Official Report 252KB pdf
We move now to today's first group of witnesses in our stage 1 consideration of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill. First up are the witnesses from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I welcome Councillor Miller, Mr McLeary and Mr Wiseman to the meeting.
Good morning. I thank the Health and Community Care Committee for inviting COSLA to give evidence. We welcome the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill and support the Government's drive to modernise the regulation of care services and early education and to ensure that we have a confident and well trained social services work force in Scotland.
One of your questions has been raised with us already—whether it is best to have two regulating bodies or one. The Parliament has been moving towards having fewer arm's-length bodies but, given what has happened with the Scottish Qualifications Authority, we are all aware of difficulties that can arise. Latterly, you made the case for a single body, rather than two separate bodies, but I understand that that was not COSLA's initial response. Why did it change? What are the pros and cons of having either two bodies or a single body?
We are anxious to have a one-door approach for members of the public, local authorities and those who are being regulated. The bill states that the two bodies will have to work together. It seems obvious that the way to work together is to be together as one body that includes two committees at a lower level.
COSLA did not necessarily favour two bodies; it did not comment in detail on that point, but considered its position as policy developed. However, for a number of reasons, COSLA now favours a single body. Many of the papers that we have seen on the matter have stressed the need for effective co-operative working. That would be much easier to achieve through a single body. A single body would also result in some cost savings—for example, there would be only one chief executive and there would be shared support services. We want the best value approach, because if there is a move towards self-financing, local authorities will pick up most of the tab, certainly in relation to the commission's side of the work.
Thank you for your excellent advance submission. Do you welcome the registration and inspection of local authority services, as proposed?
We do.
Yes. We recognise that there was a perception—among providers in the independent sector and among members of the public—that the inspections that were being carried out by local authorities might not have been as independent as they should have been, because local authorities were still providers as well purchasers. We feel that that perception was merely that—a perception rather than a reality. The majority of local authorities—or all of them—were able to organise independent arrangements. However, we welcome the proposals and recognise their strengths.
You are concerned about the requirement to have only one inspection a year. Would you prefer spot checks or inspections for which advance notice has been given?
We are certainly concerned about the reduction to one inspection per year. We feel that there should be a minimum of two inspections, which is what local authorities currently have to provide. That provides the opportunity for an announced inspection and an unannounced inspection. Obviously, there are sometimes circumstances in which more frequent inspections than that are needed. In the authority that I worked with before I moved to COSLA, we had a situation in which we had to inspect daily because of circumstances that were probably leading to deregistration.
Do you definitely want more than a minimum of one inspection a year?
Yes.
I do not know whether the witnesses have seen the Accounts Commission for Scotland's performance indicators report for social work, which notes with concern that a number of councils still report an average inspection rate of 1.5 a year or less. Is there a danger that reducing the number of inspections to one a year might favour councils that have not been putting enough effort into inspections, while councils that have been good at ensuring that two inspections took place every year will be penalised? Is it possible that the quality of the inspection service in the more diligent local authorities might not be recognised because it will be reduced to only one inspection a year?
The situation is probably a wee bit more complex than that and is linked, in some respects, to our concerns about the transfer of resources from local authorities. The vast majority of—if not all—local authorities currently spend well over the grant-aided expenditure for registration and inspection services. Because they believe that there needs to be a built-in quality system, they have had to invest, and the danger is that we will have a poorer-quality system by moving to one inspection a year. If the requirement was that there should be at least two inspections but, in some cases, that requirement was not met, will that mean that, when the requirement is for one inspection, there will sometimes be inspections less than once a year?
That picks up on the Executive's argument that having a minimum of one inspection a year allows inspectors to train their resources on the areas where a second or unannounced visit would have the biggest impact, such as new facilities or facilities where there are problems.
Our argument is that there must be a minimum of two inspections to establish whether everybody meets the minimum requirements. Therefore, the commission must be resourced in such a way that it can enforce the standards. The minimum is the basic safeguard—having only one inspection would not provide that basic safeguard.
Do you agree that there should be an announced and an unannounced visit—one within and one outwith normal hours—and that therefore two visits is the absolute minimum?
Yes.
I agree entirely.
Two areas should be covered, on one of which—adoption and fostering—we understand that the Executive will introduce an amendment at stage 2. The other area is nannies and nanny agencies. Like other organisations, we are concerned about the potential loophole in regulation that would be created.
We would like some clarification on the extent to which uniformed organisations and recreational activities are covered, and on the principle of the extent to which they should be covered.
Does COSLA have a view on that?
No.
On page 3 of your submission, on costs, you refer to
There needs to be further discussion and clarity about the supporting people proposals' implications for the regulation of support services. Currently, some services in this field are registered and some are not. Local authority directors of social work can listen to the views of their council registration and inspection unit on whether a particular service should be registered. They can then decide to take the registration option or to introduce similar arrangements under compliance activity in the local authority, including requirements for the submission of annual reports to committees. The reason why that different approach is needed is the different effect that it has on individuals' personal finances, in terms of benefits—that is linked to why we think there should be a UK commission.
Given the Executive's development of increased in-home and out-of-home respite care, does section 2 adequately cover the whole of respite care?
That is a good question, which we have probably not yet considered in enough detail.
You might want to come back to us on that point and on nannies.
Yes.
That would be helpful.
In your opening statement, you said that you were still considering the financial implications for councils of the proposed bill's financial memorandum. Could you outline some of those implications and any concerns that you might have?
