of course, it is the case that young carers have a right to privacy, it is also important that they realise that they are not alone, that they have rights and that there are services in people who will help them. We have to encourage young people who have caring responsibilities to come forward. We also have to train the staff who work with young people to learn how to recognise the signals that a young person might be a carer and then to respond appropriately to the impact that those caring duties may be having on their quality of schooling or personal development. I was struck by how isolating being a carer must be for many young people and how we all can and should do better to change that situation. This year, I had the privilege of working with the carers trust and young adult carers to launch their going higher campaign to extend a similar approach throughout colleges and universities. As I said at the launch of the campaign, it seems perfectly reasonable that educational institutions would adopt a person-centred approach to ensuring that everyone fulfills their potential. We should do the same as a Parliament and as a society. The starting point has to be the situation facing each carer, and from that we put together the right package of support. The bill, as it currently stands, is a good starting point. It aims to provide a framework for recognising and supporting carers. It aims to improve identification of adult carers and young carers. It aims to place a duty on local authorities to support carers. It places a duty on local authorities to develop and publish local carer strategies and make provision for carer involvement. It places a duty on local authorities to provide information and advice services to all carers. However, many of the briefings that I have read argue that the bill does not go far enough and that it does not offer enough detail. Amongst those are concerns about the lack of timescales for the production of adult carer support plans, inconsistencies and, potentially, a postcode lottery in eligibility criteria for carer support and levels of finance and choice to be provided for rest by short breaks. It is clear that what is needed is a coherent multi-agency approach for most carers. I do not think that anyone disagrees on that need. It has been discussed many times in this Parliament, but I sincerely hope that the bill will go further as it progresses to foster such an approach across Scotland. The bill currently focuses excessively on the responsibilities of local authorities and insufficiently on what the NHS and other agencies, including the third sector, can do in addition to and in collaboration with local authorities. As this is stage 1 of the bill, it is right that it is supported by the Parliament. At future stages of the bill, however, it is essential that the Scottish Government listens closely to the concerns raised by those groups who represent carers, as well as individual carers themselves, in order to ensure that the bill takes a meaningful step towards improving circumstances for carers and those whom they care for. If not, the bill could be another missed opportunity. I feel quite privileged to be able to speak in the debate today. As usual, I want to start by commending the good work carried out by colleagues on the committee under comprehensive stage 1 report on this carers bill. I also want to welcome the very detailed and supportive responses by the minister and his reply to the committee. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I counted at least six commitments to amend the bill at stage 2 after some lengthy and heartfelt evidence was offered to the committee by a number of stakeholders along the way. A number of commitments were also made to provide additional guidance alongside the bill to deal with many clarifications sought by the committee on behalf of those giving evidence. I am not a member of the committee, like some other members, who are making a contribution today, so I hope that I do some justice to the work carried out by others. The bill is really about caring for the carers, is it not? It sets out where we think that help is most needed and where the most positive interventions might take place. I really liked the opening comment in the policy memorandum that the bill is to make real the Scottish Government's ambition for Scotland's adults and young carers to be better supported on a more consistent basis, so that they continue to care in good health and have a life alongside caring. What a lovely way of simplifying the bill down to that description, to have a life alongside caring. Would you agree that making it real and that we would all aspire to, you have to get the money right too and do you share the concerns that have been expressed about the potential gap between our aspiration and the funding that is going to underpin it? Willie Coffey? Absolutely, of course he is doing. I think that the issues in debates about finance and resources have been well covered in the committee report, and I am pretty sure that we will be referred to by the minister and he is summing up. As I said, it is a lovely way to simplify down the bill to that description, to have a life alongside caring. I think that too often overlooked and ignored. Sometimes not even recognised by carers themselves, as has been mentioned by a few members today too. As I read through the report, it was clear that the bill seems to set out a sort of carers journey and how we can and should be helping along the way. From recognising the role of our younger carers and the help they need from their schools, right through to the possible end of a carers responsibilities through choice or circumstances, the bill and the committee seem to recognise the issues of importance that we need to provide for. Tonight, we know that it is Guy Fox night, and thousands of carers across Scotland will either be out there making sure that a loved one is enjoying the night at some of the many displays that will take place, and I can recommend the display at Command Oaks K Park, which will attract more than 30,000 people. Although we will be caring for a loved one at home and possibly missing out themselves, that is why I was drawn initially to the committee's comments on providing those short breaks for our carers. It is so important to provide for this, even for a couple of hours, as the witness is highlighted, and I note that the minister has agreed to clarify that definition of what short breaks actually mean in response to the committee's requests. I know that short breaks are not new, but if we can build in a mechanism that formalises them, then it means that carers do not need to feel guilty about taking a break and those being cared for no longer need to feel guilty either if their carer was previously not able to get one. A recognised short break is simple enough, but very, very