ITEM 8

OPTIONS FOR IN-HOUSE SOCIAL CARE SERVICES

Report by Chief Executive

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

1.1 This report details the options appraisal process undertaken to consider more effective models for direct Social Work provided services along with a recommended option to progress to a detailed business case for a Council owned arms length organisation.

1.2 This report details the range of options considered as alternative models for service delivery of social care services and makes a recommendation to progress to a detailed business case to move towards a new model of service delivery. The recommended option is a Council owned Arms length organisation (Local Authority Trading Company or Limited Liability Partnership). This approach will enable ongoing Council control over the business that provides the services yet realise financial efficiencies and savings and ensure ongoing quality of services is maintained.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 I recommend that the Council agree that:- (a) a full business case is completed to progress the recommended option of an LATC or LLP. (b) a further report is considered by the Council in Summer 2014 prior to further implementation of the revised model

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2013 1 3 BACKGROUND

3.1 In line with other Councils, Scottish Borders Council faces considerable financial challenges and needs to modernise and streamline services to ensure sustainability and affordability of public services. In Social Work, it was agreed that work was needed to explore new service models for the delivery of directly provided services in order to assess the opportunities to maintain quality democratic control yet realise financial efficiencies and savings.

3.2 A Project Board was established with representatives from social work, Legal, HR and the NHS and a specialist consultancy firm, Care & Health Solutions, was commissioned to undertake a detailed option appraisal which is attached in Appendix 1. Care & Health Solutions is a consultancy firm with expertise in this area and who have worked for a number of Councils in Scotland and England.

3.3 To complete the options appraisal the consultants worked closely with the project board to agree the range of options to be considered, the scope and appraisal criteria.

3.4 The range of options considered included:

(a) Outsourcing provision- tender services to an external provider (b) Continue In-House provision (c) Community Interest Company – develop a new trading company with a range of stakeholders (d) Local Authority Trading Company (e) Limited Liability Partnership

3.4.1 A comprehensive summary of each of these options can be found within the attached options appraisal report.

3.4.2 Both (d) and (e) models involve the development of a new company wholly controlled by the Council, offering the tax benefits and able to offer some services for private purchase.

3.5 The proposed services identified in scope include:

Services for Older People LD Adults x Homecare x Day Centres x Shopping & Delivery Service x Community Support (Hawick) x Dementia Service x Night Support PD Adults x Residential Homes x Ability Centre (Galashiels)* x Day Care Services x Bordercare – Telecare Mental Health Services * x Extra Care Housing x Community Support x Resource Centre

Community Equipment Service

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2013 2 Those services marked with * require further review before inclusion can be confirmed. The review would take place in the business case stage.

The total budget of a new organisation would be £17.3m with a total staffing complement of 590.66 FTE. These figures may change during the preparation of the Business Case and as the scope is finally agreed.

3.6 Evaluation criteria were agreed which include:

Ref Quality Q1 Ability to maximise choice and control for service users Q2 Safeguard services for those with very complex needs and ensure a service of last resort Q3 Makes effective use of Council’s partners Q4 Improves outcomes for service users

Ref Cost C1 Achieves value for money for the Council C2 Ability for the Council to achieve planned savings C3 Achieves least risk to the Council financially, in reputation, and politically in case of failure C4 Maximises the Council’s ability to generate income

Ref Governance and Flexibility G1 Best interests of the citizens of Scottish Borders G2 Democratic scrutiny G3 Flexible enough to accommodate other services at a later stage G4 Can accommodate new local and national policy and builds flexibility and responsiveness within the market

Ref Acceptability to Stakeholders S1 Service Users, Carers and User/Carer Organisations S2 Staff S3 Partners

3.7 The benefits and risks of each option are detailed in Appendix 1 and a summary of the key financial risks and benefits is highlighted below.

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2013 3 3.8 The recommended options for further consideration and progression to a detailed business case are those of the Local Authority Trading Company and Limited Liability Partnership. These models offer very similar advantages but there are some differences in terms of corporation tax benefits that need to be further explored as part of the business case. Both of these options ensure that the Council remain as the major stakeholder and therefore key decisions in relation to investment, and significant operational decisions.

4 IMPLICATIONS

4.1 Financial

In the Council 5 year financial plan efficiency savings of 617k for 2015/16 and 637k for 2016/17 has been identified which it is anticipated will be realised with the move to a new delivery model. This is based on data from other Local Authority areas who have successfully implemented the new arrangements and where a 10% overall efficiency has been achieved through changes to business processes, more effective management of staff and the ability to sell services and thereby bring in additional income.

4.2 Staffing

The move to an LATC or LLP would involve a transfer of staff to a new organisation on existing terms and conditions. However the new Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2013 4 arrangement would enable staff to adopt a new culture and new ways of working. Full consultation and communication with staff will take place as part of the ongoing business case.

4.3 Risk and Mitigations (a) The attached appendix highlights in detail the risks with each option as part of the full option appraisal. (b) There is a risk that if a new model is not implemented financial efficiencies in Social Work will not be realised resulting in potential service reductions in order to make savings. (c) With a move to any new business there is a minimal risk of service failure. However, given this is a Council owned business the service can be transferred back In-House if required at any point. (d) Doing nothing is not an option.

4.4 Equalities No equality issues are anticipated with the preferred delivery models which aim to continue to provide high quality care services for people in the Borders and their carers. However, a full Equalities Impact Assessment will be carried out as part of the detailed business case.

4.5 Acting Sustainably Current in-house provision will increasingly become unsustainable with the increase in use of Direct Payments and Self Directed Support.

No other economic, social or environmental effects have been identified.

4.6 Carbon Management N/A

4.7 Rural Proofing Any new service delivery model will need to ensure that services can be provided effectively across the Borders.

4.8 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation No changes to the Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation

5 CONSULTATION

5.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Strategic Policy, the Head of Audit and Risk, the HR Manager and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and their comments are incorporated in the report.

5.2 There have been initial discussion with unions, managers and stakeholders but further consultation will be a key element of the development of the business case should this be approved.

Approved by

Chief Executive Signature …………………………………..

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2013 5 Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Elaine Torrance Programme Director for Health & Social Care Integration Tel: 01835 825080

Background Papers: Nil Previous Minute Reference: Nil

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Elaine Torrance can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact Elaine Torrance, Social Work, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells, Melrose, TD6 OSA. Tel: 01835 825080 [email protected]

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2013 6

Scottish Borders Council

Options Appraisal of Alternative Service Delivery Models for In-House Adult Social Care Services

Executive Summary and Options Appraisal

Care and Health Solutions Ltd January 2014 Table of Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

2 INTRODUCTION 14

3 METHODOLODY 16

4 DEMAND AND LOCAL CONTEXT 23

5 SCOPE OF SERVICES TO BE INCLUDED 27

6 OPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL 30

7 HIGH LEVEL FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT 32

8 OPTIONS APPRAISAL 42

9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 46

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 2 Social Care Services. January 2014

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Purpose of Report This is the report commissioned by Scottish Borders Council on the Options Appraisal by Care & Health Solutions to assess the relative merits of alternative models for the delivery of adult social care services within current SBC in-house portfolio. It also provides a view of the future potential to create synergies for development of a wider range of adult social care which are crucial considerations in ensuring future sustainability. The report is intended to provide the background for the need to consider alternative models of delivery, an analysis of the options and a recommendation on the preferred option which if adopted would become the focus of Phase 2 (Business Case Development) of a three phase, the third and Final Phase being the implementation of a preferred option if this is proved and accepted by SBC.

1.2 Background Like other councils, Scottish Borders Council is facing unprecedented financial and demographic challenges on top of its existing geographical challenges. In response, the Council is in the midst of a number of initiatives to modernise and streamline services aimed at ensuring sustainability and affordability of public services within the Region.

The following bullet points provide a summary of the issues driving the need to consider an alternative service delivery model for the Council’s current in-house provision:

• Council services whilst often offering quality provision are ultimately constrained, by a number of factors, from being able to be as flexible, adaptable and efficient as their independent sector counterparts. They are limited in terms of business opportunities which can bring real benefits in terms of expansion of service delivery within a reduced budget envelope.

• Ongoing savings requirements have led to a number of reviews of in house services to reduce costs. However costs remain substantially higher than alternative care provision which has led to reduced commissioning of in house services

• The impact of Self directed support needs to be managed. There is a need to compete with the independent sector in providing to services to people who will be in receipt of a cash direct payment. Being uncompetitive will lead to double running costs: a lack of utilisation of important council services whilst at the same time paying monies to people to buy their service more cheaply from elsewhere. This would ultimately threaten the existence of these services and lead to a form of unplanned outsourcing which may not be to the benefit of the Council or service users.

• A need to ensure that Council Tax payers and the Council can achieve the best value for money at a time of significant austerity and rapidly increasing demand – getting the most out of a reducing budget to achieve sustainability.

• Ensuring the tenets of self directed support can be achieved for Scottish Borders citizens by reducing the limitations put on current council services providing In-House services the opportunity to compete in the market place and flourish. Adaptability and flexibility

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 3 Social Care Services. January 2014

will be key to sustainability in the future social care market – this is difficult to achieve within a local authority environment.

• Achieving necessary savings without compromising capacity and quality.

• Ensuring the Council’s statutory duty to provide services for people with an assessed need can continue to be achieved.

• Have an effective delivery vehicle that will complement the Scottish Government’s drive to integrate health and social care services.

1.3 Services proposed for inclusion

Services for the Elderly LD Adults • Day Centres • Homecare • Community Support (Hawick) • Shopping Service Delivery PD Adults • Night Support • Ability Centre (Galashiels)* • Residential Homes • Day Care Services Mental Health Services • Bordercare - Telecare • Community Support • Extra Care Housing • Resource Centre (Galashiels)* • Dementia* Community Equipment Service

Those services marked with* require further review before inclusion can be confirmed. The review would take place in the business case stage.

1.4 Alternative delivery options The following five options were identified in consultation with the Project Board as the relevant delivery vehicles to be included in the evaluation, which will determine the preferred solution for the current portfolio of in-house adult social care services.

1. Outsourcing of provision 2. Continue with current in-house provision 3. Creating a new ‘start-up’ Community Interest Company (Social Enterprise) 4. Create a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) 5. Create a Limited Liability Partnership ( LLP)

The diagram below illustrates the trade-offs that the authority needs to consider in selecting the appropriate operating model for a given range of services. Typically, there is a balance between the influence retained by the Council and the cost of services.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 4 Social Care Services. January 2014

Indica$ve'Cost/Risk/Influence'Diagram'

Cost*to* Con$nue'with'‘in-house’'provision' A* LA* A* • Implemen(ng*service*reduc(ons*to*achieve*targets*and*savings** ' Outsource'services' B* • Achieved*by*tender*or*trade*sale,*transferring*service*provision*and* all*associated*costs*and*risks*to*a*third*party.' C* D/E* ' C* Transfer'service'provision'to'a'Community'Interest'Company' D/E* Provider* LA* C* • Achieved*by*transferring*service*provision*to*a*start=up*CIC*involving* other*partners/stakeholders** influence* influence* ' B* Transfer'service'provision'to'a'LATC/LLP' D/E* • Achieved*by*crea(ng*a*new*Local*Authority*Trading*Company*/LLP* responsible*for*service*provision.** B* '

Risk*to* ' provider*

The desired strategic benefits of implementing any delivery model also include: 1. Ensuring future sustainability of relevant services in line with the demand trajectory and responding effectively to the changing needs and expectations of citizens 2. Flexible and adaptable services that remain sustainable within the context of personal budgets and direct payments 3. Reducing costs where possible without compromising quality and maximise potential for investment in earlier intervention 4. Improved value for money achieved through a formal contractual relationship that incentivises services to improve 5. Promotion of choice and the potential to generate additional income through trading for example with private individuals and other public bodies 6. Retaining the vital function as the provider of ‘last resort’ in cases of emergency or market failure, and allow Scottish Borders Council to satisfy its statutory duties. 7. Providing the workforce with an opportunity to secure a stake in their own future and to develop an entrepreneurial culture that rewards improved performance.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 5 Social Care Services. January 2014

1.5 Options appraisal Each option was assessed against Design Criteria which were developed in consultation with Scottish Borders Council utilising CHS experience and knowledge of the local authority environment and alternative delivery models.

The table below summarises the criteria identified:

Ref Quality Q1 Ability to maximise choice and control for service users Q2 Safeguard services for those with very complex needs and ensures a service of last resort Q3 Makes effective use of Council’s partners Q4 Improves outcomes for services users

Ref Cost C1 Achieves value for money for the Council C2 Ability for the Council to achieve planned savings C3 Achieves least risk to the Council financially, in reputation, and politically in case of failure C4 Maximises the Council’s ability to generate income

Ref Governance and Flexibility G1 Best interests of the citizens of Scottish Borders G2 Democratic scrutiny G3 Flexible enough to accommodate other services at a later stage G4 Can accommodate new local and national policy and builds flexibility and responsiveness within the market

Ref Acceptability to Stakeholders S1 Service Users, Carers and User/Carer Organisations S2 Staff S3 Partners

Our approach involved

! Consideration of the available data and the stakeholder engagement ! Drawing upon the available local and national information along with CHS specialist knowledge of alternative business models ! Analysing advantages, disadvantages and risks of each option.

The Options Appraisal is structured to take account of our;

► Stakeholder Analysis

► Qualitative Assessment

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 6 Social Care Services. January 2014

► Design Criteria Assessment

► Financial Implications

1.6 Financial Assessment and Implications The results of the financial assessment of the options are:-

Assessment Redesign of Outsourcing CIC Local Authority Limited Criteria in-house Trading Co Liability provision (LATC) Partnership (LLP)

Ability to Limited Will make the Social LATCs have LLPs have make scope to savings but Enterprises proven track proven track savings and make could lose (SE) have record of record of be required significant proven track becoming becoming sustainable savings control over record of more efficient more efficient without services becoming and reducing and reducing reducing more efficient costs costs services and reducing costs

Ability to In-house 3rd Party SEs are free LATCs are free LLPs are free trade and services providers are to trade to trade to trade develop cannot trade free to trade, new freely services

SBC can SBC in full Contract is Asset locks SBC has full SBC has full benefit from control of all only prevent SBC control of the control of the profits aspects of mechanism from enjoying Co and can Co and can these for SBC. all additional direct direct services Would not profits. profits/reserves profits/reserves share in Control is not to wherever it to wherever it additional guaranteed decides, but decides. No profits which Corp’n Tax issues with would go to may reduce full Corp’n Tax company availability

Summary Will not Savings Savings Savings and Savings and deliver /profits not /profits not sustainability sustainability savings all for SBC all for SBC and control and control for SBC for SBC

The main financial benefit that the LATC/LLP model has over other solutions is its ability to generate additional income that can benefit both the Council in the form of a dividend/contract rebate or a resource to reinvest in additional services that could help to manage future increases in demand. It also allows the commercialisation of these services reducing costs and increasing competitiveness. These financial benefits have been detailed in Sects 7.4 and 7.5. and are summarised in the table below in year on year savings.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 7 Social Care Services. January 2014

Year 3 Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 4 Year 5

£351,000 £498,000 £571,000 £644,000 £644,000 Savings from reduced absence £194,000 £194,000 £194,000 £194,000 £194,000 Savings from reduced supplies of 7.5%

Total savings £545,000 £692,000 £765,000 £838,000 £838,000

1.7 Summary Appraisal: The viability of each of the options considered has been summarised in the table below from our complete analysis which is provided in the supporting appendices (Appendix 4).

Option 1 – Outsourcing:

Whilst in theory this option has the potential to maintain or improve quality and is accessible to private funders Viable but with and DP service users, providers may misjudge capacity Quality significant risks or capability and ability to maintain quality in achieving their cost model. Current market analysis identifies significant risks relating to quality Outsourcing typically achieves the lowest costs, though the market cost for LD services is relatively high. Moreover, providers will retain any savings or income Viable but with generated. SBC has experienced significant problems in Cost Qualitative significant risks a lack of interest in response to tenders that have been issued for social care services. This limited supply is an Assessment issue regarding competition and ultimately cost as well as satisfying the supply requirements on the Borders This will be dependent upon contract management. Governance Viable but with Whilst this option could be sustainable, providers are and unlikely to share commercial data and any significant risks Flexibility accommodation of policy initiatives could incur additional costs. Acceptability Outsourcing option is unpopular with staff. Service users Viable but with and carers are concerned about the threat to quality. to significant risks However, this could be negated by appropriate stakeholders stakeholder management. Viable but with Whilst outsourcing could be financially viable the market Financial Implications issues present significant risk to the Council. Also the significant risks Council needs to consider how they can tap into savings. Overall Viable but with significant risks

Outsourcing is a viable option and this is reflected in the number of independently provided adult social care services across the country. There is a potential to reduce cost and ensure a financially sustainable service. However, this is not without significant risks and current experience within the Scottish Borders would ward against this as a solution due to experience of limited supply and poor responses to tenders issued.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 8 Social Care Services. January 2014

The Council will lose ultimate control of the service affecting, for example, the flexibility to implement policy initiatives. Equally, the Council will not be able to generate income from this option and any savings made ultimately rely on the contract value.

It is also likely that the service as a whole would have to be ‘parcelled-up’ and tendered in individual service offerings.

Option 2 - Continue In house provision:

In house provision guarantees service of last resort and Viable but with could make effective use of the Council’s partners. Quality risks However, financial pressures may lead to a compromise in quality. In the current climate and given the service has already undergone reconfiguration and cost saving exercises, this Cost Not viable option is unlikely to achieve value for money and will Qualitative struggle to achieve savings and cannot generate external income. Assessment Whilst this option allows flexibility in terms of policy Gov. and initiatives and allows the Council to maintain ultimate Not viable Flexibility control, it is inherently unsustainable and commercially inflexible. Acceptability This option is preferable to most staff and service users, to Viable as there is a perceived level of job and service security. stakeholders Achieving future savings will require significant Financial Implications Not viable reconfiguration of services which is likely to require the closure of some existing provision. Overall Not viable

Financial and demographic pressures and consequential top down Government policy means that to continue in-house provision is not viable in the medium to longer term, The social work department have undertaken a number of service reviews over the past 2 years to ensure greater flexibility and reduce costs. These have had some limited success but the scale of savings required cannot be generated using the existing delivery mechanism. As the Government follows its ambitions to increase the number of Direct Payment service users, the Council will ultimately bear the cost of both running a service and paying out Direct Payments which service users may not be prepared to pay the high cost. Eventually, the need to make savings will result in a stripped down service where quality is compromised and service user needs are unmet.

The benefit of this option would be a continuation of ‘business as usual’ and this enables the SBC to remain a direct provider and could continue to facilitate the management of the modernisation agenda. However, this would be likely to lead to an ongoing rationalisation of services and these services would therefore be vulnerable as a target for savings through service reductions. This in turn could lead to a reactive externalisation not necessarily in a planned or productive manner which may not be in the best interests of the Council.

Creating an internal business model either through zero based budgeting or creating a Direct Services Organisation will not deal with the inherent structural issues of providing the services from within the Council nor provide the appropriate commercial culture needed to achieve the required outcomes.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 9 Social Care Services. January 2014

Option 3 – Community Interest Company (Social Enterprise):

This option increases competition in the marketplace as it is accessible to private funders and DP service users. Quality Viable Service users commission their own provision and therefore will drive the delivery of high quality services. Social enterprise options can improve efficiency, reduce costs and achieve value for money. However, there are Cost Viable significant limitations on what savings and income can be passed to the Council. Qualitative Assessment Whilst this option could deliver sustainable services, there Governance Viable but with are restrictions on the amount of control the Council will and significant have over what is delivered and how it is delivered. This Flexibility risks may mean there are limitations of the viability of the CIC to accommodate other services.

Acceptable There is a high level of engagement with Service Users Viable and Carers. There are also opportunities to partner with to s/holders other organisations. Savings can be achieved through both staff efficiencies Viable but with and supply savings. The social enterprise would be able to trade with private funders and DP service users as Financial Implications significant well as develop new income streams. However, these risks income streams will not necessarily feed back to the Council. Overall Viable with risks

The Community Interest Company option is viable as it enables the Council to benefit from attracting additional income from other sources such as direct payments, private funders and potentially other contracts from outside of the Council. There is also the potential to provide leadership in a relatively disparate market which could help to manage quality issues in the external market and ensure that the Council can continue to meet its legal obligations in the event of market failures. A CIC could seek to achieve savings through:

• Increasing efficiency by creating a team spirit and sense of belonging and purpose within a much smaller organisation. Experience in SEs has shown that the cultural change manifests itself in reduced absenteeism. • In a commercial organisation it is possible for management to adopt a different approach that can result in improved performance • The SE will have the ability to procure supplies and services from the most appropriate and cost efficient sources, and the management will be tasked with reviewing usage and activity patterns to identify ways of saving resources.

However, there are risks associated with the governance arrangements. The Council would have limited control within a CIC model and would only be able to receive 35% of available profits through dividends. Therefore, the Council would have restricted access to any income generated. Moreover, the potential to “drop” other services into the Social Enterprise will be restricted by the CIC’s Memorandum and Articles of Association. This limits the ability to externalise other services without undergoing separate procurement processes.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 10 Social Care Services. January 2014

Option 4 and 5 - Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) and LLP:

The LATC/LLP is able to achieve high quality provision in the same way as the Social Enterprise model as it is Quality Viable accessible to private funders and DP service users. Unlike the Social Enterprise model, Council control means that it can also guarantee services of last resort. The LATC/LLP can improve efficiency, reduce costs and Cost Viable achieve value for money. The LATC/LLP also allows the Qualitative Council to access savings and income generated. Assessment Governance The Council has ultimate control of the LATC/LLP and and Viable therefore has access to financial and performance data. Flexibility It also has the flexibility to accommodate other services. There is a high level of engagement with service Users Acceptability and carers. Stakeholder buy-in is mainly due to the close to Viable affiliation with Council and continued Council influence. stakeholders There are opportunities to partner with another organisation to reduce costs. Savings and income generation could be achieved and profits can be re-invested in new or existing LATC/LLP services or back into the Council. A Scottish Borders Financial Implications Viable LATC/LLP with the proposed scope would be large enough to withstand governance and management costs. Overall Viable

The LATC/LLP is able to achieve savings and generate income in much the same way as the Social Enterprise option. However, the LATC/LLP model does not share the same risks associated with governance. This is because the Council, by constitution, is likely to be the sole shareholder of the LATC or partner with the LLP thereby retaining control of the company and its dividend distribution policy as well as providing democratic Council scrutiny of its performance. The LATC/LLP also sets it apart from the Social Enterprise as the preferred option for these Services as it addresses governance risks through the following:

• Services currently being in a state of transition to a new model of services delivery which is likely to evolve over the next few years • The ability to use the LATC/LLP as a transitional delivery model allowing the other options such as Outsourcing or setting up a Community Interest Company to be considered at a later stage when the market is in a more developed state or even transferring other services in to the LATC/LLP at a later stage • The confidence of stakeholders in this model as an initial transfer vehicle to independence • The LATC/LLP model can support effective integration with Health in taking forward the ambitions of the Integration Bill whilst ensuring that the Council retains an appropriate level of control over services • The Council can control 100% of the retained surpluses of the LATC/LLP

Due to the “Teckal” exemption the Council would not have to go through a competitive tender process to transfer the services to the LATC.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 11 Social Care Services. January 2014

1.8 Preferred options Based on the information and engagement to date, a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) or a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) emerged as the two most advantageous options for the Council although the level of stakeholder understanding of each option is limited at this stage in the process. Whilst a CIC could provide similar outcomes to the LATC but the main disadvantage is that access to surpluses would be restricted by the constitution of the CIC. The Council would also have less control of a CIC which may at times prove to be restrictive.

The LATC/LLP provides a mechanism that enables the Council to achieve significant benefits from externalisation while reducing the inherent risks. The LATC/LLP will have greater autonomy than a department of the Council, but its ownership gives the Council control thereby reducing any risks related to quality, cost, workforce and the capability to be the provider of last resort.

Overall, the LATC/LLP would provide the most appropriate solution for the entire current in- house provision to form a sustainable commercial entity that has the potential to benefit SBC and its citizens. Importantly, there would be opportunities to consider the inclusion of other allied services at a future date if this was felt to be beneficial to both the Council and the LATC. Examples of such a model exist within Scotland and across the UK and therefore offer a tested solution.

1.9 Timescales The Options Appraisal has taken account of the Council’s timescale for implementation in April 2013 and assessed that the LATC or LLP could be developed to go live within that timeframe. Implementation of an SE/CIC model is estimated at 13 months. The other options are likely to take significantly longer with the exception of continuing ‘in house’ provision.

1.10 Recommendation The Options Appraisal has identified the LATC/LLP models offer the most advantages for the Council. They provide opportunities for additional income generation which can be reinvested to contribute to demand and cost reduction for example, through earlier intervention and prevention initiatives. This can reduce the need to make savings in services through further efficiency measures. This not only protects services from further attrition but also provides an opportunity for these services to begin to grow through their ability to compete and attract private funders, Direct Payment holders and bid for contracts from other councils or commissioning bodies.

The difference between the LATC and LLP models are minor with the LLP offering a ‘cleaner’ way of achieving corporation tax efficiencies and with the LATC offering perceptually a more independent model.

Based on this Options Appraisal it is recommended that the Council proceed to develop a full business case for the development of a both the LATC and the LLP. These are considered to be the most appropriate solutions for the current in scope in-house provision to form a sustainable commercial entity that has the potential to benefit the Council and its citizens. The reason to consider both of these at the Business Case stage is that the differences between the two are so close it provides a further opportunity to determine which best suits the Scottish Borders.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 12 Social Care Services. January 2014

Should this recommendation be accepted then a full business case would be required to be signed off by the Council prior to implementation. This would form Phase 2 of this project.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 13 Social Care Services. January 2014

2. Introduction

2.1 Background

Like all other councils, Scottish Borders Council faces considerable financial challenges. In response, the Council is in the midst of a number of initiatives to modernise and streamline services across the Council aimed at ensuring sustainability and affordability of public services. There is recognition that new service models for individuals, communities and partners have the potential to deliver benefits and improve outcomes for citizens.

The limited resources available to the Council must be allocated in the most effective way. The Council recognises that to achieve this it will need to do things differently to inform the prioritisation of services and the way in which works with partners to deliver improved outcomes.

