Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, you are right to point out that we are talking about remobilisation here, but folks have put in a hard shift over the course of all of this. Some services were disbanded during Covid, but the vast bulk of folk who were in those services moved and worked elsewhere. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who have kept our most vulnerable folk cared for during these very tricky 20 months.

I am sorry to repeat myself, but we are in a precarious time. In fact, it is the most precarious time. It would be fair to say that, in many areas, there are staff shortages. Some of that is down to illness and some of it is down to the fact of Brexit. One service that I spoke to had lost 40 per cent of its staff, who returned to their home countries after Brexit. That is inevitably going to have an impact.

We also know, because we have heard the stories, that other folks have left social care for the moment because they are tired and they have gone into what they see as easier jobs in hospitality. I hope—I think that we all hope—that those folks come back, and the national care service proposal gives us an opportunity to consider national pay bargaining for them, with a real hard look at pay and conditions and, beyond that, at opportunities for career progression.

We all have a duty to recognise that care is a profession. We have a wee bit of education to do with some folk around that, but we should continue—and I hope that the committee will continue—to refer to it as a profession as we move forward.

I turn to Ms Bell to talk about the folk who are involved in the remobilisation plan because I cannot remember off the top of my head.

I disagree profoundly with Dr Gulhane that Covid has not had an impact: it most definitely has. He should spend some time talking to folks with lived experience and the folk who work in front-line services about the impact that it has had.

His point about digital services is important. During the past period we have adapted quickly, and digital services are among the things in which we have invested. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been provided, which has worked well for many folk. We will continue to invest in digital services.

There is no doubt that digital services work well for many people, but there will still be a need for group therapies and individual face-to-face consultations, as we move forward. We can learn a lot from what we have gone through, so we are considering how to embed that in services in order to create hybrid provision where it is required. However, as always, we need to take a person-centred approach and to see what is best for the individual. Much of that is down to what clinicians think is best for the individual.

Without a doubt, lessons have been learned from the pandemic: we will take full advantage of the technological changes that we have made to get treatment right for people.

I know that folk canna wait, and that is why we have already made additional investment. I will just run through some of that, if you do not mind, convener.

We invested an extra £1.1 million in the short breaks fund through Shared Care Scotland last year, and £300,000 in our Young Scot young carers package to support carers of all ages to enjoy some time away. As we know, however, some folk will not do that, so we need to encourage it. This year, we have already committed an extra £570,000 for the short breaks fund.

We also recently launched the £1.4 million ScotSpirit holiday voucher scheme for tourism businesses to sign up to help low-income families, unpaid carers and disadvantaged young folk to take a break from caring.

The other thing that I want to do in the short term will require co-operation from partners including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and it is to get rid of eligibility criteria, particularly some of the local eligibility criteria that have cropped up. That is of major importance to delivery.

As Ms Callaghan rightly points out, unpaid carers have seen a decline in their mental health during this time. The national wellbeing hub that I talked about earlier is also open to carers. Yesterday we talked with managers from carer centres and, although a lot of work is being done to signpost folk to the hub, we still need to do more on that front. The national wellbeing hub also has a dedicated section for unpaid carers, and we are developing a dedicated page for young carers.

Those are some of the short-term things that we have done, are doing and will do.

Every week, I get a report on how the guidance “Open with Care—Supporting Meaningful Contact in Care Homes” is working, and where it is not working. There are still some difficulties with outbreaks in certain places, but “Open with Care” should allow greater access for relatives. Even when there is an outbreak, there are still ways for relatives to have access to their loved ones in care homes.

The committee will know that we have had two consultations that have now come to an end. I cannot remember how many responses we have had.

We are both losing our memory on that, but we can send you the figure. There has been a significant response.

I should say that Anne Duke, whom Anne’s law is named after, passed away at the weekend. I give my condolences to her family. We will move forward on Anne’s law. I think that there is cross-party support for getting that right for people as we move forward. That will be Anne’s legacy. I pay tribute to her daughter, Natasha, and her husband, Campbell, for their efforts in getting it right for their family and for everyone in the future.

The Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 provides for a number of statutory services to meet the needs of carers. However, we know that delivery of the provisions in the 2016 act is better in some parts of the country than in others, and we need to make further changes to the situation. The 2016 act is grand, but the moneys that we have given to local authorities—substantial amounts of money—are not necessarily reaching carers services in every area.

Again, we need to change that as we move forward. That may mean making changes to the national care service legislation, or looking at what we need to do to secure—I do not use that word lightly—the money so that it goes directly to carers and carers centres as anticipated. The correct term to use is “ring fencing”. It would be fair to say that, in some areas, where all our investment is going is not open and transparent.

It would be fair to say that time is precious, at the moment. I do not have with me evidence to give Ms Mackay about that impact. We are examining those things very carefully.

I know that Ms Mackay has a great interest in data. I have freely admitted to Parliament that some of our data collection is not the best. In some regards, there is duplication in data gathering—not just by the Government, but by a number of agencies. We need to do a wee stocktake—as I have called it—or audit. This is one area in which we probably need to do a little bit more.

I do not want to pre-empt Ms Mackay’s next questions, but she knows from my answers to her in the chamber that we also lack data on some minority groups. We need to do much more work on that.

I know that Ms Mochan has a real interest in community-based services and preventative measures. As I said earlier, I want to move much more towards those so that folk do not have to enter acute services.

Let me give a wee flavour of the CAMHS situation. Some of the statistics are not brilliant, and some show that things are, without a doubt, on the move. We cannot forget that each number in the statistics is a person with a family; I will certainly not forget that.

The statistics that I will give were published on 7 September. During the quarter prior to that, 4,552 children and young people started treatment. That is an increase from the previous quarter, when the figure was 4,096. The figure was up by 28.3 per cent on the figure for the same quarter in 2020. Therefore, we are getting back to clinicians being able to see more folk. That is good, but we still have a way to go.

In the quarter prior to the report on 7 September, 72.6 per cent of CAMHS patients started treatment within 18 weeks. That percentage was ever so slightly up on the percentage in the previous quarter, when the figure was 72.4 per cent. However, it was up dramatically on the percentage for the same quarter in 2020, which was 61.7 per cent. We have to understand that there was a massive impact from the pandemic at that time.

In the quarter prior to the report, 10,193 children and young people were referred to CAMHS. That was an increase on the number who were referred in the previous quarter, when the figure was 7,883, and on the number in the same quarter in 2020, when the figure was 4,052. As has been pointed out, there was a dip in the number of folk being referred during the pandemic.

In the quarter prior to the report, 22.2 per cent of referrals to CAMHS were not accepted, and the figure was similar in the previous quarter. I know that Ms Mochan believes that there should be more interrogation of that; I agree with her, on that front. We will look at that.

That gives a flavour of the situation. I have a lot more information in front of me, but I am sure that the convener does not want me to take up a huge amount of time with all that. If you wish, I can send all the statistics to the committee in writing so that you have all the information at your disposal.

I will be brutally honest with the committee: I am happy to nick good ideas from anyone, anywhere. We are doing some pretty groundbreaking things in Scotland, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the national suicide prevention leadership group, which was recognised by the World Health Organization in its most recent report. That report is worth reading. It contains some good tips from across the globe that I am more than happy to nick as we move forward.

We saw a small decrease in the number of suicides in Scotland last year, but one suicide is one too many as far as I am concerned. Therefore, we have a fair amount of work to do.

The committee might also be aware that we have a lot more to do when it comes to self-harm. That is why I have said that we will develop a separate self-harm strategy. A lot of work has been done on that issue by stakeholders and academics in Scotland. We have more to do, but we can do that. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that, by moving in that direction, we will be the first country in the world to have a separate but connected self-harm strategy.