important. It helps to remove the problem and helps us to progress the aim of the bill of supporting a life alongside caring. Looking at our younger carers, I was absolutely staggered to read that the number of young carers in Scotland was thought to be over 40,000 in the suggestion in the committee's report from witnesses that it could even be as high as 100,000. As those giving evidence asked for more work to be done to identify our young carers, especially those at school, many of whom probably do not recognise that they are even performing the role, often those young carers only need a little bit of information and advice and a little flexibility when it comes to school timetables and attendance, and that we should do our best to try and identify those young carers before any crisis develop. The schools have a crucial role to play, and that too is acknowledged by the minister's intention to set that out in guidance in relation to the development of our local carer strategies. I would also be interested to see if any research has been done on the educational attainment of young carers to see if that might have had any impact, caring had any impact on them and what proportion of them move on to further and higher education, but that is an issue I know for another day. The potential confusion in having the proposed young carers statement and child's plan was raised, but I think the minister explained that well and that the carers statement is about identifying specific support needs for the carer and the triggers that are required for intervention. Where is the plan as an overarching summary of that, as I understand it? Where there was a concern was in the overlap between a young person's role as a carer and the named person proposals, and the possible unintended intrusion that might cause if a young carer had not consented to any of those interventions. Again, the minister has recognised this and agreed and will remove this possibility from the bill at stage 2. At some point in a young carer's life, they will reach the age of 18 and begin to make that transition to adulthood and begin to interact with adult services in respect of their caring role. Clearly, many young people may want to move on and cease their caring role in order to progress their own lives. I simply note the sensitive way that is discussed in the committee's paper and the recognition given to supporting such a process by the minister in his comments. In conclusion, it has been a privilege to be able to make a contribution to this important debate and to highlight for the public the many positive steps that are being taken by the Scottish Government to recognise the invaluable work that was carried out by Scotland's carers. We care about their quality of life, to live their own lives in good health and to be entitled to a life alongside caring. I commend the work of the committee and the witnesses in the Scottish Government and look forward to the progress of the bill and becoming law. I support the bill as a continuation of the considerable progress that has been made in Scotland in recognising and supporting carers in recent years. I particularly congratulate the minister for listening to the voices of those who enable in particular who wanted the bill to ensure that emergency planning is discussed as part of the carer planning process. The minister will recall that I have spoken to him and his team about this on several occasions, so I share enables delight in the success of their campaign. My own sister has Down syndrome and is cared for by my elderly mother, and I know from their experience and from the experience of friends and other attendees at my sister's day centre that this is a very real issue, if not the most important issue that concerns older carers in particular. The very important statistical information published this spring and based on the 2011 census returns showed that the age group, someone who is most likely to be a carer, is 55 to 64 years old, but it is not unusual, particularly with regard to learning disability dimension and end-of-life care, that a carer will be in their 70s or 80s. An example of the difference in emergency plan can make was the case of Jeannette, which was highlighted by Enable in the course of the campaign. Jeannette looked after her daughter Vanessa, who has learning disabilities, and she had no emergency plan in place until she had to go into hospital for a knee replacement. Sometime after she was discharged, she had an awful experience in that she clapped at home in the early hours, but because she had this written emergency plan in place, the emergency services were able to consult the plan and contact the right respondent and get the right care in place for Vanessa. As Jeannette said afterwards, I know that people think that they can go on caring, but things happen that change that, and I urge them to take the time to put a plan in place. That draws attention to the fact that Jeannette obviously had that experience when she was supported to do it by her local authority. Good services happen in Scotland, but we need that bill to ensure that provision becomes consistent across the country. I welcome moves by the minister to prioritise plans for those caring for individuals with their terminal illness. I support the calls from Marie Curie and other members that GPs should be involved in identifying carers in those circumstances. I am also very sympathetic to calls that carers views should be considered when discharge plans are put in place by hospitals. Turning to the bill more generally, I am the co-convener of the cross-party group on carers. As such, I draw attention to the briefing from the national carers organisations, which welcome the bill, but have certain asks in terms of strengthening it. My role as co-convener is to put those asks on record. They are a redefinition of outcomes to acknowledge that carers have a right to a life outside caring. Eligibility criteria short breaks duty on local authorities, ensuring that replacement care is properly funded, and ensuring that support services in the third sector and public sector are prepared for the additional demand placed on them as more carers identify themselves. A duty on the NHS to involve carers in discharge plans, as I have already mentioned, a statutory right of advocacy and a statement on equality. Time means that I cannot go into all those in detail. I am aware of the cost constraints, which means that not every single one of them will necessarily be delivered. However, if I had to single out one, it would be the request for a nationally defined eligibility criteria. In my experience, there is quite passionate opposition to locally defined eligibility criteria among carers and their representatives. I would say that they are extremely consistent in their demand for consistencies. Indeed, in my opinion, the big three