Within this context, the Social Work Department has identified that there may be a significant opportunity to improve outcomes, achieve efficiencies and create sustainability of quality service provision by implementing a new approach to managing and delivering its Directly Provided Services for adults including older people and people with a learning disability . At present these services are provided at a relatively high cost by well-trained staff, within a niche market.

The potential of these services to develop is arguably stifled by the constraints of having to operate within the confines of a local authority environment that can limit efficiency, innovation, entrepreneurship and an ability to trade and deliver new income and profit. Independence from the Council has the potential to provide an ability to grow and develop rather than be at risk of cut backs and eventually becoming unviable, This also needs to be viewed in the context of an independent market that has little appetite for services that have a limited opportunity to provide sufficient profit and presents risks in relation to the loss of block contracts in a world of individual commissioning by service users.

There is also a challenge to aspects of the directly provided services as a result of the increasing ability for individuals to make personal choices through Self Directed Support. People can choose not to use Council-run services, which may be for example, due to their high cost or location. A reduction in use of those services would further increase the relatively high cost of delivery. Within the current and future challenging financial climate, these services could be unsustainable which as a consequence, may lead to a decision to shut down a number of popular and vital services.

In order to address these challenges the Social Work Department commissioned work to undertake a proactive Options Appraisal into the delivery of Future of Day Opportunities.

2.2 Our Brief

SBC commissioned Care and Health Solutions Ltd (CHS) to work with them to undertake an Options Appraisal to determine the preferred alternative service delivery model for their directly provided services.

To achieve this we have:

► Reviewed strategic documents and management information ► Undertaken desk-based research and an analysis of baseline information

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 14 Social Care Services. January 2014

► Held interviews with, senior Council managers and service managers ► Engaged with key stakeholders

The main output of this work is this Options Appraisal setting out the agreed identified delivery options and the pros and cons of each, including ‘remaining in-house’ as the baseline option. This will include:

► Assessment of the range of options for service delivery ► End state description for the recommended model ► Risks and benefits for each model ► Route map and indicative timescales for each model ► Financial implications for each model

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 15 Social Care Services. January 2014

3. Methodology

3.1 Overview

This Options Appraisal has been developed in partnership with officers of SBC. The Project Group has provided significant guidance and comment on the Options being considered and issues that they want to be addressed within the report. This has been further enhanced following a workshop with corporate and service managers and engagement with other stakeholders.

The approach has been as follows:

Step 1: Define Scope and Criteria

CHS have worked with key Council staff to confirm the scope of the project and has developed and agreed a set of fifteen design criteria, under the four headings of, Quality, Cost, Governance and Flexibility and Acceptability to Stakeholders,

The Design Criteria are set out below:

Ref Quality Does the model or option improve the quality of services Q1 Ability to maximise Which option best secures choice and control for choice and control for service users, and delivers services which are service users consistent with the principles of co-production Q2 Protects services for Which option provides the greatest assurance those with very that it will act as an ‘effective provider of last complex needs and resort’ to secure quality services for those with ensures a service of very complex needs and where there is market last resort failure in individual (service user) cases or for entire organisation Q3 Makes effective use Which option provides the greatest opportunity for of Council’s partners leveraging existing relationships with key partners for example health, other authorities and other service providers Q4 Improves outcomes Which option has the potential to most improve for services users outcomes for services users

Ref Cost Does the model or option allow lower costs for the Council C1 Achieves value for Which option offers the best return on investment money for the in terms of expenditure on services and in relation Council to set-up costs C2 Ability for the Council Which option allows the Council to meet the to achieve planned existing financial savings commitments savings C3 Achieves least risk to Which option will provide SBC with least risk? the Council financially Which offer the greatest ability to influence /intervene or extricate in case of failure? C4 Maximises the Which option will allow SBC to benefit from the

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 16 Social Care Services. January 2014

Council’s ability to generation of new income streams previously generate income unavailable

Ref Governance and Does the model satisfy democratic Flexibility accountability and is future proofed G1 Best interests of the Which option serves the interest of the citizens of citizens of Scottish Scottish Borders even if they will not directly Borders come into contact with services provided and provides sustainability G2 Democratic scrutiny Which option will provide Elected Members with the greatest ability to influence services or is politically acceptable G3 Flexible enough to Which options are flexible enough to accommodate other accommodate further transference of services services at a later from the Council stage G4 Can accommodate Which option is flexible enough to be able to new local and accommodate future policy initiatives such as national policy and Health and Social Care Integration or allows the builds flexibility and Council to build flexibility and responsiveness into responsiveness within the market to ensure the Council can best meet the market the changing needs of its population

Ref Acceptability to How well does the new model satisfy Stakeholders stakeholder requirements/views S1 Service Users, ► Acceptability/Beneficial to customer Carers and (purchasing, adaptable, flexibility and creative User/Carer in line with SDS) Organisations S2 Staff ► Staff sign-up and engagement ► Retaining key expertise ► Improved productivity S3 Partners ► Can accommodate the partnership agenda

Step 2: Develop Options

The Project Group agreed that the following five options represented all of the main delivery vehicles and should be evaluated to determine the preferred solution for the Council’s in-house provider services.

1. Outsourcing of provision 2. Continue with current in-house provision 3. Creating a new ‘start-up’ Community Interest Company (Social Enterprise) 4. Create a Local Authority Trading Company 5. Create an LLP

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 17 Social Care Services. January 2014

Step 3: Gather information

Management information was requested from SBC in order to inform the Options Appraisal. This included operational performance statistics and financial and staffing information for each service within scope. Consideration was also given to the potential opportunities for income generation from each model. The information provided by the SBC is assumed to be accurate.

Step 4: Stakeholder Engagement Workshop

The range of benefits, risks, disadvantages and financial implications of each option were identified and these were presented at a workshop attended by representatives from the Social Work, Corporate Management Team and some representatives from the third sector. They were given the opportunity to discuss and compare options against the fifteen design criteria.

Step 5: Options Appraisal A formal options appraisal was undertaken using comparisons of options on the basis of the design criteria.

Step 6: Recommendations

Following the analysis of the options and the data that we have gathered, we have selected an option that we believe best suits the requirements of SBC and service users/carers currently and into the future.

3.2 Approach to Options Appraisal

We have appraised each option through the following approaches:

1. Qualitative analysis

2. Design criteria assessment

3. Stakeholder analysis

4. Financial implications

3.2.1 Approach to the qualitative analysis This is an overview of benefits and risks of the options being considered for comparison to the specific environment of social care services within the Scottish Borders.

Our approach has taken account of both the national drivers (as illustrated below), which are common across councils in Scotland and of the specific local context and needs of the Scottish Borders.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 18 Social Care Services. January 2014

Social Care priorities

National Policies Improving outcomes through Integrated services. More effective & efficient delivery models

Local Personalisation & self directed Accountability support / citizen control / customer insight Care and Support Drivers Prevention, early intervention. Shifting the balance of care & Population support - improving Demography community connections access, assessment & provision channels

Outcome not output based Financial commissioning & service Pressures prioritisation

3.2.2 Approach to the design criteria assessment We have drawn on local information and intelligence to co-design the agreed design criteria along with Scottish Borders Council (SBC). This is set out in section 3.1.

The national drivers are reflected within the more detailed criteria, which provide a structured method of testing the best ‘fit’ of each delivery model.

We have also considered the key features of a delivery model that would be required to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to changing needs and expectations as illustrated below;

We have considered these key features as indicative of a model that would be fit for the future.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 19 Social Care Services. January 2014

The ongoing increase in demand for services both older people and people with a learning disability means that the solution has to be sustainable and able to respond to the significant rise in demand. Any additional funding is unlikely to keep pace with the demand trajectory. Innovation will be important in adopting practices that will facilitate the most effective use of resources. These will include maximising the potential of available technology and access channel shifts such as the adoption of Telecare and Telehealth initiatives to support people in their own homes.

The design criteria were used as the basis of an Options Appraisal Workshop involving, a Member, provider and corporate managers from within SBC and partner organisations who identified the extent to which the five options met these.

Although this exercise was subjective, the approach gave key stakeholders the opportunity to critically evaluate the opportunities and risks associated with each option and to develop an understanding of the benefits and risks.

3.2.3 Approach to stakeholder engagement Effective communication, engagement and alignment of stakeholders will be a significant factor in the success of the project overall. A range of stakeholders have been engaged during Phase 1 at all levels across the Council, NHS, and the third sector to ensure commitment at leadership, management and front line levels.

The key groups of stakeholders were identified as follows;

► Members ► Senior Managers ► Operations, Commissioning staff ► Corporate staff ► Service Users and Carer representative groups ► Health Partners

It was agreed that Trade Union engagement will also be important in the ongoing process.

The engagement approach during Phase 1 was aimed at: Consensus building ► Getting agreement and buy-in to the approach and methodology ► Agreeing Design Criteria and the Options as key deliverables in Phase 1 that will shape the outcome of the project

Validating outputs at each stage of the process

Options evaluation

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 20 Social Care Services. January 2014

► Defining, agreeing and refining the options and recommendations ► Defining and agreeing the high business case approach and plan for Phase 2

Governance ► Ensuring appropriate governance mechanisms are in place to support the process and minimise the impact on multiple stakeholders ► Defining what processes need to be in place to support the governance

Communications ► Ensuring that all relevant stakeholder groups are kept involved and up to date with approach, progress, decisions and final outcomes ► Defining the most appropriate messages to disseminate and to manage the expectations of the stakeholder groups ► Defining what stakeholder groups and individuals to involve, when and through what communication channels.

The joint CHS and SBC project team identified: ► Key messages to communicate to the stakeholders ► Appropriate stakeholders from across the Council and Health with whom the team should engage; ► Information to gather from the stakeholders ► Stakeholders who would be supportive, resistant or neutral to the vision and implementation plan to allow for the stakeholder engagement to be tailored to the correct audiences and to effectively deal with any tensions and conflicts as they arose; The stakeholder engagement involved a workshop session with representative interests.

By engaging at the appropriate level and in the right manner, the project team: ► Gathered qualitative views of the opportunities and challenges ► Gathered quantitative data required

The initial phase of stakeholder engagement was supported using the following tools: ► Stakeholder Plan with timelines and milestones ► Workshop ► Attendance and participation at meetings of existing networks

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 21 Social Care Services. January 2014

3.2.4 Approach to identifying financial implications This report provides a high level financial overview and analyses the possible financial consequences of the five options being considered. We recommend that a detailed business case for the preferred option forms the basis of the next phase of the project. The first stage in the appraisal has been an evaluation of the financial viability of the possible externalised entities under review.

Once financial viability has been established each option has been reviewed in relation to SBC’s decision criteria and their ability to meet the overarching financial and service delivery requirements as agreed with officers. In terms of savings, the requirement is to make £1.3m savings in the short term. Our findings have been summarised in the executive summary and are detailed in section 7.

The review and analysis is based on the knowledge and expertise within the CHS consultancy and our experience of alternative service delivery model implementations with other Local Authorities in both Scotland and England

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 22 Social Care Services. January 2014

4. Demand and the Local Context 4.1 Key messages Demographic pressures and the condition of the local social care market suggest that the future delivery model needs to provide the following:

► Revenue – the significant reduction to funding and simultaneous demand pressures means that revenue needs to be generated ► Reduced costs – the service needs to have lower costs, make more savings and deliver better value for money ► Flexibility and pace – the service needs to better adapt and react more quickly to pressures and the rise in direct payments ► Quality and control – the quality of service provision needs to be maintained and ultimately improved. The Council needs to maintain oversight of the quality of service delivered to its residents ► Choice – the personalisation agenda means that services need to offer choice to its users, maximising independence, choice and control. The service needs to consider how to support the customer as they take on a greater commissioning role ► Early intervention - the service needs to invest in early intervention and prevention to avoid costly crises, promote independence and reduce service user over dependency

4.2 Demographic trends The need for service provision increases significantly with age, long-term conditions and proximity to death. To address these demographic and funding pressures, there is a need to change the way care services are planned and delivered. The Older People client base is growing and the complexity of needs is increasing. The ‘Assessment of Needs for Older People within the Scottish Borders, identifies that the pressure on both health and social care services within Scottish Borders is generally much greater than many other Scottish regions. For example: • The Scottish Borders is expected to have an above-average population increase of 47% amongst 65 – 74 year olds between now and 2035. For the over 75s, the overall projected increase is greater at 98%. Life expectancy for males is catching up with females.

• The percentage of residents with chronic illnesses has increased markedly, rising from 13% in 2009 to 37% in 2011. The percentage that requires nursing care has also increased over this time, rising from 32% in 2009 to 47% in 2011. The percentage of those with a diagnosis of dementia has fluctuated, but shown an increase in the last three years (from 34% to 48%).

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 23 Social Care Services. January 2014

Nationally demand for services for people with a learning disability is growing including a sharp rise in people on the Autistic Spectrum. Additional with improved health and social care many people with a learning disability are living longer and in to old age. The increasing demand expected across all service groups over the next twenty years will also increase the needs of carers and given the likely need to ‘ration’ services further in relation to demand outstripping resources the burden on carers is likely to increase. It is estimated that there is likely to be a small increase in the numbers of people with LD over the next decade. Summarising, Scottish Borders based estimates conclude that

► Whilst it is difficult to quantify there is a suggestion that there will be little change in the overall numbers of people with the greatest complexity of needs over the coming decade but there is uncertainty about these estimates which makes planning difficult

► Because the majority of people with LD have lower level needs (Tiers1 and 2) there will be a larger overall effect on service needs and therefore demand for services

Growth in the need for Social Care services

Numbers of people with LD will not necessarily correlate with need for services. Research evidence predicts that there are likely to be even greater changes in demand for support from social services due to a range of factors that will act to reduce the capacity of informal support networks to provide care. These include:

► Increases in lone parent families ► Increasing rates of maternal employment ► Increases in the percentage of older people with LD (whose parents are likely to have died or be very frail) ► Changing expectations among families regarding the person’s right to an independent life

It is predicted that there will be a 1.2% annual increase in the need for services provided to new entrants with critical or substantial risk (applies to those in Tier 2 to Tier 4a). More detailed demographic information is available at appendices 1 and 2.

4.3 Scottish Borders Social Care Market Older Peoples Residential Care The provision of care homes is the largest element of the Scottish Borders external market with the provision of 19 homes. Many of these are single person owners rather than larger national providers. Scottish Borders Council provides 5 homes and one extra care facility. The internally provided homes include intermediate care beds and respite facilities. Recent Care Inspectorate Reports have highlighted a range of issues with the quality of a number of independent providers of residential care regarding hygiene, cleanliness, nutrition and nursing input. The geography of the Scottish Borders provides a significant factor in relation to popularity of homes.

General Home Care The care at home provider market is relatively challenged. The Council operates a preferred provider model with care at home commissioned mainly from two key national providers where the Care Inspectorate has highlighted a number of performance concerns. There is some ‘spot

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 24 Social Care Services. January 2014 purchasing’ from smaller local providers who tend to score more highly in terms of quality. Managing the external contracts for home care is relatively time consuming and the in house home care service is utilised as a provider of last resort when there is individual or larger issues of market failure. Providing to the more rural areas is a challenge. Berwickshire relies on the , Seaton Care, a subsidiary of Berwickshire Housing Association. The cost of in-house provision is relatively expensive compared to the £12.30 paid to independent sector providers and with Direct Payments and there is a need to close the gap between the two.

Learning Disability Market The market for learning disability services tends to be of higher quality than for services for older people though it is also with a higher cost and greater expectation with regards to users and carers. Very little provision comes directly from the Council. External providers supply all the residential care in the form of small group homes and supported living services in to registered social landlord properties. There are some small niche services especially for people with complex needs and autism and these tend to be very high cost. Housing provision for people with a learning disability is an issue within the Scottish Borders and home care prices are significantly higher than they are for standard domiciliary care, ranging between £13.30 and £20 per hour.

As will be evident from the above it appears that the social care market within the Scottish Borders is significantly challenged especially in relation to its geography and infrastructure which impacts on the ability to attract carers and the provision of high quality services. Such a challenged market leaves the Council vulnerable in its ability to satisfy its statutory obligation to provide services to people with an assessed need. The in-house service has therefore provided an important back-up service as a provision of last resort, which needs to be taken in to account in terms of a preferred option.

4.4 Self-Directed Support The movement towards giving service users greater choice and control means that the demand for traditional services may decline in the long run and the Council as it stands may have less influence in the social care market. The question of the future sustainability of all services will be an issue for all providers but will impact most on Council run services that will struggle to compete on price.

It will be the case that service users, carers and parents with personal budgets will increasingly become the commissioners of their own services, purchasing the largest share of the social care market. Given the Government’s intentions to strengthen their ambitions on Self Directed Support and Direct Payments1, more people will take these up and due to cost issues they will likely look for the cheaper options instead of receiving services provided directly by SBC. Hence, there is a significant risk that the demand for the range of services provided directly by the Council will decline, whilst the demand for alternative provision increases. This will be a key challenge to future commissioning and may affect the power the Council can wield in the market place. The increasing expenditure on Direct Payments is concurrent with the continued provision of these traditional in-house services. In addition, Direct Payments are not restricted to the purchase of personal care and can be used in any way the recipient chooses, meaning that

1 Scottish Government SDS Bill. Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 25 Social Care Services. January 2014 future demand for support is likely to be for more diverse services, which currently cannot be provided by traditional in-house services. In Scottish Borders, a significant number of service users are now in receipt of Direct Payments. There are approximately 298 adults and 27 children accessing Direct Payments from SBC. For the Adults this is primarily funded through the homecare budget and approximates to about 24% of the current homecare hours provided. There are a number of factors that make it difficult to forecast the future uptake of Direct Payment, these include:

► The Act is being fully implemented from April 2014 and options/expectations may increase. ► Externalised homecare contracts are due to be retendered in 2014 which may be a significant factor in increased demand as noted previously ► Conversely the fact of limited capacity from the supply chain may reduce or in some cases increase the attraction of managing/influencing people’s own support.

However it is inevitable that the uptake of Direct Payments will increase over the coming 10 years and beyond.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 26 Social Care Services. January 2014

5 Scope of services to be included

5.1 List of services to be included

Services for the Elderly LD Adults • Day Centres

• Community Support - Hawick • Homecare

• Shopping & Delivery PD Adults Service • Ability Centre (Galashiels)* • Dementia Service

• Night Support Mental Health Services • Residential Homes • Community Support • Day Care Services • Resource Centre (Galashiels)* • Bordercare - telecare

• Extra Care Housing Community Equipment Service • Dementia*

Those services marked with* require further review before inclusion can be confirmed. The review would take place in the business case stage.

Descriptions of most of these services are provided at Appendix 3

5.2 Service Budgets for services in scope

The following table outlines the services that have been held in scope for this options appraisal but may be subject to further review should this work progress to a detailed business case. . The cost budgets are based on the latest revised 13/14 budgets for SBC.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 27 Social Care Services. January 2014

Services in Scope Gross Service Budget FTEs in the services

Older Peoples’ Residential £5,000k 181.73 Homes

Homecare Service £5.100k 230.25

Night Support £552k 17.30

Bordercare £478k 14.83

Older Peoples Day Care £1,045k 24.48

Dovecote Court Extra Care £772k 32.11 Housing

Shopping & Delivery Service £209k 0

Dementia* £211k 8.30

Older Peoples Services £13,802k 491.73

LD Day Services £2,348k 75.46

MH Services* £220k 6.72

Physical Disability £196k 6.07 Services*

Community Equipment £735k 10.68

Total Value of Services £17,301k 590.66

Those services marked with* require further review before inclusion can be confirmed. The review would take place in the business case stage.

The services detailed above are based throughout the Borders located in:-

► Duns ► Eyemouth ► Galashiels ► Hawick ► Innerleithen ► Jedburgh ► Kelso ► Peebles ► Selkirk

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 28 Social Care Services. January 2014

The rural nature of the Borders and the distances between the major centres of population has given each locale its own sense of identity and character. We feel that this has engendered a strong sense of community which should be encouraged and developed by using local facilities more frequently and imaginatively so that the services offered can be tailored to local needs.

A new delivery vehicle will need to be in a good position to do this and develop services and facilities that meet local demands and requirements.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 29 Social Care Services. January 2014

6 Options for Alternative Service Delivery Model

This section of the report briefly outlines the options for service delivery. Section 8 will appraise these options.

Option 1: Outsourcing Provision Competitive outsourcing involves externalising service delivery to an alternative provider, usually an independent sector organisation. Such a transfer would allow these services to be free from the constraints of the Council and therefore to develop beyond the current scope, while the council may have formal contracts with providers or specific services that the council wishes to continue providing.

The services would be subject to a competitive procurement exercise and Council staff would be transferred to the new providers under TUPE.

In theory, the service delivery risks are transferred to the outsource provider, although this can be difficult to achieve in practice, so in the case of provider failure, the Council would still be responsible for providing the service.

A robust client-side commissioning and contracts function is needed in order to manage the provider effectively and to set the strategic direction, whether the services are contracted out or continue to be provided by the Council.

Option 2: Continue in house provision This option would be a continuation of ‘business as usual’ and this enables the SBC to remain a direct provider and could continue to facilitate the management of the modernisation agenda.

This model is the approach traditionally used by local authorities to deliver the range of services that are in scope but there are many challenges in delivering transformational change in a short timescale. The workforce is well trained, experienced and capable of delivering high quality services.

There are two alternatives to the traditional approach:

• To move to a more ‘business-like’ model of provision with a zero based budget approach and service level agreement between the commissioner and the service.

• Provision through a Direct Service Organisation (DSO) which has often been used by councils to provide Council services such as catering, cleaning and refuse collection.

Option 3: Community Interest Company (CIC) The principles of the SE Model offer an attractive option for the provision of adult social care services.

“Social Enterprises are business-like entrepreneurial organisations with primarily social objectives. The surpluses are mostly reinvested back into their business or the community to help achieve these objectives and change people’s lives for the better. Social enterprises are

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 30 Social Care Services. January 2014 not driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners. In essence, social enterprises use business solutions to achieve public good.’2

Anything other than a Community Interest Company (CIC) would require a procurement process and therefore should be seen as an Outsourcing Option.

Option 4: Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) Local Authority Trading Companies could be seen as a type of Social Enterprise where the Local Authority who sets them up retains a controlling share ownership that is legally guaranteed. The Local Government Act 2003 provides powers for a local authority to transfer in- house services to a trading company where the local authority is the majority shareholder. As with other types of Social Enterprise, the ethos of the company is seen as one which can drive significant value for the Council and wider community. The legally guaranteed controlling influence of the Council is seen as a key benefit of these models, as Elected Members are guaranteed oversight and scrutiny through their relationship with the organisation.

The Council can commission the LATC without incurring the cost of open tender process under the TECKAL exemption. Where a company is used as a vehicle for local authority trading, its activities are restricted under section 95 to those which the council may undertake for the purpose of carrying on its ‘ordinary functions’. In general, these activities will are linked to the public interest.

Option 5: Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) An LLP is a form of legal business entity with limited liability for the members. The main difference between an LLP and a limited company, such as a LATC is that an LLP has the organisational flexibility of a partnership and is treated for taxation in the same way as the principal partner, in this instance SBC.

In virtually all other aspects it is very similar to a private company and has to be incorporated at company’s house. LLPs are not applicable to non-profit making activities.

As with LATCs Section 8 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (LGISA2003) applies and everything that has been described for the LATC above will be applicable for an LLP. Essentially it is the more simple tax benefits with regards to Corporation Tax that make the LLP more attractive as it isn’t reliant on an argument of mutuality/subsidiarity, though as with the LATC the LLP would have to create additional structures to mitigate the VAT losses that it would experience on the provision of Care Inspectorate regulated services.

Ultimately the difference between the LLP and LATC may well come down to one of perception regarding levels of independence.

2 Social Enterprise Unit, Department of Health 2006 Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 31 Social Care Services. January 2014

7 High Level Financial Assessment and Implications

7.1 Introduction

This section deals with the following issues:

► Are the services in scope of such a size and nature to allow the chosen vehicle to have a viable and sustainable long term future? ► Once that viability has been confirmed, the 5 options available to SBC will be assessed and the most appropriate vehicle for SBC will be identified.

7.2 High level viability test on possible externalised vehicles

As outlined in the introduction our first phase is to review the financial viability of the possible externalised entities included in the available options, this assessment will confirm whether any of the selected options have a sustainable long-term future.

This assessment is based on our extensive experience in designing and implementing alternative delivery models such as LATCs and comparing these successful externalised bodies ( see table below) with those in scope in this appraisal.

The services in scope, as detailed in Section 5.2, have a cost base of over £18m per annum and their establishment holds over 600 FTE posts. Recent experience in designing and implementing new delivery vehicles informs us that an entity of this size would have a viable future and would have the capability of achieving its savings targets and sustaining itself through new income streams and efficiencies.

The viability of the vehicles is derived from the size of its budget and workforce, in order for a new legal entity to survive, it must be able to generate sufficient savings and income to finance its own governance and management structure, as well as provide SBC with the savings it requires. We have used current trading LATCs as a benchmark in gauging the viability of the services in scope, and their details are tabled below. Essex Cares Ltd 2009 Budget £30m and 750 Trading successfully for 4 years making £11m FTEs savings

Olympus Care Svs Ltd Budget £28m and 650 Trading successfully for 2 years making £3m 2012 FTEs savings

Optalis Ltd 2011 Budget £9m and 250 Trading successfully for 3 years – increasing FTEs t/o to £12m and reaching savings targets

Buckinghamshire Care Budget £9m and 250 Trading for 3 months and confirmed savings Group 2013 FTEs targets will be met

The size and nature of the services in scope for SBC are such that an externalised solution would have a viable and sustainable future as the overall cost budget of £18m is well in excess of smaller successful LATCs, therefore we have not ruled out any of the options under review.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 32 Social Care Services. January 2014

7.3 Detailed Assessment and Implications

This section details the assessment results on the following criteria:-

► Ability to make savings and be a viable and sustainable entity ► Ability to trade and develop new services to meet market demand ► Ability to pass on efficiencies and surpluses to SBC

The economic future of each of the 5 options depends on their ability to reduce operating costs to the required levels and to generate additional income from non-SBC sources to contribute sufficient net operating profit to allow a further reduction in costs to SBC services, or an expansion of provision. Sections 7.4 and 7.5 outline how externalised vehicles can make efficiency savings and diversify into new income streams.

