Report on Stage 1 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill

The Committee reports to the Finance Committee as follows—

principal conclusions

1. The Committee has considered only those proposals contained in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill that fall within its remit, that is, in the main, the simplification of public bodies including the abolition of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland (HEACS) (Part 1), the order-making powers in respect of public bodies (Part 2), the establishment of Creative Scotland (Part 3) and the provisions in relation to social work and care services, including the establishment of Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) as a replacement for the Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA) and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Care Commission) (Parts 4 and 6). The Committee’s conclusions on each of these aspects of the Bill are contained within the relevant section of the report.

2. Overall, the Committee accepts the Scottish Government’s intention to modernise the scrutiny landscape and, where appropriate, rationalise the functions and reduce the number of scrutiny bodies. The Committee is, therefore, subject to the comments and recommendations made in the relevant sections of the report, broadly content with the proposals in respect of social work and care services, the abolition of HEACS and the establishment of Creative Scotland and recommends to the Finance Committee that it supports the general principles of the Bill as far as these parts of it are concerned.

3. However, the Committee agrees that the provisions in Part 2, which effectively would give current and future ministers powers to amend the functions of, or even dissolve, large numbers of public bodies through secondary legislation and with limited parliamentary scrutiny, would tip the balance between the scrutiny function of the Parliament and the executive powers of ministers heavily in favour of the latter.

4. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Finance Committee should support the general principles of the Bill, subject to the removal of Part 2.¹

background

5. The Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill² (“the Bill”) was introduced in the Scottish Parliament by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth on 28 May 2009. Under Rule 9.6.1, it was referred by the Parliament to the Finance Committee as lead committee, with the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee (“the Committee”) named as a secondary committee along with the Health and Sport Committee and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.

6. The aspects of the Bill that fall within the Committee’s remit include the proposed dissolution of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland (HEACS) (Part 1), the general order-making powers in Part 2 relating to public functions, the establishment of Creative Scotland (Part 3) and proposed changes to the scrutiny and inspection regimes relating to social care, social work and child protection (Parts 4 and 6).

7. The Committee agreed its approach to evidence-taking at its meeting on 23June 2009. The Committee issued a call for evidence and received a total of 77 submissions.³ The Committee held two evidence sessions involving Scottish Government officials and stakeholders on 1 and 9 September 2009. The first of these sessions was devoted to social care and social work issues,⁴ when the Committee took evidence from—

Val Cox, Deputy Director, Positive Futures, Adam Rennie, Deputy Director, Community Care, Gillian Russell, Divisional Solicitor, Scottish Government Legal Directorate, Nicholas Duffy, Solicitor, Scottish Government Legal Directorate, and Shane Rankin, Project Director, Scrutiny Bodies Team, Scottish Government;

and then from—

Alexis Jay, Chief Executive, Social Work Inspection Agency;

Jacquie Roberts, Chief Executive, Care Commission;

Graham Donaldson, HM Senior Chief Inspector, HM Inspectorate of Education;

Harry Stevenson, ADSW Executive Committee member, Association of Directors of Social Work;

Geraldine Doherty, Depute and Registrar, Scottish Social Services Council;

Tam Baillie, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People;

Ruth Stark, Professional Officer, British Association of Social Workers;

Annie Gunner Logan, Director, Community Care Providers Scotland.

8. The Committee also held a session devoted to Creative Scotland. At that session, it took evidence⁵ from—

Deborah Smith, Acting Director, Culture, External Affairs and Tourism, Nikki Brown, Deputy Director, Creative Scotland, Hilary Pearce, Portfolio Manager, Creative Scotland Division, Lorna Malcolm, HR Professional Adviser, Public Service Simplification Team, Greig Walker, Solicitor, Transport, Culture and Procurement Division, Scottish Government Legal Directorate, Colin Miller, Head of Public Bodies Policy Team, and John St Clair, Divisional Solicitor, Constitutional and Civil Law Division, Scottish Government;

and then from—

Ewan Brown, Chair, Creative Scotland;

Lorne Boswell, Scottish Secretary, Equity;

Jon Morgan, Director, Federation of Scottish Theatre;

Iain Hamilton, Development Manager, Creative Industries, Highlands and Islands Enterprise;

Terry Anderson, President, Scottish Artists Union;

Jim Tough, Chief Executive, Scottish Arts Council;

David Hartley, Senior Manager, Digital Markets, Scottish Enterprise;

Sheena Macdonald, Regional Organiser, Scottish Musicians Union;

Ken Hay, Chief Executive, Scottish Screen;

Dr Donald Smith, Director, Scottish Storytelling Centre.

9. Finally, the Committee took evidence on 16 and 23 September 2009 from the Minister for Children and Early Years and the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution respectively.

10. The Committee expresses its thanks, both to those who submitted written evidence and to those who took part in the oral evidence sessions.

11. This report to the Finance Committee is structured with separate sections to cover the main aspects of the Bill that fall within the Committee’s remit.

Part 1 – Simplification of Public Bodies

Dissolution of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland

Background
12. Part 1 of the Bill is concerned with the simplification of public bodies. In this context, section 6 proposes the dissolution of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland (HEACS).

13. HEACS was established as a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) in 2003 under the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003⁶. Its membership is voluntary (although the Chair receives a small salary and members receive expenses) and is appointed by the Scottish Ministers. Its remit is to provide Scottish Ministers with strategic advice on issues affecting the historic environment (comprising features of historical, archaeological and architectural interest).

14. The dissolution of HEACS was announced in 2008 and it ceased to operate on 31 May 2009. It currently has no members.

15. The rationale for the dissolution of HEACS set out in the Policy Memorandum is as follows—

“The key driver behind the dissolution of HEACS is duplication. Historic Scotland is responsible for providing expert advice to Ministers on the historic environment and in recent years has increased both its capacity to deal with policy analysis and it degree of consultation and engagement with stakeholders. This has enabled the Scottish Historic Environment Policy programme to progress. As such, in today’s landscape, Ministers do not need an Advisory Council as well as a dedicated Advisory Council as well as a dedicated Agency to provide expert advice on Scotland’s historic environment.”⁷

16. The Committee asked for written evidence on this issue and received nine submissions. There was no consensus amongst these submissions, rather there seemed to be two opposing views, one in support of the dissolution of HEACS, and the other voicing concerns regarding its abolition.

Support for the proposals
17. Those supporting the dissolution of HEACS included East Dunbartonshire Council, which considered that its duplication of roles with Historic Scotland justified the proposal⁸, and Moray Council, which acknowledged that “there are some aspects of common interest and potential duplication between HEACS and Historic Scotland”.⁹ Moray Council recognised HEACS had other duties that did not overlap to the same extent with Historic Scotland but was of the belief that “Historic Scotland could also undertake these duties”.¹⁰

18. Historic Scotland provided detailed written evidence to the Committee that outlined its commitment to taking on the role performed, until recently, by HEACS. It pointed out that it currently often takes forward work resulting from HEACS’ reports to Ministers.¹¹

19. Responding to suggestions that there are elements of HEACS’ role not currently being carried out by Historic Scotland and questions about how this potential gap would be filled, Historic Scotland outlined plans for an annual conference to which key organisations in the historic environment sector would be invited and the development of a new Historic Environment Strategy Forum.¹²

Concerns about the proposals
20. The Committee received a number of submissions that expressed concerns regarding the dissolution of HEACS. Elizabeth Burns, the former Chair of HEACS, questioned the rationale that duplication between HEACS and Historic Scotland justified the proposal—

“Historic Scotland is an agency of the Scottish Government and may provide advice to Scottish Ministers as any directorate of the Scottish Government does. However, it cannot provide Ministers with independent advice. In that very basic sense, there is no duplication or overlap between HEACS and Historic Scotland.”¹³

21. Concerns about the independent strategic advice provided by HEACS, an NDPB, compared to advice that could be provided by Historic Scotland, an executive agency of the Scottish Government, were shared in other submissions. Aberdeen City Council stated that—

“There is a perception that Historic Scotland is not a body independent of government, despite more recent appointments of non-executive directors and the canvassing of stakeholder opinion.”¹⁴

22. Aberdeenshire Council also valued the expertise and independence of HEACS’ work, identifying HEACS as a champion for built heritage and concluding in its submission “the loss of HEACS means this invaluable champion is being lost.”¹⁵

23. The National Trust for Scotland shared many of these concerns, stating that—

“The Trust […] does not believe that adequate justification has been offered for [HEACS’] abolition and perceives shortcomings in the reasons given for this course of action and in the way the process was managed. We consider the two most crucial aspects to the work of HEACS were its abilities to undertake non-partisan long term strategic analysis and the ability to give robust advice to Ministers.”¹⁶

24. The Trust went on to address the issue of the possible gaps in analysis and independent advice that could be left in the absence of HEACS, stating that—

“At the final HEACS conference the Minister recognised that there may be gaps to be filled and that Historic Scotland should work with the historic environment sector to identify the work and functions required, the ways they may be realised and level of funding that would be necessary.”¹⁷

25. Giving evidence to the Committee, the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution stated that Historic Scotland was currently going through a process of change and reform which would enable it to better fulfil the work previously undertaken by HEACS—

“I am keen that Historic Scotland be seen as a proactive and positive partner of all the other organisations and individuals in the sector, rather than as a monolithic state body. I am therefore keen that it changes both the way in which it presents itself to the world and the way in which it operates. I am confident that the good, imaginative and passionate people in Historic Scotland, who really care about the issues, will be more than capable of rising to the challenge.”¹⁸

Conclusions
26. The Committee notes the concerns expressed in evidence regarding the dissolution of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland (HEACS). In particular, the Committee notes the concerns expressed by some organisations which submitted evidence to the Committee regarding the ability of Historic Scotland to provide independent advice and fulfil the role and functions formerly undertaken by HEACS to a level expected by the historic environment sector.

