 Good morning, and welcome to the 21st meeting in 2015 of the Health and Sport Committee, and as I usually do at this point, I ask people to switch off mobile phones and electronic devices as they sometimes can interfere with the sound system, although I should also point out that, as you can see, there are many round the table using tablet devices instead of our hard copies of our papers. The first item on today's agenda is supporting that legislation. This is consideration of an affirmative instrument. As usual, with an affirmative instrument, we will have an evidence-taking session with the minister and his officials on the instrument, and once we have had all our questions answered, we will have the formal debate on that. The instrument before us today, as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, amendment order 2015, and I welcome to the committee, Jamie Hepburn, minister for sports, health improvement and mental health, and Susie Bram, head of independent living fund Scotland, implementation, care, support and rights division. Victoria MacDonald, senior principal legal officer, directorate for legal services Scottish Government. Minister, I believe that you would wish to make a brief opening statement. It should be brief, as members will undoubtedly be aware, that the UK Government is closing the independent living fund known as ILF on 30 June 2015. It has already closed to new applicants. It has been closed for some time since 2010. In Scotland, we have announced our commitment to a new national Scottish ILF to safeguard the interests of the 2,831 existing Scottish users and ensure the fund's long-term future. We have also announced our commitment to open the fund to new users for the first time since 2010, with funding of £5 million for 2015-16 being made available to do this. ILF provides discretionary cash payments to disabled people to enable them to purchase care or support from an agency or pay wages of a privately employed personal assistant. The agency will offer people the flexibility that they may not otherwise have to live in their own home, take up employment or education or socialise, like other members of society. We have established the new organisation, ILF Scotland, to administer ILF awards. That will be fully operational by 1 July 2015, and all existing Scottish ILF users will transfer to ILF Scotland from this date. Of that order in council, before it is to add ILF Scotland to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, this will allow complaints about ILF Scotland to be dealt with by the Ombudsman and will help to ensure an effective and robust complaints handling procedure. The policy is that once the internal ILF Scotland complaints handling processes have been exhausted, a complaint should have the right to an external tier of redress via the Ombudsman, just as is already the case for many public bodies across Scotland. The ability to complain to an independent Ombudsman is an important right. The order will ensure that ILF Scotland is operating in line with similar service providers in Scotland, and I am happy at this stage to be convinced to answer any questions that members may have. Do the members have any questions? There is a period of time in which the scheme has not covered a period of days. What happens if there is an issue there? I assume that, given the short time period, there would be the opportunity to take up the complaint after that? Yes, you are right, Ms Grant, that there will be a very short period of time in this order. It should go before Privy Council on 15 July and should come into effect immediately thereafter, so we are talking about a period of two weeks. It should point out that the number of complaints that we could estimate, because we do not know how many people will ultimately complain. Ideally, we would like no one to complain, but people should have that right to complain. We estimate that there could only be about three that end up with the Ombudsman in any given year in the first instance. The likelihood of there being any in that intervening period is low, but nonetheless there is the possibility. During that interim period, if there are complaints arising where there could be a need for external redress, they would be dealt with by the current sole director of ILF Scotland, who is the deputy director of care, support and rights within the Scottish Government. That role is consistent with the other interim responsibilities of the sole director, who is carrying out this role until the point when the new ILF Scotland chair and board of directors are appointed. There is an interim measure, but the likelihood of being utilised is pretty low, famous last words of course. Any other members? There are no other members. I do not expect to admit to the minister that we want to say any more. We now move to agenda item number 2, which is the formal debate on the affirmative internet. We have just taken the evidence on. I invite the minister to move motion S4M-13561. Move, convener. Thank you. Do any members wish to contribute to the debate? They do not. Then minister, I do not expect you would wish to sum up to any of that. You are correct, convener. I put the question on the motion. The question is that motion S4M-13561 be approved. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Thank the officials for their moving now, aren't they? I will pause for a moment while we set up. We now move to our third item on the agenda today, which is a final evidence session on carers Scotland bill. The minister has been joined by a new set of officials in supporting him in this area. I welcome to the committee Dr Maureen Bruce, deputy director, care support and rights division population health improvements director, Ruth Lynette, principal legal officer and Moira Ollifant, team leader, carers branch, care support and rights division Scottish Government. Before I begin, we discussed earlier that I would like to place on record the committee's thanks to a group of young carers who spent some time with us last Thursday to share their experiences of their caring roles and their views on the bill. I would like to put on record that I and the other members gave us moments of reflection about their experience and the actual reality of caring and being a young person. It was quite varied, but there was very good evidence, so I would like them to thank them for that. Bob, do you want to say anything about that session? Very briefly, I am sure that the minister will be interested to know just how much the young carers valued the support of the Princess Royal Trust carers centre in Falkirk. A lot of them had completely lacked information on the support that was available for young carers until they found that vital resource and put on record two things that particularly came up in relation to things that were also in the bill. They were obviously convinced that the need for short breaks were vital in supporting them, not just to be a carer but to be a normal young person getting on with their life, separate from caring responsibilities. The status felt that they needed more of in relation to the healthcare system, when they cared for a person, we might have been taken into hospital unexpectedly. I am sure that that will tease out during the evidence session anyway, convener, but given that the young people said that to us, it is just nice to get that on the record at the start of this session. Thank you for that opportunity. I am sure that it may come up in the rest of it. Minister, you wish to give an opening statement. Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about the Care Bill and why I believe that it is important. Both adult and young carers are integral to our society. They provide vital care and support to their families, friends and neighbours. I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the bill. It is very positive to hear about your productive session with young carers. I know that you have had other evidence sessions as well. I thank the committee for the work that it has undertaken so far. We have seen much progress in supporting carers. I hear directly from carers about how their lives have changed for the better and their personal outcomes achieved as a result of the support that they received. The Scottish Government has invested more than £114 million between 2007 to 2015 in a range of programmes and initiatives to support carers. We are investing further this financial year. Young carers, however, are not being supported. That can have a diverse impact on carers' physical, emotional and financial wellbeing. That is a concern for us all. It is also a concern that carers can experience very challenging circumstances, including economic and social disadvantage. Sometimes young carers do not have the best childhood. It is a crucial role for the bill in complementing important policies and drivers such as the integration of health and social care and the roll-out of self-directed support. Integrating health and social care with the progressive roll-out of integrated joint boards is vital in providing seamless services and empowering local communities to take charge of their own health and wellbeing in innovative ways. That is, I believe, a key role for new legislation to accelerate and sustain the progress that has already been made to bring about a step change in the way that serves to support carers and inspire a new ambition about supporting carers. That is within a wider context, which is really important, as we all know. Scotland has a growing population of older people, successfully living longer but often doing so with a range of complex and multiple physical and mental health care needs. There are more children with complex health needs or disabilities. We need to support Scotland's carers so that they in turn can support the many people with illnesses and disabilities or who are frail, many with dementia. 47 per cent of carers live in the most deprived areas, caring for 35 hours a week or more. It is striking that this is almost double the level in the least deprived areas. We need to support carers who experience considerable disadvantage, especially if the impact of caring is taking its toll. Therefore, our wider work to tackle health inequalities in the even wider context of tackling economic disadvantage is crucial. The carers bill is a fundamental part of delivering this wider strategy to tackle inequalities and of the work that we are doing to deliver the Scottish Government's vision for carers. Carers, whatever their circumstances, should enjoy the same opportunities in life as people without caring responsibilities. It is my intention that Scotland's carers should be better supported on a more consistent basis so that they can continue to care if they so wish in good health and have a life alongside caring. The objective of the bill is to make realist ambition by furthering the rights of both adult and young carers. The bill is designed to deliver fundamentals such as care and involvement and participation, comprehensive yet person-centred support planning, preventative and community-based approaches to supporting carers and strategic overview and development through the local carer strategies. I believe that this bill strikes the right balance in making the necessary requirements of local authorities and health boards to deliver support for carers and providing the flexibility to ensure a personalised approach to support. In reviewing the evidence from a wide range of interests, it is clear that there is broad support for the bill's principles. We have listened carefully to carers and carer organisations developing the bill's provisions. Carers, we are able to recognise their voices in the bill as it stands. As I already set out in the members' business debate on carers and the name of Ms Grant in the 10th of June, I welcome any suggestions that seek to improve the bill and allow carers and young carers across Scotland. We are already engaging with important stakeholders' interests to further consider their views. We will, of course, give full consideration to all good suggestions as we take this legislation forward. I hope that, convener, I have been able to demonstrate that willingness with the mental health bill, which, of course, we debated at stage 3 tomorrow. It is my intention to proceed on that basis with this bill as well. I look forward to the continued consideration of this bill by the committee and the contribution that scrutiny and consideration can make to its improvement. I also look forward to the discussion that we are about to have and any questions that members may have. Thank you, minister. The first question is from Dennis Robertson. Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials. Minister, you will be aware that we have taken evidence from a number of carers and carers organisations. One of the things that has been brought to our attention is the areas around criteria. There is a concern that, if the criteria remains with the local authorities—and, of course, local authorities are saying that this is a necessary thing so that they can reflect local need—from the carers and organisations, they are saying that they would like some degree of certainty and stability. If it is set locally by the authorities, they feel that many carers may not meet the criteria and that that would not reflect your aims to ensure that carers have a life out with that caring role. How would you try to reassure carers and the organisations that have brought those concerns forward? Thank you for the question, Mr Robertson. I suppose that this is a sense of balance between trying to ensure a more consistent approach, but also recognising at the same instance that each local authority is a body corporate in its own right. It also has its own democratic accountability. Each local authority is, of course, elect and ultimately accountable to its own electorate, but I certainly recognise that the intention of the bill is, of course, to ensure better support for carers across the board. We have a duty in the bill for each local authority to set local errors with the criteria that apply in its area. Of course, each local authority must publish its local criteria. Local criteria have to be reviewed every three years. We took the decision to have local criteria in order to ensure local decision making, but overlaid by what is termed in the bill as such matters as the Scottish ministers may by regulations specify. So, when each local authority sets its local eligibility criteria, it has to have, in regard to that national direction and, of course, we will consult on those regulations so that this is essentially a balance between recognising the intention of the bill to ensure a better, more consistent level of support for carers, but also recognising, on the other hand, that local authorities are ultimately democratic and elected boys. From your statement, minister, does that mean that, if you feel that the criteria has been set too low and, therefore, many carers are not being included in that eligibility for support, you would intervene? Of course, we will monitor the implementation of the bill as Parliament would expect us to do, so we will pay particular interest as to what the efficacy of the provision is and how it is being rolled out in the ground. What I should point out is that we have retained within the bill the ability that should be determined necessary by way of regulations. We could set national criteria now. My clear preference is that we do not get to that stage, that we do not need to get to that stage, that we have the national direction set out as is set out in the bill, as I have said. Such matters as the Scottish ministers may by regulation specify that local eligibility criteria has to refer to, so it is overlaid with that national guidance, as it were. That is my preferred approach, but should it ultimately be felt necessary at some point down the line, we could institute national eligibility criteria. If individual carers or organisations feel that criteria or eligibility for support has been set too low, they can approach either the local authority and, if they do not get a satisfactory outcome there, they could come back to Government and say that we are not being treated fairly, that it is not meeting the objectives and outcomes that are set. The Government, in terms of giving people this life outside of caring, would intervene. Even if I wanted to say to the national carers or organisations that you cannot raise this with me as the minister responsible, they would be raising it with me anyway. Of course we are in regular contact with national carers or organisations on a range of issues, not least this bill, so if they had concerns then I would expect them to be raising it with me. I suppose that the point is that we want to get it right at the outset. Of course there is, within the bill there is the necessity for carers and carer organisations to be involved locally in terms of local carer strategies and also in terms of the application of local eligibility criteria. They should be involved in drafting and coming up with what that should mean, so this is about empowering carers, they have to be involved in that process as well. We understand some of the concerns that, for instance, a family moves from one local authority area to another. The eligibility for support may be different, so they may drop out of support from one local authority to another. I can understand that perspective. I suppose that the key thing for me is that the eligibility criteria within an area has to be clear to those within a particular local authority area what the eligibility criteria must be. By its very nature, if it is local eligibility criteria, there could be some differences from one local authority area to the other but notwithstanding the point that I have made that any local eligibility criteria has to be informed by the matters that we have set out by regulations. There is, of course, the power and the bill to support carers on a more general basis those who do not meet eligibility criteria, so this bill is written through in terms of an approach that is designed to support carers. Finally, convener, with the integration of health and social care, which I think there is general support for that in all sections of the community and society, there is going to be a greater emphasis on local authorities to meet the need moving from acute services to primary care. Therefore, local authorities are suggesting that there is going to be a greater burden on them. Does that not, to some extent, mean that there could be a dilution of care and support for those that we are referring to within this bill? The authorities are prioritising those coming from the acute into primary care services. No, I do not think that there is evidence to suggest that that should be the case. I think that we are all supportive of the integration agenda about trying to ensure a more seamless interaction between health service and social care. I cannot envisage what the particular challenge might be. It is true that we want to get more folk out of acute services into primary care and community settings. The bill could be a significant advance in helping to achieve that, because one of the barriers might be that carers do not feel particularly well supported in their caring role. That can cause delays in that transfer just now. By its very nature, the bill can help that process. The challenge is a resource one. Of course, we have set out a significant resource in the financial memorandum over the lifetime that we have set out in the forecast. We will resource the provisions of the bill. It was a wee bit surprising that you were not aware of any of the concerns in and around that. Much of what Dennis was referring to and some of the evidence that we have had is that, while lots of people, including lots of people here, support the principles of this bill, the challenges of delivering increased expectation have been well versed in terms of the number of people who may, if we go beyond the regular and substantial tests for carers and go to a universal position, the numbers that are being estimated in the financial memorandum will be greater than what has been laid out. We have got that various evidence from various professional organisers, if you like. The producers side of the story, the people who are actually paid to deliver this, but on the other side of the story, I have got to say that we have had that in a couple of the evidence sessions with carers. When we found ourselves explaining in the position of it why it would be a good idea to extend and identify carers at an earlier stage, the carers themselves, through their experience, whether that be the difficulties of being assessed, getting an appropriate assessment, getting appropriate help right at this time. Young carers last week were saying, well, if we do this, how will that impact on me? Older carers that we met in Glasgow were saying, you know, things are difficult enough, if we broaden this out, if we increase this expectation, there is a concern that we may lose out. Nanette, do you want to supplement that in terms of the slightly different topic? I will let the minister answer then. Of course, I would recognise that in any demand-led process, which is ultimately what we are instituting, there are difficulties in coming with a forecast. Convener, we are confident that our forecast is an appropriate one. I know that COSLA has expressed concerns