The financial appraisal is further complicated by the legal and commercial implications of the options, as some do not allow the Council to take 100% advantage of the net benefits generated. This restriction may be the result of the legal limits in the distribution of profits as with a CIC, or it may be the result of contractual terms negotiated by an outsourced provider.

The detailed evaluation of the options is in the table below:-

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 33 Social Care Services. January 2014

Model Evaluation ► Remaining in the Council will not allow the services to trade and therefore generate Re-design of additional income and may not provide the cost reductions needed by the Council. In house provision ► Historic attempts to reduce costs have often resulted in reducing service provision. This “salami-slicing” of services has been seen to reduce quality and capacity of services to the point of extinction and is generally accepted as a non-viable option. ► In terms of control of savings, this option is the best, as, if savings are made, the Council enjoys the cash benefit immediately. However, the inability to save sufficient costs and generate additional revenue renders this control of little value. ► Theoretically the private care market could offer a significantly lower cost base, as it Outsourcing does not pay an LGPS pension contribution, it may well pay low wage rates and may not pay sick-pay to the level of Local Authorities. So its ability to make savings is accepted and is therefore a viable financial option. ► In Scotland the national care home contract currently sets a fixed national rate for care homes which reduces cost efficiencies. ► However there are significant restrictions for the Council to overcome before it can enjoy all the cost benefits generated:- o Contract pricing is not simple in this service area and the Council will not necessarily be able to negotiate a contract that guarantees that any additional savings made by the provider are passed over to the Council. It is a commercial reality that market providers will cost their contracts with as high a profit margin as they can. o Lack of financial transparency will prevent the Council from knowing how much net profit the provider is actually making out the contract. Without this knowledge the Council cannot negotiate any price reductions, and the provider’s shareholders would be the beneficiaries of any over- pricing of the contract. o The Council only has the service contract as any form of legal relationship with the provider. If that contract does not include profit- sharing, the provider is under no obligation whatsoever to pass over any of its profits ► On a more general note, it is often difficult to find the right quality providers in the right locations who can meet the Council’s service and cost requirements. This lack of capacity and choice can significantly undermine the Council’s bargaining in contract negotiations when outsourcing. ► SBC would not control the destination of additional efficiencies and surpluses ► Any model of Social Enterprise such as a CIC will have the ability to make the CIC efficiencies required by the Council and to generate additional income. The CIC would have the same opportunity and environment as an LATC or an LLP to make efficiencies. This means that the CIC would be viable economically for the Council ► The issues for the Council, however, relate to the CIC’s restricted distribution policies, legal obligations and overall governance structures. o A CIC is legally restricted to only distributing 35% of retained profits to its shareholders or stakeholders. o All non-distributed profits must be re-invested to provide services as specified in the CIC’s memorandum and articles of association. New services, deemed outside the remit of the CIC cannot be created or

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 34 Social Care Services. January 2014

developed. o The governance structure of a CIC will have several will have to include varying stakeholders from the community. Service Users, Carers, Voluntary Organisations, Charities, Local Authorities and other SEs are typical stakeholders and each member will have the right to vote and determine the future path of the CIC. o The Council would have to negotiate and gain agreement with all stakeholders and members to control the destination of the distributable retained profits. ► This lack of control over the governance and distributable reserves of the CIC makes the option less attractive to SBC as it cannot guarantee that it will enjoy all the financial benefits of efficiencies and income.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 35 Social Care Services. January 2014

► An LATC will have the ability to make the efficiencies required by the Council and to LATC generate additional income through trading. This makes this option viable from a financial standpoint. ► From a control perspective, as the 100% shareholder the Council does not have to negotiate with any other shareholder or legal stakeholder. This means that the Council can singularly decide the following:- o The level of the distribution of retained profits held by the LATC o The future direction and services to be developed by the LATC o The governance structure and composition of the Board and Directors of the LATC ► The 100% control outlined above makes the LATC a viable option for SBC as it could enjoy all the benefits of the efficiencies and additional income generated. ► At this point we have distinguished between the LATC and LLP models as there is a risk of corporation tax liabilities for the LATC as it is a corporate entity. ► This means that the LATC cannot guarantee to the Council that it can pass over 100% of its net profit as it may have to pay corporation tax. This makes the LATC slightly less viable to the Council ► An LLP will have the ability to make the efficiencies required by the Council and to LLP generate additional income through trading. This makes this option viable from a financial standpoint. ► From a control perspective, as the 100% partner the Council does not have to negotiate with any other shareholder or legal stakeholder. This means that the Council can singularly decide the following:- o The level of the distribution of retained profits held by the LLP o The future direction and services to be developed by the LLP o The governance structure and composition of the Board and Directors of the LLP ► The 100% control outlined above makes the LLP a viable option for SBC as it could enjoy all the benefits of the efficiencies and additional income generated. ► There is also a tax benefit to the LLP that does not sit with the LATC. The legal nature of the LLP as a partnership means that it can adopt the tax status of the principal partner, which would be SBC. As SBC is exempt from corporation tax because it is a local authority, the LLP can enjoy that exemption as well. ► This means that the LLP is a more viable option to SBC than the LATC is as the LLP can guarantee that 100% of net profit could be distributed, and no corporation tax paid.

7.4 Achieving Savings

Summary

The next section looks at how all of the options can produce cost savings through efficiencies.

Re-design of in-house provision has the least capacity to make long-lasting savings without compromising service capacity and quality. This is evidenced by how historic attempts to reduce

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 36 Social Care Services. January 2014 costs have been temporary and how budget reductions have been met by reducing capacity at management and delivery levels. It is generally accepted that any further significant reductions would lead to service closure, or outsourcing as there “is nowhere else to go for additional savings”

Outsourcing has historically delivered savings, but these savings have been proven to come at a cost which is often a loss of control over the services.

This loss of control typically manifests itself as:- ► A loss of control over quality and delivery ► Staff pay and conditions can be compromised ► Any additional savings made by the services are retained by the provider

The three externalised vehicles (CIC, LATC and LLP) can achieve savings and efficiencies. All three vehicles have the ability and the legal capacity to make these savings because they are formed as external to the Council. We have used our direct experience and knowledge to produce a high level analysis of savings potential. A detailed business case would perform significant due diligence and analysis of the data and assumptions to confirm the savings values and to frame the savings in a 5 year business plan.

Results of high level savings analysis:-

Year 3 Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 4 Year 5

£351,000 £498,000 £571,000 £644,000 £644,000 Savings from reduced absence £194,000 £194,000 £194,000 £194,000 £194,000 Savings from reduced supplies of 7.5%

Total savings £545,000 £692,000 £765,000 £838,000 £838,000

7.4.1 More commercial & efficient ways of working – ‘Staffing efficiencies’ Experience in implementing and managing recently launched vehicles evidences a cultural change in the new company that leads to a “team environment” and a sense of individual responsibility towards colleagues and the organisation as a whole. This is coupled with the recruitment of a new top team with commercial principles and practices. Flatter management hierarchies, quicker decision-making processes and more responsive senior management all help staff feel empowered and galvanised into developing better and more efficient ways of working. The two most common and valuable manifestations of this injection of commercialisation centre on the workforce management, namely:

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 37 Social Care Services. January 2014

► Reduced absence rates ► More efficient work practices and patterns There will be over 600 FTEs that will be filled by over 1,190 staff with full and part-time working patterns. The services that are transferring are forecast to experience this year an average of 15.7 days absence per year per FTE. The financial effect of reducing absence has been calculated by reducing the average number of day’s absence from 15.7 days: ► By 5 days in the first year; ► In the second year sickness days will be reduced by a further 2 days to 9 days. ► This will then further reduce to 7 days which is the industry average over the next two years. The financial effect of this reduction in absence is detailed in the table below:-

Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

From 15.7 From 10.7 From 9 to 7 Remains at Remains at Absence Days to 10.7 to 9 7 7 reduction

£351,000 £498,000 £571,000 £644,000 £644,000 Financial reduction compared to now

The absence figure of 15.7 is a projection of 13/14’s absence based on the 1st six months actual figures. Over a five year period, the new vehicle could achieve cumulative savings of £2.7m, and this is achieved by reducing absence to 7 days per annum by the 4th year of trading.

Evidence from case studies: why does workforce management improve? Non- Attendance rates in these types of workforce and employment arrangements are traditionally higher than many other sectors. These non-attendance rates are consistent with the experience of the two recent case study councils who have externalised services in similar ways. The evidence base of change is drawn from the experience of those councils who have already moved to a trading environment and also more widely the experience of commercialisation on workforce management. Essex Cares Ltd is the largest LATC for adult social care in the UK with a turnover of over £33m and employing over 900 staff in full and part-time positions. A recently published article in Community Care reported that before the launch of the LATC, absence rates in Essex County Council had been up to 36 days pa, but management initiatives and the launch of the LATC had reduced absence days to 11.7pa in 2010 so that by February 2011 the absence rate was at 8.8 days pa.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 38 Social Care Services. January 2014

Sandwell Community Trust, a social enterprise, has been trading for over 10 years and its current absence rate is approximately 1% which equates to approximately 2-3 days pa. Discussion with case study areas identified: ► Employees moving into a commercial environment recognise the importance of their role, and they also understand the effect that non-attendance will have on the performance of the organisation. It is also easier to engender a “team spirit” in a smaller more focussed organisation ► In a commercial organisation it is possible for management to adopt a different approach to non-attendance than that applied by Local Authorities. Experience of existing LATCs is that a more robust approach will result in improved performance and reduced periods of absence. ► The launch of a trading company can act as a catalyst and a significant change point in the working environment and culture which can jointly promote and advance the change in working practices. The cost of absence does not always manifest in agency staff costs but could be borne as: ► Overtime for other members of staff ► Longer working days ► Additional shifts ► Employed relief staff Each of the above measures results in increased staff costs, or reduced provision if costs budgets are to be met and so the calculated savings have been taken off the budgeted direct staffing costs, or the freed up staff capacity can be utilised to provide additional services to new clients which would result in additional income.

We have also been involved 4 more recent transfers into LATCs involving staff numbers ranging from 300 to 1,000 and each one has experienced a significant reduction in their staffing costs through reducing absence and more efficient working practices..

7.4.2 More commercial & efficient ways of working – ‘consumables demand’ In tandem with reduced absence, the new cultural shift engendered by the establishment of the external vehicle encourages staff to be more conscientious and careful with the supplies they consume in their daily work. The sense of a team environment and that everybody’s actions make a difference encourage staff to use less as they go about their duties. The vehicle will also have the ability to purchase supplies and services from the most appropriate and cost efficient sources, and the management will be tasked with reviewing usage and activity patterns to identify ways of saving resources. This may involve purchasing from more local and immediate suppliers who are prepared to be more flexible in the value of minimum order levels and delivery quantities. Unit prices may not be any lower than those offered by the current Council procurement contracts, but the order levels, locality and flexibility of deliveries can encourage smaller order quantities and less usage. The services in scope typically spend only 20% of their service budget on supplies and consumables, and they can suffer from having to purchase items with minimum order levels that are far in excess of their actual needs. This is because they are part of the Council and as such

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 39 Social Care Services. January 2014 may be compelled to purchase from council-wide contracts which are designed to service very large, multi-department organisations where reducing administration is a major cost-cutting tool. We have recognised that in the current economic climate there are certain costs that are increasing with inflation and so we have assumed that costs will be reduced by an average 7.5% in all areas of supply except for: ► Electricity, gas and fuel oil ► Rent and rates – including water rates ► Community equipment and Telecare expenditure ► More effective use of transport These estimated reductions of 7.5% per annum would create savings of £970k over the first 5 years of the new organisation. Evidence from case studies: why can you reduce consumable spend? After 3 years trading as an LATC Essex Cares Ltd has enjoyed savings by adopting the following policies: ► Much closer budget scrutiny, at a lower level ► Monthly commitment recording ► Budget holder training ► Mid-year forecast process capturing savings made to date ► Eliminating budget virements. Essex Cares saved £600k in its first year of trading and overall in its first 3 years in business it made a saving of 11% on a total activity budget of £99m on a combination of staffing and consumable costs.

Another example of efficiency savings being made is Olympus Care Services Ltd, an LATC in Northamptonshire. This company in its first year of trading saved £3m on a combined staff and supplies budget of £28m pa.

7.5 Additional Income Opportunities

This options appraisal is not designed to analyse in detail the income potential for the services in scope. That work would be completed in a full business case where opportunities for additional income would explored and tested in a due diligence exercise on the local market and the services in scope. The option appraisal is, however, structured so that it recognises the legal capabilities of each option to develop income from non SBC contracts. These capabilities have been detailed in Section 7.3. Initial high level discussions with service managers have indicated that the rural nature of the Scottish Borders means that there is an opportunity to develop more community based services in the locale, which recognise the local needs and characteristics of the resident population. Rather than looking at providing the exact same service from a centralised location, we would look at local developments in services, using existing buildings more imaginatively and flexibly,

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 40 Social Care Services. January 2014 cutting down on travel and logistical issues as the local community would be close to its service provider. Self directed support represents a real opportunity for income generation in this area. Currently, the Council is able to receive payments for services delivered to users in receipt of direct payments. However, this legal capacity has not been developed by SBC as it needs a more commercial environment to develop and flourish. This commercial and flexible environment would be provided by the LATC/LLP/CIC. Moreover, the LATC/LLP/CIC would be able to receive payments from private funders. This opens up additional revenue streams outside of the Council’s contracts. It also follows the direction of central government policy and could go some way to alleviate any downward funding pressure. Whilst increases in service demand for some services, such as residential homes may be constrained in the short term by the capacity of the service buildings, it is possible to expand services which are not restricted by assets such as home care. These kinds of services would be opened up to the private funder and direct payment service user and would generate income for both the LATC/LLP/CIC and the Council. However, with the introduction of market forces, the LATC/LLP/CIC will need to deliver services that meet user expectations and that are competitively priced. The social care and health integration initiative that will come into being in 2015 will offer opportunities to transferred vehicles such as the LATC/LLP/CIC. We have seen an increase in interest for LATCs being involved in contractual service provision with commissioners from the NHS bodies and Local Authorities. This interest is partly stimulated by the fact that the budgets for these contracted services can be identified and capped by the service contract and measurable outcomes can be part of the SLA inside the contract.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 41 Social Care Services. January 2014

8 Options Appraisal

This section provides a summary appraisal taken from the detailed appraisal which forms Appendix 4 where each option is appraised following the approaches described in Section 3.2:

1. Qualitative analysis 2. Design criteria assessment 3. Stakeholder analysis 4. Financial Assessment and implications

8.1 Summary of Options Appraisal:

The viability of each of the options considered has been summarised in the table below from our complete analysis which is provided in the supporting appendices (Appendix 4).

Option 1 – Outsourcing:

Whilst in theory this option has the potential to maintain or improve quality and is accessible to private funders Viable but with and DP service users, providers may misjudge capacity Quality significant risks or capability and ability to maintain quality in achieving their cost model. Current market analysis identifies significant risks relating to quality Outsourcing typically achieves the lowest costs, though the market cost for LD services is relatively high. Moreover, providers will retain any savings or income Viable but with generated. SBC has experienced significant problems in Cost Qualitative significant risks a lack of interest in response to tenders that have been issued for social care services. This limited supply is an Assessment issue regarding competition and ultimately cost as well as satisfying the supply requirements on the Borders. This will be dependent upon contract management. Governance Viable but with Whilst this option could be sustainable, providers are and unlikely to share commercial data and any significant risks Flexibility accommodation of policy initiatives could incur additional costs. Acceptability Outsourcing option is unpopular with staff. Service users Viable but with and carers are concerned about the threat to quality. to significant risks However, this could be negated by appropriate stakeholders stakeholder management. Viable but with Whilst outsourcing could be financially viable the market Financial Implications issues present significant risk to the Council. Also the significant risks Council needs to consider how they can tap into savings. Overall Viable but with significant risks

Outsourcing is a viable option and this is reflected in the number of independently provided adult social care services across the country. There is a potential to reduce cost and ensure a financially sustainable service. However, this is not without significant risks and current experience within the Scottish Borders would ward against this as a solution due to experience of limited supply and poor responses to tenders issued.

The Council will lose ultimate control of the service affecting, for example, the flexibility to implement policy initiatives. Equally, the Council will not be able to generate income from this option and any savings made ultimately rely on the contract value.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 42 Social Care Services. January 2014

It is also likely that the service as a whole would have to be ‘parceled-up’ and tendered in individual service offerings.

Option 2 – Continue In house provision:

In house provision guarantees service of last resort and Viable but with could make effective use of the Council’s partners. Quality risks However, financial pressures may lead to a compromise in quality. In the current climate and given the service has already undergone reconfiguration and cost saving exercises, this Cost Not viable option is unlikely to achieve value for money and will Qualitative struggle to achieve savings and cannot generate external income. Assessment Whilst this option allows flexibility in terms of policy Gov. and initiatives and allows the Council to maintain ultimate Not viable Flexibility control, it is inherently unsustainable and commercially inflexible. Acceptability This option is preferable to most staff and service users, to Viable as there is a perceived level of job and service security. stakeholders Achieving future savings will require significant Financial Implications Not viable reconfiguration of services which is likely to require the closure of some existing provision. Overall Not viable

Financial and demographic pressures and consequential top down Government policy means that to continue in-house provision is not viable. As the Government follows its ambitions to increase the number of Direct Payment service users, the Council will ultimately bear the cost of both running a service and paying out Direct Payments which service users may not be prepared to pay the high cost. Eventually, the need to make savings will result in a stripped down service where quality is compromised and service user needs are unmet.

The benefit of this option would be a continuation of ‘business as usual’ and this enables the SBC to remain a direct provider and could continue to facilitate the management of the modernisation agenda. However, this would be likely to lead to an ongoing rationalisation of services and these services would therefore be vulnerable as a target for savings through service cuts. This in turn could lead to a reactive externalisation not necessarily in a planned or productive manner which may not be in the best interests of the Council.

Creating an internal business model either through zero based budgeting or creating a Direct Services Organisation will not deal with the inherent structural issues of providing the services from within the Council.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 43 Social Care Services. January 2014

Option 3 – Community Interest Company (Social Enterprise):

This option increases competition in the marketplace as it is accessible to private funders and DP service users. Quality Viable Service users commission their own provision and therefore will drive the delivery of high quality services. Social enterprise options can improve efficiency, reduce costs and achieve value for money. However, there are Cost Viable significant limitations on what savings and income can be passed to the Council. Qualitative Assessment Whilst this option could deliver sustainable services, there Governance Viable but with are restrictions on the amount of control the Council will and significant have over what is delivered and how it is delivered. This Flexibility risks may mean there are limitations of the viability of the CIC to accommodate other services.

Acceptable There is a high level of engagement with Service Users Viable and Carers. There are also opportunities to partner with to s/holders other organizations. Savings can be achieved through both staff efficiencies Viable but with and supply savings. The social enterprise would be able to trade with private funders and DP service users as Financial Implications significant well as develop new income streams. However, these risks income streams will not necessarily feed back to the Council. Overall Viable with risks

The Community Interest Company option is viable as it enables the Council to benefit from attracting additional income from other sources such as direct payments, private funders and potentially other contracts from outside of the Council. There is also the potential to provide leadership in a relatively disparate market which could help to manage quality issues in the external market and ensure that the Council can continue to meet its legal obligations in the event of market failures. A CIC could seek to achieve savings through:

• Increasing efficiency by creating a team spirit and sense of belonging and purpose within a much smaller organisation. Experience in SEs has shown that the cultural change manifests itself in reduced absenteeism. • In a commercial organisation it is possible for management to adopt a different approach that can result in improved performance • The SE will have the ability to procure supplies and services from the most appropriate and cost efficient sources, and the management will be tasked with reviewing usage and activity patterns to identify ways of saving resources.

However, there are risks associated with the governance arrangements. The Council would have limited control within a CIC model and would only be able to receive 35% of available profits through dividends. Therefore, the Council would have restricted access to any income generated. Moreover, the potential to “drop” other services into the Social Enterprise will be restricted by the CIC’s Memorandum and Articles of Association. This limits the ability to introduce other services without undergoing separate procurement processes.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 44 Social Care Services. January 2014

Option 4 and 5 – Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) and LLP:

The LATC/LLP is able to achieve high quality provision in the same way as the Social Enterprise model as it is Quality Viable accessible to private funders and DP service users. Unlike the Social Enterprise model, Council control means that it can also guarantee services of last resort. The LATC/LLP can improve efficiency, reduce costs and Cost Viable achieve value for money. The LATC/LLP also allows the Qualitative Council to access savings and income generated. Assessment Governance The Council has ultimate control of the LATC/LLP and and Viable therefore has access to financial and performance data. Flexibility It also has the flexibility to accommodate other services. There is a high level of engagement with service Users Acceptability and carers. Stakeholder buy-in is mainly due to the close to Viable affiliation with Council and continued Council influence. stakeholders There are opportunities to partner with another organisation to reduce costs. Savings and income generation could be achieved and profits can be re-invested in new or existing LATC/LLP services or back into the Council. A Scottish Borders Financial Implications Viable LATC/LLP with the proposed scope would be large enough to withstand governance and management costs. Overall Viable

The LATC/LLP is able to achieve savings and generate income in much the same way as the Social Enterprise option. However, the LATC/LLP model does not share the same risks associated with governance. This is because the Council, by constitution, is likely to be the sole shareholder of the LATC or partner with the LLP thereby retaining control of the company and its dividend distribution policy as well as providing democratic Council scrutiny of its performance. The LATC/LLP also sets it apart from the Social Enterprise as the preferred option for these Services as it addresses governance risks through the following:

• Services currently being in a state of transition to a new model of services delivery which is likely to evolve over the next few years • The ability to use the LATC/LLP as a transitional delivery model allowing the other options such as Outsourcing or setting up a Community Interest Company to be considered at a later stage when the market is in a more developed state or even transferring other services in to the LATC/LLP at a later stage • The confidence of stakeholders in this model as an initial transfer vehicle to independence • The LATC/LLP model can support effective integration with Health in taking forward the ambitions of the Integration Bill whilst ensuring that the Council retains an appropriate level of control over services • The Council can control 100% of the retained surpluses of the LATC/LLP

Due to the “Teckal” exemption the Council would not have to go through a competitive tender process to transfer the services to the LATC.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 45 Social Care Services. January 2014

9 Conclusion and Recommendation

The Options Appraisal has identified that the LATC/LLP models offer the most advantages for the Council. They provide opportunities for additional income generation which can be reinvested to contribute to demand and cost reduction for example, through earlier intervention and prevention initiatives. This can reduce the need to make savings in services through further efficiency measures. This not only protects services from further attrition but also provides an opportunity for these services to begin to grow through their ability to compete and attract private funders, Direct Payment holders and bid for contracts from other councils or commissioning bodies.

As new externalised entities both the LATC and the LLP will have the opportunity and the ability to make efficiency savings that meet and hopefully exceed SBC’s budgetary requirements

The difference between the LATC and LLP models are minor with the LLP offering a ‘cleaner’ way of achieving corporation tax efficiencies and with the LATC offering perceptually a more independent model.

Based on this Options Appraisal it is recommended that the Council proceed to develop a Full 5 Year Business Case for the development of both the LATC and the LLP. These are considered to be the most appropriate solutions for the current in scope in-house provision to form a sustainable commercial entity that has the potential to benefit the Council and its citizens. The reason to consider both of these at the Full Business Case stage is that the differences between the two are so close it provides a further opportunity to determine which best suits the Scottish Borders.

Care and Health Solutions - Scottish Borders Council Options Appraisal for Alternative Delivery Models for In-House Adult 46 Social Care Services. January 2014

ITEM 9

Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Report by the Chief Executive

Scottish Borders Council 30th January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to agree a response to Scottish Government’s Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill which aims to provide a legislative underpinning that will support and drive forward the empowering of communities and reforming public services.

1.2 The Consultation Document (see Appendix 2) comprises six chapters together with the text of the Draft Bill in Annex C. The main parts of the document are the: x Proposals for draft legislation comprising the sections on Asset Transfer to Communities; Community Right to Request Participation in Processes to Improve Outcomes for Service Delivery; Common Good Fund and the Recovery of Expenses on Defective and Dangerous Buildings. x Detailed policy proposals on Improving and Extending Community Right to Buy; Strengthening Community Planning; Allotments and Local Relief Schemes for non-domestic (business) rates. x Wider Policy Proposals covering Scotland Performance – the Scottish Government’s national performance framework and Subsidiarity and local decision making. There are 75 questions contained within the Consultation with around a third relating to the Community Right to Buy.

1.3 The proposed response to the Consultation Paper from the Council set out in Appendix 1 builds on its previous response to the Scottish Government exploratory consultation in September 2012.

th 1.4 The deadline for the response to the Consultation Paper was the 24 January 2014 but the Scottish Government is accepting submissions after this date where approvals need to be given by organisations.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Council agrees to the response set out in Appendix 1.

Scottish Borders Council, 30th January 2014 1 3 Background 3.1 The consultation on the Community Empowerment Bill builds on the Scottish Government’s earlier exploratory consultation in the Summer of 2012. The Council agreed its response to this consultation at its meeting on the 27th September 2012.

3.2 The cornerstones on which the present proposals for the Bill are based comprise: x Empowering our communities x Making the most of the talents that exist in our communities x Delivering high quality and improving services x Supporting strong local democracy and local democracy. The Bill is intended to provide a legislative underpinning for the empowering of communities and reforming public services which the Scottish Government’s recognises as key to improving outcomes in Scotland.

3.3 Despite these high level aspirations the draft Bill is a mixture of strategic policy and community engagement, in relation to Strengthening Community Planning and the Community Right to Request Participation in Processes to Improve Outcomes for Service Delivery, and more operational matters such as Community Asset Transfer; Defective and Derelict Buildings; Common Good Funds and Allotments. There are also new areas that were not included in the original consultation. These look at the existing community right to buy in the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, and the statutory underpinning of Scotland Performs, the Scottish Government’s national performance framework.

4. The Response 4.1 This draft response builds on the response from Scottish Borders Council to the previous exploratory consultation on the Bill that was approved by the Council in September 2012.

