Seòmar agus comataidhean

With regard to what we have done, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We know that staff are accessing the mental health and wellbeing hub and the services around it. As the committee knows, we have invested more money in that, but it would be fair to say—this goes back to your earlier point about stigma—that some staff feel stigmatised in using those services. We have to get folk over that hump.

In talking to folk in health and social care, I have always said that we must continue to signpost those services; indeed, at times, we must cajole folk to use them. Once they use them, those services can make a real difference. In some cases—although, obviously, not in every case—that can happen in a fairly short time. The other week, I talked to somebody who had used the services, and they felt that, even in the initial calls, the burden had been lifted, to use their words.

Folk are under a lot of pressure, and I want those services to be used. It is absolutely vital that all of us—whether in the Parliament or out there on the front line in health and social care in the NHS, in health and social care partnerships or in third sector organisations—highlight that those services exist and that folk should access them if that is needed.

All of that shows that we still have a lot of work to do in destigmatising.

I dinna ken if I can give a brief answer to that, as Emma Harper has covered a lot of ground. As the committee is aware, the cabinet secretary announced £300 million of funding specifically to support winter pressures. There was equity between health and social care on that front. That includes £62 million for enhancing care-at-home capacity, £40 million for interim care, £20 million for enhancing multidisciplinary teams and up to £48 million for the pay increase that I mentioned earlier.

The investment in the plan itself being published does not mean that the work stops there. The cabinet secretary and I have been in discussion with a number of health boards, health and social care partnerships and local authorities over the past number of weeks to hear from them what the pressures and challenges are and to see what other help we can provide. That will continue as we move forward.

Without doubt, this is the most precarious time in the pandemic. In some areas, there is a difficulty with staffing, often because of Covid outbreaks and often because of other illnesses. Frankly, many folk on the front line are shattered. They are tired. We must take cognisance of all that in how we get all of this right.

In some of the meetings that have taken place with health boards, health and social care partnerships and local authorities, we have been considering together—and I emphasise together—what else can be done to take pressures off. That includes how everybody works in partnership and in tandem in reducing delayed discharges. What can we do through the multidisciplinary team approach to plug gaps? If there are Covid outbreaks or other things that are keeping staff off, how can we plug those gaps? Some good thinking and some good action is taking place in some places, which we are advising other places to consider and do if necessary. That will be on-going—Ms Bell has probably been on more calls than anyone else—and will continue on a daily basis.

It has had a huge impact. From talking to folks, it is clear that the difference that Covid has made to some people’s lives is quite horrendous. We have all faced the stress of the pandemic period, but for some people, such as those who have lost income or have been bereaved during the pandemic, it has been much worse than for others. For some people, the lifeline things that they were able to do previously, which kept them in fairly good fettle, went by the wayside as a result of the lockdowns.

We should not underplay the impact that the pandemic has had on people across the country. We can see from the survey work that has been undertaken across the piece that almost everyone has been affected by what has gone on.

I gave you some numbers earlier on, convener, but I will repeat them for you. However, I do not have at my fingertips the figures that Mr Torrance asked for with regard to the number of people diagnosed each year or any statistics showing regional variation. Ms Campbell, who is the fount of all knowledge, might well have them, and if not, she will without a doubt find them. As I said earlier, there are approximately 44,133 autistic people in Scotland—I did say “approximately”, but it is quite a specific number.

On the question of regional variation, I will pass over to Ms Campbell.

I will not pre-empt the consultation on the national care service. We have posed a number of questions in the consultation document with regard to what should be in the service, and we will look at the views that we get back. I know that some folk think that some of the questions and proposals are a little bit controversial. No matter what, the national care service will be extremely important as we move forward, because it will set high-quality standards across the board. That is what people want from services, whether they be in or out of the national care service, and that high-quality standard is what we require across the board, including in autism and neurodevelopmental services.

Service users in the autism community and in others are often very frustrated about accountability, and we must ensure that they know who is accountable for the delivery of services. We cannot afford to have a continuation of the postcode lottery in which people who live in one place get a very high-quality service while those in the authority next door have much less of an entitlement. We need high-quality standards, no matter whether services are in or out of the national care service.

We must look closely at all the recommendations and find a way forward to ensure that we provide better support and create better opportunities for people with autism.

I am sure that the committee will pick up on this, and I can go into further detail if required, but the fact is that, although the services provided to people with autism and learning difficulties are very good in some areas, I cannot claim the same for other parts of the country. We need to do our level best in all parts of the country to ensure that we are providing the services and help required to all folk with a neurodevelopmental condition. That will take quite a bit of work.

In all of that, and in light of the recommendations, we all have a duty to continue to listen to the voices of those with lived experience about what works and what does not work for them.

It is not like me, convener—and it is not like you either, but there we go. [Laughter.]

I will ask Ms Campbell to respond and then come back in, convener.

I will be a bit controversial and say that I agree with most of what Mr Sweeney said. However, we must also recognise that services deemed good in the minds of some folk might be deemed not so great by others.

When I was in my previous role as Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, vast changes, some of which are still on-going, were made in homelessness policy, regulation and legislation, and the voices of folk with lived experience of homelessness were at the very heart of what we did. I am not saying that that was absolutely perfect—it never is—but we are on a good journey and in a good place, because we listened to people and their experiences. I fully intend to do the same in this role. Whether it be in relation to autism services, social care or mental health services, I will continue to listen to the voices of lived experience.

In some of the conversations that I have had thus far in coming into this new role, I have noted that some of the assumptions that we all make, rightly or wrongly, about what we think needs to be improved first and what our priorities should be are not necessarily shared by folks with lived experience. I have talked to folk about mental health services in general, and something that has cropped up again and again and that I think is one of the top priorities for the groups that I spoke to—I know that some folk will disagree with me—is the fact that the complaints system does not work for people. We need to look at that very closely in this area and in others.

Beyond that, in those areas where there is very good practice, you will usually find that service users have helped to shape the service in question. Again, that is something that we need to push further. Some local authorities and health and social care partnerships are very good at listening to the voices of lived experience and shaping services and while others are not quite so good. We need to continue on this journey to ensure that everyone is doing that. I would also point out that one of the proposals in the national care service consultation is for community health and social care boards to have the voices of lived experience at the table, which I think is essential.

The programme for government, which was published in September, committed the Government to carrying out scoping work on the remit of and powers in the learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill in this parliamentary session. It will take time to scope all that and get it right, and we need to continue some of the conversations that we have been having. For example, there are polarised views on the proposals for a commissioner, and we have to listen to all sides if we are to get that right. That scoping work will happen and we will move on with the matter in this parliamentary session.

Concurrently with that, the Scottish mental health law review is due to report next September. As the committee will likely be aware, the review will make recommendations to give effect to the rights, will and preferences of the individual by ensuring that mental health, incapacity and adult support and protection legislation reflects people’s social, economic and cultural rights, including the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the European convention on human rights. That said, I think that today’s Supreme Court ruling has put some difficulty in our way with regard to embedding certain UN convention rights in legislation, but that is probably a discussion for another day. You will be glad to hear, convener, that I will not go into a rant about that, but it is fair to say that, like many others, I am quite irate about it.

The Scottish mental health law review is extremely important in all this, but we need to listen to people and ensure that we embed rights in any legislative change, whether that be in the learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill or in anything that comes from the review itself.