Seòmar agus comataidhean

To pick up on what Rachel Cackett said, how much involvement is there now from community planning partnerships and people with lived experience on local improvement plans? How much are they involved in the IJBs at the moment?

Fanchea—I hope that I am pronouncing your name properly—it is helpful that your submission sets out three clear priorities for the bill to discover and deliver on: empowering individuals to have more choice, clear leadership and support for using digital service design, and the inclusion of representation by housing organisations. Looking at the digital aspect, you spoke about a much greater and more explicit join-up between digital health and care strategies and focused intentions for investment. What would that look like? What recommendations would you like to see in the committee’s report?

I would like to pick up on that. When we visited Granite Care Consortium, the providers themselves were stepping care up and down without having to reference back, which I think Rachel Cackett mentioned earlier, and we saw how important that had been. In the final report, there was also evidence of a reduced number of hospital admissions during the Covid pandemic.

I appreciate that there are criticisms and concerns about moving to a national care service but, assuming that it will happen, are there positives that we can take from what you are doing in Aberdeen? Many such approaches could be implemented in the current system but are not, which seems to be where the real problem is. What are the biggest lessons that we can take away from what is currently happening in Aberdeen, as regards a national care service coming into effect and ensuring that other areas are picking up on those strengths?

My question is a follow-up to Emma Harper’s. Nick Price, what difference has having a co-ordinating role—as opposed to competing with each other—made to providers and to those who receive care from you?

I go back to what the Granite Care Consortium did in Aberdeen. There has been a real shift in power. The health and social care partnership essentially handed over a budget. The providers were at the table, and they were able to work collaboratively to provide seamless care and to shift things to each other if things did not quite fit.

I keep hearing, “We don’t want to lose all the good work we’ve done.” I say to Geri McCormick that I totally appreciate that. A lot of great work has come out of the IJBs, but we still hear that voices are not being heard. Providers feel that they are not heard and that they need to be at the table. Surely having providers at the table, and not just as people who can speak to the IJB, is really what care boards are all about. There is a difference between engagement and listening, co-designing and continuing to be part of the process all the way through.

I am worried about the idea that we would lose lots of good work. Surely there would be the people around the table who are already there as well as the providers and people with lived experience, so that people would move forward together in a growing, collaborative process.

What difference has it made to the people who receive care?

Minister, you have already talked about local care boards continuing to shape changes at local level. To what degree do you expect that ministers will be responsible for service delivery and directing those care boards? How will any shift in the powers and responsibilities of local and national Government ensure that the flexibility to adapt to those local circumstances is not lost?

Chapter 3 of the bill is about creating an NCS charter. Will that be a touchstone for the work to develop the NCS? Is the charter likely to be limited to principles, or will it include rights and responsibilities?

You have spoken about the need to improve accountability. I am interested in how that might work in practice for individuals. Should ministers have a duty to ensure that advocacy services are available for children and young people with disabilities and additional support needs?

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.