PPC/S4/12/9/A

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE

AGENDA

9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4)

Tuesday 29 May 2012 The Committee will meet at 2.00 pm in Committee Room 2. 1. Consideration of new petitions: The Committee will consider—

PE1432 by Joseph Duncalf and Anthony Duncalf on improving emergency ambulance provision in remote and rural areas

2. Consideration of current petitions: The Committee will consider—

PE1236 by Jill Fotheringham on A90/A937 safety improvements; PE1403 by Peter Morris on improving support and assistance to victims of crime and their families; PE1417 by Andrew Ellis Morrison on educating our future generations; PE1418 by Katherine Alexander on safeguarding vulnerable people; and PE1419 by Jimmy Deuchars on a Scottish Minister for older people.

Anne Peat

Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee Room T3.40

The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh

Tel: 0131 348 5186 Email: Anne.peat@scottish.parliament.uk

PPC/S4/12/9/A

The following papers are attached for this meeting— Agenda item 1 PE1432 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/9/1 Petitioner Letter of 23 May 2012 PE1432/A Agenda item 2 PE1236 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/9/2 Transport Scotland Letter of 17 April 2012 PE1236/EE Aberdeenshire Council Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1236/FF Petitioner Letter of 24 May 2012 PE1236/GG Nigel Don MSP Letter of 24 May 2012 PE1236/HH PE1403 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/9/3 Scottish Government Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1403/J PE1417 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/9/4 Educational Institute of Scotland Letter of 29 March 2012 PE1417/A Scottish Government Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1417/B Scottish Parent Teacher Council Letter of 19 April 2012 PE1417/C Petitioner Letter of 23 May 2012 PE1417/D PE1418 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/9/5 Scottish Social Services Council Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1418/A Care Inspectorate Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1418/B COSLA Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1418/C Scottish Government Letter of 19 April 2012 PE1418/D Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Letter of 19 April 2012 PE1418/E Association of Directors of Social Work Letter of 9 May 2012 PE1418/F PE1419 Note by the Clerk PPC/S4/12/9/6 Anchor Letter of 4 April 2012 PE1419/A Age Scotland Letter of 13 April 2012 PE1419/B Scottish Government Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1419/C Petitioner Letter of 10 May 2012 PE1419/D

PPC/S4/12/9/1

1

Public Petitions Committee

9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 29 May 2012

PE1432 on Improving emergency ambulance provision in remote and rural areas

Note by the Clerk

PE1432 – Lodged 9 May 2012 Petition by Joseph Duncalf and Anthony Duncalf calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to initiate an urgent review of emergency ambulance provision in Scotland‟s remote and rural areas, such as the Stewartry area of Dumfries and Galloway, to ensure an improved response to the emergency and urgent care needs of people in remote and rural communities. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a new petition which the Committee is asked to consider and decide what

action it wishes to take. The Committee invited the petitioners to speak to the petition but unfortunately both advised that they are unable to attend due to work commitments. The petitioners have provided a statement instead summarising what they intended to say.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. The petitioners raise concerns about serious delays in the arrival of emergency

ambulances in and around the Dalbeattie area of Dumfries and Galloway. The petition is motivated by a recent incident involving an 89 year old neighbour who had fallen in their bathroom. No-one could get in to see the extent of the injury and the ambulance took 45 minutes to arrive. In addition, the petitioners cite other local incidents where people had waited for long period for an emergency ambulance.

3. The delays are suggested to result from a shortage of vehicles and crew within

the district, with only two ambulances stationed within the Stewartry district. When these ambulances are already attending calls, or an ambulance is „off the road‟ for whatever reason, crews from Dumfries or Newton Stewart are relied on, which the petitioners note are further away and are, they argue, less likely to be able to meet target arrival times for emergencies. The petitioners also note there has been a call for several years to station an ambulance at Dalbeattie.

4. While the petitioners state people have expressed interest in the volunteer First

Responders scheme, they claim this has not been followed up by the Scottish Ambulance Service or NHS Dumfries & Galloway.1

1 There is more about this later in this briefing; with personal correspondence highlighting that NHS Dumfries and Galloway have recently been taking steps to develop the First Responders scheme in the local area.

PPC/S4/12/9/1

2

Scottish Government Action

5. The Scottish Government have a suite of NHS performance targets (HEAT targets). NHS Boards and the Scottish Government monitor Boards' performance against these and progress is published on the Scottish Government's Scotland Performs website. There are HEAT standards2 set by the Scottish Government that the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) are responsible for delivering. These are time based targets for emergency and urgent response: Reach 75% of Category A (life threatening) emergencies within 8 minutes

(mainland NHS Board areas)

Reach 95% of Category B (emergency, but not life threatening) emergencies within 19 minutes (mainland NHS Board areas)

Reach 50% of all emergency incidents within 8 minutes (Island NHS Board areas)

6. Progress against the first target is reported here. It shows that 72 per cent of Category A calls across Scotland were answered within eight minutes for period 2010/11, compared with 72.3 per cent in 2009/10. Figure for Dumfries & Galloway3 for 2011/12 and show that 66.7 per cent of Category A emergencies were answered within eight minutes4.