asks in terms of strengthening the bill from carers organisations where emergency plans, the waving of charges and a national eligibility criteria. I welcome the fact that the first two of the big three are being brought forward, addressed by the minister in his amendments. He does not rule out similar measures to address the third. I am aware that the health committee is sympathetic to both local authorities and carers organisations with regard to eligibility criteria. It states that in its report. I note too that the minister in his reply to the committee says that, in 2016 and 2017, before the bill is commenced, the Scottish Government will work with COSLA local authorities, the national carers organisations and carers themselves to share ideas and views about eligibility criteria. However, we have heard examples from various speakers across the chamber today of the variability of services, some excellent services, as I have outlined in the care of Jeanette, but others have mentioned really poor experiences that their constituents have had. I would say that the bill exists because of a patchiness approach, and we are legislating to address that patchiness in support. Therefore, I argue that a nationally defined criteria for eligibility is an extension of the general principles that lie behind the bill. That is why I think that it should not be ruled out. I call Dr Richard Simpson to be followed by Richard Lyle. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am glad to join others in speaking in this debate, although I am no longer a member of the health committee. However, I find myself, once again, although commending the intentions of the bill, questioning the legislation as it has been tabled, because carers do not just deserve warm words but detailed commitments. Once again, we have a bill without draft regulations, regulations that are critical to the delivery of the bill. The hustings at the 2011 election was attended by carers. I promised then that, if carers Scottish Labour formed the Government, I would seek to ensure that our priorities matched those of carers. Labour had already sought to make it possible for carers to seek an assessment of their own health, which is fundamental. That, of course, should not be a one-off event but has to be a continuing process. A carer looking after a person with a deteriorating condition such as dementia will be likely to face increasing challenges that make their own health more vulnerable. The support plan helps, but the thresholds and the nature and the extent are unclear. The concerns about a postcode lottery and thresholds are valid, as is the question about the length of time for an assessment to be undertaken, and that is not just about terminal care. For example, as the committee has clearly indicated, respite is also an issue because it can mean many different things from a period of a week or more to an hour or two a week. There needs to be clarity on thresholds, there need to be minimum standards and levels, and I believe that the committee is right to express its concern about provision in relation to terminal illness. That requires priority. One cannot wait when one gets into a terminal situation. One needs action immediately. The agreement to assure that all carers who wish it will have an emergency plan was one of the most significant tasks in 2011 and led me to ask Alex Salmond as First Minister in FMQs as to why that was not occurring. He gave an undertaking that this would occur, and it is a pity that three years on we are still just talking about legislation. I cannot understand how anyone listening to carers who are growing old and have to look after their adult children with learning disability, as Linda Fabiana referred to, cannot hear the anxiety that they have about what happens if they have an emergency. I have currently got a family experience in dementia care. The social worker and the carer support have both been very helpful, but my relative and the prime carer are uncertain about the recent weak respite care as to whether that will be charged or free. She simply cannot find out. There are other areas of vagueness. There is an absolute need for carers to be advised of discharge from hospital and to be involved in the admission. That is, of course, a requirement where there is a formal incapacity, but it must also be addressed for those with capacity on a consensual basis. Recent Scottish study showed that 50 per cent of patients with a prior diagnosis of dementia before admission do not have this critical fact recorded on their notes. Too often carers feel excluded by a medicalised process. As far as discharge is concerned, notification must not just be a journal intention, but it must be detailed. Colleagues, never again can we have reports as we did have in the press of a blind man being discharged in the middle of the night without even knowing if they are going to be relatives at home. That is unacceptable. The role of GPs in this new integrated world that we all seek remains unclear. Their knowledge and their role is important. Where is the support, for example, for such groups as the Edinburgh North West PMS group that I attended yesterday, where 12 of the 16 practises were able to be there, along with practice managers and various Lothian staff? This group has link workers to undertake detailed assessment as part of post-diagnosis in dementia—an area that general practice has been tasked for. The quality of the carer and patient experience is measurably improved. That is an example of how a cluster in the new world that the Government is now beginning to accept within a new contract could work. I commend the work of this group to the minister. We also had reports from Mirhau's practice, which has established an effective computer-based signposting and information service for support to both local and national, which can be given to carers. That is not rocket science, but it requires administrative support so that it does not have to be done on an individual practice basis. As Graham Day said, at a time when general practice is under stress, the Government has a duty to make its intentions much clearer on requirements but also on resources. On finance, I do not believe that even the adjusted financial memorandum bears scrutiny. The £16 million is not, as I understand it, new money, so what is it? If we look at dementia, there is a substantial drive for early diagnosis and first-year post-diagnostic support. If that is to be tied to a robust delivery of the aspirations in this bill, we can hope that fewer individuals will require institutional care, which will ameliorate some of the growing pressures on the NHS. Deputy Presiding Officer, as in almost every intervention that I make in this Parliament on matters of health and social care, I call for there to be robust monitoring of the process but also of the outcomes. Who