4.2 The main points highlighted in the proposed response set out in Appendix 2 are: x That local authorities as locally elected democratic bodies should be given the freedom to develop their own approaches to community engagement and empowerment and this should not be prescribed by the Scottish Government. This applies particularly to the sections on the Community Right to Request Participation in Processes to Improve Outcomes for Service Delivery, and Allotments. x The concerns about the additional management costs to the Council of implementing aspects of the legislation, particularly in relation to the Community Right to Request Participation in Processes to Improve Outcomes for Service Delivery, and Allotments. x The provision of strong support for those parts of the Bill that add value to the work already being undertaken by Scottish Borders Council and its Community Planning partners. In particular this includes the sections on Community Asset Transfer, Defective and Derelict Buildings, Common Good Funds, Strengthening Community Planning and the statutory underpinning of Scotland Performs, and subsidiarity and local decision making.

Scottish Borders Council, 30th January 2014 2 4.3 The Section on the Community Right to Buy comprises around one third of the questions in the consultation paper. The Council has not had much experience in this area. Responses to the questions in this Section have been prepared by looking at how it is working elsewhere in Scotland. The most important element of this Section is the extension of the community right to buy to include urban areas and settlements with a population of 10,000 or more. This will include Hawick and Galashiels in the Scottish Borders, and their inclusion could provide opportunities for more community regeneration projects in these towns

4.4 In the final Section about Subsidiarity and local decision making (question 71 Appendix 1) it is stated in the Council’s proposed response that local authorities need much greater control of finance and resources. It is also indicated that local democracy can best be strengthened by placing a duty on Scottish Government Ministers while exercising their functions to observe and promote the European Charter of Local Self- Government. Adopting the broader Charter offers a way of promoting a comprehensive approach to protecting citizen’s rights to local engagement and local democracy.

4.5 It should be noted in Section 4.4 of the consultation paper (page 45 see Appendix 2) it is mentioned that the Scottish Government is consulting on options for a new scheme to exempt small and medium – sized third sector organisations from water and sewerage charges and a separate consultation is underway on this. A draft response is being prepared on this.

5 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial There could be significant costs to the Council arising from the (a) proposals contained in this Consultation document if implemented by the Scottish Government. This applies particularly to the additional management costs for the Council that could result from the implementation of the sections relating to the Community Right to Request Participation in Processes to Improve Outcomes for Service Delivery, and Allotments.

5.2 Risk and Mitigations (a) Parts of the Bill will assist the work of the Council such as Community Asset Transfer, Defective and Derelict Buildings, Common Good Funds, Strengthening Community Planning and the statutory underpinning of Scotland Performs. However there are risks for the Council in administering other aspects of the Bill if implemented because of a lack of resources. This applies particularly to the Community Right to Request Participation in Processes to Improve Outcomes for Service Delivery and Allotments.

5.3 Equalities (a) An Equality Impact Assessment is not required at this stage as this is a response to a Scottish Government consultation paper.

Scottish Borders Council, 30th January 2014 3 5.4 Acting Sustainably (a) There is the potential of considerable positive environmental benefits arising from the Bill in relation to the increased possibilities for the community projects and the community management of land and properties.

5.5 Carbon Management (a) There is the potential of considerable positive benefits in relation to low carbon arising from the Bill due to the increased possibilities for the community projects and the community management of land and properties.

5.6 Rural Proofing (a) There is the potential arising from the Bill for more opportunities for community projects in rural areas.

5.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation (a) There will be no changes required to either the Scheme of Administration or the Scheme of Delegation as a result of the response set out in this report.

6 CONSULTATION 6.1 The Corporate Management Team, the Chief Financial Officer, Head of Corporate Governance, Head of Human Resources, Clerk to the Council, Head of Strategic Policy, and Head of Risk and Audit are being consulted on this report.

Approved by

Chief Executive Signature …………………………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Douglas Scott Senior Policy Advisor, Chief Executive’s Department tel 01835 825155

Background Papers:

Previous Minute Reference: Scottish Borders Council, 27th September 2012

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Douglas Scott can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at: Douglas Scott, Senior Policy Advisor, Chief Executive’s Department, tel 01835 825155 [email protected] Scottish Borders Council, 30th January 2014 4 Appendix 1

Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Response from Scottish Borders Council

Answers to Questions

Chapter 3 - Proposals with draft legislation

3.1 Draft Bill Part 1 ‘Asset Transfer Requests’

Q1 Do you agree with the definition of community body at section 1? Do you have any changes to suggest?

Yes, to a partial extent.

It is vital that the community bodies that acquire an asset are robust and as sustainable as possible.

A number of these community bodies may be unincorporated associations with unlimited liability and governed by a management committee who have weak organisational capacity, or limited funds to support sustainable long term community asset transfer projects.

The definition should therefore ensure that any order designating unincorporated persons as a community body should contain appropriate safeguards, reflecting the provisions specified in section 1 (5) pertaining to incorporated companies (with Articles of Association).

The provisions of Section 1 (5) (f) could be of concern if any property was returned to the relevant authority following winding up of a community body, and any liabilities associated also transfer, e.g. buildings in poor or dangerous condition, possible sub-let or lease liabilities to be complied with. The liabilities of the company referred to in Section 5 (f) should include the costs of removing these liabilities if they did not exist at the time of the initial sale or transfer of the asset.

Q2 Do you agree with the list of public bodies to be covered in this Part at Schedule 1 (Annex C page 21)? What other bodies should be added, or removed?

Yes

1 Q3 What do you think would be reasonable timescales for dealing with requests, making an offer and concluding a contract, in relation to sections 5(6), 6(2)(c) and 6(6)?

It is considered that the timescale for dealing with requests should be at least 6 months (section 5(6). A time greater than six months may be required for more complex cases.

For making an offer, the timescale should be one month as the community body will already have had a considerable amount of time to know about the property (section 6 (2)(c).

For the concluding the contract the statement in section 6(6) is reasonable.

It should be noted that most transfers are likely to be subject to the timescales and procedures of national funding bodies, so the timescales will need to be flexible enough to accommodate a variety of circumstances. The least able communities will take more time to develop projects. Early ‘in principle’ decisions are important but actual transfer should not happen until the community is ready to deliver. Also some public assets may have old and complex titles which could take longer to solve.

Q4 Do you agree that community bodies should have a right of appeal to Ministers as set out in section 8? Are there other appeal or review procedures that you feel would be more appropriate?

Yes.

The exclusion of local authorities from the need to be part of the appeals process on community asset transfers in relation to their own properties to Ministers supported.

Q5 What form of appeal or review processes would be appropriate in relation to decisions made by local authorities and by Scottish Ministers?

Local authorities should have the right to set up their own appeal or review procedures and these should be included within their Asset Transfer policies. The procedures should not be prescribed by legislation.

Q6 Do you have any other comments about the wording of the draft provisions?

No

2 Q7What costs and savings do you think would come about as a result of these draft provisions? Please be as specific as you can.

There could be considerable added costs and bureaucracy in administering the Asset Transfer requests, if appeal and review mechanisms are imposed on local authorities.

In disputed cases there is a risk that land and properties could become disused or derelict to the detriment of all.

There can also be significant legal cost in relation to dealing with complex title deeds.

3 3.2 Community Right to participate in processes to improve outcomes of service delivery

Q8 Do you agree with the definition of community body at section 11? Do you have any changes to suggest?

Yes

Q9 Do you agree with the list of public bodies to be covered in this Part at Schedule 2 (Annex C page 21)? What other bodies should be added, or removed?

No

Consideration should be given to including Scottish Water in the list.

Q10 Do you agree with the description at section 13 of what a participation request by a community body to a public service authority should cover? Is there anything you would add or remove?

No.

Community participation request schemes should be developed by each public authority. These would clearly show what the outcome improvement process means in relation to their organisations in the spirit of the legislation. This would include the parameters for involvement, and would lead to a genuine service improvement.

There is a danger that the participation request process could be used by community groups who wish to overturn a difficult decision made by a public organisations for budget or other valid organisation reasons.

Q11 Do you agree with the criteria at section 15 that a public service authority should use when deciding whether to agree or refuse a participation request?

Are there any other criteria that should be considered?

Yes.

Consideration should be given to including “public service efficiency” under the list of criteria in Section 15 (3) (c)

Local authorities as locally elected bodies should be able to set up their own criteria for dealing with requests, whilst taking account of the criteria set out in section 15.

4 Q12 Do you have any other comments about the wording of the draft provisions?

No

Q13 What costs and savings do you think would come about as a result of these draft provisions? Please be as specific as you can.

This is difficult to predict or quantify. There is a risk of considerable added costs for local authorities in establishing processes to implement this scheme, as any additional work that Councils are required to undertake will cause pressures on existing resources. Local authorities should have the flexibility to deliver the scheme in ways which they consider to be appropriate. Such delivery would be proportionate, effective and efficient.

5 3.3 Increasing Transparency about Common Good

Draft Bill: Part 3 “Common Good Property”

Q14 Do you think the draft provisions will meet our goal to increase transparency about the existence, use and disposal of common good assets and to increase community involvement in decisions taken about their identification, use and disposal? What other measures would help to achieve that?

Yes.

These provisions build on the work already being undertaken by Scottish Borders Council.

3.4 Defective and Dangerous Buildings – Recovery of Expenses

Draft Bill: Part 4 “Liability for expenses under Building (Scotland) Act 2003”

Q15 Do you agree that the cost recovery powers in relation to dangerous and defective buildings should be improved as set out in the draft Bill?

Yes

Q16 Do you agree that the same improvements should apply to sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003?

Yes

6 Chapter 4 - Detailed Policy Proposals

Extension of the community right to buy

Q17 The Scottish Government proposes to extend right to buy to communities in all parts of Scotland, where the Scottish Government is satisfied that it is in the public interest. Do you agree with this proposal, and are there any additional measures that would help our proposals for a streamlined community right to buy to apply across Scotland?

Yes.

The extension of community right to buy is very important as it means that all the towns of the Scottish Borders will be included within the community right to buy legislation. This will provide added opportunities for formerly excluded town communities such as Hawick and Galashiels.

Scope of “registrable land”

Q18 Do you think that Ministers should have the power to extend “registrable” and” to cover land that is currently not included as “registrable land”? What other land should also be considered as being “registrable”?

Yes.

Within towns it may be difficult to meaningfully define pockets of land or assets as ‘registrable land’, as urban land is less clearly classified in many instances than rural land.

Properties that are owned and occupied as sole residences should be exempt from the scope of registrable land to prevent individuals facing financial and family crisis as a result of the lengthy timescales involved in the community right to buy process. In other words, the delays could make it very difficult to move house for employment or other essential reasons to support an individual’s personal and family life.

There should no community right to buy for common good land.

Compulsory powers for communities to acquire neglected or abandoned land

Q19 Do you think that there should be a compulsory power for communities to buy neglected or abandoned land in certain circumstances? What should these circumstances be?

Compulsory purchase powers (CPOs) tend to be controversial, slow and expensive. This does not link well with applications for community right to buy. Any power should rest with the local authority to raise a CPO to acquire land on behalf of a community body. For the local authority to

7 undertake this task there would need to be evidence of strong community support and well defined benefits, with the community body and/or the Scottish Government responsible for bearing the costs.

Q20 How do you think this should work in practice? How do you think that the terms “neglected” and “abandoned” should be defined?

The identification of neglected or abandoned land should be identified by local authorities as part of the development of the Local Development Plan.

Streamlining the community right to buy

Application form to register a community interest in land

Q21 Do you think that the criteria to be met by a community body in section 38(1) of the Act are appropriate?

Yes.

Do you think that there should be additional criteria?

No.

Please set out what changes or additions should be made to the criteria.

No comment.

Q22 Do you think that the information that is included in the Register of Community Interests in Land is appropriate?

Yes.

If not, what should that information include?

No comment.

Q23 How could the application form to register a community interest in land be altered to make it easier to complete (e.g., should there be a word limit on the answers to particular questions)? Should the questions be more specifically directed to the requirements of sections 36(2) and 38(1) of the Act? Do you have any other suggestions?

The form should be as simple as possible to complete.

8 Communities responding where land unexpectedly comes on the market

Q24 Do you agree that communities should be able to apply to register an interest in land in cases where land unexpectedly comes on the market and they have not considered using the community right to buy?

Yes.

If so, what changes should be made to section 39 to ensure that such communities can apply to register a community interest in land?

There should be a set timescale for the Scottish Government to approve or refuse a request.

Re-registration of a community interest in land

Q25 Do you agree that the process to re-register a community interest should be a re-confirmation of a community interest in land?

Yes.

Q26 Do you think that the community body should be asked to show that its application is (1) still relevant, (2) has the support of its“community”, and that (3) granting it is in the public interest?

Yes.

The timescale to complete the “right to buy”

Q27 What do you think should be the length of the statutory period for completing the right to buy, taking into account both the interests of the landowner and the community body? Please explain the reasons for your proposal.

The statutory process should allow for a time period to complete the right to buy of at least one year. The process should properly reflect the complicated nature of property transactions, including the need to obtain site / soil assessments, planning consent, building warrants, board approvals etc.

9 Q28 Do you think that some of the tasks within the right to buy (such as valuation, ballot etc) should be rearranged and the timescales for their completion changed in order to make the best use of the time available within the right to buy? Please set out what changes you think should be made and why.

No Comment.

Ballot issues – Balloting arrangements

Q29 Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should organise the undertaking of a community body̏s ballot and pay its costs? If you disagree, please provide your reasons.

Local authorities are experienced at running ballots at a local level and should be responsible for organising the undertaking of a community body’s ballot in their area. However, the additional cost of this ballot should be met by the Scottish Ministers. Also the involvement of local authorities in assisting with ballots will depend on the numbers of community right to buy requests together with the availability of staff and the timing of these requests.

There may be instances of a conflict of interest where the local authority has an interest in the area of land involved. In such cases an arrangement could be made with an independent body to organise the ballot.

Q30 Should Scottish Ministers notify the ballot result to the landowner? Please explain your reasons.

Yes

This would provide the quality assurance that the process is open and transparent.

Right to buy “application” – pro-forma

Q31 Do you think Ministers should develop a pro-forma for community bodies to set out their plans for the sustainable development of land and community? Please give reasons for your view.

Yes. This would provide a consistent application process and guidance to enable the community bodies to focus on relevant issues associated with the proposal.

10 Improving the process of the right to buy

Written definition of “community”

Q32 Do you agree that community bodies should be able to define their “community” in a more flexible way by the use of either postcodes, settlement areas, localities of settlements, and electoral wards, or a mixture of these, as appropriate?

Yes, providing this is properly defined in the constitution of the community body and it is not a cover for narrow sectional interests.

Q33 Are there any other ways that a “community” could be defined?

There is a need to keep a spatial focus to the term community.

“Community body”: appropriate legal entities

Q34 Do you agree that other legal entities in addition to the company limited by guarantee should be able to apply to use the community right to buy provisions?

It is considered that there should be a strong justification for any departure from the use of companies limited by guarantee.

Q35 Do you agree that SCIOs should be able to apply under the provisions?

Yes but they must show a strong and broad community membership and focus.

Q36 What other legal entities should be able to apply under the community right to buy provisions – and why?

Community Interest Companies (CIC) with a strong community membership and focus, which are incorporated and include an “Asset Lock” to ensure the assets held are used for social objectives, should be able to apply. This type of company is designed for social enterprises that want to use their profits and assets for the public good.

“Forever conditions”

Q37 Do you agree that Ministers should only have to “approve” the changes to Articles of Association for community bodies that are actively seeking to use or are using the community right to buy?

Yes.

11 Length of the period of registration

Q38 Do you think that the length of a registered interest in land should remain as 5 years or be changed? If it should be changed, how long should it be – and what are your reasons for making that change?

The five year term seems reasonable and should remain.

Valuation of the land – counter representations

Q39 Do you agree that the valuation procedure should include counter representations by the landowner and community body? If you disagree, please give your reasons for your decision.

Yes.

Landowner withdrawing land from sale

Q40 Do you think that there should be a provision to deter landowners from taking the land off the market after they have triggered the right to buy? Please explain your reasons.

If the landowner is not a willing seller then he or she should be entitled to withdraw.

There might only be an exception in the case of disused or abandoned land.

Ballot – level of support to be secured

Q41 Do you think that there should there be greater flexibility in a community body̏s level of support for a right to buy in the ballot result than is currently permitted?

Yes.

Q42 Do you think that the ballot result should focus on a sufficient amount of support to justify the community support to proceed with the right to buy the land? If yes, please explain how secured community support should be measured.

Yes.

A majority of those voting in favour of the proposal that live in the defined community.

12 Ballot – extenuating circumstances

Q43 Do you agree that community bodies should be able to submit evidence to Ministers in support of their ballot result where they believe that their ballot has been affected by circumstances out with their control?

Yes.

Right to buy “application” – need for further information

Q44 Do you think that Scottish Ministers should be able to ask community bodies for additional information relating to their right to buy “application” which Ministers would then take into account in considering their right to buy “application”? Please explain your reasons.

This will help to clarify any outstanding matters.

Option agreements and the community right to buy

Q45 Do you think that Ministers should be able to accept an application to register a community interest in land which is subject to an option agreement (on part or all of the land)?

Yes.

Q46 If there is an option agreement in place, do you think that the landowner should be able to transfer the land as an exempt transfer while there is a registered interest over that land? Please explain your answer.

An option agreement should not be used as a vehicle to prevent a community’s right to buy. Providing the interest over the land has been formally registered, the landowner should be required to provide the community with first refusal.

Date of the prohibition notice coming into effect for the owner/heritable creditor

Q47 Do you think that the prohibition on the landowner from taking steps to market or transfer the land to another party should apply from the day after the day on which Ministers issue the prohibition letter rather than the day when the owner/heritable creditor receives the notice? Please explain your answer.

The prohibition should apply from the date when the landowner receives the notice - a return receipt by registered post will confirm the position. To demonstrate that the landowner has full knowledge of the decision and prohibition it is important that notice is served and received.

13 Q48 Do you agree that public holidays should be excluded from the statutory timescales to register a community interest in land and the right to buy?

Yes.

Q49 Do you agree that where a landowner makes an “exempt” transfer, this should be notified to Scottish Ministers?

Yes.

If you disagree, please provide reasons for your decision.

Public holidays

Q50 Do you agree that community bodies and landowners should notify Scottish Ministers of any changes to their contact details (including any registered office)?

Yes.

Monitoring the community right to buy

Q51 Do you think that Ministers should monitor the impact of the community right to buy? How do you think that monitoring should be undertaken and what information should Ministers seek?

Yes.

The tangible impact is more capable of being quantified and measured than intangible benefits which may be more of a subjective nature.

There would need to be a baseline position against which any benefit can be measured (and benchmarked) and this would require to be defined from the outset of the process. The monitoring assessment should seek to assess the impact on the following key issues: x Economic development, x Regeneration, x Health improvement, x Social wellbeing, and/or x Environmental wellbeing.

Should the monitoring process be a statutory requirement, including provisions for reporting?

Yes.

14 4.2 Strengthening Community Planning

Q52 What are your views on our proposals for requiring a CPP to be established in each local authority area, and for amending the core statutory underpinning for community planning to place stronger emphasis on delivering better outcomes?

The proposals for a Community Planning Partnership (CPP) to be established in each local authority area are in line with current practice in the Scottish Borders.

It is considered that CPPs should have the flexibility to decide their own local outcomes within the National Performance Framework.

It is considered that community planning can be greatly strengthened by ensuring that public sector partners work alongside local authorities to ensure that agreed local outcomes are effective, resourced and delivered and that opportunities for collaborative working are maximised.

Q53 What are your views on the core duties for CPPs set out above, and in particular the proposal that CPPs must develop and ensure delivery of a shared plan for outcomes (i.e., something similar to a Single Outcome Agreement) in the CPP area?

The core duties for CPPs as outlined provide an overarching framework of responsibilities while leaving scope for locally developed action.

The development and delivery of a shared plan for outcomes is in line with the delivery of community planning in the Scottish Borders.

Q54 Do the proposed duties of the CPP support effective community engagement and the involvement of the third and business sectors? What other changes may be required to make this more effective?

Each Community Planning Partnership should have the flexibility to decide its own approach to community engagement and the involvement of the third and business sectors, whilst taking account of best practice.

Q55 How can we ensure that all relevant partners play a full role in community planning and the delivery of improved outcomes in each CPP area? Do the core duties set out above achieve that? What else might be required?

It should be recognised that there are significant structural barriers to statutory partners, particularly national bodies such as the National Health Service, Police Scotland, Scottish Enterprise etc engaging in community planning. This is because of national organisational approaches to budgets, investment, resources planning, and performance measures.

15 All CPP partners need to be engaged in the process of setting a shared vision and objectives and defining performance outcomes. All partners should be expected to populate, and variously take the lead in, the delivery of CPP task groups. Core partners must be expected to do more than ‘assist’ the local authority.

Q56 What are the respective roles of local elected politicians, non- executive board members and officers in community planning and should this be clarified through the legislation?

It is vital for effective governance that each Community Planning Partnership develops an effective accountability chain. This involves the establishment of a CPP with elected members and partner organisation board representatives overseeing the resourcing and performance in delivering the agreed local outcomes.

In the Scottish Borders this accountability structure has been achieved by the Scottish Borders Community Planning Partnership having an accountability based on a Board comprising senior elected members, the chairs of local partner bodies and senior officials from national bodies. The Board oversees the work of Joint Delivery Team comprising the Chief Executives and senior officers of partner bodies who are responsible for delivering the Scottish Borders Single Outcome Agreement.

There is a need to clarify the role of executive board members in the governance of CPPs as opposed to non-executive board members who are mentioned in the question. This particularly applies to NHS executive board members who do not equate to NHS officers.

It is also important that organisations report as part of their routine reporting processes, on their contribution to community planning both in terms of resourcing and actions on the delivery of agreed outcomes by CPPs. This again is an important element of the community planning process established in the Scottish Borders.

Changes are required in legislation to allow local bodies to come together and make decisions through the Community Planning Partnerships. At the moment, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 requires Elected Members to make up two-thirds of any committee where non-Elected Members have voting roles and only Elected Members can make decisions involving finance

Q57 Should the duty on individual organisations apply to a defined list of public bodies – if so, which ones? Or should we seek to take a more expansive approach which covers the public sector more generally?

They should apply specifically to the organisations in the defined list but there should also be flexibility for CPPs to engage with all relevant statutory and other bodies.

16 Q58 Local authorities are currently responsible for initiating, facilitating and maintaining community planning. How might the legislation best capture the community leadership role of Councils without the CPP being perceived as an extension of the local authority?

Public organisations need to recognise the community leadership role of local authorities as locally democratically elected bodies. This could be further strengthened by the formal recognition of the role of local government within the national governance structure.

Q59 How can the external scrutiny regime and the roles of organisations such as the Accounts Commission and Auditor General support the proposed changes? Does this require changes to their powers or functions?

These bodies can best play a supportive role by providing quality assurance of the processes that have been put in place and highlight areas for improvement and best practice elsewhere.

The role of the Accounts Commission and Audit Scotland should be expanded to include CPP audits covering all relevant partners and to support CPP’s where areas for improvement have been identified. CPPs should also be subject to the external audit arrangements of local authorities and health boards.

Q60 What other legislative changes are needed to strengthen community planning?

Provision could be made for scrutinising the effectiveness of CPP arrangements to deal with the communities and the public.

17 4.3 Allotments

The Definition of Allotment

Q61 Do you agree with the definition of an allotment site and allotment plot? How else would you suggest they be defined?

No

The expression “used mainly” for the cultivation of vegetables etc. could be of concern, as this could allow ancillary uses, including possibly some commercial use of the land (provided it is mainly used for non commercial use).

Q62 In order to include all existing allotments in the new legislation they must fit within the size range. What is the minimum and maximum size of one allotment plot in your area/site?

It should be for the local allotment association to determine the size of an allotment.

Local Authority Duty to Provide Allotments

Q63 Do you agree with this duty to provide allotments? Are there any changes you would make? Do you agree with the level of the trigger point, i.e. that a local authority must make provision for allotments once the waiting list reaches 15 people?

It is considered that there should be a duty for local authorities to facilitate the provision of allotments. People interested in having an allotment should form themselves into associations and the local authority should assist by: considering the land it currently owns (and this requirement should also apply to community planning partners); negotiating the provision of land with a private land owner or identifying land owned by itself; and supporting the lease or transfer the land to the allotment association. The association in turn at their own cost would create the allotments (obtain planning consent, provide fencing, paths, water and electricity supply etc) and thereafter manage them, allocating allotment plots to individual allotment holders. . Q64 Do you prefer the target Option A, B or C and why? Are there any other target options you wish to be considered? Do you agree with the level of the targets?

It is considered that Option C would be the most appropriate as this maximises flexibility but the main driver should be the availability of land and the community should have more responsibility for setting up the allotments on the land provided.

18 Local Authority Duties and Powers to Manage Allotments

Q65 Do you agree with this list of local authority duties and powers? Would you make any changes to the above list?

It is considered that local authorities should be able to develop their own policies for allotments and not be subject to duties and powers. The list of duties and powers to manage allotments will involve local authorities in accruing significantly increased management and other costs. Maintaining and acquiring the information to service the statutory duties, coupled with the resources required to implement them would be very onerous and it is questionable whether this is the best use of resources. Rather it would be more efficient and effective to establish a framework whereby the local authority acts as the facilitator for the acquisition/provision of land, with allotment communities being responsible for forming allotment associations to establish and run the allotments themselves (as explained in the answer to question 63).

Termination of Allotment Tenancies

Q66 Do you think the areas regarding termination of allotment tenancies listed above should be set out in legislation or determined by the local authority at a local level?

They should be determined by local authorities at the local level and more appropriately by the allotment association that manage the site.

Q67 Are there any other areas you feel should apply to private allotments?

No comment

Surplus Produce

Q68 Do you agree that surplus produce may be sold? If you disagree, what are your reasons?

Each area of allotments should be managed by an allotment association and they should decide on the rules governing the allotments and sale of produce.

Q69 Do you agree with this list of subjects to be governed by Regulations? Would you make any changes to the above lists?

As mentioned above these lists should be for advisory purposes only. If land is let to an allotment association any rules/regulations would be written into the lease, with the allotment association responsible for implementing them.