7. Activity to address the needs of people living in remote and rural communities in

Scotland was taken forward in 2008 through the Scottish Government‟s Delivering for Remote and Rural Healthcare. The report recognised that the capacity of the NHS to respond in emergency or urgent situations in rural and remote parts of Scotland presented significant challenges to both the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS)5 and to territorial Health Boards. There was concern that these challenges could potentially lead to adverse impacts on clinical outcomes for patients living in these areas. The report recommended that “robust and responsive local community emergency response systems should be developed”.

8. The Remote and Rural Implementation Group (RRIG), working in partnership

with SAS and other stakeholders, was tasked with developing a Strategic Options Framework (SOF) for emergency and urgent response that would be applicable to the varied geographical and clinical service provisions across Scotland. The SOF report, published in October 2009, set out the standards expected and the responsibilities of the various organisations involved in emergency and urgent responses in remote and rural areas. The Scottish Government believes the SOF represents a significant shift in the way that the NHS responds to the emergency and urgent care requirements of people living in Scotland‟s remote and rural communities, with the responsibilities of various organisations involved in

2 HEAT standards are targets that have passed their target date but are maintained to monitor their progress or used for other purposes e.g. benchmarking. 3 Dumfries and Galloway is defined as an “accessible rural area” which means areas of population are within 30 minutes of ambulance locations. 4 Personal correspondence with Scottish Ambulance Service. 5 SAS is a Special Health Board with responsibilities across the whole of Scotland to provide an appropriate accident and emergency response across a diverse geography.

PPC/S4/12/9/1

3

responding to emergency and urgent situations for the first time described in one place and supported by standards that service responses were expected to achieve. The SOF was developed as a tool to be used by SAS, in partnership with Health Boards, Community Health Partnerships (CHPs) and local communities.

9. In June 2010 the Scottish Government wrote to Health Boards and SAS. The

letter, accompanied by the SOF report, was intended to draw attention to the framework and the activities required to achieve it. Implementation of SOF included a minimum requirement for all communities to have access to a Community First Responder training to intermediate level within the nationally recognised First Person on Scene (FPOS) scheme and within 30 minutes drive time. There were also a number of other activities to be implemented, which are set out in the SOF report.

10. Working Together for Better Patient Care is the Service‟s strategic framework for

the period 2010-2015. It set out the role to be played by SAS in delivering on its strategic priorities, including those corresponding to the RRIG. The Scottish Ambulance Service Annual Review 2010-11 reports on progress, including those relating to remote and rural communities:

All 450 of patient transport vehicles have been equipped with shock boxes to

help enable quicker life saving support for patients. This added capacity will increase potential to save lives, particularly in rural communities where geography and distance are factors.

Joint action plans, developed with Health Boards, to introduce specific integrated service delivery models appropriate to the needs of remote and rural communities, including community paramedic schemes in a number of Board areas and establishment of the UK‟s first retained ambulance service in Shetland (to be expanded to other areas in future).

Developing partnership working to deliver sustainable models for remote and rural communities, including community paramedics, retained ambulance service model and links with the volunteer community and voluntary sector. For example, working with the British Heart Foundation and the British Red Cross through its volunteer network to provide a range of education programmes, such as life-saving skills for school children, first aid for community groups and businesses.

11. Recent activity by NHS Dumfries and Galloway has focused on the introduction and development of the First Responder scheme in the area. There are now seven established sites in that area, with two currently in development (Moffat and Dalbeattie). The public meeting in Moffat (on 27 March 2012) was well attended, leading to approximately 20 local people expressing interest in participating in the scheme. However, no-one attended the meeting in Dalbeattie on 28 March 20126.7

6 We were informed that another public meeting is to be scheduled in Dalbeattie, which will be advertised in the local press. 7 Personal correspondence with Scottish Ambulance Service.

PPC/S4/12/9/1

4

Scottish Parliament Action

12. There is another petition currently with the Public Petitions Committee focusing on improving transport provision for older people in remote and rural areas to improve access to health, social care and wellbeing facilities and to take forward the key recommendations of the Transport for Health and Social Care report by Audit Scotland (PE1424).

Action 13. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of

this petition. There are a number of possible options, including— (1) To seek any information. For example, the Committee may wish to ask:

Scottish Government— Scottish Ambulance Service—

What are your views on what the petition seeks? Can you provide an update on progress against category A and B time

based targets for remote and rural areas in Scotland? How will progress and implementation of the Strategic Options

Framework be monitored and reported, particularly relating to remote and rural areas?

Dumfries & Galloway Health Board—

What are your views on what the petition seeks?

(2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Health and Sport Committee, for further consideration of the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.

PPC/S4/12/9/2

1

Public Petitions Committee

9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 29 May 2012

PE1236 on A90/A937

Note by the Clerk PE1236– Lodged 16 February 2009 (8,125 signatures) Petition by Jill Campbell calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve safety measures on the A90 by constructing a grade separated junction where the A937 crosses the A90 at Laurencekirk. Link to Petition webpage Purpose

1. This is a current petition last considered by the Committee on 20 March 2012 at which time it agreed to seek further information from the Scottish Government/Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council. Responses have been received and the Committee is asked to decide what action it wishes to take.

Background (from original SPICe briefing – February 2009)

2. The A90 is a trunk road connecting central Edinburgh with Fraserburgh, although the route between a point several miles to the north of the Forth Road Bridge and Perth is classified as the M90. The A90 used to run through the centre of Laurencekirk, until a bypass was constructed in the mid-1980s. There are three at-grade junctions connecting Laurencekirk with this stretch of the A90. This petition relates to the southernmost of these, which is a staggered crossroads with the A937, a road which links Laurencekirk with Montrose.

