Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013: Draft Regulations and Statutory Guidance – Analysis of Consultation Responses

18 DRAFT REGULATIONS

18.1 A separate consultation paper looked at draft Regulations to accompany the 2013 Act; these deal specifically with direct payments. This document explained the draft Regulations and asked for views on a series of questions.

Part 2 of the draft Regulations

18.2 In Part 2 of the Regulations, five regulations set out the requirements in relation to:

• Means testing (Regulation 3)
• How charges should be recovered (Regulation 4)
• Payment in instalments (Regulation 5)
• Payment to a third party (Regulation 6)
• Terminating payments (Regulation 7)

Question 1: What are your views on Part 2 of the draft Regulations

(calculation, payment and termination of direct payments)?

18.3 Seventy-six respondents provided commentary to this question; some were general comments about Part 2 of the draft Regulations; some were comments relating to specific Regulations. Of those providing general commentary, a small number simply noted they were happy with Part 2 of the draft Regulations or that it is helpful in taking forward approaches to the calculation, payment and termination of direct payments. There were a small number of calls for:

• All processes to be done openly and transparently.
• For information on this to be accessible to all.
• A need for advocacy support to help people understand decisions being made by local authorities.
• A consistent approach across local authorities.
• An easy read version that is clear and understandable to all.
• Bank payments should be made net of any charges.

18.4 Regulation 3 sets out the administrative arrangements for any means testing in relation to the direct payment - i.e. the arrangements for the assessment of a person's ability to pay a charge with respect to their direct payment.

18.5 Of the respondents commenting on this Regulation specifically, some simply voiced their agreement with means testing.

18.6 Three key themes also emerged, mostly from voluntary sector organisations. First, a need for a maximum timescale within which local authorities can carry out a means test after a direct payment has been made, which would help to minimise repayment requirements. One of these respondents also requested that this be highlighted in the guidance in Sections 4 and 5. Second, and allied to this point, there were some requests for means testing to be carried out prior to the direct payment being made so that there is no need for any service users to have to make a repayment. Third, comments that the Guidance and draft Regulations do not say who collects any charge made by a local authority, which can be confusing to individuals who are supported. A small number of respondents also commented that if a user only has state benefits, they would be given automatic exemption from any charges.

18.7 Regulation 4 sets out the way in which any charges should be recovered - requiring the authority to make any payment "net" (i.e. with the person's charge recovered "at source" before the payment is made) except where the service user requests that the payment be paid gross (i.e. where the person is provided with their payment in full and invoiced for their charge at the end of the relevant period).

18.8 A small number of respondents welcomed the wording and clarity of this Regulation. However, the key theme emerging at this question - mentioned by most responding specifically on this Regulation - was a desire to withdraw the option for a service user to request payment to be paid in gross; these comments were made primarily by local authorities. This is perceived to add to the administrative burden of local authorities and potentially lead to unpaid client contributions.

18.9 Regulation 5 establishes that a direct payment can be paid in instalments (i.e. in a series of separate payments as opposed to one single payment - though this can also be done).

18.10 Only a very small number of respondents made any specific comments about Regulation 5. A small number noted they like the flexibility offered by this, although there were also some comments that it could be confusing. One example of this was how to manage access or use of direct payments for people with capacity issues.

18.11 Regulation 6 establishes that a direct payment can be paid to a third party to manage the day-to-day practicalities under the direction of the supported person.

18.12 As with Regulation 5, only a small number of respondents made much by way of comments to Regulation 6. The greatest number of comments welcomed this Regulation. There were a few concerns that carers who look after a partner may have their income taken into account or that this takes no account of whether the proposed third party represents a risk to the individual or the local authority; leading to a request from one respondent for further clarification over how this would work.

18.13 Regulation 7 sets out an exhaustive list of the circumstances under which an authority can terminate a direct payment. These are where the person has become ineligible, where the payment has been used for purposes out-with the person's support plan, where it has been used to secure the provision of support by a family member in circumstances where the family member is not permitted to provide such support or where the money has been used unlawfully. In addition, Regulation 7 imposes certain requirements on the authority when they decide to terminate the direct payment, such as the requirement to inform the person as to the reason why the payment is terminated and the date on which it is to be terminated.

