Chamber and committees

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?

Good afternoon, everybody, including the folk online. I have been interested in the issue of self-directed support since the previous session of Parliament. We have heard evidence that it is not being delivered well in some places but that it is absolutely fantastic in other places. Self-directed support seems to offer people choice about the kind of care that they want.

Should there be more on self-directed support in the bill and, if so, what should the bill say? On pages 20 and 21, the bill refers to modifying the self-directed support legislation. What are your thoughts on self-directed support, and should there be more on that in the bill?

Therefore, a digital care record that is accessible, secure and safe is absolutely what we need to think about in the bill. You are right about choice, traceability and the ability to know who has accessed records. I come from a nursing background and, from that point of view, when we are operating on somebody, we want to know what has happened in the past, including about previous surgeries, and it is really handy to have a record to check for safety reasons.

The third sector does not have access to records. Would you support that access? When we consider who is looking after the person—someone might have self-directed support, for example—is it necessary that the right people have access to the record?

The Food Train and other services that are equivalent to meals on wheels deliver to folks’ homes, and their staff might pick up on increased memory loss, for example, which might trigger an assessment or more care. Should such services be involved as part of the co-design process? Should they feed into the records even though they may not necessarily have access to them? Again, that is about on-going assessment. Should we think about that as part of the co-design process?

One of our questions in our briefing paper is directly about minority ethnic carers. We need to make sure that the questions are representative of that issue as well. What additional needs and potential barriers should be considered in relation to carers from minority ethnic communities with respect to access to breaks?

Not really—whoever is the self-directed support expert.

Dr Gould mentioned how everyone knows everyone’s business in rural areas. I represent the South Scotland region, which is very rural. She is right to say that folk in rural areas know what people are up to—sometimes, they even seem to know before those people know themselves. Other members will probably be very aware of how news about rural healthcare gets round the town or village.

Digital care records are a way of sharing information. Some stories can be repeated while other stories remain buried, if that is a person’s choice. My question is for Dr Gould. What fears do you have about care records? What do you hope to see that would be deliverable and would help to improve care?