Felly, mae'r gyrfaedd ydw i yn dweud i ddweud o myd i'r gweithio yng Nghymru, 1, 2, 6, 2, 3 a hynny o John Swinney o'r Gwrth Daft Oedon, Scotland, yng Nghymru, 2015. Felly, i ble i'n gyflaenio, i'n ddweud i'n ddweud i'n cymdeithasol i ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r gweithio Ie, rydw i fy ffloedwch ei meddwlرفid heb o atta protecting in very difficult economic circumstances, and with the approval of this amendment order before us today, this will confirm total funding for this year of 10.8 billion pounds, and with extra money for new responsibilities the total funding for next year will increase to over 10.85 billion pounds. It is worth comparing the 2015-16 position with the comparable position this time of last year. When we debated the 2014 amendment order, the total funding package for 2014-15 was confirmed as £10.6 billion. Taking into account the impact of the capital funding reprofiling, that represents an increase following the allocation of additional monies for new responsibilities, including expansion of early years childcare and free school meals provision, of over £250 million or 2.4 per cent. In return for this degree of protection, I believe that it is only fair and reasonable to ask local government to give specific commitments in return. In setting their budgets for next year, local authorities were asked that, in return for this increased level of funding, they should freeze their council tax levels for an eighth consecutive year and maintain each individual council's teacher numbers at 2014-15 levels, maintain each individual council's teacher pupil ratio again at 2014-15 levels and secure places for all probationer teachers who require one. I am delighted to say that all 32 councils have budgeted to fulfil all of those commitments in 2015-16, including the continuation of the council tax freeze and the education of commitments at 2014-15 levels. On the council tax freeze, the Scottish Government has put into place the resources that are required to freeze the council tax as part of the overall cash settlement of local government, and it has gone beyond that with extra money for new responsibilities. This is a fair settlement at a time of almost zero inflation and when local authorities are expected to achieve annual efficiency savings of 3 per cent per annum, which they are able to retain and to reinvest. We have provided £70 million to recompense councils for freezing their council tax levels under the current financial constraints that are facing the Scottish budgets. I believe that that represents a fair and reasonable settlement. The continuation of the council tax freeze for an eighth year will be particularly welcome news for hard-pressed council tax paying households across the country. On the teacher numbers position, the Scottish Government believed that it was necessary to take action to protect teacher numbers. The publication in December 2014 of the teacher census showed that teacher numbers had not been maintained despite the previous agreement between the Government and local authorities for this to be the case. I accept that the Government's approach was not universally welcomed by all local authorities, but we believe that it was the right thing to do to safeguard the number of teaching posts across Scotland in 2015-16. We have agreed also to provide a further £10 million on top of the £41 million already included in the 2015-16 figures in this amendment order to further support councils in delivering the teachers commitment. The £10 million is not included today, but following confirmation that the teachers commitments have been met, I will add that money to the 2015-16 funding allocations in the main order for 2016. In view of the 2015-16 budget process having been concluded, the amendment order seeks approval to the payment of each local authority's share of the £70 million set aside to compensate councils for the council tax income for gone as a result of the continued council tax freeze. The amendment order is also seeking parliamentary approval for the distribution of over £26 million, which represents the initial 80 per cent allocation of the discretionary housing payments funding for next year. The arrangement of distributing the majority of the funding until such time as more up-to-date information becomes available has been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. By holding back 20 per cent at this stage, that will ensure that the Government's commitment to fully mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax can be achieved. Following my announcement as part of the 2015-16 budget bill stage 3 debate that I intended to invest £11 million to match the poundage cap for business rates south of the border, this has required me to increase the general revenue grant by this £11 million and correspondingly reduce the distributable non-domestic rate income total by the same amount. Those changes are already included in today's amendment order. There is one other small change included in this amendment order, the transfer of £2.254 million for the business gateway marketing project. It was previously paid to Renfrewshire council, who then forwarded it on to COSLA, but following the decision of Renfrewshire council to cease membership of COSLA, the responsibility for administering this sum has transferred to Dundee City Council. Together, those changes will add almost over £107 million to the amount of general revenue grant that we will be distributing to local authorities next year, over and above the sums included in the original 2015 order. As mentioned above, the distributable non-domestic rate income will reduce by £11 million and net overall increase of £96 million. That confirms that the total revenue funding in 2015-16 will be almost £10 billion and the overall total funding, including capital, will be over £10.85 billion. I would like to take this opportunity to make two further adjustments to the 2014-15 revenue funding allocations since the 2015 order was approved on 5 February. The first change is the addition of £6.5 million to support local government's contribution to the early implementation of the developing the young workforce Scotland's youth employment strategy, which rises out of the work of Serene Wood and the Wood Commission. The second very small change will add £90,000 to the City of Edinburgh's council as part of the city's alliance initiative. Those changes add a further £6.6 million to the revenue figures for 2014-15, giving a total of £9.9 billion and an overall total, including capital, of almost £10.8 billion. In summary, the approval of this amendment order will authorise the distribution of a further over £96 million for 2015-16 and a further £6.6 million for this year to local government to support the essential services our local authorities deliver for our communities. The approval of this amendment order today is vital, as the funding included in it has already been taken into account by local authorities in setting their 2015-16 budgets. The loss of more than £100 million in funding would have serious consequences for all local authorities, the communities that they serve, and the people of Scotland who rely on those vital services. The distribution of funding that is set out in this amendment order is essential to enable Scotland's local authorities to implement their approved budgets. On that basis, I move that the Parliament agrees to the local government to finance Scotland's order 2015. Alex Rowley, six minutes maximum, please. Labour will support the motion put forward by the Deputy First Minister. If I could pick up on a few points that the Deputy First Minister talked about, he talked about the teacher numbers and teacher pupil ratio. I think that what was coming across clear at the time when Mr Swinney broke off his negotiations with COSLA was that the majority of local authorities, certainly that I spoke to, were not for reducing the number of teachers that they had, but there are some real difficulties in terms of being able to provide teachers. This morning, for example, I talked to Fife Council. The Fife, when the last teacher number ratio was conducted, Fife was 83 teachers short. That was not because they were not wanting to fund 83 teachers, it was because they were not able to recruit 83 teachers. I raised that with the Deputy First Minister previously. Fife, yesterday, they were advertising for this August closed yesterday, and they were some 20 per cent down on applicants from last year. They have a major problem in terms of recruitment. The education officials that I spoke to in Fife this morning tell me that it is not just a Fife problem, it is a problem increasingly that all 32 Scottish local authorities are actually facing. I would ask the Deputy First Minister to take that point up and have a look at it, because it is fine to say that he is imposing, or he will impose, financial sanctions on authorities that do not meet those numbers, but if they are not able to recruit the teachers, then we certainly will have a problem. In Fife's case, they are talking to the General Teaching Council and they are looking at a major advertising campaign that they are launching for the first time ever. They went out again to recruit, and they have opened up their recruitment to try and recruit. They tell me that there is a major problem in primary school teachers. There is also a major problem in terms of the STEM subjects. They are trying to recruit English and maths, drama, biology and chemistry. There are major issues there. The Scottish Government cannot simply say that it will provide or that it will cut its numbers if the teachers are not coming through. I understand that there are. There is an increase this year in the number of probationary teachers coming through, but I do say that the Scottish Government cannot ignore what I am saying to you today. I would ask an assurance that you take that on board and look at it. In terms of the settlement itself, we are seeing this year again a real terms cash cut in terms of the funding that is going to local government. Mr Swinney says that that is fully funding the council tax freeze. Local authorities would beg to differ and would argue that there is some 10 million short. It should be up to over 80 million that would be going in this year. However, Mr Swinney would say that your own budget is cut by 10 per cent and that that has been passed on. Some authorities are taking substantial cuts. Edinburgh, for example, 20 per cent went through 17 per cent, so some authorities are taking larger cuts than other authorities, and that needs to be recognised. Why else it may, under the present circumstances, seem like a reasonable settlement given where the Governments are? I do not really want to get into an argument that it is or it is not. I think that what has been acknowledged previously is that local authorities will find this year very, very difficult. As they go forward, they find it more difficult because what those settlements fail to take on board is the level of demand that is increasing for services such as health and social care. There is a major demand in those types of services, and as that demand grows, budgets are falling, so local authorities are finding that very difficult. We will see this year cuts in front-line services right across Scotland. I would say that local authorities are finding that very difficult, but under those circumstances, they are working very hard. I think that we need to look at the community planning partnerships and look at how those partnerships are delivered. As we see the demographics tell us that people are living longer, the demand on health and social care services, we also see in local authorities that the number of children being taken into care is actually on the increase, and that is adding massive pressure to the budgets on local authorities. A strategy that looks at the underlying root causes of poverty, and we start to address those issues back, I suppose, to the Christie report. The Christie report was hailed as being the way forward for public services in Scotland. I am not sure to the extent that we have actually delivered on that, and in the brief time that I have got, one other issue that I would like to raise with the Deputy First Minister is that local authorities across Scotland fund the care home services. They buy the places within the care homes. It is an area that I would like to see us focus on in terms of the living wage, what is a care worker worth? In the private sector, the majority of workers are paid the minimum wage, and we need to address that. It is welcome that this amendment order regarding the money to be distributed to local government is before Parliament. As I have said before, it is important that local government finance orders are kept transparent and open to scrutiny, especially when local authorities across Scotland are facing significant financial difficulties. Only this week, the Accounts Commission published its report detailing local authorities' financial positions at present and going forward. In summary, the report makes it very clear that councils are facing unprecedented pressure on their budgets. In this context, the stand-off we have seen over teachers' numbers in the lead to this debate I think has set a worrying present over central government's intervention. The Accounts Commission report, an overview of local government in Scotland 2015 highlighted the serious financial difficulties facing councils across Scotland. It rightly cites a number of reasons for the strain on councils' finances, including demographic trends and the challenge of establishing effective health and social care partnerships. In addition, it has suggested that councils reform so that they provide more responsive and efficient service that suits local needs and is financially sustainable. In the local government finance amendment order, the Scottish Government said that they have consulted with such associations and local authorities that appear to them to be appropriate. I would like to ask what this actually means. What do they call appropriate? What is appropriate? I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will answer that. In addition, it has suggested that councils reform so that they provide a more responsive and efficient service that suits local needs and is financially sustainable. A key pressure point is also highlighted in the burden that is put on councils to deliver national policies. The clear message to be taken from this is that every penny matters to local councils and that they must be allowed the freedom and flexibility to deliver local services in a manner that is sustainable. This message has clearly not been reflected in the Scottish Government's behaviour in the lead up to today's amendment order. It is all very well to say that the full amount of money that is available to councils will be paid out by this amendment order, but this asks how it has come to this so-called agreement. In no uncertain terms, the Scottish Government stated that they would take money away from any council that did not agree to implement their targets on teacher numbers, so councils either had the choice, which is like a hobson choice, of either losing out on millions of valuable funding or surrendering their autonomy. It is not surprising, given their financial difficulties, that all councils felt compelled to agree to the Government's demands. The point here is not about relative merits of higher or lower teacher numbers. I am sure that we all wish to see standards of education improved across the board, but rather about flexibility and economy in local government, which I recall debating in this very chamber only recently. As the Accounts Commission's report highlighted, councils should respond to increasing pressure on their services by adopting flexible, responsible