will undertake this role is at the care inspectorate? What work has been done already on the elements that should be reported? Careers should not have to revert to their MSPs when their needs are unmet, so the right for advocacy is an important part of ensuring that issues can be early resolved. However, I feel that I have to repeat again that the landscape on comments, concerns and interventions from individuals where they have problems is incredibly cluttered. There is a vital need to align the patient rights act's feedback section to the social care system. If that is not done, we will not achieve the ability for carers to contest the matters that are placed in front of them, or their assessment or the timing or all the other issues that have been quite rightly brought up by colleagues. In conclusion, the general principles of the bill are welcome. The aspirations of the Government are, as always, welcome, but if those aspirations are to be met, the detail, the draft regulations are many aspects, the system of monitoring, the financing all must be much clearer before this Parliament passes the bill at stage 3. I have a few minutes left in hand, so Mr Lyle, I can give you up to seven minutes, and then I can have one extra minute each for the closing speakers. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's always a pleasure to follow Dr Richard Simpson and respond to his comments. I would like to start off by saying that I believe that the SNP Government has a strong record in supporting health in Scotland. I'm sure that it will continue to do ever and its power to ensure that the people of Scotland have access to the best healthcare available and to ensure that no group of people are overlooked when it comes to health. As we adapt to an ageing population, the role of carers will become even more important, so there is an overwhelming economic, social and moral case for continuing to improve services offered to carers. The carers bill will, for the first time in Scotland, enshrine the rights of carers in law. It proposes the range of measures to improve and expand support for carers. Therefore, it is important to hear some of the key facts and stories about our carers in Scotland today. Currently, as has already been said, there are an estimated 745,000 adult carers and around 44,000 young carers in Scotland. The value of the care that they provided is estimated to be around £10.3 billion each year. What tends to go overlooked is that caring can have a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of a carer, which can subsequently affect the quality of care that the person who is being cared for receives. Caring can intensify pre-existing health problems in carers or even lead to new health problems. It is estimated that around 32 per cent of carers have indicated that caring has a negative impact on their health. Research has shown that most common health effects are psychological. It is not morally acceptable to allow someone who is providing care to another human being to suffer on their own. That is why in the First Minister's programme for government, I noted that the Government has placed the issue at the forefront and has invested around 114 million programmes to support carers more than ever before. It is also why we need to address the issue in the here and now. Recently, I heard a story about a man named Ronnie, who cared for his wife for the past 15 years. His wife needed 24-hour care, so Ronnie gave up his job 12 years ago to be able to look after her full-time. When asked what we could do to help him, Ronnie replied that there is not enough recognition of what a carer does. Who have we heard that before? When he filled in the forms, there was no category for full-time carer. No one understands what that is. Stories like Ronnie's are why the Scottish Government should place and will place the needs of carers at the heart of the devolved carers allowance. Carers sacrifice so much for the betterment of others, and now it is them who are suffering. We cannot sit on the sidelines and let those carers suffer any longer. The bill that we are debating today aims to improve and provide greater support to carers. At the present time, the law sees a carer as someone who provides or intends to provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to a person aged 18 or over. Who is a person for whom the local authority provides community care services? The bill will broaden the definition of what a carer is to encompass more and more people who go on recognised as carers to get the recognition that they deserve. To accomplish that goal, the bill will remove the requirement for care to be substantial and regular. That bill will give local authorities a duty to prepare a support plan for anyone who identifies as a carer or any carer who requests one. That support is something that many carers drastically need, and it is our job to ensure that they receive it. When it comes to young carers, young carers who are a shining beaking of the incredible young people that we have here in Scotland, young carers are those under the age of 18 or are 18 and still at school. It is the Government's responsibility to make sure that they are looked after. It is my firm belief that we must do everything in our power to predict the well-being of young carers. Under the current legislation, if the young carers need to be addressed through normal courses of things like parents or mainstream services, then there is no need for a support plan. That is unacceptable. I am pleased to say that the new bill addresses that issue. Under one of the proposals, the bill will give a responsible authority a duty to prepare a young carer's statement for anyone who believes to be a young carer and for any young carer who requests one. That will improve access to support for young carers and hopefully prevent the escalation of caring needs. As I am nearing the end of my reflections on carers in Scotland, I want to highlight one more story that I read about from the carers trust. I also recommend that all of my colleagues, if they have not already done so, take the time to read and learn more of the touching stories about carers throughout the UK. This particular story is about a 14-year-old girl who is caring for her eight-year-old brother who suffers from a very rare genetic condition. This girl lives with her mum and her brother, so it can be hard for her mum to get all the jobs done around about the house. This girl can no longer live a normal childhood. It was not her choice to live this life, but it is the life that she lives. She talks about how, when she talks to people like doctors and social workers, some of them do not listen to her because of her age. I am here today. Members across the chamber are here today. We are all saying to this young girl that this Scottish Parliament is here today, and we are