3. The Scottish Parliament previously considered petition PE778, also submitted by Jill Campbell and took evidence from the petitioner in November 2004. The Committee closed the petition in March 2005 after receiving confirmation from the then Scottish Executive of a series of road safety improvements that would be made. These were implemented in 2005.

Session 3 Public Petitions Committee consideration

4. The Session 3 Committee considered the petition on nine previous occasions: 30 March 2009, 16 June 2009, 1 December 2009, 2 March 2010, 18 May 2010, 5 October 2010, 23 November 2010, 25 January 2011 and 8 March 2011. Evidence was taken from Ministers and 21 written submissions were received.

5. In May 2009 Transport Scotland confirmed that it had met with the Minister, Mike Rumbles MSP and the petitioner and that it would instruct BEAR Scotland Ltd to undertake an Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIP) study at Laurencekirk. The 2008 Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) had already considered the case for a grade separation of the Laurencekirk /

PPC/S4/12/9/2

2

Marykirk junction and concluded that it was not considered necessary at that time. The AIP study was finalised in October 2009 and recommended a series of measures. The recommendations included:

Designs for a northbound merge taper at the north junction; Vehicle activated signs to be installed on the A90 approaches activated by

local road and crossing traffic at the A90/B9120 junction (north and south bound) and also the A90/A937 north junction northbound only;

'Cross With Care' signs opposite both legs at the A90/B9120 junction; Surface treatment measures on both A90 carriageways at the B9120 and A937 north junctions to improve skid resistance; Relocate the existing advance direction sign a further 100 metres southwards at the B9120 junction to improve visibility from the junction;

6. The petitioner questioned the way in which the study had been carried out and

requested details of estimated costs for a grade separated junction. As there were no plans to construct such a junction no detailed costs were available but costs for a grade separated junction on a dual carriage way such as the A90 would be in the range of £4.3 million to £22 million (2002-2003 prices).

7. In May 2010 the previous Committee asked Transport Scotland to provide accurate costs for carrying out the work at Laurencekirk and accident figures for two other sites where grade separation had been approved for comparison with those at Laurencekirk. Transport advised that it would not be possible to provide accurate costs; it had provided information on comparable junctions but reminded the Committee that the STPR for Laurencekirk had concluded grade separation was not necessary at the present time. Transport Scotland confirmed that if proposed local housing and business developments went ahead, Aberdeenshire Council would be required to bring forward a strategy for junction improvements including grade separation.

8. In January 2011 the Minister agreed it would be helpful to have greater certainty about the final costs of a grade separated junction, particularly as Aberdeenshire Council’s local plan was looking for developers to provide a grade separated junction at Laurencekirk. Officials were instructed to undertake a Cost Refinement Exercise (CRE).

Session 4 consideration

9. In September 2011 Transport Scotland submitted the results of the CRE. It set out a number of potential options for the junction ranging in cost from £13 million to £28 million but stated:

“this report does not indicate a commitment to develop the design further. It reflects the findings of Transport Scotland’s Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) both in regard to not recommending the construction of a grade separated junction(s) at Laurencekirk and completing ongoing road safety works as set out on STPR Intervention 1- Strategic Road Safety Plan”

10. In December 2011 the Scottish Government published its Infrastructure Investment Plan 2011 setting out the Scottish Government’s intention to “dual

PPC/S4/12/9/2

3

the A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025, with a view to completing dualling of the A96 and the dualled road network between all our cities by 2030”.

11. Transport Scotland again made clear that it had no plans to construct a grade separated junction but confirmed that if the proposed housing development in Laurencekirk went ahead it would expect the local authority and developers to bring forward and fund a grade separated junction.

12. At the meeting on 13 December 2011 the Committee agreed to ask Transport Scotland and Aberdeenshire Council whether a split level junction could be considered as an alternative to a grade separated junction. Transport Scotland confirmed the term ‘split level junction’ is in fact a colloquialism for the term ‘grade separated junction’.

13. At its meeting on 20 March 2012 the Committee agreed to write to Transport Scotland regarding the number of heavy vehicles and buses crossing the junction on a daily / weekly basis and to Aberdeenshire Council asking if it would also make representations to Transport Scotland to help progress the upgrade of the junction. The following responses are attached:

PE1236/EE: Transport Scotland Letter of 17 April; 2012 PE1236/FF: Aberdeenshire Council Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1236/GG: Petitioner letter of 24 May 2012

14. The response from Transport Scotland confirms the number of heavy vehicles

and buses using the junction was addressed by the Accident Investigation and Improvement study in 2009, in which the first phase was a traffic management study (this was provided to the Session 3 Committee, PE1236/E on 29 October 2009).

15. Transport Scotland provides an update to the Committee on discussions about the allocation of site M1 for 855 houses and 11 hectares of employment land in Laurencekirk within the Aberdeenshire Development Plan. As part of the Examination of the Plan the reporter held a hearing session in Laurencekirk in October 2011, the Examination is now complete and the Reporters recommendations were published on 13 March 2012. The recommendations include:

any significant development at Laurencekirk will require 1 or more grade separated junctions on the A90; and

It will be for the developers to fund the grade separated works

16. Aberdeenshire Council have confirmed that work is underway to enable a case to be put to Transport Scotland to progress a grade separated junction; that this work is being carried out by Nestrans (the Transport Partnership for Aberdeen City and Shire) in liaison with officers from Aberdeenshire and Angus Councils, it is anticipated the work will be completed by the end of June 2012 and submitted to Transport Scotland.