19 Chapter 5 – Wider Policy Proposals

5.1 Scotland Performs – embedding the outcomes approach in legislation

Q70 We invite your views on this proposal.

The proposals placing a duty on Scottish Ministers to develop, consult on, and publish a set of outcomes that describe the longer term, strategic outcomes for Scotland; and for a complementary duty to report regularly and publicly progress towards these outcomes are supported. This will enable a continued focus on outcomes and outcome measures allowing for a longer term view to be taken of persistent issues.

However, it must ensure that the measures being used at a national level are consistent with those used at a local level, in order that CPPs can see the contribution that they are making to the national picture.

Example National indicator:

Reduce children's deprivation 2011/12 = 8.2%

Local Outcome indicator: Percentage of Children in Poverty 2010 = 18.6%

This presents two different ways of looking at the same problem but the figures are significantly different, and may be confusing from a public reporting perspective.

Availability of up to date and timely data is also of paramount importance for public reporting purposes. 3 or 4 year lags in data will be perceived as unacceptable by the public.

The alignment of key performance frameworks is also vital for consistent reporting purposes.

20 5.2 Subsidiarity and local decision-making

Q71 Given the actions that the Government and others already take to enable and support local democracy, together with the additional measures proposed in this consultation, are there any other actions we could take to reflect local democracy principles that would benefit communities?

Decisions about local issues and services are not made locally enough. Local authorities need much greater control of finance and resources.

Individual authorities across Scotland have a varied geo-demographic nature and require joined up localised approaches to deliver the best value for money services to their populations. The population of areas and the balance of needs is not the same everywhere which means local decision making is vital, and is at the core of local democracy. Local authorities appear to be moving from democratic bodies to administrative bodies. In the medium term there needs to be a shift towards more decisions, especially those involving funding, being taken locally.

The Scottish Government needs to recognise the strength of local democracy. It is considered that to have responsible citizens then there is a need to give them more responsibilities and the same applies to local authority elected members. Local people taking responsibility for more local decisions will attract greater numbers to stand for Councils.

It is considered that local democracy could best be strengthened by placing a duty on Scottish Government Ministers while exercising their functions to observe and promote the European Charter of Local Self- Government. This Charter is a part of the binding Council of Europe treaty framework intended to protect human rights and democracy. Adopting the broader Charter offers an a way of promoting a comprehensive approach to protecting citizen’s rights to local engagement and local democracy.

There needs to be a thorough national review of the roles of, and relationships between, national and local government, including local government finance and that adequate time should be given for the review to be undertaken.

21 Chapter 6: Assessing Impact

Equality

Q72 Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel any of the proposals for the Bill may have on particular groups of people, with reference to the “protected characteristics” listed above.

The provisions in this consultation paper have the potential to provide positive benefits to groups of people with ‘protected characteristics’. This is because of the inclusive nature of much community provision.

Q73 What differences might there be in the impact of the Bill on communities with different levels of advantage or deprivation? How can we make sure that all communities can access the benefits of these proposals?

The provisions in this consultation paper have the potential to provide positive benefits to support disadvantaged communities. However many of these communities will need both additional capacity and advisory support.

Business and Regulation

Q74 Please tell us about any potential costs or savings that may occur as a result of the proposals for the Bill, and any increase or reduction in the burden of regulation for any sector. Please be as specific as possible.

The implementation of some aspects of the Bill could lead to considerable increase in management costs on local authorities in relation to additional duties and powers, especially Community Representation and Allotments.

Environmental

Q75 Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel any of the proposals for the Bill may have on the environment.

There is the potential of considerable positive environmental benefits arising from the Bill in relation to the increased community management of land and properties and the opportunities for more community projects.

22 Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill Consultation on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2013 © Crown copyright 2013

You may re-use this information (excluding logos and images) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail: [email protected].

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This document is available from our website at www.scotland.gov.uk.

ISBN: 978-1-78412-027-6

The Scottish Government St Andrew’s House Edinburgh EH1 3DG

Produced for the Scottish Government by APS Group Scotland DPPAS18905 (11/13)

Published by the Scottish Government, November 2013 CONTENTS

Ministerial Foreword………………………………………………………………………...1

Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... 2

Chapter 2 - Background ...... 5

Chapter 3 - Proposals with draft legislation ...... 7

3.1 Community Right to Request Rights in Relation to Property ...... 8

3.2 Community Right to Request to Participate in Processes to Improve Outcomes of Service Delivery ...... 10

3.3 Increasing Transparency about Common Good ...... 12

3.4 Defective and Dangerous Buildings – Recovery of Expenses ...... 14

Chapter 4 - Detailed Policy Proposals ...... 16

4.1 Improve and extend Community Right to Buy ...... 16

4.2 Strengthening Community Planning ...... 31

4.3 Allotments ...... 39

4.4 Local relief schemes for non-domestic (business) rates ...... 45

Chapter 5 – Wider Policy Proposals ...... 46

5.1 Scotland Performs – embedding the outcomes approach in legislation ...... 46

5.2 Subsidiarity and local decision-making ...... 47

Chapter 6 - Assessing Impact ...... 49

Annex A – How to respond ...... 50

Annex B – Glossary of terms used in Draft Bill ...... 54

Annex C – Draft Bill ...... 56

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill stems from our firm belief that Scotland‟s greatest asset is our people. Whether making a difference as part of local community organisations or as volunteers, working to deliver first class public services or innovating in the private sector, it is Scotland‟s people who will deliver a more successful future for the nation.

This Government believes that the people who live and work in Scotland are best placed to make decisions about our future – the essence of self-determination for the nation.

Our belief in local self-determination, through a strong Scottish Parliament, strong local authorities and strong communities, is the key principle which underpins the proposals in this consultation document.

At its heart, community empowerment is about communities taking their own decisions about their futures. It‟s about communities choosing to grow and become stronger, and to improve things for their families, friends and neighbours in ways that make sense to them. It is a means for communities to take their own actions with access to all the resources available to them to develop their local economies, environments and cultures. This Bill will give people in communities, and those supporting them in the public sector, a range of new ways to help deliver a better Scotland.

The Bill will build on the principles Scotland established in our world leading community right to buy legislation, making it fit for the future and for all communities in Scotland. It will make it more straightforward for communities to take on public sector land and buildings, for the first time giving local groups the initial say in which land and buildings they are interested in. And it will provide Scotland‟s community councils with a new statutory role in relation to the common good, recognising their important role as voices for local communities. It will give communities a voice in the services the public sector delivers, recognising the place of local democracy, and drive further integration and improved partnership working in public services, which can be a critical enabler of community empowerment.

And just as we believe the Scottish Parliament should have all the powers and levers it needs to serve the nation, so we believe in championing strong local democracy. We understand the importance to people‟s lives of local decision-making. That is why I am pleased to chair the Island Areas Ministerial Working Group, and we welcome COSLA‟s establishment of its Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy.

The topics included in this Bill have been shaped by what we heard in our exploratory consultation in Autumn 2012. I look forward to hearing your views on these more detailed proposals.

DEREK MACKAY Minister for Local Government and Planning

1

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1. The Scottish Government recognises that empowering communities and reforming public services are key to achieving improved outcomes for all of Scotland. The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill is intended to provide a legislative underpinning that will support and drive forward these key areas of policy.

2. The Government‟s Programme for Scotland 2013-14, launched by the First Minister in September, placed community empowerment and public service reform at the heart of the Government‟s agenda.

3. It made clear that the Scottish Government strongly values community led action. Scotland is enriched by a wealth of volunteers and community groups such as development trusts, housing associations and community councils, all of whom contribute a great deal to their local areas. Scottish Ministers recognise the need to do more to enable them to achieve their goals and those of the communities in which they live and work, and to work in partnership with the public, private and third sectors to deliver a range of improved social, economic and environmental benefits for the local area.

4. Ownership of land and buildings is a key element in empowering communities. Over the past ten years half a million acres of land in rural areas have been transferred to community ownership. We want to continue to expand the opportunities this brings, and the First Minster has announced a target of one million acres in community land ownership by 2020.

5. The Programme for Scotland also made clear that Ministers are proud of Scotland‟s public services, and believe the people of Scotland place a high value on them too, recognising the role they play in creating a stronger economy and a fairer society. We believe that further improvements can be achieved by encouraging greater integration and more effective partnership working.

6. Ministers also place a great deal of importance on their relationship with Local Government. That relationship is founded on a respect for local democracy and a commitment, set out in the First Minister‟s Lerwick declaration, to self-determination, subsidiarity and local decision-making. This underpins the Scottish Government‟s approach to encouraging all of Scotland‟s communities to flourish and prosper.

7. We already have a strong track record on these issues, and this Bill will seek to build on much of the good work already underway. For example, the land fund is supporting community ownership with access to finance, local authorities are engaging with communities and supporting them to take on assets. Councils are also working with others in the public sector to drive reform across a range of areas. And there are many examples of strong partnership working between sectors across the country. We have also pioneered the use of an outcomes-focused approach at both national and local levels, which we propose to further embed through this Bill.

8. These, then, are the cornerstones on which the proposals for this Bill are based: empowering our communities, making the most of the talents that exist in our communities; delivering high quality and improving public services; supporting strong

2 local democracy and local decision-making; and all of it focused on improving outcomes for individuals and communities across Scotland.

9. From the outset of discussions about this Bill, and through our exploratory consultation, it was clear that people saw opportunities where focused changes to legislation could build on existing good practice and provide more opportunities to achieve their goals, in various policy areas. As a result this consultation covers a wide range of topics, each of which can play an important part in improving public services and enhancing our communities.

10. The proposals in the Bill will make it easier for communities to take ownership or make more effective use of land and buildings. They will increase transparency and strengthen the voice of communities in how common good assets are used and how services are delivered. They will give local authorities more powers to take actions which support communities, and will encourage approaches in which partnership working combines the physical, financial and human assets of the public sector and communities, working more effectively together to deliver a better Scotland.

11. Of course, legislation in itself does not produce empowered communities. In 2008, the Scottish Government and COSLA announced a joint statement of commitment to community empowerment, followed up by the Community Empowerment Action Plan in 2009. We have already taken action and are continuing on that path to make more communities more empowered across the country. We recognise the need to build capacity in communities to help them take advantage of the opportunities available. We are working with key partners to implement the Strategic Guidance on Community Learning and Development, and have introduced the Requirements for Community Learning and Development (Scotland) Regulations to underpin the auditing of needs, strengths and opportunities with learners and communities. We also fund the Development Trusts Association Scotland‟s Community Ownership Support Service, which provides advice and help to communities to take on assets of their own. The Scottish Land Fund, worth £9m over 2012-2016, helps rural communities to purchase assets which will help them achieve economic, social and environmental benefits. The People and Communities Fund provides at least £6m per annum for projects identified by communities as helping them achieve their own outcomes. We have recently announced £1m further funding for this scheme generated through an innovative Charitable Bond. We are helping community bodies to access information about the funding schemes available to them through the Community Funds Gateway1 on our website, and will work further to simplify this landscape and reduce the number of different schemes. These currently include, for example, the Climate Challenge Fund, which has supported 394 communities from Scotland to deliver carbon emissions reductions, the Community Broadband Start-up Fund, and the Volunteering Support Fund, which supports third

1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/communityfunds 3

sector organisations to create new volunteering projects; increase the diversity of their volunteers; and improve opportunities, skills and personal development through volunteering. Our guidance on new Single Outcome Agreements requires Community Planning Partnerships to engage with communities and to build their capacity to engage and deliver for themselves. We are investing £8m this year for Third Sector Interfaces to support the third sector in each local authority area and facilitate engagement with Community Planning Partnerships on the design and delivery of local services.

How to respond

We are inviting written responses to this consultation by 24 January 2014. For details of how to respond, please see Annex A.

4

Chapter 2 - Background

12. The SNP‟s 2011 manifesto proposed a Community Empowerment Bill which would “give local people a greater say in their area, enabling them to deal more easily with derelict and eyesore properties and take over underused or unused public buildings for the benefit of their community”. The Christie Commission report, published in June 2011, also recommended that the Bill should “promote significantly improved community participation in the design and delivery of services”

13. In order that the Scottish Government could listen to as a wide a range of people as possible in developing the Bill, an exploratory consultation was held between June and September 2012. During that time Scottish Government officials took part in a series of conferences, road-shows and local meetings with a range of people from the public and voluntary sectors and with community volunteers. 447 responses to the consultation were received from a mix of individuals, community and voluntary groups, community councils, and the public and private sectors. An independent analysis of the responses was published in January 2013. That can be accessed on the Scottish Government website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/engage

14. There was also a positive and helpful debate on the proposed Bill on 12 September 2012, in advance of the launch of the initial consultation. The official report of that debate can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7908&mode =pdf

15. The exploratory consultation covered a large number of actions which, it had been suggested, could act as a catalyst for community enterprise, community development and public service improvement. What appears in this draft Bill is a result of the consultation analysis, further conversations with stakeholders from the public, private and community and voluntary sectors, and Ministerial discussions. The draft also includes some new areas that were not in the original consultation but have emerged from other discussions with stakeholders and review processes, for example, improving the existing community right to buy in the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, and the statutory underpinning of Scotland Performs, the Scottish Government‟s national performance framework.

16. The proposals in this consultation paper are set out in three groups:

Chapter 3 covers proposals which have already been subject to some consultation, and on which draft legislation is now provided for comment. The draft Bill is at Annex C.

Chapter 4 sets out detailed policy questions on issues which have been discussed in more general terms elsewhere, but have not yet reached the stage of draft legislation.

Chapter 5 proposes some new policy ideas on wider issues about the organisation of central and local government and how we express our ambitions for creating a successful Scotland.

5

17. This consultation document continues our determination to involve as wide a range of people as possible in shaping legislation that will make a lasting difference. Officials will again be attending events and visiting groups with an interest to help them understand the proposals. Visit the website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/engage or follow us on Twitter, @CommEmpower, to keep up with what‟s happening.

How to respond

Please respond in writing to ensure your detailed views are taken into account. The closing date for responses is 24 January 2014. For details of how to respond, please see Annex A.

6

Chapter 3 - Proposals with draft legislation

18. Annex C contains a draft Bill covering the policy areas which are described in this Chapter.

It is important that you read the draft Bill provisions before you answer the questions in this chapter. This is because we are interested in your views on the detailed wording of the draft Bill for each issue, and whether you think it will work in practice.

19. “Provision” means a piece of a Bill or an Act. The Bill is divided into Parts, and has two Schedules (like annexes). The individual paragraphs are known as “sections”, with sub-sections. “Provision” means any piece of the Bill, however small or large.

20. The Scottish Government tries to ensure legislation is written as clearly as possible, so that people affected by it can understand it. However, it does have to be very precise so that people and the courts know exactly what is required or allowed, and it follows a particular structure. Try not to be put off by the layout or formal style, and just work through what the draft provisions say.

21. Some words have specific meanings when they are used in legislation which might not be immediately obvious. For example, “land” includes buildings. There is a glossary in Annex B of some words in the draft legislation to help with this. You should also carefully check the meanings of particular terms set out in each Part of the draft Bill.

22. In various places the draft Bill says that Scottish Ministers may make Regulations or Orders about things. These are other types of legislation which can be made more quickly than changing an Act, so they are used to deal with issues that need a lot of technical detail, or may change often. There will be further consultation before any Regulations or Orders are made, and they are also scrutinised by Parliament.

23. Part 5 of the draft Bill contains technical provisions for arrangements to make the Bill work in practice. These are standard for all Bills and we are not seeking comments on them.

24. The rest of this chapter summarises the policy behind Parts 1 to 4 of the draft Bill and asks for your views on the draft.

7

3.1 Community Right to Request Rights in Relation to Property

25. There is an increasing evidence base which shows that in the right circumstances community ownership or control of assets like land and buildings can have positive economic, social and environmental benefits. In these cases assets are often owned or managed by community groups like Development Trusts or Community Based Housing Associations. These organisations are often charitable companies limited by guarantee with a majority of local people on the board, but can take other forms.

26. This ownership of assets can be the most important factor for some communities in increasing their empowerment and control over their own futures. The public sector can be a useful source of assets which can benefit from being transferred into community ownership or management.

Draft Bill: Part 1 “Asset Transfer Requests”

27. These provisions are designed to give community bodies a more proactive role in identifying public sector land and buildings that they would be interested in owning or using. The community body will be able to submit a request setting out its plans for the property. The public sector body (“the authority”) will need to respond to any such requests in a transparent and rational way, basing its decision on an assessment of the best public benefit which can be gained from a particular ownership or use of an asset.

28. The draft provisions set out the information to be included in an asset transfer request, the issues the authority must take into consideration in dealing with the request, and the process to be followed if the authority agrees to the request. There are also provisions to prevent repeated requests for the same asset, to deal with restrictions which may apply if the asset is leased to the authority, and to prevent the authority disposing of the asset to anyone else while a request is in progress.

29. The draft defines community bodies in a way which seeks to reflect good practice in community asset ownership and provides a list of public sector bodies which would be covered by the legislation (Schedule 1, Annex C page 21). These are chosen on the basis that they are bodies who are likely to hold assets that communities may be interested in.

30. Community bodies will be able to appeal to Scottish Ministers against decisions made by public bodies other than local authorities. Local authorities are excluded from this appeals mechanism because they are democratically accountable to the electorate. It is also not possible to appeal to Scottish Ministers against decisions made by them or their officials. However, we are interested in how an appeal or review process for the decisions of both local authorities and Scottish Ministers might work, and we are inviting views on what form they might take.

8

Consultation Questions

Please read Part 1 of the draft Bill (Annex C, pages 1 to 9) before you answer these questions:

Q1 Do you agree with the definition of community body at section 1? Do you have any changes to suggest?

Q2 Do you agree with the list of public bodies to be covered in this Part at Schedule 1 (Annex C page 21)? What other bodies should be added, or removed?

Q3 What do you think would be reasonable timescales for dealing with requests, making an offer and concluding a contract, in relation to sections 5(6), 6(2)(c) and 6(6)?

Q4 Do you agree that community bodies should have a right of appeal to Ministers as set out in section 8? Are there other appeal or review procedures that you feel would be more appropriate?

Q5 What form of appeal or review processes would be appropriate in relation to decisions made by local authorities and by Scottish Ministers?

Q6 Do you have any other comments about the wording of the draft provisions?

Q7 What costs and savings do you think would come about as a result of these draft provisions? Please be as specific as you can.

9

3.2 Community Right to Request to Participate in Processes to Improve Outcomes of Service Delivery

31. There is a strong history of the public sector engaging with communities across Scotland. In particular, local authorities have used a wide variety of engagement techniques over the years and have been in the forefront of championing tools like the National Standards for Community Engagement. However, the Christie Commission on the Future of Public Service Delivery recommended that this Bill should seek to strengthen communities‟ voices in shaping the services which affect them.

32. In deciding to seek to legislate in this area, the Scottish Government recognises that any new measures must complement existing local democratic processes.

33. Across the world, a growing number of more participatory democratic processes have been developed to allow citizens to engage in decision making processes related to various levels of the State. Evidence shows that involving people more regularly and more effectively in the decisions that affect them leads to better outcomes and a greater sense of control for communities.

34. Later in this consultation document, we ask for views on policy proposals in relation to engaging communities in Community Planning. That could place new duties on Community Planning Partnerships which will help to cement good practice in community engagement when the process is initiated by public bodies.

35. This part of the Bill aims to empower communities by giving them the lead in starting discussions with the public sector on their own terms about the things that matter to them. We are aiming to do this across a wide range of public services, as communities have interests in the broadest range of outcomes. Strengthening participatory democracy in this way will increase opportunities for communities to be directly involved in improving public services by promoting dialogue between the public sector and communities, rather than just consultation, in order to: ensure communities have a say in the issues that matter to them improve transparency in public sector decision making provide opportunities to make the most of the knowledge and talent that lies in communities, and foster positive relationships between community bodies and the public sector.

Draft Bill: Part 2 “Public Service Delivery”

36. The aims of these provisions are to strengthen „bottom up‟ processes by supporting local community bodies to be more proactive in saying which issues they want to have their voices heard on, how they want things to change for the better, and to promote the part they themselves can play in delivering that change, for example, by delivering some services themselves.

37. Where a community body believes it could help to improve the outcome of a service, it will be able to make a request to the public body or bodies that deliver that service, asking to take part in a process to improve that outcome. The community

10 body will need to explain and provide evidence of how it could contribute to improvement. The public body must agree to that request unless there are reasonable grounds for refusing it, and must give reasons for any decision to refuse a request. The provisions set out what information must be contained in requests and what issues the public body must consider in reaching its decision.

38. If there is already a relevant outcome improvement process in place, the public body must explain how the community body can take part in that process. Otherwise it must establish an improvement process for the outcome requested.

39. The draft provisions also require public bodies to publish a report of any process of dialogue which would take place under these provisions which would explain how community bodies‟ views were taken into account in any decisions about how to improve outcomes.

40. “Community body” is defined differently in this part than in Part 1 of the draft Bill, because the requirements of a body seeking to take ownership or management of an asset are more extensive than for a body just seeking dialogue with a service provider. The list of public bodies to which Part 2 applies, set out in Schedule 2 (Annex C page 21) is also different, because it includes only those which provide services.

Consultation Questions

Please read Part 2 of the draft Bill (Annex C pages 9 to 14) before you answer these questions:

Q8 Do you agree with the definition of community body at section 11? Do you have any changes to suggest?

Q9 Do you agree with the list of public bodies to be covered in this Part at Schedule 2 (Annex C page 21)? What other bodies should be added, or removed?

Q10 Do you agree with the description at section 13 of what a participation request by a community body to a public service authority should cover? Is there anything you would add or remove?

Q11 Do you agree with the criteria at section 15 that a public service authority should use when deciding whether to agree or refuse a participation request? Are there any other criteria that should be considered?

Q12 Do you have any other comments about the wording of the draft provisions?

Q13 What costs and savings do you think would come about as a result of these draft provisions? Please be as specific as you can.

11

3.3 Increasing Transparency about Common Good

41. The existence of the common good in Scotland, as a type of asset with strong historical and emotional ties to local communities, is an important part of the community landscape in many places across the country. Assets held for the common good are owned by local authorities, having been passed down from former burghs under successive rounds of local government re-organisation. CIPFA‟s guidance on Accounting for the Common Good2 provides a useful description of how common good arises.

42. Audit Scotland stated that at 31 March 2011, councils managed common good assets valued at £219 million3. While this is less than 1% of the estimated total value of council owned property assets (then valued at £35 billion), many common good assets have a strong practical and emotional value to local residents. They have to be accounted for in a particular way and often have particular rules associated with their disposal. There is also a long history of common law decisions in relation to common good.

43. It is the special importance of the common good to communities, and the fact it is treated in many ways as different from other local authority owned assets, that underpins our policy goal and our proposed provisions.

44. While local authorities should already have details of their common good assets, in line with accounting good practice, this is not always readily available to the public, and there may be disputes about what is included. Our policy goal is to increase transparency about the existence, use and disposal of common good assets, and to increase community involvement in decisions taken about their identification, use and disposal.

Draft Bill: Part 3 “Common Good Property”

45. Our draft provisions place a new statutory duty on local authorities to establish and maintain a register of all property held by them for the common good. They also place a requirement on local authorities to consult with community councils and other community bodies when establishing the register.

46. Further provisions require local authorities to consult community councils and other community bodies about the disposal and use of common good assets.

47. We have not sought to define common good in these draft provisions. We are aware that some people think that this would bring greater clarity to identifying common good assets. However, at this stage our view is that there are significant difficulties in framing a satisfactory definition. The risk is that such a statutory definition might not cover all existing assets which are currently considered to be part of the common good (and might cover things which are not currently included). As

2 http://www.cipfa.org/- /media/files/regions/scotland/lasaac/3h%20lasaac%20accounting_for_the_common_good_final_versi on.pdf 3 Audit Scotland, An Overview of Local Government in Scotland: Challenges and Change in 2012 (2012) 12 such, an attempt to create a new, statutory definition of common good could inadvertently lead to communities losing common good assets.

Consultation Questions

Please read Part 3 of the draft Bill (Annex C pages 14 to 16) before you answer this question:

Q14 Do you think the draft provisions will meet our goal to increase transparency about the existence, use and disposal of common good assets and to increase community involvement in decisions taken about their identification, use and disposal? What other measures would help to achieve that?

13

3.4 Defective and Dangerous Buildings – Recovery of Expenses

48. Communities can be affected by buildings which become dangerous or defective, for example by falling into disrepair. Local authorities have powers under the Building (Scotland) Act 20034 to deal with such buildings. They have a mandatory duty to take action to deal with buildings which are dangerous; for those which are “defective” they can serve a notice on the owner requiring them to take action, and if the owner does not comply the local authority may do the work. In each case the local authority is entitled to recover the costs of that action from the owner of the building.

49. Under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, the local authority can only recover its costs through normal debt recovery methods. This can make it difficult to recover costs, which in turn discourages local authorities from using their powers to ensure the local built environment is maintained. Previous building legislation applying to dangerous buildings and other building regulation contraventions, and other legislation applying to housing and historic buildings, provides for a charging order or notice of liability for expenses to be registered against the property in the appropriate property register – in practice this enables the debt to be paid when the property is sold, otherwise the new owner becomes liable. Consultation and research has supported the introduction of such a mechanism to assist local authorities in recovering their costs of carrying out work on dangerous or defective buildings.

50. It is also proposed that the same improvements to the powers to recover costs should apply to buildings regulations compliance, continuing requirement enforcement notices, and building warrant enforcement notices, under sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003.

Draft Bill: Part 4 “Liability for expenses under Building (Scotland) Act 2003”

51. Part 4 of the draft Bill inserts new sections into the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 which allow for a “notice of liability for expenses” to be registered in the appropriate property register in relation to a building on which work has been done. Where such a notice is registered, if the building is sold, the previous owner and the new owner become severally liable for the debt; in other words, it can be recovered from either of them.

52. In practice, a potential buyer (new owner) will want to ensure that the debt is paid and will negotiate the purchase price accordingly. If the new owner pays the expenses, they may recover that amount from the former owner (seller), if the former owner is liable.

53. The provisions set out the procedures to be followed and the administrative expenses and interest which can be charged.