27. The Committee notes the comments made by Historic Scotland in its submission to the Committee regarding the establishment of a new Historic Environment Strategy Forum and recommends that the Minister continues to work closely with Historic Scotland, former members of HEACS and the wider historic environment sector, to ensure that the concerns expressed in evidence to the Committee are appropriately considered.

Part 2 – Order-making powers

Background

28. Part 2 of the Bill is concerned with order-making powers and allows Ministers to make changes to public sector organisations by regulations. Schedule 3 to the Bill lists those organisations covered by Part 2, and includes a number of organisations¹⁹ that fall within the remit of the Committee.

29. The Policy Memorandum that accompanies the Bill provides the rationale behind Part 2—

“The overarching aim of these order-making powers is to allow Scottish Ministers, with approval from the Parliament, to make further necessary and proportionate changes to the landscape of public bodies and public functions […] and to remove unnecessary burdens on public, private or third sector bodies. These powers reflect Scottish Ministers’ commitment to work through the Parliament to ensure a public sector landscape and public sector functions that are proportionate, responsive and efficient.”²⁰

30. The Policy Memorandum goes on to state that—

“The power will avoid situations where necessary improvement is delayed until a suitable primary legislative opportunity arises […] the overarching requirement for any proposed change under this power is for Ministers to demonstrate that it will improve the exercise of public functions having regard to the three “e’s”: efficiency, effectiveness and economy.”²¹

Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People

31. Giving oral evidence to the Committee, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People (SCCYP), urged the Committee to recommend the removal of the SCCYP from the list of bodies in schedule 3, as the body was properly accountable to Parliament, stating that—

“I would press for the removal of offices such as my own from schedule 3 on two grounds: first, the lack of scrutiny in comparison with the process that established my office and endorsed its independence; and, secondly, the strong desire among parliamentarians for my office to be seen to be independent. The powers would seriously compromise that independence.”²²

32. This issue was pursued with the Minister for Children and Early Years when he gave evidence to the Committee on the Bill. The Minister indicated that, in light of the arguments put forward by the children’s commissioner, the Scottish Government would give serious consideration to removing SCCYP from the list of bodies contained in schedule 3—

“The children’s commissioner is in the Bill because it is a public body and all public bodies are included in the list. However, you have made a strong argument as to why the children’s commissioner’s office should not be subject to this legislation. I therefore expect that an amendment to that effect would be seriously considered by Mr Swinney [the Cabinet Secretary leading on the Bill].”²³

33. The Committee shares the concerns raised by Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People (SCCYP) regarding the inclusion of his office in the list of bodies covered by Part 2 of the Bill.

34. The Committee welcomes the commitment given by the Minister for Children and Early Years that the Scottish Government will give serious consideration to removing Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People from the list of organisations which are affected by Part 2 of the Bill. The Committee supports such a removal and recommends that the Scottish Government brings forward an amendment at Stage 2 to that effect.

National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland

35. The Committee received a detailed joint written submission from National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland, which outlined significant concerns regarding their inclusion on the list of bodies contained in schedule 3.

36. The concerns stem from the order-making powers proposed in Part 2 of the Bill, which would mean that the Scottish Government would not, in future, be required to use primary legislation to make certain changes to public bodies. The joint submission states that—

“The impact of these provisions, if enacted, is to enable Scottish Ministers to modify a previous statute by Statutory Instrument. It would, therefore, be possible for the Scottish Government to use such a Statutory Instrument to modify the content of the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985 and the National Galleries of Scotland Act 1906 – the Primary Legislation which governs National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland.”²⁴

37. The joint submission goes on to express significant concern at the potential consequences of such a development and concludes by suggesting an amendment to the Bill, which would specify that Part 2 of the Bill would not apply to National Museums Scotland or the National Galleries of Scotland.²⁵

38. The Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution was questioned on the concerns raised by National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland when he gave evidence to the Committee. The Minister told the Committee—

“I want to make it clear to them that their core purpose and why they exist is to preserve and safeguard the national collections and to hold them in trust for the nation. I am entirely satisfied that the order-making powers under section 10 could not be used to undermine that purpose, which is what they fear. Those organisations are quite right always to ask—at the centre of their concern—whether anything could affect their purpose. I am absolutely certain that the order-making powers could not be used in that way.

I am prepared to do two things. One of them is to discuss the issue with the organisations face to face and in detail. I have met their representatives to discuss the matter, as have my officials, and I have made that assurance clear. Secondly, I am prepared to make that assurance in writing to them.” ²⁶

39. The Committee notes the significant level of concern expressed by National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland in respect of the order-making powers in Part 2 of the Bill. The Committee welcomes the comments from the Minister stating that he is in discussion with the two organisations involved and further welcomes his commitment to put the assurances he gave the organisations in writing to them. Notwithstanding its comments in paragraphs 46 and 47 of this report, the Committee recommends that the Minister continue this dialogue with National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland to ensure that, as far as possible, all their concerns have been satisfactorily resolved.

Wider issues

40. Other submissions to the Committee highlighted a wider concern about the overall justification for Part 2 of the Bill. The concerns focussed on issues such as why it was considered necessary to bring forward such proposals in the first place; whether a consequence of the powers would be a diminishing level of appropriate scrutiny of any change; and why this part of the Bill had not been subject to appropriate consultation.

41. The Scottish Government’s Public Bodies Division provided supplementary written evidence²⁷ on this issue to the Committee in advance of the Minister for Children and Early Years’ appearance.

42. When the Minister gave oral evidence to the Committee it questioned him on many of these concerns.

43. The Minister gave the example of the Joint Inspections of Children’s Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Bill, which had to be delivered through primary legislation when it might have been better, given the need for urgency, to have been able to use secondary legislation to effect the necessary changes. The Minister suggested that using primary legislation in certain instances may be disproportionate to the nature of the changes being proposed. The Minister also noted that any orders brought forward under Part 2 of the Bill would be subject to the “super-affirmative”²⁸ subordinate legislation procedure and would therefore be subject both to consultation and to parliamentary scrutiny.²⁹

44. The Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution also gave evidence on this issue when he appeared before the Committee. He also sought to reassure the Committee on the scope of the order-making powers and how they would be used—

“There is perhaps understandable, but unwarranted, concern that the powers could be used to undermine the autonomy of bodies, and that they could allow improper ministerial intervention in their functions. Some consultees have expressed fears that use of the Part 2 powers would not be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as would the amendment primary legislation for the same purpose.

I assure Parliament that the order-making powers in section 10 of the Bill would allow ministers to introduce proposals only for the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions. The powers are subject to stringent statutory safeguards: proposals must be proportionate to the policy objective, they cannot remove any necessary protection from existing legislation, and new or modified functions must be consistent with the general objective or purpose of the body in question. Therefore, the order-making powers cannot be used to remove any necessary protection from an organisation, unless equivalent or similar protections are put in place.”³⁰

45. The Committee notes the Ministers comments regarding the order-making powers contained in Part 2 of the Bill and the various safeguards which the Bill would establish to determine both the scope of the powers and their use.

46. However, the Committee remains concerned that the order-making powers could have consequences not intended by the current Scottish Government. The Committee also has concerns that because, by its very nature, secondary legislation is not subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as primary legislation, the powers could be used in a way which was not proportionate to the changes being effected. The Committee is also disappointed that this part of the Bill was not sufficiently consulted upon.

47. The Committee therefore recommends that the Scottish Government reconsiders the order-making powers contained in Part 2 of the Bill in light of the concerns expressed to the Committee in evidence.

Part 3 – Creative Scotland

Creative Scotland Bill

48. The Committee was the lead committee at Stage 1 of the Creative Scotland Bill (“the previous bill”),³¹ which fell on 18 June 2008, as a result of the Parliament not agreeing its Financial Resolution.

49. The Committee published its Stage 1 report³² on the Creative Scotland Bill on 2 June 2008. As much of the content of that bill has been transferred to the Creative Scotland sections of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, and given that the Committee took a significant amount of written and oral evidence on the previous bill, the Committee believes its Stage 1 report still has relevance to this process and therefore recommends that the Scottish Government take account of its conclusions and recommendations in this process, along with any additional recommendations made in this Report.

50. The Committee received 50 written submissions on Part 3 (Creative Scotland) of the Bill. Many of the issues raised were on-going from the consideration of the previous bill.