approaches that engage extensively with local communities to determine how best outcomes can be achieved consistently. In other words, central government should not force rigid targets upon them. Rather than being faced with unaffordable demands, councils and their local communities need to be empowered. That takes me to the community empowerment bill. Members will be aware that the bill is at stage 2, and I have been seeking to ensure that it empowers communities realistically. I remain concerned that, as it stands, the bill will empower communities only in name and not really in practice. In the interests of time, I will not go over the changes that I have sought, but I will say that it is crucial for that to be true flexibility at local level, free from central orders. According to the Presiding Officer, I would like to reiterate my conviction that, especially in times of financial difficulty, councils need to have the flexibility to deliver a more responsive and efficient local government, which is the best for both local communities and the sustainability of their finances. Dr Clos, please. Unfortunately, this Government is intervening where it sees fit and does not allow this to happen. Thank you very much. We have now turned to the short open debate. I have two requests to speak. Speeches of four minutes or less would be better. Thank you. Kevin Stewart, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the forthcoming financial year, the Scottish Government will provide councils with a total funding package worth over £10.85 billion. That means that local governments' revenue funding and capital share will be maintained on a like-for-like basis, with additional monies for new responsibilities, including childcare commitments. I do not agree with what the COSLA president had to say about universalism this morning. I do agree with David O'Neill, Labour president of COSLA, when he made the stark contrast with local government in England clear. He said, since 2010, in real terms, English local government has experienced 14 per cent cuts in its budget, whereas in Scotland we have experienced only 3 per cent. Where we have maintained our share of total public sector spend, or even increased it in England, it has gone down by 3 per cent. Sir Merrick Cockrell, the chairman of the LGA in England, said, every year I meet my opposite numbers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and they listen to us in wide-eyed disbelief at the budget cuts that we are enduring, and they are not. In the recent Joseph Rintrey Foundation report on local government funding, they confirmed that Scotland has been protected from the drastic cuts that we have seen in England, and the report also found that the current constitutional set-up limits the extent to which Scotland can follow a completely different path. Previously, in the debates that we have heard on this issue, we have heard the opposition parties call for more money for local government, and they have done so today again in more measured tones, I would have to say, but they always fail to identify where those monies should come from. I would ask the question, do they want to cut the health budget? Do they want to slash support to small businesses at a time when we are trying to grow the economy? Or do they actually want to hit hard-pressed families by raising the council tax that this Government has frozen? I will give way to Mr Rowley. I have certainly not been in here the day banging the drum for more money. Does he recognise that there is a serious issue that we are recruiting teachers in Scotland and that every local authority across Scotland is having to deal with that? Mr Rowley is to be congratulated for his measured tones today, and I think that there is some logic in terms of what he has said. I think that there are some recruitment problems in certain areas, and I think that councils need to take some measures to deal with that. That additional money will help them in terms of recruiting more teachers. In 2014-15, Aberdeen City Council received £327.969 million in revenue funding. That will grow to £337.89 million in 2015-16. The increase of £10.02 million is very welcome, but it will come as no surprise to folk in this chamber that I am about to make the same appeal that I have made whenever we discuss local government finance. I would urge COSLA to undertake a review of the local government funding formula, as I believe that Aberdeen fares badly from a system that was first designed over 40 years ago. If COSLA agrees to undertake that, it may be able to persuade Aberdeen City Council to return to the fold. Finally, Presiding Officer, I would like to put on record my gratitude to the Government for agreeing to the recommendation made by the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to establish the commission on local tax reform. I wish all its members all the best in their endeavours. Presiding Officer, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate about the local government finance order. There is no doubt that local councils are experiencing tough times. They are on the front line of local service delivery and have a huge role in delivering social justice and ensuring that preventative activity that we all value so much is taken forward at community level. However, I am afraid that Kevin Stewart is wrong. That is not a light for light budget. That budget represents a real terms cut to local government and that has been confirmed by Spice today. I remember John Swinney talking about how much local government received from the Scottish Government and their ever-increasing share. It would be fair to say that he made a positive virtue of it. Indeed, in 2010-11, it received 38 per cent of the Scottish Government. Today, it is 32 per cent. That is 6 per cent less and equates to a £1.8 billion cut. He does not crow about it any more. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation in a recent report tells us that local government spending in Scotland has fallen by 24 per cent in real terms. Unison pointed to the significant reductions in the number of public sector employees, some 40,000 less, as evidence of the SNP's cuts. Contrary to what the cabinet secretary has claimed previously, Spice confirms that the local government's share of the budget is down as well. Everyone says that there have been huge cuts, but the cabinet secretary remains in denial. He wrote to council leaders back in 2014—I think that it was October or November—to tell them how challenging things were and how his budget had been cut by 10 per cent by the UK Government and he had to pass that on. Never for a minute did they imagine that the SNP would take the Tory austerity cut from George Osborne and then double it before passing it on to councils. An austerity max is exactly what the SNP has delivered to local government, but it is the consequence of the cuts that I want to focus on now. Just yesterday, another report was published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. They were considering the cost of the cuts on council services and on deprived communities. They looked at four local authorities across the UK and Renfrewshire was the only Scottish authority. Aside from identifying that Renfrewshire had suffered the fourth highest reduction in spending from the SNP Edinburgh Government between 2010 and 2014, they suggested that there was evidence of an east-west bias, with councils in the west suffering a 7.4 per cent spending reduction compared to those in the east having a cut of 4.5 per cent. I hope that that concerns the cabinet secretary. Deprived authorities and deprived communities have been demonstrated to be suffering disproportionately from the cuts and measures to tackle prevention have not come from the Scottish Government but have rather occurred where possible at the council's own initiative. That is a damning indictment on the SNP. It exposes the empty rhetoric about tackling social justice, because what we see are all warm words but no meaningful action, and they are being found out. It is little wonder then that Renfrewshire and others are crying out for resources that will help them to address real need in their communities. Let me come back to an issue that I raised when we debated this in the draft order, and I heard the cabinet secretary today on the same subject, and that is the mitigation of the bedroom tax. I asked Mr Swinney then about the bedroom tax. I hear what he said about holding some of the money back to make sure that it goes to the right areas. Effectively, I think that that is an underspend, but I would be grateful for his confirmation of that. However, on top of that, discretionary housing payments are being reduced by the UK Government. There will be less available for local authorities. He said that he would fully mitigate the bedroom tax, but the budget line has not increased at all. Let me, Presiding Officer, in closing, ask him again. Will he help our most hard-pressed local authorities in some of our most disadvantaged communities to fully mitigate the bedroom tax and to make up the shortfall? On the question of being found out, Jackie Baillie has been found out on two counts. The first is that she has come here and she has bemoaned the funding settlement for local government, but she has gone through a budget process just a few weeks ago in which she asked me to spend all of the available consequentials that the Government had available to her on the health service. She was dissatisfied by the fact that I did not do that, that I took certain decisions that were invested in education, which the last time that I looked was a local authority service, to support attainment in some of the most impoverished areas in our country. What did Jackie Baillie do about that? Jackie Baillie voted against that. That is the first count on which Jackie Baillie shakes her head saying that she did not. Jackie Baillie, I am afraid to tell you that you voted against the budget. The budget included money to tackle attainment in some of the most deprived areas of the country, so that is the first basis on which Jackie Baillie has been found out. The second basis that she has been found out is on some of her supposed like-for-like comparisons. I will go away and look at Jackie Baillie's like-for-like comparisons, but I think that Jackie Baillie's like-for-like comparisons include looking at the budget when the police and fire funding is in the budget and when the police and fire is money is out of the budget. That is not like-for-like, that is apples and pears. That is one of the many weaknesses of Jackie Baillie's approach. Jackie Baillie, let those in glass houses be the first to throw stones, cabinet secretary. I suggest to you that those are the figures from Spice. They do not make the assumptions that you claim. Indeed, it is yourself that continues to count police and fire in the allocations when those allocations no longer exist. Cabinet secretary, we will look at the Spice analysis and we will give a response about what is involved in the Spice analysis. Alec Rowley asked about teacher numbers and about training of teachers. The education secretary is heavily involved in discussions about workforce planning in a tripartite fashion involving the local authorities, the trade unions and the Government. Whatever recommendations have come out of that tripartite discussion, the Government has always followed. I appreciate the issues that Mr Rowley's failure raises on behalf of local authorities and the education secretary will of course engage on all those points. Mr Rowley also raised the issue about whether community planning partners were delivering in the themes of the Christie report. He poses a fair question there. That is where the Government intensifies its work on public service reform to ensure that at local authority level, at community planning partnership level, the reconfiguration of services takes place to include a greater emphasis on preventative interventions. The strategy in my view is absolutely correct. I am pretty sure that Mr Rowley agrees with the strategy and agrees with the Christie report. I think that there is a fair question about whether it has been delivered with intensity. To address Jackie Baillie's point, the Government cannot impose that. That has to be agreed and taken forward at local level within community planning partnership levels. Cameron Buchanan raised a number of points about the Accounts Commission report. I thought that the Accounts Commission report was pretty complementary to local authorities about the way that they managed the financial challenges that they faced. The Accounts Commission came to the conclusion that local authorities had managed the difficult financial situation effectively and encouraged them to continue to do so. I echo those sentiments. The Accounts Commission report also talked about flexibility. One of the greatest elements of flexibility that we have given to local authorities is the removal of ring fencing from £2 billion of local authority expenditure, which was in place when we came to office and has been removed by the Government. It gives local authorities more flexibility to meet their priorities in local areas. I hope that that addresses the issues that Mr Buchanan has raised in the debate, and I encourage the Parliament to support the local government finance amendment order. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on the local government finance Scotland amendment order 2015. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 12624, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on stage 1 of the Mental Health Scotland Bill. I invite those members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I am afraid that I have to advise the chamber that we are incredibly short of time. We have no minutes in hand, and I therefore, as soon as possible, call on Jamie Hepburn to speak to and move the motion. Maximum 13 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very delighted to open this stage 1 debate on the Mental Health Scotland Bill and in doing so. I move the motion in my name that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill. I am very pleased to see that we are debating mental health. For the fourth time this year, this reflects the importance of mental health in the interests that this Parliament has taken. I was very heartened to hear you say that we are short of time. I presume that that indicates that there are a number of members wishing to speak today again. I think that that emphasises the great interests that we have in the subject matter. We have debated much of the work that we are doing to improve mental health and mental health services, both the progress that we have made and the challenges that we face in improving further, and I doubt that we will debate that again. As part of that work, Presiding Officer, I am pleased to be able to briefly update Parliament about the £15 million innovation funding that we announced in the November demand for mental health services increased in recent years. We must ensure that services continue to be effective and of high quality. That additional investment over the next three years will help to drive further improvements to quality and delivery of mental health services so that people get the help that they need where and when they need the £5 million funding. Each of the next three years will comprise four key elements. First, an allocation to NHS boards to be used in partnership with the wider public and third sector support, improved access to children, adolescents and mental health services, and innovative approaches to delivering mental health services and identifying new ways of treating people. Secondly, an allocation to NHS education for Scotland to further develop the quality of children, adolescents and mental health services through training for staff in evidence-based psychological interventions. Thirdly, an invitation to NHS boards and their partners to work with the Scottish Government on developing innovative approaches to working with people in distress. Finally, an invitation to NHS boards and their partners to submit proposals to develop novel approaches to meeting the needs of people with mental health problems in primary care settings. We will soon be writing in more detail to NHS boards and their partners around that funding. I will be happy to update members who are interested further on that if they would like me to do so. Today, we are focusing on a key part of our mental health strategy 1, which looks to strengthen the rights and protections of service users through this legislation that we debate this day. The chief aims of part 1 and 2 of the bill is to amend existing legislation so that it works as effectively as possible for service users. The provisions of the bill seek to address issues raised in the McManus review of 2009 and elsewhere. Part 3 introduces a victim notification scheme for victims of mentally disordered offenders in a way that respects the rights of both victims and of vulnerable offenders. I was very pleased to note from the report that the health and support committee supports the general principles of the bill. I want to thank the finance committee and the delegated powers and law reform committee for their work in considering the bill at stage 1. I am very grateful to the health and support committee for the manner in which they took evidence at this stage of the bill process. They invited a wide range of stakeholders to give evidence and did that in the spirit of drawing out those changes at will. In line with the aims of the bill, best improved the system for service users. The evidence and the committee's report have been invaluable in helping the Government to reflect on whether we have the provisions exactly right, particularly where there is a range of opinions. I look forward to reflecting on the comments of members today before responding to the committee's report in due course. I would now like to speak on some of the key individual provisions contained in the bill. Section 1 seeks to benefit service users by giving them more time to prepare for their first tribunal hearing when a compulsory treatment order is applied for a particular aim is to cut down on repeat hearings that should be distressing for service users. I have noted the concerns expressed to the committee that that change could see service users detained for longer before a tribunal member may have noted the evidence given to the health and support committee by Dr Joe Morrill, president of the mental health tribunal. Dr Morrill is very clear that those proposed changes are for the purpose of supporting service users by allowing more time to prepare for tribunal hearings and to cut down on repeat hearings. I only want to bring in changes that will help service users overall. We must balance the benefits that we are confident will result against the concerns about extending the period of detention before the tribunal hearing. We are applying close thought as to how to best achieve that balance. Are we happy to hear further views on that matter? One area that was raised in the committee's report was the capacity of the mental health officer workforce. I recognise the incredibly important work done by mental health officers and their vital role in safeguarding the rights of service users. As I noted to the committee, the bill does not quite reflect our intention around mental health officers' reports when certain orders are extended, which caused some understandable confusion around potential costings, which was raised by COSLA. We will propose an amendment at stage 2 on that point to clear matters up. The bill would introduce a very small number of duties for mental health officers, most of which are considered best practice already and relate to only a few cases across Scotland. Although mental health officer numbers are ultimately a matter for local authority, I am pleased to have seen an increase in the number of mental health officers receiving training. In addition, the Government has recently undertaken a scoping exercise to gather evidence around the issue. When the report is available, we will identify any appropriate actions alongside stakeholders. The committee noted comments related to changes to suspension of detention. The Government based those provisions closely on the recommendations in the McManus report and agrees with that report, saying that suspension of detention provisions should be flexible to meet patient needs and contain safeguards. Suspension of detention should not be used as an alternative to a less restrictive community-based order, which is why the safeguard of a tribunal hearing is included. The bill updates provisions in the 2003 act around appeals against conditions of excessive security. As I noted, before the committee, the framing of the provisions in the 2003 act no longer reflect the nature of the estate meaning that we were unable to use the existing powers that talk to transfer from hospital to hospital to bring in an appeals process. We intend to introduce regulations to set out the levels at which appeals can be made at an early stage. Turning to the nurses' holding power, we feel that it is useful to clarify that the power is to detain for a maximum of three hours and it can be for the purpose of a medical examination taking place. That is not radically different from the current position of two hours but extendable to three. I am very clear that, as now, we would expect the power to be used in line with the principle of least restriction and guidance will again reflect that. I have listened to the concerns about proposed changes to timescales for appeal on transfer to the state hospital when unwell patients may need longer than four weeks to lodge an appeal. I want to ensure that we strike the right balance with other concerns about the effect of the current timescales. We are carefully considering that matter ahead of stage 2. On the issue of named persons, I have been reflecting whether we have the balance right between ensuring that service users only have a named person. If they want one, I am protecting the most vulnerable. The named person role is very important for many service users and is an important protection at a difficult time. It is vital that we get this right. I will be bringing amendments at stage 2 that seek to strike the right balance. One of the major changes in the bill is the victim notification scheme for certain mentally disordered offenders, which will sit alongside the existing scheme for other offenders. That is in response to an EU directive on the rights of victims, which does not distinguish between the status of offenders. The Government has consistently shown its support to victims of crime. We recognise that those are offenders who are vulnerable themselves, and I will be seeking to ensure that we get the balance right whilst ensuring that the rights of victims to information are fulfilled. That is fundamentally important. The committee acknowledges that the bill is intended as a limited bill designed to make the 2003 act work as effectively as possible. I am aware that there are some long-standing issues that some people would have liked to have seen included in the bill. That includes the issues raised by the Scottish Law Commission on Incapacity and calls to bring in capacity and mental health legislation together. Those are complex issues, but I want to make it clear that I have heard what people have been saying. There have also been some limited calls about persons with learned disability on autistic spectrum disorder and whether they should be included in the scope of the mental health act. I am clear that the bill might not be the best vehicle for those matters. I want to consider those issues further before coming back to Parliament separately from the bill process to update the EU and other members on my thinking. Let me conclude a third of time by reiterating the aim of the amending bill, which is to improve existing legislation to ensure that the system works as effectively as possible for service users, along with introducing a victim notification scheme for mentally disordered offenders. I look forward to hearing members' thoughts on the bill, which I hope that the Parliament will support the general aims into working with members of all parties as we continue to take the bill through Parliament and ensure that we have the most effective system in place for treating mental health disorders across the country. Many thanks, minister. I might allow me to call all members in the open debate. I now call on Duncan McNeill to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee, maximum nine minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. One in four people have a mental health problem, but, as Stephen Fyre said, many more people have a problem with that. I would like to ask members here in this chamber this afternoon, and indeed everyone in the public gallery, to think of a person they know who has a mental health condition. Who is that person, that individual that has popped into your head? Is it a family member? A work colleague? A friend? Or is it you? The reason I asked that question is that we must place at the heart of our consideration of the mental health bill the person with a mental health condition. It is important that we look at the impact of the changes proposed by this bill would have on the individual requiring mental health care. During the health and sport committee scrutiny of this bill, we have been mindful of the importance of the rights of the patient. That needs, of course, as the minister said, to be balanced against the administrative processes in place to deliver mental health treatment. As a committee, broadly, this bill has achieved the right balance. However, there are a number of areas, some of them outlined by the minister that we as a committee believe that there is a need for some further clarification from the Scottish Government. Mr MacNeill, could you turn your microphone slightly more towards you? I am not usually encouraged to keep it quieter here. While we welcome the minister's welcome of our report, he said, it would be remiss not to express our disappointment that the Government's response to our stage 1 report has not been received in time for today's debate. That will mean that I will focus on some of the areas that I have already been mentioned by the minister. I hope that today the minister will be able to offer some assurances and clarification on some of the falling specific points. The first area in the bill that I wish to highlight today is the automatic extension to the continuous period of the tension that was alluded to by the minister. Thinking again about this from the perspective of the patient, there were positive comments, as he said, from the mental health tribunal. The tribunal felt that the provision was about ensuring that patients were ready, prepared to proceed at their first tribunal hearing, thereby reducing the need for people to attend multiple hearings with all the associated problems that that brings. We as a committee recognise that it is important that measures are taken to ensure that tribunals do not exacerbate the circumstances of that stress for patients. However, serious concern was raised about the provision by the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The concern was discussed within the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, the issue being whether there was sufficient and proportionate justification for a blanket extension to apply to all patients. To ensure that this provision is compliant with the right to liberty and security, it is vitally important that the Government assesses the implementation of the provision closely. I therefore ask the minister if he could give us further clarification and respond to that recommendation later. Firstly, the Government would provide a detailed plan of the estimates in relation to the reduction in multiple hearings that could be expected as a result of the provision, secondly, that there is a clear monitoring regime that records the reasons for those delays and rearranges or repeat tribunals, and thirdly, that the Government clarifies how deducting the proposed extension time from continuous period of detention will be calculated. To quote again from the president of the mental health charity mind, one Mr Stephen Frye, if ignorance is bliss, why aren't there many more happy people in the world? Moving on quickly to another aspect of the bill, the provisions relating to placing new duties on mental health officers, again mentioned by the minister, there is concern about the capacity of mental health officers to deliver those duties. There are already under pressure due to increased workload, an ageing workforce and the clear difficulties that we have in attracting new social workers into the role. In Glasgow City Council, for example, the number of mental health officers has fallen from 120 in 2011 to just 94 in 2013. It is important that the provisions relating to the mental health officers can be delivered effectively. I therefore seek from the minister assurances that maybe some of that funding that he has mentioned will find its way to support mental health officers and ensure that the provision is adequate to deliver what the bill proposes. Another area of the bill relating to delivery of services by specific professions is the proposed extension time for nurses to detain a person pending medical examination. Derek Barron of the Royal College of Nursing was very frank in his assessment to the committee of the provision. He believed that there was not any evidence that those changes would have any impact whatsoever. Again, the issue of patient rights and administrative efficiency raised its head with Derek Barron telling the committee, our duty is to protect human rights not to make things easier for our workload. As a committee, we believe that any provision that restricts a service user's liberty must be fully justified by robust evidence. I seek assurances from the minister that this is the case. I also ask the minister what steps can be taken to increase the accuracy and detail of the data recorded on nurse holding powers. There are other aspects of the bill where we, as a committee, believe that there is a need for the Scottish Government to provide further information on the rationale and evidence that has informed its thinking. That includes the proposal to reduce the appeal period for people transferred from one hospital to another from 12 weeks to 28 days. Caroline Roberts of Sam H told the committee, the argument is that the time for appeal delays treatment might be required urgently, but we neither understand nor think that it has any substance. Again, as a committee, we recognise the importance of protecting the patient's rights. I therefore ask the minister to respond to the suggestion that should a transfer take place before the outcome of an appeal has been determined. The place that the patient has come from should be held until the appeal has been decided. It would be good if that could be offered as a guarantee to the patient. I need to jump to the stage and close on your instruction. In conclusion, I ask members not to forget the picture at the start of my speech when I asked you to think of that person with a mental health condition. By holding that individual in your sights during the Parliament's consideration of the bill, we can ensure that the bill is robust and fit for the purpose of mental health legislation. Thank you very much. I am afraid that, even with the minister's generous time back, we still take for time. I call on Dr Richard Simpson. Maximum nine minutes, please. The