4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/8/contents 14

Consultation questions

Please read Part 4 of the draft Bill (Annex C pages 17 to 19) before you answer these questions:

Q15 Do you agree that the cost recovery powers in relation to dangerous and defective buildings should be improved as set out in the draft Bill?

Q16 Do you agree that the same improvements should apply to sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003?

15

Chapter 4 - Detailed Policy Proposals

4.1 Improve and extend Community Right to Buy

54. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of community ownership of land in empowering the people of Scotland. We are ambitious for the future of the community ownership of land and in June 2013 the First Minister announced a target of one million acres in community land ownership by 2020. Community land ownership brings opportunities; it brings empowerment; it brings about the recognition that Scotland‟s people are the country‟s richest asset, and that they are best placed to make decisions about their futures.

55. The Scottish Government has four priorities for taking forward the community right to buy as part of the agenda for land reform in Scotland: The extension of the community right to buy to all of Scotland, including urban areas and settlements with a population of 10,000 or more, which are currently excluded from the provisions, where Scottish Government is satisfied that it is in the public interest. Considering whether there should be a compulsory right to buy for communities, and the circumstances in which it could be used. The streamlining of the legislation after the first decade of its use. Improving the process of the community right to buy in order to remove barriers and increase opportunities.

56. These priorities are driven by the observation that community ownership of land has had a transformational impact. It has increased community confidence, and allowed communities to realise their aspirations and control their destinies. It can create strong vibrant and flourishing communities where people want to live. It has helped to deliver sustainable development and also sustainable communities.

57. Community ownership of land in Scotland has demonstrated clear benefits: increased populations and school numbers; the development of private enterprise; the development of community enterprise; investment in land and assets; affordable housing for rent and purchase; infrastructure developments; renewable energy schemes; and on-going and improved estate management.

58. In the last ten years, following the passage of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 by the Scottish Parliament and the introduction of the community right to buy, the community land movement has gone from strength to strength. Over the last ten years half a million acres of land in rural areas have transferred into community ownership. Continued improvements and support through the £9m Scottish Land Fund (2012-16) has provided a further impetus. Land Fund Advisers, appointed to each applicant, support and encourage communities to become empowered in preparing their applications before considering those and, ultimately, granting the funding awards which enable communities to successfully purchase land.

59. Scotland has nearly 10 years of experience of working with the community right to buy (the provisions came into effect on 14 June 2004). Learning and reflecting on the evolution of the community land movement is important, as is

16 evaluation of the tools that the Scottish Government uses to facilitate land ownership. We have learned a lot about how the provisions work in practice, but also how they can be improved: we believe that the Community Right to Buy can be streamlined and made easier and more flexible for communities to navigate, while at the same time continuing to strike a fair balance between the rights of landowners and communities, reflecting the lessons of the last ten years. This, we believe, will be important in bringing more land throughout Scotland into community ownership and, thereby, enabling communities to fulfil their aspirations.

60. At present the community right to buy in Part 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 provides the opportunity for community bodies representing rural areas in Scotland with less than 10,000 head of population to register an interest in land and buy that registered land once it is offered for sale. It provides communities with a pre-emptive right to buy the land in which they have registered a community interest.

61. Further information on the community right to buy is available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/Rural/rural-land/right-to- buy/Community

62. The questions in this consultation draw on the experiences of those using the legislation, extensive post-legislative scrutiny of the 2003 Act, the submissions made to the Land Reform Review Group and the interim views of that group.

63. The existing legislation is underpinned by three key issues which are also fundamental to any proposed changes and should be considered in responding to this consultation: The need to consider the rights of both the community body and the landowner, and the need to strike a fair balance between them. The public interest in the application and the proposals for the land. Sustainable development of the plans for the land to be brought into community ownership.

64. These requirements reflect the need for any measures to take account of the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (protection of property). In short any interference with existing rights of property must be justified by reference to a legitimate aim; the means used must be proportionate to that aim, and in particular there must be a fair balance between the general community interest and the protection of the individual‟s fundamental rights.

Detailed proposals

65. This chapter makes detailed references to the existing legislation in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and Regulations and Orders made under that Act. These are all available on the website www.legislation.gov.uk. Direct links to the relevant items are given in the following paragraphs. References to “section x” are to sections of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

Consultation questions are included within each section.

17

Extension of the community right to buy

66. The exploratory consultation on the Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill which took place from June to September 2012 asked questions about introducing an urban community right to buy. Further information is available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/engage/cer.

67. The analysis of responses showed that “the vast majority of respondents supported the proposal to introduce a community right to buy in urban areas, with much smaller numbers expressing more neutral views or against the proposal.”. The analysis also showed that respondents felt that a right to buy should operate in the same way in urban and rural Scotland, but that the existing rural right to buy should be improved before doing that.

Q17 The Scottish Government proposes to extend right to buy to communities in all parts of Scotland, where the Scottish Government is satisfied that it is in the public interest. Do you agree with this proposal, and are there any additional measures that would help our proposals for a streamlined community right to buy to apply across Scotland?

68. In answering this question you may wish to think about particular issues such as the definition of “community”; the level of support to register a community interest in land; the registration of land which unexpectedly comes on the market; the timescales to complete the right to buy; the ballot (including arrangements for it and level of support); the right to buy “application”; option agreements and the right to buy. There may be other issues which you want to consider in your response. Specific proposals relating to these issues are noted throughout this part of the consultation paper.

Scope of “registrable land”

69. Land in which a community interest can be registered is called “registrable land” while land in which a community interest cannot be registered is called “excluded land” (section 33). “Excluded land” is set out in law in the Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2009). In deciding whether land should be excluded, Ministers must agree that the land is rural, and can consider factors such as local population and other factors associated with or characteristic of the land. Salmon fishings and mineral rights are included in registrable land, as is foreshore (but not that adjacent to any excluded settlement).

70. There could be situations in the future where Ministers would want to amend what is “registrable land” to include, for example, the interests of the tenant in tenanted land.

Section 33: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/33

Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2009: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/207/contents/made

18

Q18 Do you think that Ministers should have the power to extend “registrable” land” to cover land that is currently not included as “registrable land”? What other land should also be considered as being “registrable”?

A compulsory right for communities to purchase land

Compulsory powers for communities to acquire neglected or abandoned land

71. A number of early examples of land reform in Scotland relate to land the community and observers felt was in neglect and where community ownership was considered necessary to the community‟s survival, for example the purchase of the Isle of Eigg. However, while the existing community right to buy allows a community to register an interest in land, it can only buy the land if the owner decides to sell.

72. There may be further instances where the land which a community wishes to secure for its development is neglected or abandoned. The Scottish Government considers that in such circumstances, where all other options fail to achieve good land stewardship, there is an argument that communities should be able to acquire that land without having to wait for it to be put onto the market, where neglect can be demonstrated and it can be shown that community ownership would be in the public interest. It is particularly important in this context to ensure that any measures meet the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, referred to above in paragraph 64.

73. We want to explore what a compulsory power for communities to buy neglected or abandoned land under these circumstances could look like and how it would work. Land which is intended for recognised conservation purposes would not be considered to be neglected or abandoned.

Q19 Do you think that there should be a compulsory power for communities to buy neglected or abandoned land in certain circumstances? What should these circumstances be?

Q20 How do you think this should work in practice? How do you think that the terms “neglected” and “abandoned” should be defined?

Streamlining the community right to buy

Application form to register a community interest in land

74. We have had comments from community bodies that the application form to register and re-register a community interest in land could be simplified and made easier to complete.

75. The criteria that have to be met for Ministers to consent to register a community interest in land are set out in section 38(1) of the Act. In addition, section 36(2) sets out information and documents to be included in the Register of Community Interest in Land which includes all applications and Ministerial decisions

19 on applications. The application form to register a community interest in land is a statutory one: the current one is provided in the Community Right to Buy (Prescribed Form of Application and Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

76. If we want to streamline the application process we need to consider in the first instance: (1) the criteria to be met by a community body; and (2) the information to be included in the Register of Community Interests in Land. Should it be considered that these provisions need to be changed, the 2003 Act will be amended by the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.

77. If it is considered that changes should be made to the application form itself, these will be made by means of a statutory instrument replacing or amending the 2009 Regulations. A separate consultation will need to be brought forward to fully consider such proposed changes. However, at this time it would be helpful to consider what if any changes should be made to the application form.

Section 36: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/36

Section 38: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/38

Community Right to Buy (Prescribed Form of Application and Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2009: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2009/156/made

Q21 Do you think that the criteria to be met by a community body in section 38(1) of the Act are appropriate? Do you think that there should be additional criteria? Please set out what changes or additions should be made to the criteria.

Q22 Do you think that the information that is included in the Register of Community Interests in Land is appropriate? If not, what should that information include?

Q23 How could the application form to register a community interest in land be altered to make it easier to complete (eg, should there be a word limit on the answers to particular questions)? Should the questions be more specifically directed to the requirements of sections 36(2) and 38(1) of the Act? Do you have any other suggestions?

Communities responding where land unexpectedly comes on the market

78. The underlying policy of the community right to buy is that community bodies should prepare themselves for the community ownership of land. Communities should therefore be proactive in identifying land and land assets that can contribute to their sustainable development. Thus, “late applications” can only be made in “exceptional” circumstances.

79. Section 39 sets out a procedure to be followed when applications to register a community interest in land are received after steps have been taken to transfer the ownership of the land. Scottish Ministers are only able to approve a “late” application where certain additional criteria to those relating to the “timeous” application have been met: that there are good reasons why the application was not

20 made before the owner of the land had taken action with a view to transferring the land; that the level of support within the community is significantly greater than would have otherwise been sufficient; and that there are factors which are strongly indicative of the application being in the public interest.

80. There are, however, instances where the land comes on sale unexpectedly and only then does the community think about purchasing it, never having given that issue any consideration. In such cases communities are unable to meet the requirements of section 39(3), and in particular the good reasons why a community body had not been preparing an application to register a community interest in land.

81. We are aware that while some communities can negotiate with the seller, not all are willing to do so and in such cases the community has lost its opportunity to secure the land.

Section 39: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/39

Q24 Do you agree that communities should be able to apply to register an interest in land in cases where land unexpectedly comes on the market and they have not considered using the community right to buy? If so, what changes should be made to section 39 to ensure that such communities can apply to register a community interest in land?

Re-registration of a community interest in land

82. A registered interest in land lasts for five years (section 44). A community body can apply to “re-register” its community interest in land six months before its registration expires. The registration and re-registration processes are the same, including the information required on the application form. If there are changes in the extent of land or proposals for the sustainable development of the land, then a fresh application to register an interest in land is required.

83. There have been calls that the process to re-register a community interest in land are onerous. In particular, the application form has been singled out.

84. We do not consider that the re-registration process should be a simple roll- over of the registration. It is important that a registration continues to be in the public interest and that a community body has the community‟s support for it. It is important that the application is still relevant. However, we consider that there are things that could be done to make re-registering that interest more straightforward.

85. We consider that re-registration could become a process to re-confirm a registered interest in land. We propose that the application form and work to complete it could be streamlined, but the consultative process between the landowner and the community body, and consideration and subsequent approval or rejection by Ministers would remain the same.

Section 44: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/44

Q25 Do you agree that the process to re-register a community interest should be a

21

re-confirmation of a community interest in land?

Q26 Do you think that the community body should be asked to show that its application is (1) still relevant, (2) has the support of its “community”, and that (3) granting it is in the public interest?

The timescale to complete the “right to buy”

86. When a right to buy is triggered in relation to a “timeous” application, a community body has seven months to complete its right to buy; this period can be extended by agreement between a community body and the landowner. The timescales for the right to buy are set out in section 56(3) of the Act.

87. Community bodies and other stakeholders have stated that the period to complete the right to buy is too short and that this period should be extended. In particular, they have argued that the time available after the Minister has given consent to the community body to proceed with its right to buy and to complete the purchase and transfer of the land is too short.

88. Taking into consideration the needs of both the community body and the landowner, the statutory period of the right to buy could be extended.

Section 56: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/56

Q27 What do you think should be the length of the statutory period for completing the right to buy, taking into account both the interests of the landowner and the community body? Please explain the reasons for your proposal.

Q28 Do you think that some of the tasks within the right to buy (such as valuation, ballot etc) should be rearranged and the timescales for their completion changed in order to make the best use of the time available within the right to buy? Please set out what changes you think should be made and why.

Ballot issues – Balloting arrangements

89. There have been a number of issues raised in relation to the requirement for community bodies to undertake a community ballot. These include: the onerous nature of the ballot on community body resources while there are other activities to undertake the tight timescales to undertake the ballot the difficulty of accessing the full electoral roll and ensuring that the community body has accurately identified the names of the relevant eligible voters (a major concern where there is a large ballot).

90. Scottish Ministers could instruct an independent party (such as a local council or specialist companies) to undertake the ballot for the community body. Scottish Ministers could also pay the costs of the ballot.

91. This would ensure that the ballot was fully independent of the community body. The ballot results would also, as at present, be independently verified (eg by

22 the local returning officer), and the ballot results sent at the same time to the Scottish Ministers, the community body and the landowner. At present the landowner is not given the ballot results.

Q29 Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should organise the undertaking of a community body‟s ballot and pay its costs? If you disagree, please provide your reasons.

Q30 Should Scottish Ministers notify the ballot result to the landowner? Please explain your reasons.

Right to buy “application” – pro-forma

92. There is no right to buy “application form”. Community bodies submit documentation that they consider will meet the requirements of the legislation.

93. As part of the right to buy “application” Ministers need to be satisfied that what the community body proposes to do with the land is compatible with furthering the achievement of sustainable development (section 51(c)). Community bodies have provided a range of evidence to prove this to Ministers. This has included business plans and feasibility studies, both finalised and draft. Some are extensive; others are short and concise. Community bodies have used these documents and the information in them to help them secure funding for their proposals.

94. Ministers could develop a proforma for community bodies to help them set out their plans for the sustainable development of land. We consider that this would help community bodies be clear about their proposals.

Q31 Do you think Ministers should develop a pro-forma for community bodies to set out their plans for the sustainable development of land and community? Please give reasons for your view.

Improving the process of the right to buy

Written definition of “community”

95. Extending Community Right to Buy to all parts of Scotland creates discussion as to what is a community. A community body describes its “community” (section 34(5)). This is set out in its Memorandum & Articles of Association, or Articles of Association (herein all referred to as Articles of Association). It is also recorded in its application to register a community interest in land and is used to determine who should be included in any community ballot should the registered land come on the market.

96. A community body describes its “community” according to a postcode unit or units. Ministers also have the discretion to allow a “community” to be defined by other means. They have accepted definitions based on postcode districts or sectors. This has avoided the need for a lengthy postcode listing, and has ensured that where additional postcodes have been created, the community body does not need to continually update its Articles of Association.

23

97. Community bodies could have greater flexibility in how they define their “community”. We propose that they should be able to define their “community” by the use of any of the following: postcodes/postcode sectors settlement areas (defined and updated by the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS)) localities of settlements (defined and updated by GROS) electoral wards (set out by the Local Boundary Commission for Scotland).

Section 34: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/34

Q32 Do you agree that community bodies should be able to define their “community” in a more flexible way by the use of either postcodes, settlement areas, localities of settlements, and electoral wards, or a mixture of these, as appropriate?

Q33 Are there any other ways that a “community” could be defined?

“Community body”: appropriate legal entities

98. Under the current provisions, the only type of legal entity that can apply to register a community interest in land is a company limited by guarantee (section 34(1)).

99. We have had calls that other legal entities should be able to apply under the Act as it is felt that the provisions are unduly restrictive.

100. We consider that Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisations (SCIOs) should also be able to apply under the Act. As with companies limited by guarantee, they would need to meet set criteria.

101. SCIOs are Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisations that provide the legal identity, limited liability, and orderly dissolution provided by the company limited by guarantee. However, they do not have a requirement to incorporate with and report to both Companies House and the Office of the Scottish Charities Regulator (OSCR). The provisions for SCIO constitutions and dissolution were designed with small and medium sized organisations in mind; this would include most community bodies.

Section 34: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/34

Q34 Do you agree that other legal entities in addition to the company limited by guarantee should be able to apply to use the community right to buy provisions?

Q35 Do you agree that SCIOs should be able to apply under the provisions?

Q36 What other legal entities should be able to apply under the community right to buy provisions – and why?

24

“Forever conditions”

102. Not all communities that set up a company that is compliant with the 2003 Act choose to submit an application to register an interest in land; others which have an expired registration have no further intention of using the Act. Some have purchased land and have no further intention of using the Act.

103. Scottish Ministers “approve” the Articles of Association of a community body before it can apply under the community right to buy to register a community interest in land (section 34(4)). Whenever a community body wishes to make changes to its Articles of Association, these have also to be approved by Ministers. In some cases the proposed changes could mean that the criteria for compliance are no longer met (section 34(1)). In other cases the proposed changes do not affect these criteria. Changes to constitutions for companies limited by guarantee are reported to Companies House.

104. We believe that Ministers should continue to “approve” the Articles of Association of a community body before it can apply under the community right to buy (section 35(2)). However, instead of continually approving all changes to all Articles of Association, we propose that only where community bodies are actively seeking to use or are actively using the community right to buy provisions, they should continue to be compliant with the Act.

105. We believe that this would give freedom to companies that are not seeking to use the Act to alter their constitution as they wish. However, should a company body decide later that it wanted to use the Act it would have to ensure that it was compliant, and seek Ministerial approval. After a community has purchased the land we do not think that Ministers need continue to monitor the constitution, unless a community wanted to register an interest in other land.

Section 34: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/34

Q37 Do you agree that Ministers should only have to “approve” the changes to Articles of Association for community bodies that are actively seeking to use or are using the community right to buy?

Length of the period of registration

106. We have received comments from community bodies that the period of the registration of five years is too short (section 44). It has been argued that this period is disproportionate to the amount of work that is required to register a community interest in land.

107. It could be argued that there should be a balance between the length of the registration and the requirements to register an interest in land. A longer period of registration should therefore have a more rigorous application process.

25

108. It could be that by making changes to the application form to register a community interest in land, the five year period of registration would be more appropriate.

109. As noted above, proposals to streamline the application form need to consider the information to be included in the Register of Community Interests in Land and the criteria to be considered by Ministers, as well as the application form itself.

Section 44: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/44

Q38 Do you think that the length of a registered interest in land should remain as 5 years or be changed? If it should be changed, how long should it be – and what are your reasons for making that change?

Valuation of the land – counter representations

110. The procedure for the valuation of the land is set out in section 60. The landowner and the community body have the opportunity to provide representations on the value of the land. At present there is no process to allow for counter representations, a standard RICS Independent Expert/Arbitration procedure.

111. Counter representations could provide increased confidence in the valuation, particularly as some landowners have been unhappy about the valuation figure for their land, but have not used the statutory appeal mechanisms to appeal it. The inclusion of counter representations would extend the period of the valuation from 6 to 8 weeks.

Q39 Do you agree that the valuation procedure should include counter representations by the landowner and community body? If you disagree, please give your reasons for your decision.

Landowner withdrawing land from sale

112. The community right to buy currently involves only situations with a willing seller and willing buyer. There have been instances where a landowner has put registered land on the market and then withdrawn the sale, usually after the valuation figure for the land has been revealed. This extinguishes a community body‟s right to buy, though its registration remains in place. The question arising is, as a willing seller, should the landowner be able to withdraw the land from the market without any justification?

Q40 Do you think that there should be a provision to deter landowners from taking the land off the market after they have triggered the right to buy? Please explain your reasons.

Ballot – level of support to be secured

113. While there is flexibility in the level of support which a community body has to secure for Ministerial approval in relation to a right to buy application (section 51(2)(a) and (b)), there is a widespread perception that a community group must

26 secure 50% turnout. We have been told that for large communities this level of support is particularly problematic.

114. While we currently have flexibility in the ballot result, we want to explore whether the amount of community support could be considered in other ways. It could focus on a sufficient amount of support to justify proceeding with the right to buy the land. It could also focus on the level of “No” votes so that the support does not just rely on the number of “Yes” votes.

Section 51: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/51

Q41 Do you think that there should there be greater flexibility in a community body‟s level of support for a right to buy in the ballot result than is currently permitted?

Q42 Do you think that the ballot result should focus on a sufficient amount of support to justify the community support to proceed with the right to buy the land? If yes, please explain how secured community support should be measured.

Ballot – extenuating circumstances

115. Community bodies have stated that there are times in the year when it is difficult to achieve a good turnout to the ballot. We have heard that the summer holiday period has posed problems and also the festive period over Christmas and New Year and other periods of public holidays. We also know from some communities that there have been problems with the postal system and that they received a significant number of late returns which could not be taken into account and which would have boosted the ballot. Periods of severe weather (especially snow) could potentially impact significantly on a ballot. Community bodies have asked if they can provide additional evidence to support their ballot result where circumstances outwith their control have had impact on their ballot result.

116. We propose that community bodies should be able to submit evidence to Scottish Ministers in support of their ballot return where they believe that their ballot has been affected by circumstances outwith their control, if they wish to do so. Ministers would take that evidence into consideration when considering the level of support achieved in the ballot.

Q43 Do you agree that community bodies should be able to submit evidence to Ministers in support of their ballot result where they believe that their ballot has been affected by circumstances outwith their control?

Right to buy “application” – need for further information

117. Article 7(3) of the Community Right to Buy (Ballot) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 gives Ministers the opportunity to ask a community body for additional information on its ballot; that information is to be provided within seven days of the request being made. This provision has been used on a number of occasions to clarify points.

27

Community Right to Buy (Ballot) (Scotland) Regulations 2004: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2004/228/contents/made

Q44 Do you think that Scottish Ministers should be able to ask community bodies for additional information relating to their right to buy “application” which Ministers would then take into account in considering their right to buy “application”? Please explain your reasons.

Option agreements and the community right to buy

118. An option agreement is a private agreement between a landowner and another party to purchase land: it is in effect another right of pre-emption. They can be stopped at any time by agreement of the two parties. Options are not made publically available.

119. We have had community bodies which have wanted to register a community interest in land which has been subject to an option agreement, prior to the group seeking to register its interest. However, we have been unable to accept such applications.

120. We propose that Ministers should be able to accept applications to register a community interest in land for which the land is subject to an option agreement on all or part of the land. The option agreement would remain in place while there was a registered interest. The landowner would still be able to transfer the land in accordance with the conditions set out in the option. This would be by means of an exempt transfer (currently set out at section 40(4)).

Section 40: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/40

Q45 Do you think that Ministers should be able to accept an application to register a community interest in land which is subject to an option agreement (on part or all of the land)?

Q46 If there is an option agreement in place, do you think that the landowner should be able to transfer the land as an exempt transfer while there is a registered interest over that land? Please explain your answer.

Date of the prohibition notice coming into effect for the owner/heritable creditor

121. A prohibition notice is placed on a landowner/heritable creditor to prohibit them from transferring, or taking steps with a view to transferring the land or any part of it which is subject to an application to register a community interest in land.

122. This notice comes into effect from the date when the owner/heritable creditor receives that notice (section 37(5)(c)). Although all correspondence is issued by recorded delivery it may have to be collected from a delivery centre; not everyone picks up their mail immediately after being notified of it; some mail has also been returned as it has not been picked up.

28

123. This could mean that a prohibition is not placed on the owner/heritable creditor until some time after Ministers sent out the prohibition notice. During that period the landowner could have taken steps to market the land.

124. It could be argued that the prohibition should apply from the day after the day on which Ministers issue the prohibition letter. We currently assume that the landowner/heritable creditor will receive the prohibition the day after posting.

Q47 Do you think that the prohibition on the landowner from taking steps to market or transfer the land to another party should apply from the day after the day on which Ministers issue the prohibition letter rather than the day when the owner/heritable creditor receives the notice? Please explain your answer.

Public holidays

125. There have been times when the statutory deadlines to be met by parties involved in registering a community interest in land and the right to buy have fallen on public holidays. This has posed difficulties.

126. A provision to exclude these days from the statutory timescales would be helpful. For example, a landowner has 21 days to submit their comments on a community body‟s application to register a community interest. If the deadline for those comments was to fall on 28 December, an additional two days would be given to them to allow for the two public holidays for Christmas (25 and 26 December).

Q48 Do you agree that public holidays should be excluded from the statutory timescales to register a community interest in land and the right to buy?

“Exempt” transfer of land

127. There have been a number of “exempt” transfers of land on which a community interest has been registered (sections 40(4) and 40(5)). These are transfers which are permitted, such as a transfer as a gift, or a transfer between companies in the same group.

128. Scottish Ministers are not made aware of such transfers. This means that the administrative records relating to a community interest in land become out of date.

129. We propose that where there has been an exempt transfer, Scottish Ministers should be notified of that action. Details of the transfer should be noted, including the name and address of the new owner.

Section 40: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/40

Q49 Do you agree that where a landowner makes an “exempt” transfer, this should be notified to Scottish Ministers? If you disagree, please provide reasons for your decision.

29

Changes to a community body‟s contact address and registered office

130. During the time when a community body has registered its community interest in land, its Directors may change. The contact details provided to Scottish Ministers in their application to register a community interest in land may change, as also the address of the registered office. The landowner may also change their address.

131. When we have contacted community bodies and landowners as part of our administrative arrangements to inform them of re-registering their community interest in land (at 4 years after registration) we sometimes get mail returned to us, the recipient having moved away or unknown at that address.

Q50 Do you agree that community bodies and landowners should notify Scottish Ministers of any changes to their contact details (including any registered office)?

Monitoring the community right to buy

132. Ministers do not currently monitor the impact of the community right to buy. The impact on a community can be both tangible and intangible. For example, tangible impacts include the number of jobs created; intangible ones include evidence relating to how community confidence has been altered.

133. Ministers have received a number of calls to monitor the community right to buy. This would provide evidence on how the provisions were working in practice.

Q51 Do you think that Ministers should monitor the impact of the community right to buy? How do you think that monitoring should be undertaken and what information should Ministers seek? Should the monitoring process be a statutory requirement, including provisions for reporting?

30

4.2 Strengthening Community Planning

What is Community Planning?

134. The purpose of community planning is get public services working together with each other and with communities and the third and private sectors to make the most effective use of their collective resources to deliver better outcomes for communities.