Functions created by Part 3

51. When giving evidence to the Committee on the current Bill, the Scottish Government’s Bill team outlined its thinking since the fall of the previous bill—

“[…] the Government has taken very seriously the opportunity to address the various criticisms of that bill that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee made in its Stage 1 report last summer. Ministers are proposing a clearer and more coherent remit for the body, with six general functions. The day-to-day exercise of artistic judgment in delivering those functions will rightly be a matter entirely for Creative Scotland, which will be set at arm's length from the Government.”³³

52. The Bill establishes six general functions for Creative Scotland in section 27; an expansion of the four functions detailed in the previous bill.

Creative industries
53. The significant addition to these functions is a reference to Creative Scotland having responsibility for the creative industries and other commercial activity.

54. The Scottish Government published its Creative Industries Partnership Report³⁴ in June 2009. This was the result of the work of the Creative Industries Framework Agreement Implementation Group, jointly chaired by the Scottish Government and COSLA. This report outlined how Creative Scotland would be expected to deliver the expected outcomes for the creative industries.

55. The Committee questioned Scottish Government officials on whether Creative Scotland would be the lead agency for the creative industries, and it was confirmed that the new agency would have “a lead coordinating role in supporting the creative industries.”³⁵ The other leading partners in that relationship would be Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Scottish Government and the 32 local authorities in Scotland.

56. The Federation of Scottish Theatre was amongst several organisations which expressed concern about how the creative industries, wider industry and commercial activities would be supported in practice, telling the Committee—

“Currently, the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen cover about six of the 13 creative industries that are listed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, so we are concerned about how a small organisation will be able to cover those other seven creative industries in a sensible way. Assurances notwithstanding, we are also concerned about the fact that the Bill does not exclude the possibility of funding having to be provided for those other areas as well.”³⁶

57. However, the Scottish Storytelling Centre told the Committee that it felt the Bill had improved in relation to this previously contentious issue—

“[…] the narrowing of paragraph (f) with regard to the definition of commercial activity, the primary focus of which is the application of creative skills, is a huge improvement.”³⁷

58. The Committee notes concerns raised about how creative industries and commercial activities would be supported by Creative Scotland. The Committee also notes the comments made by the Scottish Government that Creative Scotland would be the lead coordinating agency rather than the lead development agency for the creative industries.

59. The Committee recognises that how the relationship between Creative Scotland and the creative industries would work in practice was a significant issue during consideration of the Creative Scotland Bill. Whilst welcoming the clarity provided in respect of the functions of the new body created under Part 3 of the Bill, the Committee notes that this relationship is yet to be tested.

60. The Committee believes that a coordination and partnership approach should be the key to Creative Scotland’s success with regard to the creative industries. The Committee recommends that all necessary steps be taken to ensure that this joint working has the necessary foundations for success, perhaps through guidance issued by the Minister, and calls on the Scottish Government to provide, before Stage 2, further details of how it will ensure this.

Structure
61. When giving evidence to the Committee, the Minister said that the structure of Creative Scotland was currently under consideration by Creative Scotland 2009 Ltd, and that proposals were due to be brought forward shortly. The Minister stressed that it was important that the process of detailing the structure of Creative Scotland be properly completed and that he should not pre-empt this. However, the Minister did state that “much will ride”³⁸ on the structure of the organisation.

62. The Committee notes the Minister’s comment that the exact structure of the new organisation is not yet known. The Committee agrees with the Minister that the structure of the new body will play a significant role in determining the extent to which it is able to achieve its aims in an efficient and beneficial fashion for both the cultural and creative sectors in Scotland and the people of Scotland. The Committee therefore recommends that proposals for the structure of Creative Scotland be published by the Scottish Government as soon as is practicable, to allow for constructive engagement of relevant partners and the wider cultural and creative sectors.

Definitions
63. The issue of the lack of definitions of terms such as ‘art’, ‘culture’ and ‘creativity’, which caused concern during the consideration of the previous bill, remained a concern for some. The Scottish Government holds the view, as it did during consideration of the previous bill, that such definitions would not be helpful due to their likely restrictive nature.³⁹

64. The Scottish Artists Union remarked—

“[…] it has been said that the principal reason why the word "artist" has not been used is that using that word would result in an obligation to define it. However, as we have already heard, the Government is satisfied that it does not need to define words such as "art", "culture" or "creativity". That is welcome; we believe that, too. Equally, we believe that the word "artist" does not need to be defined but that it needs to be used in the Bill if artists are to be at the heart of what Creative Scotland will do—the minister has taken great pains of late to say that they will be there. If artists are to be at the heart of what Creative Scotland does, their absence from the Bill seems a little bit strange.”⁴⁰

65. When the Minister gave evidence to the Committee he commented on this point, stating that—

“[…] there is a focus on the creator. That can be defined in many ways. One of the difficulties of defining "the artist" in legal terms is that we might end up with a definition that includes only a man or woman with a paintbrush, so we have to be slightly careful in the language that is used. However, I do not believe that we can have a cultural policy that does not have at its heart the artist and the creator—you cannot have a railway without trains.”⁴¹

66. The Committee notes that the UK Department of Media, Culture and Sport defines 13 industries as making up the creative industries. The Committee also notes the differences of opinion in the sector in trying to define specific terms and is therefore of the view that attempting to provide definitions of terms such as ‘art’, ‘culture’ and ‘creativity’ in the Bill would be overly restrictive and possibly counter-productive.

67. The Committee notes the point raised by the Scottish Artists Union with regard to the absence of the word ‘artist’ from the Bill and believes that, as with other terms used in the Bill, the term could be used in the Bill, or in guidance, without need for a specific definition.

‘National culture’
68. Another addition to the revised functions of the proposed new agency is a reference to Creative Scotland providing support for “creative endeavours which contribute to an understanding of Scotland’s national culture.”⁴²

69. There is no definition of ‘national culture’ in this context in the Bill, but the Policy Memorandum offers a definition—

“[…] any form of creativity which adds to our collective understanding of our distinctive national culture in its broadest sense – as a way of life. Artistic and creative output necessarily represents, describes, explores, responds to and sometimes challenges Scotland’s culture. In doing this it also in itself adds to and is part of that culture.”⁴³

70. The Royal Society of Edinburgh cautioned against the assumption that ‘national culture’ comprises a single, finite body of work and argued that the phrase ‘cultures of Scotland’ would better capture the wide variety of culture across Scotland.

71. However, the Scottish Government, when questioned on this issue, confirmed its confidence in the appropriateness of the wording in the Policy Memorandum, and this position was supported by a representative from the Scottish Storytelling Centre, who said—

“I think that the term "national culture" is quite an important form of words and definition […] I think that the phrase brings Scottish cultural policy more into line with some of the international frameworks than would a phrase such as "cultures of Scotland", which seems to me to be pretty woolly.”⁴⁴

72. The Committee notes that some concerns were expressed regarding the use of the term ‘national culture’, but believes its use is appropriate as a broad and all-encompassing term. The Committee is also pleased to note that a definition of ‘national culture’ is given in the Policy Memorandum that accompanies the Bill.

Wider policy environment

Background
73. A recurring theme in written evidence to the Committee concerned a perceived lack of clarity about how Creative Scotland would relate to the wider policy environment, such as partner organisations and the five national performing companies.

74. The Scottish Government told the Committee that the expectation was that Creative Scotland would work very closely with a wide range of partners, and would have key relationships with the enterprise agencies, local authorities and the national performing companies. However, officials did recognise that there had been concerns about how these relationships would work in practice—

“The Government has been conscious of that sense of a lack of clarity and feels that progress has been made already through the creative industries framework agreement, which at the beginning of the year set out the respective roles, and through the creative industries partnership, which puts some meat on the bones of that framework and explains in more detail what the various roles are. That partnership exists already. The feedback from those who have seen it suggests that people have found it helpful.”⁴⁵

Enterprise agencies
75. The relationship between the proposed new agency and the existing enterprise agencies was a significant issue during consideration of the previous bill and questions on this issue were put to Scottish Government officials when they appeared before the Committee. Officials outlined how the relationship would be structured—

“In the field of the creative industries, which is where the closest contact will be, under the terms of the Scottish creative industries partnership that was agreed at the end of May, Creative Scotland will be responsible for convening a co-ordination group, the membership of which will include Scottish Enterprise and HIE, as well as other delivery agents. That co-ordination group will meet regularly to ensure that the various partners are tied in properly and that their efforts are all in line.”⁴⁶

76. Stakeholders who gave oral evidence to the Committee indicated that this was an area that had been improved in the Bill, compared to the previous bill.

77. It was also felt that the issue of possible transfer of funds from the enterprise agencies to Creative Scotland, which had been another significant issue during consideration of the previous bill, had now been clarified following the Minister’s comments that there would be no transfer of funds—

“The decision not to subsume the budgets and responsibilities of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise into creative Scotland was sensible. It would have been incredibly difficult to unpick an organisation to put it into another in that sense.”⁴⁷

78. Scottish Enterprise called the proposals in the Bill in this regard “crystal clear”.⁴⁸

79. The Committee acknowledges that the Scottish Government has provided greater clarity in the Bill, compared to the Creative Scotland Bill, on the issues of both the relationship between Creative Scotland and the enterprise agencies, and the possible transfer of funds. However, the Committee also notes that the practicalities of this relationship, particularly with regard to responsibility for the distribution of funds, for example to artists and businesses, will need to evolve over time and that all the relevant partners should give such practicalities particular attention.

