Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and for the helpful conversations that we have had about my amendments in the group. I press amendment 121.

I have lodged amendment 115 because I do not think that it is fair to exclude asylum seekers from the process. My amendment explicitly adds them to the bill, and I encourage members to vote for it for that reason.

I move amendment 115.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I appreciate that.

I am tempted to press the amendment, because I want to put on the record the strength of feeling that there is to include asylum seekers in the bill. I would welcome further discussions at stage 3 if the issue is not addressed in the committee today.

I press amendment 115.

Similarly, I put on record that I will be voting against the amendments in this group, on the basis that they undermine the purpose and the principle of the legislation that we are discussing today. I will be voting against amendments 2, 3 to 17 and 26.

As I said earlier, amendment 154 sets out that before someone applies to the registrar general, they must make a statutory declaration, signed by a justice of the peace, a solicitor, a notary public, a commissioner for oaths or any other authorised professional, that they are telling the truth and are fulfilling the criteria in the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. My amendment 122, in the previous group, set out that it was an offence to knowingly make a statutory declaration that is false.

My amendment 154, which is yet to come, sets out that, before someone applies to the registrar general, they must make a statutory declaration, which must be signed by a justice of the peace, a solicitor, a notary public, a commissioner for oaths or any other authorised professional, that they are telling the truth and fulfil the criteria that are set out in the act. My amendment 122 states:

“it is an offence to knowingly make a statutory declaration ... which is false”.

I believe that, together with amendment 154, my amendments are crucial to help to build support for the bill.

Statutory declarations are serious legal documents that carry great weight, and the public have confidence in them in other situations. As I have said on the record in the past, we need reform, with a law that works for trans people, is administrative in nature, and carries the confidence of the public with it. Statutory declarations, which are signed by a respected group of people, are a well-known mechanism in which we trust, and they could help people to understand that the process is serious.

The Government has not made that part of the process, including its seriousness, as clear to the public as is necessary. My amendments seek to address that. Amendments 121 and 122 make it clear that, if at the time that someone made a declaration, they did not intend to comply with the criteria, they would be committing a serious criminal offence.

I move amendment 121.

Good morning to the panel. Thanks very much for your answers so far and also for the information that you submitted in advance, which was very helpful.

I want to talk a little bit about co-production, and I will refer to the submission from Inclusion Scotland. Dr Nolan, I remember that, around the time when health and social care partnerships were developed, a large number of disabled people’s organisations convened what we called a war cabinet to talk about concerns with co-production and getting disabled people and service users a vote on boards to make decisions. Can you say a little bit about the importance of users having a voice in determining the outcomes for social care, as well as the strategic decisions that are taken about it? You said that a lack of co-ordination and co-production could “defeat success” for the national care service. Could you expand on that and talk to us about how you characterise its development so far?

Dr Nolan, I would like to pick up where you finished and talk about Dr Jim Elder-Woodward’s submission. As always, I am very impressed with the work that he has done on this area—I had a look at it when I saw that you referenced it in your submission. He says that the right to need satisfaction is underpinned by sub-rights, including someone’s right to know what information means for them; to have advocacy before, during and after the process; to be present when decisions are made; to have an independent appeals mechanism; and to have any unmet need recorded. Have you had any discussions with the Government on that, and do you think that it is moving towards that? I note your earlier comment about feeling that there is some back-pedalling on independent living, and I have serious concerns about that.

Thank you. I have one final question in this area, which is for Adam Stachura.

On rights, you have already spoken about accountability, and that issue was raised in some of what we have just heard from Dr Nolan and other panellists around making sure that people can be held to account. You mentioned data and unmet needs. What else do you think needs to be done so that, if people find themselves waiting 800 days for social care—which is entirely unacceptable—there is somewhere that they can go?

I will do that seamlessly, convener.

I thank the witnesses for all their comments so far. I also want to put on the record my thanks for all the work that carers did during the pandemic and for the work that they did before it and have done since. As a care user, I understand the importance of social care, and I want to put that on the record.

My question is a follow-up to the previous one for Alison White. As members and others might be aware, I have a proposed member’s bill on the transition to adulthood for young disabled people. In your view, would that transition process be affected by the national care service? Is there a danger that provision will become more piecemeal if all the services are not much more co-ordinated as part of that process?