Seòmar agus comataidhean

One of the care home providers whom we spoke to in Dumfries, Jim Gatherum, thought that self-directed support should be available in care homes. Has anyone taken part in any discussion about that?

I have another wee question about establishing the care boards. Part of the bill covers training and the recognition of the exemplary skills that are required in order to provide care at home or in a care home. Career pathways need to be thought about, established and progressed, because we should value the carers who feel less valued. Is the bill able to create a formalised recognition of the skills that are required to be a carer?

Elinor, you said that some work can be done now, such as tackling stigma, rather than waiting for a bill. I have a meeting with Angela Constance next week to talk about education for all healthcare personnel, not just folk who work in alcohol and drugs, to tackle stigma. As Kira McDiarmid said, it is not only folk who work in mental health who need mental health training. Therefore, the work on tackling stigma will be moving forward now, but the bill has a section about training. Would that provision therefore be welcome, as it would embed that training in the bill, so that whoever takes the training forward would be responsible for ensuring that everybody gets the education that is required?

Thank you.

I have a quick question for Dr Manji, and for other witnesses if they have thought about the issue. As care boards are established, what will happen with integration joint boards and health and social care partnerships and the movement and flow of people? How would that be perceived, and how would that be implemented in practice?

The word “sufficient” is used in the bill—it mentions “sufficient breaks”. We need to consider how looking after a parent, grandparent or sibling interferes with the education of a young person. I am interested to hear your thoughts on what we need to do in order to take a relationship-centred approach to determining what “sufficient” is. There has to be an agreement with the person who is providing the care about what works for them. Henry Simmons said that people dinnae want a lot; they just want what is sufficient for them. Is more guidance on or a definition of “sufficient” needed in order to make the provisions in the bill work for unpaid carers?

I have no problems with minor technical amendments to the units and the forms of nutrients in various pieces of legislation. I just want to highlight the issue of pesticide residues. Any time that that kind of language is flagged, it reminds me of work that I did previously, when I was a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, on food safety, food standards, imports, trade, trade deals and things like that.

Without going into detail about the US Food and Drug Administration’s “Food Defect Levels Handbook” on approved defects, I basically just want to state that I am happy with proceeding with the instrument, because the information that we have on pesticide residues refers to widening the definition, or

“expanding on the potential sources, to include veterinary and biocides.”

On further reading of the information, I am satisfied that it is okay to proceed with the instrument.

So that bit of language might be too prescriptive.

What is sufficient for one person might not be sufficient for another, so it is all very person centred, to use that phrase. I suppose that a break might be a break with the person whom you are caring for. Does that language need to be in the bill? How do we define that? Can that be worked on? The bill is about sufficiency and language that is not about eligibility. Once we have the overarching framework, we can clarify what “sufficient” is and build on that through an approach that takes the carer’s view on board. Would that be part of the co-production?

I heard this morning from two young people in receipt of self-directed support, but that was not the language that they used to describe it. In fact, they did not know that that was what they were receiving. Is it important for people to understand what is being delivered as long as the necessary care is delivered? Does the language matter?

This might not be a matter for the primary legislation, but I note that, when we were in Dumfries, a care home owner told us that people in care homes did not get self-directed support, even though they were in their own home. Given that other folk get it in their homes, why do care home residents not get such support, too? That might be a question for down the line, but is it relevant to what should be in the primary legislation in order to pin down what such support is all about?