Local authorities
80. The issue of Creative Scotland’s relationship with local authorities remains an on-going issue from the previous bill. Several local authorities submitted written evidence that revealed a potential tension between local authorities’ lead role in delivering public services and the work of Creative Scotland in relation to participation in, and access to, the arts and culture.

81. When questioned on this issue, a Scottish Government official told the Committee—

“It is not the intention that Creative Scotland should duplicate that work or take anything away from local authorities' responsibility for it. Local authorities and Creative Scotland will make their various contributions by developing the single outcome agreements. Local authorities have clear responsibility for delivering those single outcome agreements and creative Scotland will have an advisory role.”⁴⁹

82. Responding to this, the Federation of Scottish Theatre said that—

“[…] the Bill should provide some kind of mandate for Creative Scotland and local authorities to work together, given that they are such critical parts of the provision of arts and culture. [Officials] said that Creative Scotland will have a co-ordinating role in involving local authorities and Scottish Enterprise in the creative industries agreement but an advisory role in liaising with local authorities on broader artistic provision. I would like that to be a co-ordinating role rather than an advisory role. For me, that side of the Bill needs to be strengthened.”⁵⁰

83. The Minister told the Committee that he did not favour placing any statutory duty on local authorities in terms of the support of cultural activities at a local level. He considered that cooperation and encouragement would be more likely to achieve success. He also stated that he had agreed to convene a joint meeting, with COSLA, with all local authorities in Scotland to discuss the relationship between Creative Scotland and local government.⁵¹

84. The Committee notes the points raised in connection with the relationship between Creative Scotland and local authorities. The Committee acknowledges the role of local authorities in delivering public services and believes it to be essential that, when the Bill has been enacted, Creative Scotland’s relationship with all local authorities is clearly understood and adds value.

85. The Committee notes that the practicalities of this relationship would benefit from further clarification and therefore welcomes the Minister’s intention to continue to engage with local authorities on this matter. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government and COSLA make every effort to ensure the relationship between Creative Scotland and local authorities is as clearly set out as possible, through dialogue with all relevant parties and, if necessary, guidance, with particular attention being given to the issue of responsibility for funding.

Funding

86. The issue of the funding of Creative Scotland was a significant concern during the consideration of the previous bill and continued to give rise to concerns in evidence given to the Committee on this Bill. The primary issue of concern was that Creative Scotland would have a wider remit than its antecedent bodies (the Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen), but would not have any additional funding.

87. The Scottish Government responded to these concerns by suggesting that the main impact of the enhanced remit of the new agency was largely a matter of increased coordination between the partner organisations, which did not require additional funding.⁵²

88. The Scottish Government also stated that efficiency savings of approximately £1.2 million a year, resulting from replacing two organisations with one new body, would give Creative Scotland savings to direct where it might wish.⁵³

89. It was also confirmed by Scottish Government officials that it was not yet clear whether the new agency would have charitable status, as such status might impose “certain limitations that it does not need.”⁵⁴ Officials estimated that the absence of the charitable status currently held by the antecedent bodies would cost the new body about £300,000 a year. It was suggested that this money could possibly be recouped through increasing use of centralised procurement.

90. During detailed questioning by the Committee, Scottish Government officials attempted to provide clarity on the proposed efficiency savings and the funds that would be available to the new body—

“The efficiency savings that are estimated in the Financial Memorandum would come from three sources: first, recurrent savings from the reduction in the new body's payroll bill as a result of a reduction in staff numbers; secondly, the streamlining of business processes that will happen when, for example, a single information technology system is put in place; and thirdly, the initial, one-off savings that will arise when the two existing organisations form one new body, such as the saving from having a single telephony system.”⁵⁵

91. The Committee questioned the Minister on this issue in an attempt to obtain greater clarity. The Minister rejected any suggestion that the new body was being asked to deliver a wider set of functions with reduced or static funding and offered a number of reasons to support his position—

“The first reason is that the budget that exists will be enhanced by the synergies between the organisations […] there will be efficiencies as a result of the two organisations being put together. We are not clawing back any money from the organisations, which means that, if the organisations operate in the way that we expect them to by bringing services together and so on, they will have a larger pot to distribute […] The second reason is that there is access to new money in this arrangement that does not exist within the existing organisations as it involves enterprise resources from Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, local authority business gateways and so on. There is a range of business opportunities that apply directly to the creative industries and which the arrangement that we will put in place will allow creative companies to access […] The third reason involves a point that everyone around this table will be aware of. We live in difficult financial times. From the draft budget, it is clear that we are operating under severe restrictions [...] I have worked hard to protect the resources for Creative Scotland in its first year of existence […] Finally […] we have also put in place the new innovation fund, which is worth £5 million and will encourage some new work and activity to kick-start the new organisation.”⁵⁶

92. The Minister and his officials were also questioned on whether the new organisation would carry forward the pension deficits of its antecedent bodies. An official told the Committee that—

“[…] costs relating to the formation of the new organisation will be covered by the Government's guarantee to meet transition costs. That will include, in the context of pension deficits, any shortfall that needs to be made up at this stage as a requirement placed on us by the trustees of the pension scheme. If a shortfall does not need to be made up at this stage, the pension deficit will remain on account with the pension scheme and it will be dealt with in due course, as would be the case for any organisation.”⁵⁷

93. The Committee notes the concerns raised in evidence on the issue of funding, particularly that the new organisation would be asked to deliver a wider set of functions than its antecedent bodies without additional funding.

94. The Committee also notes the Minister’s explanation of the funding of the new organisation.

95. The Minister undertook to provide further clarification in a letter to the Committee on the issue of the funding of Creative Scotland but, unfortunately, his letter was not received before the Committee agreed this report. The Committee remains concerned that the level of funding available to Creative Scotland may not be sufficiently high to enable it to achieve its broad and ambitious objectives and recommends that the Scottish Government gives further thought to how this potential shortfall might be met. Accordingly, the Committee recommends to the Finance Committee that it continue to seek clarification of these matters from the Scottish Government.

Staffing

96. Concern was raised in evidence to the Committee that the Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Bill detailed a potential 19% reduction in staffing levels, equivalent to 30 full time posts. Some submissions argued that reduced staffing numbers and a static budget, to support a new organisation with a broader remit than its antecedent bodies, created a tension that would have an impact on what the organisation could realistically achieve.

97. The Explanatory Notes explain that these staffing savings would not be achieved through compulsory redundancy, but through natural wastage, redeployment and re-skilling and, if necessary, a voluntary early severance/ retirement scheme.

98. The Scottish Government told the Committee that there would not necessarily be a reduction in staff numbers—

“The projections in the Financial Memorandum are based on the assumption that about 19 per cent of posts can be saved by combining back-office functions. However, that is not to say that we necessarily expect a reduction in staff. The level of staffing that Creative Scotland can sustain will depend on the grant in aid that is available to it, and it is expected that some of the staff who carry out functions that will, as a result of the removal of duplication, no longer be needed will be available to take on other tasks.”⁵⁸

99. The Minister confirmed in evidence to the Committee that he had met with the staff of both antecedent bodies and also with relevant trades unions, and intends to do so again to continue discussion on this issue.⁵⁹

100. The Committee notes a lack of clarity surrounding whether there will be a reduction in the staffing numbers for the new organisation compared to its antecedent bodies. The Committee welcomes the commitment from the Scottish Government that there will be no compulsory redundancies and acknowledges that the staff numbers and responsibilities will, to some extent, be dependant on the organisational structure of the new body. The Committee notes the concerns raised in evidence regarding the potential impact any substantial reduction in staffing could have on Creative Scotland’s ability to deliver on its objectives. The Committee further notes that, at the time he gave evidence to the Committee, the Minister was awaiting details of a proposed structure from Creative Scotland 2009 Ltd. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government provide clarification on the issue of staffing once details of the organisational structure have been confirmed.

Ministerial direction/relationship with Scottish Ministers

101. Some in the sector were concerned about the ‘arm’s length principle’, i.e. how independent from government the new agency would be and what influence Scottish Ministers would have over issues such as artistic direction.

102. This issue had been particularly significant during the consideration of the previous bill, with disagreement in the sector between those who felt the position arrived at was a suitable compromise; those who felt it did not go far enough; and those who felt it went too far.

103. The Scottish Government told the Committee that it believed that section 30(2) of the Bill would prevent Ministers from making any direction which would impact on the new agency’s artistic judgement.

104. Giving evidence to the Committee, the Minister added that—

“The Bill provides solid protection for the arm's-length principle. There is no change to the current situation. […] it is important to understand that the arm's-length principle is an operational matter that guides decision making in and along the art forms. It is not the overall policy direction in the bill. If that were the case, there would be anarchy. If we simply left artistic activity to other organisations, we would not be able to have an arts or cultural policy in Scotland as we would not be able to define it in a bill.⁶⁰”

105. The Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s attempts, through the Bill, clearly to establish an arm’s length principle between central government and Creative Scotland. Notwithstanding the concerns raised earlier in the report with regard to the order-making powers in Part 2 of the Bill, the Committee has no significant concerns that the Bill would allow an inappropriate level of ministerial involvement in Creative Scotland.