listening to you. I want to conclude by highlighting once again some of the key points of the bill. The carers bill will enshrine carers rights and law for the first time in Scotland. The bill will ensure that carers will be protected from being charged for the support that they receive, and the Scottish Government will seek to amend the carers bill to enshrine emergency planning and the care plan process. This Government is committed, I am sure, to ensuring that we look after our carers. Even with all the comments that have been made by other members today, let's appreciate their tireless efforts. Let's appreciate carers in all aspects. They are two heroes, and I commend all of them for all the work that they do each and every day. Can I say at the outset that this has been a very interesting and well-informed debate this afternoon? It has been one in which all the pertinent questions have been made in some very well-targeted and, indeed, passionate speeches during the course of the afternoon. There have been quite a lot of calls for change. Often in this chamber, that presages a partisan debate that is going to follow, but I do not get any sense of that at all. It seems to me that the minister himself recognises that this is an important bill that is a work in progress. From the contributions that came from members around the chamber, a bill that I hope the minister will be open beyond the amendments that he has already identified to considering and incorporating some of the additional amendments that I think cases for which we are made powerfully this afternoon. It is interesting that we meet and debate this this afternoon and the same day that the BMA has published its manifesto for Scotland. Right at the start of that, it talks about the challenge of population. I think that that has underpinned one of the key points that Jackie Baillie made in terms of what are we setting in train now and will we have the resource to fund it as the population continues to change. It is clear from the demographic—I think that all of us who debate these matters on health regularly know—that the profile of the population of Scotland has changed dramatically. 100 years ago, it is clear that it was a young country. It is hard to imagine that older people were there by exception, not the role. However, as we look now, we see the enormous increase in the number of elderly. As Jim Hulme said, it is something that we can celebrate, but nonetheless it brings with it challenges for the future. As we look forward, there is an even greater concentration. We have talked before about how we have moved from the experience of care being provided within a family being an exception to being something of which we nearly all now have first-hand experience of. It is going to become more common, not less so as we go forward. Therefore, I thought the point that Johann Lamont made was in saying that a right that is unenforceable and unacceptable was very powerful because we have embarked upon huge and important social legislation in this chamber before, whether it is free transport for the elderly, whether it is free personal care for the elderly, which we are funding, but at a rate that is far greater than anybody had envisaged when we began. Therefore, when we commence these important changes for carers, it is important that we know that we are putting in place the mechanism by which that can be properly and effectively realised not just now, but as we go forward as well. The minister in identifying the various amendments gave quite a technical speech, and Duncan McNeill brought it very much back to the very personal role of carers. In fact, Richard Lyle, I think, ended the debate in exactly the same way. I thought the points that he made in terms of the end-of-life carer assessment, the priority that needed to be attached potentially to that, albeit that I accepted Richard Simpson's more general point as well, the emergency planning arrangements, the welcome that he gave that additional services would not be required unless they were absolutely needed, and the focus that he brought on discharge and admissions, which Richard Simpson gave a stark example of in his contribution to, do remain areas where there is considerable work still to be done. I very much appreciated the contribution of Rhoda Grant, particularly in the area of post-carer support, because I think that the reality is that while we say that with younger carers that we want to ensure that their opportunities aren't in any way compromised by the role they take on as carers which they feel they have to, and I have an experience of this in my own family, the reality is that they are, they are. You simply can't have a young person who is maybe coming out of education, going into further education, who is suddenly brought in to the domestic situation to care on a very concentrated basis for a relative, and for that not to have an impact on the potential opportunities they will have when they become post-carer individuals. I think that it's very important that we do try to find a way of building into our thinking the way in which we give post-carer support to individuals in order that they are able to resume their lives and to make full use and to exploit all the potential opportunity that they have, which may have been set to one side at the time. It's not just good enough to say it, the reality is that it is happening and we have to meet that. I thought Graham Day was interesting when he brought up the example of GP practices identifying potential carers. I know that my colleague Margaret Mitchell wanted me to highlight the practice in one mother well GP where they now have an automatic flagging of carers so that any GP, if a carer presents, is stimulated to ask to check particularly how their own health is. I've already mentioned Johann Lamont's thoughtful speech, which I thought some very well-focused questions, but I particularly felt that she raised an important point in the bureaucracy that underpins the opportunity for people to get minor respite and the desire that there should be to try and offer that on a much more ready basis. Linda Famiani introduced the issue—it was something of a digression but nonetheless an important one—of early-onset dementia. This is something that the Petitions Committee had been dealing with over some considerable period of time. More recently, the cabinet secretary said that she was now looking at proposals that she hopes to bring before Parliament in the new year. I know that we look forward to hearing what those will be. Jackie Baillie, and my goodness, has certainly carried a load for the Labour Party this week. The voice of reason on Tuesday, a partisan turn in good old tribal way yesterday, but today there was very forensic skills in a whole series of issues relating to finance, which I hope that the minister will respond to. Mr Coffey