about that, explored that with the finance committee. Recently, I would say that the removal of the regular and substantial test, which I think is a positive step, I think is a sensible thing to do to bring out the scope of carers who should be eligible for assessment and potentially for support after being assessed. The removal of that test will not, in itself, result in a large increase in numbers of carers requesting, and I don't care support plan, because the majority of councils, as known, do not use that test. Just now, indeed, we have supported quotes from councils about removing this barrier to assessment. Aberdeenshire Council will say that it will improve equity and consistency. Those who decline the carers' assessment now may not want the new adult carers' support plan. Some might. Perhaps those who feel the current assessment is stigmatising, but others may decline the assessment because they are content to be involved with the community care assessment, the care for person, or they don't feel themselves to be a carer, which is, in itself, an issue that we may touch on, or they feel supported already. We also know that carers are a group, and again, that is an issue in itself, but carers are a group who do not come forward quickly for support carers allowance as a case in point. I think that we are dealing with a low baseline and the forecast for demand is not an unreasonable one. I would accept that it is obviously difficult to come with an absolute certain figure when you are dealing with what is a demand-led process. I am not arguing with the principle. I am trying to articulate the concerns of carers who have an evidence told us over a period of time that sometimes can be a long wait to get assessed in a package put in place. If people are going to be assessing others with a low-level need, what will that do to carers that need that assessment quickly? They are saying that there are scarce resources in terms of getting access to social workers and on-going and changing needs. In practice, we are searching for assurances that a worthwhile measure will not impact on those who are in more urgent need of care and providing that regularly in on-going care. It will, of course, be for each local authority to manage the caseload, as it were, that comes forward. How they handle those that they deem to be more urgent than others will be a matter that could be determined by the process that is set out locally. I would make the point that we have set out in the financial memorandum substantial additional resource by £21.22 a financial year will be £63 million for support to carers, which is, I think, a considerable sum. We are proposing to resource the change in recognition that a greater number of people over time will rise over time and will come forward. I would hope that we take care of those concerns. We are going to resource that properly. There was another aspect of overtime, was not it? They also made the case that there is a likelihood that by making this available, not just in numbers people coming forward, that there are some examples in England where it was not as slow. There was a take-up in the short term over a three-year period, I think they argued, that there was a short term demand, not a slow build-up, but a subject at the beginning. I do not know whether that has been taken care of. Of course we will assess any evidence that, before we have done that as part of the process, I know that the other point has been made about free personal care has been offered as a comparison because the take-up rate there has been higher. I do not necessarily think that that has compared apples with apples because you would expect to take up free personal care to be higher because most of the people who are entitled to it would already have been known to the local authority. We will of course take in board any evidence before us, but I think that there is plenty of evidence available, convener, to suggest that the take-up rate will rise on a steady but incremental basis. One final question on the surge, if the surge happens in the short term, how would the Scottish Government cope with that? What would be a reaction from the Scottish Government if there was a surge in those early days of weeks and months of the implementation? What we are dealing with here is sets of vulnerable people. We cannot necessarily deal with that in the rest of the spectrum because it is done. What contingency is in place to ensure that, if there is a surge, we are able to respond to that? Of course, we are in dialogue with COSLA and we have set up a finance group to look at it further. I recognise that you have alluded to the concerns that we have expressed about COSLA in relation to the resources of the bill. I should say that we have offered to them to provide any evidence that they have about a different forecast, which they have not provided thus far. However, we have set up a finance group to look at those matters in greater detail. COSLA will be represented on that group, so we will continue to explore those matters in detail with them. I suppose that the point that I would make is that you have talked about a surge in England. I am not convinced that there has been anything that you could describe as a surge per se. Officials are in dialogue with colleagues down south and they are not talking of a surge per se. Of course, we will continue to... There is a significant increase demand in England before that. Maybe it is not a poor language, but a poor user language. Maybe it can be described as a surge. What is the English experience? What can we learn from that? Does it affect our thinking? I have no doubt that there has been increased demand. We forecast increased demand through this bill as well. Maybe it does come down to a matter of language. I would not necessarily describe that as a surge. I am trying to get the difference. I accept that it is there and about increased demand over time. Is there a difference? I use the word surge. Choose any word you like. I would not describe it as increased demand. In the shorter term rather than the longer term. Does that give any cause for concern at all given the English experience? I will invite Moira to say a little more about contact with colleagues down south. I think that the use of the term surge is probably unhelpful. I am not here to argue over words, minister. There is a point that we have made here about the shorter term increase in demand. Can you tell us about the English experience, whether it gives us concern or not? If it does not give us concern, I have got my answer. That is fine. The English experience is that there has not been a surge in the first few months of operation of the care act down south. We have spoken to officials down south and they have said that there is not the demand that they thought might have anticipated. It has not emerged, but it is only a few months of operation. I am wrong to use that short implementation as a part of their argument. We can discount that as a committee. I will welcome the committee. We need to come to its own position. I suggest that the use of the term surge does not reflect reality. We are confident of the figures that we have set out. I am trying to get your view on COSLA's evidence that has been put to this committee. The people that you will put in charge of delivering this policy. We have established—I do not know why it took us ten minutes—that we should not take into serious consideration the claim that COSLA made that there is a surge, an unpredicted demand and early implementation. It does not give us any room for worry. We can discount that when we are dealing with our report. If you want to put it that way, convener, that is what we want to put at the point. I am making as we are confident in the figures that we have set out in the financial memorandum and the policy memorandum. We are confident of our methodology. We have invited COSLA to provide us with theirs. They have not provided it thus far, but we will continue to work with COSLA. That is a reasonable position to take. I am not going to explore the idea of a surge any further, but I will do it in my pop-up one or two other aspects of what very relevant points I thought the convener was making. The first one was that he drew a comparison with free personal care, which I thought was an interesting one. In Glasgow, for example, there is a time period by which someone who would qualify for free personal care would wait to be assessed. Once they have been assessed by a time period they would have to wait before that package was delivered. That may already be the case for carers who are getting assessments currently across local authorities. I am not sure what the situation is across local authorities, but in terms of what a reasonable time period in waiting to be assessed would be, and a time period if a package then delivered would be, I am just wondering how much of that would be a complete local discretion. I would feel more comfortable not the Government dictating what those time periods should be, but maybe giving some guidance by which local authorities should operate to in relation to carers assessments. I think that some information around that or some of your thoughts in relation to that would be quite helpful. I think that that is probably the likely space that we will occupy with Mr Doris. There are obviously aspects of people involved in caring responsibility with dealing with a spectrum of different conditions, so there could be some circumstances that I would accept where the necessity for being dealt with urgently. I am thinking of those who have caring responsibilities for people who are maybe at the end of their lives. There is maybe a greater need for it to be dealt with on an expedited basis than there might be in other particular cases. There is nothing on the face of the bill about timescales at this moment in time. We are open to hearing arguments as to why it should be the case that there are. I think that they could potentially be particularly persuasive in the circumstances that I have just set out, so that is something that we can deal with as we move forward into stage 2. I am just very briefly just to follow up, because you perhaps gave more information than I thought you might give there minister. I feel a bit of the information that you gave the minister, but the more information that you gave was interesting because obviously this committee was at the stage of what should or shouldn't be on the face of the bill. What I was considering was not about prioritised cases, but just if you like the generic routine care assessments that would come forward and any gap between identifying someone who needs an assessment, getting that assessment, identifying a package and delivering that package, because that happens in other aspects of local authority delivery at the moment. So some guidance on that I think from the government whether on the face of the bill or whatever, let's deal with that later I think would be helpful, but you did then move on to my second point, which is that the convener made quite well, which was about some carers who are already in the system and getting a, not a superb service but I suppose everything is relative, getting a reasonable service from local authorities and their concerns that that might be diminished somehow. And I'm sure that won't be in their case, but I've thought about new carers coming into the system who should get priority. Would any guidance given to local authorities make sure there's a fast tracking process in relation to their social work departments or whether it's entity to health and social care boards? So there's just to finesse it slightly. There's two aspects there. There's routine carers assessment, which will take place universally now and making sure that there's no gatekeeping and delay in that process unduly and can that be dealt with in regulation, but also dealing with in regulation the need to prioritise. So I don't know if you want to comment further on that, but I just wanted to be clear. I saw those two separate things, minister. I suppose that it's the pot of time to make a thing in your initial question, Mr Doris Ewer, suggesting that it could be dealt with in guidance. I suppose that's what I've seen, is that's the sort of space we're occupying right now. Now that's not been written, it's not been bottomed out and I'll be very happy to take on board any perspective that the committee has equally if it emerges that this is something that should be put in the face of the bill. I'm open to hearing that case as well. I mean, we're just at the start of the process. I'm not going to take an overly prescriptive approach. I want this to do what I think is the most effective thing to support carers, so I'm open to hearing the case. The point that I was making is that I was just offering a particular subset of carers where I can see that there might be a particular need for the process to be expedited, those providing palliative care at the end of life to the care for person. I've got a supplementary from Richard Lyle before. You had a new question, didn't you? Did you have a new question? It's on the same line. Right, I've got a number of supplementaries then. Not new questions. Richard Lyle. Minister, you said that the financial aid group had been established. Who's a member of that group? We've invited a number of organisations to that group, Mr Lyle. Let me just get that in front of me just now. Cossla has been invited to send two representatives when I was at the finance committee. They asked me if Cossla at that stage responded positively to the invitation. They said that they will participate, but other members from the Scottish Government will be the deputy director of finance, health and wellbeing, the head of internal performance, team leader, local government finance, deputy director, care support and rights division, team leader carers policy, two representatives from analytical services. Cossla has two representatives, Social Work Scotland has a representative, three policy representatives from councils, two directors of finance from local authorities, one representative from the NHS board. Crucially, of course, national care organisations will have two representatives on that body as well. In terms of their timescale, we want them to meet as soon as possible and to report to me as soon as possible as well. I constantly say that the Scottish Government doesn't fully fund laws or bills at the past. What if Cossla comes back and says, we've spent more than what you've given us? At this stage, we are at the process of trying to bottom out any concerns that Cossla has. That is why the group has been established in part. That is why the group has been established, I should say. I have made the point to the convener. We invited them to provide us with an alternative figure and alternative methodology. That has not been forthcoming so far. I would be very willing to receive that from Cossla for my officials to have a look at it. The minister touched on my substantive question and replied to Bob Doris, which was about carers for people with terminal care. Crucially, carers need to be identified. A lot of them don't regard themselves as carers in the first place because they are husbands, wives or whatever. They need to be identified quickly. They also need to have their care plan reviewed quite frequently as well, because circumstances may change as time moves on. I have been speaking to Mary Curie about that, because I have raised it before. They feel that a care support plan for carers should be in place within seven days of them being identified as carers. They also feel that local authorities must set out their plans for identifying carers in the context of a carer strategy. They think that that could be strengthened in the bill or guidance. GP's were included and primary care was included, because a lot of those people will come forward via their GP's and primary care team, rather than the local authorities. The final thing in that context is the need for short breaks for respite and whether local authorities have been in a position to offer them that. Whether those are things that can be included in the bill or guidance, I would like to have that in record and hope that consideration will be taken of them. I have touched on that issue with Mr Dorr, so I recognise that it is an important one. We are committed to looking at the provisions that might be in the bill, particularly those who are caring for those at the end of life. I think that the point is that they will need a passport if it is identified that they need one. They will need that pretty quickly, as well-made. I think that the point is that it may need to be reviewed fairly regularly, almost on an on-going basis as well-made. We are happy to hear any concerns that might be expressed by Marie Curie or any other organisation about how we can get this right, because at the end of the day that is what I want to do through this bill process and something that we will continue to look at. I do not think that we are a million miles apart in relation to that issue at all, in terms of the issue about carers not self-identifying as carers. I recognise that that is a challenge, because people do not always think of themselves as such. I think that you made the point that they think themselves as parents or the children of the person that they are caring for, depending on their circumstances. We do recognise that it is important to encourage carers to come forward to seek assistance. That is why we are trying to widen the scope of people who can be eligible for the assessment process. I am not convinced that it is necessarily the case that we have to do anything on a legislative basis to improve carer identification, but again I am very open to hearing any perspective that should be set out by the members of this committee as we move forward in assessing the provisions of this bill. The short breaks is the case that there is scope within the bill related to short breaks. The bill contains three specific provisions regarding short breaks. The first is that there is a duty on local authorities in determining which support of right care they must consider, in particular, whether the support should take place. There is a duty on local authorities to prepare and publish short breaks. It serves the statement and provision that the adult care support plan and young care statement must contain information about whether support should be provided in the form of a break from caring. That is part of the process that is set out in the face of the bill. I ask a few more questions about costs. One of the things that we got in evidence from the councils was the cost of making up the support plan. They had carried out calculations themselves, but the amount of money that was included in the financial memorandum appeared to be a maximum of what they thought was the medium range of cost for preparation of a support plan. There are also concerns about the cost of a short break. It might be useful to put on record what you see as a system of a short break. You are at the cross-party group where carers were saying that it would cost more than £1,000 to replace them to allow them to have a short break for the space of a week. That is a sum that is vastly more than what is identified in the financial memorandum. Those are things where we have had specific evidence on costs that are not reflected in the financial memorandum. I am aware that COSLA has expressed concerns about the unit costs of childcare support plan and the young carers statement. I should say that the method of establishing the unit costs was very much steered by COSLA. I am concerned about the league tables of unit costs appearing in the wanted instead task. Local authorities for the total number of carers assessments carried out in a year and the total cost in a year and then for the Scottish Government officials to work out unit costs, which they have done. COSLA wanted the average unit cost to work out and not the median again. That was not a particular problem from our perspective. The £176 unit cost for the childcare support plan is the average based on questionary returns from 14 local authorities. It compares fairly with the median unit cost of £116 in England. It is a similar picture of the unit cost of the young carers statement. On the issue of the unit cost of support related to short breaks, we are taking short breaks seriously. We include within the financial memorandum a short breaks enhancement of £2.36 million per year because we recognise the importance of short breaks. We are also committed to the international memorandum, the spending review permitting to continue the short breaks fund as well. It is something that we take seriously and we provide substantial financial resources for. Are you saying that the short breaks are dependent on the amount of money that is in the fund rather than an entitlement for each carer to a short break? No, I am saying that that is what we are providing towards it. Of course, it is to be person-centred and based on the assessed needs of the individual care that comes forward seeking that assistance and making the point that we are providing a substantial amount of resource towards that particular area. If the cost is greater, as carers themselves are telling us, it is greater than allowed for in the financial memorandum, will that cost fall on councils or will the Scottish Government top up that