Chamber and committees

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?

We have heard people talk about co-design and co-production. They are often used interchangeably, but we know that co-design is actually different from co-production. What is co-design, in terms of shaping the national care service bill?

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?

We have had some interesting evidence sessions with people who assume that the national care service will do things such as taking away local authorities’ assets. Electric vehicles, for example, were mentioned way back at the beginning of the evidence taking. It might help us if you tell us what the national care service is and is not. The issue of transfer of staff and assets that belong to local authorities, for instance, has been brought up. The point about electric cars was interesting to me because I had asked a question about it. How can we dispel some of the myths that have already been created about the national care service?

How will the Government ensure that, as part of the co-design process, national accountability allows for local implementation and flexibility? There is a big difference between developing care to be delivered in the city of Glasgow and doing it for rural Dumfries and Galloway, for instance. I assume that co-design will be on-going rather than having an end point for design of the whole service.

How will we monitor and evaluate the implementation and success—assuming that it is a success—of this framework bill?

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.