18.14 Of the respondents providing specific commentary on Regulation 7, the single largest comment was that this is clearly written and welcomed, with some general agreement on the need for payments to be stopped if they are not used for their intended purpose or are misused in some way. Additionally, two local authorities requested that they should be given discretion to terminate a direct payment if an individual does not provide access to information needed for financial or wellbeing monitoring. A few comments were made in relation to the termination process and these included:

• Written notice should include information on other options available to the individual and reasons for termination.
• A need to allow the necessary time to secure alternative care, particularly for any individuals with complex social and health care needs.
• The need for a formal appeals procedure.
• Support offered via advocacy organisations.
• Any notification should also be issued to any third party receiving payments on behalf of someone else.

Part 3 of the draft Regulations

18.15 Part 3 of the Regulations sets out the circumstances where disabled or cared-for adults and children may use their direct payment to pay a family member to provide support (Regulation 9). These circumstances are:

• the family member and direct payment user agree to the family member providing the support;
• the family member is capable of meeting the direct payment user's assessed need; and
• a specific factor applies (for example, limited choice or the type of care required).

18.16 Part 3 also sets out the circumstances where a family member may not provide support under a direct payment (Regulation 10):

• the local authority determines that either the family member or the direct payment user is under undue pressure to agree to the family member providing support; or
• the family member is a guardian, continuing attorney or welfare attorney with power to make decisions as regards the support to be provided through the direct payment.

Question 2: What are your views on Part 3 of the draft Regulations (appropriate/inappropriate circumstances for the employment of close relatives)?

18.17 Ninety-four respondents commented on Part 3 of the draft Regulations; some providing general commentary, while others made reference to specific elements of the draft Regulations.

18.18 Regulation 9 Appropriate choices. Three key themes emerged at this question. First, that the employment of close relatives should remain at the discretion of the professionals involved in the case in order to ensure an appropriate balance between risk and choice; this comment came primarily from local authorities.

18.19 Second, a number of respondents noted that there will be some instances where a family member will be the most appropriate person to provide support and gave examples of specific instances such as in rural areas where there may be little choice of service provider or where intimate care is needed. That said, some respondents qualified their comment by noting that there would still need to be regular and robust monitoring of the service user being supported by a family member or that the local authority will need to ensure that the direct payment user is not under undue pressure from a family member.

18.20 Thirdly, a number of respondents simply noted their agreement with the list at Regulation 9. As one voluntary organisation noted:

"We find the list of factors setting out the circumstances (Regulation 9 Part 3) helpful and are in broad agreement with them. We believe their inclusion will provide greater transparency in decision making and significantly reduce local variations in practice which have, to date, relied upon individual interpretations of 'exceptional' circumstances."

18.21 Views on the use of the terms 'appropriate circumstances' and 'exceptional circumstances' varied, with some respondents in favour of the former; while some respondents, many of which were local authorities, requested a continuation of the current situation whereby the existing arrangements of employment of close relatives in exceptional circumstances is used. A small number of respondents felt that the change from 'exceptional' to 'appropriate' would increase choice and flexibility in the delivery of care.

18.22 A small number of respondents noted the importance of ensuring that the direct payment user will be able to access advocacy, support and information services to help them make informed choices. There were also some calls for an appeals and review process to be in place and a system that offers a capacity to individuals to challenge the decisions taken by a local authority. A few respondents also called for a duty to be placed on local authorities to inform direct payment recipients of the option of employing a family member.

18.23 A few respondents commented that the draft Regulations for employing relatives will be difficult to manage and monitor and noted the complex issues involved and the potential for confusion of roles and responsibilities. There were also a number of disadvantages identified and these included:

• The potential for substantial increased costs to local authorities.
• Employment of close family relatives can change the nature of the relationship between individuals in a detrimental manner.
• Concerns over the financial safeguarding of children and young people, with requests for information on how the Scottish Government intends to ensure adequate safeguards will be in place.
• Concerns over the use of unregulated staff without PVGs.

18.24 Most of the comments made in relation to Part 3 of the Regulations were made in reference to Regulation 9 and there were only a few direct comments on Regulation 10 (inappropriate choices). These included concerns of deterring family members from being Personal Assistants (PAs) when they might be the most appropriate person to take on this role; or that this Regulation could mean that a person trusted by a service user is not allowed to be their PA, despite the fact that they are better placed than another family member who might exert undue influence. One respondent commented that the safeguards set out in Regulation 10 are not a suitable substitute for the robust regulation of carers and other employed staff.