We have discussed the issue of transparency and fairness as far as the amounts that will be taken from local government are concerned. The financial memorandum refers to on-going discussions with the Scottish Executive—which have centred on local authority expenditure in 1998-99—to bring the figures up to a level for 2000-01. The Executive has concluded that £6.1 million of the £9.3 million that local authorities currently spend on registration and inspection services should be transferred to the commission. Out of that £9.3 million, the Executive will take an allowance for residual functions: the local authorities' current fee income; and another £900,000 in respect of the fees that local authorities are likely to pay for regulation of their own services.
You have demonstrated your concerns, but I take it that you are not far enough down the road with your calculations to give specific figures on the financial implications.
We are working on the figures, but the financial memorandum is a little complex.
I want to be clear. In your submission to the committee, you point out that £9.3 million is to be transferred, as that is the cost to local authorities of providing regulation and inspection services. Are you saying that local authorities spend more than £9.3 million on those services?
No. Local authorities spend £9.3 million, which is far more than the GAE for registration and inspection services. The amount that will transfer is £6.1 million—the figures that I mentioned have been taken off.
The financial memorandum tells us that £5.3 million will transfer in 2002-03 and £5.5 million will transfer in 2003-04. That is more than £1 million less than you say will transfer—quite a lot of money, when you consider that Glasgow City Council chucked COSLA over £300,000. An awful lot could be done with that money.
We did a quick comparison. I think that the Executive considered the figure for the full transfer, which will be £6.1 million at the end of the day. The figures that I quoted were given to us in a proposal at the COSLA-Scottish Executive expenditure committee.
Therefore, the figures in the financial memorandum are not true. They were true when the financial memorandum was published—
The Executive was looking at different years.
But those figures are not true now.
The Executive was not looking at the end-of-the-day, full picture. It was looking at the lead-up figures for the first two years.
The basic story that local authorities are telling the committee is that the financial provisions that have been made for the switch are inadequate.
Yes.
Local authorities are also telling us that local authorities are being left to find money from elsewhere in their budgets in order to fund the implications of the transfer.
We think that too much money will be taken away from local authorities, given both the residual duties that will be left to us and the investment that we have made over and above what the Scottish Executive believes we should invest in those duties, to the detriment of other community care work. We have invested in registration and inspection services partly to the detriment of some of the services for the elderly that the minister is concerned about. We could have put money into those services instead of putting money into registration and inspection. We must also pick up the increase in fees, both for our services and for the independent sector. We are also concerned about the problem of fee structure.
Will fees increase by 10 per cent for the next three years and is there no provision within local authority funding for those increases?
That is the proposal.
There is some confusion over income and the transfer of services; some local authorities have decided to increase spending above GAE, as you say in your submission. Does not that spell out the lack of transparency and openness that you referred to? We want the bill to deliver a consistent approach, best value for the community care pound, transparency and openness, which are not evident in the current system.
We are involved in discussions on the figures. As far as I am aware, those discussions have not reached a conclusion. COSLA has reserved its position, because it is considering the Scottish Executive's proposals in great detail. One of our difficulties is in determining whether the amounts that are proposed to be taken for residual duties are fair. We are still considering whether it should be recognised that some councils have made an investment over and above the amount that the Executive felt should be invested in the service.
We seem to have a perfect system. Are we getting best value from the community care pound? The Sutherland commission discovered that £750 million in England and Wales went into a black hole in local authorities and was never accounted for. If you cannot provide accurate figures, you may be proposing an inequitable and inconsistent system. Who are you to preach on the new arrangements?
We are talking about the money that is spent on the registration and inspection service. There are clear figures for that. Through its indication of GAE, the Government has made fairly clear what it believes should be spent on that service. Local authorities have invested well above GAE because we believe that the additional cost is required to provide a quality registration and inspection service with a minimum of two inspections a year. The proposed system will reduce the number of inspections to one a year and will give self-evaluation a much fuller part in the service. Under the proposed system, the quality of service will be lower than it is under the system that local authorities currently follow. We have had to invest more money in that system to ensure that we meet the quality that is required.
At least all services are being inspected.
We are suggesting that the Executive has several policies, including those that the bill promotes. We must ensure that joint working takes place, because some policies will be delivered by local authorities, some by the commission and some by the council. The danger is that policies might be adopted that countered the Scottish Executive's overall objectives. For example, the child care strategy is important and will interface with the development of the commission's work on the registration of early-years services and childminding services. A single picture of what the commission does must match with delivery of the other objectives in the overall policy, which local authorities have a key role in achieving. That is why we are pushing for joint working locally.
Local authorities' record on joint working is abysmal. That is one reason why the committee has spent 10 months trying to sort things out. Have you learned from your experience? Are you more willing to enter into better partnerships?
That might be a political question.
Local authorities have always been willing to enter into partnerships. A partnership has two sides, both of which must operate together to make the partnership successful. If Mary Scanlon is referring to community care, I must say that many local authorities made great strides in working together with their health colleagues on that issue.
It is proposed that self-financing will kick in in 2004-05. You have already said that you are generally unimpressed and unconvinced that that will be achievable, but I would like to go into more detail on that. Has COSLA done any analysis of the additional costs or of the community care pounds that may be lost in direct service provision through the extra administrative burdens involved in recycling money from one public sector body to another? When the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care appeared before the committee, he tried to justify the recycling of money on the ground of transparency, with organisations and bodies being seen to pay for the service. Do you find that a convincing argument?
We are doing the calculations to ensure that we clearly understand the financial implications for local authorities in relation to their own fees as well as to the cost increases for other providers. We argue that not all the increased costs to the provider should be passed on in unit costs to local authorities. Local authorities may have to consider what implications that will have for their profit margins and their need to be efficient. We have not yet finished the calculations that will give us an estimate of the administrative costs. However, if a fees system requires fees to be paid to one organisation but to be picked up by another organisation, the administrative cost will mean that the pot of money for delivering the service will be less. We are still working on those figures.
