Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 31, 2001

Official Report 542KB pdf

---

Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

We now come to stage 3 proceedings on the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill. As the chamber was carrying out stage 3 consideration yesterday, I propose not to read through all the rules and rigmarole, if that is acceptable—everyone should be familiar with the procedure. We will take it as read, so we can press on with the business.

Section 1—Constitution of Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care

The first group of amendments consists of amendments 1 and 2, in the name of the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care.

Janis Hughes and Kate MacLean lodged equal opportunities amendments at stage 2, which I was pleased to accept. As members will know, equal opportunities are reserved under the Scotland Act 1998, except for the encouragement of equal opportunities, in particular the observance of equal opportunities requirements. It was entirely appropriate and correct that Kate MacLean sought to ensure that the proposed Scottish commission for the regulation of care acts accordingly, but her stage 2 amendment was inserted as an addition to section 1(1), which establishes the commission, whereas it is more appropriate to make an addition to subsection (2), which deals with how the commission will act. To leave the provision where it currently sits would not give the commission the correct focus on equal opportunities—that focus should be in the exercise of its various functions. I commend amendments 1 and 2 to the Parliament.

I move amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 2—Care services

Amendment 3 is grouped with amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 56, 57 and 58.

This group of amendments makes a number of changes to section 2, which deals with care services, and some consequential changes to section 55 on interpretation.

Perhaps the most important amendments are those that relate to child care agencies. They respond to the considerable debate at stage 1 and stage 2 about the need for regulation of nanny agencies and other services that offer care for children. In particular, they respond to the amendment lodged by Margaret Jamieson at stage 2 in support of the regulation of nanny agencies.

Amendments 3, 6, 57 and 58 provide for child care agencies to be regulated by the commission. The definition of what constitutes such an agency has been drawn sufficiently widely to include all relevant services. Nanny agencies, sitter services and au pair agencies that supply child care staff, as defined by amendment 6, will be subject to registration and inspection by the commission. That will include agencies that provide volunteers to support families who are in need of help with child care as well as nanny agencies—those that employ nannies directly and those that introduce suitable nannies to parents, who then become the employer.

Those are important services for parents and children. Parents and guardians need assurances that the child care agency has carried out appropriate checks on the individual who will come into their home. The commission would have the power to regulate that. There will be ample opportunity for interested parties to comment when we draw up detailed proposals for implementation.

Amendment 4 removes part of section 2 (4)(b). As it stands, the definition of a school care accommodation service does not include mainstream boarding schools. By removing the wording,

"together with personal care or personal support by reason of the pupil's vulnerability or need",

we make it clear that the definition of school care accommodation covers mainstream boarding schools.

Amendment 5 slightly alters the definition of "nurse agency" to include agencies that introduce clients to registered nurses, midwives or health visitors, so that regulation is not limited to agencies that supply such staff directly.

Amendment 7 deals with secure accommodation. Such accommodation forms part of the spectrum of residential care for children, so it is right that it should be subject to the same regime as other forms of residential child care. However, depriving a child of his or her liberty is a serious matter and we have always said that we wish to continue with the requirement for approval by Scottish ministers. The amendment ensures that secure accommodation is defined in the list of care services as

"accommodation approved by the Scottish Ministers",

and makes it clear that the power that enables ministers to approve such accommodation is the regulation-making power under section 24.

Amendment 8 responds to an amendment that Shona Robison lodged at stage 2, which aimed to provide collective terms for the fostering services that local authorities are required to provide or arrange and for the service that authorities provide by overseeing private fostering arrangements. There is considerable confusion, which statutory terminology may go a considerable way towards resolving.

Amendment 9 results from a commitment that I gave at stage 2, in response to an amendment lodged by Mary Scanlon, to reconsider the rather basic definition of housing support services in the bill as introduced. The amendment uses wording from section 81 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill to give a much fuller definition of housing support services in the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill. The wording is slightly different, to reflect the terminology in the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill, but maintains an important link between it and the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I believe that amendment 9 gives useful clarity as to the housing support services that are to be regulated.

Finally, in accordance with what I agreed to do at stage 2, amendment 56 clarifies the position on the definition of a child in respect of the bill's provisions on adoption, fostering and secure accommodation. The amendment brings into play the current definitions in Scottish adoption and fostering legislation and the definition of "child" in relation to the provision and use of secure accommodation under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

I commend the amendments to Parliament.

I move amendment 3.

I remind members who wish to speak that we are now dealing with all the amendments in group 2.

I particularly welcome amendment 6, which allows for the inclusion of child care agencies. Many people involved in child care were concerned that their omission would mean that nanny agencies would be omitted from the relevant regulations.

We appreciate the difficulties in trying to define "child care agency". Proposed subsection (6A), which amendment 6 inserts, provides a very good definition. However, I am a little concerned about the definition of "child carer" under proposed subsection (6B). As drafted, it refers to

"the home of the child's parents."

I suggest that it might be a little better to recognise in the phrasing of proposed paragraph (b), the fact that not all children live with their parents and that there are many other situations: a child may live with their grandparents or with other relatives; they may be in foster care; or they may stay with family friends. In such situations, a nanny, au pair or babysitter might still be employed through an agency to look after a child.

I have concerns that the Executive might have been a little over-zealous in its response. I draw the minister's attention to the position of peer-group support and sitter services, such as those offered by One Parent Families Scotland, or the befriending support offered by Homestart volunteers. There is concern that voluntary agencies that organise peer-group-support-type babysitting might be placed at a disadvantage as a result of proposed subsection (6B). There would need to be assurances that the costs of registration would not be so onerous as to end such services, which are often the only means for certain groups of people to arrange child care.

Mention has been made of containing costs, but I fear that that is little more than unfounded optimism: it would be quite difficult for a free sitter service whose work is done by volunteers to contain its costs. I wonder whether the minister when he sums up will be prepared to make a commitment that costs to such agencies will be kept down.

On the definition of "child", I am pleased that the Executive has, with amendment 56, gone some way towards bringing the bill into line with existing legislation. Not to have done so would have added unnecessary confusion to the bill.

The provisions proposed by amendment 6 are much more comprehensive than those contained in the bill as drafted and they tie the bill in with other legislation. Amendment 6 also highlights the problems caused by the different definitions of "child" that are found in different pieces of legislation. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that a child is anyone under the age of 18; there is an argument for trying to achieve consistency across all legislation. I know that that is not an issue for the bill, but that general comment should be noted.

I welcome the definitions and the minister's response to the points raised at stage 2.

I wish to raise a point that I raised at stages 1 and 2. Although I accept the definition of support services in the bill, my point is one of clarification in relation to support services in hostels for homeless people, many of whom have drug and alcohol problems.

Given the poor standards in many of those hostels, I would not wish vulnerable people to be denied support, assistance, advice and counselling because the service providers could not afford to upgrade and register their premises. Those premises seem to fall outwith the categories of residential accommodation and supported accommodation, although the support given would be covered by housing support services. I understand that we are talking about a specific service, but I seek clarification that hostels for homeless people will continue to exist as such, with appropriate support services provided.

I ask the minister for an example of what might be specified as "excepted accommodation", which he raised during a debate on section 21 at stage 2, in a paper entitled annexe A6. Both that paper and amendment 9 refer to

"excepted accommodation in regulations".

Could the minister advise us what such accommodation would be?

I thank Irene McGugan and Mary Scanlon for their broad welcome of this group of amendments.

I respond to Irene McGugan by saying that, in general, there will be ample opportunity for interested parties to comment as we draw up detailed proposals for implementing the bill. On her specific point about a child who is cared for in the parent's home, it is the agency that will be regulated. It is clear that that will cover most children who are looked after in the parent's home, but children who are being looked after in someone else's home will also be covered.

Irene McGugan's third point was about costs. We will have at least one debate on that point, so we should perhaps leave it for later.

Mary Scanlon also raised the issue of costs. Although funding for hostels for homeless people falls outwith the scope of the bill, she is correct in her understanding that drug and alcohol services would come under housing support services, which are covered by the bill.

Finally, Mary Scanlon raised a point of detail about wording in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I do not want to tread too far into that territory, lest members sitting behind me leap to their feet. However, I believe that Mary Scanlon was referring to specific funding arrangements for supporting people. I understand that some housing support services will be funded through other routes, such as the Scottish needs assessment programme—SNAP—and I think that the exceptions are to do with that. I would prefer Mary Scanlon to address any supplementary questions to Margaret Curran.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendments 4 to 8 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Amendment 72 is grouped with amendment 73.

I moved similar amendments at stage 2. I was unhappy with the minister's response to them, so I have lodged amendments 72 and 73.

It appears that the purpose of section 2(17) is to ensure that schools and related activities, such as homework clubs, are excluded from the bill's provisions, which is quite right. Section 2(17) purports to ensure that out-of-school care activities that are provided on school premises fall within the scope of the bill and so will be subject to registration and inspection. However, certain out-of-school care activities are provided in a school as part of the school's activities and the person who provides those activities is employed or commissioned by the local authority to manage the service. That happens in a number of community schools. Section 2(17) appears to suggest that such activities should not fall within the remit of the Scottish commission for the regulation of care.

Subsection (17) states that

"a person does not provide day care of children where"

the service is provided

"as part of the school's activities"

and the person is

"employed to work at the school and authorised to provide the service as part of the school's activities."

Such services—for example, those provided in community schools—may be aimed at the most vulnerable children, but they will not benefit from falling under the remit of the Scottish commission for the regulation of care or the Scottish social services council.

The national care standards should apply to such services. Amendments 72 and 73 seek to ensure that all care services that are provided on school premises for children and young people are brought within the scope of the bill. The amendments also seek to distinguish between school education activities and child care activities.

I move amendment 72.

Amendments 72 and 73 would limit the exemption from regulation for services that are provided directly by a school to those that are provided as part of the school's educational activities.

I will deal first with what is included in the bill before moving on to what is excluded. The bill will regulate after-school activities that are provided on school premises or in association with a school, but are not managed by the school. Such activities include, for example, after-school clubs that are run by a management committee of parents.

In response to the specific point made by Shona Robison, the bill also covers services provided by a local authority that take place in a school but are not part of the school's activities as such. Local authority child care that is provided on school premises, but not as part of the school's activities—that is, not managed by the school—would be covered.

Our reason for excluding from regulation all activities that are run by the school was the difficulty of distinguishing between educational activities and child care in that context. We remain convinced that it is not practical to distinguish between a school's child care activities and its learning activities. For example, in activities that are run by a school, such as homework clubs, pupils sometimes do homework and sometimes play. We discussed the issue fully at stage 2 and the committee was not convinced of the need for Shona Robison's amendments.

I invite Shona Robison to withdraw amendment 72 and not to move amendment 73.

I seek clarification from the minister that common sense would prevail if the person who runs an after-school care service in a community school is employed by the school. Will the minister give me an assurance that, in such a case—I know that there are only a small number of such cases, but they exist—common sense would prevail, with the service being treated as falling under the bill?

The question is really whether the school manages the activity. As members know, management committees of parents run most after-school clubs and it is clear that the bill covers those clubs. If the school manages the activity, it becomes a different matter. That is the key criterion.

Amendment 72, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 73 not moved.

Amendment 9 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Power to amend the definition of "care service"

Amendment 10 is grouped with amendments 15, 17, 32, 33, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 61 and 62.

From the outset, we wanted the whole process of introducing the bill and the care standards to be based on consultation. For example, we issued seven consultation and three policy position papers. We established a reference group, which consists of all the stakeholders. The care standards were produced by 15 or so working groups involving a range of other interests, including, crucially, users and carers. I held six consultation meetings with a wide range of stakeholder groups in March and April. I could go on.

