Chamber and committees

Does anyone else want to come in on that question before I move on?

I asked our previous witnesses about the underlying trauma and co-existing mental health issues that people with experience of substance abuse often have. Does the three-week deadline in the bill risk sidelining other important work that could keep people in recovery for longer, because there will be a statutory obligation to have them in treatment for addiction?

On the specific point that Forbes Dunlop raised about local facilities and locally run facilities, we are seeing a lot of facilities becoming part of community asset transfers, with local authorities looking to offload some of those assets. One in my region is Grangemouth stadium, which I know Scottish Athletics is involved in. What practical support, if not financial support, can sportscotland give teams and governing bodies, such as Scottish Athletics, that are looking to take over such venues in order to keep them running for the groups that use them?

Good morning.

Does sportscotland collect data on the socioeconomic status of people who participate in sporting activities—both those who do the sport themselves and the volunteers? If so, what does that data show?

Given the gap that exists, how can sportscotland work with local authorities—and how is it doing so—to ensure that access to physical activity is effectively integrated into broader public health and anti-poverty strategies?

What work is sportscotland doing with governing bodies to reduce the cost of participation, particularly for children and young people who want to get involved in club sport outside school? The cost of equipment is a huge barrier to some and will prevent some families from being able to continue physical activity outside school.

Amendments 86 and 87 seek to strengthen support for carers by ensuring clear timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for local authorities to produce those plans, which leaves carers without the support that they need. Unpaid carers have long reported frustration with delays in accessing assessments and support. Without clear deadlines, carers can be left waiting indefinitely, which undermines their ability to balance caring responsibilities with their own wellbeing. The introduction of statutory timescales will provide much-needed accountability and ensure that carers receive timely recognition and assistance.

Additionally, the amendments would repeal sections 7 and 13 of the 2016 act, which currently allow local authorities to decide whether to prepare a plan or statement if a carer’s identified needs do not meet eligibility criteria. Removing those provisions will ensure that all carers, regardless of eligibility, receive a formal assessment, reinforcing their right to support and acknowledging the vital role that carers play in our system.

I move amendment 86.

I do not have anything to add. I will press amendment 73.

Amendment 73 agreed to.

Amendments 74 to 81 moved—[Gillian Mackay]—and agreed to.

Amendment 131 not moved.

Most of my amendments in this group relate to what the bill describes as sufficient breaks

“from providing care for the cared-for person”.

Significant concerns about that phrase have been expressed by carers organisations. I am sure that it was not meant in that way, but the fact is that many carers do not actually want a break from the cared-for person; they want a break from the act of caring itself. Indeed, they would quite often like to have a break alongside that cared-for person, and that is particularly true for parents who are caring for their children. Therefore, I think that that reference should be left out and something else perhaps put in.

My amendments 131 and 88 seek to define the phrase “sufficient breaks”. I am aware that Jackie Baillie has an amendment on this issue, too, but amendment 131 suggests a “reasonable limitation” on how long people care for and a

“recognition of the carers’ ... right to rest”,

which was important to many of those carers.

As for Jackie Baillie’s amendment 132, I think that a break of two weeks might not be enough for some people. It has to be done on an individual basis. I appreciate Jackie Baillie’s intention in wanting to set out some baseline or limit, but I worry that it might be seen as a ceiling rather than a floor.

I move amendment 73.

Amendments 86 and 87 seek to strengthen support for carers by ensuring clear timescales for the preparation of adult carer support plans and young carer statements under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. Currently, there are no statutory deadlines for local authorities to produce those plans, which leaves carers without the support that they need. Unpaid carers have long reported frustration with delays in accessing assessments and support. Without clear deadlines, carers can be left waiting indefinitely, which undermines their ability to balance caring responsibilities with their own wellbeing. The introduction of statutory timescales will provide much-needed accountability and ensure that carers receive timely recognition and assistance.

Additionally, the amendments would repeal sections 7 and 13 of the 2016 act, which currently allow local authorities to decide whether to prepare a plan or statement if a carer’s identified needs do not meet eligibility criteria. Removing those provisions will ensure that all carers, regardless of eligibility, receive a formal assessment, reinforcing their right to support and acknowledging the vital role that carers play in our system.

I move amendment 86.