Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Thank you, convener. I welcome the witnesses to the committee.

This question is for both of you. Has integration led to more collaborative working across the public sector, and between it and third sector organisations? Has that helped to improve outcomes for children and young people?

That is really interesting, because one of the points that the people whom I spoke to yesterday made was that, last winter, they had one of the lowest delayed discharge rates in Scotland and they felt that data sharing was a huge part of the reason for it.

Colin Poolman’s comments on what else we could put in the bill were also interesting. Is there anything else that witnesses would like to be in the bill to help multidisciplinary working to become more effective, particularly in relation to early intervention and preventative care?