Chamber and committees

I thank the witnesses for being here this morning.

Yesterday, we paid a visit to Granite Care Consortium in Aberdeen, which consists of 10 providers. People from the health and social care partnership were there, too. They talked quite a lot about moving away from the time-and-task model to an outcome-based delivery system, which is increasing their capacity. Shona from the health and social care partnership described providers as being like a spider’s web that pulls everything together over the top of the city. Are there opportunities to improve multidisciplinary work by adopting that approach through the national care service? I will go to Alison Bavidge first.

That was a good explanation. As we have heard, the Promise involved co-production and co-design. The Promise has been huge. That change in culture and ethos and that focus on relationships and wellbeing have been incredibly important, and it is great that that is coming through into other areas as well. It is very much about the idea that we have been doing things to people rather than with them.

My question may be for Fraser McKinlay. Cameron-Wong said that 5,500 people were involved in the Promise. I am not saying that we would need to look at working at that scale, but co-design is obviously about involving young people and families. Who should be involved? Is co-production well enough understood or is there work to be done around that in order to help the process?

Does that link in to asset-based community development? Would we be looking only at children and young people and families or would we also look at all the organisations that are involved? A good example of real co-design and co-production in my area is the autism resources co-ordination hub. It starts with the parent carers, but it also involves all the local voluntary groups and third sector organisations. The council is involved and so is the NHS. That has really been co-produced from the bottom up.

That brings me to an aspect of the national care service that we have not really talked about yet, which is all the informal stuff. It is not just about the big aspects of care. We also need to consider all the informal stuff that happens in the background, such as the work of the autism hub. The effect of that is that families and children do not reach crisis point because there is preventative early intervention that is really supportive without it being formal or official—

My question is for either Tony Buchanan or Mike Burns. I agree that integration has brought about really positive changes for families, and I share the passion expressed by all the witnesses for providing the best possible support.

However, we need to go back to the beginning and realise that children cannot be seen in isolation, because they are part of families and are therefore really affected by adult social care. The whole point of the review was to shine a light on the need for a change in ethos and culture across social care services, with co-production and co-design at the centre of all that. It was always about providing care that really matters to the individual, and co-design and co-production have been a huge part of that process.

I am struggling to understand what I have heard. On the one hand, I am hearing that the council team has worked really collaboratively and that, although it has faced huge complexities and different structures and barriers, it is still working collaboratively to make things happen. However, that seems to be at odds with the suggestion that co-design and co-production that include people with lived experience and those workers in designing and implementing policies will not work in a national care service. I am struggling to understand why you think that. Can you give me an explanation? It just seems to be at odds with what you are saying.

Are we looking only at children and families or are we looking at the partnership involvement as well?

Is statistical information part of that as well? I know that it is gathered in different ways, and that different information is collected in different local authority areas.

I hear what you say, but the fact is that delivery would still be local. I have sat on integration joint boards, too, so I know where you are coming from.

Sorry, convener. I had meant that to be shorter.

On the point about locally elected members and decision making, it was my understanding that care boards would include elected members as well as different organisations—local, third sector and voluntary organisations—and people with lived experience. I just make that point.

What does a human rights-based approach look like in the context of the bill, particularly for care-experienced young people, children with disabilities, young carers and children with additional support needs? I will go first to Cameron-Wong McDermott, who looks keen.

That answer was incredibly helpful. I suppose that the co-production or co-design that is at the centre of the proposal focuses on the areas that you talked about.

The aim of the framework bill is to produce a bit of legislation that we can then hang the secondary legislation on, if you like. However, do you feel that anything is missing from the framework bill? Is there anything that you would like us to make a recommendation on?