Governance

106. Schedule 5 to the Bill details the proposal that Creative Scotland would be established as a body corporate, chaired by a person appointed to the post by Scottish Ministers, with between eight and 14 other members appointed in the same way, for terms that Ministers deem appropriate. It also details provisions relating to the removal of members, disqualifications from membership, appointment of a Chief Executive and the establishment of committees.

107. Comments on the governance aspects of the Bill in written evidence to the Committee included a submission from COSLA⁶¹, suggesting that a representative from local government should sit on the board of Creative Scotland; a submission from Aberdeen City Council⁶², expressing a preference for a structure based on regional areas to enable better understanding of local issues; and a submission from Publishing Scotland⁶³, expressing a desire that the subject expertise implicit in the present Scottish Arts Council structure be retained by Creative Scotland so that its decision-making and strategic thinking would have a depth of experience and knowledge of the separate art forms involved with the organisation.

108. Responding to concerns regarding the make-up of the board, a Scottish Government official told the Committee—

“[the Minister] remains of the view that the way in which to ensure that the board has a sufficiently broad skills mix to direct creative Scotland is to recruit through open and fair competition, in accordance with the principles of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland code. The minister does not believe that it would be helpful for the sector or the organisation to reserve places on the board for representatives of particular sectors.”⁶⁴

109. The Committee believes it would be counter-productive to reserve places on the board of Creative Scotland for specific organisations and that it is proper for the board to be recruited as outlined in the Bill and its supporting documents.

Royal Charter status
110. The Royal Society of Edinburgh commented, in its written evidence to the Committee, on the issue of Royal Charter status, saying that it—

“[...] notes with regret the dissolution of the Royal Charter of the Scottish Arts Council and the fact that Creative Scotland will not be established by Royal Charter. A Royal Charter provides a measure of independence. We are concerned that the dissolution of the Royal Charter will mean that Creative Scotland will not be sufficiently independent of government direction […]”⁶⁵

111. The Committee asked the Scottish Government for its views on the Royal Society of Edinburgh’s comments on Royal Charter status, and it said that—

“The Government's view has been that it is important to give creative Scotland a statutory footing through the democratic process. Forming it by Royal Charter would not have done that.”⁶⁶

112. The Committee notes the concerns expressed by the Royal Society of Edinburgh with regard to Creative Scotland not being established by Royal Charter and the Scottish Government’s response to this.

Conclusions

113. The Committee has considered Part 3 (Creative Scotland) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill with interest, following the fall of the previous Creative Scotland bill, on which the Committee had been lead committee. The Committee acknowledges that the Scottish Government has moved to address many of the concerns that were raised in its Stage 1 report on the previous bill and in the Stage 1 debate in the Parliament, and has provided greater clarity on a number of important issues.

114. Creative Scotland has had a very long incubation period and the Committee is agreed that any further delay and uncertainty regarding its establishment would damage the sector. The Committee therefore believes it is important that Creative Scotland becomes fully established as soon as possible.

115. The Committee therefore asks the Finance Committee to recommend to the Parliament that, subject to the recommendations contained in this report, it approve the general principles of Part 3 of the Bill.

parts 4 and 6: Social care and social work issues

116. Under the Bill, a new body, to be known as Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS), would be established. This body would be an NDPB and would be intended to be “the national body for the improvement and scrutiny of local authority social work services and registered care services.”⁶⁷ It would, amongst other things, take on most of the functions currently exercised by the Commission for the Regulation of Care (the Care Commission), which would be dissolved. The Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA) would also be dissolved. The new body would also undertake joint inspections of children’s services, which would be extended to include adult social services. It is intended that the lead responsibility for these inspections would transfer from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) to SCSWIS.

Views on Part 4

General views: simplification
117. The provisions of the Bill in relation to social work and social care were generally welcomed in the written and oral evidence received by the Committee. However, a few organisations voiced concerns that the Bill did not go far enough in terms of simplification of the improvement and scrutiny of the sector. COSLA, for example, remarked in its written submission that—

“It is COSLA’s view that for the benefit of delivering shared, cross-cutting outcomes, building on and sharing good practice, increasing efficiencies, and reducing the burden and cost of scrutiny across the public sector equally, all publicly-funded bodies should eventually come within the orbit of a single scrutiny agency, in line with the Crerar Review report. Nonetheless, we accept that the scale of the culture and organisational changes that this entails will mean that this reform programme will require development over the longer term.”⁶⁸

118. COSLA went on to say that it supports the creation of Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland, “but as a transitional arrangement in the drive to reduce the burden of scrutiny.”⁶⁹

119. A similar point was made by Highland Council, which called the Bill, “a missed opportunity to combine the regulation of health, care and education into one organisation.”⁷⁰

120. The City of Edinburgh Council also echoed this point, commenting that although the fundamental principles that flowed from the Crerar Review had been accepted by the Scottish Government, “the intention to reduce the complexity of an over-cluttered scrutiny landscape by streamlining and reducing the numbers of inspection/regulatory bodies in Scotland appears to have been lost in the drafting of the Bill.”⁷¹

Extent of integration of functions
121. Some organisations, including Children 1st and Community Care Providers Scotland (CCPS), while welcoming the establishment of SCSWIS, expressed some concern over whether a proper integration of functions would be achieved under the Bill or whether the existing functions would simply be brought together within one organisation. Children 1st, for example, stated in its submission—

“Children 1st has some concern regarding the amount of cohesion and integration provisioned for in the creation of SCSWIS. Our concern is that rather than creating a cohesive system of scrutiny, the Bill’s proposals may in fact merely have joined together the existing functions of the different social care bodies without taking sufficient care to ensure complete and effective integration of the bodies’ respective systems and processes.”⁷²

122. CCPS, while welcoming the provision in the Bill that ministers would be able to publish standards that would apply both to care services and to commissioning and procurement functions within local authorities, noted that national care standards currently apply only to care services. CCPS supported the development of a system “in which both commissioners and providers of services are assessed and held to account for their performance against a common and co-ordinated set of measures and standards.”⁷³ However, CCPS argued in its written submission that while SCSWIS would be able to take enforcement action in relation to care services, it would not have similar powers in relation to the commissioning authority, and concluded that this was “anomalous within a scrutiny system which government claims to be ‘cohesive.’ ”⁷⁴

123. Responding to the prospect of local authorities becoming more accountable in respect of their commissioning and procurement functions, ADSW stated, in oral evidence to the Committee, that it did not think that local authorities would have “any difficulty with that.”⁷⁵

124. The Minister told the Committee, on this point, that SCSWIS would—

“[…] be able to check the social work route that led the older person to the care home, whether the care home is the right place for the older person, and whether the care home provides a good service to the older person that improves their quality of life. Only one body, SCSWIS, can do all the checks that ensure that our older person gets the right service and that the service meets their needs.”⁷⁶

125. The Committee also questioned the Minister on the more general integration points covered above, and, in particular, on the questions of whether SCSWIS would operate with a single set of measures in relation to all its inspection functions and whether it would be given powers to deal with complaints on all the services that it would have powers to inspect.

126. The Minister for Children and Early Years told the Committee—

“[…] it is a matter of bringing SWIA and the care commission together and integrating their methodologies and their standards and performance of scrutiny. The focus for that lies in improving outcomes for the service user. For that to happen, we need a whole-systems approach, from the planning of services through to their commissioning and delivery.”⁷⁷

127. In relation to the question of rationalisation of the different sets of standards currently in existence, the Minister stated—

“Clearly, the standards to which the care commission works are different from those to which SWIA operates. The new body will be asked to focus in particular on outcome measures and to put in place standards that will drive matters forward. Obviously, one of the new body’s tasks will be to set standards and outcome measures for the delivery of local authority activities such as the commissioning of services. I also anticipate that the new body will be able to provide guidance to local authorities on how to meet the standards and on best practice. We already have a lot of information to hand on that front.”⁷⁸

Status of new body
128. As noted above, SCSWIS would have NDPB status, whereas SWIA and HMIE, from whom SCSWIS would inherit many functions, are executive agencies. SWIA commented that—

“SWIA has played an important role in helping Scottish Government develop evidence based policy in social work across the three portfolio areas of Children and Young People, Criminal Justice and Community Care. Nearly all inspectors and senior managers are members of policy working groups of the Scottish Government. There is no doubt that both the new body and Scottish Government policy officials will have to make strenuous efforts to ensure that this evidence based professional advice is still routinely available and professional expertise utilised as fully as it currently is. The different status of HMIE as an executive agency, HIS as an independent health board and the proposal that SCSWIS will have NDPB status does not create the level playing field that Crerar envisaged and makes this issue more complex.”⁷⁹