PPC/S4/12/9/2

4

17. The petitioner appreciates the position of Aberdeenshire Council, expresses her dismay at Transport Scotland’s response and questions the relevance of the traffic movement statistics referred to due to the length of time since they were gathered. The petitioner also refers to the speed violations that were recorded and questions why Transport Scotland believes this is acceptable.

Action

18. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of this petition. There are a number of options including—

(1) To continue the petition in order to seek any further information it decides is necessary. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Transport Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee for further consideration of the issues;

(3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate; or (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case, the Committee may consider reasons to be that:

Transport Scotland has completed its cost refinement exercise and an

AIP Study has been carried out. A number of safety measures have been put in place but Transport Scotland’s view remains that a grade separation is not necessary at this time.

Transport Scotland has undertaken to work with the local authority in relation to junction improvements including grade separation in parallel with the planned housing development.

The recommendations of the Reporter following the Examination of Aberdeenshire Councils Local Development Plan supports Transport Scotland’s view that significant development in the area will require a grade separated junction and that it should be funded by the developer.

Work is now being undertaken at a local level by local authorities and Nestrans to look at the issue of a grade separated junction.

PPC/S4/12/9/3

1

Public Petitions Committee

9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 29 May 2012

PE1403 on improving support and assistance to victims of crime and their families

Note by the Clerk PE1403 – Lodged 15 September 2011 Petition by Peter Morris calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need for new legislation and provision to protect, support and assist victims of crime. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This petition was last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 20 March

2012. At that meeting the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government asking what timescale it envisages for bringing forward legislation. A response has been received and the Committee is asked to decide what action it wishes to take.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. The Scottish Strategy for Victims (“the Strategy”) was published by the first

Scottish Executive in January 2001. The stated purpose of the Strategy is to ensure that all victims of crime in Scotland are able to get support and assistance at all stages of the criminal justice process and thereafter if needed. The Strategy has three key objectives:

better access to information increased support greater participation in the criminal justice system

3. The Strategy is based on international guidance. In particular, it has had regard

to the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power which calls for victims to be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity; and to developing thinking in the European context on the position of victims in criminal proceedings. The former Scottish Executive published two progress reports on the Strategy in February 2003 and November 2004 as well as a review of the Strategy in 2005. The Strategy is currently the subject of further review by the present Scottish Government. In a letter to the Parliament’s Justice Committee on 8 November 2010, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced that the present review would consist of three stages:

a draft framework for action on victims would be circulated to stakeholders

for comment, and include a number of specific questions about improving services for victims

PPC/S4/12/9/3

2

the Cabinet Secretary would chair a victims„ summit in Edinburgh on 17 January 2011 at which responses to the draft framework will be considered

a final framework will then be published that takes into account responses to the draft document and the discussions at the victims’ summit

4. The draft framework document provides a brief background and places support

for victims in the context of the Scottish Government’s overall purpose. It also outlines the progress that has been made so far in respect of the Victims‟ Strategy and sets out four principles for action:

introducing clearer standards and information for victims more focussed support improved participation improved co-ordination of policy and action

Scottish Government Action 5. At the Justice Committee meeting on 28 June 2011 the Cabinet Secretary for

Justice confirmed the Scottish Government’s commitment to bringing forward legislation:

“The impact of crime on victims and their families can be devastating, and it has a great impact on our goal of creating a safe, inclusive and respectful society. Working with our justice partners, we aim to support and deliver real improvement in a number of areas where problems remain to be addressed. The debate1 in Parliament reflected the priority that we all attach to supporting the victims of crime and their families. We will introduce a victims' rights bill to enshrine in law victims' rights to damages and compensation and to give victims input into sentencing policy and parole decisions”.

6. The 2011-12 Programme for Government setting out the Scottish Government's legislative priorities for the year ahead, did not include a Victims’ Rights Bill.

Scottish Parliament Action 7. In May 2010, David Stewart MSP introduced a Members’ Bill in the Parliament

which sought to establish a Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses in Scotland whose general function would be to promote and safeguard the interests of victims and witnesses. As the Justice Committee did not have the necessary time to scrutinise the Bill at Stage 1, the Bill fell at the end of the Parliamentary session.

Public Petitions Committee consideration 8. On 4 October 2011, the Committee took evidence from Peter Morris and Anna Robertson of the Aberdeen Law Project. Following that evidence session, the 1 Scottish Parliament Debate: Taking Scotland Forward: Justice 15 June 2011

PPC/S4/12/9/3

3

Committee wrote to the Scottish Government, Victim Support Scotland, People Experiencing Trauma and Loss (PETAL), the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Court Service. The responses were considered at the meeting on 13 December 2011.

9. At that December 2011 meeting, the Committee noted that the Scottish Government intended to “bring forward legislation during this Parliament to ensure that victims’ rights are central to improvements in the justice system” and that a process of engagement had begun with a view to developing proposals for such a Bill. As part of this process, a paper prepared by the petitioner was being considered by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government advised that timing for the Bill had not yet been determined but may be influenced by developments at EU level.