fund? Of course. I will go back to the finance group that we have established. Those are matters that we will continue to discuss with COSLA. Our perspective is that we have provided in the financial memorandum set out that we will provide a substantial amount towards the support of short breaks. I think that £2.36 million per year could fairly be described as substantial. There is also the short breaks carers fund, which we also want to continue with. Will the Government fully fund the costs of the bill? I think that that is the question that we need. Yes, there are provisions made financially but it is not clear whether the cost of the bill will fall on local authorities or whether it will be fully funded by the Scottish Government. We are funding the provisions of the bill. We have set that out in the financial memorandum. The financial memorandum sets out how we will fund the provisions of the bill. If there are additional costs that the financial memorandum has got wrong, you will fully fund that as well? We will continue to maintain dialogue with local authorities. We have to fund local authorities on an annual basis through the budget settlement. There will always be that process of dialogue with local authorities as part of setting any Scottish Government budget. You are not going to guarantee fully funding the cost of the bill? I think that when I say that we fund local authorities on an annual basis and we have that dialogue and discussion with local government around each budget settlement, that is us committing to funding any provisions that we legislate for. I think that that is where councils are concerned, because they feel that the cost of the bill will be greater than those that are estimated by the Government. If that comes out of their existing resources, which are declining, it means that the services that they provide to other people—indeed, the care for people themselves—may be put on hold because they are obliged to fund the carer support, primarily. I have made the point a couple of times now, Ms Grant, that if we have offered to COSLA to make an alternative estimate and bring forward their methodology as to how they came to that estimate, we will receive that and we will analyse it. We have not received that. You fund it, I think, is the question. I think that the first point is that we would like to receive it and see what it is. We have not seen it thus far. Some of the issues, Dennis, I am aware of it, but you are still giving him that supplementary. Bob wants to ask further clarity on the short break. I will really try to be brief. As I was listening to the dialogue between Ms Grant and Mr Redburn, I was getting a disconnect in relation to what has been discussed. I think that we have to define what a short break is and whether it is for the individual. Whether it is for the local authority or whether it is national criteria. We are back to that again. Some of the people in this committee spoke to a short break for some people would be an evening off to go to the cinema with friends to continue to be a young adult doing what young adults do. For other people, it may be a week away. Some local authorities will invest significantly in short breaks. In other local authorities, what looks like a short break may be a little bit different. I am not sure how any group can resource fully short breaks if it is based on what individual circumstances are or the individual strategy by each individual local authority. Or indeed, what is defined as a short break under the terms of this bill, hopefully soon to be an act. I think that there is a disconnect in relation to how you can actually ever cost short breaks. I appreciate the minister's views on this. One of the things is more about the council's local authorities having strategies towards extending short breaks to those most in need, and then that will be based on individual circumstances. The definition of a short break is important. To see if we can get clarity on this point, the minister mentioned a number of duties that would be placed on local authorities to consider. From the caring organisations, they expressed disappointment. I think that it has come back to Rhoda's point about the absence of a right or entitlement to a short break, which you have fallen short of. Is that correct? If not, we are not placing a duty on local authorities that they have to provide a short break. That is correct, convener. It is not that they have to provide a short break. I can go over in detail again if you want me to. They have to ensure that part of any assessment of the individual needs of an individual carer, whether or not a short break should be part of the package of support. I think that that gets to the heart of the point that Mr Doris has made. It has become very difficult for us to be overly prescriptive and definitive as to what constitutes a short break, because it could mean very different things for different individuals. On that basis, that is why I think that the approach that it should be led by the assessment process. Let us remember that we are also removing the regular and substantial test, so now it could be, and rightly so, in my opinion, that someone who is providing one hour, two hours of care a week should still be entitled to that assessment process. Now that they are encompassed, I think that if our mor speaks to the need to have it being assessment led as to whether or not a short break should be part of the particular outcome of that assessment. That said, convener, I made the point that we are at the start of this process, and a compelling case can be made that there should be a statutory right for all carers to a short break, and it is something that we can accommodate. Of course, we will look to do so. I should say that I am aware that the national carers organisations have spoken to my officials about this and said that they believe that they have come up with some form of mechanism, and I think that they have undertaken to provide that to us that they have done so thus far. When they do, we will, of course, take that submission seriously. I appreciate that answer. Dennis, now that we are going away a wee bit back, as a supplementary, I want to offer them. Thank you. I will try to be very brief, convener. It was back to when Mr Doris was speaking to you, minister, and we established that we can prioritise, obviously, for end-of-life, and I suspect that the referral route would probably come from the health profession for the end-of-life and to provide the support for the carer. I am trying to understand how you then prioritise the general aspect of how you prioritise who gets the assessments and who is carrying out those assessments, because you cannot actually establish a priority until you have carried out the assessment. That is one of the fundamental aspects of when you provide care. Until you have actually gone in and carried out an assessment, it is only then that you can establish the care plan. How do you prioritise who is getting the assessments in the first place and by whom? I suppose that the point is that, if you meet the criteria that you are, a carer having removed the regular and substantial test, you are now entitled to come forward and seek an assessment. I recognise that there is also an issue about how quickly that assessment should be undertaken, but I think that the point that he was making was that having been assessed how quickly that package of support can be put in place, and I was merely making the observation that it could be felt that there are some particular circumstances where that has felt to be a particular urgency. I recognise that any carer who has come forward looking for assistance will want that, and the assessment leads to them being entitled to a certain amount of support. Any carer who has not gone through that process will want that to be put in place as quickly as possible. You are missing my point. Why do you explain your point to me, Mr Robertson? Let's see if I can get it. I shall endeavour to do my best, minister. My point is that we cannot establish the amount of care that a person requires until we have carried out the assessment. Therefore, establishing the priority of who requires that assessment is actually very difficult for the providers. I am only asking you how do we then enable the providers to prioritise. It could be that it is about the referral, who makes the referral, whether it is the carers, but someone needs to be able to establish where the priority lies. The end-of-life one is a fairly easy one, but in general terms I am just saying to you that you cannot establish what is required in terms of need until you have carried out the assessment. I accept that, and I suppose that the point that I was making is that anyone who meets the broad criteria as being a carer will be entitled to that assessment. In terms of how they are prioritised, we obviously need to have a system that is finished to deal with that. We are at the start of the process and I am open to suggestions as to how we can do that on a most effective basis. The point that I was making is that we want to ensure that it is as seamless and as expedited as a process for everyone going through that system. That is my ambition. I recognise that there will be particular groups and I have offered one example. I am willing to hear what other particular examples there might be of groups of carers who should be expedited further. I hope that I understood your point. I think that it is a one that raises itself in terms of priority, but it could also be another layer, another barrier, not just that contentious thing that we continually get under case work and indeed from evidence about the assessment itself and whether it has been assessed properly. Then, when you get your assessments, another process is very challenging. The broader point is that there has been any discussion with other professional bodies about a process of assessment that would be standard across local authorities. We could easily presume that a person near death or with a cancer, but that has got its progressive natures as well, building up to an urgent need at the end. There is also the preventative approach to support carers who may not be dealing with someone at the end of life, but in an urgent situation where if they collapse, there are two people in the hospital. How do you deal with this whole issue about prioritisation with limited resources? Surely it is not going to be left to politicians? To put it not too fine a point, I would also hope that a degree of common sense would kick in. If someone is in the circumstances that you have set out that someone is in hospital and they have collapsed and the carers needn't assessed urgently, then that is something that can be taken care of. I suppose that the point that I am making to Mr Robertson is that we have not necessarily been overly prescriptive about that issue of prioritisation at this stage. I am open to hearing what particular suggestions there may be. I think that it was Ninette Milne who talked about Marie Curie's particular concerns, so we have heard them. We are committed to looking at the particular case that they are making and doing that if there are other particular subsets of carers who need to be prioritised. That is something that we are happy to look at as we take the bill forward. I presume that there is discussion with your officials and organisations of what a prioritisation model would look like. Was it just the end of life as a casual comment this morning? No, it is an obvious one. I suppose that it probably does present itself as an obvious group. It is not based on any work that you have done. It is based on the fact that we are aware of the groups that have raised particular issues, so we will respond to the issues that they raise. I am happy to bring them to Moira. We will be meeting the national carers organisations soon, so that is an issue that we can discuss further with them. Looking at the impact of caring is important to help with the prioritisation once a carer has had an adult carer support plan, but we will certainly pursue it further. Carrers are worried about if people are having, with not urgent, the universal right to a carer's assessment of that, the non-urgent, then it raises this question about diversion of resources. In that context, I think that people need to be reassured that when it is urgent, as the minister says, it will be put in place, common sense will prevail in 90 per cent of cases. I think that it is important that we reflect on the questions that have been put to us by the evidence so far. I suppose that is the virtue of the process that we have. Can your questions arise with you, your garden evidence, and we will respond to the evidence that you gather? Do you have my commitment that we will do that? Rhoda Grant is one back in, and Richard, I think, is one back in. Can I ask about a carer's right to refuse to care, something that carers have raised with me? A carer's assessment is always carried out on the basis that the carer will care, and then assistance is put in for them to do that. A number of carers have asked me about the assumption that they will care. This is particularly the case, for example, if someone is caring for a partner. If that relationship should end, there is no way out of that relationship for a carer because they cannot walk away. Albeit that the relationship is at an end and someone wants to make a new life elsewhere, it is assumed that they will continue to care. Should there be a right for the carer to decide whether they will care and how much time they will give to caring? I think that the first point that I would make in the face of the bill is that the words are able and willing to care in relation to carers out there. Those words are in the bill, so the fact that they are willing to care features part of the process. It could be an issue for young carers and the impact in their lives. Part of the young carer's statement process will be particularly about whether it is appropriate for the young carer to undertake that care and responsibility or whether they want to continue that care responsibility. I do not think that we want to be in the position of comparing people to undertake care and responsibilities. They have to want to maintain that care and responsibility. That is what the bill is designed to do. It is designed to support those who want to maintain that care and responsibility but also have a life beyond that care and responsibility. A carer could say that I am willing to care between the hours of six o'clock and midnight. I need a night's sleep, I need to go out to work and they could, as part of their carer's plan, say that that is what I am willing to do and then the local authority must provide the care out with those hours. The ambition here is to have very person-centred focus, so it is by its very nature that it is incumbent on any local authority to respond and take very seriously the points that have been made about the particular circumstances of an individual care. They have other commitments and needs that have to be met. That has to be part of the assessment process. The bottom line, of course, is that we cannot compel people to care for people. I do not think that we would want to do that. I think that that happens now in all seriousness. I know that it happens now. I had a constituent who was sent home with someone who could no longer walk or talk in the middle of the night with a post-it, a name and phone number on it. That might be able to help. Turned out that person could not help. The assumption was, on discharge, that that person was going to give up their life to care without any support or assessment. That brings me on to discharge planning. I am happy to talk about discharge planning, but it is very hard for me to speak about the particular circumstances that you have identified. If you wanted to contact me about that particular case, I would be happy to respond. On the face of it, I think that it speaks to the very need for this bill, because that person did not have any form of assessment. That is the point that you are making. I think that that is a good case in point for the very need for this bill. It leads on to discharge planning, because that person was discharged from hospital in the middle of the night without any reference to the support that would be available to them. Should there be a right in the bill for carers to be consulted on discharge to be given the support that they need before someone is discharged from hospital? That was not the case here, but it was not the case for many of the carers that I am speaking to. I would start with making the general point that I made a few times the convener. We will be happy to take on board any suggested alterations amendments to the bill going forward. I know that some organisations that have provided evidence to the committee have stated that they would like the bill to include specific provisions covering the role of carers and the admission and, of course, crucially, the sort of discharge of people they care for. I guess that my commitment is that we will take seriously any suggestion that is made as we move into stage 2. Richard Lyle Earlier on, we went on about coslin, because I said that there is no going to get enough money. There are a number of concerns in this bill. One of them is, to me, waving of charges. At present, regulations state that a local authority must wave charges for support services provided to carers under section 3 of the social care self-directed support Scotland Act 2013, which I believe this committee passed and I sat one at that time. However, the bill would repeal this section and therefore services provided to carers under the bill could be subject to charges unless ministers regulate otherwise. Why would we need to do this? At the end of the day, we made a promise to carers a number of years ago. As far as I can see, looking at this, we are going back on that. Some organisations have expressed concern that this will mean that the commitment to wave charges would be a negative point. Surely, we won't do that. Richard Lyle There is no plan to do any commitment that is made. Richard Lyle Can you explain to me why the bill would repeal this section and therefore services provided to carers under the bill would be subject to charges unless ministers regulate otherwise? Are you going to take that part out of the bill, which will give me and others the assurance that what you have just said is the case? Well, it is the case. I am not quite clear what part of the bill you are referring to, Mr Lyle. The point is that this issue of waving of charges is one that we are presently working with local government colleagues in relation to, but our commitment has been set out. We have no plans to move away from that commitment. Richard Lyle So there will be no charges at all. Richard Lyle That is our commitment. Richard Lyle Okay, that's good enough for me, master. Richard Lyle Thank you. Richard Lyle Thank you. Richard Lyle Just very briefly, we have indulgence. Minister, this might just be a slight flying ointment and we just not understand the situation in which case you have my apologies in advance, but if you imagine a local authority who wished to provide a subsidised service for carers or carers for people outwith the assessed needs that would be met in a package. So, for example, if a local authority decides it wants to do some subsidised day trips out somewhere or whatever, separate from any short break commitment or care package or whatever, and they wanted to say, you know, for £5 or whatever, you could have this subsidised activity, otherwise it wouldn't exist, would that be allowed under these circumstances? I think it happens just now. Again, maybe I'm just floating something here that I don't fully understand myself. I've just heard chat at local authority level about, you know, providing additional opportunities for people at a subsidised rate and just making sure this waving of charges wouldn't prevent that, for example. I think I'd need you to write to me on the relation to that, Mr Doris. That sounds like a very specific example, but I certainly don't think we'd want to be doing anything that would curb activities and support that's available there. I'm not sure about the specific circumstances. I think I'd need to have your written to on the relation to that. I appreciate that. Thank you. No other comment. I mean, you might want to respond. Without knowing the specific circumstances, I think we'd just end up talking ourselves into a guddle. I think I'd much rather see what they were and see how it would interact with the waving of charges issue and respond to the writing. Reflections, perhaps, as I've written to you, because I'm not fully sure of the specific example. I just can't hear it. I thought I'd take the opportunity to mention it, but I'll write to you in relation to that. I think that would be helpful. Dennis, very quick. It's really to do with the young carers because we mentioned that at the beginning, convener. Minister, how do we identify some of our young carers? What process can we put in place? Are we looking at putting in information in the schools? I mean, the young carers suggested to us that maybe having some sort of poster or whatever in the school nurse room or libraries or something, but we need a process to help young carers identify themselves and or to be identified by teachers, etc. What could you do to help that