new funds referred to by the minister are welcome, though I would point out that, proportionately, mental health funding is £75 million a year down in what it was in 2009, so I think that we have some way to make up. However, I welcome the new money, and I hope that some of it will be applied to tier 1 and tier 2 of the calm services to support interventions such as perinatal attachment work and groups such as Place to be in primary schools where there is significant deprivation. I think that that would help to reduce the growing demand on the calm services at tier 3 and 4 and support also some of the 6,000 children whose referrals were rejected by the calm specialist services last year. That, I think, we all agreed is a fairly modest bill from some of the McManus report recommendations, and it does seek to address some of the perceived weaknesses that have arisen in the 2003 mental health act, the criminal procedures act 1995 and the criminal justice act 2003. Given that it is modest, however, can I say from the outset that Scottish label will certainly support the principles at stage 1? However, we do believe, as Duncan McNeill indicated, Presiding Officer, that there is a flaw in the proceedings of this Parliament that makes this debate much less meaningful than it might have been. Had we had the response from the Government to the committee's report, we could have then had a further debate in open Parliament. I know that the rules do not require that at the present time, but I would urge the Presiding Officer and the SPCB to take a close look at this with the Government to see if we cannot make these debates more meaningful, because what we are doing today is often asking questions. The minister has indicated today some movement on some of those issues, but we do not really have time to appreciate that and understand it, so my comments may not be totally pertinent. I apologise, however. Before considering the concerns of the committee and the evident people who gave us evidence, I want to stress that the committee, in taking order and written evidence, perceived that there was a probable need for a wider review of the Mental Health Act 2003, alongside the Adults Within Capacity Act 2000. Issues around human rights, the provisions governing those with learning disability and autism in particular should be examined, but also the complex interaction between the acts with regard to capacity needs to be revisited. Detention is a very serious business, and we have got to make sure that we have got it right, and that we apply the Milan principles of the least restrictive and allow our patients who are suffering from mental illness to go through this procedure as easily and appealingly supported as we can. I also have concerns that some of the McManus report issues are not being addressed. Issues are either not included or not adequately covered. Concerns, for example, regarding the absence of independent advocacy in the bill, and if the minister wants to take a look at this in respect to the cabinet secretary, he might look at the 2002 debates on the Mental Health Act, which I participated in, when Shona Robison said that advocacy should be everyone's right. This bill does not complete what Shona Robison advocated herself for the Parliament at that time. I think that there should be more focus, too, on the bit of the McManus report when groups subject to inequalities, such as asylum seekers, refugees and young people, and the section 25 to 31, which McManus referred to, which deals with the obligations of local authorities to promote recovery and access to other services, including employability and educated. He felt that those should be revisited. There is no indication of this bill of any intention of that sort. Finally, the expansion of mandated treatment to include psychological care for families where appropriate. Those are some of the issues that the bill does not cover. Let us take a quick look at the issues that are covered, and colleagues will deal with those in more detail. The extension on the number of days for a tribunal hearing. The administrative situation is that the number of repeat hearings has been reduced under the current chair, and that is extremely welcome. However, we cannot have a blanket extension, which is purely for administrative purposes. The bill must, I believe—and I will move at stage 2 if the minister does not—that the extension should be either with the application of the individual to whom the matter is concerned, or with the consent of the individual on their named person in respect of not receiving an adequate report that the tribunal could consider and therefore avoid repeat hearings. I would like two qualifications in the bill in order to ensure that the rights of the individual are protected. We do not have a situation where there is simply a blanket extension and, frankly, there is a drift in the number of days in which people have a hearing. The new duties on MHOs, Duncan McNeill has already mentioned, and that is some considerable concern that the workforce planning on that is not really good. Now, we understand the Government's response that COSLA got it wrong in terms of the number of additional reports. I remain to be completely convinced on that, and I would like to see further evidence from the Government in detail in their detailed response. On nurseholding, I recognise what stage 1 evidence I was quite clear because I did get it wrong, but I did accept that it was our fault. In fact, that is exactly what I said. I was not convinced that the figures that COSLA had or the figures that you have given us are either correct, and I would like to see some more evidence on that, and we will perhaps get into that at stage 2. On the nurseholding powers extension to three years, no evidence on that, no evidence on justifying that, and the human rights issue there is important. When the nurses are telling us that they do not think that it should occur, I think that that should be deleted from the bill. On the appeal against transfer, I am really concerned of a reduction from 12 weeks to 28 days for the right of appeal against transfer. One of the justifications is to bring it into line with other appeals. I am sorry that this is an area of such overwhelming importance that I would again like to see some justification for that change other than an administrative nicety. Will the Government comment in its report on making sure that, when there is an appeal or when there is a transfer proposed, until the time limit of the appeal is up, the bed should be kept open in the existing situation so that, if the appeal is upheld, it can go back, because that is not happening. On the name person, my colleague Rhoda Grant will deal with that in some more detail, but we certainly have some considerable concerns on that. On advanced statements, there are concerns from all of us under use of advanced statements, but what evidence from the Government is of work from them to improve the uptake? Those are proposed now to be held by the Medical Mental Welfare Commission, and I think that that is reasonable, but they must be both secure on the one hand and readily accessible 24x7 on the other. There are concerns about advanced statements over their credibility with regard to the implementation. They do not have a general acceptance out there in the community that advanced statements are worth making, and I think that we need more research to understand why that is, and then we need to drive those forward. We also need to look at the concerns about the currency in advanced statements. In other words, they need to be updated, so there should not be just the promotion of them, there should not be people who are required in the boards of local authorities to promote them. I think that I do not have time, and I may give way in summing up, because I am going to sum up at the end. On the question of community leave and our report parer 78, the extension of 100 days, I think that there are issues there again. On the question of detention in the medium secure unit and transfer reduction, that is fine, but what about transfers within a hospital rather than to another hospital? I am not sure that that issue has been properly addressed, and then there is the question of the low secure units, which do not feature at all here. Well, low secure is still secure, it is still a restriction of liberty, and there should be an appeal against that along with the medium secure. On the question of advocacy, I have already mentioned Shona Robison's speech in 2002, and I hope that, in the second stage, the Government will consider reintroducing it. Presiding Officer, I will conclude early, but I will say this. In my summing up, I am also going to refer to the victim section, which I believe is excellent, but I believe that it fails in one major regard. That is the investigation and reporting on homicides and serious assaults perpetrated by a person suffering from mental illness. That is not included in this bill at all, and there is a considerable disparity between the dysfunctional fragmented system in Scotland and the much better system that is occurring in England. I will return to that in my summing up speech. Many thanks, and I will now call in Annette Millan, maximum six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me say at the outset that we support the general principles of this bill, but, like others, we have a number of concerns that she thinks need to be addressed by the Government during the next stages of the parliamentary process. The Health and Sport Committee's stage 1 report indicates several issues raised by witnesses that either require clarification from the minister or amendment to strengthen the legislation. I must say that I found it quite difficult to address those issues in a stage 1 speech without knowing the Government's response to the committee's report ahead of this debate. The 2003 mental health care and treatment Scotland act, which this bill seeks to amend, was a very important piece of legislation, aimed at minimising interference in people's liberty and maximising the involvement of service users in their treatment, giving them the right to express their views about their care and treatment, the right to independent advocacy, the right to submit an advance statement about how they wish to be treated when they become ill, and the right to choose a named person who can act on their behalf when necessary. The bill seeks to build on that by making some changes to current practice and procedures to ensure that people with a mental health problem can access effective treatment in good time. In the limited time available to me, I will focus on some issues within part 1 of the bill and on a few matters of concern that are not included in the proposed amending legislation. New duties placed on mental health officers raised the issue of workload for these specialist social workers in the face of an ageing workforce and difficulty in recruiting and retaining new MHOs. Whilst we accept the minister's explanation of the discrepancy between the policy and financial memoranda and his assurance that the bill's provision will not result in a large increase in the number and costs of reports required from MHOs, we do agree that there should be a strategic review of MHO provision with a view to improving recruitment, training and retention of this very important category of staff. I now want to deal with four key areas highlighted by Sam H and other witnesses, which they consider require amendment. On the right of appeal against excessive security, we agree that there's an urgent need to bring this into force and acknowledge the Government's proposed although belated action to bring regulations forward regarding this. We do see the logic of extending this right of appeal to people in low-secure settings because within those settings there may well be differing levels of security still within low-secure accommodation and I hope the Government will reconsider its stance on that matter. On the bill's provision about named persons, I welcome the minister's comments to the committee that the right balance might not have been struck because the bill as it presents drafted allows a primary carer or nearest relative to be appointed by default if a named person hasn't been appointed, whereas the clear policy intention is that an individual should only have a named person if they choose to have one and I hope that that will be rectified at stage 2. A lot of time was spent during scrutiny of the 2003 bill on the provision of advanced statements to encourage the involvement of service users in their mental health treatment, so it's disturbing that 10 years on from enactment of that legislation, the right to produce such statements is underused and many service users are unaware that they actually have this right. At committee the Government accepted the need to raise awareness of these statements and I very much support the committee's recommendation that the minister should consider placing a duty on health boards and local authorities to promote advanced statements. With regard to a register of those statements, clearly privacy and confidentiality are extremely important and I have some sympathy with Sam H's desire that the mental welfare commission should merely hold information on the fact that a statement exists when it was last updated and where it's kept. However, I also recognise the Government's position that a central depository would allow superior access to them. However, we do need assurance from the minister that the right balance can be achieved between availability and confidentiality. The right of access to advocacy was raised repeatedly with the committee, with widespread concern that the bill is silent on it. Whilst provided for in the 2003 act, access to advocacy is still very patchy across the country and when available services are often explicitly targeted at supporting people who are subject to compulsory proceedings, whereas they could be of benefit throughout the system. There needs to be a proper assessment of those services to establish whether there is in fact a need to increase provision and access to independent advocacy and to ensure that local authorities are delivering their duty to provide appropriate services. Like other committee members, I welcome on-going discussions with the local government that local authority advocacy provision could become part of the care inspectors review programme. Beyond that, I think that we also need information on how assessment of advocacy provision in secure settings on hospitals can be ensured. Finally, I want to deal with the concerns of people with learning disabilities and those on the autistic spectrum who feel strongly that current mental health legislation is inappropriate for them. Steve Robertson of People First made a powerful plea for learning disability to be defined as an intellectual impairment rather than a mental disorder. Other witnesses asked for a wholesale review of mental health and incapacity legislation because of increasing knowledge of neurodevelopmental disorders. This clearly isn't the intention of the current bill and it's important that an open dialogue is maintained between the government, the mental health sector and people with learning disabilities and ASD with a view to future legislation to deal with these issues and meet the needs of the people concerned. There was also a strong case made for more clarity regarding the use of force, covered medication and restraint in the interests of patients and staff bearing in mind the 2003 act underlying principles and human rights standards. To conclude, we will vote for the bill at stage 1. We share the significant concerns expressed by many witnesses and would like to see further consideration given by the Scottish Government to a more comprehensive review of mental health legislation to ensure compliance with human rights and to the development of specific legislation to meet the needs of people with learning difficulties and ASD. We hope for a positive response from the Government to those concerned as the bill progresses. Many thanks for now to the open debate. We are tight for time. Speeches of a maximum of six minutes. Bob Doris to be followed by Margaret MacDougall. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. I start by thanking all the witnesses that gave evidence to my convener, Duncan MacNeill and myself and the Health and Sport Committee, including the Scottish Government. They are open and on-going engagement with us in relation to this mental health bill. We would also make some open comments about how seriously the committee took proceedings when we are talking about restricting people's liberty often against their will in the very sensitive matter of mental health, not just how that affects them but also affects their families and wider society. Indeed, when the section looks at informing of victims of crime, whether mental health disorder has been a part of the mix, we take that very seriously. I have to say that, in relation to mental health more generally, I do not think that it is a matter of whether someone has mental health issues or not. We all have health that we have to nurture and mental health is part of that. We should all take cognisance of that because the grace of God, any one of us could go and have our liberty restricted because of the need for society to protect it and for the rights of those with mental health disorders to be treated, unfortunately, against their will. I think that both the minister and our committee have outlined the main themes that have to be covered and I will just pick up in one or two of them perhaps. I would like me to comment in relation to the named person, and I think that the real issue in relation to that is whether it becomes named person by default. If there is not an obvious named person that the person chooses to become a next-of-kin family member, that does so. That wears some powerful evidence at committee about experiences of people who never chose to be a named person and found out things about their family members that, quite frankly, they never wanted to find out. You have to protect the privacy of the person who is allocated a named person but also the respect and dignity by which family members wish to know their loved ones that might be subject to a mental health disorder. A little bit more thought on that is needed as well. Where a named person is not a family member, we have to make sure that there is still an appropriate communication conduit to the family to let them know what is happening to their loved ones. There is a balance to be struck, and I would ask the minister to reflect on that. In terms of appeal against excessive security, which we have heard, I would like some more information as to why the low-secure setting would not be part of that appeal. A bit more thought to be given whether there are different levels of security within a single institution, some more thought about whether that has to be fleshed out. We have heard some more information about whether or not to go beyond a low-secure setting could be a community disposal order of some description. Some of my concerns might go away in relation to what happens to you if you are putting a level of security by which you do not have the right of appeal. You would then have to wait two years until the next tribunal came forward. Perhaps there is something to be done in relation to how long you will have to wait for a tribunal in relation to having that review. That would be of interest to me as well. A variety of things are important. In terms of advanced statements, one of the key things that we have is that they are good things. How are we seeking to promote the use and extension of advanced statements? In some, each certainly has concerns with us in relation to the privacy arrangements around where those would be stored. I am not sure that I have any issues at all with a central register of them, but I am minded that they spoke about a central register merely signposting where those advanced statements are held. Although I am not necessarily drawn towards that, I think that we should take on board the concerns in relation to privacy that they have drawn to our attention. Another aspect that came up during our evidence sessions was the application for a compulsory treatment order in the extension period from five days to 10 working days. Dr Joe Morrill was content with that, and he believed that it would reduce further the need for multiple hearings. I am fine with that. The caveats would put in, of course, as they would like to make sure that that does not mean that the responsible professionals do not merely work to what they see as an extended deadline and still seek to move as expediently and as quickly as possible to have in the tribunal held in relation to whether there should be a compulsory treatment order. I think that that is important. In terms of whether that is a blanket additional 10 working days that come up during this debate, I think that I have been interested to know whether or not currently professionals work to the maximum deadlines, because if there is an extension of five days currently, we are extending that to 10 days, and it is not currently a blanket uniform operation, then it would be if we extended it to 10 days either. I think that I note a caution in how we decide to proceed with that. I actually thought that the error in relation to additional cases for mental health officers worked out to be quite helpful for the committee, because we are now clear about what the additional pressures will be in mental health officers, and for the sake of time, I would not read out specifically what those are, but it is much narrower than the first thought. However, it gave rise to a positive scoping exercise in relation to let's map out all the pressures and requirements on mental health officers currently to make sure that local authorities in partnership with the Scottish Government and the NHS get the workforce and the workload planning right on that. I am delighted that the minister appears to be responding to those concerns, and I look forward to amending that constructively at stage 2. Thank you. I am afraid that members cannot go over their time. Margaret McDougalds will be followed by George Adam. Mental health problems are issues that can affect any one of us. They are not constrained by class, education or financial status, yet it is an issue that is often overlooked or misunderstood. Looking at the most recent Scottish social attitudes survey, we see that 26 per cent of people said that they had experienced a mental health problem at some point in their life. 47 per cent said that they would not want others knowing if they ran into difficulties, while 17 per cent said that they would not want to talk to anyone about it. From those statistics, it is clear that, in Scotland, there is still stigma attached to mental health issues. If we are to overcome that, we need to make sure that people feel comfortable talking about it and that they get the care and support that they need. In North Ayrshire, the area that I represent in 2013, 13 males committed suicide compared to three females. Although, sadly, those figures are lower than some areas, in my view, one death from suicide is one too many. Those figures also highlight the need to tackle the stigma around mental health and ensure that people are able to talk about their mental health as they would about any other health issue and that they can get support. It is no surprise that suicide is higher among men, given that they are less likely to open up about their feelings, never mind admitting that they have a mental health issue. It is vital that we in this Parliament get our legislation right by making sure that it focuses on the individual and is strongly based on a human rights centric approach, an approach that banishes the stigma and makes sure that those experiencing issues feel comfortable coming forward. With that in mind, while I agree with the general principles of the mental health care and treatment Scotland Bill, I have a few reservations about it at this stage, some of which I will raise today. First, the changes that are being proposed to timescales in relation to the right to appeal and detention could be seen as stripping away the rights of the individual. For example, the Scottish Mental Health Association states that the current plan to reduce the right to appeal against transfer to a state hospital from 12 weeks to 28 days is excessive. That sentiment is echoed by the Mental Welfare Commission. While I understand the reasoning is to ensure that patients can access treatment quickly, a reduction from 12 weeks to 28 days is not acceptable for someone with a mental health condition. Also, increasing short-term detention certificates from five working days to ten working days was, according to the Mental Welfare Commission, designed to tackle an issue that has since been resolved through administration improvements to the mental health tribunal, and that, if that change was passed, it could mean that a person could be detained for six weeks before there is judicial scrutiny, which is completely unacceptable. The act also has a range of privacy concerns, specifically the current legislation on named persons and advanced statements. On the issue of named person, if no named person has been appointed by the patient, then one is automatically appointed, such as a primary carer or nearest relative. That could prove problematic if the patient does not get on with that appointed named person. As that named person would receive substantial information and have rights to participate in hearings. I welcome that the minister has indicated that this issue will be revisited and I look forward to seeing the amendments at stage 2. On advanced statements, I think that they are a good idea and their use and availability should be promoted, so more people are aware that this option exists. I ask the minister today what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that advanced statements are promoted. However, my concern, which is shared by Sam H, is that currently a full advanced statement would have to be shared with the Mental Welfare Commission. Given that this includes highly personal information relating to the patient's mental health, there are serious privacy concerns about keeping copies of the document in full. Breaches in personal information can occur and mistakes happen, no matter how careful you are, and it would be devastating if advanced statements were released in full, given the stigma that is already attached to mental health issues. With that in mind, I urge the Scottish Government to consider Sam H's suggestion that the commission's register should simply note that a person has made an advanced statement, the date last updated and where it is kept. As we have heard today, there are numerous other issues with the act in its current forum, and I sincerely hope that it will be addressed as the bill progresses through Parliament. I am no longer a member of the Health and Sport Committee, but I retain an interest in that as an on-going issue, because many of us, from a professional perspective and from a private perspective, as Duncan McNeill has already mentioned, will know those one-in-four people in Scotland who will experience a mental health problem this year. That is one-in-four people, so it is mathematically impossible for us not to interact with some of those individuals as well. That is why it is so important that, when you look at the Mental Health Scotland act, we have to ensure that people with mental health disorder are able to access effective treatment quickly and easily. As politicians, we often talk about the stigma, and it has been mentioned a few times here today already, with regard to mental health. We often talk about how we need to find a way to ensure that our communities are aware that there is a stigma. We talk about it and we are sure that we have a situation where, as my colleague Bob Doris has already said, physical health and mental health are the same, where they are either physically fit or mentally fit. We have to ensure that we look at it that way, because otherwise we have a situation in which we will still continue with the stigma. We have to wonder what it is like to deal with mental health issues here in Scotland in 2015, because one of the most important things, in my mind, would be the support mechanisms that are available to people with mental health issues. That has got to be very important. Today, I spoke to Stephen McClellan, the CEO of Recovery Across Mental Health, Rammage, who is based in Paisley. He said to me today that many of his clients have difficulty with isolation and loneliness. They lose touch with their family and friends and their support mechanism there. They, as an organisation, have to come in and try to make sure that they replace that and give those people that support. Stephen McClellan calls it social poverty. Effectively, socially, they end up at home, they are sitting in the house and his exact words were quite brutal, but I think he probably explains that. He says, Presiding Officer, that how can you get someone better mentally to be mentally healthy if their only contact with the outside world is the Jeremy Kyle show in television, because they have isolated themselves effectively from the world. That is quite powerful, and it is quite brutal in what he is saying. However, if we look at it from that point of view, we have to make sure that we get out to those people to ensure that they have that interaction. It is a basic humanity, a basic need that people need to make that difference in order for them to be able to get better. Rammage and Paisley have offered that type of service for 25 years. They are the guidelines to make sure that people with mental ill health are able to build independent, fulfilled lives. They say that the earlier they can get to the right services to the people who need them, the more likely they are to recover quickly, and they say that they need to be able to respond to the demand and grow and develop their services. Much of that is reflected in the bill and in today's debate in particular. However, Rammage has talked about six ways that it can do this, which is by providing immediate support in crisis situations, by supporting people in their homes and individualised care, by providing drop-in centres in their community and by providing counselling to young people in their schools, and by effectively getting over the stigma idea and by supporting carers, families and friends through education and by raising awareness and misconceptions about mental health. Those are all extremely important when we are dealing with the issue, because, as I have said, the overarching aims of the bill is to ensure that people with mental health disorders are able to access effective treatment quickly and easily. It is welcomed that the bill will provide an improved legislation system to help to treat and care for people with mental health disorders, but that has to remove unnecessary procedures and make existing processes more effective and efficient for health professionals and, more importantly, for the patients themselves. I take on board what many of the committee members have already said with regard to the central register. However, I think that the central register of advanced statements will improve the control that individuals have over how they wish to be treated or not treated should they become unwell and unable to make decisions for themselves. I think that that was an issue that was brought up by my colleague Bob Doris. However, the advanced statements or documents were mentally ill patients record how they want to be treated in the event of them losing the capacity to make their own decisions. I think that that is something that we have to ensure that we remember, because we are talking about the individual, we are talking about the person themselves, that what we can do to make them effectively able to be part of society again as well. One of the other things that the minister mentioned earlier on was the £15 million that will be invested in mental health services over the next three years. That is welcomed, as has been mentioned by other members in the chamber. It has to be made sure that it gets to right people in the right places at the right time in order to ensure that we can get to the individuals who really need it at that stage, because the Public Health Minister Michael Matheson at the time when he announced a new funding said that this was to make sure that we could get there quickly to offer the support when needing that. That is one of the things that I have probably gone on at length, Presiding Officer. However, I would just like to close with saying that health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity. That is what the World Health Organization says. I think that we need to keep that in mind when we are discussing the issue. Remember the individual who is dealing with it on a day-to-day basis. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Lib Dem has welcomed the general principles of the bill, but I believe that it should adopt a patient-centred approach to keep with the Milan principles mentioned of minimising interference in people's liberty and maximising the involvement of service users. Of course, there are some concerns. The Mental Welfare Commission and SAMH spoke in their evidence to the committee about administrative efficiency being giving more weight over the rights of patients. We agree that red tape should be reduced, but we need to keep in mind that the bill must have its focus on patients' rights. There are concerns from professionals about the increasing role and duties that mental health officers have to undertake while running on overstretch resources and reduced workforce numbers. MHOs are vital for the patients and, of course, the NHS in general. The bill could make the job even more difficult. I have heard what other members have said in terms of some of the provisions of the bill in respect of additional burden on mental health. The Mental Welfare Commission has confirmed that, from November 2013 to November 2014, there have only been another 11 occasions that reports have been required. It hardly seems excessive burden. You must realise, according to SAMH, that two thirds of local authorities report a shortfall of MHO resources. There are only 57 MHO trainees, down from 108 in 2008, and one in three MHOs are aged 55 or older, so there are some concerns there. The Government has, of course, just cut funding for the mental health officer annual study forum and the mental health officer newsletter. That forum was identified by the Scottish Association of Social Workers as providing crucial MHO training development and updates on tribunals. The Government said that this cut was to prioritise resources on implementing the mental health bill over the next two years, but it is done so at the expense of some of the same people that are needed to implement the bill. A concern that was echoed across many expert views is the right of those kept in secure hospitals to appeal. The Government has an obligation to introduce regulations for the purposes of those provisions. We have not received those regulations and they are essential, I believe, in creating a fair system of appeals for patients. As a quote from the member random, there is a present no provision for an appeal against levels of excessive security for patients other than patients that are detained within the state hospital. That is a quote from the Government on its policy memorandum. SAMH supports the point that appeals should include high, medium and low-secure hospitals, and appeals against low-secure accommodation are not necessarily appeals against the tension or a move into the community. We support the principle of applying the least restrictive alternative measures to the care of the users. I think that the Government should also consider its position on the reduced appeals time that we have heard about for hospital transfers to a third of the original time, the 12 weeks down to the 28 days, the extension period of nurse holding powers by an extra hour and the impact that those two have on the overall safeguarding of patients' rights and treatment with respect and care for those patients. Royal College of Nurses, RCN, stated that such provision has no evidence and, in a quote, our duty is to protect their human rights, the patient's human rights, not make things easier for our workload. SAMH is also concerned regarding reduction in appeal time that, in their words, appears to be a substantial reduction in rights without proper justification. There are some serious concerns out there, not necessarily just from members of the opposition parties but from people who are involved in DATY Day. The Royal College of Psychiatrists and SAMH have concerns about the broad scope of access to patient info. Advanced statements are critical in engaging the rights and wishes of the patients and truly have to reflect the patient's rights. I believe that it is crucial that the use of advanced statements is increased, but experts have pointed out such as SAMH, for example. As they have said, that is absolutely crucial. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that SAMH has concerns about the broad scope of access to patient info. Advanced statements are critical in engaging the rights and wishes of the patients and truly must reflect the patients' rights. It is crucial that the use of advanced statements is increased. I must tighten the scope of people who have access to such personal information. In closing, Lib Dem supports the direction of the bill at least at stage 1. It is a step towards better treatment in the new mental health strategy, but we must also keep in mind the wider reasons that progress has to be made in the protection of patients' rights. As the bill progresses, I look to the minister and ministers for assurances regarding the concerns that I have raised, as well as provisions for wider education, training of awareness of the patient's rights, independent advocacy and building structures for monitoring compliance. As I said, Lib Dem shall support the bill at this stage, but we will look for assurances as the bill goes through stage 2 and stage 3. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate at stage 1 on the bill, although I am not a member of the committee. However, as the minister has indicated, the aim of the bill is to ensure that people with a mental health disorder are able to access effective treatment quickly and easily. He has also stated in his opening remarks that this is not a bill that deals with all aspects of mental health. As Duncan McNeill indicated in his opening remarks, however, one in four people experience a mental health problem in any given year, which gives us an indication of the importance of effective treatment. The bill, of course, follows on from the 2003 act and also from the McManus review. The very nature of mental health problems and their complexity create extremely difficult circumstances for patients and families, especially when it is someone who is detained due to compulsory treatment order. In my view, it is right and proper that, before such orders are made or extended, the adequate time is made available for representations and advice to be obtained. Accordingly, in my view, the provision to increase the time that a period of detention is automatically extended beyond the date at which short-term detention certificates would otherwise expire from five to ten working days seems a sensible proposal. The risk of a longer period of pre-detention, I hope, is more of a theoretical than practical issue, and I hope that Joe Morro's comments can be accepted. As a member of the Faculty of Advocates, I am happy to endorse the views of my namesake, No Relation, Kenneth Campbell QC, not only on the question of a blanket extension, but his comments on the whole aim of involving the tribunal in procedure to ensure, as far as possible, that patients' convention rights are properly addressed. Indeed, I note that the Law Society, while they were not in favour of a blanket ban, did so largely on the basis of arguing that they did not see any particular benefit to it. I understand and agree with the committee's view, however, on the need for clarity on the issue of how deducting the proposed extension of time impacts on the continuous period of detention. In relation to orders regarding levels of security, the fundamental Milan principle of least restriction ought to be a key feature of any mental health strategy, and the clear need to be appropriate opportunities to appeal against orders detaining people in conditions of excessive security. Nevertheless, I share the minister's comments on the question of low-security settings, whilst noting the committee's comments on that aspect. As for time for appeal in relation to transfers from one hospital to another, or to the state hospital, the reduction in the appeal period from 12 weeks to 28 days is clearly very substantial. I understand the difficulties that such a long period causes at the present time as indicated in the policy memorandum, and I clearly believe that getting an appropriate timescale for an appeal is not an easy task. I know that many stakeholders think that this change is too radical, and I think that it probably does merit some further consideration, or certainly justification, as to the extent of that reduction. Certainly, I share the view, however, of others, that any transfer that does take place should not impact or prejudice a right to remain in the original hospital. Felly, the importance of named persons must not be underestimated. The right of people in such vulnerable circumstances to have the right to choose someone to fulfil this role is fundamental, but as the Scottish Government already recognised, this should be subject to an opt-out provision. The question is how to make those opt-out provisions effective, and, accordingly, I welcome the commitment to look further at those proposals. I agree with the committee, however, that the right to nominate a named person should be restricted to those over 16. Those under 16 remain a particularly vulnerable section of the population, and certainly require protection. Even though I accept them, there may well be many under 16 with the maturity to make that choice. I also accept that there are other areas of Scots law where people under 16 can enter into certain arrangements on the basis of the acceptance of their maturity and understanding of the situation. Obviously, there are arguments about that. As to advanced statements in the words of Dr Gil Stavart of Edinburgh's Napier University, advanced statements are an important form of supported decision making. Does appear that these are currently not used to quite the level originally anticipated and that there is a requirement for further increased awareness and training on their use. The committee seeks to promote them by considering placing a statutory duty on health boards and local authorities to promote them. There is, of course, a difference between encouragement and requirement, and I would certainly favour a lighter touch. As for care for children under the age of one, the right of a mother who is a patient to care for a child provided she does not endanger it allows an essential level of normality for her and the child at a very important stage of development. To remove the maternal right would create an intolerable level of stress for a mother who is already suffering from a mental health problem. Therefore, I welcome the proposal to extend this right from the current provision whereby it only applies to mothers suffering from postnatal depression to other conditions. Cross-border transfers and absconding patients, I must admit that I looked briefly at this in the draft legislation. I think that it is quite complex. All I would say is that I think that patients' rights should be a priority in that setting. As far as victim and goatee notification provisions are concerned, we have obviously recently extended those provisions in relation to offenders leaving prison. It certainly seems to me that a victim notification scheme in relation to victims of mentally disordered offenders seems appropriate. It is right that victims should be fully recognised, but, as with other offenders, it ought surely to apply to the more serious situations. I am also slightly concerned as to how exceptional circumstances could be defined that would justify its applying to compulsion and restriction orders, and, certainly, clarification on that would be helpful. As to independent advocacy, there is, I know, concern in many parts of Scotland about the operation of the existing provisions. I certainly believe that requiring the care inspector to assess the existing provision by local authorities would be a sensible first step. Any strategy must be rights-based, and, as the Mental Welfare Commission suggests, have a strong focus on prevention. Like physical health, prevention is certainly better than cure. Many thanks, and I now call on Rhoda Grant to be followed by Linda Fabiani up to six minutes. As Richard Simpson said, I want to concentrate on the person's name, and I welcome the minister's statement that he is keen to strike the right balance of that. However, we do not have any detail of what he is looking for, so I want to make some comments around this area, and, hopefully, they will be taken into account while he reassesses the bill. Currently, as many other speakers have said, a patient can appoint a person to act on their behalf. If they have not the capacity to do so, and have not done it previously, their next-of-kin takes on that role. That person becomes the patient's advocate, representing them at hearings, having a duty of care for that patient, taking decisions indeed about their treatment, and they have full access to a patient's records to allow them to carry out that role on behalf of the patient. We hear in committee of huge swathes of paperwork dropping on people's door mats, which they are supposed to read, understand and act upon in the best interests of the patients. It's an extremely difficult job, and sometimes, with that paperwork arriving, it's the first knowledge that they have been given this role. Some patients would prefer not to have a name person because there's no one they would trust with this extremely personal information. The bill allows them to notify that they do not wish to have a name person, and that is a step in the right direction. However, if they're not nominated a name person and have not indicated that they don't wish a name person, the position reverts to that that was previously in place, that their next-of-kin automatically takes on that role in future. We've heard evidence from both patients' organisations and indeed carers' organisations that this should not be the case when a person has not been nominated as a name person, one should not be appointed on their behalf. That is because it's reasonably common that the trigger for somebody's mental health problems is that something could have happened due to close family circumstances or problems. For example, if someone was abused by a parent, then that same parent would have access to all the discussions surrounding that abuse in their case notes. If they were abused by another family member, for instance, then their next-of-kin would learn of this, sometimes