said that he was very confident that he would. He must, like me, have seen the blizzard of communication coming from the clerks down to Mr Hepburn following Ms Baillie's speech, so I am very confident that we are going to get those financial questions answered. We have, I think, got across the chamber a bill for which there is a tremendous amount of goodwill. There are concerns expressed that have to be addressed. I am confident that they probably will be, too, but it is important that, as the bill leaves Parliament and becomes a legal entitlement, the financial underpinning of it is robust and is looking to the future as well as today. Otherwise, we will be looked upon as people who had rather a rostanted spectacle of how those things would operate and did not put in place the provision that would ensure that they were effective as well. Many thanks. I now call on Neil Findlay up to nine minutes, please. Presiding Officer, caring is something that we all do. Even cold stone-hearted politicians have some care within us, at least I hope so when I look around the chamber. We do that whether that is for our children and our friends, our grandparents, neighbours and our mums and dads. We all show that loving affection and perform our duty is, hopefully, members of a civilised society through our friendship, our compassion and care for those who need our help. We see it in our communities and around us every day and every week. That care can be expressed in so many different ways. It might be a simple thing, like dropping in occasionally to check that your neighbour is okay or driving a parent to a day centre or a pensioner's group, providing a daily meal or taking a friend to hospital or doctor's appointments. Those are acts of care that we all do and that we see regularly. For many people, many of our family and friends and neighbours, caring is a commitment that requires much more than that. It requires a dedication that is often full-time. Duncan McNeill eloquently described the consequences of such a level of commitment for those people who perform that role. Several speakers mentioned the numbers of carers involved. It is quite an astronomical figure, with almost 800,000 Scots providing that caring role. I was very pleased that Johann Lamont mentioned young carers. That point that I raised about that young girl in my class at school will live with me for some time. She was clearly a young girl who lacked confidence and was pretty anonymous in the class and sunk into the background. She did not say very much. No wonder she never said very much, because what she was doing at home was taking up all her efforts and not all her energy. The fact that I did not know that as her teacher, I think, was shameful. That showed a breakdown in the system that should have alerted me or any other teacher who went into that class, whether it be for one day or whether it was for the rest of the year. However, those people do not need—I believe that they do not want—our sympathy or our warm words. What they need and want is our support in both deed and in budget. It is estimated that, as many people have said, there is a huge financial value, billions—up to 10 billion—a remarkable figure on the amount of care that is provided. Therefore, we need to invest to ensure that people get a fair deal for all of that and that they get the support that they deserve and the people that they care for deserve. All that comes at a cost to carers themselves. Jim Hume mentioned the effect on people's psychological well-being and problems of mental ill-health, anxiety and lack of confidence and self-esteem. Carers are also more likely to be in debt, more likely to have to leave their job, have reduced hours, all of that because of the pressures of having to juggle a job and caring responsibilities. All of that has a huge strain on their emotional well-being but also on their personal relationships. For those and many other reasons, they require our help and support in the communities that they live in. Given the vital role that they play in our community, any bill to help carers, I think, would be welcomed. However, during the day, there have been some serious questions that must be answered about the substance of the bill and how it will help to improve the daily realities that carers face. As Richard Simpson said, there is a real concern about the lack of regulations that accompany that. Jackie Baillie mentioned many of those points that the minister and his team will have to answer. Of course, everyone will support the proposal for carers plans. It is hardly controversial. Ensuring that there is a support plan that identifies the needs of carers is a good thing. On the passage of the bill, we would like to see that provision implemented without delay, but the support plan and young carers' statement in themselves will only be worth the paper that they are written on if they are followed through with support put in place and fully financed so that the plan becomes a reality. You can write up as many plans as you like and you can stick them in a cupboard, but if it does not mean anything for the people who need our assistance, then it has hardly been worth the effort. Issues around the eligibility criteria, whether that is at a national level or a local level, will be debated through during the process of the bill. Some suggest national criteria, others suggest local criteria. Whatever it is, it has to be effective and it has to allow flexibility to meet local needs, while ensuring that people can get equal access. We agree that plans that incorporate education and training will be at a national level. Bob Doris? It has been a very thoughtful speech on national and local eligibility criteria. I have said that there was a confusion among different people in the carer sector on what they meant by that. When you talked about equal access, I wonder if you are talking about equal access to the trigger for where care support needs must be met by a local authority or whether you went to equality and provision, because there are two very different things, obviously, and equality and provision does not necessarily have that local discretion. Neil Findlay? I think that for the people on the ground, they want to ensure that they have equal access to what they receive. Ultimately, that is what they want. They want an improved service that they receive. Whether that is better done nationally or locally, we can debate that through. Ultimately, it is about what ends up happening in those people's lives that is most important. I am also very positive about the role of advocacy in counselling. Income maximisation is a huge issue, and those are all very relevant to the lives of people who are carers. Much of that should be being provided already, but, of course, it cannot be because things like that cost money. You cannot provide such services on fresh