We have not gone through the motions of consultation, but have genuinely been prepared to take on board the views we received and to adapt our proposals where we could to meet any concerns that were expressed. However, during our stage 2 discussions there were some concerns that the consultation provisions in the bill did not go far enough.

Various suggestions were made about bodies that ministers, the commission and the council should be explicitly required to consult—for example local authorities, health boards, users and carers, providers, the Mental Welfare Commission and the voluntary sector. Of course we intend that ministers, the commission and the council should consult all those bodies, but I agreed to reconsider the consultation provisions to determine whether they were as consistent and appropriate as they could be. This group of amendments is the result of that consideration.

First, I propose to add more consultation provisions to the bill. We had intended to consult in any event, but I understand the argument that a specific statutory provision is a safeguard. Amendment 10 requires ministers to consult before amending the definition of care services. Amendments 32 and 50 require ministers to consult before conferring additional functions on the commission or council or making regulations that relate to the registration process. Amendments 61 and 62 require ministers to consult before making regulations about appointments to the two bodies and about their procedures. Amendment 51 requires the council to consult before making rules about registration. Such measures will strengthen the consultation arrangements in the bill and I hope that they will be welcomed.

Secondly, I have reconsidered the way in which the consultation provisions are framed. I cannot add a specific requirement to consult voluntary organisations, for example—which was strongly pressed by Janis Hughes—or providers, users and carers. Such terms are not sufficiently specific to let ministers, the commission or the council know what is required of them and whether they have fulfilled their statutory duty. Which voluntary organisations would ministers have to consult? Would all potential users and carers or only a representative sample have to receive a consultation paper?

I intend, however, to set out in guidelines how the commission and the council should consult. Amendment 53 therefore provides that ministers have a duty to issue guidelines to the commission and the council as to how they are to fulfil their consultation functions under the act. The voluntary sector, for example, would certainly be mentioned in guidelines.

As well as extending the number of references to consultation and ensuring that guidelines will be issued, the amendments also require consultation with "such persons" rather than "any person". That makes clear that there must always be consultation. Deciding at the outset that there are no appropriate consultees will not be an option. We also propose to add "groups of persons" to the provisions to make clear that representative bodies as well as individuals and corporate bodies are to be included.

The flexibility needed for the process to work well will be allowed by having ministers, the commission and the council consult the persons and groups of persons that they think appropriate. However, that does not give them carte blanche: their decisions must be defensible in the courts and will be open to judicial review.

I commend the amendments and move amendment 10.

As the minister mentioned, at stage 2 I lodged an amendment that required the voluntary sector to be named specifically in the bill and to be included in consultation. We had a good discussion about the issue and I understand the minister's comments about why it is preferable not to name the voluntary sector in the bill.

However, if the Parliament is serious about considering the voluntary sector as the third sector with the public and private sectors, we must give it a commitment that it will be included in discussions about anything to do with the provision of care and the facilities that are provided through the bill. I am glad of the assurances that I have been given. I would be pleased if the minister can give any further assurances in winding up.

I thank Janis Hughes for welcoming the proposals. I repeat what I said about guidelines for the commission and the council containing a reference to consulting the voluntary sector and I affirm that ministers give a commitment to consulting the voluntary sector where the responsibility rests with us. I hope that that reassures Janis Hughes.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendment 11 is grouped with amendment 60.

Amendments 11 and 60 ensure that ministers can make orders that deal with the various transitional issues that are relevant to the bill. We will need to ensure the smooth changeover from the current registration and inspection systems that are operated by local authorities and health boards. Our transitional issues group is working on these complex but routine issues and that will help us to identify the key areas that need to be addressed. Ministers will be required to consult appropriately before making an order under section 52.

I move amendment 11.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Section 4—Information and advice

Amendment 12 is grouped with amendments 13 and 14.

Amendment 12 builds on a commitment that I gave at stage 2 in response to an amendment lodged by Richard Simpson to ensure that the information the commission gives to the public is available in a variety of formats.

Amendment 12 ensures that a person requesting information from the commission is entitled to receive it in any format that that person may reasonably request. I envisage that that will include audiotape and Braille versions of care information as well as information in minority ethnic languages. The amendment reflects our commitment to ensuring that the commission meets the needs of service users and their families.

Amendment 13 relates to a commitment that I gave at stage 2 to reflect on a suggestion made by Shona Robison. The suggestion was to include persons or groups of persons who represent users and their carers in the bodies that may ask the commission for advice about any matter relevant to its functions. Given our commitment to users and their carers, the amendment is important and useful.

Amendment 14 gives ministers the power to prescribe by order other persons and groups who may ask the commission for advice. That gives necessary flexibility to enable the commission's duty to provide advice to be extended to cover other bodies. An example of such a body would be the Mental Welfare Commission.

I move amendment 12.

I will make a declaration as this the first time I have spoken. I am a director of Nursing Home Management Ltd, which operates nursing homes in England, a member of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering and a member of the Scottish Association for Mental Health.

I welcome amendment 12. It is vital that we put the persons to whom the services are offered at the centre of our activities. The amendment allows individuals to request information in the format that they prefer. That is appropriate.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendments 13 and 14 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 5—National care standards

Amendment 15 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Amendment 16 is grouped with amendments 20, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 78, 45 and 46.

The bill empowers the commission to refuse to register a care service or to cancel an existing registration. We hope that that will happen only rarely, but the commission must have effective enforcement powers if vulnerable users are to be protected properly.

In the vast majority of cases, such provisions should apply to local authorities in exactly the same way as they are to apply to services provided by the voluntary and private sectors. One of the main intentions behind the bill is to level the playing field. The one general exception is for local authority adoption and fostering services. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide such services and would be in breach of that duty if the commission either refused or cancelled registration. Part 1A therefore covers those services. Rather than a local authority being deregistered by the commission, it will be possible for ministers to take default action against a local authority if they are satisfied that it has no reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an improvement notice or for not complying with relevant service requirements.

Local authorities do not have a statutory duty to provide other care services, but there may be some circumstances in which they can meet a statutory duty only by providing a particular care service. For example, a local authority may have assessed the care needs of a rural area and decided that they can be met only if a home care service is provided there. There may be no private or voluntary sector providers who are willing to offer such a service in the area. A local authority service would then be the only means whereby the local authority could fulfil its general duty in those particular circumstances.

This group of amendments therefore extends the provisions that apply to local authority adoption and fostering services to cover care services that a local authority determines it must provide to fulfil a statutory duty. The decision on whether those provisions should apply should not, of course, be left entirely to local authorities themselves. We want to be sure that this mechanism is used only in the very small number of cases where failure to fulfil a statutory duty is genuinely involved. Amendment 36 therefore provides for any dispute between a local authority and the commission on this issue to go to Scottish ministers for a decision. If ministers do not agree with the local authority's view that the registration is essential, the normal provisions will apply.

Amendments 40, 43 and 78 are technical amendments to clarify the existing provisions relating to local authority adoption and fostering services.

I do not envisage the provisions introduced by this group of amendments being used very frequently. In the vast majority of cases, there is no reason why a local authority service should be treated any differently from the service of a voluntary or private sector provider, but the amendments will introduce useful safeguards to the new system to ensure that local authorities' statutory position is protected where necessary, and to ensure that the safety net that is provided for vulnerable people by the statutory duties placed on local authorities continues to operate as it should. I commend these amendments to the chamber.

I move amendment 16.

We will support these amendments, but I would like the minister to confirm that although they are necessary to achieve the overall objectives of the bill, they will not impinge on the review of adoption and fostering. The chamber has accepted that that review is necessary, as has the Executive. Many members are looking forward to the review because new attention to the legislative framework for adoption and fostering is overdue.

Listening to the minister, I was not quite clear about a couple of things. There seems to be an implication that adoption and fostering are not being targeted as before. My point is similar to Michael Russell's and I would like the minister to be clear on it.

The care services that are listed on page 2 of the bill go down as far as paragraph (j)—however many that is. There are a lot of services. I wonder whether the bill has now been drawn too widely. From what the minister said, it was previously too precise about fostering and adoption. The Executive now wants to cover other services. Does the Executive mean that all the care services listed in the bill should be covered?

I will deal with Mike Russell's point first. There is no suggestion that what is provided in the bill for adoption and fostering in any way impinges on the review of adoption and fostering. I am not looking for too much sympathy, but many of the areas that are covered in the bill are not within my direct ministerial responsibility.

The review of adoption and fostering that is being carried out by Jack McConnell and Nicol Stephen has been broadly welcomed. The review is not impinged upon by the equally welcome proposals in the bill to ensure that adoption and fostering services continue in all circumstances. The precise point of part 1A is that statutory functions will continue in all circumstances. The general provisions that allow a care service to be shut down if it does not meet standards do not mean that there will be no adoption and fostering services.

I hope that my reply to Mike Russell reassures Donald Gorrie as well. I am not sure what he was implying when he talked of adoption and fostering services being "targeted"; I would argue that those services are being protected. They will be further enhanced as a result of the review.

I am also not quite sure what Donald Gorrie had in mind in his second point. If he had mentioned any specific services that he does not think should be in the bill, I might have been able to respond more specifically. Clearly, I do not think that the list of care services is too widely drawn, or I would not have put it in the bill.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Section 6—Complaints about care services

Amendment 17 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 7—Applications for registration under Part 1

Amendment 75 is grouped with amendments 18 and 19.

The minister has responded to my concerns at both stage 1 and stage 2. Amendment 75 is about the regulation of different branches of care services. The minister has gone some way towards addressing my concerns by stating that to be separately registered a care service must be separately managed, with one person in day-to-day charge of the service and directly responsible for its quality. He has also stated that in most cases it will be clear what constitutes an individual care service—for example every child minder, every care home and every independent clinic.

The minister has further stated that when two homes are managed as one unit and staff move between them interchangeably, the commission may well agree that one registration would be appropriate. He has also said that if a local authority home care service is run as one service—with the management and decision-making powers at the centre and effective arrangements in place to ensure that management decisions get through consistently to those providing the service on the ground—again, one registration may be appropriate. For example, there could be one registration for the whole of Highland Council, covering a huge geographic area for home care services. The critical point is not who provides the service, but who manages it.

Another example would be of a care home offering a day care service. The minister has stated that the commission could charge a total fee made up of the separate registration fees, but that it would have the power to waive, or reduce, the fee under section 20(3)(b). That section needs to be clearer. I can envisage lots of care providers challenging the commission to get a reduction in the fee. However, the minister has gone some way towards addressing the situation when there is more than one care provider.

To be consistent, I will stick to the example of the Leonard Cheshire homes and the various other providers that I have mentioned at stage 1 and stage 2. Many providers provide residential accommodation, supported accommodation, respite care, day care and home care. That extensive choice of service, which is designed to suit various individual needs, may be managed by one person and the staff may be interchangeable. For example, some staff will do some hours of home care but the rest of their working week will be in day care or residential care. The same staff could see to the care needs of people in respite care beds. Given that that integrated service could have one manager and interchangeable staff, amendment 75 requests that where such a service

"is operated and managed in an integrated manner ... a single application"

can be accepted for multiple registration and inspection.

People in the voluntary sector keep complaining about bureaucracy. Amendment 75 would reduce bureaucracy. It would reduce the amount of time that is spent filling in forms and it would reduce duplication. In the situations that I have been talking about, instead of 10 inspections a year, only two inspections a year would be required.