129. HMIE made a similar point, noting that—

“The status of HMIE as an agency confers a degree of independence from Ministers and accountability to Parliament The joint inspection team based within HMIE currently enjoy close working relationships with policy colleagues. This has worked well to date particularly in areas where performance has been poor or in areas of public concern. There is a flexibility which allows a prompt response to matters of serious concern identified through inspection and to directions from Ministers e.g. in the inspection of service provision for children of asylum seekers or following the publication of the report into the death of Danielle Reid.”⁸⁰

130. SCSWIS’ status as an NDPB also raised issues for some witnesses in relation to the transfer of staff from SWIA and HMIE to the new body. Executive agency staff are civil servants, some of whom may be reluctant to leave the civil service. SWIA, for example, stated that—

“Since SWIA as an organisation will be changing status from a government agency to an NDPB, this has serious implications for staff, some of whom have spent over thirty years in the civil service and do not wish to leave. This is particularly the case amongst administrative staff, statisticians and project management staff, all of whom are essential to the effective running of the organisation as it is now and as it will become in the single body.”⁸¹

131. SWIA concluded that it was “particularly concerned over the next 18 months to ensure that the business continuity of SWIA is not jeopardised”.⁸²

132. Unison Scotland noted that “there are wide differences in the pay of those working for the Care Commission, SWIA and HMIE and these will need to be resolved”.⁸³

133. In response to these points, the Minister told the Committee—

“I am aware of concerns that have been expressed about retention of expertise, and people are clearly concerned about moving out of the civil service. Although we have to be sensitive to those issues, we will encourage people to settle down in the new body and to consider the new professional and other opportunities that will open up. That said, we will try to make the transition as easy as possible and even allow people to move back into the civil service, if they so choose. Obviously we will have to talk to the staff and the unions about this.”⁸⁴

134. The Committee questioned the Minister on issues relating to the likely relationship between SCSWIS and the Scottish Ministers regarding policy development and prompt responses to incidents of public concern. It also questioned the Minister on the possibility of disruption of the service as a consequence of issues arising from staff transfer arrangements.

135. On the question of policy development, the Minister told the Committee—

“It is important that we have written into the bill that the chief social work adviser will, of right, be a member of the board of the new body and will have access not just to the range of information that SWIA’s current chief social work inspector has, but to the whole body of evidence that will be available to the new body. It can be argued—given their access to additional information and their being at the heart of the new body on the board—that the new chief social work adviser will be in a stronger position, which is important. A strong functional link between the chief social work adviser and the new body is needed. That is written into the bill and is recognised as being important.”⁸⁵

136. Questioned about the possibility of disruption to scrutiny and inspection during the transfer process, the Minister commented—

“All the people who are currently engaged in scrutiny activity will still be engaged in that self-same scrutiny. For existing programmes and cycles of inspection, I do not anticipate any disruption at all. Clearly, the creation of new programmes or cycles of inspection will be where the new focus will be brought to bear. The senior managers and professionals within these organisations no doubt face a challenging exercise in setting out on a new regime, but they will have a couple of years or so to prepare for that changeover. I expect that we will be in a position to hit the ground running, as it were. I cannot give a 110 per cent guarantee that everything will work out swimmingly—I imagine that there will be many headaches and much midnight oil being burned—but I have every confidence in the quality of the people who work in the scrutiny system. I am sure that they will rise to the challenge.”⁸⁶

137. The Committee notes concerns raised in evidence by Unison Scotland and others regarding the transfer of staff and further notes that the Minister does not anticipate any disruption to scrutiny and inspection during the transfer process and that he has every confidence in the quality of the people who work in the scrutiny system. However, the Committee asks the Minister to spell out, in practical terms, and before Stage 2, what specific measures he will be taking to ensure that any increased degree of risk brought about as a result of the transfer process will be minimised.

Links with the Scottish Social Services Council
138. The Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) and the Care Commission raised potential concerns about the relationship between SCSWIS and the SSSC. The SSSC noted—

“There is no specific duty on SCSWIS to enforce the Code of Practice for Employers of Social Service Workers. In Clause 40 of the Bill there is a requirement that SCSWIS take the Codes of Practice into account in their work. However, we feel a clearer and stronger duty to enforce the Codes is appropriate.”⁸⁷

139. This view was supported by the Care Commission, which told the Committee, in its written submission, that it would support a stronger duty to enforce the codes of practice as “the quality of care services is dependent on having good quality staff and the quality of staff is dependent on the manner in which workers are supported, developed and managed by employers”.⁸⁸

140. The Committee questioned Scottish Government officials on whether the Scottish Government intended to create a requirement on social services employers to enforce the code of practice. Officials confirmed that—

“We are seeking to amend section 53 of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 to make it obligatory for social service workers and their employers to comply with the SSSC code of practice. That has been discussed with the SSSC.”⁸⁹

141. The Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s statement of its intention to strengthen the powers available to the new body in respect of the code of practice.

142. The SSSC raised a number of other issues about how it would work with SCSWIS including the suggestions of—

• A duty on SCSWIS to share workforce data with SSSC
  
  
• A power for SCSWIS to require social work managers to meet SSSC qualification criteria
  
  
• A requirement that a SCSWIS board member sit on the SSSC board (also supported by the Care Commission).

Joint inspections
143. Under Part 6 of the Bill, the Joint inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Act 2006, would be repealed and the lead role in joint inspections, currently with HMIE, would be taken by SCSWIS. This proposal was broadly welcomed by witnesses, although, as noted earlier, there were some concerns over whether the transition arrangements would be robust enough to avoid disruption or dilution of ongoing work on child protection. Similarly, Children in Scotland hoped that existing expertise and the holistic and integrated approach to children’s support services, would “not be compromised by this change.”⁹⁰

144. During the passage of the Joint inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Bill, the British Medical Association (BMA) had raised concerns about child protection inspection teams having powers, through “implied consent”, of retrospective access to medical records without the knowledge or consent of the person concerned. The BMA has again raised this question, stating in its submission—

”The BMA remains deeply concerned that this legislation enables access to patient identifiable data without the knowledge, consent or authorisation of the patient. We believe this could have a worrying influence on whether patients consult with their doctor, especially when they are at their most vulnerable.”⁹¹

145. The BMA submission concludes that general powers allowing patient information to be disclosed in the absence of consent and the resulting loss of patient confidentiality is “too great a cost for establishing joint inspections” and that “a balance must be found between maintaining patient confidentiality and allowing joint inspection”.⁹²

146. The Committee questioned the Minister on this point. The Minister told the Committee—

“The evidence from joint inspections of children’s services is particularly telling. No problems have emerged with the conduct of joint inspections of children’s services. […] The issue was a bone of contention at that time, but it was solved by putting together a code of practice that was agreed with health professionals in particular. Health professionals have raised the same issues this time around.

I foresee either that the current code of practice for children’s services will be appropriately amended for joint inspections of adult services or that there will be a fresh look at the code itself. Whatever happens, we need to get people round the table to agree the code of practice that will be used for joint inspections of adult services. I am sure we all agree that, for joint inspections to be effective, we need access to health records, but how to ensure confidentiality while ensuring that the appropriate information can be accessed is obviously a matter for discussion and agreement among the various professional bodies. I am confident that such agreement can be reached.”⁹³

147. The Committee has considered the submission from the British Medical Association (BMA) but concluded that the measures and safeguards contained within the guidance associated with the 2006 Act, which will be updated as part of the arrangements for the current Bill, when enacted, are sufficiently robust to maintain a balance between the need for patient confidentiality and the overriding need for appropriate access to medical records for inspection purposes. The Committee therefore welcomes the Minister’s statement that further discussions with relevant bodies would take place in due course.

Financial issues
148. The Committee received a number of comments in relation to the Financial Memorandum for Parts 4 and 6 of the Bill. COSLA, although acknowledging that there would be some transition costs, expected the creation of the new body to “accord with the overall commitment to reduce the cost of scrutiny”.⁹⁴ Unison Scotland remarked in its written submission that it was “not convinced that the anticipated savings, as outlined in the Financial Memorandum, will occur – even in the longer term”.⁹⁵ Unison did not believe, in particular, that money set aside for funding areas such as voluntary redundancies would be sufficient.

149. The Minister advised the Committee that Parts 4 and 6 of the Bill were not intended as a money-saving exercise, telling members that “the aim of the changes is not, primarily, to save money, although we would not expect the new body to cost more to operate than the current bodies”.⁹⁶ He also noted that it was anticipated that, “continuing savings of about £1.6 million to £1.8million a year”⁹⁷ would be expected to be made after 2014, relative to the current position.

150. Some witnesses raised the question of the current funding of the Care Commission through registration fees. CCPS told the Committee—

“The independent service providers have to build the fee into the cost of their service and their contract price, only to hand it straight back to another public body. That has always seemed to us to be hugely inefficient, and the creation of a new body presents an opportunity to scrap fees and fund regulation centrally.