process? I mean, I would say to recognise that this is an important area. I don't know that it's necessarily one that we need to legislate for within the scope of this bill. It strikes me as something that we should probably just be getting on with. In the bill, we've got there about the provision of information services, etc. Indeed. Yes, so the information services will exist. I suppose the point is you need to know, identify, self-identify, and we know that there is an issue with people not identifying themselves as carers just through their own experience. We've touched on that already. I suppose you'd need to be at that stage before you could go and access that information service. In terms of how we better support carer identification, I think that it's something that we just need to get on with. There are obviously a variety of national policy initiatives to help to support identification of carers by professionals. There are other initiatives that support the identification of carers. There is the Scottish Government's funding of NHS education for Scotland and the Scottish Social Services Council and the college development network for workforce development. If good ideas are made and it's something that we can help to roll out, either by sharing best practice or if it requires some other form of assistance, then I'm willing to hear it and we can take that forward. I think that it was an important point that was made with the young carers and generally in terms of our engagement minister about the move maybe to local authorities providing that advice and information rather than independent organisations. I realise their challenges within that, but last week it was interesting to note from young carers that the information that they got and at different points in their caring role varied very widely in terms of, you know, some of them related to their own story that they've been carers for two and more years before any help kicked in. Sometimes that came from the school environment. In other cases it was the GP and there just seems a real opportunity here if we, of course, not everybody wants to know why they're caring and there might be stigmatisation around some young people and other people through addiction or indeed mental health problems, unfortunately carries that stigma. There just seems to be an opportunity here to have a greater co-ordination around identifying and supporting carers and all their interactions. One of the places that hasn't been mentioned, of course, is the workplace in businesses, which can be quite a dramatic impact if you've got appropriate support there. These were the type of issues that we'll get. Of course, taking the last point first in terms of workplace, the Scottish Government has supported the Care Positive Kite Mark initiative, which is designed to work with businesses to better support carers. We've had seen a number of businesses and the public sector bodies get involved in that process and that's something we are absolutely committed to continuing to work with businesses across Scotland to encourage better take up of this scheme so that we can identify those businesses as the ones which are carer friendly and support carers who work for them. That's something that we are committed to doing. Can I respond to the first point that you made there, convener, in terms of, I think you were speaking of the duty for local authorities in this bill to provide carer information services and the concern that has been expressed with the impact that exists on existing services? I suppose that I would make the point that we are implementing here a statutory duty that every local authority should provide that carer information service. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have to provide that directly, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have to provide it in-house. There are many positive examples of the third sector providing that type of services now. They can of course work with the third sector to provide that service locally. I know that there has been a call from some that we should be looking to amend the bill. Again, we will hear any arguments made, but we should be looking to amend the bill that reflects the existence of third sector organisations in some parts of the country. I am not convinced that we can necessarily put that in the face of the bill. I certainly think that it would speak to common sense that there is already a well-established local carers centre providing carers information service that the local authority could discharge its statutory function through pre-existing services. I think that I have one final question, Richard Simpson. Is it really from the point that Dennis Robertson was raising about identification of young carers, which is a major difficulty? Just two quick points on that. One is, can I invite the minister to look at the daisy system, which is being established for data collection in drugs and alcohol, to make sure that young carers are actually one of the data collection points there? I think that people do try to identify when someone has a drug or alcohol problem as to whether there is also a young carer involved. The second thing is to link the system to the named person under GERFET, because, again, it should be the named person who is supposed to be responsible for ensuring that children are adequately cared for or whatever. With our massive interference, nevertheless, the named person is another route by which young carers should really be identified in a very clear way. I will take the first point first, because I readily commit to doing that. I think that it is a fair point that is well made. Let me commit to us looking at that particular point that has been raised by Dr Simpson. Turning to the involvement of the named person, it is already the case that the bill does well involve the named person for young carers in terms of the case that a named person has to be informed about the fact that a young person has a young carer's statement and about its specific provision so that they can be involved in ensuring that that support is provided. There have been some concerns that have been raised about that process, and I am willing to look at how we finesse that if need be. I do not want to do anything that would reduce the likelihood of a young carer coming forward for assistance, so if we need to finesse that provision we will. I think that the point that you are making, Dr Simpson, is that there could be a role for named person making young carers that they are aware of who may not have yet received a young carer's statement, aware of that provision. I suppose by the very nature and the fact that the named person or persons should be involved in this process will make them more aware of that process. Essentially that will happen, but if we need to look at any form of provision or guidance to make that clearer again, I commit to us doing that. No further questions. I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance this morning and everything provided. I am going to suspend at this point where we will set up the new panel for agenda item number four. We now move to agenda item number four, and this is consideration of a negative statutory instrument, namely the health and care professionals council registration and fees amendment number two rules order of council 2015 SI 2015-13-37. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has not made any comments on the instrument. Dr Richard Simpson has lodged a motion S4M-13509 asking that the committee annul the instrument, and as a consequence we will hear evidence from health and care professionals, council and unison, followed by the Minister for Sport, Health and Improvement and Mental Health and his officials. Once we have had all of our questions answered, we will have a formal debate on the motion. Can I welcome this morning to the committee, Mark Seal, chief executive and register, health and care professionals council and Dave Watson, Scottish organiser, bargaining campaigns unison. I will move directly to questions to the witnesses and invite questions from members. Richard Simpson. Yes, I appreciate that the rise has been forced on the council because of the PSA, because of the Government withdrawing funds on the PSA, and now there is a levy on all the subsidiary groups GMC, NMC and the rest, including your own organisation. My understanding is that, with 329,000 odd members of theirabouts, that this would have involved an increase of about £3 in order to pay for that levy. If that is correct, I failed to understand why, at a time of austerity and pay freeze, we are being asked to give to our workers to increase the levy by roughly 12 per cent across the board. How you came to that conclusion, what your reasons for it are, and at the same time indicate why this has come after a 5 per cent increase in the previous year, which I understood was to last for two years at least. A number of points. Firstly, the reason that we want to put the fees up is not just being driven by the PSA levy. We also need to ensure that we deliver our statutory duties, which is to protect the public, and we want to make it remain efficient and effective regulator. The three areas that we are having to make investments and spend money on are, first of all, in our IT systems, where we are putting a considerable amount of money to make sure that we remain an effective regulator. We also need to continue to put increasing resources in the fitness to practice process, the disciplinary process, the cases that we are dealing with are the more of them and they are becoming more complex, and in addition we have to fund the PSA levy. As an organisation, we can't just put our fees up and the money comes in on day one. We have 16 professions and we renew them over a two-year period, so if we would put the fees up today, the last fee for the last register would increase in one year, 364 days, and therefore we need to put that money up so we can pay for the costs of being a regulator. We have always had the attitude that we should be wherever possible efficient and effective and you will see from our submissions, compared to the costs of the other regulators, we remain firmly at the bottom, we think that that is very good, and we are acutely aware that many of the professionals that we regulate, they have no choice, they have to be on our register, we are acutely aware that we must be very careful on how we spend money and keep ourselves at the bottom of the cost compared to the other regulators. Can I just correct one fact, and that is that you aren't the lowest registered body. The lowest registered body is actually the Scottish body for the registration of social workers, which is not £80 or your proposed fee of £90 but is actually £30, and for some it is £20 or £15. I question the efficiency of the organisation when it is actually going to be three times the cost for social workers in England to register than it is in Scotland. The other thing that I would question is, can I ask you why on earth is the HCPC based in London? What possible reason is there for being in the most expensive centre in the UK? Why is it not based in Birmingham Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield or even Edinburgh or Glasgow? I cannot see the reason for these organisations being based in London, so would you like to explain to me in terms of your statement of efficiency going forward why you haven't actually sought, because I know you're also seeking new premises for your fitness to practice, you've promises reading your reports, concerns reading your report about your current ability to provide proper facilities for your fitness to practice hearings, so you're expanding into other premises. Why on earth are you in London? Well, dealing with the first point, the nine regulators that are UK-wide organisations and the numbers that I'm making comparisons to who are under the auspices of the PSA, we are the lowest cost regulator of those nine organisations. Now, compared to other regulators in the rest of the UK, for example Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, those organisations are not independent. They are arms-length body. The roles of those organisations and the funding them is entirely different. Therefore, I think that making comparisons between the regulator of social workers in Scotland as a similar organisation to the role of the regulators in the UK is not a reasonable comparison between those two. Indeed, when the general social care council in England was the same structure as the one in Scotland, and one of the reasons it was moved into us is that if it was purely funded by the registrants unlike the Scottish system, the cost of the fees would have been in the region of 200 to 250 pounds, and that's why they were transferred over to the HCPC. Therefore, I think that it's reasonable for me to compare ourselves against the other nine UK statutory regulators, some of whose fees are up to 890 pounds per year in comparison to our current 90 pounds. Now, in relation to where should the organisation be based, the organisation should be based where I think it can undertake its function and you could do that anywhere in the UK. However, we are based in Kennington. We're not based in central London. Our premises are very modest compared to the other regulators, and in terms of the amount of money that we're going to spend on renting accommodation for our fitness practice, we think it's an entirely reasonable in terms of what we do. Many of our employees live in south London, which is not particularly well paid. I think that it's quite reasonable to be based where we are in Kennington. It would certainly be cheaper than, let's say, being up in Edinburgh. My last question is, do you really feel comfortable about the fact that the senior management, including yourself, Mr Cell, receives substantial increases in salaries at a time when your registrants have been completely frozen? Your own salary went up in, of course, two years by 17 per cent or 26,000 pounds, which is about the average income of your registrants. Do you really feel comfortable about that? I know it wasn't you who decided that. It was the remuneration committee. You're not responsible for your own remuneration, but a remuneration committee which increases the chief executive salary and the salary of five senior managers by one band, although we don't know how much of that band was increased, but it certainly went up by a 5,000 pound band. At a time when you're asking registrants to make a big increase and they've pre-pay been frozen, is this a reasonable, fair, just system in an organisation like this? Well, as you said, I think when you are raising questions about the rates of pay for an organisation like the HBC, are those questions should be addressed to the remuneration committee? It's very difficult for me as a chief executive to speak on behalf of the remuneration committee. In the past, for example, during the financial crisis, I decided that it would be appropriate to forego my salary increase. I think that was appropriate a number of years ago. I didn't think it was appropriate it should go, but as an organisation, I think we pay reasonable wages. I don't think they are out of order in terms of running an organisation, but as I said, as you pointed out, those questions should be addressed to the remuneration committee of the organisation, not myself as the chief executive. We won't get into debate on pay levels. At 175,000, there are lots of organisations with pay salaries of that level well beyond what the Prime Minister or First Minister receive. I can ask a final question, and that is that the whole question of the consultation period, which was very brief this time, was supposed to be a lengthy, and then your decision came out within six days of the consultation. That frankly doesn't strike me as a period of either consultation or reflection on that 2,500 responses, which was pretty good in a very short space of time. There's a very short reflection on the issue. I appreciate that the reason is that you want to get this SI through and make the increases from August in August this year. To do that doesn't sound to me like effective planning if you've known about your IT systems and you've seen the increases in fitness to practice cases and their complexity. That hasn't happened overnight, so I still do not understand why that process has been, in my view, extremely rushed. In fact, we were very disappointed by the incredibly low numbers and low percentage of people who responded to the consultation. We have over 330,000 registrants. We have hundreds of organisations who take a great deal of interest in how we operate as a regulator, so the very, very small numbers of responses was very disappointing. Particularly as we are asking questions, for example, whether currently the registrants and professionals that we regulate pay on a six-monthly basis. We want to move to a system where they pay on a monthly basis and therefore spread the costs. We were very disappointed by the low number that actually responded. In terms of the issue about how do we undertake the analysis of a consultation, what we do is we don't wait until the end of the consultation and then take all the results and start going through them. What we do is we have a well-tuned and very good system is that we start analysing the very first response when it comes in, so that could be literally the day after the consultation starts. As that information comes in, we update the analysis of the data. By the time that we are at the end of the period for the responses to come in, we are in a position to rapidly come to the conclusions as we are at the consultation. We think that that is a good and efficient way to run the analysis of what we are doing. We have no issue in terms of actually we can turn the result round relatively quickly. In terms of when we had to do the consultation, it has been partly driven by the three issues. With the PSA, I will have to sign a check on the first of August that the PSA is going to be funded by the regulators. It is not going to be spread over a two-year period, so essentially that cash has to be given to the PSA on day one. We are an organisation that has relatively low reserves and against the other eight regulators, the UK eight regulators, we have very very small reserves and therefore the need to get that cash to the PSA is very pressing. We expect to make an operating loss of about £1 million to £1.5 million in the current financial year because of the PSA levy and because we charge our registrants over a two-year period. I do not think that it was rushed. I think that the analysis is very good. As I said, the response to the consultation was very disappointing in terms of the very small numbers. The response was in a very brief time of six weeks, not six months, and in the last consultation you only had about 600 responses. I accept that the figures were low, but this was over a six-week period instead of six months. It was over a time when there were three public holidays. There was an election on which many of your registrants might well have been quite active in terms of campaigning. I do not really accept the point that you made. Of course, the other thing is that in terms of an immediate payment of the cheque, I do not deny that you have to get the money in eventually over a period of time, but you did have a reserve of £3 million and the cheque, presumably to the PSA, is about £1 million, so putting that out now to get it back later would not have seemed unreasonable, whilst allowing adequate time to consult. I am just afraid that I just do not accept your point. I do not understand the point that you were making about the six months. The consultation has been run out for 12 weeks, but we are following Government guidelines in terms of the length of consultations. I am aware that Mr Watson has not been able to get into it. I am giving you that opportunity now, Mr Watson, and I have got a number of additional questions from the committee members. Thank you for being in the process. I could deal with that batch of issues. I appreciate that this is probably not the racist title that I have ever come in front of this committee to talk about, but it is nonetheless an important one because, obviously, it is dealing with an increase in fees. Our members have no control over and, obviously, therefore looking to yourselves for the level of scrutiny. As has been pointed out, there was a 5% increase, which was pretty significantly above inflation. We were led to believe that that was it for a couple of years and then got hit with this 12.5% increase. As has been pointed out, we felt the consultation was inadequate for 60 to 12 weeks during a period of election per day. The suspicion, I have to say, from the survey that we did of our own members, was that this was done at a time when it would be under the radar from at least UK parliamentary scrutiny. The very seven days taken to consider the responses rather confirmed people's views. That may be unfortunate, but nonetheless, that is the way it looks to our members in the survey that we did. We understand and have some sympathy over the point about the PSA Levy and the UK Government cut there. As has been pointed out, it is only £3 of the £10 increase. The other costs are not entirely clear to us. There are certainly headings there, IT systems, accommodation, et cetera, but not the detail there. Therefore, again