Seòmar agus comataidhean

Coming back to Ann Marie Penman’s comment about the broad nature of care plans, do you think that there is a willingness to write those plans in a broad way in order to give people the creativity to spend money as they wish? Is that happening in some places and not in others? Is it the luck of the draw, depending on which local authority you are in, who your social workers are and so on?

Thank you—that was really useful.

I have a somewhat wider question for Dr Nolan. With the previous panel, we discussed variability in implementation of SDS, in particular for different age groups. Does awareness need to be raised about the different options that exist? Again, I highlighted to the previous panel the fact that, for my family, the default provision was a 15-minute visit for an elderly relative; that was what we were given, and we never questioned it. I know that care happens in local authorities in different ways and that some local authorities treat different age groups differently. Does more awareness need to be raised in that respect?

Absolutely. Thank you.

That was great. Thank you.

Do you think there is a tendency for local authorities to go with the default option rather than looking into other more creative ways of providing services? Are they all so stretched across the board that that is standing in the way of their capacity for thinking differently about how they come at things?

Good morning to the panel. If MUP was to continue, would witnesses support the introduction of a levy to recoup the additional revenue from retailers as outlined in the Scottish budget? Justina Murray is nodding so I will go to her first.

What would be the total benefit of minimum unit pricing and bringing back the public health supplement or having a social responsibility levy? What would be the impact of the public health benefit of minimum unit pricing—we have seen that make a difference—and the additional revenue going back into treatment and preventative services? What does that whole bundle look like?

Is 16 per cent the average?

Would witnesses prefer a levy to take the form of a public health supplement or for it to be a social responsibility levy? What should that revenue be put back into?

So far, in talking about a public health levy, we have focused on the big retailers and rateable values. However, in some communities, small shops might be the only ones there, and they will sell alcohol to the community around them. Given that, as you correctly identified, it is the amount that people drink that causes them harm, what is your view on a public health levy being linked to the volume of sales—and, therefore, the harm that a shop might be doing to the community around it—rather than the rateable value of premises?