Chamber and committees

The legislation has been acknowledged as being very good, but does anything else need to be in it to help us take things forward? Does anyone have a view on that?

I have one final question. Are people with self-directed support seen as having lower or moderate levels of needs? Can they dip in for things that might be seen as additional, such as a holiday? How does that sort of thing happen practically on the ground? Does it happen at all?

I was asked to talk a wee bit about unmet need—that has been raised in the discussion, which has been interesting. My question is about unmet need and eligibility, which involves a conflict in terms of how people live their best lives. Have any studies looked at the interplay between what someone is assessed to need and what the unmet need in the wider context is?

Does what you are talking about require a culture change, or does it require training or legislative change? What do we need to do to make that happen?

I do not disagree with that at all. What I am asking is how we make that happen. We talk about it a lot, but how do we make it happen for people?

I am interested in hearing about internal processes; you have already touched on some of that and given some good examples of where you have started to try to work together, with an understanding that that will take some time.

We have heard some evidence from users and other professionals in the field indicating that that is not happening across the board—work is slow, although it is picking up pace. How will it be ensured that eligibility criteria for self-directed care are higher up the agenda for teams working on the ground, and that action is actually being taken?

I appreciate Meghan Gallacher’s contribution. I, too, have had a great deal of discussion with the minister and Gillian Mackay and I understand the arguments for and against signage. We note that health boards have the option to install signage and it may be that they understand their particular premises best, so, on balance, we are content that that will be the best option. We will vote against amendment 51, but we understand why it was lodged for debate at stage 2.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for starting the debate. Obviously, we have considered the matter at length, given that it was spoken about in the committee’s evidence sessions. We have come to the conclusion that we will support the Government in its position, mainly because responses indicated the matter is important and that a distance of 200m will mean that we will have, for women in Scotland, safe access zones in particular premises, which might be helpful in the future. We are content to continue to support the Government so we will not support amendment 43.

I absolutely accept Rachael Hamilton’s point. We have gone back and forward with people who consulted with the committee. I accept the member’s position, but we have to decide on the matter. At this stage, we have decided that we would be content with 200m.

I will briefly set out Scottish Labour’s position on this grouping. We believe that Gillian Mackay has engaged right across the parties and we thank her for listening to our views. My remarks today clarify our position on her amendments. In particular, we believe that amendment 34 is good and will support it.

It has been helpful to hear Mr Cole-Hamilton speak about his amendments, because we were a bit unclear about the idea of removing section 8. We did not support that amendment all, as we thought that it was unreasonable, but it will be useful to hear the minister’s response.

We thank everybody for contributing to the discussion on the section.