to our members in the survey, they felt this looked like an opportunity to increase costs. There was using the PSA Levy and the Government as an opportunity. Certainly in the latest account, there were two 2014 accounts, certainly there was an operating surplus of £1.3 million made by the HCPC and the reserves have increased up to £3 million. The other issue that concerned registrants in the survey that we put out was that they do not believe that all the costs and the working practices of this regulator have been fully examined. Their concern is that there may be unnecessary hearing costs, which is a very expensive part of what any regulator does. 22 per cent of final hearings have been regarded as not well-founded. There is an issue about whether better filtering or other deterrence and education measures might reduce those sorts of costs. There is also an issue, I think, about the least considerations being given about a bigger look at regulatory practice and whether there is a practice of pulling some regulates together, some streamlining of costs, and that opportunity perhaps ought to have been examined in more detail before whacking up the increasing costs on our members. Of course, the issue here is that it is an absolute monopoly. Our members have no option but to pay, and they have made that clear in their responses. UK and Scottish Government pay policy is at best 1 per cent, so these increases are way above any pay rises that members are getting. There really hasn't been consideration of issues like part-time rates, for example, a lot of the groups here are part-timers, or a sliding scale, even based on the ability to pay. I see the comparison with other groups. I think our members in this group are very often not the highest paid members, and comparisons with doctors and dentists are perhaps not regarded as being particularly fair if you're an operating department practitioner or a paramedic. It's not really on those sorts of wages, and therefore it would regard that as an unfortunate comparison to put it mildly. I've got a question from Rhoda Grant, followed by in the net. Thank you, convener. First, can I refer members to my register of interests and my unison member? Can I ask about cost savings and indeed reviews of costs? Dave Watson mentioned a number of things in IT systems, and indeed unwarranted investigations, which are really expensive. What work have you carried out to look at those to make sure that you are using members' money appropriately? I don't agree with the statement that there are unwarranted investigations. We have very clear processes and standards of how we make investigations if there's a complaint against a registrant. Around about 50% of those cases do have to go to a tribunal. Tribunals are very expensive, but we have to test the evidence. Often professionals won't engage with us until the tribunal. At that point, they explain very carefully what's gone wrong. I think we have to do two things. We have to look after public protection, which is our single objective. We also have to look after the human rights of registrants in terms of the processes that we run. We're scrutinised by the courts, and you can again see the number of cases that get referred to the courts are very small. We're also scrutinised by the PSA. They look at every single decision we make in terms of fitness to practice. There's an annual report. We're measured against those standards. We're audited by the NAO. We have internal auditors. We have ISO standards. So, as an organisation A, we think, and I personally think it's absolutely important that we are scrutinised and we're checked, and I think that's done thoroughly. In terms of savings, I don't really understand the issue, because I think that when you run an organisation, it's not as if you've got a sort of spare collection of things over there, and if anybody asks you some questions, you can quickly come along and save money. We run an efficient and effective organisation on a daily basis. We don't have a hidden supply of things where we could cut back, so I don't think that there's anything that we could make dramatic savings on in terms of what we do. I mean, going back to investigations and the like, given your own answer there, 50 per cent go to a tribunal. Of those, 22 per cent are not well funded, so we're talking about 60 per cent of the cases that you're investigating and spending members' money on. Surely there is something that you could do about those to stop them from becoming formal complaints by working with people much earlier in the system, and that would save you a huge amount of money. I agree with you. As a regulator, not having inappropriate complaints being raised by the regulator is incredibly important. We have a range of actions that we're taking. One is we're doing research to try and discover, A, why did people make complaints, but also why do registrants get it wrong? What we really are looking for is either situations where we can go back to the universities and we can change education of those professionals so they realise where things go wrong. We're also working with the professional bodies in terms of the information that they supply their members. Again, most of the complaints that we deal with and most of the disciplinary processes that we end up doing are not with professional competence to do with things like conduct, behaviour, attitude, and as a regulator we want to minimise those complaints coming into the organisation where it's inappropriate for us to take action. There's a huge amount of work that we can do and that we are attempting to resolve. The point you're making is that we absolutely agree with it. I think there have been increases in referrals and in fairness the HCPC is not unique. It's one of our concerns that it's not that there's suddenly growing bad practice out there in these professions or in others, but there's almost a culture of almost routine referrals developing in some areas. You can argue that it's a defensive practice by employers to do this. I think the response from regulators needs to be a little bit more filtering, a bit more deterrence, a bit more picking out what does matter, except that's not always possible, particularly when it's a question of individual capability, a particular and individual registrants practice. Obviously I see my department a lot of the cases that go through down to our professional units in London and there are a wide variety, some of which quite rightly go to here and other ones frankly you think why on earth is this being called to a full hearing. On costs etc, I've put the figures on surpluses and I'm sure Mark has said that that might change in the coming years. All I would say is that there aren't many Scottish public bodies that are increasing their reserves at the moment and I've made any surpluses at all. So I think really we just asked for the standards that we would apply here in Scotland to apply to bodies at UK level where our members are required to register. Can I respond to that? Yes certainly. A couple of things, we have the lowest reserves of any of the regulators in terms of measurement of both the amount but also how long they would last. I think it's entirely prudent to have roughly about three months reserves and that's what we currently have. The other thing is that we do need to make surpluses because we're investing, we're making capital investments and if you make a no surplus or no profit then we wouldn't have the cash resources to invest in the organisation. Again a slightly different situation compared to government funding which is done on a monthly basis. The last thing in terms of finished practice, again to emphasise as a regulator we have the smallest number of percentage of complaints coming into our registrants. I think that that's a reflection on the high level of professionalism in the groups that we regulate. I think that the committee members will wish to ask a question. We'll get the minister back in at 11 o'clock and of course we've got the debate itself to come. My first is Nenette. I can split this into two issues. There's clearly the obligation you have to the PSA and the other fund raising for a better word. Is there any possibility to think you're moving forward of splitting this and going ahead with your obligation to pay what you're due to the PSA? Is there any other means at all that you can consider, obviously, in government funding, for funding some of your other desires? That's the first thing. If that's the case, it can be split. Would there be merit in going out to further consultation given that you did have a very small response last time? I suspect that you might have a bigger response given what we've heard more recently from your registered people. It's also my understanding that Westminster hasn't actually discussed this issue yet. What would be the effect, essentially, if we were to annul this instrument today, and then it goes on to Westminster consultation? What's the process after that? How would things be affected? I know it's a bit complicated, but if you could perhaps deal with that. In terms of the process, I don't suspect that I'm the best person to advise you on the process, but as I understand it, if the committee says no, then it has to go to the floor of the Parliament and you have to debate it on the floor of the Parliament. I believe that this is new territory. As I understand it, nobody has ever voted against a statutory instrument. In Westminster, in fact, for some reason it's called praying, and actually instruments are prayed against every now and then. I believe that the process is similar to hearing that it has to go to the committee, the committee hears it, and then there is a vote on it. Unfortunately, I don't know what happens beyond that. In terms of funding, why we don't normally make comparisons against other professional bodies such as the General Medical Council, we do compare ourselves very closely to the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Again, I'm sure that there are others who are more familiar with the rates of pay, but we believe that the nurses and midwives are probably similar in terms of spread and their fees. Now, with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, it's currently £120, 30% higher than we are, and in addition, because it got itself into some financial difficulties, the Department of Health gave it a grant for, I believe, in the order of £22 million over the last few years to keep itself going. In comparison, in terms of which organisation should we compare ourselves, I think that the NMC is a good one to make comparisons. In theory—well, not in practice, in fact—the DH has made grants to other regulators in times of difficulties, so that is a possibility. Again, in our legislation, the Scottish Parliament could make a grant to us if it's all fit, but again, that's never been used in the past. The position is, I think, from us, that we have got to continue to invest in fitness to practice, we've got to continue to deliver our statutory duties, and we would argue that the £90 that we'd like to keep it lower, that's what we need to continue to be an efficient and effective regulator. Did I answer all the questions that were done in the Senate? More or less, but with regard to the possibility of further consultation, what impact would delaying for further consultation have? Currently, even with the increase that we are heading towards a million plus loss, if the proposals are turned down by the parliamentary process, the first thing that we do is go back to the Department of Health and ask for guidance from them on how we should proceed. As you said, it has not been debated in Westminster. I'm not sure what the situation is if Edinburgh Scotland says no and Westminster says yes, but we would certainly go down to the Department of Health and see what our options are, which, in the long term, might mean another consultation. I'm not going to attempt to go through the procedures of Westminster, which I'll say are even beyond my legal brain, but I can tell you that there is an early-day motion that has been tabled at Westminster that we encourage, and I'm pleased to say it's attracted cross-party support from Conservative, SNP and Labour. I think the Liberal Democrat as well, MPs, recognising that this is something that they have a role to scrutinise these things because we have no control over them. It's not like a pay negotiation, so we are very reliant on parliamentary terms to do that scrutiny. I do think also, I'd say, that I have some sympathy about the PSA. I think, frankly, our registrants in our survey still ask the question, what is the function of this overview body, which seems to add a whole pile of costs to the exercise, but doesn't actually seem to do very much. I think there is that concern. I wouldn't expect more to comment on that, but certainly there are those extra costs there, and I do think there is an issue about a wider review of regulation and some of the practices. Do we really have to have seven or eight different IT systems and all the rest of it to go with that, and is there not an issue here where a bit more streamlining might actually save everybody a few pounds, which at the present moment in time they could well do with? Bob Doris, on by Dennis. I am going to try and brief him on the ministers coming back in shortly. I can actually commend Richard Simpson for moving to and all this. I should say that at this stage I am not going to support Richard's move to and all this, but I think he's shining a light on something that needs a greater scrutiny, and I'd like Mr Searle to put one or two things on the record. I think that in general, perhaps the HCPC efficiency or otherwise needs to be greater scrutinised by all parliaments across the British Isles. Would you be content? It's not for me to talk about our committee's work plan here at any point, but rather than play it against Sam next year, do you think that there's a role for this parliaments committee to have an on-going role in scrutinising how effective or efficient you are as a body? Yes, I think that we should be scrutinised by as many organisations as possible. Where an organisation has some pretty decranial powers, we can remove a job away from a professional. As has been pointed out, we are effectively at tax on people in relation to the professions. I think that it would be good that, rather than the Westminster Government, if the committee wanted to invite us and answer any question or produce a report, that would be absolutely straightforward and any good idea. We are an important organisation and I think that's entirely reasonable. Do you think that the poor response to the consultation in relation to increasing fees is partly the responsibility of the HCPC who is the most proactive in engaging with the members in the sector to encourage them to respond? In terms of engaging with the registrants, we have two very different things and very different responses. In terms of consultations, it's always disappointing in the number of people that actually responds to you, but one of the things we do do, we've always thought that it's very important as a regulator to meet the people that regulate. What we've been doing for the last 15 years is up to eight times a year, we go to various places throughout the UK, we meet registrants, we have two sessions, one just after lunch, one in the evening, and we sit down and talk to the people that we regulate. We've just been to Middlesbrough a few weeks ago, we'll be up in the Highlands in October this year for a couple of meetings, and we talk to registrants. What is of great interest to them is, in fact, not things like fees, what they're particularly interested in things like continuing competence or continuing fitness to practice. They're very interested in the sometimes very difficult environments that they're now working with, where the demands on their times, it's always continuous pressure, so those issues are the things that the registrants talk to us about, rather than issues such as fees. The reason I won't be supporting the annulment is because nothing I talk to do with the performance of the HCPC is more to do with the fact that, from the note that I've got here, I want to make sure that the correct investment is made in improving the fitness to practice hearings and the IT systems. That's why I won't support the annulment. I do know that the increase of £10 in a year is something like three pence a day, and I don't make light of that very small number. I don't make light of it. It's more about a pattern and a trend of increases. What assurances can you give this committee going forward that this is a realignment perhaps that's been required but is not an on-going trend towards further and chunkier increases? Once people get a taste for double-digit increases, they might stick to it, so can you give this committee some assurances? Can you come back if I haven't answered the question correctly? The first point I was going to make is that if you are going to invite organisations like myself to come to this committee, you might also want to consider inviting the PSA, the oversight organisation, for them to give you the view of how the regulators are doing. They produce an annual report. They also do reports on our fitness to practice process, and they would be a good organisation in terms of you getting an oversight of all the nine organisations which have UK responsibilities. In terms of the future, I'm absolutely committed to making sure that we remain the lowest cost regulator of those nine regulators and we will do everything we can possibly do to make sure that we don't make any more significant increases. We try to keep ourselves as low as possible, but I don't want to hedge the question. It's quite difficult for me to say absolute commitment. We're not going to put them up for two years because I don't know what's coming down the road, but we will absolutely make our best endeavours that we can to make sure that we do not put our fees up for certainly the next couple of years. Is that a reasonable enough commitment or am I sound hedging my bets? Can I just say that that will get you far enough this year? I think that it will be a very, very different conversation if I'm on this committee next year if some of the semi reassurances, not full reassurances, don't come into play, could be a very different conversation next year. I will do my utmost not to come for you to invite me back next year. Oh, no, I think you've been invited back. Llywydd, what? I mean, I think we would welcome, obviously, for the reason I've indicated a more in-depth look at the issue of regulation and regulatory costs. I think that it's very clear from the, I hope from the submission we've made in the survey from our members that they are at best confused as to why these increases are there. I think, I would say, is that when we had the big 5% increase, we were told that there wasn't a plan to review it. Now I accept events change, but the point is that the event that changed was the £3 out of the £10, the 30%. The event, presumably, things like IT systems and accommodation are not dreamt up overnight. So what I'd say is that the subsequent increase to 12.5% frankly doesn't match up with an argument that all this should just been dropped on us at the last five minutes. And that's why in our survey that we did have time to pull together amongst our members that they felt there was an element of opportunism here that, oh, well, we, as we're doing the increase, let's get all of this stuff under the one heading. So I think that's why we feel that these increases are unreasonable at this time. Dennis, we're not running behind, but I'll take one from you. I will be brief, convener. I know that you've got 16 professions. There's 330,000 members. You give a 50% reduction to new graduates for two years. You're saying that they can spread the cost of the fees in a direct debit for every six months. My question is that why can't they have a monthly direct debit to spread the cost, which might make it easier for some? Why is there just a single flat fee? Because I suspect the salaries for the 16 different professions are very varied across the board. So there's something going to be actually lower paid than others, and you've got a flat fee. And I'm just wondering if there's any way that you would consider looking at differentials within the fees according to salary and maybe this monthly direct debit. On the direct debit, we consulted, in fact, on going to a monthly payment, and that was very well received. And we are now, in fact, starting a large major IT process, and our intention is to bring in monthly payments so that the individuals will be able to spread that out. So that project is now under way. In terms of whether we should have differential fees across the different professions. From day one, we very much put the argument forward that we would have similar processes and similar ways of regulating those individuals from whether you were a clinical scientist or an art therapist. From year to year, the cost of the professions does change. You might get a particular profession that has a large number of complaints one year, but not the next year. We think that it is a fairer way to have a single cost for all the registrants across all the different professions. There are examples across the world where different regulators have a different attitude. The regulator in Australia, they