for the very first time when being appointed as a name person by the state. And this can't be right. It destroys family relationships. It breaches a patient's confidentiality. It also means that a patient might not disclose information to professionals in fear that this might then be divulged in future to their family members. Carers also stated that they should be allowed to say whether or not they were willing to be a name person. Next-of-kin has that role foisted on them by the state but are not able and maybe not be able or prepared to take it on. They can live long distances away or indeed have fallen totally out of contact with the patient. It simply may be that they are not fit themselves or have the ability to carry out such a complex role. They are keen that they are not the default name person and they also wish to be able to decline the appointment if they were appointed as a name person by the patient themselves. They need to be able to say whether or not they are willing to take on that role and therefore believe that there should be no default situation and that the name person should have the ability to decline this role. It brings us to the question of who can speak for the patient if they cannot speak themselves and they need access to advocacy and an advocate appointed to look after their interests. Carers also have a role to be heard at a tribunal and have their input heard and listened to by medical staff. They can also give an insight into the patient's health, wishes and the like. However, they should not have any access to the patient's records because that is an abusive privacy. Carers have told me previously that they receive very little information and support from clinicians. Their loved one often comes home with no information about how they should best be supported. Suicide risk is at its highest when someone is discharged from hospital. Carers need to know what they should be doing to support their loved ones and to ensure their wellbeing. It is normal if they are discharged with a physical illness to come home with a sheaf of leaflets that tell you what to do or not to. Indeed, that same information is available to carers. We surely should have the same standard for people suffering from mental health issues. There are a number of other things that I wanted to touch on very briefly. Advanced statements, for example, are a good thing but too complex. I should also have some more information about the patient when they are well, their tastes and their likes to help with their recovery. Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I believe that we should support the bill at stage 1 and improve it at stage 2. We need to ensure that care and treatment is patient-centred and that we do all that we can to promote autonomy at a difficult time in patients' lives. If we do that, we will promote recovery. Any thanks. I now call on Linda Fabiani to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I state first and foremost that I am not in the health committee. I have a particular interest in mental health issues, but even though this is a fairly small bill and it is an amending bill going on from the 2003 act, I have to say that there is a lot in there. Different speakers this afternoon with far more knowledge than I have have spoken of many of the different aspects of this bill, but I did take time to read the health committee's report, which I found extremely useful and that there is a lot of food for thought in there. I understand now that the health and sport committee found the public response that they had to the proposals generally positive and that, although the committee overall is supporting the general principles of the bill and recommending it to Parliament, they did note that the bill could, in fact, be strengthened and or amended in terms of protecting the rights of patients whilst ensuring that they are able to access effective treatment quickly and easily. It was really interesting to hear everything said. I can't remember who made this point, to be honest, was the fact that some of the emphasis in the bill was about having more effective treatment more quickly and more easily, but that the emphasis of it might, in fact, be towards the service provider rather than to the patient themselves. I think that, if there is any, even perception of that, that perhaps those particular clauses should be looked at again, because central to anything that we are doing here should be the patient themselves and how we can make things better. I did yesterday, along with John Pentland, that Labour colleague attended the spring members' meeting of Lanarkshire Lynx in Strathclyde Park. Lanarkshire Lynx is a very active service, user and carer organisation with an involvement in mental health. We had representatives from the health board and from both Lanarkshire councils as well as the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. It was primarily to talk about health and social care integration, that is obviously starting as the shadow exercise very soon and then moving further next year. One of the things that came forward very strongly at that meeting was that people felt that there was a great deal of difference between consultation and actual participation. That, although it could be said that people were consulted very often, they felt as if they hadn't been able to participate. I would say that one of the things that's very particular to mental health issues is the right and indeed the need for people who are affected and who are using services to be able to participate in the formation of these services. I would like some level of assurance from the minister that, whilst we say that there were a great many consultees, that there was a real level of participation in how we made move forward. One thing that's coming through very strongly to me, both from the committee report, from speaking to different people and from what colleagues here with more knowledge than I have of this bill today have been saying, is that the right of access to advocacy does not seem to be as strong as it could be. It certainly hasn't been in terms of what the intention was from the 2003 act. I think that this is an opportunity where we can make that much more effective. I would like to think that we really are taking that opportunity. Advocacy is an issue generally, of course, covering issues way beyond the scope of this bill, but in terms of someone's treatment, in terms of the issues that we're talking about, about named persons, et cetera, in relation to this bill, I think that independent and trustworthy advocacy is extremely important. So, again, I think that some assurances on that would be very, very useful. Another thing that I would like to mention, although there's not much time to go into this, but I was very struck by the section in the Health and Sport Committee's report on page 31, set starting with clause 213, about review of legislation for those with learning disabilities, artistic spectrum disorders. I think that that is an issue that it is now time to look at much more closely and in much more depth. I certainly don't have the background knowledge, nor, indeed, have I been able to do enough learning of late to have definitive opinions on this myself. But I think that the concerns that have been expressed through committee and, indeed, the acknowledgement that the minister gave to the committee about the need for on-going dialogue would suggest that we have to take this very, very seriously, indeed. My final point, Presiding Officer, would be that I note that the committee noted that there was no equality impact assessment made or produced to accompany this bill, and, like the committee, I would appreciate some clarification from the Government as to why that was not produced. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, and I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Sandra White. Officer, I'm very pleased to be speaking on this bill today, which is, for the most part, a series of amendments to the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act, which was passed, of course, exactly 12 years ago to the month at the very end of the first four-year session of the Scottish Parliament. It was certainly the longest bill of that session, and I think that it's generally recognised to have been one of the most significant and ground-making set up a new mental health tribunal, strengthened the Mental Welfare Commission, created a new community treatment order, established a right to independent advocacy, as well as name persons advance statements, and a great deal more. Crucially, it had novel provisions to ensure the protection of mentally ill people, and everything was governed by a set of principles, including the principle of the least restrictive manner and environment compatible with the delivery of safe and effective care. That leads me to the first point that I want to make about section 11 and 12 of the bill, which is to do with appeals against the level of security. Of course, I don't know if there's a second example, but it's the only one I can think of where an act of this Parliament actually ended up in the Supreme Court. If there's one person that we have to, I was going to say, blame, I don't think it's blame, we need to blame the two Governments who didn't implement the regulations that Mary Scanlon demanded in an amendment in March 2003, when she said regulations had to be laid by 2006 and they never were laid by my Government or the Government, which took over in 2007. Now, the Supreme Court judgment, I give way to Jim Hepburn. I thank Malcolm Chisholm for his point. Would he recognise, though, that the bill, as was originally, or the act, as it is framed, doesn't reflect the reality now, so it wouldn't have been possible to bring forward those regulations? That's why we need to make this change to the bill now, to the act. Well, they could certainly have been brought forward. Well, I don't actually agree with that. The fact of the matter is that the court judgment is interesting, and I'm moving on to the other interesting thing about the court judgment, of course, which is that the person who brought the judgment was in low security, and yet the bill is saying, we can only appeal if you're in medium security. And the law society says that's restrictive and discriminatory, and SAMH and many other organisations agree with that. It was clear in the 19 2003 act that it was a right for patients detained in hospitals other than the state hospital. There was also, of course, a right for those at the state hospital. There was no mention of medium security or an intention is important. I also note that the mental welfare committee consultation on the bill had, as one of its conclusion, that those in low-secure settings should also have the right to appeal. So I hope that the Government will change that at stage 2 or 3, and also, crucially, tell us when the regulations will be introduced, because we don't have to want to wait 10 years as we have to wait for the regulations from the previous act. Now, the concerns about changes to timescale have been referred to by many speakers, so I won't spend much time on those, except to say that all four of them are very well described in the mental welfare commission briefing for us on this debate. And the mental welfare commission is an organisation that ministers and MSPs should always pay very close attention to. So they are concerned about all the ones that have been mentioned, the appeal against in order to transfer to the state hospital, which is being reduced from 12 weeks to 28 days, an extension of short-term detention, pending determination of a CTO application, which is going up from 5 to 10 days, the current power of nurses to detain, which is going up from 2 to 3 hours against the wishes of the RCN and other nurses, and also perhaps which hasn't been mentioned the 28 days in hospital for a mental health assessment in criminal cases and a 14-day extension to that. So the mental welfare commission are concerned about all of those, and I think that the Government should pay heed. They should also always pay heed to the Scud's Association of Mental Health, who have not just late-raised concerns about the timescales and the level of security issue, but have also late-raised concerns about the named person. The McManus review recommended that the default named person be abolished, so let's abolish it. The SAMH are also concerned about the mental welfare commission holding advanced statements with great details about individual circumstances. They feel that's a breach of privacy, and I think that we should follow their advice on that. Everyone, of course, is saying that we should be doing far more to promote advanced statements, so I would support a duty on the NHS and local authorities to do that. We haven't heard too much about the victim notification scheme. I think that it's better now than it was in the consultation document, but I think that it would be helpful to have a clear statement regarding minor offences committed by individuals with a mental disorder not being included in the victim notification scheme. In other words, levels of offences that would not be in the notification scheme if you didn't have a mental disorder. There needs to be an equality here between the level of offences that we're talking about. And people are concerned about section 48 where the Government could introduce regulations to include those who are only on a compulsion order. So I think that that is a concern for some people still, many people, I think. So one minute left what's omitted. We need more on the local authority obligation in sections 25 to 27 of the bill. But most of all, the MacManus report highlighted a number of issues regarding the access to independent advocacy, including the appropriate level of provision, sorry, adherence to the Scottish independent advocacy alliance, good practice guidance, collective advocacy and advocacy for carers. But there is nothing in the bill whatsoever. Section 259 of the 2003 act gave a right to every person with a mental disability to have access to independent advocacy. Many areas are only applying that right to those subject to compulsory measures, which is a misreading of the 2003 act. So we must have a strength and duty on the NHS and local authorities to ensure the availability of independent advocacy. Many thanks, many, many thanks. And now Colin Sander White to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Like others here, I'm not a member of the health committee, but I have been following this piece of legislation very closely. As other members have mentioned, you just have to look constituent, family, whatever. Someone knows someone who suffers from a mental health illness. And if there's anything we can do to improve not just their lives but their carers and others' lives, I think it's incumbent on us as a Parliament to absolutely do that. And that's why I say that I think this is a very important piece of legislation. Which has already been mentioned that seeks to improve the mental health act in Scotland 2003 and carry out the recommendations of the McManus review which was set up in 2008 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act 2003. Now, come back to that. And I note that Malcolm Chishol had picked up on that particular part as well. And I want to come back to that particular issue later on. I do believe that improvements and this will improve the operation and efficiency of the legislation for both users and practitioners also. Presiding Officer, mental health illness is one of the greatest challenges we face in Scotland. Indeed, depression is a leading chronic condition in Europe with 400 million people suffering globally and with women more likely to be affected by this than men. And I do want to thank the Scottish Government both present