air and crossed fingers in a steeply declining budget in local government. The main concerns are about the financial provisions in the bill, and Rhoda Grant, John Lamont, Jackie Baillie and others raised that. Those new provisions will place additional duties and responsibilities on councils, and assessments just in themselves will cost money and need to be fully funded. It is the additional consequences of any assessment that will add additional funding pressures on councils who are already at breaking point. Councils are not at the bone, they are well through the marrow and almost at the other end. The social care system, social work departments, social workers and support workers are drowning under intense pressure, while year-on-year budget cuts threaten the very services that civilise us as a society. There is good practice going on at Jackson Carlaw, who mentioned some of the good practice in Motherwell. That is all very welcome, but that is despite the system at times not because of it. My own local authority in Westlothain has lost £89 million taken from it in the last six or seven years. It has only a budget of £400 million and it has lost £89 million. How, without fully funded support for the bill and funding to replace what we have already lost, can we provide the services that carers and the care for and the families need? Councils across Scotland are staring at more job losses and more service cuts, so the Scottish Government has to get real about the crisis in local government finance and stop pretending that it will somehow go away and we can give councils more responsibility while we have already given them less money. One vital area that people have mentioned is on in relation to breaks. Again, as the bill goes through, that debate will go on. I want to put on record my support for my local carers organisation, Carers of Westlothain. People have all mentioned theirs. They have just moved into their new premises and they helped thousands of carers across the county. We will, of course, support the bill, but, as it goes through its parliamentary process, it has to be strengthened and the financial issues must be resolved. As Johann Lamont said, a right is not a right if it is not enforceable. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I thank all members for their contribution. I think that it has been a very thoughtful debate. I very much agree with Jackson Carlaw. I think that it has been a very good debate, although I will try to be a little less technical in my summation than I was in my open remarks even in the 10 minutes or so that are available to me. I am unable to be able to respond to every point, so I apologise for that and in advance I will try to respond to as many as I can. Let me say at the outset that this Government's vision is for flourishing, optimistic and innovative Scotland and tackling inequalities and promoting equality of opportunity remain our major challenges. We want a Scotland where people have control of their lives and are empowered to make choices and Scotland's carers have to be involved in that. I am sure that that is a common aspiration for us all. Duncan McNeill in his thoughtful opening remarks made the point, albeit in different words, that caring can be life affirming, but it can also have a negative impact on some carers. Whatever the circumstances, carers should enjoy the same opportunities in life as people without caring responsibilities and should be able to achieve their full potential as citizens. Linda Fabiani gave the example that people who are carers might need to be supported to stay in employment. For example, the bill should work to better support carers maintaining a life alongside caring. Rhoda Grant spoke of the needs of individual carers always being different from another. I very much agree that that is why our approach here has to be person-centred. Rhoda Grant also made the fundamentally important point that carers must have the choice to care. I agree with that point as well. That is why, in any adult carers support plan and young carers statement, as well as identifying a carers personal outcomes and identifying needs information about the extent to which the carers are willing and able to provide care should be in there as well. We have introduced the carers Scotland bill because we want to accelerate the pace of change in building what has already been achieved. As I mentioned in my opening contribution, the carers bill introduced a number of provisions aimed at achieving the vision of supporting carers having a life alongside caring by extending their rights and law. I—briefly, yes— Do Anne Lamont have Ms Lamont's microphone, please? Specifically, on the point about carers having to have a life or being entitled to a life out with their caring role and the point about people falling out of work because of lack of flexibility. Can I ask what discussions you have had with the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work Skills about the role of the fair work convention and whether there has been input on the needs of carers being recognised in any discussion about what work should look like and how people can be supported? No doubt that that convention will absolutely consider the role of carers. I am happy to explore that matter further with ministerial colleagues. The point that I am making here is that each carer is an individual human being and the assessment should be focused on their individual circumstances and on their support to maintain employment. As one of those assesses needs that, it should be contained in their assessment. I welcome the widespread support that is expressed today. I think that it is universal for the bill. A number of members have suggested that they need to change the bill to improve it. I would reflect on the fact that, in my time in this Parliament, I cannot remember a single bill that has ended up the same as when it was introduced. I have already committed to some changes that have, hopefully, demonstrated my willingness to continue to consider and accommodate further changes. Jackson Carlaw picks up my demeanor very correctly. I am open to listening to any amendment that is suggested and, if I agree with him, I think that it is effective that I will support him. Sandra White picked up on the issue of carer involvement and local carer strategies. Carer involvement is throughout the bill. There is a specific duty to take steps to involve carers when preparing and reviewing any local carer strategy. It is also in regulations under the Public Bodies Act. That is an absolutely fundamental point. Some members mentioned a concern about the impact of an increase in demand. I recognise that there are concerns about the increase in demand associated with the widening of the definition of carer joanne Lam in the net mill. However, the increase in demand will be accompanied by a