Seòmar agus comataidhean

Jude Currie summed it up neatly when she referred to change for change’s sake, and both Jude Currie and Martin Crewe have clearly expressed that there are issues and that change is required but that structural change does not necessarily deliver the change that we require. I will play devil’s advocate, although I agree with everything about that because we have had several evidence sessions that have made it clear that the structure is a diversion from the real challenges that we face. I have heard about leadership and resources from Jude. I would like to have a better understanding of what that actually looks like, what change we require to make those services better, and then what we need to do about it.

Other committee members have, not unreasonably, highlighted the fact that the view of some was, “Just leave us alone and we’ll get on with it and deliver the change.” I do not necessarily agree with that, because everybody accepts that change is required. However, I will play devil’s advocate and challenge you both to say what we need to change and what politicians need to do to help with that.

Does it make no difference to those who receive the service?

Yes, but does it make any difference to the people who receive the service?

No, that makes sense. We do not really know what the national care service will look like, because the bill is a framework bill and the co-design stuff has not been worked up.

What I am puzzled by is that not every part of children’s services would be transferred, as Michael Marra identified in a previous evidence session. Bits of children’s services would still be provided by bodies other than the national care service. Surely that means that we would just be changing the line rather than solving the problem, as not everything would be put under one employer. Surely, we would still have the same problems. They would just involve different people in different places. Does that make sense?

I am a bit confused, because you have provided a very coherent explanation as to why, under the current set-up, we should reject the inclusion of children’s services, but you said earlier that you are in favour of including children’s services.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Basically, are you saying, then, that you do not feel that we have your back in making some of these judgments or that politicians and the Government do not back you up in making such difficult decisions?

Why is that voice for early intervention not stronger? We have debated that question for years. Why has it not gotten to where you would like it to get? What is stopping it?

I am sorry—it was probably a wee bit convoluted. What I am really asking about is wider change. What wider change do we need in the system? Do we need better leaders or more money? What do you need us to do? The fact is that we are not getting any clarity on what exactly the Parliament and Government should be doing.

I thank the witnesses for their clear evidence. I will ask about the interface issue, which you have kind of addressed already. There is a multitude of interfaces with the police, education services and various other bits. You have kind of answered my question on that, and the answer seems to be that the people who you work with are professionals who are trained to work together—in the way that Bob Doris outlined—and who will overcome any of the barriers that politicians frequently want to put in their way. That seems to be—[Interruption.] I am sure that that is what Bob meant. [Laughter.]

I really want to know whether any members of staff who you work with are crying out for this change and saying, “We must have a national care service to overcome the problems”? Is that happening?