When will that information be available?
I would need to ask our finance officers for an exact date.
Could we have a copy when the calculations are complete?
Yes.
That would be useful.
Our finance officers have been a wee bit busy with something called the McCrone report, and they may be even busier with other things after this afternoon's statement in Parliament.
We can take that as read.
It is difficult to comment on Shona Robison's other point. If individuals and individual organisations are shown to pay their fees, there will obviously be transparency. The judgment needs to be made on whether the cost of doing that is worth paying.
You have already made it clear that, like everyone else, you accept that the fragmentary and inconsistent nature of the current system makes it right to set up a national body that will apply national standards. You also stressed in your opening statement the importance of continuing local involvement. How does COSLA think we can best get the balance right between the national and the local in the new system?
We raised concerns in our submission about the loss of the advisory committee role. We think that the input from advisory committees—from local authorities, from provider organisations, from health boards and, most important, from users and carers organisations—has been substantial in developing the way in which regulation takes place.
Mrs Scanlon mentioned integrated planning. The local authority will still have a role in planning and developing early education and child care. That work will have to be done hand in hand with the commission. David Wiseman spoke about support. The market for child care is expanding, and we have to be sensitive and sensible about that. Joint working will be important in maintaining and developing that market. We need clarification on the inspection role of Her Majesty's inspectors and the commission and on the monitoring role of the local authorities. Clearer role definition and communication will be needed at a local level.
Are you saying that, as well as being part of a national body, inspectors have to be involved locally and work with local providers and authorities?
Yes.
In our submission, we detail our concerns about the proposal to have regional offices.
I wanted to ask about that. There is a proposal to have five or six regional offices. Has there been any indication of where they will be?
Not yet, as far as we know. We understand that local enterprise companies and local authorities have been told that there may be a requirement for bids to come in—they have been asked what properties may be available. It has not been said where the local offices will be, but some options have been suggested for how the country could be divided. COSLA is concerned that discussions started off with a number—five—when they should have started off by considering what was needed. In whatever way the country is divided, we should try to avoid having yet another layer, with different boundaries, placed on top of the already complex arrangements.
Could you explain that, because your submission says that the divisions should be coterminous with local authority areas and health board areas? There cannot be 32 areas, so do you mean that health board areas should be used?
That is not just a matter for the bill. In the west of Scotland, there are concerns about current boundaries between health boards and local authorities. We may have to look at the bigger picture. Until that is done, we should at least not make things worse than they are.
What is certain is that the location of the regional centres should not be determined by which local enterprise companies can offer cheap buildings—which, from what you are saying, appears to be the direction in which the Executive is moving.
We also feel that we cannot have just those five or six, or however many, divisional offices; we also need some sort of local bases. We are suggesting not that we need the same number as at present, which is not realistic—
But that everything should be based on the need to make the system work locally.
Yes.
The bill will lead to significant changes. What will be its main implications for work force planning and training? I am thinking, for example, of early-years provision and the degree that is obtained by people working in social work.
I have mentioned, in connection with the Scottish social services council, a number of training implications for local authorities. Some staff will require additional qualifications in relation to registration and some staff will be involved in continuing professional development. Another implication will be the cost to local authorities of releasing staff for training. A huge cost that local authorities face comes not so much from training staff but from the need to cover for staff when they are away being trained.
It is unfortunate that that is an area of concern for COSLA given that, in certain areas, the issue—individuals looking for a vocational qualification rather than an academic one—has been sadly neglected for so long. To home in on that, the bill is quite clear about who can use the title "social worker" and how that title can be used. However, a number of individual authorities have staff who use the title but who do not have the academic qualifications as defined in the bill. How will authorities deal with that? What is the time scale for addressing the issue?
That is connected to our point about the need for clarity about the tasks that only qualified or titled social workers should undertake. In that context, work needs to be done to get clear agreement on which tasks can be carried out only by a qualified social worker. Once those tasks have been defined, along with the title, any changes in who is appointed to perform particular roles within the local authority will have clear implications for some authorities. Planning for that will take place, but we believe that the definitions—not only of the qualifications, but of the tasks that only qualified social workers may undertake—need to be strengthened and clarified in the bill or in secondary legislation.
At the Local Government Committee, you talked about the provisions that you would like for the transfer of staff, particularly those in the registration service. Could you expand on that, so that the Health and Community Care Committee is aware of COSLA's views?
We are concerned about a number of staffing and transitional arrangement issues. As we said in our submission and as Councillor Miller said in her introduction, we think that there are lessons to be learned from local government reorganisation and from other more recent reorganisations. We are pushing for the establishment of a time-limited independent body, similar to the staff commission that applied to local government reorganisation. Staff transfer will have operational as well as financial implications. In the early stages, the commission and the council will have to take on staff, with the greater implications being for the commission.
Would that staff commission also cover home working? I am aware that that is a concern to a number of staff, although I know that some individuals will be quite happy to operate from home, given the area that they are covering. However, peer support is important for professional development and that is not obviously available through a networked laptop.
We have some concerns about the proposal on home working. We are not against home working, but there is a big difference between transferring existing employees and establishing an organisation and recruiting people to it to work from home. The people who are recruited to such an organisation are those who are willing to work from home, who are capable of doing so and who have the home circumstances to allow them to do so. We will be transferring a large number of staff whose current circumstances may not fit that bill. They may be prevented from home working because they have difficulty in meeting health and safety requirements at home or because they have their own care requirements. Some people may welcome the change, but others may not.