A failure to endorse amendment 75 could lead to a reduction of choice in the care services offered by the voluntary sector and other providers. Acceptance of the amendment could encourage a more diverse range of services, such as day care and home care. Eventually, individuals could increase their use of the services that were provided and would be able to move to different grades and levels of service while staying with the same provider

I move amendment 75.

I thank Mary Scanlon for helpfully citing various explanations that I have given at the committee stages so that I do not need to repeat them. All I would add is that guidance on these matters will be issued to the commission.

Amendment 75 would allow the commission to accept a single application

"where more than one care service is operated and managed in an integrated manner".

There is a danger in that proposal. The care standards and regulations will be different for different care services, and it must be clear to the commission from the outset which care services are to be provided. We therefore consider it important that, as section 7(3) makes clear, separate applications are made for each care service, even if they are being provided and managed together.

Once the commission has the applications, it can treat them as one process and decide on the appropriate package of care standards to register and subsequently inspect the service against. No unnecessary bureaucracy should be involved, therefore. Our inspection methods working group has been asked to examine this issue with a view to deciding what guidance needs to be given to the commission and providers. I should also point out that the commission will be able to charge a fee for registration that is less than the combined fees for the separate care services, because of its powers under section 20 to waive or charge nominal fees. We will discuss this issue in more detail in the group of amendments on registration fees. With that assurance, I hope that Mary Scanlon will withdraw amendment 75.

Amendment 18 is an amendment to section 7 to ensure that adoption and fostering services can be provided only by voluntary organisations. At present, the bill merely says that the person applying to register as the provider of such a service must be a voluntary organisation. That person might cease to be a voluntary organisation after registration.

Amendment 19 is consequential to the previous group of amendments on local authority statutory duties.

I am reassured by much of what the minister has said. Like many things to do with this bill, the provision is not in the bill; the devil is in the detail in memorandums and regulations. Will MSPs have the opportunity—perhaps in the Health and Community Care Committee—to examine the type of registration to which the minister referred once the Executive has produced more details?

I can give Mary Scanlon assurance on that: she has a point about what is in the bill, which is why we have been so careful to ensure that all the regulations are fully and comprehensively consulted on.

It would be entirely appropriate for the guidance that I referred to to be discussed in the Health and Community Care Committee. I emphasise the point that the inspection methods working group is considering the issue. Mary Scanlon will remember that at stage 2 I undertook to refer the issue to the group. The members of the group are the experts in this area and I look forward to the detailed guidance that they will produce soon.

With those assurances, I seek to withdraw amendment 75.

Amendment 75, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 18 and 19 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Improvement notices

Amendment 20 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21 is grouped with amendments 22 and 23.

Amendment 22 relates to our discussion on local authority statutory duties. There may be cases where a service that is registered in the normal way becomes essential to the fulfilment of a statutory duty, perhaps because all other providers withdraw from the local market. Amendment 22 provides for a local authority to argue that that is the case if the commission issues an improvement notice foreshadowing cancellation of registration. Again, any dispute over whether the service is essential will go to ministers. There may also be cases where the cancellation of the registration of a private or voluntary sector service commissioned by a local authority would put that local authority in breach of a statutory duty. A voluntary sector care home may be the only one available locally, for example, and the local authority may have decided that a care home is necessary to meet the needs of the area.

Amendment 21 provides for a local authority to be informed when improvement notices are issued to a care service within its area, so that it has time either to work with the provider to avoid cancellation or to make alternative arrangements to meet the care needs of the area.

Amendment 23 removes a reference to section 9(1), which deals with improvement notices, from section 16A. That is a technical change to ensure consistency in the bill now that it contains part 1A.

I move amendment 21.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 22 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 16A—Conditions as to numbers

Amendment 23 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 20—Registration fees

Amendment 24 is grouped with amendments 76 and 77.

We had considerable discussions during stage 2 on fees for the regulation of services and how they should be set. Section 20 provides for ministers to set maximum fees and section 42 provides for ministers to pay grant to the commission. The bill does not say anything about the relationship between the two or about what proportion should be fees and what should be grant.

When we consider what the fee level should be, we will take into account all relevant factors, including the effects that registration fees have had on the care market in the previous years and the likely effect of further increases. We will take a range of factors into account in deciding what the balance between income from fees and central Government grant should be. Self-financing remains the general policy and that will be the case at the outset for the registration of those services that are to be regulated for the first time, including private doctors and dentists and home care agencies. However, we will ensure that that policy does not cut across objectives in other areas, including the need for a flourishing care home sector. The rate at which self-financing is achieved will therefore vary for different care services.

In coming to a view on the level of fees for 2004-05 onward, ministers will be interested in the views of service providers. We have always consulted providers and others on proposed changes in registration fees and, as I agreed at stage 2, I am happy to include a specific provision in the bill to that effect. Amendment 24 therefore provides that ministers must consult providers on the potential effect of proposed fees on care services.

Amendment 76, in Shona Robison's name, would require the commission to have regard to

"the anticipated impact of fees on service provision and service providers"

and to any representation from local authorities, health boards or other interested parties. That would not be appropriate. It is for ministers to consider the impact of fees on the sector. Amendment 24 will provide the mechanism to allow them to do that effectively. For the commission to reconsider the issue in setting its fees would be pointless and would require it to carry out its own consultation.

Amendment 77, in Mary Scanlon's name, would empower the commission to charge a single registration fee where more than one care service is provided in an integrated way. There is no need for the amendment. Section 20(3)(b) already empowers the commission to charge a nominal fee or to waive the fee altogether. We will be providing the commission with guidance on the circumstances in which it may wish to waive fees, and the example in amendment 77 would be one such instance. We also have the power to prescribe by order circumstances in which fees are not to be payable and we will do so if it proves necessary to clarify the issue. There are also technical difficulties with the amendment. The words "operated" and "charge" are not used in the bill—although I accept that I have used them in explaining these matters—and there would have to be appropriate clarification of what is meant by "integrated manner".

I move amendment 24, and ask that amendments 76 and 77 be not moved.

As the minister said, fees have been one of the most contentious issues since the start of the bill process. The Health and Community Care Committee heard one witness after another say that the Executive's stated objective that the Scottish commission for the regulation of care should be self-financing would mean a huge increase in fees and therefore a huge burden on care providers, particularly those in the voluntary sector. At present, fees cover only 17 per cent of the cost of registration, yet the minister wishes to adopt a system that will be 100 per cent funded by fees. The system will not provide one extra pound for care services. Instead, the minister will set up a little-needed paper-chase around a fees system.

The minister told us that funding to local authorities will be increased to cover the cost of the increased charges that providers will levy to cover their increased registration fees. All members of the Health and Community Care Committee were rather sceptical about that statement. I am sure that we will discuss the issue at some length when we debate amendment 34, which seeks to remove the safeguards that section 24A provides.

The fundamental point is that the same pot of public money that goes to local authorities will be used to fund the commission, so why not fund the commission directly and prevent the recycling of public money, which loses value each time that it is recycled? We have yet to hear an adequate explanation of the policy.

I recognise that amendment 24 will allow ministers to consider the potential effect of fees, but that does not go far enough. Amendment 24 is not strong enough to reflect the overwhelming views of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Health and Community Care Committee—in a democracy, after all, we are supposed to listen to such people.

Amendment 76 would strengthen section 20 by stating that, when the commission sets fees, it should have regard to the

"anticipated impact of fees on … service providers".

Given that the commission will have day-to-day contact with service providers, it will be in a better position to know the impact of fees than ministers might be.

The basic principle of amendment 77 is similar to that of amendment 75. Amendment 75 was about registration; we are now discussing fees. During stage 2, the minister's reply to the question that that principle raises was that, when a care home provides another level of care, a reduced fee for one service would be appropriate. This morning, we received further reassurances on that.

I welcome the reduction or the waiving of fees when a service can reasonably expect to attract only an unusually small number of clients because of its geographical location. As an MSP for the Highlands and Islands, I welcome that, particularly for remote and rural areas such as Sutherland.

The minister says that the commission's decisions should not take account of the financial circumstances of any provider. I understand that we will debate that matter more fully when we debate the amendment to delete section 24A. However, surely we must take account of the fact that quality cannot be divorced from funding, costs and council referrals. With little or no increase in funding and reduced referrals, care providers cannot achieve or maintain the required standards. If a service is given only a small number of referrals because of problems of delayed discharge, for example, will a reduced fee be appropriate? Unless the integrated provision of care is recognised, councils could put voluntary and private care providers out of business through their powers of funding and referral.

Some people fear that care services will be reduced to a standardised form to suit the commission rather than the care needs of individuals. I will be consistent and refer again to the Leonard Cheshire homes' provision of care. If that organisation had to pay five fees, that would quickly lead to a reduction in, and a more standard form of, care. For example, after 2004, registration and inspection of a 40-bed care home will cost £7,000. From 2002, registration and inspection of a day care centre will cost between £1,400 and £1,800. For a home care service, the amount will be between £1,200 and £1,800. That is not to mention respite care and supported accommodation.

Amendment 77 looks towards a more appropriate single fee that is based on the multiple services that are provided. The amendment would address the provision of more than two services.

I ask the minister to clarify a point about the collection of registration fees. It has been drawn to my attention that the registration board in the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board area has recently experienced difficulty with care home owners who have not paid last year's registration fees and have had this year's inspection conducted. Does the bill deal with such circumstances? I am concerned that individuals may delay payment of fees and thereby cause the commission difficulty.

The issue of fees exercised many members in the Health and Community Care Committee and several witnesses who gave oral or written evidence. Many people were concerned by aspects of the proposals that are not specified in the bill but are in its accompanying memorandums, regulations and guidance. The financial memorandum to the bill suggests that the system will be self-financing through fees by 2004, which caused a great deal of concern. I ask the minister to clarify further his comment this morning that the rate of self-financing will vary among care services.

I welcome the fact that, by lodging amendment 24, the Executive has shown that it has listened to that general concern about fees. It is appropriate that ministers must consult. Ministers must take an overview of the sector and keep a watching brief—a monitoring brief—on the impact of the bill and on other aspects of the long-term care sector.

Many members are concerned about the position of local councils, which Shona Robison mentioned. We heard what the Executive said about extra funding through grant-aided expenditure to pay for fees, but the Health and Community Care Committee is aware that the GAE on community care is not necessarily spent on that by all councils, so we continue to have concerns about the issue. I would like the minister to deal with that point.

I have some sympathy for the points that Mary Scanlon raised this morning and repeated in relation to amendment 77. However, we must remember that section 20(3) gives the commission discretion to remit fees. Malcolm Chisholm discussed with the Health and Community Care Committee some circumstances in which the commission might exercise that discretion. The minister said that he would issue guidance and that the commission would attempt to be consistent. He suggested that fees would be waived when multiple care services were operated and managed in an integrated way, when a service was due to close within a short time after fees were due or when a service could reasonably expect to attract only an unusually small number of clients because of its geographical location. Obviously, that would interest members who represent more rural areas.

The bill has some scope to meet the concerns that Mary Scanlon outlines with amendment 77. I support amendment 24 and ask for further clarification on the points that I raised.

I share some of Shona Robison's concerns. In trying to make clear the costs of the commission, we may introduce a bureaucratic system in which the public pound will circulate through several hands and be devalued. I continue to feel instinctively that we have not got the system correct. However, I hope that amendment 24 and the terms of the bill will allow the minister to reconsider the arrangement and decide that fees should all be paid centrally. We should get rid of the bureaucracy. In a post-Sutherland era, where personal care is to be free, the public pound will pay for almost the whole of the care sector—apart from personal living costs. The situation will change radically and the system will need to be re-examined.