and past for recognising the very real challenges that this illness presents to both sufferers and the relevant agencies working with them. And I hope that many members I'm sure will share these sentiments also. Many members have mentioned not just issues within their constituency but the fact that suicide et cetera and the mental health is suffering from that also. So I think it is a very, very important piece of legislation. I wanted to mention the fact and pick up on Duncan McNeill had mentioned mental health officers and I would like to raise this particular issue has been mentioned before as I've said about the number and retention of officers in Glasgow. And it does raise concerns. I do understand there will be some crossover with adults within capacity legislation and the most cause difficulties. Also some crossover with mental health care and treatment act which Malcolm Chishon had mentioned. And I know that the minister will be aware that under the adults within capacity act to the mental health care and treatment act 2003 there is provision for appointment of mental health officers in cases of guardianship. Now under this provision an application may be made by mental health and adult protection to a local authority social work department for the appointment of a mental health officer. Recently I have had concerns for constituents that has actually been raised by them that this process is leading to delay in the appointment of these officers and given that the over actually aim of the mental health bill is to ensure that people of the mental health disorder are able to access effective treatment quickly and easily. I would wonder if the minister in the summing up can say whether this will be addressed this issue will be addressed in the proposed legislation or whether it does actually fall out with the remit of this particular legislation. And that's where I come to it. Malcolm Chishon had mentioned about the caring treatment treatment act is this actually being delivered appropriately so I think it's perhaps something we maybe want to look at not just as individual MSPs but obviously on the health committee also. So I would be grateful if we could look at that is there a crossover between the you know this particular act and the adults within capacity act also. I would be grateful if I could get some clarification on that particular issue. I do welcome the minister's recognition of the difficulties local authorities have in the area of mental health officers and his assurances that are given that the bill will not result in an increase in the number of reports required to be produced. I do look forward to looking through this bill through its progress through Parliament and I do look forward to taking further part in the aspects of this bill. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. Thank you. And I now call on Alison Johnstone after which we will move the closing speeches. Thank you Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by applauding the work of our frontline medical services who do a fantastic job with patients who present with some of the most complex needs across the NHS. And equally important are community organisations who improve people's mental health with support services, social inclusion projects and other preventative actions often under testing circumstances with limited resources. And thanks to the hard work of campaigners more people today feel able to talk about mental health but as colleagues have covered there's still a long way to go to bring mental health in line with physical health. A staggering one in four adults as we know will be affected by some form of mental health in their lifetime similar to the numbers affected by cardiovascular complaints. Now the majority of people suffering from mental health don't require hospital treatment. GPs and other mental health professionals are often people's main contact with formal help and sometimes the only place where people feel they can open up for feed of letting down family members or not wanting to to worry loved ones or perhaps just feeling afraid or ashamed. So I think it's really important that we ensure that GPs have the support they need. And there's also a need to adopt and find more creative and innovative approaches to mental health care. Engagement in the arts for example is extremely beneficial to service users. It reduces medication consumption and hospital visits. An arts engagement not only helps patients it's been found to increase staff wellbeing and increased staff retention too. And GPs are now issuing exercise as an alternative or a complementary prescription to medicine. A high quality built environment access to quality green space are well known to increase people's wellbeing and mental health. An education about mental health happiness and how this contributes to general wellbeing is also important especially for young people. People in poverty and individuals and communities who may feel marginalised for example refugees and asylum seekers have disproportionately higher levels of mental health illness here in Scotland and this health inequality needs to be acknowledged and confronted. Hospital treatment is still needed for those most vulnerable patients. We know the target waiting time for those with mental health issues is 18 weeks with 4% waiting over 35 weeks for treatment. Now differences in targets targets for different illnesses and different conditions should be based on sound medical reasons and they should treat mental ill health on a par with physical ill health. And the minister has pointed out that this is what the legislation requires. I broadly welcome the new mental health bill and the improvements it will make to the treatment of those suffering from mental ill health. The Mental Health Act Scotland in 2003 was considered to be comprehensive and to provide better safeguards for patients compared with other parts of the UK. And Sam H indicate in their briefing that appointing a patient's nearest relative as a named person may in some cases be inappropriate. And I'm pleased that the minister has promised to revisit this area. The briefing provided by the Royal College of Psychiatrists highlights the lack of secure facilities for both women and young people in Scotland. The problem is so severe that it results in young people being admitted to Carstair state hospital. A solution to this is suggested by the Royal College of Psychiatrists would be to designate part of one of the secure schools this is for young people of course so that it has inpatient status preventing those young people being admitted to Carstair. And currently female patients who require high security treatment are being transferred to Rampton hospital in the east Midlands. Now this could greatly hamper the patient's recovery as they're far removed from friends and family and from an environment and community that they know and they're also treated out with the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Act Scotland 2003. Concern has also been raised regarding the length of time it may take to transfer potentially acutely unwell prisoners to a psychiatric hospital for treatment. Finally Presiding Officer Inclusion Scotland have highlighted that concern that both people with learning disabilities and or autistic spectrum disorders could be subject to compulsory treatment order whether they're suffering from mental ill health or not and it's vitally important that we get the balance right here and Inclusion Scotland suggests an alternative system is needed. So again I broadly welcome this bill but I do encourage the minister to listen to concerns and constructive suggestions from those with great experience because we know that mental illness and physical illness are interlinked. People with depression suffer from tiredness and lethargy and unwillingness to eat. Their immune systems can be more susceptible to other conditions. Mental health issues complicate health issues associated with old age such as cardiovascular disease and many eating disorders which are certainly physically debilitating in many cases have mental ill health roots. And this is why mental health needs to be treated with the same care as physical health. Thank you. Thank you very much. We now move for closing speeches and I call on Mary Scanlon. Seven minutes please Mary Scanlon. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I would also like to commend the Health and Sport Committee for the scrutiny of this bill under the very able leadership of Duncan McNeill. Having listened to all the speeches today I think I have to say we may have leading mental health legislation in Scotland but I'm not actually convinced that we have leading mental health implementation and I think that's the issue that we're looking at today. Unfortunately I can't commend the Scottish Government for listening, taking on board the recommendations of the health committee given that we're still waiting for the response and after six weeks and no response today's stage 1 debate can only look at one side of the coin unfortunately. And I also seek your guidance Deputy Presiding Officer cos normally at the end of the stage 1 debate we go off and go through our speeches and hand in our amendments. I don't know when I will hand in our amendments because this is really quite unusual. I would like to start by looking at advocacy in 2003 we spent quite a bit of time on advocacy and you know the right of access to advocacy right to independent advocacy but again we've got a right to something but if it doesn't happen who do you go to? Nobody knows and so that's my point about implementation there's no point in having a right unless there's something you can do if that doesn't happen. Again in the 2003 act along with many others I raised the issue of workforce planning at that time with the need for more psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric nurses, social workers, care workers, mental health officers and more and today we face exactly the same problem we've got a workforce which is not sufficient to deal with existing demands let alone the new demands placed on them within this bill as the committee raised in paragraph 73 but I do think it is difficult when the government's own financial memorandum says states that between 20 to 40 hearing reports will be required in a year then COSLA comes up with a figure of 563 and then the minister comes to the committee with an apology and a figure of 15 so we'll go from 30 to 563 to 15 so quite a variation Presiding Officer not at the moment quite a variation there but this experience alone justifies the need to be clear and unambiguous with the calculations of additional work because that is the basis on which appropriate staff can and should be recruited, trained and retained for future a let me recognise and tell yes we have to be clear with our calculations I was very frank when I went to the committee we made a mistake I fronted it up I didn't make the point earlier in intervention to Jim Hume it's the mental welfare commission that I've said that the additional responsibility would result in about 11 reports in the year 1314 my point is that the policy memorandum in 2003 under Labour Lib Dems stated that there were 29 vacancies for psychiatrists and we needed an additional 28 psychiatrists in order to implement the act where is the assessment of the exact need for staff let alone addressing the current shortages of staff others have mentioned the least restrictive alternative this was a core principle of the 2003 act as Malcolm Chisholm as the minister and Richard Simpson both know my understanding during the passage of that bill was it applied to all restrictions on patients with mental health issues not just those being held in excessive security we did discuss the state hospital at car stairs and it was my amendment that secured this but the state hospital had 29 blocked beds at the time and there was a huge need for more medium secure units I succeeded in gaining the support of all parties in the Parliament for my amendment for more medium secure units but it was to ensure that mental health patients at that level of high security could be discharged and placed at a level of security appropriate to their needs on the understanding that a patient can endure excessive security whether it's the state hospital a medium secure unit a low secure unit and any psychiatric unit at each and every level and again the Government has not been helpful by failing to bring forward any definition of a qualifying patient and indeed a qualifying hospital resulting in only patients detained in the state hospital having a right to appeal Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the Supreme Court case 2012 but the Scottish Government has to come forward with a proper definition to allow fairness and rights of appeal to all mental health patients in whatever level of excessive security they are being held Duncan McNeill mentioned the section on nurse holding powers well like Linda Fabiani I also read the health committee report the nurse holding powers which the royal college of nursing states we don't even know where the proposal came from it certainly didn't come from nursing so we're getting more nurse holding powers a royal college of nursing doesn't even know where it came from and on time for appeal referral or disposal again the health committee asks the Government for a clear justification that this might perhaps benefit the patient so it's bad enough that the Government doesn't listen to nurses but I had hoped that they might just listen to patients but obviously not and Dr Simpson mentioned and various many others advanced statements we spent a lot of time on advanced statements in 2003 and I think rather than look at who holds the advanced statements or why what should be in the advanced statements why doesn't the Government just ask do patients have confidence that they will be adhered to? Do they think that it's worthwhile writing an advanced statement? Do they think it'll just be overturned at the first whim? Because the patients I talked to do not have confidence in advanced statements and again on postnatal depression the health committee waiting for the Government to respond on suggestions allowing mothers and fathers and I pay tribute to a Labour member who's not here today Bill Butler it was Bill Butler who secured mothers and babies to be held in hospital together for postnatal depression and I do hope the Government will go that step further and still no response on the use of force restraint or covert medication and I would like to commend Hunter Watson on his campaign against covert medication which is reasonably based on the experience in his own family so presiding officer I would just say that we do support the general principles in the bill I'm sorry that we didn't get the Government's response today but we do recognise there's much more work to do Thank you very much and thank you very much for raising those points Mary Scanlon and I would just draw to the chamber's attention that under rule 9.7.5 a bill may be abended at stage 2 a notice of amendment may be given by any member after the completion of stage 1 if so the bill complete stage 1 today also the Government is not obliged to respond to the stage 1 report before the stage 1 debate but the Government must respond within two months I hope that's helpful and we now call on Richard Simpson Thank you in minutes doctor Presiding Officer for your clarification I still think the rules are needing to be re-examined however I want to deal with things in slightly reverse order and take up the issue of homicides which is not in the bill I've been in discussion with a number of parties after the evidence we had from John Crichton and others about possible amendments covering the investigation and reporting on homicides and series a