Regulation 11: People who are not eligible for direct payments

18.25 Regulation 11 gives descriptions of people who are ineligible for a direct payment because they are subject to a particular criminal justice order.

Question 3: What are your views on Regulation 11 which deems individuals who are placed under a variety of criminal justice orders to be ineligible to receive direct payments?

For example, is it appropriate to impose the exclusions listed in Regulation 11? Are there any persons not listed in Regulation 11 to whom it would be inappropriate to offer the option of a direct payment?

18.26 Fifty-nine respondents provided commentary at this question, with around half of them disagreeing with the exclusions listed in Regulation 11 being imposed. Their key reason for this was that any exclusion from direct payments should be based on assessment, support planning and professional judgement, rather than imposing a blanket restriction. One or two respondents also queried whether someone would be banned forever or if a time limit would be imposed on making a direct payment.

18.27 A number of these respondents also commented that Adult Support and Protection and Child Protection duties should take precedence over the duty to offer a direct payment; with one local authority noting that this fails to properly acknowledge the over-riding statutory duty of care that falls to local authorities. In the words of another local authority:

"The option of a direct payment should be discretionary where there are concerns around safeguarding both of the individual and of the person providing support. Adult Support and Protection and Child Protection duties should take precedence over the duty to offer a direct payment. Otherwise the professional assessment could be significantly compromised in relation to duties associated with statutory roles. There are significant concerns over the legal position for professionals and local authorities."

18.28 A smaller number of respondents broadly agreed with the exclusions noted in Regulation 11, albeit that some also made qualifying statements about the need for discretion as to when a direct payment can be made, who to and under what circumstances.

18.29 A small number of other groups of people were suggested as needing to be exempt from direct payment under Regulation 11, and these included:

• People who misuse drugs and/or alcohol or have a gambling addiction and are not subject to any of the orders in Regulation 11, but are very likely to misuse money made available to them through a direct payment.
• People who are subject to no criminal order, but who could present a real risk to others and therefore should not be put in a position where they could employ other people through a direct payment.
• People who may be put under pressure by relatives or others to choose a direct payment.
• People who may have the capacity to exercise informed choice and select a direct payment, but lack the understanding and skills to undertake the duties and responsibilities of an employer.
• Parents with drug and/or alcohol addictions who may choose a direct payment as the mechanism to support a disabled child.
• Undischarged bankrupts or those guilty of financial misappropriation.
• Those convicted of drugs offences.
• People subject to compulsory orders and compulsory treatment orders.
• Children on the Child Protection Register (services should continue to be under control of local authority).

18.30 One respondent also suggested that PVG checks should be carried out on 3^rd parties who are running a package on behalf of an individual.

18.31 Finally, there were a small number of queries as to the reference to Regulation 8(c) which is made at Regulation 11(1)(e).

Regulation 12: Restricting access to direct payments

18.32 Regulation 12 details services for which direct payments are not available:

• support for individuals who are homeless as defined in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987;
• support for individuals who are fleeing domestic abuse;
• support for individuals in relation to drug or alcohol dependency;
• the provision of residential accommodation, with or without nursing, for a period in excess of four consecutive weeks in any period of twelve months.

Question 4: What are your views on restricting access to direct payments for those who are homeless, those who are fleeing domestic abuse or those who require support in relation to drug or alcohol addiction?

18.33 Eighty-two respondents provided commentary to this question. A key theme emerging, often from voluntary sector organisations, was that there should be no restriction on access to direct payments for any groups; rather that each individual should be assessed on their own circumstances. Allied to this, a number of respondents felt that local authorities should apply proportionality and professional judgement when assessing an individual's suitability for self-directed support options. As one local authority noted:

"The application of risk assessment and risk management is essential to ensure that the level of risk to the individual, family or wider community is acceptable."

