³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We want every individual in Scotland to be able to access social care, in a way that is flexible, meets their individual needs and enables them to flourish. To go back to some the challenges that we discussed with Tess White, we recognise that it is challenging to provide data. With the health system, for example, we can look at things such as the four-hour accident and emergency metric, which gives us an indication across the whole system. In social care, we do not have such simple metrics that are easy to measure and that give us an indication of the health of the whole system, and for which we can set targets. However, we are keen—

I would like to start by thanking the committee and all those who have taken time to give evidence during the past few months. I very much welcome any chance to shine a light on self-directed support, which is a policy with which Scotland leads the rest of the world.

The SDS journey began with the passing of the 2013 act, which signified a fundamental shift in mindsets, recognising that individuals are the experts in their own lives and should be fully supported to make their own decisions about their care and support. Since then, we have witnessed the tangible impact of the introduction of SDS on the lives of countless individuals across Scotland.

Through personalised budgets and tailored support plans, people have been able to live more independently, pursue their passions and participate in their communities in a way that just was not possible previously. I have seen for myself the impact of SDS on individuals, including at a recent visit to the Lothian Centre for Inclusive Living.

Although I am aware that the committee has heard of many examples of SDS being implemented in accordance with the 2013 act, I am aware and have heard that work is still to be done across a number of areas. They include ensuring consistency of implementation across local authorities and in provision of information and access to advocacy; addressing wider workforce issues, including recruitment, retention and training of staff; and clarifying how SDS will work in the context of the proposed national care service.

As members will be aware, the self-directed support improvement plan that was jointly published by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities sets out how we are continuing to drive improvements in SDS. The plan recognises the need for a whole-system approach. Although the Scottish Government can set the legislative framework and foster connections to promote collaborative working in the areas where it is most needed, it is vital that delivery partners across the statutory, third and independent sectors all play a role in implementation. That includes local authorities and integration authorities, which have statutory responsibility for ensuring that people can get the support that is right for them. The plan is supported by updated guidance and a framework of standards that make clear the expectations of local authorities in provision of care and support.

However, I want to be clear. It is not right that an individual in one locality has limited options available to them in comparison with their counterparts in another part of the country. Such inconsistency in access to SDS is an example of the reasons why the Scottish Government has introduced the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which will allow Scottish ministers greater oversight over the quality of social care in Scotland and greater ability to drive consistency in order to reduce the inequality that we all know exists in the system.

Through the national care service national board, there will also be the opportunity to share good practice further across the country to enable it to become more widespread. With the NCS will also come greater financial clarity and transparency, which is something that becomes more and more important as financial pressures continue to build.

The 2013 act was a significant step, but we still face many challenges, and I recognise the need for further improvement in delivery of SDS at a local level. The Scottish Government remains committed to driving forward improvements in the way in which social care is delivered, and that commitment extends to embedding the principles of SDS in the national care service.

That is a really good question. This committee will be well aware of the complexity of the health and social care system and how challenging it is to have an impact from the centre. One reason why I am so committed to the national care service is that I recognise that, although we absolutely need to have Government direction and responsibility, we need to work with local systems, as well. It cannot be one or the other; it must be both. The tripartite accountability agreement that we struck with the national care service will help us to bring some cohesion to the complex landscape in which we are all operating.

The other challenge that we have in health and social care systems as a whole is that we cannot afford to get it wrong, because people’s lives depend on it. These are essential services, so we really need to manage change very carefully. We are well aware of that responsibility, and we are managing change carefully.

One thing with self-directed support is that, rather than it being about the operational directions and guidelines on how to do it, it is really about the ethos of it. That was a huge shift in culture to where the person is at the centre of the decision, and a shift to where their human rights are upheld and early intervention, prevention and support are wrapped around that individual in order to make decisions that suit them and help them to achieve their life goals. I think you will see that ethos firmly embedded in everything that we do from now on. We know that it is absolutely the right thing to do. It is challenging, but this post-legislative scrutiny of the act is welcome. We are keen to keep going back and looking again to see how we can improve it.

Again, and you would expect me to say this as somebody who is steering the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill through Parliament, I see an opportunity through the bill to pick up on areas of good practice, as well as to bring grip, coherence and assurance to areas where practice is falling down. I see an opportunity to pick up on areas of good practice and to quickly translate them across the country. That excites me, because that has been challenging in the past.

Members know that listening to the voices of those with lived experience is important to the Government. We put lived experience at the heart of our policy development and, often, legislation, because doing so helps us to get it right, but it also holds our feet to the fire on delivery. We find that it is a helpful way of working and of ensuring that we close the implementation gap—the gap between the ambition and what is happening on the ground. If the voice of lived experience is very strong during the development of a policy, that helps us to get it right and to deliver the policy well.

We have a couple of lived experience panels; Morag Williamson will probably enjoy telling you a little bit more about that. We wondered whether it might still be possible for the panel to contribute to the committee’s inquiry, because it has been so helpful to us in our development.

That can certainly happen in strategy development. When that has happened, we have tried to reach out to those stakeholder groups to ensure that we have a strong relationship as we go forward. I can think of a couple of stakeholder groups with which we have a stronger and closer relationship now, having worked together, than we had in the early days.

As you have heard from each and every one of us, we think that suicide is everyone’s business. We want absolutely everyone, particularly marginalised communities, to be part of the solution and to feel involved. We do not want them to feel left on the outside, and we do not want to impose on them a one-size-fits-all solution. We are keen to work with anyone.