I should make another declaration of interests at this point. I am still director of a nursing home company, although it is in England and is therefore, I am glad to say, not covered by this bill.
I will try to remember all three.
The first question concerned the outcomes and processes. You do not think that the first tranche of the draft national care standards that were published in June 2000 contains an appropriate balance. The second question related to minimum standards for existing providers. The third question was about whether entry-to-care standards for new providers should be different from the minimum provision.
We support the move towards outcome standards, but we feel that the required balance has been lost. Outcome standards for new providers are aspirational. We feel that there should be clear indications of the provisions that can be easily measured and enforced, which lead towards achievement of those outcome standards. For example, staffing ratios, quality of premises—which includes physical issues about the premises and environment—adequate case records and health and safety standards could be measured. They are process issues. If they were a greater element and helped to lead towards the outcome standards, the balance would be more appropriate.
That is helpful.
In principle, we agree with that suggestion, but we have not examined that idea in any detail.
You might like to return to it.
There are similar concerns about difficulties in developing a good relationship with local community health facilities, where some people live in units. That is an important contribution. We must ensure that an adequate service is provided to what is someone's home. People should be provided with an adequate service whether they live in their own home or in a residential unit.
There is certainly confusion that in some areas—more often in England than here—the independent and voluntary sectors pay for medical services to augment general medical services. In Scotland, some health boards pay an additional fee for medical services—we may return to this issue on another occasion. The standards that are set for processes and outcomes have increased and it is likely that they will continue to do so. Who judges what the appropriate fee income is for the independent and voluntary sectors?
I will ask Bernard McLeary to answer that question because it is relevant to the HMI and schools.
After this answer, we will have to wind up this part of the meeting, despite protestations from colleagues.
I am sorry, convener, but I think that I should be able to ask for the witnesses' views on a children's commissioner. Is there time for me to do that?
No. We will have to wind up after this answer.
Councillor Miller asked me to talk about the role of HMI in quality standards relating to performance indicators. I am not sure whether I can answer the question appropriately by referring to HM inspectors as some sort of honest broker on the assessment of fees and standards. All I can say is that HMI has a role in this area in line with what is proposed for the commission.
I was referring to the implications of HMI school inspections for local authorities. Dr Simpson's point was that when providers are told to improve standards, there are implications for investment: who picks up the bill? How does the local authority negotiate how much of the bill it will pick up through fees? I see similarities with the role of HMI, as the inspectors make comments on school buildings and so on, and the local authority has to respond by investing in schools. Local authorities have to deal with that fact at the moment, but it does not impinge on individual companies.
How do nursery schools, for example, respond to the fact that standards are set on inspection by HMI, but you provide much of the funding?
It goes straight back to the local authority to provide funding to meet the standards. If the local authority does not do that, the HMI inspection will not be signed off and HMI will continue to visit the establishment. That will not reflect well on the local authority.
Do we need a mechanism for dealing with that?
This relates to another point that you made, on section 16, about the cancellation of registration for a local authority home. There was a question mark over how a local authority would look after itself in such a situation and over staffing issues. There are several issues that could be raised. We could spend a long time with you, but we have to take evidence from other witnesses this morning and time is moving on. Would you give us a written submission on that point and on the issue of a children's commissioner, which my colleagues wanted to raise? You mentioned that issue in your submission, and we will have an opportunity to question the Association of Directors of Social Work on it. It would be useful if you could supply in writing any further information that you may have on that and on how the system is working in Wales.
Excuse me, convener, but may I confirm whether COSLA would recommend a tribunal of commissioners with special interests in care homes, children and the community? I believe that that is a terribly important omission from the bill.
We are consulting our local authority members and have asked for submissions to be returned by the beginning of February. Once we pull those submissions together, we will be able to give you some feedback on that point.
As that is an omission from the bill and is not an area on which we have worked, I suggest that it might be a good idea to ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to give us some information on what is happening in Wales and at the UK level. We can come back to that matter.
I have prepared a short verbal statement.
You may begin with that; we will then move on to questions. Our first question will be about the children's commissioner.
Good morning. Thank you for inviting NAIRO to speak to the committee.
I will kick off. You take a different view from COSLA on whether there should be one body or two. You support the separation of functions between two bodies; COSLA's position is that there should be one body containing two committees or bodies. Why is separation the best course of action?
We believe that in future, particularly in view of the joint future group report to which the committee contributed, care services will be likely to employ a range of professional groups, including many health professionals. Therefore, the commission will have to have protocols with a range of regulatory bodies that regulate groups of health professionals, such as the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, which is the body for regulating nurses. We expect that the commission will need to have protocols with other regulatory bodies as well as with the council.
That was very helpful. There would obviously be a degree of commonality between the two bodies. For example, there might be one chairperson for the two bodies.
I believe firmly that nannies should be regulated. It is self-evident that they have care and control of a child—probably a baby or an under-5. It is so obvious that they should be regulated that I cannot really expand on that.
That is all right.
Respite care that is provided in a residential home will be covered by inspection. Dr Simpson is talking about respite care with individual carers, which would almost be akin to a foster care service for adults. I feel that that should be regulated—certainly for necessary things such as health checks and the inspection of premises. With adults, we are usually talking about people who have learning difficulties and who may not have the knowledge to say whether they are getting good care.
Would it be appropriate for that to be in the bill?
Yes—if not, the issue might not come up again for years.
