Scottish Mental Health Law Review - Additional Proposals

The focus on advocacy is welcome and it ids disappointing that the review has faiiled again to note the crossover to activity in Adult Support and Protection.
Advocacy is a duty within the Act, (paragraph 6 Duty to consider importance of providing advocacy and other servoces). In many ways the involvement of Advocacy in ASP committees and practice is exemplary and co-productive, different from other sectors. Advocacy partners are engaged in investigation processes, in trying to capture outcomes after some of the activities, and in developing public information and advice.

The open ended challenge of encouraging advocacy in legislation without the attendent need for fianicial resoure, attendant research and development in Scottish development needs to be addressed. Past recommendations from Audit Scotland and others on this issue needs to be a part of the review, reciprocity and co-production.

This on top of considerable underfunding and pressures both on SIAA and on local groups, and often assist in local information activities.

The lack of agreed and measurable standards, pronciples and code of practice is disappointing despite the efforts of local groups and SIAA, and should be possible if adequate resources are deployed for developoemt and to sustain the appropriate level of loca activity. Connections to capacity legislation, legal advice, supported decision making, group support (e.g People First), understanding of the interplay of law (legal literacy) are important in processes, and development as you propose in legal rights. Training and development across boundaries are important and national standards could be developed bseside training models.
Regulatory arrangements should be introduced to back such standards, audit and review.

There should always be the opportunity to opt out, provided that individual are protected, their abilities and capacity recognised and good relationship. personalised services developed.

The recommendations of the Rome review have disappointingly not been addressed. Recognition of remote and rural challenges, special interest areas should form part of planning strategies with adequate support for development.

A clear funding and resource committment to funding a natioinal Advocacy framework. Relationships to Supported Decision making and assessment frameworks should be clarified. So called 'eligibility' frameworks should be abolished and allow percon centred inclusive practice to develop.

The process (and costs ) of audit should be accomodated in a national organisation such as the Care Inspectorate, relationships with the ICO, MWC and professional service organisations should be strenghtened.
Frameworks on Supported Decision making should be subject to simialr regulation (note the Ireland Supported Decision Making model).

As above.

Agre that the SQA accreditation or simolar would be helpful, and the lead to a 'registration' given their role and access would be helpful.

Collective advocacy groups could be covered by regulation in simolar and softer ways as provider organisations.

Agree that there is a lack of diversity in advocacy and in many other aspects of social care and health provision.
There are also clear remote and rural challenges to provide services, access to staff, access to homes for them, the impact of increasing poverty on the ability of many parts of our population to engage in voluntary work, in training and access.
Specialist activity as proposed by the Strathclyde Autism service on advocacy should be supported. User led advocacy organisations should be encouraged, developed and supported for their particular inderstanding of issues and user led experience.

Agree, but its management should be separate from government, relate to the needs of local areas based on analysis od local needs and demands.

There needs to be an understanding and respect on servie issues. Clarity on decision making processes which are rights based would asist both assessment and advocacy in responding to these challenging areas.

Agree that advocacy has a role in Supported Decision Making, with clear standards and safeguards on each. The recognition of the time required to form relationship and personalised services would be strongly welcomed, and workforce considerations should allow for such demand on orgaisations.

Robust scutiny requires to be enabled, whether through the Care Inspecorate. Adult Protection has already confirmed that the CI has inspection responsibility for the holistic concerns which are not wholly owned by the mental health world. The assertion that here are not leads for advocacy in local areas is probably not who;;y accurate, rather it is a complex mix of commissioning and contracting, strategy and operational responsibilities, stronger in some practice areas than others.

Advocacy should be available to unpaid carers to assist them represnt their interests in the complex area of arranging support, in navigating challenges in so call eligibility and reflecting on their needs. Carer support organisations would be well placed to develop such support with additional funding and support.

The proposals need to sit well with proposed changes in the National Care Service, with attendent national standards, mediation, complaints and other systems and organisations such as assessment, SDS standards, adult support and protection activity and so on.