18.34 Some of these respondents also noted that local authorities should not be required by law to offer all four self-directed support options to these groups of individuals but neither should they be prevented from it. A number of these respondents noted that power should be conferred on local authorities to offer self-directed support, rather than a duty. As one local authority commented:

"it might be useful to have the option of Self-Directed Support for wider forms of support, however professional discretion as to when and how this would be appropriate would be important, particularly for direct payment e.g. where there are addiction issues. It would be useful to confer a power to offer Self-Directed Support on local authorities, rather than a duty."

18.35 A small number of respondents also commented that the underlying reasons for a person's situation (homelessness, fleeing domestic abuse etc.) should be examined as this may be the outcome of other underlying social or healthcare needs. A few respondents also noted that it should be possible to offer a direct payment if an individual can be supported to help them manage this payment and that options for managing a direct payment in the best interests of a client should be explored.

18.36 Some respondents called for greater clarification or guidance to accompany this provision. For example, there were a small number of comments that the documentation does not make clear why individuals who are homeless or fleeing domestic abuse are not to be offered direct payments. As one local authority noted:

"It is more understandable why those who require support in relation to addictions are not to be offered direct payments, but it may be more suitable to look at assessments on an individual basis rather than imposing a blanket rule. Direct payments will require records to be kept of how the money is used, and for support that will be paid for through the payment to be arranged before the payment is received - any inconsistencies would soon be noticed. As there are no such restrictions on a carer receiving a direct payment when they look after someone with a drug or alcohol addiction, we would welcome further clarity on the reasons behind this restriction."

18.37 Another respondent queried whether individuals with co-morbity would be exempt from receiving a direct payment, as part of their support package may be related to their addictions. A small number of individuals suggested there might be ways of providing help in some other form than a direct payment and that all options for specialist help and support need to be examined. There were also a small number of queries as to how long someone would have to be free of an addiction before they could qualify for a direct payment.

18.38 Only a small number of respondents agreed with these restrictions. One voluntary sector organisation commented that:

"Restricting access to direct payments for people in crisis would significantly reduce the financial worries of support providers looking to offer services to people facing these issues. We would expect that unrestricted access to direct payments for people in these situations would result in a loss of income for support providers, and would therefore damage providers' financial sustainability."

18.39 Conversely, there were concerns from a small number of respondents that this guidance may be discriminatory.

Question 5: What are your views on restricting access to direct payments in relation to the provision of long-term residential care?

This question was raised during the initial consultations on a draft SDS Bill. The Scottish Government would like to invite detailed views before making a final decision prior to the laying of the Regulations before the Scottish Parliament. Should the restriction be removed from the final regulations, thereby allowing direct payments for residential care? Or should it be retained? Please provide reasons as to your support or opposition to requiring authorities to provide direct payments for residential care.

18.40 This question attracted comments from 70 respondents. There was only limited support for restricting access to direct payments in relation to the provision of long-term residential care, with a majority of respondents, many from within the voluntary sector, preferring access to direct payments for all individuals. This was primarily to ensure individual choice and control for all individuals. It was also noted by some respondents that restricting access to direct payment was in contravention of the principles of choice, greater independence and fulfilling lives. As noted by two organisations:

"Decisions on access to direct payments should relate to the person's ability to manage the payment (with support as appropriate) and not based on any other factor." (other)

"A direct payment would give the residential resident more choice and control" (voluntary sector)

18.41 That said, a number of organisations added the proviso that if residents are self-funding, a residential care home might charge a different and higher rate than that negotiated by their local authority, or that self-funding individuals could be liable to top up fees without agreement of a level of protection. This comment came primarily from respondents within local authorities. Two respondents who were supportive of direct payments to individuals in residential homes provided good practice examples of alternative models such as mixed support packages.

18.42 A minority of respondents were in support of restricted access and commented they were not aware of a demand for direct payments being available for residential care, albeit that a small number of these respondents also noted that a degree of flexibility may be required to allow choice to residents.

18.43 A number of respondents, mainly from the voluntary sector, commented on logistical issues and had concerns that direct payments to individuals in residential care could lead to destabilising the residential care market. There were also some queries over how this could be managed; for example, there might need to be some complex funding arrangements involving the national care home contract, free personal care and NHS funding. There were also one or two concerns over how secure payments to residential care homes would be if the money is in the hands of the service provider rather than the local authority.