The final point in your submission is on supported accommodation. I understood that everybody in supported accommodation would be covered, but your submission seems to bring our attention to some sort of loophole, which
That particular submission was produced prior to the bill. The difficulty is over the definition of a care home—what we would now call a residential or nursing care home—and the definition of supported accommodation. There is a current position, a future position and a transitional position—that causes us some concern.
That is an important point. As we are considering national care standards, and given that some of the most vulnerable people in our society are falling through the net, could NAIRO supply us with a paper on the matter? It is very serious.
It would be useful if NAIRO could supply further explanation on that point.
People with drug and alcohol problems who live in homeless accommodation and people who have been living in long-stay psychiatric hospitals and who are now living in the community might not be receiving a service. They might fall through the gap and less scrupulous providers might provide an uninspected and even worse service than that which is provided now. It would be serious if those sectors of society fell through the net.
I think that the bill will pick that up. What is of concern in that regard is the interim position.
A few scandalous cases in Glasgow have been highlighted by television programmes. The type of person that you mention is the type of person that I hope the bill would cover.
In your submission, you indicated that you wanted secure and robust arrangements for transfers of existing staff into the commission and for that transfer to build on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. You have heard the evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which recommends that we go into what I will call the comfort zone that was afforded to local authority employees in the local government reorganisation. Would your organisation support COSLA and the trade unions in their desire to have such a facility made available?
Our written evidence says that in principle we support setting up a temporary body to deal with the transfer of staff and to help resolve any disputes that might arise. I emphasise that we envisage such a body being a short-term measure and not, obviously, of the same scale as the staffing commission that was set up at the time of local government reorganisation. Staff are becoming anxious and there are indications that people are leaving and securing employment in other areas because they do not feel sure that their interests will be protected.
That is a worrying aspect for the committee. We know that when we pull services together, we need to have stability for a long time to ensure that the service can be up and running on day one. What will be the implications for training staff?
Our written submission shows that NAIRO has, for some time, been involved in trying to advocate for a recognised professional qualification for staff who are engaged in the regulation of services. That is an attempt not to create a new professional grouping, but to find a way of ensuring the competence of those who regulate services. It will be important for service users and providers to have confidence in the new arrangements. NAIRO believes that there will be no confidence in the new arrangements unless the staff are credible. We must put in place an accredited programme for staff who will work for the commission.
That would also provide for people from a social work background, a teaching background or a nursing background.
Yes. It would be a way of integrating staff who have different professional backgrounds. While it is common for staff who have a health background and staff who have a social work background to work together in inspection, it is not so common for people who have a teaching background to do so. We need to find a way of integrating the staff and of giving people an ethos and a culture that they can share. We believe that regulation needs to be values-led, evidence-based and user-focused. The glue that binds the organisation will be its shared culture, not information technology.
How do you think the best standards of inspection should be achieved? It is obvious from your evidence and that of others that many children will be excluded from the planned improvements, for example those who are in the adoption and fostering system and those who are cared for by nannies. What are your views on having an overall children's commissioner?
The best standards of inspection are achieved through a variety of means, which must be linked together. We must have suitably qualified and experienced inspectors. They should have managerial experience of working in residential homes, if those are what they inspect. If they inspect day nurseries, they should have worked in similar provision. If they inspect nursing homes—a single-care home—they should come from that background.
How many inspections do you recommend?
We recommend two a year.
Minimum?
Yes. One of those inspections should be announced and, more importantly, one should be unannounced. Thereafter, there should be as many inspections as are necessary. If the new service is not resourced to provide for at least two inspections a year, it will soon reach the stage at which inspections are carried out only once every 18 months.
What about the idea of a children's commissioner? COSLA is one of several bodies that are enthusiastic about that idea. I would like to hear everybody's views on that.
No. We will listen to one person's view and if there are further views we can get those in writing. There are several other points.
We talk about such a commissioner as if that person would be a sort of ombudsman, but perhaps there are so many different facets to protecting children in the community and in homes and so on, that a tribunal might be more appropriate. What are your general views?
Although we have not said anything about a children's commissioner in our statement, we would welcome such a development. It is not an area in which we have done much research. Any independent person who exists to protect children is bound to be an additional safeguard and we would welcome that.
Do you agree that what are often missing from well-intended future legislation are the parts that should relate to children? Are children omitted from legislation more often than other groups?
I am not sure that they are. Residential child care is included in the bill. There is an omission in relation to adoption and fostering, but I understand that that will be rectified. For the first time, care and welfare at boarding schools and in secure accommodation for children are being addressed. There are some omissions and now is the time to tackle them but, on the whole, the bill looks after the interests of children.
I want to ask about trying to balance a national system of regulation and inspection with the need to deliver that system effectively at a local level. How would that best be achieved?
Delivery of service is clearly the responsibility of providers and the purchasing local authority.
I meant in terms of the inspection and regulation service.
I have found it very useful to involve local people in the inspection process. Those people have something extra to bring and their involvement also means that the business of regulation can be owned and influenced by communities. That is important. It is always a mistake to leave something completely to the professionals; it is always good to have communities involved in the services that are provided locally. The way to involve local people in inspection is through lay involvement, and for that local links are needed.
We have to have impact locally, or we do not get re-elected.
Exactly. There is real value in communities seeing the worth of regulation and becoming interested in the services that are provided locally. Local, for most people, means local; it does not mean something that is 50 miles away. Dividing Scotland into five areas, from which the commission's regional offices will operate, is fine, provided that there are additional local bases. I am not suggesting that there should be 32 offices—one in each local authority area—but there should be some coherence with other designated areas. There are four HMI areas, 15 health board areas, seven sheriffdoms and five commission areas. That does not show much coherence. There should be some consistency with other boundaries.