I wish to raise a point about registration and deregistration of beds in interim periods. At a meeting of the Health and Community Care Committee, I indicated that, when care homes in the Tayside Health Board area have a reduced occupancy that is perceived as continuing over a period of time, they are not allowed to adjust their staffing levels to be appropriate to the number of beds that are occupied at the time. The care homes in that area have to continue to staff themselves as if they were fully occupied. In some circumstances, that can cause the homes considerable funding difficulties.

A process that registers and deregisters care homes with any frequency means that the occupancy figures, which we will return to when we look at section 24A, are invalid. Comparisons across the sector and the sort of level playing field that the minister has referred to as being essential and central to the bill will also not apply. I hope that the minister will consider those processes in his discussions with the commission so as to ensure that they are in the least bureaucratic form.

It is fair to say that registration fees are the most contentious aspect of a bill whose main provisions are otherwise to be welcomed. Every witness who appeared before the Health and Community Care Committee and was asked about fees expressed deep concerns about that aspect of the bill. Their concerns were twofold but, as both points have been covered in the debate, I will repeat them only briefly.

First, witnesses expressed deep concern about the drastic increase in the level of fees. We are to go from a system where only 17 per cent of the costs of the bureaucracy are levied from providers to one where the figure is 100 per cent. Witnesses expressed a real fear that, as those increased fees will come on top of financial pressures that the voluntary and independent sectors are already experiencing, the viability of many care homes and many beds in those homes will be threatened.

Those who gave evidence expressed my second point even more strongly. As Shona Robison and other members said, a system in which money circulates from one part of the system to another is absurd. Malcolm Chisholm has said repeatedly that funding to local authorities will be increased so that they can meet the increased fees that will be charged. The assumption is that providers will pass their fee increases on to local authorities. Money will just circulate around the system without a pound of the additional money going to improve the quantity or the quality of care. As a number of witnesses said, such a system will be absurd in the extreme. I share Richard Simpson's instinctive feeling that that system is not right. I hope that Malcolm Chisholm will show himself willing to listen to the overwhelming opinion that was expressed in the committee. I hope that he will support amendment 76.

I, too, am one of the members of the Health and Community Care Committee who were exercised about the Executive's proposals on registration fees. I cannot recall anyone who gave evidence to the committee—apart from the minister and his civil servants—who was in favour of the idea that the new system of regulation should be self-financing. No one believed that the cost of the Scottish commission for the regulation of care and the Scottish social services council should be met by charging fees.

The Association of Directors of Social Work described the proposal as unrealistic and said that it was not a good use of the community care pound. Their employers—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—were equally sceptical about whether the new system could be made to work. If anything, the transitional arrangements that are to be put in place for 2002-03 and 2003-04 were much more popular. That is because the transitional arrangements are a mixture of grants and fees rather than being exclusively one or the other.

I was pleased to hear the minister say that, although the bill allows ministers to set maximum fees, it also allows them to pay grants. There is nothing in the bill about the ministers' final decision about the mix between grants and fees. Indeed, I was encouraged to hear the minister talk about a balance between fees and grants. He said that, although self-financing remains a general policy, it will not be allowed to undermine other aspects of the system. The sector must be sustainable so that it can survive into the future, when the new conditions to which Richard Simpson referred will apply.

Like the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, Margaret Smith, I was interested to hear the minister say that the rate at which self-financing is achieved will vary across the sector. That sounds as though he is making room for a compromise. Although I am not usually one to argue for compromises, I welcome the fact that the minister has signalled a compromise. Indeed, I hope that the minister goes beyond signalling and talks to COSLA and other providers to create an agreed, consensual system. I am in favour of amendment 24.

I will not support amendment 76 because it contains a fundamental flaw. As the minister said, the financing of the system, whatever system is implemented in the long term, is a matter for elected politicians. Ministers must take those decisions, as they are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. I will not support an amendment that would allow a quango to overrule a decision that had been made, and a system that had been put in place, by the elected ministers of an elected Parliament.

The debate has been interesting and has included many useful contributions. I will start with the point that John McAllion made that the financing of the system is a matter for elected politicians. That is the key issue in the debate on section 20 and on section 24A. Perhaps some members were not giving their full attention to the debate but, if they remember one statement, it should be the key message that it is up to elected politicians to decide on such financing matters.

Shona Robison's amendment 76 would not strengthen amendment 24, as it is quite irrelevant to it. As I said, amendment 76 is pointless. The commission should not—indeed, it could not—get involved in such decisions, as running that operation would require financing. Amendment 76 is a total irrelevance and members should not support it.

I am glad that people have picked up the point that I made about a balance between fees and grant, as that has always been implicit in our proposals. We have already exempted early education and child care from the self-funding principle. As I indicated, amendment 24 makes it clear that we are determined to take account of the effect of fees on issues such as the care home market.

The reality is that the commission has somehow to be funded. We take the view that it is best for providers to have some stake in the system. People who suggest that the commission should be funded totally from the centre perhaps forget that many private operators, such as private health care services or individuals who self-fund, will pay fees. I am not sure whether members are suggesting that those fees should also be fully paid for by public funds.

Nicola Sturgeon and Richard Simpson made great play on the idea of money circulating in the system, but what is local government finance but money circulating in the system? If people want to argue that the Parliament and the Executive should fund everything directly, perhaps they will do so, but it is not sensible to argue in terms of money circulating in the system.

Clearly, money is given to local authorities through GAE. I accept Margaret Smith's point that there is an issue about whether the money that is allocated for community care is spent appropriately. I have no doubt that we will revisit that issue later this morning—and on many other occasions—because there are concerns about it. However, I have made it clear on several occasions that, when GAE is set in future, community care will be taken into account.

Mary Scanlon made several points, one of which concerned the situation in which a service can reasonably be expected to attract only a small number of clients. As Margaret Smith reminded us, that situation would be covered by the exemption—indeed, I indicated that in my discussions with the committee. However, Mary Scanlon's proposition that there should be an assessment of whether an individual care service can afford to pay is not practical. The commission would be completely distracted if it had to examine the financial position of every care service and it would not be able to get on with its proper job.

Margaret Jamieson referred to Ayrshire and Arran Health Board and difficulties in collecting fees for registration. The bill makes it explicit that registration can be cancelled if the service is carried on

"other than in accordance with the relevant requirements".

That includes, of course, the payment of fees.

I have dealt with the point that Margaret Smith made about GAE for community care, but she also referred to what I said about the rate of self-financing varying from one service to another. Again, I will use the example of private health care. That system will be self-financing from the outset in 2003, whereas there is no proposal that residential care should be self-funding within such a time scale.

Richard Simpson referred to the registration and deregistration of beds. That was a timely reminder of how fragmented the current system is. I know that one area may adopt that procedure while others may not. We are bringing that fragmentation to an end through the system of registration, which will be the first-ever national system. I can assure Richard Simpson that the staffing levels that will be agreed by the commission will be flexible and that the arrangements will be able to take into account changes in occupancy.

The debate has been important. Clearly, there is no finality about what is said today. I merely repeat that the bill leaves the balance between fees and grant entirely open. That balance can be revisited on any occasion that members wish it to be.

Amendment 24 agreed to

Amendment 76 moved —[Shona Robison].

The question is, that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)

Against

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Mr Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)

The result of the division is: For 37, Against 54, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 76 disagreed to.

Amendment 77 not moved.

Section 21—Inspections

Amendment 25 is grouped with amendments 27 and 28.

Amendment 25 is a clarifying amendment. It follows from a detailed discussion that took place at stage 2 as a result of an amendment that was lodged by John McAllion. That amendment concerned whether the commission could require information from those whom it suspected of operating a care service without being registered.

As I explained at stage 2, the commission would not write to persons who were suspected of operating an unregistered care service for information about their activities, as that would effectively mean that such persons would be incriminating themselves in their reply. If that were the case, it is likely that any subsequent prosecution would be prejudiced. The amendment therefore clarifies that the commission may require information only from registered care services.

Amendments 27 and 28 deal with the frequency of inspection by the commission. All care services that will be covered by the bill will be subject to inspection by the commission. The inspections will benefit all service users by helping to ensure that all service users are offering an appropriate quality of care. The bill as introduced reflected our position that the commission should have maximum flexibility over inspection. Section 21 provides that all services should be subject to inspection at least once a year, but that the commission can choose to inspect a service at any time with or without notice. That would strike a balance between ensuring that regular inspections are made, to ensure that all services are supported and continue to improve, and leaving the commission sufficient scope to focus on the services that require most attention.

As I indicated during stage 2, we are now persuaded that a minimum of two inspections a year by the commission would be more appropriate for services that offer 24-hour care away from home. We are also persuaded that at least one of those inspections should be unannounced. Our inspections method working group supports that position. I have therefore lodged amendments 27 and 28 to include those requirements in the bill. The amendments will mean that care homes for adults and children, secure accommodation, boarding schools and some independent health care services are inspected at least twice a year. Unannounced inspections will take place without any formal or informal warning and could take place at any time of day or night. All the other services covered by the bill will have a minimum of one inspection. Over and above that, the commission will retain the power to inspect all services at any time.

I am happy that the proposed arrangements will provide better protection for service users, in particular the most vulnerable groups who are cared for away from home, and I hope that the Parliament will support the amendments.

I move amendment 25.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendment 26 is grouped with amendments 29, 30 and 31.

Amendments 26, 29, 30 and 31 are designed to ensure that the commission and HMI work together effectively to deliver an integrated and seamless service in the regulation and inspection of relevant care services.

It can be both difficult and counterproductive to try to separate out the care and education elements of services for pre-school children. The amendments ensure that the commission and HMI will collaborate in their approach to pre-school services, residential units or schools, and secure facilities for children. That would fulfil the commitment that I made at stage 2 when I indicated that we would introduce amendments to reflect our new thinking on the better integration of the roles of HMI and the commission.

Amendments 28 and 29 remove references to HMI from section 21. Those references were included because it was originally planned for HMI and the commission to carry out separate inspections of early education. Amendment 31 provides for a new section, which explicitly requires the commission and HMI to collaborate in the regulation and inspection of care services that include an educational element. The specific care settings are defined in subsection (2) of the proposed new section. Amendment 26 makes a minor change, consequential to the introduction of the new section. Our aim in making those amendments is to ensure that service users and providers, whether parents, children or institutions, feel that they are dealing with an integrated process for all matters relating to registration and inspection. The intention is that the resultant service will ensure high-quality social development and care, as well as maintaining momentum on raising educational standards. An integrated approach will be forward looking, responding to the changing nature of pre-school and child care provision, where traditional boundaries between care and education are blurring. It will combine the expert eyes of both HMI and the commission, in the best interests of children.

Ministers throughout the Executive support the amendments enthusiastically and are determined to integrate inspections. We intend to back that up with detailed ministerial directions, both to the commission, as provided for under section 1(2), and to HMI. I commend the amendments to the Parliament.

I move amendment 26.

The proposal to integrate the inspections has been warmly supported by the SNP. I want to raise with the minister a technical point on the published reports. There is an established format for reports by HMI, which is well understood by members of the teaching profession and by concerned parents. I hope that, in the publication of the reports from that integrated approach, that format will be maintained and that, as a result, there will be an ease of understanding of those reports. The minister will be aware that, within the existing formula, it is comparatively easy to pick up the difficulties that exist and the need for continued inspection and remedial action. That format of reporting will be valuable in future, as it will allow us all to be aware of what is taking place. If the minister cannot respond to my point today, I would be grateful for further information as the consultation period and the minister's action take place.

As I said, there will be detailed ministerial directions. It is not for me to comment or to make a decision on Michael Russell's point. That is a matter for the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, who I think has heard what Mike Russell said. I will talk to the minister, who I am sure will reply in writing to the member on that matter.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Amendments 27 to 30 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

After section 21

Amendment 31 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 23—Regulations relating to the Commission, to registration and to registers

Amendment 32 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 24—Regulations relating to care services

Amendment 33 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 24A—Examination of contracts for care services

Section 24A was inserted at stage 2 by an amendment in the name of Richard Simpson. It imposes a duty on the commission to examine and comment on contracts between purchasers and providers of care services, when asked to do so by the provider in a range of circumstances. As I said at stage 2, there is a serious issue about commissioning, but section 24A is emphatically the wrong way to deal with it.

We all want a fair and equitable system for the commissioning of care services and we can all agree that the present system does not produce equity and fairness in all cases. Many private and voluntary sector providers have complained about inadequate funding from local authorities. Those providers see that, in some cases, local authorities' own services are well funded in relative terms. That issue is clearly of great interest to the care development group in its consideration of the whole map of long-term care.

However, we are not addressing the issue only in that way. My officials have been in discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Scottish Care, which is the private sector umbrella organisation; and Community Care Providers Scotland, which is the voluntary sector organisation. My officials have agreed to chair an initial meeting as soon as possible to bring together the commissioners and the providers of care. The aim will be to develop a shared understanding of the problems of the present commissioning arrangements and a way forward that is based on equity and realism. The process will not be a talking shop. Providers want reassurances very soon about what will happen to their funding, and COSLA is well aware of the urgency of the situation. The process aims to make progress, in the short term, on the immediate funding situation and seeks to reach agreement on longer-term solutions. I undertake to report the results of the process to Parliament in due course. The results will also feed into the work of the care development group.

The commission will have an important role in contributing to thinking on the funding of care in general, as it will report to ministers in the Parliament through its annual report. As members know, the intention is that the commission will fulfil the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care that there should be a national care commission to take a strategic overview of the care system and its funding and to advise on trends. However, that is totally different from examining individual contracts, as proposed by section 24A.

The Scottish commission for the regulation of care is a non-departmental public body. As John McAllion reminded us in another context, the commission should not intervene in decisions that are made by democratically elected local authorities on the funding for individual providers. It is for elected local authorities to consider the overall interests of their local population and to decide how much of their resources should be spent on purchasing care, taking best value fully into account.

The commission's main purpose is to ensure quality of life and of care for service users. It would be diverted from that purpose if it were to consider funding when considering any individual care service. That would be bound to lead to compromises over care standards and would be a complete distraction in terms of time, effort and focus. If section 24A stands, every care provider could argue that their problem was not the will, but the means to meet the care standards. The commission would quickly become tied up in controversial financial judgments and case-by-case discussions with local authorities on finance. If the commission has to take into account a range of factors, including the financing of the service, it will not be able to press for improvements in quality and the thrust of the bill would be fundamentally undermined.

The commission is not intended to resolve every problem with the care system in Scotland, but only the commission can address quality in a way that ensures that the needs of users are at the centre. We must let it get on with that.

I move amendment 34.

Section 24A was inserted at stage 2 and the Executive now seeks to delete it. Members have heard the arguments for that deletion from the minister—I will come to those.

I want to put on record some facts and concerns about care in the community that led me to introduce section 24A. The bill seeks to deliver for Scotland's most vulnerable and needy citizens a quality of care that treats them with respect and dignity. The principles of the bill that the Parliament will approve today aspire to maximising the autonomy and independence of those who require care. Through the commission for the regulation of care, we will attempt to create care facilities that are fit for purpose and of the highest standards. Through the social services council, we will ensure that the staff are valued, trained and motivated. Those are worthy goals; indeed, all those aspirations are highly commendable. However, without any mention of the funding of care, the bill is doomed to remain simply an aspiration. Without a mechanism to deal with funding, the bill will have problems. Without a mechanism to ensure a level playing field for funding, inequities will remain, either for the quality of care or for the terms and conditions of those who work in care provision. It is vital that the funding issue is addressed, for it will not go away.

Let us examine briefly the history of care in the community. Ever since the process began of closing long-stay national health service provision, the voluntary, charitable and independent sectors have expanded to accommodate those in need. The past seven years have been characterised by a continuing squeeze on the funding of both public sector and non-public sector providers. However, blame for that cannot be laid entirely on the local authorities, as we should recognise the years of underinvestment in care and the difficulties that were incurred as a result of inadequate resource transfer from health boards.

The reality is that whenever local authorities have difficulty with funding care, they tackle first the problems of those who are at home and in greatest need. That approach is based on the entirely reasonable premise that those who are in hospital, awaiting discharge into community care, are at least being looked after by the NHS. Research in 1997 showed that the number of blocked beds, as they were called then, in Scottish hospitals was around 2,500. Today, despite additional funding from the Government, there are still nearly 3,000 elderly patients languishing in hospital, exposed to the growing risk of hospital-acquired infection, to which the elderly are particularly vulnerable. Meantime, resources in the voluntary and independent sectors are underutilised. Delayed discharges are not only dangerous and distressing for the individuals affected; in addition to the human cost, there is a significant financial cost to the taxpayer.

Let me give one or two examples to illustrate how desperate is the need to address contracting and funding issues. The Church of Scotland is one of our largest not-for-profit care providers. In 1993, its capital expenditure was £5 million. Last year, that expenditure was down to £1 million and was spent entirely on essential repairs. Why? Because the purchasers—relying on the dedication of that provider—had reduced funding. As a result, seven homes have been closed and the remaining 34 are under threat of closure. Staff wages are no longer linked to the Scottish Joint Council for Local Government Employees terms, although they have, in practice, remained close to those levels.

The Church of Scotland has spent no less than £20 million of its own money to meet revenue costs, yet that provider superannuates its staff and offers 80 training courses annually to Scottish vocational qualification levels 3 and 4. Except for the decaying fabric of its buildings, that employer will meet the care standards of today and most of those of tomorrow. How long can it continue to run any homes if proper levels of funding are not made available?

Crossroads (Scotland) runs 53 care attendance schemes, from Shetland to Stranraer, and the funding increases for the past three years have been zero. As a result, staff have had only one inflation-level pay increase in the past three years, although they are being asked to take on increasingly complex, quasi-nursing tasks. Their social work equivalents are paid more, have greater job security and, in many regions, will not perform the tasks that I have referred to

"because our staff are not insured to do them".

Crossroads (Scotland) has recently been advised to raise money from private clients to meet that deficit.

The William Simpson Home in my constituency, which looks after those with end-stage complications of alcohol abuse, has received awards for its staff training. The trustees report to me that they have reached the end of the road in their ability to fund activities, because of the squeeze on revenue.

I do not propose to go into great detail about private sector issues, which have made headlines in the past week. If we continue to collude with the Government and local authorities in the funding system, offering low levels of pay and poor staff conditions, and paying minimum wages and no superannuation, how can we realistically expect the quality of care to improve, which is what the bill aspires to? I understand that 100 homes have closed in Scotland. Further closures will reduce choice for those persons who require that sort of care. Many voluntary organisations are funding either capital or revenue costs, or both, out of charitable money. Two thirds of them are no longer able to employ their staff on joint council terms and conditions.

In a post-Sutherland era, the local authority will be the monopoly purchaser of care provision. In my discussions with providers, I have detected a reluctance to expose funding problems for fear of antagonising the purchaser. I therefore want to acknowledge the positive response that I have had from COSLA, and from David Wiseman and Alexis Jay in particular, about ensuring that the process becomes open, transparent and equitable between public and other providers. The aspirational care standards that are embodied in the bill must not be achieved through either the exploitation of workers in the sector or the charitable contributions of the public.

We need a system that will ensure that funding is fair to all sectors and which recognises and values the importance of a partnership between the Government, the local authorities, the voluntary, charitable and independent sectors, and the workers. We need a system that recognises that, post-Sutherland—with free personal care, with the elimination of the residual Department of Social Security benchmarks, and with the economics of the new single-care home system replacing separate residential and nursing homes—the Government will be the monopoly funder and the local authority the monopoly purchaser with public funds.

I accept that the commission may not be the best organisation to deal with funding issues, as Malcolm Chisholm has said. I share his unease, which was also expressed at stage 2 by John McAllion, about a quango being able to comment in that way on local authority financial matters. As a result, subject to the assurances that the minister has given, I will support the deletion of section 24A. However, I need the minister's reassurance that the series of meetings that he referred to will result in a long-term, sustainable solution that will ensure that our future care standards are not built on the backs of care workers, but recognise the value of those workers.

I can support the deletion of section 24A if, as he said he would, the minister undertakes to report back to the Parliament in the autumn. I hope that he will also consider dealing with the issue in the bill on long-term care of the elderly or the bill on best value. I give notice that, if sustainable solutions are not agreed by all partners, I will seek to ensure that one or other of those bills deals properly with the issue. I am content that the insertion of section 24A at stage 2 has opened up to debate the connection between care standards and funding, which is crucial to the implementation of the bill, and that the crucial importance of funding to the delivery of the aspirations that are enshrined in the bill has been acknowledged. I am happy to support amendment 34.

The nub of the issue is how we can deliver effectively quality care standards backed by a qualified, professional and motivated staff. It would be ridiculous not to acknowledge the impact that national care standards, and the changes that they will bring about in care services, will have on the financing of care services. A cost will be attached to the laudable aspirations and general principles that we all endorsed at stage 1 and during our stage 2 discussions.

On a pragmatic point, I take issue with the rationale of including the matter in the bill. The Liberal Democrat position is that the commission is not the best organisation to do what is provided for in section 24A. I therefore concur with Richard Simpson's comments, and what I say from here on is based on the Liberal Democrat group's support for amendment 34.

We support amendment 34 for two reasons. First, the commission, set up as it is with a certain number of duties to perform—Donald Gorrie asked whether it will cover too many care services—will have a vast programme to tackle against a backdrop of varying national care standards being introduced in tranches. The commission's role is to register, inspect, monitor and regulate, and to have a strategic overview of the care sector. Its role is not to get involved in the particulars of specific care service contracts, and it would be deflected and diverted from its main focus if it were required to do so.

Secondly, the Liberal Democrats will accept the minister's comments about on-going dialogue with Scottish Care, the voluntary sector, COSLA and, I hope, with unions and staff. The minister is seeking progress in the short term on funding and solutions for the long term, which will be reported back to Parliament.

With the bill on long-term care, which will come before Parliament in the coming months, we will have an ideal opportunity to consider the wider issues in the long-term care sector, many of which have been outlined by Richard Simpson today. Those issues include resource transfers and the impact of health board funding going—or not going—to local authorities, and whether the GAE is being used as it ought to be. They also include the on-going squeeze that goes straight from central Government to local government, down to the voluntary sector care providers and, at the very bottom of the heap, to the poorly paid staff, many of whom are exploited.

Those issues must be subject to an appropriate period of consultation to ensure that they are examined in the round. The coming weeks and months, as we move towards the bill on long-term care, will be the right time for us to do that. I believe, as does the Liberal Democrat group in this Parliament, that our motivation should be the fact that the principles that Richard Simpson outlined in his speech and which his amendment added to the bill in section 24A are to be applauded and worked towards. That is what we ought to be doing.

I recognise the minister's comments that discussions have begun and that the care development group, moving towards the forthcoming long-term care bill, is the ideal place to consider the matter. I do not believe that the right way to take the matter forward is through the commission. We will be able to consider the issue, taking the required holistic view, in the coming weeks and months.

At the bottom of this is the fact that we have all agreed that we support the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill. We aspire to better care services and to having a work force in the sector that is professional, that has its professionalism acknowledged, and that is supported through training. Members of that work force should, ultimately, be supported by having a decent quality of life and decent pay to recompense them for the incredible work that they do in the care sector in Scotland.

The issue must be accepted and dealt with. Bringing together all parts of the sector in on-going discussions, with a view to introducing proposals in the long-term care bill, is a better way of doing that than dealing with the issue in this bill, which has a narrower focus. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats will support the Executive's amendment 34.

I begin by paying tribute to Richard Simpson for getting his amendment into the bill at stage 2. In his speech, he laid out why it was necessary. He clearly knows his subject well and delivered a persuasive speech. It is therefore nothing short of tragic that in the face of pressure—probably considerable pressure—he has been forced not to see it through.

Although we all welcome meetings—meetings are always a good thing—it is fair to say that the meeting that the minister had last week with Scottish Care was a fruitless exercise. How are we to be assured that another meeting will produce anything more than that? How do we know that the Executive will not seek to pass the buck back to local authorities, as it did at the meeting last week? The timing of the announcement of a meeting is, to say the least, extremely suspect. It is an attempt to get out of a situation that the Executive has got into because of the lack of assurances that it has given on funding streams.

Community Care Providers Scotland has made its position clear. It is an association of voluntary sector organisations that provide care in Scottish communities. Those organisations are at the coalface, so they know best—even better than the minister. The key issue is the link between quality and cost. The voluntary sector welcomes the establishment of the commission and the setting of standards, but it realises that the new standards will be a challenge for the voluntary sector, in the context of many receiving zero inflation budgets and some having their budgets cut by their local authority. As we all know, voluntary organisations do not have the profit margins to absorb additional costs and, as Richard Simpson highlighted, staff pay and conditions are the first casualty.

Section 24A introduced the ability for the commission to examine and comment on any contract or other funding arrangement between a local authority and a voluntary body, when it has failed to meet standards purely as a result of inadequate resources. Voluntary organisations are concerned that, without section 24A, services will have to close because standards are not met due to budget constraints. That would be a tragedy and a practical difficulty, given the number of services that are provided by the voluntary sector in Scotland.

Checks and balances are required in the system. The commission's ability to comment on, not compel, the adequacy of funding arrangements would be a good check on the funding arrangements for voluntary organisations, which are often at the mercy of the local authority, which is, in turn, at the mercy of Government ministers. That check would create some welcome transparency in the funding process.

I also commend Richard Simpson on his speech, and especially on his passion and commitment to care services. He moved the amendment to introduce section 24A at stage 2 with the majority support of the committee. Section 24A addresses major concerns about the provision of care throughout Scotland.

Richard Simpson's amendment, which introduced section 24A, was supported by the Scottish Association for Mental Health, Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia, Capability Scotland, the Richmond Fellowship, Penumbra and many other care providers in Scotland. In the points that I will make, I refer to the document that Community Care Providers Scotland produced for the stage 3 debate.

Does Mary Scanlon accept that the position of Community Care Providers Scotland is that it accepts amendment 34, in the name of the minister, because it believes that the best way forward is to hold discussions on the matter and address it in other proposals for legislation?

Community Care Providers Scotland has certainly not notified me or my colleagues that it has accepted the amendment. Perhaps I am a couple of days behind.

Richard Simpson has outlined a basic principle: it is important that the Parliament addresses it. Voluntary organisations are concerned because the link between standard setting and funding will be severed. They will have the impossible task of having to meet new, high standards set by the commission while dealing with zero inflation budgets, and sometimes funding cuts, imposed by local authorities.

Despite the minister's comments this morning about increased funding for local government, it has come to the attention of the Health and Community Care Committee time and again that the increases in funding are not always passed on to the care providers. In our budget deliberations, we could not get information on the provision of community care within local councils. Sir Stewart Sutherland said that local authorities do not always spend the money on care of the elderly. They may spend it on other aspects of social work, but the Parliament has no guarantee or mechanism to ensure that, if we give local government more money to care for the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled and those with learning disabilities, the money will address the care needs. As Richard Simpson said, voluntary organisations do not have profit margins that they can use to absorb the extra costs that new standards will involve, and when they are left with a funding gap, staff pay and conditions are generally the first casualty.

The main point is that, according to section 24A, in cases where the provider fails to meet standards purely as a result of inadequate funding by local authorities, the commission will have the ability to examine and comment on the contract or funding arrangement. There is no doubt that quality and cost are inextricably linked. There is a need to make funding provisions and local authority contracts and referrals more open and transparent. Without section 24A, staff wages and staffing levels will be cut and many services will have to close down. Such an outcome would seriously undermine the bill's main purpose, which is to raise standards and promote excellence.

More than 100 care homes closed last year and, despite Executive funding to address the issue, there are still around 3,000 delayed discharges to deal with. That situation obviously has an impact on the acute and primary care sectors. People are not receiving the appropriate level of care in the community because they are being held at far greater expense in NHS hospitals. This morning's news that Grampian care home owners will refuse to take any referrals highlights the point that care often costs twice as much in a council home as in the private and voluntary sectors. The retention of section 24A will allow the scrutiny and transparency of council care home contracts. The council is indeed a monopoly purchaser and the level of openness and transparency to date has not been sufficient.

I accept the minister's comments about the care development group, which is considering the long-term care of the elderly. However, section 24A(1)(a)(ii) says that the commission can "examine and comment on" any contract when asked by any

"provider or any other interested party who has reasonable grounds for believing that there is an unequal distribution in the allocation of public funds to providers to meet similar care needs".

Will the minister assure us today that the care development group—and any future bills—will examine the contracts and ensure openness, transparency and fairness? Will the group also address the issue of care of the mentally ill and disabled?

At committee, I voted against the inclusion of section 24A in the bill and I will vote again this morning to delete the section. I should say that no one put me under any pressure to act in that way.

I voted that way partly because, as the minister and Richard Simpson have said, decisions about how the system should be funded should be left not to quangos but to elected politicians, who are accountable for such decisions. Indeed, I am surprised to see that, for the second time in the space of less than an hour, the SNP is supporting the idea of placing quangos above elected politicians. At a hustings meeting in Dundee on Monday night, the local SNP candidate said that he wanted all quangos to be abolished; now we find SNP MSPs arguing that quangos should be placed above elected councils and politicians. They seem to speak with a forked tongue on the issue.

I am also opposed to section 24A because it does not address the problem that it claims to identify. Although it gives a new right of appeal exclusively to providers, allowing them to exercise that new right will not solve the problem, because the commission can then only comment "in writing" on the contract to the purchaser and provider. It does not change the contracts. What happens if the local authority does not have any more money to give the provider? Are those who support the section suggesting that one local children's service should be closed down to release more money for the providers in the elderly care sector?

Will the member give way?

I will give way to a member who might soon be a recipient of child care services.

Why does the member fear transparent contracts between the purchaser and provider? Is it because some Labour councils have an ideological barrier about patient need? We are talking about transparency.

I am all in favour of transparency, but section 24A has nothing to do with transparency. Instead, all that it does is give powers to the commission to "comment on" a contract. It does not solve anything or bring any extra money or resources to bear on the problem; it only gives the commission the chance to intervene on a contract between purchasers and providers when the purchasers themselves are elected local authorities that are transparent, accountable and answerable to the electors in their areas. That is the way it should be and I am surprised that any democratic party should be opposed to that.

I want to quote from the e-mail I received from David Wiseman after our meeting. He says:

"the local authorities would want to demonstrate an ‘even-handed' approach in how we commission services between different types of public, voluntary and private providers, with transparency about intentions for ‘managing the market'. Therefore any preferences for one … type of provider would need to be explicit and defensible since it was recognised that in some instances local authorities may essentially be in competition with voluntary and private sector organisations to provide certain services."

That is the sort of transparency that we are talking about, and COSLA is committed to it.

Richard Simpson has made the point that I was just about to turn to. This part of the debate has identified a serious issue. However, although it is the right issue to raise, this is the wrong solution. I think that the Parliament will see the common sense in that position in a moment.

I entirely agree with Richard Simpson that we are talking about one of the most vulnerable and needy sections of our community. The provision of decent nursing care to an increasingly aging population in Scotland is a national responsibility; indeed, it should be a national duty. It should be as much a part of the NHS as any other service, although I realise that that argument is a bit utopian.

I also agree with Richard Simpson that no matter how wonderful any new system might seem on paper, it is absolutely worthless unless it is backed up by the funding and resources to translate ideas into the reality on the ground. That is what we need to do. Indeed, the allocation of such funding will save us money in the longer term. The problem with delayed discharges from the NHS is that hundreds, possibly thousands, of beds across the country are costing a fortune. Elderly people who should be in nursing homes cannot be transferred out because there is not enough money in the nursing home system to accommodate them. The Parliament has to address that problem seriously.

That said, there are different perspectives on the issue. Members have spoken about the difference between how local authorities fund their own homes and how they might fund homes in the private or voluntary home sector. However, we should also draw attention to the reasons for such differences in funding. Local authorities recognise trade unions and negotiate with them on the wages, employment conditions, pension rights and holiday entitlement of their workers. If the independent sector wants equivalent funding from the local authorities, it will need to deliver equivalent employment terms and conditions for its workers.

I would be quite happy with a private nursing home that agrees to recognise trade unions and negotiates with them to give workers the same wages, the same conditions and the same holiday entitlements. Until private nursing homes do that, they cannot argue for equal funding. This is not just a matter of left versus right. The quality of people who work in nursing homes is critical to the standard of care that is delivered in those homes. If the work force is not motivated, well paid and well looked after, there will be no quality care for elderly people. That is fundamental.

Let us use the same argument that is used in the public services. We hear again and again that any new investment for public services has to lever in change in how those services are delivered. If we are going to give more money to the private and independent sector, we should use that money to lever in change, which means beginning to treat the people who work in that sector with the decency and dignity with which they are treated in the public sector.

This debate has been revealing. I should say at the outset that I have more respect for Malcolm Chisholm's position than I have for Richard Simpson's. It is one thing to argue against section 24A in principle; it is an entirely different thing for someone to spend seven minutes putting forward a very powerful and persuasive case for something, just to turn round at the last minute and say that they will vote the opposite way. That says to me and to the people outside the chamber that fear of the Labour whip is more important than issues that concern people in Scotland.

The problem is that, without section 24A, the bill fails absolutely to take account of the link between quality and cost, and no amount of ministerial assurances will change that. It is absolutely right that voluntary organisations will be required to meet the standards laid down by the commission; however, there will be no obligation on local authority purchasers to ensure that the fees paid by them reflect those higher standards. Given that the current fees paid by local authority purchasers do not reflect the current level of service, what confidence can we have that that will change in the future?

I support local government absolutely. I will take no lectures from John McAllion on that front. However, local authorities do not always make the right decisions. I should have thought that the member's local experience would have taught him that. I suspect that John McAllion is right to say that the real problem is underfunding of local authorities, which means that they do not have the resources to ensure that fees reflect the level of service. Transparency in contracts will reveal that and tell everyone where the finger should be pointed.

Let us ensure that in this bill we make the crucial link between quality and the cost of quality. To do anything else is simply to engage in rhetoric, without being prepared to put our money where our mouth is. Let us keep the section that Richard Simpson made sure was included in this bill. Let us give providers of care the chance to ensure that what this bill is intended to do can be delivered.

Funding is the key to this issue, and Richard Simpson is right to highlight it. He is also right to accept the deletion of section 24A if the issue that he raised can be dealt with in a different way. Nicola Sturgeon's attack on him was quite disgraceful.

There is no point in an excellent minister producing an excellent bill if there is no improvement on the ground. Our predecessors in the Scottish Parliament 600 years ago noticed that we often lost battles to the English because they were better at archery. They passed lovely bills saying that people must stop practising football and golf and concentrate on practising archery. However, because no practical efforts were made to enforce those laws, we continued to lose battles to the English, while football and golf continued to make progress. There is no point in having a lovely bill unless it can be translated into reality on the ground.

The way forward is to get the funding right, rather than to retain this section in the bill. First, we want an assurance from Malcolm Chisholm that there will be adequate funding, from whatever source, for nursing home accommodation, in order to stop bedblocking. We have made some progress. I was the first person at Westminster to ask questions about bedblocking, about three years ago. Then the Government had no figures for the problem. Now at least we know the figures, which are depressingly high. We must reduce them. The minister needs to tell us whether enough resources will be made available in future budgets to stop bedblocking.

Secondly, we need to know whether the funding will be sufficient to ensure that we do not run a public service on the slave labour of some of its employees. Some of the wage levels in this sector are absolutely disgraceful. I know that that is not our direct concern, but we are morally involved. If we fund a service, as happens at the moment, in such a way that it can be delivered only by having totally inadequate staff wages and conditions, we must do something about that.

Does Donald Gorrie agree that it is very difficult for care providers such as the Church of Scotland—which Richard Simpson mentioned this morning—to maintain the same wage levels and staff conditions as council homes, given that they receive half the funding per care bed that council homes receive?

That is precisely my point. The Executive and the Parliament must ensure that the enterprise is adequately funded. First, we must not run the service on the inadequate wages of its employees. Secondly, the funding for the organisations involved must be such that the voluntary sector does not have to invest its own money. The funding of homes should be such that they make neither a profit nor a loss on the money that we provide. I would like an assurance from the minister on that.

Thirdly, some homes are subsidised by private residents, who pay more than they should to make up for the inadequate funding of public residents. That is wrong. People who pay privately for their care should pay the full sum for their keep, but they should not be asked to subsidise others.

To sum up, I would like the minister to assure us that we will not underwrite inadequate wages; that the voluntary sector will not have to subsidise places with its own money; and that private residents will not have to subsidise other people. I know that the minister is not allowed to promise lots of good things during an election, but I ask him to indicate that these financial issues will be examined.

The problems cannot be put right overnight, as large sums are involved. However, we need an assurance from the Executive that it recognises the financial problems and will take them seriously. On that basis—without having been leant on, but having had a civilised discussion with Malcolm Chisholm, who is better than some other ministers at that—I am happy to support the amendment.

I want to speak against amendment 34, which deletes section 24A, and to reply to some of the points made by Mr McAllion and Richard Simpson.

SNP members are right to say that meetings are all very well, but they are not included in the bill. I am sure that COSLA's dedication to open meetings will be a delight to people in Glasgow, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire, whose councils have left COSLA. COSLA does not work in the interests of those people. That is an important point to make in reply to Richard Simpson's claim that this process will be open and transparent.

The defender of the left from Dundee has told us how brilliant the public sector is. However, Audit Scotland says that private sector homes—I mean not just the profit-making ones, but also the many charitable sector homes—represent better value for money, provide a better service and have better working conditions than council-run homes. The public sector does not work miracles. It is terrified of the fact that, under section 24A, contracts would have to be fair, equitable and transparent.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not. The people who will suffer if section 24A is deleted are the patients. They will suffer because of John McAllion's views on quangos and so on. What counts is people in care and their needs. Why is Mr McAllion not asking the Executive why it does not give more money to local authorities? Why is he not asking the Executive why it does not agree to fund personal care? I have heard John McAllion provide a good justification for funding personal care.

Will the member give way?

I will not give way. John McAllion is happy to let the Executive fix a definition of personal care.

This is about transparency, fairness and equity. John McAllion and his colleagues are clearly not interested in that. They are not interested in the care of people blocked in beds. Community care is going down the pan, because Susan Deacon will not talk to private sector homes. We must do what we can for people in long-term care to get them out of a system that is going bankrupt.

I feel like an intruder in a debate among members of the Health and Community Care Committee, but in speaking against amendment 34 I want to comment on some of the things that the minister has said.

The minister spoke about equity and realism. How can there be equity when certain providers—those in the private sector—receive £50 less per person per week from the local authority for providing the same service as homes in the public sector? The minister referred to meetings with COSLA. However, recently I heard a representative of COSLA say on the radio that the request for an additional £50 per person per week for private sector homes was unrealistic. The agenda already has its limitations.

The minister said that not all contracts can come before him. Section 24A does not ask for that. It refers to providers who have

"reasonable grounds for believing that the funding offered by the purchaser does not allow that provider to achieve or maintain the care standards required by the Commission".

There is a reasonable grounds test that would sift out trivial applications. To John McAllion, I say that the commission's comments could be made public if a provider's application were upheld, which is very valuable. That test applies not just to private care providers, but to all providers.

I did not understand the remarks that the minister made about the role of the commission. Section 1(1)(b) of the bill states that the commission will

"have the general duty of furthering improvement in the quality of care services".

The provisions of section 24A could be slotted into that. The duty for which section 24A provides is not an inappropriate role for the commission.

The minister referred to quality, but he did not mention choice. The only residential home in Selkirk is in the private sector. Its budget is squeezed and it cannot meet its requirements. The local authority expects the home to ask the families of the residents to make up the difference, but the home will not do that. To John McAllion, I say that the home meets its requirements under the minimum income legislation, although it is struggling against the odds. If that residential home closes—as it might well do under the present circumstances and without the kind of protection that the bill might give it—the residents will be transported 20 or 30 miles away from their original residences and will lose contact with their community. For those reasons, and in the interests of openness, I cannot see the flaws in retaining section 24A. Therefore, I will not support amendment 34.

This has been an interesting debate, with several important contributions. Richard Simpson began by saying that the funding of care is not mentioned in the bill. It is not mentioned in the bill because that is not the correct place for it. That is not to say that we are failing to recognise and address the problems; we have implemented a series of measures to address some of the issues that have been raised. I have been aware of the problems since my appointment as a minister, and, like Richard Simpson, I was pleased to meet representatives of the Church of Scotland not long ago to hear about some of the difficulties that it faces. We are willing to confront those issues.

Nevertheless, members should be wary of overstating their case and misrepresenting the facts. For example, Nicola Sturgeon referred to the underfunding of local government—her description may have been more extreme than that, but that is what I wrote down. The reality is that every local authority will receive a real-terms increase in funding for each of the next three years and the increase in funding for community care this year is 10 per cent.

The minister's opening remarks were quite heartening, as he said that the Executive recognises the funding problem, but he proceeded to say that the funding that is given to local authorities through grant-aided expenditure is adequate. What solutions does he propose?

We will not come up with any solutions unless we realise that the funding situation is complex. If Shona Robison will allow me to continue, I shall address some of the complexities.

Margaret Smith and Mary Scanlon referred to one of those complexities, which is the way in which the distribution of funding and GAE work. Mary Scanlon quoted Sir Stewart Sutherland, who has also drawn attention to the issue, which the Parliament has become increasingly aware of. I am concerned if local authorities are not spending up to their GAE on services for the elderly. That matter needs to be discussed and addressed.

Another issue that has arisen in the debate is delayed discharges. I would be the first to recognise that there are problems with delayed discharges. Nonetheless, in the interests of balance, we should also recognise the fact that the Executive has done more than any previous Government in recent times to address that problem, through the resources that we have allocated to it over the past year and through the new joint working. Delayed discharge figures began to fall over the winter, and I am not aware of any previous year in which that happened. I am not saying that the problem is solved. I am saying that we should keep a sense of proportion and realise that such issues are being addressed. [Interruption.] Sorry, I thought that Mary Scanlon was waiting to pounce, but she has not done so yet.

The care development group, to which Mary Scanlon and I referred, is examining all those issues. However, the group has been asked to report within six months and it is not its role to consider individual contracts, although we are addressing the whole range of issues that have been mentioned this morning. I remind Ben Wallace, who wanted to bring personal care into the debate, that part of our remit is to introduce proposals for the implementation of free personal care.

I reassure Richard Simpson that the process that we are setting in motion will involve a series of meetings with the main players. As I said in my opening speech, we are aiming for long-term, sustainable solutions. I reassure him that I shall report to the Parliament on any progress.

I have two points to make. First, given the fact that the Executive has allocated millions of pounds to resolve the problem of delayed discharges, is the minister not disappointed that today, after several months, around 3,000 people who should be funded by local authorities and cared for in the community are still in hospitals? Secondly, will the minister assure me that the care development group will consider not only care of the elderly? Am I right to assume that there will be openness, fairness and transparency in local government contracts not only for care of the elderly but for care of the mentally ill and the disabled?

The commission will not solve all the problems of community care and neither will the care development group. The group was set up to address specifically the care of older people, which is not to say that we do not care about other people who require care in the community. However, the group's broad remit is circumscribed. I could pass on a copy of that remit to Mary Scanlon if that would be helpful.

It was predictable but wrong of Shona Robison to pick up a suggestion that the series of meetings that I mentioned is timed to coincide with the general election. Community care groups can verify that they have been planning to meet the Executive for several weeks and that the meetings have absolutely nothing to do with the general election.

Shona Robison and Mary Scanlon both referred to a desire for transparency. I completely support the principle of transparency, as does COSLA, as Richard Simpson reminded us. Much activity has been set in motion over a period of time to address the issues that have arisen in the debate. In the vote that is about to take place, members should remember what Margaret Smith said—that supporting section 24A would deflect and divert the commission from its main function. Christine Grahame said that the provisions in section 24A are an appropriate role for the commission. However, as I said in my opening speech, the commission will have an important role in contributing to thinking about the funding of care in general, and will be able to make general observations to ministers and the Parliament. That will fulfil the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the setting up of a national care commission. That is one thing, but commenting on individual contracts is another—in terms of the time that it would take and the general principle, which John McAllion highlighted. I thank John McAllion for pointing out the inappropriate role that is proposed in section 24A for non-departmental public bodies.

I end by agreeing with John McAllion that we have a duty to address these issues nationally. I accept that duty and commit myself and other ministers to working to ensure that we find long-term, sustainable solutions to the issues that have been debated in the past half hour.

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Mr Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)

Against

Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 53, Against 40, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

Section 27A—Local authority applications for registration under Part 1A

Amendments 35 and 36 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 27B—Grant of local authority application under Part 1A

Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 27C—Condition notices: local authority adoption or fostering service

Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 27D—Applications under Part 1A in respect of conditions

Amendment 41 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 27J—Report to Scottish Ministers

Amendments 42 to 44, 78 and 45 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 27K—Default powers of Scottish Ministers

Amendment 46 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 29—Register of social workers and of other social service workers

Amendment 47 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 36—Codes of practice

Amendments 48 and 49 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 39—Regulations relating to the Council

Amendment 50 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 40—Power of Council to make rules

Amendment 51 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

After section 41

Amendment 52 is the result of discussions at stage 2, during which Richard Simpson and Scott Barrie lodged amendments seeking to place general principles in the bill. I indicated that I was sympathetic to the idea of making explicit reference in the bill to the principles that underpin it and undertook to bring back an amendment for discussion today.

The bill will introduce a new system of care regulation that we intend should have the user of services at its centre. That new system is intended to improve the quality of care services and offer better protection to vulnerable people who use the services. The amendment that I propose will ensure that, in carrying out their functions and exercising their powers under the act, ministers, the commission and the council will have to act in accordance with principles which put the user of services at the centre.

The principles are that the safety and welfare of people using care services should be protected and enhanced, that their independence should be promoted and that diversity in the provision of care services should be promoted so that users are given choice. The amendment makes clear the principles behind the policy that is being implemented by the bill. I ask Parliament to accept it.

I move amendment 52.

I would like a little clarification. We welcome the fact that the minister has responded to the concerns raised about the need for a general statement of principles, but I cannot understand why that is to be located after part 2 rather than at the beginning of the bill, which would be the most logical location. I wonder whether I am missing something.

I thank the minister for taking on board the arguments that were made in the committee. I appreciate that the wording that I presented lacked the clarity that is contained in amendment 52 and I am pleased that the amendment encompasses the issues that I argued for in the committee.

The concept behind the amendment is excellent. However, I am concerned about the wording of the principle:

"The independence of those persons is to be promoted."

Could a clever lawyer argue that "independence" included the notion of financial independence and that whatever arrangements were made were hostile to the person's financial independence? That might lead to the issue being questioned. I have no doubt that someone more intelligent or skilled than me has thought of that, but we must try to keep one step ahead of the Gordon Jacksons of this world, who make lots of money by the clever construction of words.

I welcome the statement of the general principles, and I particularly welcome the principles relating to the safety and welfare of all persons, the diversity of the provision of care services and the element of choice, which Christine Grahame talked about. Those are important principles. Given that much of the work of the bill will be done by regulations that will be considered at a later date, I hope that those regulations will take account of the general principles and will not contradict them.

I join in the welcome for the inclusion of the general principles. As a generality, bills of this sort should include general principles. The minister will recall that we discussed whether there should be a fifth principle about consultation. However, the significant number of amendments relating to consultation that we have already debated have largely satisfied my concerns in that regard.

Shona Robison asked about the position of the statement of general principles in the bill. People will not worry about its position, but I point out that the reason for its being placed where it is is so that it comes after the sections that describe the commission and the council. There would be drafting problems if we referred to those bodies without having defined them. That is the practical reason—I am sure that Shona Robison is less concerned about that matter than some other people are.

I thank Richard Simpson for his words about consultation. As I said earlier, we have inserted references to consultation throughout the bill, which is a more effective way of ensuring that there is adequate consultation than inserting a general principle about consultation. If we had done both, there might have been some tension. I think that we chose the correct option.

Donald Gorrie talked about financial independence. He is specialising in asking me difficult questions this morning. However, as I am neither Gordon Jackson nor a clever lawyer—which might be the same thing—I do not totally understand the point that he is making. Perhaps we can have one of those civilised conversations that he referred to earlier, unless he wishes to press me on the matter at this point.

Amendment 52 agreed to.

After section 44

Amendment 53 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

After section 51

Amendment 54 is grouped with amendments 55, 59, 68 and 69.

Section 50 of the Children Act 1975 enables a local authority to make maintenance payments to a person other than a parent who is looking after a child.

At stage 2, I accepted the principle behind the amendment that Margaret Jamieson helpfully lodged, which sought to raise the child's age limit for qualifying for such payments from 16 years to 18 years. That would bring the age limit into line with that for fostering allowances. Amendment 54 fulfils that agreement.

I was pleased to lodge amendment 55, which concerns the giving of advice and assistance to vulnerable young people who have been in local authority care. The provisions will amend the current provisions in section 29 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which deal with local authority provision of aftercare for children who are formally looked after by local authorities. Local authorities will be required to make an assessment of the needs of young people who qualify and establish a procedure for considering representations about the work that they do in that regard. Scottish ministers will be empowered to make regulations specifying to whom assistance may be given and how assistance is to be provided. That will help ensure consistency throughout Scotland.

Most members will be familiar with the statistics from our recent debate on looked-after children. I make no apology for restating them, so that we are reminded of the problems that young people can face: up to 75 per cent of care leavers leave school with no educational qualifications; up to 50 per cent of them may be unemployed; and about 20 per cent of them are likely to experience some form of homelessness within two years of leaving care. We are determined to make improvements to ensure that those young people have a better chance of making a successful transition to independent living. One of the problems with the current arrangements is that of young care leavers falling through the gap between local authority support and the Department of Social Security system.

In 1999, we consulted on proposals to transfer to local authorities the resources that the DSS currently spends on certain benefit entitlements for 16-year-old and 17-year-old care leavers. Our aim is to create a one-stop shop, thereby strengthening the support that is available. There was general support for the broad principle and we decided to press ahead with the proposals, but only after carefully considering the details. They are being examined by a working group, with representatives from local authorities and other key players, such as Glasgow's Big Step social inclusion partnership and the Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare Forum. We expect their report later this year.

A clear message from the consultation, which I understand the working group has also picked up, is the need for consistency in the giving of advice and assistance. The regulatory powers in the amendments will allow us to set an overall framework, which should help to ensure that there is no difference in the level of advice and assistance that is given to any young care leaver, wherever they might live.

Amendment 59 adds to the regulations and orders that must be approved by the Parliament before they can become statutory instruments. That reflects views expressed by the Subordinate Legislation Committee that certain key subordinate legislation powers should be subject to the approval of the Parliament. I am happy to accord with the committee's view.

Amendments 68 and 69 amend the long title, to accommodate the changes that we propose to maintenance payments for children and aftercare of care leavers.

The amendments in this group will all help to reinforce the bill.

I move amendment 54.

I am delighted at the proposals to improve the quality of aftercare services, as that is something on which young people who have been through the care system have made vocal representations. I also support amendment 54, the subject of which, as the minister indicated, was raised by Margaret Jamieson. It is a small amendment to the Children Act 1975, but it will have a significant impact on people who care for young people who technically are not looked after—in foster care within the system. The amendment will be of particular benefit to people such as relatives, including grandparents, who have taken on the responsibility of caring for a young person, often at their own expense.

Amendment 54 will give local authorities the opportunity to continue to provide some financial assistance once a young person reaches the age of 16, thereby ensuring that he or she is not left without appropriate support as they make the transition into adulthood. That has been sought for a long time by young people and organisations who deal with the problems of homelessness. It is very welcome that it is to be included in the bill.

I welcome the strengthening of the duties to be placed on local authorities, particularly those with regard to young people leaving care. Cathy Jamieson knows from her background and experience how difficult it is for young people to make that transition. When the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was passed, most of us had great hopes that there would be an end to young people being abandoned at the age of 16. The fact that that has not happened has led to difficulties—and to amendments being lodged today.

There is one more thing in relation to young people leaving care that the Executive should take on board. Stage 3 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill is coming up. I would like Malcolm Chisholm to urge his ministerial colleagues to make provision for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to be considered as in priority need in the context of housing and homelessness.

I will speak to amendment 59 to highlight the fact that fostering and adoption were discussed during stage 2. Will the minister consider bringing the 2,200 fostering households within the scope of the bill for the purposes of registration? Childminders are registered, although they care for children for far shorter periods than foster carers. Members received a note from the National Foster Care Association, which asks for foster carers to be considered. I do not know whether this is the appropriate point for such consideration to be given, but foster carers should be taken into account when statutory instruments are made under the bill.

I congratulate the minister on lodging amendment 55. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 placed aftercare duties on local authorities, which were strengthened in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. At the time, a number of people who worked in child care thought that that would be the end of the matter. Amendment 55 crystallises exactly what we thought the 1995 act achieved.

The minister was quite right when he said that different local authorities interpret the duties in different ways and that, unfortunately, 18 to 21-year-olds are losing out. Young people who leave local authority care at the age of 16 seem to get a reasonably good service until they turn 18. The discretionary element in the 1995 act in relation to 18 to 21-year-olds must be strengthened if we are to be serious about providing integrated services to a vulnerable group—the minister provided the chamber with relevant statistics earlier.

I would like to clarify subsection (4) of the proposed new section on aftercare, which reads:

"Regulations under this section may make different provision for different areas."

Will the minister explain what he believes that might entail? The crux of the minister's earlier comments was that there should be equity of service throughout Scotland; that is what we should urge local authorities to provide. I would be concerned if deviation from that national pattern was to be allowed.

Several points have been raised by members who have great expertise and experience in the area of child care—a great strength of the Scottish Parliament is that we have so many members who, in their former lives, have been heavily involved in the areas that we discuss. That certainly applies to Cathy Jamieson, Tricia Marwick and Scott Barrie as far as this group of amendments is concerned.

I welcome the fact that Cathy Jamieson was pleased with the amendments, as I know that she has taken an interest in child care for a long time. She said that the amendments would improve the quality of aftercare services, which is their fundamental objective.

Tricia Marwick, who has housing experience, welcomed the extra duty on local authorities. She tried to tempt me back into my former housing portfolio, but I do not think that Margaret Curran would appreciate it if I were to take up that challenge.

I will move on to Mary Scanlon's point. I think she was referring to whether foster carers should be registered with the Scottish social services council. There are complex arguments around that issue, given its interrelationship with reserved areas, such as the status of employees. I believe that is why the registration of foster carers has not been taken up. Mary Scanlon will understand that the Executive is able to consider those matters and the council will be involved in discussing them in future.

Scott Barrie queried subsection (4) of the new section on aftercare. I assure him that its use would be entirely exceptional. It is clear that the fundamental thrust of this group of amendments is to ensure consistency throughout Scotland.

Amendment 54 agreed to.

After section 52

Amendment 55 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 55—Interpretation

Amendments 56 to 58 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 56—Orders and regulations

Amendment 59 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Section 58—Repeals and power to amend or repeal enactments

Amendment 60 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care

Amendment 61 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2

The Scottish Social Services Council

Amendment 62 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Schedule 3

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment 63 is grouped with amendments 64, 79, 65, 66 and 67.

This group of Executive amendments proposes changes to existing legislation to take account of the changes made by the bill.

Amendment 63 is a simple, technical amendment to update the definition of secure accommodation in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, to take into account the changes that will be made by the bill.

Amendment 64 amends part of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The amendment is being made to take into account changes to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which are made by schedule 3. It is a simple consequential amendment that is required in the light of previous amendments.

Under section 31(1), the council must satisfy itself that an applicant for registration "is of good character". Similarly, under section 7(2), the commission can request information to determine whether a care service should be registered. The purpose of those checks is to ensure the protection of children and of some of the most vulnerable adults in our society. For that reason, it may be appropriate to require enhanced criminal record certificates for individuals who apply for registration or employment in a care service at the time of registration.

Amendment 79 amends section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997, which deals with enhanced criminal record certificates. The amendment will enable the council to require all social services workers who apply for registration to obtain an enhanced certificate. Likewise, the commission will be able to require anyone who is employed in a care service at the time of registration to obtain a certificate. Amendment 79 also removes a reference to registration under section 71 of the Children Act 1989. That section is already repealed under schedule 4.

Amendment 65 corrects the erroneous numbering of an insertion to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that was made by the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 in connection with an intervention order.

Amendment 66 inserts a definition of an intervention order under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

Finally—members will be pleased to hear that word—amendment 67 repeals paragraph 61(b) of part II of schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. The amendment removes the reference to the tribunal system from the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to take into account the new system that the bill will create.

I move amendment 63.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Amendments 64, 79, 65 and 66 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Schedule 4

Repeals

Amendment 67 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

Long title

Amendments 68 and 69 moved—[Malcolm Chisholm]—and agreed to.

That concludes the debate on the amendments. The motion to pass the bill will be debated following question time this afternoon.