10. Having reviewed the responses, the saw merit in the petitioner’s suggestion of a single point of contact. In the words of the petitioner “a single point of contact for victims, administered and co-ordinated by an independent multi-agency body with victims and their families’ interests as the central objective is essential.” The petitioner urged the Scottish Government “to evaluate and meet this central need and if I achieve nothing else from my petition then this will have been worthwhile.”

11. The Committee reverted to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it was factoring this into its consideration and also to ACPOS. The Scottish Government confirmed that as part of the consultation process, views would be sought on a single contact point; however ACPOS advised that a single contact point was “aspirational and unrealistic”. The Committee noted its disappointment at the ACPOS view.

12. The most recent letter from the Scottish Government (18 April 2012) advised that the consultation document on the proposed victims and witnesses bill was being finalised and that legislation was expected to follow next year. The consultation was published on 22 May 2012.

Action

13. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of this petition. There are a number of possible options, including—

(1) To continue the petition until the legislation is introduced and write to the petitioner drawing his attention to the consultation and encouraging him to contribute.

(2) To refer the petition, under Rule 15.6.2, to the Justice Committee for further consideration of the issues raised and in anticipation of legislation coming forward.

(3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate, or

(4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so.

PPC/S4/12/9/4

1

Public Petitions Committee

9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 29 May 2012

PE1417 on Educating our future generations: Councils should listen to parents

Note by the Clerk PE1417 – Lodged 20 February 2012 Petition by Mr Andrew Ellis Morrison calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 to allow a right to appeal to Scottish Ministers where local authorities do not abide by the majority decision of ‗relevant consultees‘, as specified in Schedule 2 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, where a local authority is consulting on issues stipulated in Paragraphs 4 & 5 of Schedule 1 of the same Act. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. The Committee last considered this petition at its meeting on 20 March 2012 and

agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, COSLA and the Educational Institute of Scotland seeking their views on the petition. Responses have been received and the Committee is invited to agree what action it wishes to take.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing

2. The petitioners would like a right of appeal to Ministers in relation to local authority proposals to change school admission arrangements (including catchment areas) and in relation to proposals to change the relationship between secondary schools and their ‗feeder‘ primary schools.

3. The Schools Consultation (Scotland) Act 2010 sets out the requirements for

consultation on various changes to schools including closure, changes to catchment areas and changes to which primary schools are feeder schools for which secondary schools.

4. If a proposal relates to closing a school, the Act provides for Ministers to ‗call in‘

a proposal. This is not an appeal, but does provide for Ministerial scrutiny of closure decisions in some circumstances. The grounds for ‗call in‘ are that the statutory consultation process was not followed or the local authority failed to take account of a ‗material consideration‘.

Scottish Government Action 5. In developing the 2010 legislation, the Scottish Government gave consideration

to what should replace the automatic referral to Ministers of certain proposals – including changes of catchment area.

PPC/S4/12/9/4

2

6. Scottish Government action in this area has focused on the issue of rural school closures, rather than the other types of proposal that the Act covers.

7. In July 2011, the Scottish Government and COSLA established a commission on

the delivery of rural education which is expected to report in August. Its remit includes reviewing the 2010 Act and its application. The Commission had a programme of meetings around Scotland which ran until March 2012. These were focused on rural areas. The questions asked in the call for evidence do not raise the specific point made by the petitioners, but do ask in general terms about satisfaction with current consultation procedures.

Scottish Parliament Action 8. In its stage 1 report on the new legislation, the then Education, Lifelong Learning

and Culture Committee did not comment on the fact that only closure decisions would come within Ministerial scrutiny. They did however state that:

It is recognised by the Committee that the proposed power of ministerial call-in represents a compromise between a wide range of opinions on this issue and is an improvement on the current automatic referral system. (Stage 1 report, 2009)

Current consideration 9. Following the meeting on 20 March 2012 the Committee wrote to the Scottish

Government, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, COSLA and the Educational Institute of Scotland asking for their responses to what the petition seeks. No response was received from COSLA. Responses were received as follows:

PE1417/A: Educational Institute letter of 29 March 2012 PE1417/B: Scottish Government letter of 18 April 2012 PE1417/C: Scottish Parent Teacher Council letter of 19 April 2012 PE1417/D: Petitioner letter of 23 May 2012

10. The Scottish Government states that the current provision under the 2010 Act

―strikes the right balance‖ and that decisions on meeting local education needs should be taken at local authority level. It advises that the Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education is currently considering the 2010 Act and is expected to report its findings by autumn 2012. The Government is also considering recent judicial reviews on its decisions on closure and will reflect on the court‘s findings. Further, it states that there are ―no current plans‖ to change the 2010 Act in order to introduce a right of appeal to Ministers on school admission arrangements.

11. The EIS indicates that it ―would not oppose outright‖ a move to introduce a right

of appeal but believes there are practical difficulties in how this could co-exist with the call-in procedures and in defining what is meant by the majority decision of consultees. The Scottish Parent Teacher Council‘s view is that the petitioner‘s proposal ―jeopardises local decision making and accountability‖ and that the matters raised in the petition are ones that should be addressed by the Commission for Rural Education.

PPC/S4/12/9/4

3

12. The petitioner believes that there must be an appeals route for consultees to

make representations to an authority higher than the local council. He is disappointed with the SPTC view on local decision making and accountability and states that the Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education ―is of no consequence to this case‖. The petitioner does agree that a balance must be struck between a deregulatory position and automatic referral to ministers and clarifies how a right of appeal would co-exist with call-in procedures.