I want to ask about that. What the Executive is proposing in the bill is not clear to me. In the financial memorandum, we are told that there will be a headquarters and five or six area offices. Like you, COSLA seems to assume that there will be five areas.
The memorandum says five or six, but I do not think that that is set in stone. I am glad that we have an opportunity to influence it.
The Executive has not indicated to anyone what its proposals are for the number of area offices.
It has. It has produced a paper showing Scotland divided into five areas. The paper offers three alternatives, with different configurations.
During the most recent discussion, there was some movement towards increasing the number of local offices, especially in the Highlands, where it was felt that the distances there were too great to have only one office. There was the beginning of a move towards the view that local resource centres, as they were described, should be located where necessary for people to visit them, hold interviews, keep files and have access to new technology, which they may not have at home.
Has the idea of having the five commission areas coterminous, in some sense, with local authority or health board areas been ruled out, or is it still a possibility?
I think that it is still a possibility.
In the discussions on the bill, could we persuade the Executive to amend that proposal?
Malcolm Chisholm did not say that the proposal was set in stone. He said that the Executive was still considering the issue. However, the Executive has said up front that it is thinking of having five or six areas, so it is not completely open-minded.
That is what I am trying to establish. From the evidence that we have heard today, the Executive seems to be thinking of setting up a system of sub-offices within the five big areas. That seems to be its answer to concerns that there would not be a local presence.
That is what we have been told.
COSLA regretted the absence of any proposals to maintain their local advisory committees. Do you feel the same?
Local advisory committees are valuable. The committee in Fife comprises not only councillors but carers, representatives of provider organisations and—most important—people of all ages who live in residential homes. The people who live in homes bring a different perspective to our work. In the committee, they can state their concerns and ask for information. That is very valuable.
So you do not believe that those committees in any way undermine a national system.
No, I do not. People like to know what is going on in their area.
You will have heard the representatives of COSLA expressing their opposition to the proposal for self-financing through fees. I assume that your reasoning is similar to COSLA's, but do you have any additional arguments? Your helpful submission says that
The financial memorandum in the explanatory notes suggests that fees could rise to £180 per person per year. That means that the cost for a 40-bed home could rise to as much as £7,200 per year, and the cost for a small 10-bed home could rise to £1,800. At the moment, a 40-bed home pays 40 times £65, so the increase for providers will be tremendous. Of course, local authorities would also have to pay those fees. Under the current proposals, good providers, who will receive only one inspection a year, will be asked to pay a very large fee for an inspection that will last two days, perhaps, whereas the poor provider, who is not doing a proper job, may have people coming in frequently.
How could the current funding arrangements be reformed without going down the fees route?
That is very much a political matter. There is a choice between funding out of central funds or putting the burden wholly or partially on providers. Although it seems reasonable to put the burden partially on providers, it does not seem reasonable wholly to do so.
I call Richard Simpson. Richard, could you keep questions on national care standards fairly tight?
Yes.
The draft national care standards are based on the experiences of service users. That is fine, provided that the standards are backed up by appropriate regulation. I am pleased that most of the matters that will be regulated are covered by the bill, including the vetting of people who are trying to enter the care market. It is right to say that the draft national care standards are not achievable at point of entry, because at that point there are no residents to say whether the outcomes are being achieved.
We wanted to question you about complaints procedures and provisions, but I will have to bring this discussion to a close now. The issue might, in any case, lend itself better to being addressed in written information. I also wanted to pick up on an earlier question about best standards. Who inspects the inspectors? How should that side of things be developed? It would be useful if you could give us something on those issues in writing.
Do you want us to address the complaints issue today or just in writing?
I ask that you address it in writing. From the committee's point of view, having information in writing and in depth would clarify the present situation and what you think the situation will be if the bill is passed. You spoke about the need for further clarity and transparency as well as other concerns, and I think that a written response would be most useful for us.
My point is about what to request in writing, convener.
That point is of more concern to childminders.
It would be useful if you picked up on that point. Are there any other points that members wish to request in writing?
I ask our witnesses to elaborate on existing statutory complaints procedures and so forth, and on how they propose to encourage staff in residential units to come forward with confidence.
We would be pleased to do that, although we would appreciate having a list of the questions to which you want us to reply in writing.
The clerk will write to you with that. Thank you for giving us evidence this morning. Margaret Jamieson will take the chair for a few minutes.
We come to our next set of witnesses. I thank Carole Wilkinson and Jacquie Roberts for attending on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Work. We have received your written submission and I now invite you to make your oral submission.
On behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Work, I thank the committee for inviting us to give evidence.
Thank you.
I am delighted to hear your strong support for the establishment of a children's commissioner. You mentioned the Welsh model and commented on whistleblowing. How do you see that working in Scotland? Do you have any firm and detailed proposals of your own?
We do not have any firm and detailed proposals, but we would be happy to come back to the committee on that. What we think is lacking at the moment is a person with an overarching role, who can speak on behalf of children. There is much to commend the approach of a children's rights officer. However, a children's rights officer speaks for a specific group of children. The advantage of a children's commissioner is that that person can be an advocate for all children and young people as well as for specific individuals.
You also referred to whistleblowing. Were you talking about giving staff within establishments for children and anyone else in contact with children the confidence to come forward?
We must encourage both groups to come forward. We must also encourage relatives and carers. Our experience has shown that it is not easy for people to blow the whistle, because they feel vulnerable. However, the more that we can do to encourage whistleblowing, the better. We often find out what is going on through young people, staff or service users blowing the whistle, rather than through the inspection regime.