18.44 Other suggestions made by very small numbers of respondents to this question included a need for guidance:

• For professionals on how personal budgets can be made to work.
• On how nominal costs for residential care would be calculated for individual service funds or budgets.
• What is considered to be 'residential care' in relation to Children's Services; with two respondents suggesting that it might be better to use the Individual Service Fund for younger adults.
• Whether residential care would be excluded from all for self-directed support options.

18.45 A small number of respondents noted that there is a need to also give consideration to support to carers. One organisation also noted that it is unnecessary to offer the option of gross as well as net direct payments.

18.46 Finally, to this question, there were a small number of suggestions that service users should be consulted to ascertain their preferences on this issue.

Support for children and families

18.47 The consultation explains that the duty on local authorities in relation to the 4 options of self-directed support applies to any support provided under Section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Section 22 covers a wide range of support and the consultation asked for views on whether there should be any exceptions.

Question 6: The draft Regulations do not specify circumstances where the direct payment option should be unavailable for care and support to children/families. Should there be specific restrictions on choice of support in relation to children/families support (i.e. support provided under Section 22 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) and should these restrictions apply to the direct payment only, or to other options as well?

18.48 Fifty-nine respondents provided commentary to this question. A significant number of those commenting, many from voluntary sector organisations, noted agreement that the Regulations should not specify circumstances where direct payments are unavailable for children, young people or their families. However, a significant number of respondents (many from local authorities) noted that more weight should be given to professional judgement, assessment and support planning so that maximum flexibility can be achieved in the best interests of the child and their family. A small number of respondents simply commented that the welfare of the child is paramount and that all children should be eligible for self-directed support. One local authority commented:

"[We] would suggest that, rather than placing specific restrictions on the choice of support in relation to children and families support, it would perhaps be more effective to give the local authority the professional discretionary power to determine when a direct payment or other self-directed support option was appropriate - this would allow professionals the flexibility to work with children and their families to plan support which is based on their individual assessed needs, outcomes and circumstances but also to respond to issues relating to child protection and compulsory measures of care."

18.49 While flexibility and professional judgement were seen to be important by a number of respondents, there were also some comments that there would be specific circumstances where it might not be appropriate for a direct payment to be made; for example, if there is a level of risk posed to the supported person by take up of a direct payment and the need for financial safeguarding in these situations.

18.50 A small number of respondents noted the need for these Regulations to take into account other legislation such as the Children and Young People's Bill or approaches such as GIRFEC.

18.51 Once again, there were also some requests for clarity around some of the issues, such as instances where a direct payment would be unavailable or whether the duty should extend to services put in place, as agreed within a multi-agency child protection plan. There were also suggestions from a small number of respondents that there is a need to conduct further work with stakeholders.

Other comments on the draft Regulations

18.52 The consultation invited respondents to give their views on, for example, whether there are any gaps in the Regulations or whether any major changes are needed.

18.53 Respondents were also asked whether there any topics that are more appropriate for statutory guidance rather than Regulations.

Question 7: Do you have any further comments on the draft Regulations?

18.54 Respondents were asked for any comment in relation to costs and benefits related to the Regulations; and 22 responded to this question. Most of the comments made noted concerns over various aspects of the draft Regulations and these included:

• How to ensure the safety and well-being of individuals who employ individual carers and / or whether consideration should be given to whether PVG checks should be mandatory and who would be responsible for checking these; and how to consider unregulated support such as time banks.
• Whether there should be a limit on how large a direct payment can be, particularly given that some direct payments could be large relative to family incomes.
• Timescales for implementation, particularly given concerns over growing demands for services; a request for clarification as to the expected timescale for implementation of self-directed support through the normal review rotation for the supported person.
• Queries over eligibility for direct payments in relation to adults with incapacity such as dementia or those who have degenerative neurological conditions which have periods of remission.
• Concerns over individuals in residential care.

18.55 A small number of respondents made suggestions as to the implementation of self-directed support and these included:

• Applications for self-directed support for children would be better considered if as an outcome of assessment under Section 23 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. A local authority commented:

"It is felt that the application of SDS for children would be better considered if is an outcome of assessment under section 23 Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It is felt that this would better capture the children for whom it is most appropriate i.e. children affected by disability and young carers."

• A duty should be placed on local authorities to inform direct payment recipients of the option to employ a family member.
• The definition given should include 'appropriate circumstances rather than using the term 'exceptional'.
• An explanation of eligible is needed at the start of the document.
• Support will be needed to help some individuals understand this document.
• Where it says "The council must tell the person in writing and in any other format that the person needs" it should also say 'to allow the person to understand'.

The costs and benefits arising from these Regulations

18.56 Respondents were asked for any comment in relation to costs and benefits related to the Regulations.

18.57 Specifically, respondents were asked whether they could identify any financial costs or benefits to individuals, local authorities, health boards, providers or any other person or organisation affected by the Regulations.

Question 8 : Do you have any comments on the financial costs or benefits of the Regulations?

18.58 Thirty-seven respondents provided commentary to this question, with a small number reiterating their support for the aims of self-directed support and its underlying principles.

18.59 Most of the comments made related to financial costs associated with the introduction of self-directed support, and most comments were made either by local authorities or by voluntary sector organisations. Local authorities and service providers had concerns over additional financial costs. These included administration costs, the need for additional staff training and changes to procedures and processes. Additionally there were some concerns from service providers that carer's services and organisations would struggle to keep up with demand for up-to-date and accurate information or the provision of adequate services. Some respondents had concerns over a risk of delays in payments or a failure on the part of some service users to pay.

18.60 Another three key issues were noted by some of the local authorities responding to this question. First, the potential for financial implications because of the regulations in relation to Carers' support and waiving charges. Second, while Scottish Government bridging finance is welcomed, there are concerns that when this ceases in 2015, there will be a need for further transformation funding. Third, concerns over additional costs specifically in relation to family members providing care.

18.61 A small number of local authorities also noted that it is difficult at this point in time to assess the cost implications of self-directed support or that demands for cost reductions or efficiency savings in the current economic climate will be difficult to meet.

The equality and human rights impacts of the Regulations

18.62 The final part of the consultation in relation to the draft Regulations asked respondents for views on the impact of the guidance on specific equality categories or on human rights.

Question 9 (a): Do you have any views on the impact of the Regulations on any or all of the following equality categories:

• age;
• disability;
• gender;
• lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender;
• race; and
• religion and belief

By "equality impacts" we mean whether or not, and in what ways, the Regulations will affect certain groups, and whether they will impact on those groups in a positive or a negative way.

18.63 Only a small number of respondents (22) commented at this question, with the largest single comment being that there were no equality issues in the guidance or that the guidance fulfils its obligations in relation to equality. That said, there were also a few general comments about the need to ensure consideration of all the protected characteristics as outlined in the Equality Act 2010.

18.64 There were a small number of comments that the Easy Read version of the consultation paper was not appropriate for many with protected characteristics, with examples being given of those with intellectual impairments or learning disabilities. Furthermore, there was a suggestion from one professional / regulatory organisation for a full consultation with equality groups representing all protected characteristics to assess whether or not there are barriers to the regulations as they currently stand.

18.65 There were very few comments about specific protected characteristics, but of the small number of comments made, most focused on individuals with disability rather than any of the other protected characteristics; with concerns over how these regulations and the current welfare reform would impact negatively on disabled individuals. One local authority requested further analysis in the assessment of the impact of residential care and noted concern over the provision of services in rural areas.

Question 9 (b): Do you have any views on the impact of the Regulations on human rights?

18.66 As with the previous question, a relatively small number of respondents (23) made any comment. Of those who did comment, around a quarter noted that the guidance fulfils its obligations in relation to human rights, that SDS is a way of protecting human rights, or that in theory, SDS should increase the choice of an individual, offering them more control and independence in managing their life.

18.67 However, over half of these respondents noted concerns over the impact of these regulations on promoting human rights. Some quoted Article 19 of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People (UNCRPD) which recognises the role of community care and support in the lives of disabled people. It says 'disabled people have a right to live in the community, with the support they need and can make choices like other people do'. In the light of this, there were a small number of comments that it is unfair that users of community care or support have to pay towards it. Another two respondents commented that the blanket exclusion of Regulation 11 may go against international human rights law and standards, with an allied concern that some individuals may not be able to access the support they need.

18.68 Some other legislation was also referred to as being of relevance to these regulations; this included Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) or Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. For example, two respondents noted that there is no suitable procedure for appealing against decisions and this is a violation of Article 6 of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.