Seòmar agus comataidhean

Dr Meechan’s last point is really interesting, and I would like to hear some more detail on that. If my understanding is right, there is consensus on individuals’ owning and controlling their data. That is to do with consent, choice and setting limits, and the approach to that must be person centred. Should that be stated in the bill?

I have a quick question for you, Suzanne. I also sit on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and we are examining this stuff, too. We have heard about situations involving, for example, a family with a justice social worker, an addictions social worker and a children’s social worker, who are each focused on different information. There is then the job of pulling all those threads back together so as to consider the family holistically.

Does the bill present an opportunity to streamline? I do not mean streamline; I suppose that I mean an opportunity to take a much more holistic approach involving social workers working with the whole family. Rather than having three or four social workers, one or two could consider the situation in the round and apply their expertise and knowledge right across it. I do not know whether that happens or whether there is specific training for each strand, which still all need to be kept separate. I am interested to hear what you would say on that.

I appreciate that point, because I know that, for some people, sharing details or too much information on traumatic experiences with someone with whom they are not happy about doing so is also a traumatising experience. Do the other panel members have any comments on how we get the balance right?

This is for Ken Macdonald. What role should the third sector and voluntary organisations—and services such as those for housing and homelessness—have in relation to information sharing? Does the bill allow them to fulfil that role or might changes to it be needed?

I would also like to hear your comments about the voluntary sector and other services that are outwith the scope of the bill, such as housing and homelessness services.

I think that we dipped into it quite a lot, in fact. Rosemary Agnew went into detail in her earlier responses to my questions on complaints. I have a couple of small points to raise; I am not sure whether you will be able to answer these questions.

First, chapter 3 of the bill is about creating a charter. Would you expect that to be limited to principles or to include rights and responsibilities—for example, on waiting times and complaints, similar to what is in the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011?

Secondly, should ministers have a duty to ensure that advocacy services are available for people with disabilities or people who have other needs, similar to what is in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018?

I direct those questions to Rosemary Agnew first, and I am happy for others to come in after her.

To come back to what Paula Fraser said, I realise that people are concerned about mental health information in particular being shared. However, that is one of the key areas in which we talk about people experiencing trauma as a result of having to repeat their story over and over again. It is implicit that they should be able to share that information when that is helpful to them. How do we get the balance right, so that human rights are respected, too?

I thank the witnesses for coming. I will direct my question to Vicky Irons first, but everyone is welcome to come in.

We have talked a lot about consistency and quality, and we have highlighted quite a lot of challenges to joint working as well as the real improvements that have been going on in partnership working. We have heard that the key to success is collaboration, which improves outcomes.

Central to Derek Feeley’s recommendations was an NCS with a co-design aspect that looked to fully involve not just social workers and health professionals but people receiving care and the organisations that support them, including adults, children, families, the third sector, advocacy and people with disabilities. Those recommendations were in response to overwhelming public support for that approach.

Could care boards—which would include members with lived experience as well as social workers and health professionals, for instance—be an opportunity to expand on the success of joint working to include people with lived experience in the on-going design and delivery of services to ensure that we achieve the outcomes that matter most to people not just now but in the future? Surely the proposal is about collaboration. It is about the idea that bringing in the lived experience would add to the collaboration that you already have and would make services better.

I said that it was directed to Vicky Irons initially.

You have talked a bit about the challenges. We heard concerns from Ross McGuffie that, if adult services are part of the national care service, having children’s services sitting outwith it could create problems with the approach to whole-family support. He spoke about services perhaps being shoehorned in later to assist in a system that is really built around adult services. What are your thoughts on that?

Martin, do you believe that the national care service presents an opportunity for third sector organisations, as well as people who have lived experience, to work right at the centre of care boards and to be part of the co-design process, examining new policy and delivery so that people get the outcomes that matter to them?