There is a tenuous link with the fees in a system in which there is just the care commission, in that service providers pay for the service that the care commission provides. However, providers will be a relatively small part of the new body, so what their fees are used for will become even more opaque than it currently is. […] some of our members are paying up to £300,000 annually for care commission fees, which is public money that they require to get from their purchasers and then pass back. The Bill presents a great opportunity to end that system once and for all and to fund the work centrally, which would cut out all the transaction costs along the line. Here endeth the lesson.”⁹⁸

151. Questioned on this by the Committee, Scottish Government officials supporting the Minister commented—

“We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed about that by the voluntary and private sector providers in particular. Officials and the Government have examined the issue closely. The reality is that some £13 million of the care commission’s funding is currently generated by fees. It would be very problematic in the current economic climate to shift away from that.

I know that there is a view that there is, in effect, a roundabout of public sector money that flows from Government to the local authorities and on to the partner providers with which the local authorities commission services. It is highly doubtful, however, that any real savings could be achieved if we moved away from that position to one in which, for example, the moneys were paid direct to the local authority. We are, for a number of practical reasons, not in a position to move away from the current arrangements.”⁹⁹

152. The Committee acknowledges the view expressed by Community Care Providers Scotland (CCPS) and others regarding the current requirement for voluntary and private sector operators to pay registration fees to the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Care Commission). The Committee notes the Scottish Government’s view that it would “be very problematic”¹⁰⁰ to move from this position, particularly in the current climate. The Committee also notes the argument that the charging and registration regime helps to cement the current status of the Care Commission as an independent body.

153. The Committee also notes the conflicting positions of, on the one hand, Unison Scotland, which was “not convinced”¹⁰¹ that the anticipated savings set out in the Financial Memorandum would occur, and, on the other hand, COSLA, which expected the creation of the new body to “accord with the overall commitment to reduce the cost of scrutiny.”¹⁰²

Overall conclusions on Parts 4 and 6

154. The Committee generally welcomes the Bill’s proposals to streamline the present scrutiny and inspection arrangements in respect of social work, social care and children’s services, which it believes should lead to improved outcomes, especially in relation to rationalisation of the different sets of standards currently applying in different types of inspections.

155. The Committee also welcomes the proposed integration of the current functions of the Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA) and the Care Commission, which would bring together scrutiny and inspection of care services and their commissioning and procurement under the responsibility of one agency.

156. The Committee, although recognising that this matter may be tangential to consideration of the general principles of this Bill, asks the Minister to consider the evidence provided by CCPS, with a view to exploring the possibilities of placing a duty on local authorities to have regard to the Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) reports on the quality of care being provided under existing contracts with voluntary and private sector care providers, before making decisions to re-tender such contracts.

157. The Committee’s overriding concern is to ensure that the transfer of staff and functions to the new organisation does not lead to any loss of focus and corresponding increased risk to children or other vulnerable groups. The Committee therefore calls on the Minister for Children and Early Years to ensure that all possible steps are taken to ensure that there is no increase in risk as a result of the transfer.

158. The Committee understands the Scottish Government’s intentions in respect of Parts 4 and 6 of the Bill and anticipates a continuing improvement of standards of scrutiny following the Bill’s enactment, should it be passed by the Parliament. The Committee shares the Scottish Government’s intention in respect of social work and social care services but notes that there is a danger that the changes could be simply administrative and structural changes and that real improvements will require ongoing effort and commitment from the staff and management of the new agency. The Committee urges the Scottish Government to make every effort to ensure that SCSWIS is established as a genuinely new and dynamic organisation that will be able to bring about sustained improvement in scrutiny standards across the sector.

159. Subject to the comments above, the Committee recommends to the Finance Committee endorsement of the general principles of the Bill in respect of Parts 4 and 6.

Conclusions on the bill

160. The Committee has considered only those proposals contained in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill that fall within its remit, that is, in the main, the simplification of public bodies including the abolition of HEACS (Part 1), the order-making powers in respect of public bodies (Part 2), the establishment of Creative Scotland (Part 3) and the provisions in relation to social work and care services, including the establishment of SCSWIS as a replacement for SWIA and the Care Commission (Parts 4 and 6). The Committee’s conclusions on each of these aspects of the Bill are contained within the relevant section of the report.

161. Overall, the Committee accepts the Scottish Government’s intention to modernise the scrutiny landscape and, where appropriate, rationalise the functions and reduce the number of scrutiny bodies. The Committee is, therefore, subject to the comments and recommendations made in the relevant sections of the report, broadly content with the proposals in respect of social work and care services, the abolition of HEACS and the establishment of Creative Scotland and recommends to the Finance Committee that it supports the general principles of the Bill as far as these parts of it are concerned.

162. However, the Committee agrees that the provisions in Part 2, which effectively would give current and future ministers powers to amend the functions of, or even dissolve, large numbers of public bodies through secondary legislation and with limited parliamentary scrutiny, would tip the balance between the scrutiny function of the Parliament and the executive powers of ministers heavily in favour of the latter.

163. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Finance Committee should support the general principles of the Bill, subject to the removal of Part 2.¹⁰³

summary of conclusions and recommendations

Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland (HEACS)
64. The Committee notes the concerns expressed in evidence regarding the dissolution of HEACS. In particular, the Committee notes the concerns expressed by some organisations which submitted evidence to the Committee regarding the ability of Historic Scotland to provide independent advice and fulfil the role and functions formerly undertaken by HEACS to a level expected by the historic environment sector. (paragraphs 12-25)

165. The Committee notes the comments made by Historic Scotland in its submission to the Committee regarding the establishment of a new Historic Environment Strategy Forum and recommends that the Minister continues to work closely with Historic Scotland, former members of HEACS and the wider historic environment sector, to ensure that the concerns expressed in evidence to the Committee are appropriately considered. (paragraphs 12-25)

Part 2 – order-making powers: Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People
166. The Committee shares the concerns raised by Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People (SCCP) regarding the inclusion of his office in the list of bodies covered by Part 2 of the Bill. (paragraphs 31-32)

167. The Committee welcomes the commitment given by the Minister for Children and Early Years that the Scottish Government will give serious consideration to removing Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People from the list of organisations which are affected by Part 2 of the Bill. The Committee supports such a removal and recommends that the Scottish Government brings forward an amendment at Stage 2 to that effect. (paragraphs 31-32)

Part 2 – order-making powers: National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland
168. The Committee notes the significant level of concern expressed by National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland in respect of the order-making powers in Part 2 of the Bill. The Committee welcomes the comments from the Minister stating that he is in discussion with the two organisations involved and further welcomes his commitment to put the assurances he gave the organisations in writing to them. Notwithstanding its comments in paragraphs 46 and 47 of this report, the Committee recommends that the Minister continue this dialogue with National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland to ensure that, as far as possible, all their concerns have been satisfactorily resolved. (paragraphs 35-38)

Part 2 – order-making powers: wider issues
169. The Committee notes the Ministers comments regarding the order-making powers contained in Part 2 of the Bill and the various safeguards which the Bill would establish to determine both the scope of the powers and their use. (paragraphs 40-44)

170. However, the Committee remains concerned that the order-making powers could have consequences not intended by the current Scottish Government. The Committee also has concerns that because, by its very nature, secondary legislation is not subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as primary legislation, the powers could be used in a way which was not proportionate to the changes being effected. The Committee is also disappointed that this part of the Bill was not sufficiently consulted upon. (paragraphs 40-44)

171. The Committee therefore recommends that the Scottish Government reconsiders the order-making powers contained in Part 2 of the Bill in light of the concerns expressed to the Committee in evidence. (paragraphs 40-44)

Creative Scotland
172. The Committee believes its Stage 1 report on the previous Creative Scotland bill still has relevance to this process and therefore recommends that the Scottish Government take account of its conclusions and recommendations in this process, along with any additional recommendations made in this Report.

Creative Scotland functions: creative industries
173. The Committee notes concerns raised about how creative industries and commercial activities would be supported by Creative Scotland. The Committee also notes the comments made by the Scottish Government that Creative Scotland would be the lead coordinating agency rather than the lead development agency for the creative industries. (paragraphs 53-57)

174. The Committee recognises that how the relationship between Creative Scotland and the creative industries would work in practice was a significant issue during consideration of the Creative Scotland Bill. Whilst welcoming the clarity provided in respect of the functions of the new body created under Part 3 of the Bill, the Committee notes that this relationship is yet to be tested. (paragraphs 53-57)

175. The Committee believes that a coordination and partnership approach should be the key to Creative Scotland’s success with regard to the creative industries. The Committee recommends that all necessary steps be taken to ensure that this joint working has the necessary foundations for success, perhaps through guidance issued by the Minister, and calls on the Scottish Government to provide, before Stage 2, further details of how it will ensure this. (paragraphs 53-57)

Creative Scotland: structure
176. The Committee notes the Minister’s comment that the exact structure of the new organisation is not yet known. The Committee agrees with the Minister that the structure of the new body will play a significant role in determining the extent to which it is able to achieve its aims in an efficient and beneficial fashion for both the cultural and creative sectors in Scotland and the people of Scotland. The Committee therefore recommends that proposals for the structure of Creative Scotland be published by the Scottish Government as soon as is practicable, to allow for constructive engagement of relevant partners and the wider cultural and creative sectors. (paragraph 61)