Action 13. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of

this petition. There are a number of possible options, including— (1) To continue the petition. The Committee may wish to write to the Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education asking it to consider the petitioner‘s proposals as part of its review of the 2010 Act.

(2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Education and Culture Committee, for further consideration of the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. 4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case, the Committee may consider reasons to be that:

Local decision making and accountability of individual schools should

remain at a local level and that there would be difficulties with majority decisions of consultees.

The Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education has been tasked with considering and making recommendations on the 2010 Act.

The Scottish Government has no current plans to change the 2010 Act to introduce a right of appeal to Ministers on school admission arrangements.

PPC/S4/12/9/5

1

Public Petitions Committee

9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 29 May 2012

PE1418 on Safeguarding vulnerable people

Note by the Clerk PE1418 – Lodged 23 February 2012 Petition by Katherine Alexander calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to compel all local authorities to ensure that all social work management posts are held by professionally trained and accountable registered social workers. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. The Committee last considered this petition at its meeting on 20 March 2012. At that meeting the Committee took evidence from the petitioner and Linda Fabiani MSP and agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Care Inspectorate, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, the Scottish Social Services Council, the Association of Directors of Social Work and COSLA seeking their views on the issues raised in the petition and oral evidence. Responses have been received and the Committee is invited to agree what action it wishes to take.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing 2. The petition discusses a number of issues. However, the Petitioner‟s principal concern relates to the qualifications of those holding senior positions in social work departments. Other concerns raised include what powers certain regulatory bodies have over the matters raised in the petition, including the handling of complaints. The Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 3. The Petitioner discusses how the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 was introduced to protect vulnerable people and the importance of social workers in determining when best to apply its provisions. The Act came into force in October 2008. It seeks to provide protection to “adults at risk of harm” not covered under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 or the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. Qualifications of senior social work department staff 4. Under the Social work (Scotland) Act 1968 (the 1968 Act), all local authorities must have a Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO). They must be a qualified social worker, registered with the Scottish Social Services Council1 (SSSC). In 2009, as part of the 21st Century Social Work Review, the Scottish Government issued 1 The Scottish Social Services Council is responsible for registering people who work in social services and regulating their education and training.

PPC/S4/12/9/5

2

guidance on their role and function. Where the CSWO is not the Director of Social Work, they must have direct accountability to the Chief Executive. The CSWO‟s main role is to ensure the provision of appropriate professional advice in the discharge of local authorities' statutory social work duties. The role of regulatory bodies Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) 5. Although the Petitioner is principally concerned with those managing teams which include social workers but don‟t have a social work qualification themselves, it is worth noting the process of regulation for social workers. 6. The SSSC began operating in October 2001. Under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001, it is responsible for registering people who work in social services and regulating their education and training. This includes all social workers. Its key functions include setting up registers of key groups of social service staff and publishing Codes of Practice for all social service workers and their employers. Employers have a legal responsibility to ensure that all of their staff are appropriately registered. Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS) 7. The Care Inspectorate is the body responsible for regulating and inspecting social care and social work services. In terms of social work services, the Care Inspectorate‟s performance improvement process2 is comprised of an initial scrutiny level assessment (ISLA), targeted and proportionate scrutiny response and on-going support and capacity building in self-evaluation and improvement. 8. In relation to the specific issues raised by the Petitioner, through the ISLA processes, the inspection team will want to ensure that all professional social work standards are being upheld in the local authority, including that concerning the professional supervision of social workers being line managed by someone of a different discipline. It should be noted that the Care Inspectorate, unlike in the case of social care services, does not handle complaints from the general public about social work services or departments. However Ministers may request the Care Inspectorate to investigate matters that have been drawn to their attention. Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman (SPSO) and social work service complaints 9. The SPSO provides an independent and impartial service for dealing with complaints about public bodies. However, what the SPSO can investigate differs between public bodies. In the case of social work services3, under the 1968 Act, councils must operate a specific social work complaints procedure for an individual

2 Care Inspectorate. (2011) Performance improvement handbook 2011-12: How we inspect local authority delivery of social work services. Available at: http://www.scswis.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=435&Itemid=716 3 Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (2010). What to do is you have a complaint about a council Social Work Department. Available at: http://www.spso.org.uk/files/webfm/Leaflets/Social%20Work.pdf

PPC/S4/12/9/5

3

using a social work service or a person acting on their behalf. This procedure has three stages. The SPSO cannot look at a number of matters relating to complaints. Scottish Government Action 10. As regards the matters outlined in relation to the qualifications of social workers, outlined above, the Scottish Government has advised it is not considering any further work on this. However, it published a consultation4 on the review of the social work complaints procedure. This closed on 18th March 2012. Scottish Parliament Action 11. The Parliament has undertaken a range of work considering related matters to the issues raised in the petition. Most recently this includes the scrutiny of the Public Services Reform Act and the Health and Sport Committee‟s recent inquiry into the regulation of care for older people. However, there has been no work on the specific matters of the qualifications of managers in social work departments. Current consideration 12. Following the meeting on 20 March 2012 the Committee wrote to the Scottish Government, the Care Inspectorate, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, the Scottish Social Services Council, the Association of Directors of Social Work and COSLA to seek their views on the issues raised in the petition and oral evidence. The following responses have been received:

PE1418/A: Scottish Social Services Council letter of 18 April 2012 PE1418/B: Care Inspectorate letter of 18 April 2012 PE1418/C: COSLA letter of 18 April 2012 PE1418/D: Scottish Government letter of 19 April 2012 PE1418/E: Scottish Public Services Ombudsman letter of 19 April 2012 PE1418/F: Association of Directors of Social Work letter of 9 May 2012

13. All of the responses refer to the role of the Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO) to ensure the provision of professional advice to local authorities. The Scottish Government advises that it is the responsibility of local authorities to appoint officers as necessary to discharge their functions. A council officer carrying out measures in the 2007 Act is accountable for his or her actions and the employer retains overall responsibility. Further, it advises that it recently issued a consultation on social work complaint procedures which closed in March 2012. The Scottish Government states that it is content that there is “sufficient legislation and guidance in place”. 14. The SPSO advises that it responded to the Scottish Government‟s review of social work complaints and that the Government will set up a working group to consider what additional provisions are needed. The group will include representatives from local authorities, SPSO and services users. The Care 4 Scottish Government. (2011) Review of procedures for social work complaints in Scotland. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/12/21143818/1

PPC/S4/12/9/5

4

Inspectorate “does not consider it appropriate to compel local authorities” to ensure management posts are held by registered social workers. Social work managers are accountable to their employer. Where the Inspectorate finds deficits in arrangements it makes recommendations for improvement. 15. In SSSC‟s view, the requirements on local authorities to appoint a CSWO, the role and responsibility of the CSWO, the SSSC code of practice and the reservation of functions to registered social workers “all help to ensure the appropriate professional basis for the management of social work services.” ADSW “strongly disagrees with the intention of the petition” and advises that non-social work qualified persons are accountable and answerable to the codes of conduct of the local authority. It does not consider that there is a loophole that puts vulnerable adults at risk. 16. COSLA provides some information on the qualifications of directors of „stand-alone‟ social work departments and officers at director or executive director level. Its position is that “local authorities should be empowered to appoint managerial staff, for social work services” in accordance with their practices and policies. COSLA “would not support the petitioner‟s position.” 17. The petitioner remains of the opinion, based on her own experience, that the CSWO role is not adequate in protecting vulnerable people and that there is a conflict of interest with employers. Action 18. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of this petition. There are a number of possible options, including—

(1) To continue the petition. The Committee may wish to write to the Scottish Government asking whether the working group on social work complaints procedures will consider the petitioner‟s issues along with the other consultation responses. (2) To refer the petition, under Rule 15.6.2, to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to consider the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case, the Committee may consider reasons to be that:

Those holding senior positions in social work departments are accountable

to their employer. The role of CSWO in providing professional advice to local authorities. A consultation on social work complaint procedures has been undertaken

and the outcome is awaited. The Scottish Government is content that there is sufficient legislation and

guidance in place.

PPC/S4/12/9/6

1

Public Petitions Committee

9th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 29 May 2012

PE1419 on a Scottish Minister for Older People.

Note by the Clerk PE1419 – Lodged 28 February 2012 Petition by Jimmy Deuchars calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a dedicated Minister for Older People. Link to petition webpage Purpose 1. This is a current petition which the Committee last considered at its meeting on

20 March 2012 at which it agreed to seek information from the Scottish Government, Age Scotland, Anchor and the West of Scotland Seniors Forum. Responses have been received and the Committee is asked to decided what action it wishes to take.

Background – the following information is taken from the SPICe briefing

2. The petitioner is seeking the appointment of a Minister for Older People in Scotland. He argues that older people are becoming one of the largest groups in Scotland, many of whom are grandparents who provide financial support and childcare for their families. He also refers to a fear that if grandparents refuse to give support, they may be cut off from their families, which can lead to illness and poverty for older people.

3. The Petitioner says that a Minister for Older People could look at ways of keeping older people in connection with their families and society in general, in an effort to combat loneliness and depression. One method suggested is the introduction of family education/contact/mediation centres where families can keep in touch and disputes can be resolved through mediation.

Statistics 4. Latest available figures from GROS1 show that the number of people of

pensionable age2 is projected to rise from 1.04million in 2010 to 1.07million in 2020, an increase of 3%. It is then projected to rise more rapidly, reaching 1.32 million in 2035, an increase of around 26% compared with 2010.

5. For comparison, the population of Scotland as a whole is projected to rise from 5.22m in 2010 to 5.49m in 2020, and continue to rise to 5.76m in 2035, an overall increase of 10%. The number of children under 16 are projected to increase from

1 GROS (October 2011) Projected population of Scotland (2010-based) 2 Pensionable age is 65 for men, 60 for women until 2010. Between 2010 and 2020 the pensionable age for women increases to 65. Between 2024 and 2026 the pensionable age for both men and women increases to 66, and changes again to 68 by 2046.

PPC/S4/12/9/6

2

0.91 million in 2010 to 0.96 million in 2020, and then decrease slightly to 0.94 million in 2035, an overall increase of 3% compared with 2010.

Scottish Government Action

6. The responsibility for older people falls within the remit of the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy, Nicola Sturgeon MSP. The Petitioner is aware of this, but argues there is a need for a portfolio that prioritises the needs of older people, and refers to the fact there is a Minister for Children and Young People.