As the care of children is so diverse, would you envisage a children's commissioner unit in which individuals would be responsible for specific elements, such as children in care or children who it is suspected are being abused?
I would want to think about that. One of the merits of a commissioner is that that person or unit could bring the different elements of care of children together. If we followed the route that you are suggesting, we would have to ensure that we did not create separate compartments again, which is what we see as the problem at the moment.
Do you think that this matter is a major omission or the major omission from the bill?
It is a major issue.
I would like some clarification. Whistleblowing is important, but there must also be safeguards. Do you think that it should be considered a disciplinary offence for someone to divulge information that is not confidential?
There could not be a blanket response to that. If organisations and agencies have clear policies about whistleblowing, which they have agreed with staff representatives, and clear disciplinary codes, such cases could be dealt with. It would be a concern if members of staff divulged confidential information about staff to the press. That would be a matter for disciplinary procedures. However, if a member of staff comes to a manager and says that they are worried about another person who is doing X, Y and Z, clearly, that staff member should be supported in making that information available and it should be investigated.
The bill will set out codes of conduct and practice for members of staff and employers. Regulations should be built in for dealing with absence of confidentiality.
Is there a need for new operational arrangements in situations where standards are not being met and action must be taken?
The way in which the bill is set out means that the new procedures for improvement notices are a great improvement on the current arrangements. There is a potential weakness in the fact that it is not clear how services will be continued while inspectors ensure that standards are being met. Far more work needs to be carried out with the local authorities and the other providers on how to maintain services—and keep up the standard of those services—for vulnerable people without having suddenly to move them.
Will the role of the various agencies and providers be clearly defined under the new arrangements? Is there scope for more definition of their individual roles?
Having looked at the bill and explanatory notes, I think that there is room for greater clarity on whose responsibility it is to ensure that the service continues to be provided.
The achievement of improved standards obviously requires staff commitment. I am seriously concerned about the recruitment problems that you highlighted. Your target for training students in diplomas in social work is 500, but there are only 350 students. There is an even greater problem down south. Given the increasing demands, how will you overcome that recruitment and retention problem? If the bill is to work, we need the staff. The shortfall is not inspiring confidence either in itself or with regard to training in general.
You are correct to point out that there is the beginning of a recruitment difficulty for qualified social workers who have a Scottish diploma in social work—a DIPSW. The problem is not yet as serious as it is down south, and we have an opportunity to address it. We can do so in a number of ways. There are issues about attracting people to the profession. It is a difficult, complicated task, and is not always well received. We have to consider how we promote the work, so that people want to do it. There is an issue around remuneration and reward, and there is no doubt that the implementation of the McCrone report will set members of certain professions, including social workers, thinking about the rewards that they receive.
Some of the best managers in social care and social work services have started their profession from a job such as home help. We need to reinforce that type of route into the profession, ensuring that we provide good training regimes, particularly those involving local access to local training courses, progressing to adult education.
You talk about demeaning social workers. Why are people not attracted to social work? Are you saying that new graduates will be more attracted to teaching because of the increase in salary?
Those questions are quite general. Given the time that is left, I would prefer that we moved on to the area of staff transfer.
In your written submission, you welcome the provision for protection of the title "social worker". What tasks should be undertaken by only the academically qualified social worker?
Our written submission lists the legislation under which some of the tasks really matter. Clearly, child protection work—investigations and assessment, and forming a multi-agency protection plan—requires very skilled professional social workers. Some of the many other important tasks that I could give are the assessment of risk from sex offenders: working with mentally ill people and performing the duties of a mental health officer; working with vulnerable adults and doing the work that will be required under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000; producing probation reports for court and criminal justice work; producing the detailed, comprehensive reports that are required by the children's hearing system; and undertaking the work that is required for supervision orders.
What practical implications does the bill have for directors of social work, chief social work officers and the inspectorate?
We are in an unusual position compared to that of other witnesses, as we are the current managers of inspection staff, the current providers of the services that will be regulated by the independent commission—and we will continue to be so—and also commissioners and contractors of services from the independent sector. Therefore, we can see the issue from three perspectives.
As a former home care manager, I echo what Jacquie Roberts said about home care managers.
Although we have not done any detailed work on finances, I think that the issues are those that Jacquie Roberts has set out. Clearly, there will be a new burden on the local authority to pay registration fees for its services. It is important to remember that we are dealing not just with the services that are currently registered—older people's homes and some day care services—but with the community-based and home care services to which the scheme will be extended.
It is noticeable in the financial memorandum that there is a plan to subsidise the providers of child care, because developing child care is a priority. We feel strongly that if we spend money on fees for the commission, we will not be able to spend money on community care services for the increasing number of people who do not enter hospital or remain in long-stay beds. There is an urgent need to develop more community care services.
It seems legitimate for a voluntary or private sector provider whose fees will rise to ask their purchaser—primarily the local authority—to raise the charges that are paid to the provider for the people for whom it cares in order to meet the increased fee. There will be increased expectations of providers from the Scottish social services council in relation to training and qualification, particularly for social care service staff, who represent the biggest unqualified element of the work force. Again, local authorities will need more training resources. Furthermore, our providers in the voluntary and private sector will say that, as standards are being set that require people to be qualified and trained to a certain level, that will have to be reflected in their fees. That is a fair debate, which I think will be very lively.
You mentioned your concern about the division of Scotland into five or six regional areas. From the answers that we received earlier today, from COSLA and NAIRO, it is clear that, just as Caesar divided Gaul into three parts, the Executive intends to divide Scotland into five parts and to get over the problem of the lack of a local presence by opening up an unspecified number of local resource centres or bases. Would that be an adequate response to your concerns over the need to maintain a local presence?