Creative Scotland: definitions
177. The Committee notes that the UK Department of Media, Culture and Sport defines 13 industries as making up the creative industries. The Committee also notes the differences of opinion in the sector in trying to define specific terms and is therefore of the view that attempting to provide definitions of terms such as ‘art’, ‘culture’ and ‘creativity’ in the Bill would be overly restrictive and possibly counter-productive. (paragraphs 63-65)

178. The Committee notes the point raised by the Scottish Artists Union with regard to the absence of the word ‘artist’ from the Bill and believes that, as with other terms used in the Bill, the term could be used in the Bill, or in guidance, without need for a specific definition. (paragraphs 63-65)

Creative Scotland: ‘national culture’
179. The Committee notes that some concerns were expressed regarding the use of the term ‘national culture’, but believes its use is appropriate as a broad and all-encompassing term. The Committee is also pleased to note that a definition of ‘national culture’ is given in the Policy Memorandum that accompanies the Bill. (paragraphs 68-71)

Creative Scotland: relationship with enterprise agencies
180. The Committee acknowledges that the Scottish Government has provided greater clarity in the Bill, compared to the Creative Scotland Bill, on the issues of both the relationship between Creative Scotland and the enterprise agencies, and the possible transfer of funds. However, the Committee also notes that the practicalities of this relationship, particularly with regard to responsibility for the distribution of funds, for example to artists and businesses, will need to evolve over time and that all the relevant partners should give such practicalities particular attention. (paragraphs 75-78)

Creative Scotland: relationship with local authorities
181. The Committee notes the points raised in connection with the relationship between Creative Scotland and local authorities. The Committee acknowledges the role of local authorities in delivering public services and believes it to be essential that, when the Bill has been enacted, Creative Scotland’s relationship with all local authorities is clearly understood and adds value. (paragraphs 80-83)

182. The Committee notes that the practicalities of this relationship would benefit from further clarification and therefore welcomes the Minister’s intention to continue to engage with local authorities on this matter. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government and COSLA make every effort to ensure the relationship between Creative Scotland and local authorities is as clearly set out as possible, through dialogue with all relevant parties and, if necessary, guidance, with particular attention being given to the issue of responsibility for funding. (paragraphs 80-83)

Creative Scotland: funding
183. The Committee notes the concerns raised in evidence on the issue of funding, particularly that the new organisation would be asked to deliver a wider set of functions than its antecedent bodies without additional funding. (paragraphs 86-92)

184. The Committee also notes the Minister’s explanation of the funding of the new organisation. (paragraphs 86-92)

185. The Minister undertook to provide further clarification in a letter to the Committee on the issue of the funding of Creative Scotland but, unfortunately, his letter was not received before the Committee agreed this report. The Committee remains concerned that the level of funding available to Creative Scotland may not be sufficiently high to enable it to achieve its broad and ambitious objectives and recommends that the Scottish Government gives further thought to how this potential shortfall might be met. Accordingly, the Committee recommends to the Finance Committee that it continue to seek clarification of these matters from the Scottish Government. (paragraphs 86-92)

Creative Scotland: staffing
186. The Committee notes a lack of clarity surrounding whether there will be a reduction in the staffing numbers for the new organisation compared to its antecedent bodies. The Committee welcomes the commitment from the Scottish Government that there will be no compulsory redundancies and acknowledges that the staff numbers and responsibilities will, to some extent, be dependant on the organisational structure of the new body. The Committee notes the concerns raised in evidence regarding the potential impact any substantial reduction in staffing could have on Creative Scotland’s ability to deliver on its objectives. The Committee further notes that, at the time he gave evidence to the Committee, the Minister was awaiting details of a proposed structure from Creative Scotland 2009 Ltd. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government provide clarification on the issue of staffing once details of the organisational structure have been confirmed. (paragraphs 96-99)

Creative Scotland: Ministerial direction/relationship with Ministers
187. The Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s attempts, through the Bill, clearly to establish an arm’s length principle between central government and Creative Scotland. Notwithstanding the concerns raised earlier in the report with regard to the order-making powers in Part 2 of the Bill, the Committee has no significant concerns that the Bill would allow an inappropriate level of ministerial involvement in Creative Scotland. (paragraphs 101-104)

Creative Scotland: governance
188. The Committee believes it would be counter-productive to reserve places on the board of Creative Scotland for specific organisations and that it is proper for the board to be recruited as outlined in the Bill and its supporting documents. (paragraphs 106-108)

Creative Scotland: Royal Charter status
189. The Committee notes the concerns expressed by the Royal Society of Edinburgh with regard to Creative Scotland not being established by Royal Charter and the Scottish Government’s response to this. (paragraphs 110-111)

Creative Scotland: overall conclusions
190. The Committee has considered Part 3 (Creative Scotland) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill with interest, following the fall of the previous Creative Scotland bill, on which the Committee had been lead committee. The Committee acknowledges that the Scottish Government has moved to address many of the concerns that were raised in its Stage 1 report on the previous bill and in the Stage 1 debate in the Parliament, and has provided greater clarity on a number of important issues.

191. Creative Scotland has had a very long incubation period and the Committee is agreed that any further delay and uncertainty regarding its establishment would damage the sector. The Committee therefore believes it is important that Creative Scotland becomes fully established as soon as possible.

192. The Committee therefore asks the Finance Committee to recommend to the Parliament that, subject to the recommendations contained in this report, it approve the general principles of Part 3 of the Bill.

Part 4 – Social Care and Social Work Issues: establishment of Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS)
193. The Committee notes concerns raised in evidence by Unison Scotland and others regarding the transfer of staff and further notes that the Minister does not anticipate any disruption to scrutiny and inspection during the transfer process and that he has every confidence in the quality of the people who work in the scrutiny system. However, the Committee asks the Minister to spell out, in practical terms, before Stage 2, what specific measures he will be taking to ensure that any increased degree of risk brought about as a result of the transfer process will be minimised. (paragraphs 117-136)

Part 4 – Social Care and Social Work Issues: links with the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC)
194. The Committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s statement of its intention to strengthen the powers available to the new body in respect of the code of practice. (paragraphs 138-140)

Part 4 – Social Care and Social Work Issues: joint inspections
195. The Committee has considered the submission from the British Medical Association (BMA) but concluded that the measures and safeguards contained within the guidance associated with the 2006 Act, which will be updated as part of the arrangements for the current Bill, when enacted, are sufficiently robust to maintain a balance between the need for patient confidentiality and the overriding need for appropriate access to medical records for inspection purposes. The Committee therefore welcomes the Minister’s statement that further discussions with relevant bodies would take place in due course. (paragraphs 143-146)

Part 4 – Social Care and Social Work Issues: financial issues
196. The Committee acknowledges the view expressed by Community Care Providers Scotland (CCPS) and others regarding the current requirement for voluntary and private sector operators to pay registration fees to the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (Care Commission). The Committee notes the Scottish Government’s view that it would “be very problematic”¹⁰⁴ to move from this position, particularly in the current climate. The Committee also notes the argument that the charging and registration regime helps to cement the current status of the Care Commission as an independent body. (paragraphs 148-151)

197. The Committee also notes the conflicting positions of, on the one hand, Unison Scotland, which was “not convinced”¹⁰⁵ that the anticipated savings set out in the Financial Memorandum would occur, and, on the other hand, COSLA, which expected the creation of the new body to “accord with the overall commitment to reduce the cost of scrutiny.”¹⁰⁶ (paragraphs 148-151)

Overall conclusions on Parts 4 and 6
198. The Committee generally welcomes the Bill’s proposals to streamline the present scrutiny and inspection arrangements in respect of social work, social care and children’s services, which it believes should lead to improved outcomes, especially in relation to rationalisation of the different sets of standards currently applying in different types of inspections.

199. The Committee also welcomes the proposed integration of the current functions of SWIA and the Care Commission, which would bring together scrutiny and inspection of care services and their commissioning and procurement under the responsibility of one agency.

200. The Committee, although recognising that this matter may be tangential to consideration of the general principles of this Bill, asks the Minister to consider the evidence provided by CCPS, with a view to exploring the possibilities of placing a duty on local authorities to have regard to SCSWIS reports on the quality of care being provided under existing contracts with voluntary and private sector care providers, before making decisions to re-tender such contracts.

201. The Committee’s overriding concern is to ensure that the transfer of staff and functions to the new organisation does not lead to any loss of focus and corresponding increased risk to children or other vulnerable groups. The Committee therefore calls on the Minister for Children and Early Years to ensure that all possible steps are taken to ensure that there is no increase in risk as a result of the transfer.

202. The Committee understands the Scottish Government’s intentions in respect of Parts 4 and 6 of the Bill and anticipates a continuing improvement of standards of scrutiny following the Bill’s enactment, should it be passed by the Parliament. The Committee shares the Scottish Government’s intention in respect of social work and social care services but notes that there is a danger that the changes could be simply administrative and structural changes and that real improvements will require ongoing effort and commitment from the staff and management of the new agency. The Committee urges the Scottish Government to make every effort to ensure that SCSWIS is established as a genuinely new and dynamic organisation that will be able to bring about sustained improvement in scrutiny standards across the sector.

203. Subject to the comments above, the Committee recommends to the Finance Committee endorsement of the general principles of the Bill in respect of Parts 4 and 6.

Footnotes: