Publication date: 6 Nov, 2025
The Commission today published its 2024-25 monitoring report on the AWI Act, revealing a record 20,152 individuals are now subject to welfare guardianship orders. The figure represents the highest level reported to the Commission since the AWI Act came into force.
The Commission warns that with this rising number, an increasing population of vulnerable people are being safeguarded by a law which is decades old and not keeping pace with human rights expectations. The report issues an urgent call for the Scottish Government to deliver the AWI Act reform sooner.
What is a welfare guardianship order?
When a person lacks capacity to make some or all decisions for themselves, a court can appoint a ‘welfare guardian’ to do that with and for them. The guardian is usually a relative, but can also be a local authority. Welfare guardianship is most commonly used for people with learning disabilities or dementia.
Welfare guardians can be given powers to, for example, make a decision about where a person lives, as well as about their personal and medical care. Local authorities have a duty to supervise all welfare guardians.
Key facts
Mental Welfare Commission visits to people who are on welfare guardianship orders
The Commission visits people subject to welfare guardianship orders to check their rights are being upheld. In 2024-25, it visited 351 individuals. Commission staff provided advice or took further action in half of these cases.
Of the 184 people visited who had a private guardian (relative or friend), 68% had a local authority supervising officer allocated at the time of the visit.
Suzanne McGuinness, executive director (social work), Mental Welfare Commission said:
“While we cannot definitively say what is driving this increase, we must ensure the rights of those who lack capacity are protected by modern, effective law.”
“The rising number of people relying on the AWI Act means we need an up to date legal framework that protects their human rights and welfare. The current AWI Act was groundbreaking for its time, but international human rights law has moved on. Delay is a luxury we cannot afford, and reform is needed sooner rather than later.”