Chamber and committees

Thanks very much. I will stay with you for a moment, Fanchea. You say in your written submission that the bill should

“include representation by housing organisations”

and that its being about wellbeing and prevention is absolutely central. We know that there has been variation among health and social care partnerships and that some really good work on providing wraparound care is being done in some areas, while in others it is simply not as strong. You have described the omission of housing as being a “significant concern”. Could you say briefly how its inclusion would help the population to live healthier lives for longer at home? Would the other witnesses agree or have alternative views?

Thank you.

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?

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?

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?

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?