7. In June 2011, Nicola Sturgeon made a keynote speech to the Alzheimer Scotland Dementia Awareness Week Conference, where she outlined that improved care for older people, with a specific focus on dementia, would be a personal priority in this parliamentary term3.

8. In March 2007, the previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration, introduced a long term strategy on older people – ‗All our futures: Planning for a Scotland with an ageing population‘. This was endorsed by the SNP administration and the main commitments in the strategy have been implemented:

To set up the Scottish Centre for Intergenerational Practice – this is now

known as Generations Working Together. Has been operating since 2007, initially sponsored by the Senior Studies Institute at Strathclyde University, then from April 2011 by the Scottish Mentoring Network.

To set up the National Forum on Ageing – this has held a series of events each of which has led to a published report.

A campaign to combat ageism and promote positive images of older people – The ‗See the person, not the age‘ campaign ran in three phases, beginning in July 2008. It involved TV, radio and press advertising and public relations work with local authorities and voluntary organisations.

A national stakeholder event at the end of 2007 - seven regional stakeholder events were held between November 2008 and June 2008. Around 900 people attended these events, and a range of organisations were involved. Workshops covered a range of issues including: lifelong learning opportunities; activities for older people including physical activity; volunteering and work; technology, health and wellbeing; pensions and savings; intergenerational activity and safety.

9. Other actions, taken forward since ‗All our futures‘ include:

The Scottish Older People‘s Assembly – the purpose is to give a voice to older people in Scotland. It is organised by older people, for older people.

Reshaping Care for Older People: A Programme for Change: 2011-2021- aims to address the challenges of supporting and caring for older people over the next decade

3 Scottish Government news release 6 June 2011 Care for older people is top priority.

PPC/S4/12/9/6

3

Scottish Parliament Action

10. On 20 September 2006 the Commissioner for Older People (Scotland) Bill4 was introduced in the Parliament by Alex Neil MSP. The Bill was referred to the Communities Committee for consideration at Stage 1, although no timetable was proposed for the Bill. The purpose of the Bill was to create the office of the Commissioner for Older People in Scotland. It proposed that the remit of the Commissioner would be ―to ensure that the rights and interests of older people aged 60 years or over are protected and promoted‖. However the Communities Committee decided that, given its heavy workload, it was not in a position to conduct scrutiny of the Bill as part of its work programme in the time available before the end of the session and the Bill fell at dissolution of the Parliament on 2 April 2007.

Comparison across the UK

11. The UK Government does not have a dedicated Minister for Older People. However, a recent campaign by Anchor5 has petitioned for such a Minister, achieving 137,000 signatures, as well as the support of 20 organisations, including Age UK. The ‗Grey Pride‘ campaigners presented the petition to 10 Downing Street on Monday 28th November 2011. A petition to the UK Government which achieves at least 100,000 signatures is eligible for debate in the House of Commons. However, Anchor are not calling for an additional Cabinet position to be created, they are calling for an existing Minister to have this responsibility6.

12. The Older People‘s Commissioner for Wales came into being on 21 April 2008. The Commissioner‘s role is to ensure that the interests of older people in Wales are safeguarded and promoted. The Commissioner provides strategic leadership, acts as an ambassador and authority on older people‘s issues and speaks on their behalf. The first Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland was appointed in November 2011. The commission aims to voice the issues that concern older people.

Public Petitions Committee Consideration 13. At its meeting on 20 March 2012 the Committee agreed to seek the views of the

Scottish Government, Age Scotland, Anchor and the West of Scotland Seniors Forum on what the petition seeks. The following responses have been received:

PE1419/A: Anchor Letter of 4 April 2012 PE1419/B: Age Scotland Letter of 13 April 2012 PE1419/C: Scottish Government Letter of 18 April 2012 PE1419/D: Petitioner Letter of 10 May 2012

4 Scottish Parliament 2006 Older People (Scotland) Bill 5 Anchor provides care services in the home and in residential settings in England. 6 Anchor. Personal communication. 9 March 2012.

PPC/S4/12/9/6

4

14. The Scottish Government explains that Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy has overall responsibility for issues affecting older people. This is a Cabinet level appointment. If there was to be a dedicated Minister for Older People it might not be a Cabinet Minister.

15. Age Scotland is concerned that a dedicated Minister might not be at Cabinet

level which could lead to a ―diminished focus on older people‘s issues at the heart of Government policy making‖. At present, older people‘s issues are represented and influenced at the highest level of decision making in Scotland by the Cabinet Secretary. Age Scotland is also concerned that given current moves to develop a more integrated health and social care service, a dedicated Minister for Older People could divert Government policy from an outcome focused agenda to a process driven one. Age Scotland also points out that the campaign run by Anchor was seeking a similar set up at a UK Government level to that if Scotland.

16. The Petitioner does not agree with the Scottish Government or Age Scotland. Action 17. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take in respect of

this petition. There are a number of possible options, including— (1) To continue the petition in order to seek any information it feels necessary. (2) To refer the petition under Rule 15.6.2 to the Health and Sport Committee, for further consideration of the issues raised. (3) To take any other action which the Committee considers appropriate. (4) To close the petition under Rule 15.7. If the Committee decides to close the petition it must state publicly its reasons for doing so. In this case it may be that:

The Committee agrees that as the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy has responsibility for older people within her portfolio, older people are currently represented at Cabinet level within the Scottish Government and the creation of a dedicated Minister for Older People would be unlikely to add to that level of representation.