are a multi professional regulator in terms of the registration process, and they have different fees for different professions. And what happens is the very small professions end up with a significantly large registration fee compared to the big professions. So that's where they've done trying to do it by profession. I think if we try to do it by the salary of the registrant, I suspect you could do it, but it would certainly be a huge challenge. And then what would happen if people went on part-time working or if people took time off for long holidays? I think it would just be incredibly complicated. So I think our system is pretty fair in terms of how we approach it. Just on that very point, and perhaps we can help trade unions to manage to do it with our subs. We do it by salaries, and I don't think we're unique as far as organisations and the ability to pay I think is an important principle. OK, you've had five, six questions. Do you need another one? Well, just on that point, why no quality impact was done? There was no impact assessment? We're not required to do... sorry, in relation to what? In relation to the effects of the... when you did the consultation normally, when you're proposing an SSI, you do an equality impact assessment, and we're used to that in this Parliament. There's none been done. A lot of your registrants are women, a lot of them are part-time, a lot of them are taking career breaks. I would have thought an equality impact assessment here was critical, even as a matter of fairness, even if it's not a requirement for the Government. About 60 per cent of our registrants are in fact female, so it's a significant majority. We would expect the Department of Health to do the review of the legislation rather than ourselves. OK, that's fine. Thank you. The ministers with us, can I thank the witnesses for being here with us this morning and taking all of our questions? I'm going to go directly, I'm going to pause it on, just going to set up the minister and his team as we're running a wee bit behind. Thank you. Good, can I welcome the minister back to the meeting? And also extend a welcome to the officials accompanying the minister, Fiona McQueen, chief nursing officer, and Ailsa Garland, principal legal officer, Scottish Government. Welcome to you all. And I believe the minister wishes to make an opening statement remarks. Thank you minister. I'm just remembering to turn off my blackberry here again. I don't particularly have much to say in advance. I'm happy to be here and I think it's probably better just to take questions. Well, I appreciate that. You will proceed. Richard Simpson wishes to ask some questions. We heard in the first session about the fact that the Scottish system for registering social workers was not the same, that the powers and the requirements and the degree of independence were not the same. So, even so, a system that costs £30 in Scotland and £90 to social workers in England, that's quite a bit of difference. Does the Government subsidise the Scottish system or is it run at a loss? And the figures for people like child support workers are considerably less, so 10 or 15 pounds are really quite low. So, can I start by trying to clarify for the committee what the differences are between the registration process in Scotland for social workers and those in England? My understanding is that we do not subsidise the registration scheme here in Scotland, Dr Simpson. The difference in function, because three times we were trying to determine how efficient the HCPC was this morning and we got various answers. Here we are in Scotland, we're running this organisation for a third of the cost or even a fifth for some registrants. Indeed, a set of differential costs, which are applied obviously according to the income of individuals, so child support workers are only paying £15 now. So, what's the difference in the process that HCPC provides to the country in terms of protection of the public that our process in Scotland doesn't provide of vice versa? Well, I can't speak to the provisions for social workers in England, if you ask me, because obviously that's a matter outwith our control. I'm certainly glad to hear your perspective on the system that we have for social workers here in Scotland. In terms of the fees that are set by the HCPC, ultimately that is a matter for them, as a body they determine the fees they set? I think that's not really my question. My question is, does the Scottish system of registration for social workers, does that registration body do something radically different to HCPC? Does our registration process for social workers in Scotland protect the public in the same way as the HCPC does in England? If they do the same functions, then I'm not criticising the Government here, I'm simply saying that in fact I'm praising the Government. The Government in Scotland are running a system through their agency, which is a third of the price of similar workers in England. The two categories of Scottish workers who are going to be charged £90 in England, if they were registered with the Scottish registration process under a multi-agency system, it would be considerably less. I'm trying to understand why the difference in costs, why do we run such an efficient organisation, do we actually protect the public through our registration process? Yes, I believe that we do. I think that that's the bottom line. I don't think that there should be any concern from the public about the protection through the system that we have for registering social workers here in Scotland. I think that that would be the bottom line. Incidentally, I'm not used to your praise, Dr Simpson, but we'll gladly take it. In terms of the specifics of your question, I might invite Fiona to say a few words. The regulation of social workers in Scotland is relatively new. The allied health professions, as they are known, have been regulated for decades. The regulation of the social workforce, which is wider than registrants, the support workers are also regulated in terms of public protection. It was created in Scotland and is, in relative terms, new air. The gradual looking at fees and costing of fees is something that the SSC has been doing, and they clearly believe that that's sufficient for regulation in Scotland. They do the pretty well the same functions as the HPC. I think that the HPC, because they regulate wider than the social workers, and the Social Work Scotland Act has, or the SSC, make requirements on employers in terms of professional registration and professional conduct of social workers. There is an employer requirement to oversee the good character of social workers when they are then re-registering with the SSC. The HPC obviously regulates across the UK and has many professions to regulate, and therefore does a wider, broader job than the SSC. I think that I've got that clear, because it sounds like it's almost the same functions in respect of those two groups where I know that we're not responsible for social workers in England. Maybe some of the social workers in England would like to register with our body at a considerably less cost. This was decided, I think, by the Privy Council, as I understand it, so we have representation on the Privy Council. Why did we not insist on an equality impact assessment? Many of the workers engaged with the HPC, and many will take career breaks. One of the things that's expensive is actually re-registering after a career break, which is a significant barrier to people coming back, and we need them to come back into the profession. Although we're talking about an £80 rise to £90 for the general registration, we're talking about a £25 rise to £225 for the career break people, and yet no equality impact assessment was undertaken. I wonder what representations the Scottish Government made when that was considered at the Privy Council. I'm not aware of representations that were made at the Privy Council, but in terms of preparing an impact assessment, the expansion memorandum prepared by the Department of Health is with the papers for the meeting. That explains that the changes are considered to be outside the scope of better regulation, so they didn't carry out a particular impact assessment in the same way that they might have done for a statutory instrument that might have been prepared by the Department of Health. Again, I think I understand that, but it doesn't alter the fact that, particularly for career breaks, there is a differentiation that it is mostly women who take career breaks, and therefore there is an equality issue when you raise the fees on this, so I really don't understand why an impact study is not done. I can ask just two further brief questions. One is, have the Government considered transferring the remaining designated practitioners who are covered by this body to a Scottish body so that all practitioners, in fact, in Scotland, in this group, are actually registered with the Scottish body, which appears to be far more efficient? A subsidiary question to that is, has the Scottish Government considered, or did it consider, subsidising the PSA? The UK Government has made a decision not to subsidise the PSA any more, and that is part of the reason for the increasing costs. Can I take you the last point that you made about career breaks? I think that we are already helping nurses to return to practice, so we could do the same for HCPC residents. That is something that we are quite willing to look at, so you have my commitment to that, Dr Simpson. In terms of your substantial question about the Government considering transferring the functions of those other than social workers to a Scottish-specific body under the Scotland Act 1998, we are not able to do that. It is reserved, so I would welcome your support, Dr Simpson, for enhanced powers for this part too. Potentially consider such a move. We cannot do that at this amount of time, so it is reserved. We are committed to working with the four administrations across the United Kingdom to ensure that we have the appropriate regulatory framework, but if we wanted to take a different approach, and I am not saying that we definitely would, but if we wanted to, it would require an amendment to the Scotland Act 1998, is my understanding. Is there a subsidy question? Again, that was something that was agreed between the four administrations. You will appreciate that the public finances are constrained. We did support the PSA in the past. It is an independent regulator, of course, so there is the need for it to be independent of the Government in that sense, so that has helped to provoke the change in circumstances. We are where we are. It has essentially been led across the UK. Any other questions, members? No other questions? We then move now to agenda item number five, which is a formal debate on the motion to, and I will invite Richard Simpson to move and speak to motion S4M-13509. I thank the committee and the convener for the opportunity to debate this issue. In the 13 years that I have been in the Parliament, it is the first time that I have considered moving an annulment to an ASI, but I do feel that at a time of austerity, when we have zero inflation, two increases in the space of two years is not desirable, and when the first increase was 5 per cent, which was a significant inflation-busting increase, although the sums are small, nevertheless the principle is there that another increase of 12.5 per cent, only part of which was actually forced by Government action at Westminster, seems to me to be completely unacceptable. I have gone into the issues clearly, and I do not want to repeat them all, but I have concerns about an organisation that pays its chief executive an additional £26,000, which is the average of the registrants that they look after, an increase in two years of 17 per cent. There is far too much of those increases at that huge increase. When our workers in the NHS and the care professions have their pay frozen or an increase of 1 per cent, that increase seems to me to be something that sticks in my craw, frankly. Five senior managers are also receiving increases, which may have been somewhere between £1,000 and £5,000 a year. It also showed a general disregard for the current austerity situation. I think that an organisation that has a reserve of £3 million did not need to rush this. It could have paid that £1 million up front and then recouped the money later. They did make a surplus last year and, therefore, going forward, had this additional charge not been made, they would have made, we have heard from Mark Selle, the loss would have been about £300,000 this year and they do have reserves of £3 million. The additional charge of £1 million could have been met up front. I am utterly appalled at the fact that there is no equality impact assessment on that. We have a situation where women and men will take career breaks, but women particularly will take career breaks when they have a family, something that I think is entirely justifiable for individuals to make that choice. They are then faced with a charge of £200 to come back into a profession where they may well work part-time and be paid a very low wage. I think that this is an unnecessary and unjustified increase. It should have been properly consulted on over a proper length of time, not six weeks, not a period that included three public holidays, which even shortened it further, and at a time when the Westminster Parliament was in perder. I very much welcome the fact that some SNP MPs have now signed the early-day motion in Westminster. I welcome that and I welcome their support and I move an annulment motion in my name. Mike MacKenzie, Bob Doris, any other members wishing to participate in the debate? Mike MacKenzie, convener. I will try to be brief, but you will probably know that my brevity agenda is not proceeding as quickly as I would like. If you feel that I am speaking for too long, you can perhaps give me a signal. Thank you, Richard. I was referring to the convener. I had to do a bit of a double-take when I was looking at my papers this week. Initially, I thought that this was a £10 a week rise, and I did a bit of a double-take when I saw it was a £10 a year rise in them. I don't wish to make light of that because, of course, in these difficult times, we must all work, I think, to keep costs unequaled. I think that anticipated costs down on behalf of everybody right across the country. However, as Mr Doris has already pointed out, this equates to something like a bit less than three pence a day, 20 pence a week. I think that that is a cogent point in terms of the debate that we are having this morning. Just to put it in some perspective, for those of you who do not know, I represent the Highlands and Islands and Rhoda Grant, who represents that region also, will recognise that many of our constituents are forced to use ferries in order to get to work. On Orkney, Shetland and Argyllyn but, the local authorities run internal ferries, where often people are paying £10 a day for a short journey of less than 10 minutes, and some of these people think that's a tax on employment. I know that has nothing to do with the purposes of this committee, but nevertheless I think it's an important point that's often not given the kind of recognition. Some of these people, again just for the record, are on minimum wage. We're also in an era where we're seeing welfare cuts, welfare cuts that affect individuals in amounts that make this peel into insignificance by comparison. Although I do have sympathy, my sympathy is tempered by that wider context. I think that the committee would be do well to dwell on the wider context as they consider Dr Simpson's motion. I think that some interesting and substantive points have been made in the course of our discussion. I think that the PSA levy undoubtedly bears some further scrutiny. I'm sure that Mr Seal cannot have helped to be impressed at how finely the mill of the Scottish Parliament grinds. I'm sure that he didn't anticipate the detail and level of questioning. I think that it may be worthwhile for the committee to direct questioning a future opportunity to the PSA in terms of its levy on the principle that it behoves all public bodies to operate in an efficient way. I think that there's a further point that Dr Simpson raises about the chief executive salary. It's not directly pertinent to this issue or it's only tangentially pertinent to this issue, but a 26k rise in these difficult times for any individual, especially one that's already highly paid, I don't think is acceptable in this climate. I think that Dr Simpson raises a further important point about the equality impact assessment. I'm very glad that Dr Simpson has raised his motion because I think that it's allowed us to have a discussion about these important points. Given the overall context, I'm afraid that I'm not going to be able to support it this morning. Bob Doris. I have to say that I actually commend Mr Mackenzie and his lack of brevity there because I no longer have to refer to the number of points that I was going to make during my submission to this. I'll just stress again not making light of the burden of employees but putting perspective around three pence less than three pence a day. I think that he does have to factor into whether or not we annull this statutory instrument or not and given the fact that there will be enhancement of the fitness to practice methods and the IT systems, I'm not minded to annull the statutory instrument today. However, I would maybe suggest to Mr Selva that we don't necessarily get the answers that we want. It's a reason for us not to invite him back. It's a reason to be invited back more frequently, I have to say, and I think that the service that Dr Simpson has done in the Parliament today is to shine a light on whether or not the HCPC is efficient or not. I have no idea if it's efficient or not so we will have to scrutinise that in the future. I'm not sure what position this committee cannot play appropriately in relation to the increases at the very top of that organisation, but that is a light that people perhaps shine in the future that may otherwise not have happened if it wasn't for Dr Simpson making this move to annull today. I think that the overarching point here is that it's not about whether it's a three pence a day increase or not, it's about the trend and trajectory of potential increases going forward. As I said during my questioning to the witnesses earlier, organisations can get a taste for these increases and I didn't quite get all the reassurances that I was looking for in relation to that during that particular evidence session. Although I commend Dr Simpson in bringing this to our attention today and making a lot of quite frankly very salient points, I won't be supporting the move to annull, but I suspect that this committee will be looking at this again not just this time next year but well in advance of that to make sure that HCPC does some of the things that we'd expect them to do. I find myself very torn over this issue, I mean I can see all the sides of the argument frankly. I do accept that there's an obligation to the PSA which has to be dealt with. I also do accept that the relative terms, the HPCP fee is lower than some other regulatory bodies and I respect their commitment. I've stated today that they will try and keep the fees as low as possible without further projected increases in the foreseeable future. I would have liked to hear of any alternative means of raising money to fund their, I think, necessary IT systems and accommodation problems. I do welcome the fact that they have committed to making monthly payment of which, as Mike McKenzie said, in cash terms it's relatively small, in percentage terms it's a big rise. I do welcome the opportunity for monthly payment of that and to my mind that does actually will need efficient IT systems which perhaps takes me down in full cycle to accept that perhaps the fees should go up in order to accommodate the investment that's needed in infrastructure. I do think that there's a need to look at efficiencies and I would like in the future, I mean I will not be a member of this committee next time because I'm retiring from Parliament but I would like to see this sort of issue taken forward in future parliaments and that this regulatory body and indeed others are looked at very carefully and scrutinised to make sure that they are indeed efficient and good value. I think I'm probably coming down on the side not to agree with an element of the instrument. I'm also interested that Westminster hasn't yet discussed this and I'd be interested to hear how their discussion goes which presumably they will have in time to come. I'm sorry to be so torn if that's just the way I've tried to reason things out. Thanks for that, Rhoda Grant. Just to speak in support of Richard Simpson's motion, I don't take an awful lot of comfort out of the reassurances that were given about no further large increases given were given those previously and this increases even larger than the last one. Mike Mackenzie talked about the costs to people working in rural areas and indeed mileage and petrol costs on that is a huge burden on rural workers. This just adds to it and it may appear a small increase but given the costs that other people are bearing with pay freezes and increased costs and travel and the like, this just adds to it and I therefore want to support Richard's motion. No other members. Can I ask the minister to respond? Thank you, convener. First of all, I agree with the expression that has been useful to have this debate. It has been useful and it's very sensible for this committee. Of course it's a matter for this committee. As a member of the Government to say what the committee should do, I think that it's sensible to suggest that the committee should continue to look at those matters. I should say that the change here is driven by factors beyond the levy to the PSA but, taking that as a starting point, it should be pointed out that this Parliament has already agreed the changes for funding the PSA and understanding the instrument in which set out those changes came before this committee on 23 February. Of course it's beyond that particular issue. The HCPC have a need to upgrade their systems and make sure that they are up to speed to ensure that they can properly regulate the profession that they have responsibility for. I am not unsympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed. How could anyone be? No one wants to have to pay more. I do think that it is important to place the rise in some context, which both Mr Doris and Mr Mackenzie have sought to do. I know that there was an exchange earlier but, by comparison to the other professional regulatory bodies at HCPC, even with this increase, it comes at the bottom of the league significantly. It has, by far and away, the lowest of any fee of the UK professional regulatory bodies. That increase has been described as a 12.5 per cent increase, which, of course, I cannot say is incorrect, but in its proper context that is £10 a year less when you take into account the fact that you can recoup some through your tax payments. I think that it is important to place it in that context. There has also been some discussion about the other context of pay policy. I think that it is important to recognise that not everyone regulated by this body is covered by public sector pay policy. There are some working in the private sector, but if you look at Scottish public sector pay policy, there have been increases for NHS staff who come under agenda for change in this body. We are probably expecting to be in at least band 4 or probably more likely band 5 for both. Last year, we have implemented the NHS pay review body recommendations for an uplift at all scale points while maintaining progression. For this year, band 4 staff still to reach the top of the scale will have received an increase of about 4 per cent ahead of the 1 per cent that has been referred to. The increase will, of course, be more than a make-up for the levy that is being put in place by the HCPC. We have had contact with them as a body. They have set out their commitment to us as an administration that they want. It has been referred to that they want to move to a system of monthly payments, which I think will make it easier for those that have to pay the levy. There is a commitment not to increase the fees again in the foreseeable future. I hear what has been said, which we have to take at face value. I do not see how we can operate on any other fair basis. If it was to be agreed by the committee, which I sincerely hope will not be, it would be to impact on the HCPC's ability to regulate the professions that they have a responsibility for. They would presumably not be able to undertake the upgrade of their systems that they want to undertake. My understanding is that, without that increase, there could be such an impact on their funds that they could quickly end up in deficit. That could, of course, impact on the safety of the public, because ultimately that is what regulation is all about. On that basis, I would strongly urge the committee to not annul the order. I thank the minister, and I invite Richard Simpson to wind up the process with draw. I entirely accept that the amounts involved are small, but it is a matter of principle. When you have had a pay freeze, admittedly mitigated by the Scottish Government, unlike the Westminster Government for NHS staff, when those staff have had to pay significant increases in pension, and when they have been told that the 5 per cent increase, which was above inflation two years ago, would be a significant increase in pension, has been delayed, has been delayed and has been delayed. When they've been told that the 5 per cent increase which was above inflation two years ago would be the last increase for two years and hasn't yet been paid by some of those individuals, they haven't actually got through that cycle and they're already back looking for a 12.5 per cent increase, I think that the sums involved are not the thing that matter. Although having said that, when you've got career break charges of £225 now, an increase of £25, which I think is a significant sum when you're returning to work and you will probably be doing so part-time, many of them will, when the grant-payment charges are one of those systems, are actually £440 and they've been increased significantly, then I think that the sums actually do begin to matter and mitigating it by direct debit monthly, of course, is welcome but nevertheless is in my view insufficient. We heard today in evidence and I think it was a very useful evidence session, I thank colleagues for their questions they asked as well but we heard that there is no attempt to relink this to income and that is not, in my view, appropriate, particularly when many of these workers will be part-time. We've heard what appears to be the case that the Scottish body is very much more efficient and therefore I really wonder what the PSA are doing in terms of supervising. They should be coming to our body in Scotland and say that you would clearly run a show in which the public have confidence in, the Government has confidence in, this Parliament has confidence in, it's hugely more efficient than what's happening at a UK level. So why the costs for the English body three times the level as proposed to that of the Scottish body? I think that the final thing that really makes me move this motion was something that Mark Sel said this morning and that is when he said, we don't have any off-the-peg efficiency savings. Every single public body in this country in Scotland has had to make efficiency savings. They may have gone back to the body concerned and been improved but to say we don't have efficiency savings that we can make, which is how I interpreted what he said, was I think a manifestation of an organisation that needs to be scrutinised very much more closely so I welcome the fact that others, after I depart this Parliament next year, will be scrutinising these bodies much more closely. I want to move the annulment because I want this Parliament to send a message out to our registrants, to the 329,000 registrants across the UK and to the UK Parliament to say that this should have been far more closely scrutinised. The sums involved are not large for the PSA. They should have been paid by the Government until there was adequate consultation time on this issue. That has not been provided in this instance and I think that more time should have been given and more costings should be provided, not simply saying an IT system needs to be improved. I think that that is not good enough or our office costs are going to expand because we need more room. I think that the costs were not provided adequately and I am not prepared to subscribe to an organisation that actually does not lay out very clearly and in great detail its costs before that is done, so I move the motion in my name. I will press. I press the motion, I move the motion. The question is then that motion S4M-13509 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Are we all agreed so we moved to a vote and all those in favour of the motion please indicate by raising their hand. All those against the motion please indicate. Thank you. Abstentions. The result therefore is for the motion 3 against the motion 5 with one abstention. The motion is not agreed to. That concludes the parliamentary consideration of this instrument. Thank the minister and his officials for being with us. We are moving quickly, I hope, we will pause just a wee bit, but we are moving quickly to agenda item number six and just get our witnesses in place. I have the net to agenda item number six, which is a final evidence session on smoking, prohibition, children and motor vehicles Scotland bill. I welcome Jim Hume, MSP, member in charge of the bill, Louise Miller, senior solicitor, office of the solicitor to the Scottish Parliament and Stephen Fricker, assistant clerk to the non-governmental bills unit. Welcome to you all. Jim, you wish to make an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to all of the committee. I would like to thank everybody, of course, for inviting me to give evidence on my bill. I introduced this bill because I wanted to build on the successes of the Smoking, Health and Social Care Scotland Act 2005, which has been overwhelmingly successful in changing behaviour in Scotland, means that we all now benefit from a safer, cleaner environment at work or when eating out. The Scottish Government has a stated aim of having a smoke-free country by 2034, and my bill focuses specifically on protection of children. Recent research has shown that 22 per cent of 13-year-olds and 15-year-olds in Scotland are often in regularly exposed or second-hand smoke more than once a week while in a car. As you have already heard during your evidence taken, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. Second-hand smoke has proven profound impacts on health, and it particularly affects children because of their immature respiratory systems. Outcomes can include sudden infant death syndrome, coughing, wheezing, asthma and respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis and, of course, an increased risk of lung cancer. If that was not bad enough, it has been demonstrated that children exposed to second-hand smoke themselves are more likely to take up smoking themselves in later life. The concentration of second-hand smoke found in vehicles containing smokers is higher than found in the home or out of doors due to the very enclosed nature of the space. Opening the windows and air circulation may reduce concentrations to some small amount, but it does not make it safe. Most affected children have no other transport option or are too young to make other arrangements and are not empowered to change the behaviour of adults around them. I believe that we have moral duty to protect those children from the immediate health impacts of second-hand smoke, give them the best start in life and support them to go on to lead healthy lives themselves. You will probably be aware from last week's evidence session that I raised issues of enforcement. I absolutely agree that it is not desirable to have children, particularly anyone, but children in an atmosphere of smoke or recent smoke. It was raised last week by people who were in support of the bill that it is primarily an education issue to get people educated in the fact that it is just not the social thing to do or not the public health interests. It is not the thing to do to smoke around children in enclosed space. I am concerned about how that can be enforced and how we can pick people up. As I said last week, I have a tall grandson aged 15, who would be mistaken for an adult very easily in a car. How do you go about identifying it? If there is an accusation that an adult has been smoking, how do you anticipate going about things? Would you expect children in the car to get evidence to say against their mum or dad if they happen to be smoking in the car? Can you give me a little detail on how you see the practicalities of enforcement? I think that that is really important. Enforcement is, if you look at seat belt laws and mobile phone devices. We know in last year's 2013 to 2014 that Police Scotland detected over 36,000 seat belt offences and 34,000 mobile phone offences. That is 70,000 in all in one year. Detection is very similar to that. That is actually seeing someone smoking. It is pretty obvious when somebody is smoking in a car. It is fairly obvious that if it is a younger child, obviously if it is a child who is 17, then it can be more difficult of course, but it is not impossible. As Police Scotland said last week in their evidence that they were quite happy with making the difference between a person who is under 18 and a person who is not as they do daily, as they said themselves, when they are related to alcohol and buying alcohol offences and alcohol as a junior. It strikes me that it is easier in relation to seat belts and mobile phones. You can see if people are wearing seat belts or not quite clearly. Mobile phones, you could have a record of when a particular mobile phone call was made when the phone was in action. If someone was being accused of being guilty under the legislation, you could find some proof. I am not quite sure how you could prove in retrospect that someone was smoking when the car was stopped or whatever. I know that there might be residual particles, but can it be proved when those residual particles became available? Was that just very recently or was it sometime past? No, it would be active smoking. We are not talking about if there has been smoking in the car previous to the child going into it. That would be difficult to enforce, but we are talking about when the police notice somebody who is physically smoking in front of them, which is very similar to a seat belt. You can physically see if someone is not wearing a seat belt in front of them, so that the police would be able to use their best judgement. Someone has put to me—not all together facetiously—that someone might be chewing the end of a pencil or sucking a lollipop and not actually smoking a cigarette. I think that we can trust the professional judgment of police to tell the difference between a lollipop and the smoking of a cigarette. Could we just cover e-cigarettes as well? No, no. I will leave it to that. I might come back. Supposedly it goes to the heart of the question about whether we need legislation if it is difficult to enforce. I am sure that you read the evidence from Police Scotland last week. If anything else, they have not got an appetite to be enforcing this as the only enforcing body. They were not, by the evidence last week, patrolling school gates or whatever, where there may be adults or people smoking, and they see it very much down the priority. I would also concede that most people are law abiding, and there is a strong message in that. However, if we have a law that is not going to be enforced effectively, why do we need legislation? We have seen that smoking in cars is still happening. It is still very active, as we know. As I said, there is 22 per cent of 13 and 15-year-olds are exposed to smoke. We have figures from a survey that 60,000 children every week are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars. However, if you look at other areas and other countries where they have went forward with this, you have seen a marked difference in Canada. I believe that, after similar legislation was brought in there, there was a reduction of 33 per cent in all of children being exposed to second-hand smoke. We have seen a change, as we have with the smoking act of 2005, where that has had a knock-on effect into people's homes. I would expect that that would have a knock-on effect into other people's areas of life without needing the enforcement by and by and by most people are, as you say, law abiding, so we are talking about changing the norms of behaviour. If you say anything in response to the police evidence last week, they were saying that it should not just simply be up to the police to enforce that. I have very much talked about using a partnership approach. My initial bill stated that it would be the police. Obviously, it would be difficult to see how local authorities would be able to stop moving vehicles, but I would be quite open to amendments that would allow a widening of enforcement if local authorities were able to enforce statutory vehicles. They also highlighted the potential consequences of the legislation that for a parent or a guardian of a person under 18, then perhaps envisaged in the bill. Following the detection of offends envisaged in the outcome, we would also include the raising of a child concern forum, which would be shared with the name person. It is suggested that this approach would support the grit and the rife of every child principles and the Young Person Scotland Act. Is that something that you envisage? The name person would become involved, and a child concern forum would be completed if a parent was smoking in a car with a child. Is that something that we would do? The police and the health enforcement agencies also stated that they did not think that that would be a huge issue. It may be an issue, but that is the same as it goes for any child protection issue, and this is about protecting children. I asked them last week if their parents get caught speeding in the car with children in the back. There is no child support for them. I would have thought that that was pretty dangerous for myself, but anyway, we are in the interesting territory. We have got Richard Lyle, and then I have got Dennis, and then I have got Mike, and then I saw Roder's hand up there as well. Did you see Richard? Morning, Mr Hume. Last week, I think the last two sessions, I have identified that I am a smoker. At the end of the day, I do smoke in my car, but I do not smoke in my car when my granddaughter or grandson are in the car to make sure that the car is well ventilated before I even pick them up. The situation in the Chapman Forest basically said—I have a couple of questions along the lines at the convener—that this is the thin end of the wedge. You are targeting smokers now in their car with children, but eventually someone will move on that it will be smokers per se nobody can smoke in their car at all, even if there are no kids in the car. What do you say to that? Thank you, Mr Lyle, for that question. It is very clear that the bill is very tight, extremely tight. It is only to do with the protection of children. If people want to smoke wherever they want to smoke, that is fine. It is purely about protecting children. It is not an amendable bill that would in any way make it an offence for people to smoke generally in cars without children. There is nothing on the horizon that I can see that would change this bill to make that to make it impossible. In regards to that answer, we are talking about children in cars. What about the same children that are sitting in their house at night time for their two parents to smoke? Fogelback 30 years ago, both my wife and I smoked. I no longer smoke in the house because of my grandchildren. I smoke outside. As I have to say that, I see quite a lot of people doing nowadays, but what happens to the person who is, okay, I cannot smoke my car because my kids are there, but I can smoke my house. Are we going to have a law next to say that people cannot smoke in their house? As I said, this law cannot be amended to make it anything to do with what people do in their houses. It is purely about a vehicle. You are in a very enclosed space. The children have no option but to go into that car, to go on their trip to school, sometimes to spots bizarrely or wherever. The British Lung Foundation gave evidence that showed that smoking particles are 11 times sicker in a car than they are in a pub. You are very much of a difference. Of course, it may make some people think twice about smoking at home, and that is great when the kids are there. I think that it would be unenforceable to legislate to stop people smoking in their private spaces of a house. I do sincerely hope so. As I said, I no longer smoke in the house, but my last question is the places that the convener said last week were happy to lend a hand on this but not too happy about it. If I remember, in one of the reports, he said that he brought the rai of terrorism, et cetera, to go about and look for somebody in a car smoking. I liked the other one where someone said, if the windows are tinted, I cannot see. I have two car seats in my car for my grandkids. You could see if these kids were in children in the car. How do you equate to the factor that, again, for us made out, you are going to employ police, traffic wardens, community cops, community wardens, environmental health officers, if a car is stopped parked in a car park, you are going to have the public, so everybody is going to start to report people that see smoking in their cars. Do you think that that is not a bit over the top? My initial bill was only for the police to enforce it as being the Government that we have said that they would consider bringing an amendment regarding local authorities and community wardens, et cetera. That aside would be up to them to justify that. I am quite happy if there are more people legislating on it. I think that the fact that we have 60,000 children exposed to second-hand smoke in cars every week in Scotland and we know the long-term effects and we know that young children will tend to smoke themselves in later life if they are exposed to second-hand smoke in cars and we know the socioeconomic and health inequalities that this causes in Scotland that we have to act on this. As the police Scotland and the law society said last week, they all thought that legislation was now necessary and that enforcement would not be needed drastically as it has not been in other countries. Once in force, we have noticed huge differences in people's behaviour. South Australia, which is something like 88 per cent of cars, are now smoke-free after legislating. In Canada, as I said in my earlier remarks, I think that there is a 33 per cent reduction almost immediately from legislation being brought in there. Dennis Robertson Thank you, convener, and good afternoon, minister. I support the whole idea of trying to ensure that children are not exposed to second-hand smoke, but I still have a problem with regard to the enforcement aspect that Annette Milne was raising. If someone in the car is smoking, say that they are going to collect a child for school or whatever, and they are parked up and having a cigarette prior to the child coming out, that child is going to be exposed to that second-hand smoke after that person has finished smoking and got into the car. We know that, even if he dissipates the smoke by ventilation, the chemicals will still be there for quite some time. With regard to that, the legislation is not going to protect those children at all. Is it not better to try and raise the education and awareness of the harms of exposing children to smoke rather than imposing legislation, which would appear at the moment anyway, to be unenforceable? As we can see from other countries, I would dispute that. It has been unenforceable, but what we have seen is that legislation has acted as a deterrent, and behaviour has changed, which I think is what we are all wanting. We are not wanting loads of people being criminalised obviously by these actions. As I said, legislation is there as a deterrent. We know that it changes behaviour. We have all the evidence that legislation has changed behaviour in other countries. You are quite right that, if somebody is just out from smoking in a car, the toxins will still be there. You cannot see all of that. Just when you cannot see, smoke does not mean that the toxins are not still there. There are about 50 toxins, some of them are carcinogenic in tobacco smoke, which causes such damage. However, physically seeing somebody smoking in a car is fairly obvious. Even if they have tinted glass, seeing that there is a young child in the back is very obvious today. There are little days that I go out, and we know the evidence from others that 60,000 journeys per week from Aberdeen University give that statistic. That is a phenomenal amount. After the 2005 act, I should also say that there was a significant drop in smoking, but over the past years that has actually levelled out. The evidence for legislation is very strong. I think that what you have said to me, Mr Hume, is that taking forward the legislation will impact on people's behaviour, which is a good thing. I just still wonder whether or not your bill, because you have said about three times today that the bill is very tight, to use your words. Given that the restriction within your bill, I still find it very difficult to see how we are going to achieve the outcomes that you are looking for through legislation. Are you hopeful that, in the guidance, there will be an education programme taking forward? Really, it is the education rather than the enforcement. That is why I think that the legislation that you are bringing forward is somewhat flawed, because it really is about education and awareness rather than enforcement. In the financial memorandum, as you will know, we have costed an education programme in that. It is related to take it right outside, which is also a Scottish Government programme on education. The very fact that it has gained so much media attention will already have changed people's attitude, but we know that smoking in cars, as I said, education on that has been going on for decades. The dangers of second-hand smoke has been going on for decades, but still we have the 60,000 children every single week in Scotland being still exposed to second-hand smoke. We know the dangers that that does to their health. They have no choice to go in that car. They cannot hop on the bus or get a taxi or decide to take the train or the tram to school. We know also that there is a Dr Reena Dewar who gave evidence to my consultation three years ago when that went out, that it also causes great stress for children. Children are in the back of a car, they are being exposed to the smoke, they cannot hold the breath for 10 minutes, they know the dangers themselves have been exposed to that smoke and the stress that that gives to them has been marked quite significantly. That was a Dr Reena Dewar from University of Edinburgh who gave me that evidence. You continue to cite the evidence, Mr Hewman, and I appreciate all the evidence that is there and certainly the evidence from Aberdeen University and the British Lung Foundation, etc. I can understand all that and understand the impact that it has on children and their behaviour later on in life. Where I am going from is about education and awareness. I am just trying to tease out from the legislation that is absolutely necessary. You say that you do not want to criminalise people, so is it not about education and awareness and the legislation itself is not appropriate in terms of trying to take this message forward? The Law Society of Scotland stated to the legislation that is necessary that we have not seen a reduction of smoking in kids with cars to any significance. It is still very prevalent. Still, people have the belief that opening the window makes a difference where we know that it can make no real difference. In conversation with Dr Sean Semple, who is seen as the lead on this in the UK at least, he said that his worst case of particles per meter squared density of smoke in a car was actually when the window was a jar. It is not working. We need more and we need the back-up of legislation to get any progress from now. I support the general principles of the bill but I have some concerns similar to the net about enforcement. My understanding is that it will operate on the basis of a fixed penalty. My concern is that, in my question of Police Scotland last week, I was not reassured that it would not feel under some pressure to produce a set of enforcement statistics. Some of your colleagues have been on record as complaining about the target-driven culture within Police Scotland. That would give rise to some injustices, given that it is a form of summary justice, fixed penalty, which a lot of people would not challenge in the court, but equally it goes hand in hand. I understand the level of penalty being considered as something in the order of £100. I could be wrong about that. However, would you accept that there will be some injustices inevitably? Would you accept that that £100 penalty would bear disproportionately, for instance, on people of slender means, perhaps pensioners and so on? Given that you have just described the biggest effect of the bill will be in the changing of the culture, do you not think that that supports a case for a fixed penalty that is maybe £10 or £20? The figure of £100 amount, the initial consultation was consulted on £60, and that was related to exactly to what the spot fine is for a seat belt fine and exactly the same amount that is for a mobile phone. That was the rationale for that. During the consultation process, of course, that was changed to £100. That is why it is at £100. You also mentioned socioeconomic and really health inequalities as well. We know in some socio-economic groups that health is a much larger issue, as is smoking a much larger issue. I will reiterate what this is about. It is about protecting children from second hand smoke damage at a very vulnerable age, which can lead to problems immediately and in the future. Thank you. I am a bit disappointed that you are not more concerned with the potential injustices, but I will move on. The law society last week, when they were giving evidence, suggested that you can perhaps just clarify this. I am not quite clear whether the person, the liable person, would be the smoker themselves in the car or the driver. The law society seemed to suggest that it should be the driver. I was a bit concerned about that in as much as if I was driving my car and they were giving Richard a lift and a lit up a cigarette on a motorway where I could not stop or somehow kick him out of the door. I am just dramatising the situation to make the point, but an eagle-eyed policeman happened to spot this that I, as the driver, would be liable. Again, I feel that that would give rise to an injustice. Could you clarify the situation and your views on whether it ought to be the driver or perhaps also the driver? I will clarify that. It would be the driver, but it would also be the adult who is smoking as well. It is a health issue, and it is not about just being the driver. As I said, it is only the adult. If the adult is the driver, that is fine. If it is a passenger, that would be the person also. I think that the driver has enough to do with driving his car rather than trying to stop other adults smoking in his car. It is quite clearly the adult that is in my bill. Other people have talked about other issues, and I know that it is different perhaps. South of the border where it is the driver, it is a motoring offence. This is a health offence. It is health where we are trying to look after the children, so it is the adult, whether it is a passenger or the driver. The net has got a supplementary horizon for my issue. It is just something that has come to my head. Everyone is talking about children, as in small children in car seats, that sort of thing. We are talking about the responsibility of being the driver or the passenger. Correct me if I am wrong, but I know that it is illegal to buy cigarettes under the age of 18. I am not sure that it is illegal to smoke under the age of 18. I was supposing that you had a passenger in your car who was 17 and smoking. He is the only one that is in the car that is under 18. Is he there for committing a criminal offence? I mean, it is almost the upper boundary of the upper age limit that is bothering me. We had a lot of debate about that very point. My initial proposal was 16 for 15 or under, but it came out in the consultation process that you are quite correct that it is illegal to buy cigarettes when you are 17 or under. 18 is what the law society considered to be an adult, 17 a junior. The final bill was to coincide with 18 to make it much simpler. You are talking about whether somebody would be liable if they were 17. My bill suggests that nobody would not be liable because I am not really wanting to criminalise children because, as a full-law, a 17-year-old is a child. In the driver there would be guilty of allowing a 17-year-old to smoke in his car, but the 17-year-old would not be guilty if he was the only child in the car? No, not if the driver or the adult or any person is 17, they would not be liable because it is only for 18-year-olds or upwards that would be liable. No, but the driver would be liable for the 17-year-old smoking. If the driver—sorry, can you clarify what age your driver is? If the 17-year-old is smoking, he is not guilty of an offence. Oh, yes, and the driver was 18 above. Oh, that is not a driver. No, the driver would not be committing an offence. It is only the smoker if they are 18-year-older. I am still a bit confused, but I will think about that one. That is quite right. Can I clarify, Mr Ewing? Replyd to Mike McKenzie there. If the police stopped a car and the driver was not the smoker, but his wife was in the front with him and there were two kids in the back, and she was smoking, who—are we talking about one ticket, one £100 charging the driver, or are we talking about two £100 charging both? Who gets charged? You are suggesting that the driver is not smoking and that the wife is over 18, and she is smoking, and the two children in the back would only be the wife who is over 18. Rhoda Cymru. Can I ask some questions around the exception for vehicles that are used as a home? I am a bit concerned that this might be a loophole. One of the phrases is human habitation, so that does not necessarily say that it is a mobile home. It is a vehicle of any kind that is used for human habitation for not less than one night. Would someone sleeping overnight in a car be an exception? Could that not be used as a loophole? How would you prove that that car had been used for human habitation? Again, it would be up to the police to interpret it. I have it in there that it would be no less than one night. A car that is parked up and somebody is sleeping in it would not be exempted. That is quite tight in there. I want to be very careful that I do not want to legislate for people's homes, and that is why I have the exception for the motor homes. Some people, as we know, use motor homes for their living accommodation, for living in or being on holiday with. That, for me, would be exempted, but, of course, if they were using those homes driving, as we would not use a normal private motor vehicle, then they would not be exempt, so it is quite clear. Would it not be easier to say that a motor home, rather than a vehicle used for human habitation? I would not want to see somebody driving their motor home every day, day in, day out, being exempted. Therefore, it would be only when it was using for what we would call living in, sleeping in, but as a motor home. It is a normal car, if someone was living in their normal car. It would not be exempted by this, and that is quite clear in the legislation here. Thank you. Colin? You convene afternoon to you. It is actually the terminology surrounding convertible vehicles that may confuse, because there are so many different types. We have a situation where a convertible vehicle is possible to, for instance, run with the windows up at the side. Given the air coming across what is the roof area, forcing down any particular smoke, how do you determine what is a convertible and exempt vehicle? There has been some confusion at the committee on this point, because with my legislation, there is no exemption for convertible motor vehicles at all. The Scottish Government has not talked about it, and I have discussed it with them. They seem quite soft on it, but I agree with you completely. Putting your windows up and taking the roof down can cause quite a lot of second-hand smoke issues. My legislation is quite clear that there is no exemption for convertible vehicles whatsoever. To be honest, I will be sticking quite clearly on that. It is just what you said earlier on in one of your statements or one of the answers to one of my colleagues. However, in terms of the ability to see through tinted windows, which normally I imagine the tint is usually within the rear windows, quite a lot of models are clear front passenger and driver, as well as, obviously, the front of the vehicle. However, you seem to suggest that it was rather easy to determine who was in the back of these things. I am not quite sure that I agree with you there. Obviously, when this was brought up some time ago, it is amazing how you look around the roads as people drive past you and know that it is not that easy to determine what is there. It comes back to the enforcement issue, the identification, the fact that the police and local authorities see difficulties in parts, but how confident is it that this could be seen as a law that is feasible? Just to clarify that, I know fine that your front windows, your side windows at the front, your windscreen cannot be tinted to any great degree at all. That is a legobus, because it causes issues for drivers to see properly in their own conditions. Is the same reason that you are looking in as well, if you are looking at the back? As I said, the front is open, so there is good vision into half of the vehicle. Of course, it is more difficult to see through smoky glass. It is more difficult to see what happens in the back of a van, but, as I said, the local authorities and Police Scotland, even with all that knowledge, realise and have stated that this legislation, they believe, is absolutely necessary. Again, if you look at all the evidence of all the other countries, and I am happy to make you all have a lot of it in your papers, changing people's behaviour when this legislation came in was quite phenomenal, and that is what this legislation is about. It is important to state at this point that the committee seems to be focusing on the vehicles that are in motion. It does not necessarily need to apply that vehicles that are in motion are going to apply to vehicles that are stationary as well. Police Scotland mentioned last week the whole idea that they will be focusing on their principal duties, as they say, in terms of road safety. Now, part of those duties might involve looking out for what they might consider would be in the interests of road safety, so they might be looking out for potential offences. They could pull a motorist over, for example, in relation to one offence. When the motorist is pulled over, it may become clear to the officers at that point that there are young children in the back, or children that are under 18, and somebody is smoking who happens to be an adult. There would be nothing under the terms that the legislation has presented to say that the police officer or the enforcement officer at that point would not be able to either draw the adult's attention to the fact that they were smoking and they were potentially committing an offence, or to go through the process of issuing a fixed penalty notice. This is a system that works in the United States. A lot of their legislation smoking in cars legislation has actually been put forward as a secondary offence. If a vehicle is stationary, an officer would be able to issue a ticket, an offence would be being committed if an officer could determine that. I am not disagreeing with the fact that it could become a secondary offence or anything. I am just thinking in terms of the ability for people to actually look inside vehicles clearly and see that this is happening. I understand that there is obviously the driving element as well. I do take into account more what you are saying about stationary vehicles and secondary offences, but I do not think that that is where they are and what really was being fixed. I hate to repeat things, but I will repeat things. If we have looked at the year 2013-14, if you look at the seat belt and the mobile phone law, but just the seat belt, 1.36,000 in one year were detected, and those will be seat belts that are equally in the back as they are in the front. Of course, it will be more difficult if you have very dark smoking glass, but it does not mean that it is not impossible. As I said several times before, we know that legislation happening in other countries has changed behaviour, and that is what this is all about, the protection of children. I think that that is what the police were saying. They will enforce seat belts, law and road traffic safety, etc. That is a remat. What they were saying is that they are not in power to deal with a health matter. That was a basic plea, was it not? That is absolutely right. Road traffic is a very immediate health matter because it can result in people being hurt. This is a longer-term health matter where hurt has done over many years. That is just the issue of enforcement. Nobody would expect them to move the resources from a serious criminal offence to stopping people in smoking. Evidence that I got from police were that they would do it as part of their normal duties. Evidence that we can go with is on the record here last week, so familiar eyes with that. I think that Bob Doris is our last question today as we move on to our next item of business, which is in private. Thank you, Duncan. Just another aspect of something that we received in written evidence that we wanted to give the opportunity to respond to on the record this afternoon. Some of our written submissions suggest that the bill could extend perhaps to those who are over 18 who could be determined to be vulnerable adults, whether it is learning disabilities or whatever groups. We got that in written submissions. We want to consider all the submissions that we have had when doing our stage 1 report, so I would give you the opportunity to put on your record how you feel about that proposal. I think that it is absolutely wrong that anybody, any vulnerable adult, should be exposed to smoking second hand cars. They are very similar to children. They probably do not have the option to go on public transport, etc. It was something that we could consider in great depth before we started this journey. Our concern was how the police could identify somebody who is a vulnerable adult. It is not that obvious, whereas a child can be a bit more obvious than a vulnerable adult. We decided to leave that out to give us a better chance. I hope that people will take that message on board and not smoke when there are vulnerable adults present in the car. However, it is not part of the legislation. If someone wants to bring that amendment forward and it strengthens the bill, they will be happy to look at that. I do not think that we will have any more questions. I thank you all for your attendance here and giving us the evidence that you have. Thank you. We now go on to our next item of business, which we previously agreed, which is item 7. Previously agreed, we were dealing with in private. Thank you. Thank you.