Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a quick question on breaks for carers. In last week’s evidence, it was mentioned that what is sufficient for one person might differ from what is sufficient for another, so I am interested in following up on that. The bill talks about defining “sufficient breaks”. It says:

“Regulations under subsection (2) may in particular make provision about—

(a) the meaning of any reference to sufficient breaks in this Act,

(b) standards or criteria in relation to the sufficiency of such breaks (including the nature, frequency or duration of breaks)”.

At last week’s cross-party group on health inequalities, Richard Meade gave a presentation and we talked a bit about breaks. Susan Chambers, from Pasda, which is an East Lothian support group for people with autism, also spoke at the meeting.

What are your thoughts on the issue of sufficient breaks? I am not sure that further detail is needed in the bill if the matter can be dealt with through regulations.

I will pick up on self-directed support. You came to Dumfries and we spent some time together. I appreciated that because it allowed me to see that some people were really happy with the self-directed support that they had been offered, while other folk had not been offered it or had never even heard of it.

Would a national approach to training ensure that people know that self-directed support exists, what it means and what options there are, and would that support be delivered in a more standardised way by the 32 local authorities?

On the subject of integrated services, you have highlighted gaps such as, for example, the lack of onward care, which leads to people being held in secure facilities instead of moving on. Do you envisage the national care service bill addressing the issues that you have highlighted in order to ensure a seamless approach? In our evidence-taking sessions, we have heard about the importance of the third and independent sectors in supporting people who have mental health needs but who do not necessarily need an acute stay in a mental health hospital. Do you think that the national care service bill should be able to support a seamless transition?

I have just one more question.

Although the framework bill is pretty short, section 38, which covers three pages, is dedicated to rights to breaks for carers. We have had feedback from various people who have raised questions about what constitutes a break, whether it is a break for everybody and whether it is a break to get out or disengage completely. I am interested in hearing views on what the bill says about breaks for carers—in particular, unpaid carers—and whether it is sufficient to achieve what is required.

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.