Chamber and committees

You are already deciding that you will have a big disruption, with a new law to create a national care service, but without even deciding what is going to be in the national care service. That is making it up as you go along.

We have got to the nub of the issue about what the barriers to progress are. I think that everybody apart from Vicky Irons accepts that there are problems, but they do not want children’s services to be included in the national care service. The problem that Vicky identified relates to having two employers, two systems and two cultures. I would like to hear from her how that manifests itself and what it means for the recipients of the services.

I would also like to hear from Highland Council whether it has overcome the problem of having two employers through the way that it has organised its services.

Would any of those problems be solved by the inclusion of children’s services in the national care service? Vicky Irons believes that they would, but does anybody else agree?

That is not what I asked. Would the problems that have been identified by Highland Council and Dundee health and social care partnership be solved by the inclusion of children’s services in the national care service? I know that there are other potential benefits, but that is not what I am asking about.

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.