more streamlined assessment process to develop the adult carer support plan, young carer statement and additional resources for local authorities. A company, the Bill Rodegrant, asked that there could be a role for the third sector carer centres and particularly to be involved in the assessment process. I should say that there is nothing in the bill to prevent that approach and we want to see innovation in this area. Duncan McNeill and others raised issues about local eligibility criteria. I should reassert that we will ensure that local eligibility criteria are informed by regulations. There have been national matters that have to steer that local eligibility criteria. I will work with carers organisations to that end in informing those regulations. Duncan McNeill said that if we continue with the approach as we have set out in the bill, the assessment of the efficacy of the approach will be important. Indeed, I think that Neil Findlay made the important point that was key. The key issue is that the approach has to be effective as I set out my response to the health and sport committee arrangements for monitoring and assessing implementation of the bill's provisions, including support provided to carers under local eligibility criteria, will be agreed with COSLA, individual local authorities, the national carers organisations and other key interests. Linda Fabiani and Richard Simpson raised the issue of emergency planning in the future. I agree that emergency planning in the future is very important to carers. That is why I am bringing forward an amendment at stage 2, so that information about emergency planning must be contained within the adult care support planner of the young carers state. I also recognise the importance of future planning, particularly for older carers and Sandra White who spoke about the needs of older carers as important to her contribution today. I intend to bring forward an amendment so that the information advice service must provide information about future planning as well as emergency planning as we move forward, how the information is shared with general practitioners. The point that Richard Simpson made is something that I will carefully consider as well. Johann Lamont raised issues around kinship carers. I should say that the provisions of the bill will apply to kinship carers. Bob Doris made the point about the funding that has been agreed with COSLA and is in place to support parity between kinship and foster carer allowances. Duncan McNeill, Sandra White and Rhoda Grant raised issues about short breaks. I can assure Duncan McNeill that the process for consultation and scrutiny of the regulations that we have put in place will be as important to me, as they will to him. I want us to get this right. Rhoda Grant asks what can constitute a short break. Again, we need to be flexible here. I think that short breaks can constitute a great many things. They can be different things to different people. I agree with the point that the committee made in its report that guidance regarding the provision of short breaks should make clear the importance of ensuring that short breaks are tailored to the needs of the individual carer. Graeme Dain raised the issue of the transition from the caring role when it ends. I know that this is an issue of importance to Mary Curie. I recognise that it can be difficult—even devastating—for an individual when their caring role comes to an end. The bill deliberately focuses on providing access to an adult carer support plan or young carer's statement in order to sustain the caring role. However, I am, of course, aware that some local carer centres continue to support carers after the caring role ends. Graeme Dain and Joanne Lamont spoke of the good work in their areas. In that regard, I will be very happy to explore and guidance on how good practice in this can be shared. Graeme Dain, Jim Hulme and Annette Milm raised the issue of limiting timescales for an adult carer support plan or young carer's statement and issues around why there is no national element. I agree that it is important for carers to have an indication of how long it may take to prepare an adult carer support plan or young carer's statement. That is why I have made provision to require each local authority to set out the intended timescales for preparing such as part of the local carer strategy. Here, because we should look at that further, I am very happy to consider anything that is brought forward at a certain stage. I am conscious that time is running out and that there are substantial financial questions that carers organisations want to answer. I hope that I have answered some of those substantive issues, but I am conscious of time, Ms Baillie and Dull, to get on with it as quickly as I can. Of course, we have moved in relation to the timescales for preparing plans for those who are caring for the terminally ill. We have set that out in response to the stage 1 report. I will not have time to respond to the issues about the named person and discharge, but I am happy to respond further at another time. Let me say on the financial issues, because I think that that is what Ms Baillie was driving at. Let me be clear that the estimates presented in the financial memorandum of the bill were informed by comprehensive information provided from local authorities. Today, taking into account the work of the finance group that I have established, there is no further evidence to suggest that the financial memorandum represents anything other than a robust assessment of the likely cost of the bill's provisions. We will, by the year 2021-22, provide £88 million, including £63 million for direct support to carers. That is a substantial commitment to carers across Scotland, as is the bill, and I commend it to the Parliament. Thank you. That concludes the debate on the Carers Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 12890, in the name of John Swinney and the financial resolution for the Carers Scotland Bill. I call on Jamie Hepburn to move the motion. Question this motion at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary bill motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14731 on committee membership and motion number 14732 on substitution on committees. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time too. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 14702, in the name of Jamie Hepburn. On the Carers Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12890, in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Carers Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14731, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on committee membership, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14732, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on substitution on committees, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.