135. Community planning was given a statutory basis by Part 2 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 and is formally defined as “a process by which the public services provided in the area of the local authority are provided and the planning of that provision takes place”. The Act places duties on: local authorities to initiate, facilitate and maintain community planning core partners – Health Boards, Scottish Enterprise / Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Police Scotland, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Regional Transport Partnerships – to participate in community planning, and Scottish Ministers to promote and encourage community planning.

136. The Act is supported by statutory guidance5 which expands on these duties and describes what effective community planning should achieve.

137. Although the 2003 Act makes no provision for the establishment and functions of Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs), the framework provided by the Act and associated guidance has led to the formation of 32 such Partnerships, one in each local authority area, across Scotland. These CPPs bring together local authorities, core partners and other agencies such as colleges, Skills Development Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, along with representatives from communities and the third and private sectors, to jointly plan and deliver services.

138. Each CPP operates in a different way and at a range of different levels to suit local circumstances. All CPPs have a „high-level‟ Board or Partnership which has broad responsibility for community planning in the area, for strategic oversight of partnership working, and for the development and delivery of key partnership strategies, most notably the Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) which, following recent (non-statutory) guidance6, provides a shared „plan for place‟ aimed at reducing inequalities and delivering better outcomes for communities. These Boards or Partnerships vary in size and membership but usually involve local elected members and senior officers from key partners. A few also involve non-executive members from partners, such as the Chair of the local NHS Board.

139. Whilst the CPP Board or Partnership is the most recognisable element of community planning, the vast bulk of partnership planning and delivery happens through an array of thematic and area/neighbourhood based groups which, although not always apparent, come under the umbrella of the CPP. And of course front line workers from across public services and communities often work together to solve

5 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47237/0028845.pdf 6 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/local-government/CP/SOA2012/SOA2012 31 problems and improve outcomes without getting involved in community planning structures.

The case for change

140. As the Christie Commission made clear, Scotland‟s public services need to work more closely with each other and with communities than ever before. Without such working, and without public services bringing their collective resources to bear, the challenges facing Scotland‟s communities will remain stubborn – challenges like getting young people into work, tackling health inequalities, and giving children the best start in life. Moreover, in the context of increasing demands on public services and declining public expenditure, such working is critical to making prevention the defining feature of how public services work in Scotland and to delivering better outcomes for people and places.

141. In that context, the Scottish Government / COSLA Statement of Ambition on Community Planning and SOAs7 (March 2012) stated that:

Effective community planning arrangements will be at the core of public service reform. They will drive the pace of service integration, increase the focus on prevention and secure continuous improvement in public service delivery, in order to achieve better outcomes for communities.

The Statement also set out what CPPs must do and how they should operate and improve outcomes.

142. At the same time, the Scottish Government and COSLA recognised that significant changes, including legislative change, would be needed to ensure the successful realisation of that shared ambition for community planning.

143. This is also recognised by the Accounts Commission and Auditor General‟s work on Improving Community Planning in Scotland8 which, among other things, concluded that CPPs need to significantly improve their governance and accountability arrangements and that CPP partners, such as councils and NHS Boards, need to take full account of community planning priorities and SOA commitments in their budget setting and business planning decisions.

144. The legislative proposals set out in this chapter seek to address these issues by strengthening the roles and responsibilities of CPPs and placing new duties on public sector partners to play a full and active role in community planning and the resourcing and delivery of local priority outcomes.

145. In making these proposals it is fully recognised that legislation alone cannot deliver the step change in community planning that is required to deliver the Statement of Ambition. Rather, the proposals complement and reinforce the significant national and local action that is already underway to strengthen community planning. This includes:

7 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00389822.doc 8 http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2013/nr_130320_improving_cpp.pdf 32

the development and delivery of new SOAs, which provide a clear „plan for place‟, focused on prevention and reducing inequalities, through which CPPs mobilise local assets and resources to deliver better outcomes for communities the agreement of Development Plans by and with each CPP to help them further develop their SOAs and make progress towards the Statement of Ambition CPPs and individual partners taking steps to improve community planning locally by, for example reviewing and improving their governance and performance management arrangements new scrutiny arrangements, led by the Accounts Commission and Auditor General, which provide assurance for the performance of CPPs and help them to deliver better outcomes the establishment of a National Community Planning Group to provide political and strategic leadership and guidance, and publication of the Agreement on Joint Working on Community Planning and Resourcing9 which places clear expectations on local government, the NHS and other public bodies to share budget and resource planning assumptions with each other at an early stage, and to work together through CPPs to deploy resources towards the jointly agreed priorities set out in each CPP‟s Single Outcome Agreement.

146. These actions will help drive progress towards the Statement of Ambition, but legislative change is also required.

Proposals

147. In broad terms, our approach to creating the right legislative framework for effective community planning is to:

(i) Place increased emphasis on the planning and delivery of outcomes; (ii) Put CPPs and their key roles and responsibilities on a statutory basis; (iii) Place new duties on partner bodies so that the CPP can fulfil its responsibilities, and so that each partner‟s role in community planning is fully reflected in its own governance and accountability arrangements; and (iv) Ensure that the external scrutiny provided by the Accounts Commission, the Auditor General and other bodies reinforces the above and supports progress towards the Statement of Ambition.

CPPs and the planning and delivery of outcomes

148. The Statement of Ambition set out the key tasks for CPPs to effectively plan and deliver outcomes. As outlined above, the 2003 Act makes no provision for the establishment and functions of CPPs and frames community planning as a process by which the planning and provision of public services in an area takes place. That broad framework has enabled each of Scotland‟s 32 CPPs, and the structures and

9 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00433714.pdf 33 systems below them, to evolve and develop to suit local circumstances. This has delivered some success in partnership working and relationships, in community engagement and in the development and delivery of specific projects. CPPs have also made significant progress in their work on new SOAs. However, it is our view that progress towards the Statement of Ambition requires CPPs to be put on a statutory basis and for their core duties in the planning and delivery of outcomes to be defined more clearly.

149. We therefore propose that: a Community Planning Partnership (CPP) must be established by relevant partners in each local authority area, and that the core legislative underpinning for community planning is amended to place stronger emphasis on the purpose of delivering better outcomes.

150. The statutory requirement for partners to establish a CPP does not mean that CPPs will have to be formally incorporated as separate legal bodies, though we do not intend to repeal section 19 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 which enables CPPs to do that (subject to agreement from Scottish Ministers and approval from Parliament). Although no CPP has, to date, sought incorporation, the role of an incorporated CPP is not confined to providing administrative support to the CPP and could potentially be used to provide services from two or more partners in an integrated way.

151. We further propose that, reflecting the Statement of Ambition, the core duties of each CPP should be to: develop and agree a common understanding of local needs and opportunities agree common and shared outcomes for the CPP area develop an effective, shared approach for achieving those outcomes - identifying who will do what, by when, and with what resources manage performance to ensure improvement of outcomes scrutinise and challenge all partners‟ contributions to the delivery of the agreed shared priorities provide strategic oversight of arrangements for partnership working in the CPP area report to communities and other stakeholders on the delivery of agreed priorities and the effectiveness of community planning in the area consult and engage with the third sector and the business community on the outcomes to be achieved and how they can best be delivered, and consult and engage with communities in identifying and prioritising the outcomes that are to be delivered and ensure that community engagement is properly planned, resourced and integrated across partners.

152. In our view, the bulk of these core duties could be delivered by putting the need for CPPs to develop and ensure delivery of a shared plan for outcomes (i.e something similar to a Single Outcome Agreement) in the CPP area on a statutory basis. This would complement our proposal in Chapter 5.1 to place a duty on Ministers to develop, consult on and publish a set of outcomes that describe their long term, strategic objectives for Scotland. Moreover, in community planning terms such an approach would not only capture the key elements of some of the core

34 duties listed above, but also provide greater clarity on what the CPP is jointly and collectively accountable for and, in turn, the roles and contributions of individual partners. It would also provide a statutory focus for performance management, scrutiny and challenge by the CPP; for the internal governance and accountability arrangements of individual partners; and for external scrutiny of CPPs and individual partners by the Accounts Commission, Auditor General and others.

153. The legislation would focus on the core principles and elements of such an approach with more detailed advice provided, as at present, through guidance.

154. These proposals are principally aimed at defining the most important roles and duties of each CPP‟s Strategic Board or Partnership. Such Boards or Partnerships could take on other, locally defined, roles where they saw fit and it would be for CPPs to decide on the most effective structures and mechanisms, under the umbrella of the Partnership/Board, for planning and delivery.

155. In defining the core duties of the CPP it is important to consider whether the size and membership of the Partnership/Board is right for those duties. In line with the findings of „Improving Community Planning in Scotland‟, CPP Boards need to ensure they are effective at leading strategic change, with the associated dynamic leadership and strong culture of collective challenge that requires. Furthermore, while individual partners will remain formally accountable to their parent organisations, the CPP has a key role in scrutinising and challenging the individual and collective commitment and contribution of partners. This is a key area for development identified by the Accounts Commission and Auditor General and is closely linked to their call for greater clarity about the roles that local elected politicians, non-executive board members, and officers are expected to take on as part of the community planning process. Elected members, non-executives and possibly community representatives are arguably better placed than officers to provide genuine governance and scrutiny. Meanwhile, senior officers are arguably better placed to undertake work on strategic planning and delivery and to ensure that the structures and mechanisms working to the Partnership/Board are effective. We welcome views on this issue and if and how the legislation might approach it.

Duties on partner bodies

156. To be successful, community planning requires all public sector organisations on which outcomes for communities depend to participate fully in the community planning process and in helping the CPP fulfil its core duties.

157. As indicated above, the 2003 Act places a duty on local authorities to initiate, facilitate and maintain community planning; on core partners to participate in community planning; and on Scottish Ministers to promote and encourage community planning. Further detail on these duties is provided in the statutory guidance which, in broad terms, sets out the role of the local authority (eg setting a clear vision and objectives for the area; defining performance outcomes and identifying the resources necessary to deliver those outcomes; and monitoring and reporting on progress) and then places a duty on the other core partners to assist the local authority in that role.

35

158. Our aim is to ensure that each and every public sector organisation which can help the CPP fulfil its core duties takes that responsibility as seriously as its other statutory functions and duties, and that their governance and accountability arrangements reinforce that. The duties for individual partners would therefore be framed in terms of a duty on each partner to support the CPP in the fulfilling its core duties and in particular: in setting their own priorities, to consider the agreed outcomes each CPP is seeking to achieve to work with other partners to improve outcomes in the CPP area to participate in the development of a shared plan for outcomes in each CPP area; to commit resources to the delivery of that plan; and to report to its parent organisation and to the CPP on its contribution to community planning and the delivery of outcomes

159. These duties aim to shift what participation in community planning means, from something which is often focused on an organisation‟s membership of the CPP Board and/or participation in meetings, to something which is more explicitly focused on that organisation‟s contribution to the delivery of improved outcomes for communities.

160. We do not propose to change existing formal lines of accountability for public sector bodies, such as those of NHS Boards to Scottish Ministers, or a council to its electorate. Nevertheless, these lines should ensure that key players in the accountability chain for each partner body (which might include, depending on the partner, its board, the Council or Scottish Ministers) hold organisations and individuals to account for their contribution to community planning and the resourcing and performance in delivering agreed outcomes, in the same way as they hold them to account for their other statutory duties and delivery responsibilities. This could be supported by requiring organisations to report, as part of their routine reporting processes, on their contribution to community planning and the delivery of agreed outcomes by CPPs.

Which organisations should the duties apply to?

161. As well as local authorities and core partners a wide range of other organisations, such as colleges, Skills Development Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, already participate in community planning across Scotland. It would be possible to use the existing legislation to add to the list of core bodies under a duty to participate in community planning. That could, for example, place that duty on those organisations which might be expected to have a substantive role in the delivery of outcomes by CPPs right across Scotland or in the particular areas they cover. In our view, and in addition to local authorities and existing core partners, those organisations are:

Cairngorms National Park Authority Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority Scottish Environment Protection Agency Scottish Natural Heritage

36

Skills Development Scotland Sportscotland VisitScotland

It will also be important to take into account any “integration authorities” established under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Bill, currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament.

162. This would provide clarity to those organisations and to CPPs about what is expected of them. On the other hand, given the diverse nature of local circumstances and needs across Scotland, there will be other bodies that can contribute to the delivery of outcomes in particular CPP areas and which have an equally important role in community planning in those areas. It may therefore be advantageous to take a more expansive and enabling approach which, rather than prescribing a specific list of bodies, places a duty across the public sector but takes account of the statutory functions of particular organisations and whether they have a genuine role in the delivery of local outcomes. Such an approach is legislatively challenging and would need to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on organisations like the Scottish Legal Aid Board and Disclosure Scotland which do not have a direct role in the delivery of local outcomes. We welcome your views on these issues.

The role of the local authority

163. Local authorities are at present under a statutory duty to initiate, facilitate and maintain community planning. On the one hand, this has meant that councils have played a significant role in the progress of community planning to date. On the other, it may contribute to the Accounts Commission/Auditor General‟s finding that “Community planning has also been seen as a council-driven exercise and not a core part of the day job for other partners who have had little incentive to get fully involved”.

164. The duties on partners outlined above will mean that community planning can no longer be considered something that local authorities are responsible for taking forward alone, and will shift the balance between the participation and contribution of the council and other partners. This may mean that the existing duty on local authorities is no longer required. That said, councils have a local democratic mandate and broad understanding of the needs and aspirations of local communities and it may be that community planning still needs councils to have a primary role in driving it forward. The trick here is to enable the council to exercise community leadership without the CPP being seen as an extension of the local authority. We welcome views on how this might best be achieved.

External scrutiny

165. The success of the new arrangements will require public sector bodies to be effectively held to account for how they fulfil the duties placed on them and CPPs. This is partly about engaging with and reporting to communities, and partly about the roles of the Accounts Commission, Auditor General and other scrutiny bodies.

37

166. The 2003 Act already places a duty on local authorities to publish reports from time to time on how community planning has been taken forward locally. We propose that this duty should be placed on CPPs and should reflect their new duties.

167. The Accounts Commission and Auditor General have used their existing powers to undertake pilot audits of three CPPs and will be undertaking further audits over the next year. We welcome views on how the scrutiny regime might be strengthened to support the proposals above and whether any legislative changes is required to achieve this.

Consultation Questions

Q52 What are your views on our proposals for requiring a CPP to be established in each local authority area, and for amending the core statutory underpinning for community planning to place stronger emphasis on delivering better outcomes?

Q53 What are your views on the core duties for CPPs set out above, and in particular the proposal that CPPs must develop and ensure delivery of a shared plan for outcomes (i.e., something similar to a Single Outcome Agreement) in the CPP area?

Q54 Do the proposed duties of the CPP support effective community engagement and the involvement of the third and business sectors? What other changes may be required to make this more effective?

Q55 How can we ensure that all relevant partners play a full role in community planning and the delivery of improved outcomes in each CPP area? Do the core duties set out above achieve that? What else might be required?

Q56 What are the respective roles of local elected politicians, non-executive board members and officers in community planning and should this be clarified through the legislation?

Q57 Should the duty on individual organisations apply to a defined list of public bodies – if so, which ones? Or should we seek to take a more expansive approach which covers the public sector more generally?

Q58 Local authorities are currently responsible for initiating, facilitating and maintaining community planning. How might the legislation best capture the community leadership role of Councils without the CPP being perceived as an extension of the local authority?

Q59 How can the external scrutiny regime and the roles of organisations such as the Accounts Commission and Auditor General support the proposed changes? Does this require changes to their powers or functions?

Q60 What other legislative changes are needed to strengthen community planning?

38

4.3 Allotments

168. Communities can be empowered by ensuring people have access to land that can provide both health and social benefits and a connection to the local environment. One way to achieve this, which is growing in popularity, is through access to allotments.

169. In 2009 the Scottish Government‟s National Food and Drink Policy made a clear commitment to strategically support allotments. It was recognised that the legislation surrounding allotments was complicated and needed to be updated. It was therefore a SNP Manifesto Commitment in 2011 to review this legislation.

170. Background and further information on the Allotments legislation can be found in the previous Allotments Consultation at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Food-Industry/own

171. The following sections set out the changes we propose to make in order to create updated, simplified legislation to support allotments, and seek your views.

The Definition of Allotment

172. We propose that allotments should be defined as follows:

Allotment Site: An area of land that is subdivided into allotment plots and which may or may not include communal areas and buildings.

Allotment Plot: a. A piece of land on an allotment site between 60 -?m2 b. used mainly for the cultivation of vegetables, fruit and flowers for non- commercial use c. leased to individuals, families, groups of individuals and organisations.

Q61 Do you agree with the definition of an allotment site and allotment plot? How else would you suggest they be defined?

Q62 In order to include all existing allotments in the new legislation they must fit within the size range. What is the minimum and maximum size of one allotment plot in your area/site?

Local Authority Duty to Provide Allotments

173. Under existing legislation, where the local authority considers there to be a demand for allotments in their area, it is under a duty to acquire any suitable land for the purpose of letting as allotments. We intend to retain a similar duty which is set out in this section. Respondents to the Allotments consultation indicated that provision of allotments by the local authority should be linked to and triggered by demand.

39

174. Under our proposals, local authorities will be required to maintain waiting lists for allotments.

The duties to provide allotments

It is proposed that, in an area where there are no local authority allotments, the local authority must make provision once the waiting list reaches 15 people.

Where there are currently local authority allotments, but these are not sufficient to satisfy demand, the local authority will be under a duty to keep waiting lists below a specified target, whether by acquiring land or otherwise.

If either of the above duties are not met, the local authority must be able to demonstrate through the annual allotments report that they are taking all reasonable steps to meet the duty and provide reasons why it has not been possible.

Targets

175. As set out above, local authorities will be under a duty to take steps to keep their allotment waiting lists to below a set target. Suggestions for appropriate targets are set out below.

Option (A), the waiting list should be no more than 3 years in length; Or Option (B), the waiting list should be no more than 50% of the current number of allotment plots; Or Option (C), a combination of both Options A and B.

Q63 Do you agree with this duty to provide allotments? Are there any changes you would make? Do you agree with the level of the trigger point, ie that a local authority must make provision for allotments once the waiting list reaches 15 people?

Q64 Do you prefer the target Option A, B or C and why? Are there any other target options you wish to be considered? Do you agree with the level of the targets?

Local Authority Duties and Powers to Manage Allotments

176. In order to effectively manage allotment sites, local authorities need a range of powers. They should also be under duties to ensure they provide and manage their allotments appropriately. The following duties and powers are proposed, based on the previous consultation.

40

Proposed Duties

1. Local authorities must maintain a waiting list which should be regularly reviewed and kept up to date. Any resident expressing a wish in writing to their local authority to have an allotment should be treated as a request to join a waiting list. The local authority must acknowledge this request in writing within 28 days.

2. Local authorities have a duty to produce and publish an annual report which will include: a. Tenancy, size and rent of all let and unlet allotments. b. Size of waiting list. c. Where necessary, details of all steps taken to meet demand for allotments and keep their waiting list below the statutory target. d. Financial report (statement of income and expenses).

3. Local authorities have a duty to produce and publish regulations as necessary for regulating the letting of Allotments under this Act and must provide a free copy on request (see the section headed „Local Authority Regulations‟ below).

4. Local authorities have a duty to produce a Food Growing Strategy which will include: a. A list of local authority and non-local authority owned land that has been identified as potential land for allotment sites and other forms of community growing. b. An assessment of suitability of potential sites and production of a plan for future provision of allotments, community growing and related facilities. c. Allotment and community growing requirements for inclusion within new developments. d. Commitment to providing allotment sites within a timeframe determined and specified by the local authority. e. Details of any maintenance requirements on existing sites.

5. A permanent allotment site situated on local authority land is to be protected from closure except in limited circumstances.

6. Other areas of the existing legislation will be updated and consolidated. These include: a. Retaining a duty to provide access to allotments. b. A duty to make any suitable local authority owned buildings available for allotment meetings.

41

Proposed Powers

7. Land belonging to a local authority not immediately required for the purpose for which it was acquired can, if suitable, be used for the temporary provision of allotments.

8. Local authorities have the power to incur expenses for the purpose of promoting the proper cultivation of allotments, including the promotion of allotments and training.

9. Local authorities have the power to delegate authority of allotments to an appropriate allotment association or group with the landlord retaining the overall responsibility for the site. a. Levels of responsibility of the association or group to be determined by the local authority.

10. Other areas of the existing legislation will be updated and consolidated. These areas include: a. Retaining and updating a power to compulsory purchase and lease land for use as allotments. b. The definition of a „fair rent‟. c. Retaining the power to enter, adapt and let unoccupied land for use as allotments. d. Retaining a power to improve, adapt and maintain land for letting as allotments. e. Retaining a power to remove unauthorised buildings.

Q65 Do you agree with this list of local authority duties and powers? Would you make any changes to the above list?

Termination of Allotment Tenancies

177. The following areas of the legislation will be updated and consolidated: a. Termination of a lease and the timescales involved. b. Right of a plotholder to compensation upon termination of a lease without a specified period of notice. c. Right of a lessor to recover any loss to themselves from the plotholder.

178. Most of the current provisions which relate to the termination of allotment tenancies apply to private allotments as well as those owned or leased by a local authority. We propose to continue to apply the legislation to private allotments in this way.

Q66 Do you think the areas regarding termination of allotment tenancies listed above should be set out in legislation or determined by the local authority at a local level?

Q67 Are there any other areas you feel should apply to private allotments?

42

Surplus Produce

179. Surplus produce may be sold with the permission of the local authority but must be non-commercial and all proceeds reinvested back into the site and/or the local community and charities.

180. The local authority will determine whether, and under what circumstances, surplus produce may be sold and outline the details in their Regulations.

Q68 Do you agree that surplus produce may be sold? If you disagree, what are your reasons?

Local Authority Regulations

181. Respondents to the Allotments consultation indicated that there were a number of areas which would be better determined at a local level rather than through national legislation. Local authorities will have a duty to produce and publish regulations as necessary for regulating the letting of Allotments. We propose the following requirements and suggestions.

The Regulations must include:

1. Rules on the allocation of plots.

2. Payment of rent.

3. Details of rent concessions.

4. Number of plots per plotholder.

5. The conditions under which the plots are to be cultivated.

6. Whether plotholders may construct buildings associated with growing or the keeping of livestock, and of what size.

7. Whether plotholders may sustain small livestock (e.g. chickens, bees) on an allotment plot for domestic use.

8. Details of inspections that could be carried out.

9. Whether, and under what circumstances, surplus produce may be sold.

The Regulations may include (but not limited to):

1. Whether communal buildings may be constructed.

2. Access to allotment site and behaviour.

3. Security.

43

4. Use of plot, to cover issues such as a. Site rules. b. Dogs. c. Bonfires. d. Trees. e. Water conservation. f. Barbed wire. g. Personal conduct. h. Organic principles. i. Pathways. j. Fences.

Q69 Do you agree with this list of subjects to be governed by Regulations? Would you make any changes to the above lists?

44

4.4 Local relief schemes for non-domestic (business) rates

182. The Scottish Government recognises that supporting business to flourish is a key strand in enabling people to live in resilient communities and sustainable places.

183. The recent consultation on business rates reform, “Supporting Business, Promoting Growth”10 included a proposal to create a new power for local reliefs. This would allow councils to create and fund their own localised business rate relief schemes to better reflect local needs and support communities. The national poundage rate will still apply and there will be no power for local supplements.

184. Creation of this new power received strong support in the previous consultation, which has been echoed in ongoing stakeholder engagement on rates reform. We therefore intend to include this power in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.

Water and sewerage charges

185. We are also considering options for a new scheme to exempt small and medium-sized third sector organisations from water and sewerage charges. We intend to consult separately on our proposals shortly.

10The consultation paper, responses and analysis can be accessed from the Local Government pages of the Scottish Government‟s website, at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/local- government/17999/11199 45

Chapter 5 – Wider Policy Proposals

5.1 Scotland Performs – embedding the outcomes approach in legislation

186. In June 2013, the Carnegie UK Trust recommended in their report “Shifting the Dial in Scotland” that, to build on their assessment of Scotland being an “international leader in wellbeing measurement”, the Scottish Government should “Embed Scotland Performs and the National Performance Framework in legislation”.

187. In addition to such a proposal renewing commitment across the public sector to an outcomes-based approach, it would strengthen the link between local outcomes defined in each CPP‟s SOA and national outcomes defined by a national outcome framework. A duty on Ministers to develop and consult upon a set of National Outcomes would ensure that a full range of views were taken into account. Consultation between national and local governments, agencies and communities would enhance the line of sight between local operational delivery improvements and partnership working and their impacts and consequences at a national level, improving coordination and collaboration, and ultimately resulting in improved outcomes.

188. The Carnegie UK Trust recommendation includes a proposal that there should be a publicly available overview of Scotland‟s progress, very much along the lines of Scotland Performs. Ministers see regular and transparent public reporting as a key element of scrutiny and accountability, and so any legislative provision would be likely to include such a requirement.

189. Ministers therefore invite views upon a proposal, which builds upon the recommendation of the Carnegie UK Trust, that the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill should include a provision that places a duty on Scottish Ministers to develop, consult on and publish a set of outcomes that describe their long term, strategic objectives for Scotland, and include a complementary duty to report regularly and publicly progress towards these outcomes.

Consultation question

Q70 We invite your views on this proposal.

46

5.2 Subsidiarity and local decision-making

190. The Government is clear that the people who live and work in Scotland are best-placed to make decisions about our future. This is the essence of self- determination, and accordingly we are committed to subsidiarity and local decision- making in public life.

191. We also recognise that councils are the level of government closest to the citizen, giving people an opportunity to participate in decision-making affecting their everyday environment. Our commitment to local autonomy, self-determination and governance is not only central to our proposals for this Bill, but is also fundamental to our wider approach to public service reform and local government, and recent actions such as establishing the Island Areas Ministerial Working Group and securing cross-border working with councils and other partners in the North of England.

192. Our actions are also guided by the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government11. The Charter is a widely recognised articulation of the principles of local autonomy, to which we are bound as an international treaty obligation by ratification in 1998 at the Council of Europe. It commits us to applying basic rules guaranteeing the political, administrative and financial independence of local authorities, and provides that the principle of local self-government will be recognised in domestic legislation and where practicable in the constitution.