Our main point is that there seems to be a strong drive from the bill team to set totally new boundaries—to have a different system completely—which does not make sense to us. To build on existing expertise, there needs to be a principle of coterminosity, for the health boards in particular. The bill will bring together a group of health regulators as well as social care regulators and early years regulators. By examining which health board areas are confirmed in the new national health plan, it should be possible to link certain local authorities together under health board areas.
Your submission refers to the regulation of care project team submitting a staffing and accommodation paper that goes into detail about the management structure of the proposed regional centres. Is there anything in that paper to indicate the Executive's thinking about the location of those centres and the areas that they are intended to cover? You mentioned that the Highland area would be divided into two. Is there any suggestion that the same might happen to the north of Scotland, the central region or the south?
No. I believe that the Executive has an open mind about the location of the regional centres and the headquarters.
We will seek clarification on that from the Executive. Some papers have been circulated, to which NAIRO referred earlier, and we can ask for copies of those papers to be circulated to committee members.
I have a final question. You think that it is unlikely that local advisory committees will survive and that there should be an alternative mechanism. What alternative mechanism should there be?
There needs to be a local representation of users, providers and locally elected members who have concerns about and interest in the level and standards of services in their local area, which would be accessible—
That sounds very like the local advisory committees. Are you saying that they should not be got rid of?
There may be a new way of working to a national commission, which is not working to the local council. There should be a way of providing greater national consistency for a local advisory group—I say group rather than committee.
Yes. Change the name.
Those subjects are covered by two sections of your submission. First, on page 5 you say that adoption and fostering services, nannies and nanny agencies will require to be included in the bill. What about au pairs? Secondly, do you believe that respite carers—not those who provide care in institutions, who are covered, but those who provide the service in the individual's home—are adequately covered? Thirdly, do you think that the area of supported housing, including the new types of supported housing and the transitional housing benefit, will be adequately regulated?
I support wholeheartedly what Jim Gibb said earlier about the need to understand what the different services do and the way in which they might develop. The other area that you should be thinking about is the regime that follows the supporting people changes. A number of services are likely to develop that will not fall within the regulation of the commission, and some services may not require to be registered. There is inconsistency and lack of clarity, concerning which home-based support services should be registered and inspected.
I presume that, if we close a further 2,300 learning disability beds, those people will not all go to group homes.
No.
If you have any other comments on that issue, we might ask you to share them.
At this stage in the process, one of the difficult things is working out what needs to be clearly specified in the bill, what preparation work needs to be carried out by the bill team and what is legitimate business for the commission, once it is established. Some of the frameworks need to be in place beforehand, but some of the detailed work on standards and processes would properly be the business of the people in the commission who have to implement them. We would all seek to influence those standards and processes, but there are different stages to be gone through.
If your question is about whether we need a system to measure inputs as well as outcomes for people, my response is that certain minimum inputs must be subject to scrutiny. I cannot see how that can be avoided. What the NAIRO representative said is right: certain inputs are essential to guarantee some of the outcomes, particularly for vulnerable older people and children.
Do you think that the commission should have a role in regulating health issues for the elderly—health promotion as opposed to ill health, which is clearly a health service matter—such as diet and the prevention of falls? Such issues could fall between two stools.
Where such issues impacted on the care of an individual, that would be legitimate. During their inspection visits, good inspection units examine menus, meals, diets and individual care plans to find out whether individual needs are being met. The issue is more pronounced for people with learning disabilities, and inspection units must ensure that their specific dietary needs are being met.
Is there a national system for sharing best practice?
I am not sure that there is.
The NAIRO representatives in the public gallery are shaking their heads.
NAIRO shares best practice, as does the association, and sometimes that work is brought together. However, there is no national system.
I presume that that suggestion will be inputted to the new national care standards.
Yes. That would be one of the benefits of having national standards.
You say that the care standards should be set out in secondary legislation. Is that the bill's intention, as you read it? Section 5(3) refers to the national care standards and the codes of practice that the council publishes under section 36. The national care standards are also only published. Are you comfortable with such provisions, or does the bill need to be more specific about enforcement?
On the whole, we are comfortable. Once the national care standards are agreed and published, their status must be clear. We must know whether they are regulations or guidance, so that all parties understand how they fit in and comply. There have been difficulties with that. That clarification properly belongs in secondary legislation rather than the bill.
There is concern that nannies, as opposed to childminders, are left out of the bill. Who will define a nanny? Is that someone who has undergone proper college training? That leads to the question whether the regulation of nanny agencies should be devolved to Scotland. Present employment law does not allow that, but would it be appropriate for the new proposals?
Defining the role of nannies and other groups is not easy, but that should not be the excuse for not including them. The association thinks that it will be the proper business of the commission and the council to be clear about what child care agencies, nannies and au pairs do and the qualifications that they require. What is expected of such agencies, and why is that different from expectations of other agencies that provide home-based care?
My understanding is that the intention is to have adoption and fostering agencies registered. Nanny agencies and au pair agencies could be included in a similar way.
What are the pros and cons of establishing one or two bodies? I think that the association has today's deciding vote on that issue. Will you give us an idea of why one or two bodies are acceptable?
It is interesting to examine some of the reasoning. The bill and the explanatory notes fully recognise the need for constant dialogue between the bodies. The bill even contains a duty to consult. The explanatory notes refer to
A couple of issues have cropped up during the questions, and we would like further written information about them from you. The clerks will write to you to clarify that. I was not here for the whole meeting, so I apologise for missing part of your evidence. Thank you for coming this morning and answering our questions.
Meeting closed at 12.10.