Chamber and committees

The committee briefing paper refers to new models of primary care to address specific issues such as mental health. Will that be beneficial? We are looking to embed mental health support workers in GP practices for example. That approach should be a successful way to tackle mental health issues.

I know that vaccination will be on-going, and a new variant has now appeared: XBB.1.5. As I was part of the vaccination programme in NHS Dumfries and Galloway, I was able to learn a lot about the different vaccines that were produced. Is it reasonable for the UK Government just to terminate the funding, rather than, as you say, having a phased reduction?

Thanks for bringing me back in, convener. I am interested in picking up David Torrance’s initial point on preventative spend. I know that there is cross-portfolio budgeting and that a lot of the health and social care budget goes direct to local authorities. Some of it also goes to the third sector, and I will give an example of that. I have done work with the charity Beat, which received £400,000 from the Scottish Government to support its work to help people with eating disorders. Given that some of the health and social care budget goes to other bodies, including to local authorities—£35,000 goes to each local authority to look at developing an autism strategy, for example—is it difficult to track and evaluate the effectiveness of that funding?

I have a final wee question about the cross-portfolio issue. Just before the Christmas recess, Richard Lochhead, the Minister for Just Transition, Employment and Fair Work, took a question in the chamber about the autism spectrum employment gap. He spoke about the support that is being provided to people. That reflects cross-portfolio requirements to support budgets.

However, sometimes, it is difficult to trace where a specific budget comes from. In that case, does the budget come from your portfolio or from the education and skills portfolio, for example? I am interested in peeling apart the complexities of the budget, and that is the cross-portfolio issue that I wanted to raise.

Okay—thanks.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions on the establishment of care boards. There are sections in the bill on

“Establishment and abolition of care boards”,

on

“Directions to care boards”

and on

“Removal of care board members”.

I am interested to hear how we will move forward on developing care boards, who will be on them and whether they will be commissioning or delivery bodies or a bit of both.

I have a wee quick question. In evidence to the committee, Karen Hedge of Scottish Care expressed concerns that

“care boards ... might just be recreating a system that”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 29 November 2022; c 8.]

already exists. We have also heard folk talking about moving the deck chairs around.

I seek clarity that the bill is about establishing a care system that will benefit personally the people on the ground who have been asking for better care and support for themselves.

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 ask a short question, after which I am happy to move on, but I am sure that I will pick up on stuff later.

People have given us evidence that we should fix the situation now. They have said that we should not pursue the national care service at this point because we need to act to fix the system now. They have asked why we would waste so much money—£1.5 billion—on massive structural reform for a national care service, rather than fixing the current situation. How do you respond to that, minister?