Thread by @IDickson258

1. A thoughtful thread by @MartinBarrow with which I agree 100% but I would add to it if I may >

https://twitter.com/MartinBarrow/status/1363198350850486274

2. Everybody should very much participate, but to do so, we need truly meaningful "experts by experience' panels that will really enable all those with an interest to be identified & engaged.>

3. The current arrangement is just one small generic panel including people from a very wide range of interests - foster carers, kinship carers, adopters, care experienced folk>

4. Given the size of panel (10-15) that means there might be 2 or 3 foster carers, 2-3 kinship carers, adoptees, etc. Also about 2-3 care experienced people. All these folk will be expected to be able to represent everybody in their interest group - an impossible task>

5. From my point of view, care experienced people on the group may be in a minority whilst making decisions - hardly care leaver ledbas promised. It needn't have been like this with better planning >

6. Each "interest group" could have had theur own "EbE" panel. Care experienced people could have had their own, drawn from across the whole care experience. Such knowledge, experience & wisdom in such a group! >

7. Foster carers, kinship carers, adopters, etc could have had their own specialist EbE panels - up to about 10 or 15 in all. They could have covered the entire social care spectrum. Each EbE panel could have nominated one of their number to a central EbE panel, about 15 strong.>

8. As it is, instead of an advisory base of up to 225 people on tap from across the sector we'll have one of 10-15 people with possibly a handful from each interest group who'll be expected to know all there is to know about their corner. Nobody, anywhere, is that well informed>

9. I think Josh MacAlister has got this entirely wrong. That is not me being negative. On the contrary. This is me being highly positive & recognising how much better this could have been done with better planning & preparation. END