Chamber and committees

Good afternoon, everybody. Don Williamson talked about unpaid carers and how we support them. In respect of rights for breaks for carers, through sections 38(2) to 38(10), the bill suggests modifying the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. Eligibility criteria and the language that is used have been talked about. There are suggestions on changing that language to make it easier for unpaid carers to obtain or access breaks.

Some of the language is interesting. It is all very legal language. The bill suggests substituting the words “eligible needs” with

“relevant needs that meet the local eligibility criteria”.

We now have to think about going back to considering what the eligibility criteria are and how we can get breaks for unpaid carers. Breaks are not the be-all and end-all, because some care is so complicated that one or two registered nurses might need to be trained to deliver care that a parent is already delivering.

What are your thoughts about the language in the bill to support breaks for carers? Is that language adequate? We need to support and help the work that unpaid carers do down the line. That really needs to be valued. How can we get them the best support through respite breaks and in the language of the bill?

I will go to Don Williamson first, as he picked up that issue when Sandesh Gulhane asked a question.

The issue of breaks concerns young carers who are caring for people, and older people who are caring for their spouses. It is a huge issue in social care.

Given that carers and their breaks take up three pages of the bill, we really need to think about that, and I am happy to hear any suggestions for improvements.

On recruitment and retention, if the Government committed to supporting on-going, continuing professional learning to unburden providers with regard to the financial aspects of having to send people away to do online or face-to-face training, would you welcome that?

I have a wee final question, which might go to Nick. We heard last week that the integration joint board in Dumfries will work with the Granite Care Consortium to examine what you are doing in Aberdeen, which could then be mirrored. Really good work has taken place and you have highlighted local authorities and IJBs that offer good examples of collaborative working and ethical delivery of care; I would like to see that work go forward.

Should we take those bits of good work and build them into the co-design so that, when the care service is delivered, we are using really good examples of work that exists out there now? That is part of what we are hearing about the Granite Care Consortium, which is now linking with Dumfries and Galloway.

I have a wee final question. Nick, you said earlier that, when your chief officer put forward ideas, people were nervous about them. I know that it is difficult to accept and adopt change; some folk are total change agents, while others need a lot of coercion. Do we need to harness your chief officer’s approach, given that a lot of trust was required to deliver the change that was necessary for the Granite Care Consortium and that you are now leading the way? Indeed, I have heard that you are now working with Dumfries and Galloway Council with regard to the lessons that it can take from you on how to deliver things in the south-west of Scotland. I am interested in hearing about the change aspect.

Both Margaret McCarthy and Nick Price spoke about trust, and Jim Gatherum, from Notwen House care home, in Dumfries, said that we should focus on trust and relationship-centred care, which all relate to the previous questions about autonomy. Do the witnesses think we should ensure that the bill focuses on autonomy, trust and relationship building as ways in which the national care service should support people?

I know that we have already talked a little about those issues. Rachel, I have brought up on my iPad the paper that CCPS submitted to us, in which you made recommendations about amendments that you would like to see. That sort of evidence is fantastic, because we really want to hear about amendments that you think will be good for the bill and which will ensure that it delivers the national care service—or, at least, a way forward with co-design. Thank you for that—I found it really helpful.

I am interested to hear the panel’s views on commissioning and procurement, on what “ethical” means and on how we move forward with that. That question is for Rachel Cackett, first of all, and then for Julie Welsh from Scotland Excel.

Yes, thanks. The time-and-task model came up during the committee’s visit to Dumfries. Euan McLeod, who is from the Dumfries team, said that the team is working with the Granite Care Consortium and that part of what it hopes to do is move away from the time-and-task model. Will you tell us what that means and what we need to do better when we are planning the national care service to make care more deliverable?

In the last evidence session, we heard about ethical commissioning and procurement. The language around ethical commissioning is really important with regard to how we procure services. The bill refers to reserving the right

“to participate in procurement by type of organisation”.

I am interested to hear what your involvement has been in how services are commissioned. What do you want to see in the bill specifically to support an ethical commissioning and procurement framework?