I am not sure whether the committee has had closed evidence sessions. Obviously, we are keenly observing your inquiry, but I do not think that we have seen that evidence. If, during your session with people with lived experience, particular issues came up that we need to be aware of, we are keen to hear about them. We want to work with people, and we think that the work that the committee is doing is really helpful. We are keen for the Parliament to scrutinise the work that we are doing, and we are keen to improve and to do the best job that we can, so we will take any pointers that you have for us.

You have heard us all mention the challenging financial backdrop. Against that, however, we are fully committed to doubling suicide prevention funding to £2.8 million by 2026, and we are well on track to achieve that. The allocation for 2024-25 is £2.6 million, which is very close to the target figure.

That is against a backdrop of increased investment in mental health and wellbeing as a whole, as well as specific investments—I have not mentioned the distress brief intervention programme. It is important that we see the investment in suicide prevention as part of the whole landscape of mental health investment and suicide prevention itself as part of the core work of mental health. All our investments in mental health in general and in specific programmes such as distress brief intervention have an impact on suicide prevention.

To date, we have invested £24 million in distress brief intervention. I do not know whether you have heard much evidence about it, but it provides timely, compassionate support for people in distress. It is not intended to be suicide prevention work, but when we evaluated it, we found that, for one in 10 people, access to the programme had reduced the risk of suicide. It is really impactful and about 62,500 people in Scotland have accessed it.

You have to be referred to distress brief intervention by front-line staff—those working in ambulances, NHS 24, the police and so on—and when I recently met the staff who can make such referrals, I heard them talk very powerfully about the programme’s impact on the ground. It reduced their own distress in dealing with difficult situations, because they had a powerful, impactful and effective tool that they could utilise in really distressing situations and when faced with people in distress. The programme has been rolled out almost all over the country and within the next few months it will have been rolled out everywhere.

The programme came up in a parliamentary debate last week, when we were talking about the police’s role in responding to people in distress. Distress brief intervention can be deployed by telephone operators when people phone the police, and it can save police time. It is a really impactful programme; again, it is not part of our specific suicide prevention work, but I am very confident that it is having an impact. It is important that we look at the suicide prevention budget within the work that is going on as a whole.

We have a national suicide prevention advisory group, which provides an independent assessment of progress to Government and COSLA every year, and it highlights any adjustment or redirection of our priorities that may be needed. The membership of that advisory group reflects a broad range of sectors that are leading work on the social determinants of suicide, such as poverty and care experience, with partners who are working in key sectors affected by suicide, such as the criminal justice sector. We have a broad group, and my impression is that they are constructive critics who are not afraid to hold power to account. That will be useful, particularly given the financial constraints that we are all aware of, in ensuring that our focus remains exactly where it needs to be.

I will ask Morag Williamson to come in on that, but that is a conversation that is still going on across Government. We have found ourselves in very difficult times in the past number of years, but we expect to get back on a sustainable footing at some point.

The other thing that we do is provide support. In the discussion around men’s sheds, you heard a commitment from the Government to helping them to get on to a more sustainable footing than they are currently, so that they are more resilient in future years than they have been up until now.

I am happy to start, and I think that Morag Williamson will probably want to come in and contribute a little as well.

A number of things are significantly different. One is that tackling inequalities, which will be of particular interest to this committee, is ingrained as part of the core work in the new strategy, whereas, in previous strategies, there was recognised increased risk in communities who experienced inequalities, but there was a challenge in how to respond to that. We have built the tackling of inequalities in with the bricks of this strategy, and we hope that that work will deliver for those particular communities. Of course, often, people do not experience just one inequality, and that overlap has a particular impact.

As you might imagine, as I represent Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, that issue is very close to my heart. Work is being done in collaboration with Samaritans Scotland. I recently visited its project at its base in Fort William. The project is assessing the risk of suicide and is doing suicide prevention work among lone rural workers, recognising that they are a particular risk. People can be very isolated working in the Highlands and, often, because of the work that they do, they have access and means. It is an important piece of work.

As you might expect, I was hugely impressed by the work that Samaritans Scotland is doing. It is a national organisation with a real level of respect among the community and the nation, but here it was, in a local community, working very carefully and sensitively with some of the groups that were already operating in the area.

A couple of local charities are very prominent in the area. They have sprung up—I am sure that it is the same in every part of the country—because of tragic events and in memory of people who have been lost by suicide. I was impressed by the sensitive way in which this national organisation had come into the local community and was working very carefully, thoughtfully and impactfully along with the rest of the community. I think that that work reports fully next year. I am keen to see the outcome of that, and it will be of interest to every other rural area in Scotland.

We have specific work going on in rural Scotland. As I said, during my recent visit, I was very impressed by the way in which Samaritans Scotland is conducting that project. I am keen to get on the record that the project recognises the importance of employers and work-based interventions. We look to learn from suicide and there is evidence that it is often the case that people have sought help from primary care or they have sought non-specialist medical help. Sometimes, people have sought specialist help. However, employers are a very common theme across the board, and ensuring that employers are equipped to have sensitive conversations, recognising the role that they play in the community and the role that a supportive employment environment can have in preventing suicide, is a new thing. We are pleased to be working alongside a group of employers in the delivery of our mental health and wellbeing strategy but in the suicide prevention work in particular.