193. These positive principles are embedded in the legislative provisions, funding arrangements and significant autonomy that characterise local government in Scotland today. Key to the success of these arrangements is the strong partnership approach between the Scottish Government and local government, building on the concordat signed in 2007, and demonstrated in our commitment to fair budget settlements, large-scale reduction in budget ring-fencing, and joint work with COSLA to improve local outcomes by strengthening community planning.

194. Through these actions the provisions of the European Charter are given renewed life and meaning and our proud tradition of local government is upheld. Indeed, because we recognise that local councils are an integral and essential element of the overall good governance of Scotland, we will argue upon independence for Scotland‟s Constitution to guarantee the status and rights of elected local government. This Bill provides opportunities for practical measures to complement and strengthen that commitment, so that local communities can really guide and benefit from the continuing reform of public services.

195. As well as this consultation, there will be other relevant debates over the coming weeks and months, including COSLA‟s own commission on local democracy, and we welcome the wider thinking that these will stimulate as we work towards introduction of this Bill.

11 http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=122&CM=1&CL=ENG 47

Consultation question

Q71 Given the actions that the Government and others already take to enable and support local democracy, together with the additional measures proposed in this consultation, are there any other actions we could take to reflect local democracy principles that would benefit communities?

48

Chapter 6 - Assessing Impact

196. We believe that empowering communities and improving public services will deliver a range of social, economic and environmental benefits for local areas. However, it is important that we understand in more detail the impacts that the options set out in this paper may have. During the consultation period we plan to contact stakeholders to discuss the potential positive and negative effects of our proposals and those that others may suggest. Please use these questions to tell us your views on these issues.

Equality

197. The Scottish Government is committed to promoting equality and removing or minimising disadvantage which may be experienced by different groups of people. It has a legal duty to consider the impact of policies on people who may be differently affected in relation to the “protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010 of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. We also want to consider issues relating to poverty and deprivation, to ensure that all communities are able to access the benefits that the Bill will deliver.

Q72 Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel any of the proposals for the Bill may have on particular groups of people, with reference to the “protected characteristics” listed above.

Q73 What differences might there be in the impact of the Bill on communities with different levels of advantage or deprivation? How can we make sure that all communities can access the benefits of these proposals?

Business and Regulation

198. The Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment analyses whether a policy is likely to increase or reduce the costs and burdens placed on businesses, the public sector and voluntary and community organisations.

Q74 Please tell us about any potential costs or savings that may occur as a result of the proposals for the Bill, and any increase or reduction in the burden of regulation for any sector. Please be as specific as possible.

Environmental

Q75 Please tell us about any potential impacts, either positive or negative, you feel any of the proposals for the Bill may have on the environment.

49

Annex A – How to respond

We want to know your views on the questions set out in this consultation paper. Please send us your response by 24 January 2014.

There are three ways you can respond to this consultation paper:

1. Use the online questionnaire at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Consultations

2. Send your response by email to [email protected]

3. Send your response by post to

Community Empowerment Unit The Scottish Government Area 3-J South Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

If you are responding by email or by post please make sure you include your completed Respondent Information Form (see “Handling Your Response” below.)

You can download or print the Respondent Information Form and a consultation questionnaire from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Consultations

You do not need to answer all the questions in the consultation, if you are only interested in certain topics. The consultation questionnaire is divided according to the chapter headings. We hope you find this helpful. If you choose not to use the questionnaire, please clearly indicate in your response which questions you are responding to. This will help us to analyse the responses.

If you have any queries please email [email protected], or telephone Scott Sayers on 0131 244 0382.

50

Handling your response We need to know how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular, whether you are happy for your response to be made public. Please complete and return the Respondent Information Form as this will ensure that we treat your response appropriately. If you ask for your response not to be published we will regard it as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly.

All respondents should be aware that the Scottish Government is subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and would therefore have to consider any request made to it under the Act for information relating to responses made to this consultation exercise.

Where respondents have given permission for their response to be made public, and after we have checked that they contain no potentially defamatory material, responses will be made available to the public in the Scottish Government Library and on the Scottish Government consultation web pages. You can make arrangements to view responses by contacting the SG Library on 0131 244 4552. Responses can be copied and sent to you, but a charge may be made for this service.

What happens next?

Following the closing date, all responses will be analysed and considered along with any other available evidence to help us reach decisions on what the Bill should say. We aim to issue a report on this consultation process by Spring 2014, and to introduce the Bill to the Scottish Parliament before the end of this Parliamentary year (2013-14).

We expect the Scottish Parliament will take around 9 months to examine the Bill, and then it will take some time to produce guidance and make sure everyone is ready to implement the new law. Visit the website at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/engage or follow us on Twitter @CommEmpower to keep up with what‟s happening.

Comments and complaints

If you have any comments about how this consultation exercise has been conducted, please send them to:

Alasdair McKinlay Community Empowerment Unit The Scottish Government Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

[email protected]

51

The Scottish Government Consultation Process

Consultation is an essential and important aspect of Scottish Government working methods. Given the wide-ranging areas of work of the Scottish Government, there are many varied types of consultation. However, in general, Scottish Government consultation exercises aim to provide opportunities for all those who wish to express their opinions on a proposed area of work to do so in ways which will inform and enhance that work.

The Scottish Government encourages consultation that is thorough, effective and appropriate to the issue under consideration and the nature of the target audience. Consultation exercises take account of a wide range of factors, and no two exercises are likely to be the same.

Typically Scottish Government consultations involve a written paper inviting answers to specific questions or more general views about the material presented. Written papers are distributed to organisations and individuals with an interest in the issue, and they are also placed on the Scottish Government web site enabling a wider audience to access the paper and submit their responses. Consultation exercises may also involve seeking views in a number of different ways, such as through public meetings, focus groups or questionnaire exercises. Copies of all the written responses received to a consultation exercise (except those where the individual or organisation requested confidentiality) are placed in the Scottish Government library at Saughton House, Edinburgh (K Spur, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh, EH11 3XD, telephone 0131 244 4565).

All Scottish Government consultation papers and related publications (eg, analysis of response reports) can be accessed at: Scottish Government consultations (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations )

The Scottish Government has an email alert system for consultations, http://register.scotland.gov.uk . This system allows stakeholder individuals and organisations to register and receive a weekly email containing details of all new consultations (including web links). It complements, but in no way replaces SG distribution lists, and is designed to allow stakeholders to keep up to date with all SG consultation activity, and therefore be alerted at the earliest opportunity to those of most interest. We would encourage you to register.

The views and suggestions detailed in consultation responses are analysed and used as part of the decision making process, along with a range of other available information and evidence. Depending on the nature of the consultation exercise the responses received may:

indicate the need for policy development or review

inform the development of a particular policy

52

help decisions to be made between alternative policy proposals

be used to finalise legislation before it is implemented

Final decisions on the issues under consideration will also take account of a range of other factors, including other available information and research evidence.

While details of particular circumstances described in a response to a consultation exercise may usefully inform the policy process, consultation exercises cannot address individual concerns and comments, which should be directed to the relevant public body.

53

Annex B – Glossary of terms used in Draft Bill

This Glossary explains some words used in the draft Bill that may be unfamiliar, or may have a different meaning when used in law than in everyday use. It is provided to help readers understand what is proposed in the consultation and is not intended to have any force in interpreting current or future law. If a word is not listed here, it has the same meaning in law as its usual dictionary definition.

Existing legislation referred to in the draft Bill can be found on the website www.legislation.gov.uk . You should also be able to access legislation through any local library.

Person Includes companies, partnerships and other organisations as well as individuals.

Body Any organisation or group of people.

Corporate or An unincorporated body is a group of people who may act unincorporated together but do so as individuals. When it becomes corporate (by registering as a company, society, etc) the body is treated in law as a single person.

Land Includes buildings and other structures, land covered with water, and any right or interest in or over land.

Property Includes things “corporeal and incorporeal, heritable and moveable” Corporeal – real things, such as land, buildings, vehicles, clothing Incorporeal – rights, such as rights in land, intellectual property, money owed to the person Heritable – land and buildings / structures on the land Moveable – everything else; things which can literally be moved, such as furnishings, regalia, and cash.

Assets An asset is something which has value. In the context of “asset transfer requests”, it is used as another word for land and buildings.

Appeals – An appeal is allowed when the person to whom the appeal is allow, dismiss made agrees with the person appealing; it is dismissed if they do not agree.

Vary a decision When a decision is varied, it is amended in part, for example to alter the terms and conditions of the decision.

Severally liable This means any of the people involved can be required to pay the whole amount of the debt.

54

Order Orders and Regulations are types of legislation which can be Regulations made more quickly than Acts. They may be used for technical detail or other issues that may change often, such as a list of organisations. An Act sets out what Ministers can do by Order or Regulations, and they have to be laid before Parliament before they become law.

“have regard Guidance issued by Scottish Ministers is not legislation. However, to guidance” if an organisation is required to “have regard to” guidance, it might be found to have broken the law if it has not followed the guidance, without reason.

55

Annex C – Draft Bill

56

Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill [CONSULTATION DRAFT]

CONTENTS

Section

PART 1

ASSET TRANSFER REQUESTS Key definitions: Part 1 1 Meaning of “community body” 2 Meaning of “relevant authority”

Requests 3 Asset transfer requests 4 Asset transfer requests: regulations

Decisions 5 Asset transfer requests: decisions 6 Agreement to asset transfer request 7 Prohibition on disposal of land

Appeals 8 Appeals

Disapplication of certain lease restrictions 9 Disapplication of restrictions in lease of land to relevant authority

Power to decline subsequent requests 10 Power to decline certain asset transfer requests

PART 2

PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY Key definitions: Part 2 11 Meaning of “community body” 12 Meaning of “public service authority”

Participation requests 13 Participation request 14 Participation requests: regulations ii Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Decisions about participation requests 15 Participation requests: decisions 16 Decision notice: information about outcome improvement process 17 Proposed outcome improvement process

Outcome improvement processes: establishment and modification 18 Duty to establish and maintain outcome improvement process 19 Modification of outcome improvement process

Reporting 20 Reporting

Interpretation of Part 2 21 Interpretation of Part 2

PART 3

COMMON GOOD PROPERTY Registers 22 Common good registers 23 Guidance about common good registers

Disposal and use 24 Disposal and use of common good property: consultation 25 Disposal etc. of common good property: guidance

Interpretation 26 Interpretation of Part 3

PART 4

LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES UNDER BUILDING (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 27 Liability for expenses of work under Building (Scotland) Act 2003

PART 5

GENERAL 28 Subordinate legislation 29 Ancillary provision 30 Commencement 31 Short title

______

SCHEDULE 1 —Relevant authorities SCHEDULE 2 —Public service authorities

Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 1

Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill [CONSULTATION DRAFT]

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to confer rights on community bodies in relation to assets of, and services provided by, public bodies; to make provision for establishing a register of common good property; and to enable local authorities to recover additional expenses and interest in respect of work carried out under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003.

PART 1

ASSET TRANSFER REQUESTS Key definitions: Part 1 1 Meaning of “community body” (1) In this Part, a “community body” means— (a) a body designated as such by an order made by the Scottish Ministers, (b) a company of the type described in subsection (5). (2) An order under subsection (1)(a) may designate a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporated, as a community body. (3) Where the power to make an order under subsection (1)(a) is exercised in relation to a trust, the community body is to be the trustees of the trust. (4) The Scottish Ministers may by order determine that such community body as may be specified in the order is to cease to be a community body. (5) The type of company mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is a company the articles of association of which include the following— (a) a definition of the community to which the company relates, (b) provision that the majority of the members of the company is to consist of members of the community, (c) provision that the members of the company who consist of members of the community have control of the company, (d) provision enabling the company to exercise the right to buy, or otherwise acquire rights, in relation to land, (e) provision that any surplus funds or assets of the company are to be applied for the benefit of the community to which the company relates, and (f) provision that, on the winding up of the company and after satisfaction of its liabilities, its property (including any land, and any rights in relation to land, acquired by it as a result of an asset transfer request under this Act) passes— 2 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

(i) to such other community body as may be approved by the Scottish Ministers, or (ii) if no other community body is so approved, to the relevant authority from whom any such land or rights were so acquired or to such other relevant authority as the Scottish Ministers may direct. (6) The articles of association of a company which is a community body may, notwithstanding the generality of paragraph (f) of subsection (5), provide that its property may, in the circumstances mentioned in that paragraph, pass to another person only if that person is a charity. (7) In subsection (6), “charity” means a body entered in the Scottish Charity Register.

2 Meaning of “relevant authority” (1) In this Part, a “relevant authority” means a person listed, or of a description listed, in schedule 1. (2) The Scottish Ministers may by order modify schedule 1 so as to— (a) add a person or description of person, (b) remove an entry listed in it, (c) amend an entry listed in it. (3) An order under subsection (2)(a) may add a person, or a description of person, only if the person, or (as the case may be) each of the persons within the description, is— (a) a part of the Scottish Administration, (b) a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998), or (c) a publicly-owned company. (4) In subsection (3)(c), “publicly-owned company” means a company that is wholly owned by— (a) the Scottish Ministers, or (b) another relevant authority. (5) For that purpose, a company is wholly owned— (a) by the Scottish Ministers if it has no members other than— (i) the Scottish Ministers or other companies that are wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, or (ii) persons acting on behalf of the Scottish Ministers or of such other companies, (b) by another relevant authority if it has no members other than— (i) the relevant authority or other companies that are wholly owned by the authority, or (ii) persons acting on behalf of the relevant authority or of such other companies. (6) In this section, “company” includes any body corporate.

Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 3

Requests 3 Asset transfer requests (1) A community body may make a request in accordance with this section (in this Part, an “asset transfer request”) to a relevant authority. (2) An asset transfer request is a request— (a) in relation to land owned by the relevant authority, for ownership of the land (or part of the land) to be transferred to the community body, or (b) in relation to land owned or leased by the relevant authority— (i) for the land (or part of it) to be leased to the body, or (ii) for the authority to confer rights in respect of the land (or part of it) on the body (including, for example, rights to manage or occupy the land or use it for a purpose specified in the request). (3) An asset transfer request must be made in writing. (4) A community body making an asset transfer request must specify in the request— (a) the land to which the request relates, (b) whether the request falls within paragraph (a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) of subsection (2), (c) where the request falls within subsection (2)(a), the price that the body would be prepared to pay for the transfer of ownership of the land, (d) where the request falls within subsection (2)(b)(i)— (i) the amount of rent that the body would be prepared to pay in respect of any lease resulting from the request, (ii) the duration of any such lease, and (iii) any other terms and conditions that the body considers should be included in any such lease, (e) where the request falls within subsection (2)(b)(ii), the nature and extent of the rights sought, (f) any other terms or conditions applicable to the request, (g) the reasons for making the request, and (h) the benefits which the body considers will arise if the authority were to agree to the request.

4 Asset transfer requests: regulations (1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make further provision about asset transfer requests. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision for or in connection with specifying— (a) the manner in which requests are to be made, (b) the procedure to be followed by a relevant authority in relation to requests, (c) the information to be included in requests (in addition to that required under section 3(4)). 4 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Decisions 5 Asset transfer requests: decisions (1) This section applies where an asset transfer request is made by a community body to a relevant authority. (2) The authority must decide whether to agree to or refuse the request. (3) In reaching its decision, the authority must take into consideration the following matters— (a) the reasons for the request, (b) any other information provided in support of the request (whether or not such other information is contained in the request or otherwise provided), (c) whether agreeing to the request would be likely to promote or improve— (i) economic development, (ii) regeneration, (iii) public health, (iv) social wellbeing, or (v) environmental wellbeing, (d) any other benefits that might arise if the request were agreed to, (e) any benefits that might arise if the authority were to agree to or otherwise adopt an alternative proposal in respect of the land to which the request relates, (f) how such benefits would compare to any benefits such as are mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d), (g) how any benefits such as are mentioned in paragraph (e) relate to other matters the authority considers relevant (including, in particular, the functions and purposes of the authority), (h) any obligations imposed on the authority, by or under any enactment or otherwise, that may prevent, restrict or otherwise affect its ability to agree to the request, and (i) such other matters (whether included in or arising out of the request or not) as the authority considers relevant. (4) In subsection (3)(e), an “alternative proposal” includes— (a) another asset transfer request, (b) a proposal whether made by the authority or any other person. (5) The authority must, within the period mentioned in subsection (6), give notice (in this Part, a “decision notice”) to the body of— (a) its decision to agree to or refuse the request, and (b) the reasons for its decision. (6) The period is— (a) a period prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, or (b) such longer period as may be agreed between the authority and the body. Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 5

(7) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about— (a) the information (in addition to that required under this Part) that a decision notice is to contain, and (b) the manner in which a decision notice is to be given.

6 Agreement to asset transfer request (1) This section applies where a relevant authority decides to agree to an asset transfer request made by a community body. (2) The decision notice relating to the request must— (a) specify the terms on which, and any conditions subject to which, the authority would be prepared to transfer ownership of the land, lease the land or (as the case may be) confer rights in respect of the land to which the request relates (whether or not such terms and conditions were specified in the request), (b) state that, if the body wishes to proceed, it must submit to the authority an offer to acquire ownership of the land, lease the land or (as the case may be) assume rights in respect of the land, and (c) specify the period within which such an offer is to be submitted. (3) The period specified under subsection (2)(c) must be a period of at least 6 months beginning with the date on which the decision notice is given. (4) An offer such as is mentioned in subsection (2)(b)— (a) must reflect any terms and conditions specified in the decision notice, (b) may include such other reasonable terms and conditions as are necessary or expedient to secure— (i) the transfer of ownership, the lease or (as the case may be) the conferral of rights, and (ii) that such a transfer, lease or (as the case may be) conferral of rights takes place within a reasonable time, (c) must be made before the end of the period specified in the decision notice under subsection (2)(c). (5) Where no contract is concluded on the basis of such an offer before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (6), the decision to agree to the request is of no effect (but that is not to be treated as a refusal of the request for the purposes of an appeal under section 8). (6) The period is— (a) the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the offer, or (b) such longer period as may be— (i) agreed between the authority and the body, or (ii) directed by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (7). (7) Where the authority does not agree to a longer period such as is mentioned in subsection (6)(b)(i), the body may apply to the Scottish Ministers for a direction to extend the period within which the contract is to be concluded. (8) An application under subsection (7) may be made on more than one occasion. 6 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

(9) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about— (a) the form of, and procedure for making, an application for such a direction, (b) the manner in which such a direction is to be given, (c) the information that such a direction is to contain.

7 Prohibition on disposal of land (1) Subsection (2) applies— (a) where a relevant authority decides to agree to an asset transfer request made by a community body, and (b) only during the relevant period. (2) The authority must not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land to which the request relates to any person other than the body. (3) In subsection (1), the “relevant period” is the period beginning on the day when the decision notice relating to the request is given and ending— (a) if no offer such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 6 is made by the final day of the period specified in the decision notice under paragraph (c) of that subsection, on the day after that final day, or (b) if such an offer is made by that final day, on one of the days mentioned in subsection (4). (4) The days are— (a) the day on which the authority concludes a contract with the body on the basis of the offer, (b) the day on which the period mentioned in paragraph (a) or (where applicable) paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of section 6 expires with no such contract having been concluded. (5) Where, by virtue of subsection (2), a relevant authority is prevented from selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of any land, any contract by virtue of which the authority is obliged to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land to a person other than the community body referred to in that subsection is void.

Appeals 8 Appeals (1) Subsection (2) applies where— (a) an asset transfer request is refused by a relevant authority, (b) an asset transfer request is agreed to by a relevant authority but the decision notice relating to the request specifies material terms or conditions which differ to a significant extent from those specified in the request, or (c) a relevant authority does not give a decision notice relating to an asset transfer request to the community body making the request within the period mentioned in paragraph (a) or (where applicable) paragraph (b) of section 5(6). (2) The community body making the request may appeal to the Scottish Ministers unless the relevant authority is— Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 7

(a) the Scottish Ministers, or (b) a local authority. (3) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations prescribe— (a) the procedure to be followed in connection with appeals under subsection (2), (b) the manner in which such appeals are to be conducted, and (c) the time limits within which such appeals must be brought. (4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3) includes provision that the manner in which an appeal, or any stage of an appeal, is to be conducted is to be at the discretion of the Scottish Ministers or of a person appointed by them. (5) On an appeal under subsection (2), the Scottish Ministers— (a) may allow or dismiss the appeal, (b) may reverse or vary any part of the decision of the relevant authority (whether the appeal relates to that part of it or not), (c) must, in the circumstances mentioned in either paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (6), issue a direction to the authority requiring the authority to take such steps, or achieve such outcomes, as are specified in the direction within such time periods as are so specified, (d) may, in any other circumstances, issue such a direction, including a direction relating to any aspects of the asset transfer request to which the appeal relates (whether or not the authority’s decision relates to those aspects). (6) The circumstances are— (a) that the appeal is allowed, (b) that any part of the decision of the relevant authority is reversed or varied to the effect that the authority is required to— (i) transfer ownership of any land, lease any land or confer rights in respect of any land, or (ii) agree to the asset transfer request subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the direction. (7) The references in subsections (5)(b) and (6)(b) to any part of the decision includes any terms and conditions specified in the decision notice relating to the decision. (8) A direction issued under subsection (5)(c) must require the relevant authority to issue a further decision notice— (a) specifying any terms and conditions subject to which the authority would be prepared to transfer ownership of the land, lease the land or (as the case may be) confer rights in respect of the land, including any terms and conditions required to be included by virtue of the direction, (b) stating that, if the community body wishes to proceed, it must submit an offer to acquire ownership of the land, lease the land or (as the case may be) assume rights in respect of the land to the authority, and (c) specifying the period within which such an offer is to be submitted (which must be at least 6 months beginning with the date the further decision notice was issued). 8 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Disapplication of certain lease restrictions 9 Disapplication of restrictions in lease of land to relevant authority (1) This section applies where— (a) land is leased to a relevant authority, (b) an asset transfer request is made to the authority by a community body for the authority to— (i) lease the land (or part of the land) to the body, or (ii) confer a right of occupancy on the body in respect of the land (or part of the land), (c) the land is leased to the relevant authority by another relevant authority or by a company that is wholly owned by another relevant authority, and (d) no other person is entitled to occupy the land to which the request relates (whether by virtue of a sub-lease by the authority or otherwise). (2) Any restrictions in the lease of the land to which the request relates such as are mentioned in subsection (3) do not apply as between the relevant authority and the person from whom the authority leases the land. (3) The restrictions are any restrictions— (a) on the power of the relevant authority to sub-let the land, (b) on the power of the authority to share occupancy of the land, (c) relating to how the land may be used by the authority or any other occupier of the land. (4) Nothing in this section affects any restrictions in the lease of the land to the relevant authority on the power of the authority to assign or transfer rights and liabilities under the lease. (5) If the relevant authority leases the land to, or confers a right of occupancy in respect of the land on, a community body, the authority continues to be subject to any obligations under the lease of the land to the authority.

Power to decline subsequent requests 10 Power to decline certain asset transfer requests (1) Subsection (2) applies where— (a) an asset transfer request (a “new request”) relating to land is made to a relevant authority, (b) the new request relates to matters that are the same, or substantially the same, as matters contained in a previous asset transfer request (a “previous request”) made in relation to the land, (c) the previous request was made in the period of two years ending with the date on which the new request is made, and (d) the authority refused the previous request (whether following an appeal or not). (2) The relevant authority may decline to consider the new request (but that is not to be treated as a refusal of the new request for the purposes of an appeal under section 8). Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 9

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), a new request relates to matters that are the same, or substantially the same, as matters contained in a previous request only if both requests, in relation to the land to which they relate, seek (or sought)— (a) transfer of ownership of the land, (b) lease of the land, or (c) the same or substantially the same rights in respect of the land. (4) For the purposes of this section, it is irrelevant whether the body making a new request is the same body or a different body from that which made the previous request.

PART 2

PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY Key definitions: Part 2 11 Meaning of “community body” (1) In this Part, “community body” means— (a) a community council established in accordance with Part 4 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, or (b) a body of persons, corporate or unincorporated, described in subsection (2). (2) The body is a body the written constitution of which includes the following— (a) a statement of the body’s aims and purposes, (b) rules governing membership of the body, (c) a description of a community for which an aim or purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) is, or includes, the promotion of a public benefit, and (d) a description of the public benefit.

12 Meaning of “public service authority” (1) In this Part, “public service authority” means a body, office-holder or other person listed, or of a description listed, in schedule 2. (2) The Scottish Ministers may by order modify schedule 2 so as to— (a) add a person or description of person, (b) remove an entry listed in it, (c) amend an entry listed in it. (3) An order under subsection (2)(a) may add a person, or description of person, only if the person, or (as the case may be) each of persons within the description, is— (a) a part of the Scottish Administration, (b) a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998), or (c) a publicly-owned company. (4) In subsection (3)(c), “publicly-owned company” means a company that is wholly owned by— 10 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

(a) the Scottish Ministers, or (b) a public service authority. (5) For that purpose, a company is wholly owned— (a) by the Scottish Ministers if it has no members other than— (i) the Scottish ministers or other companies that are wholly owned by the Scottish Ministers, or (ii) persons acting on behalf of the Scottish Ministers or of such other companies, (b) by a public service authority if it has no members other than— (i) a public service authority or other companies that are wholly owned by the authority, or (ii) persons acting on behalf of the public service authority or of such other companies. (6) In this section, “company” includes any body corporate. (7) Subsection (8) applies where the Scottish Ministers make an order under subsection (2)(a). (8) The Scottish Ministers may specify in the order a public service that is or may be provided by or on behalf of the person, or (as the case may be) a person of that description, in respect of which a specified outcome may not be specified in a participation request.

Participation requests 13 Participation request (1) A community body may make a request to a public service authority to permit the body to participate in an outcome improvement process. (2) In making the request, a community body must— (a) specify an outcome— (i) that results from, or is contributed to by virtue of, the provision of a service provided to the public by or on behalf of the authority, and (ii) that is capable of being improved by the outcome improvement process, (b) set out the reasons why the body considers it should participate in the outcome improvement process, (c) provide details of any knowledge, expertise and experience the body has in relation to the specified outcome, and (d) provide an explanation of the improvement in the specified outcome which the body anticipates may arise as a result of its participation in the process. (3) A participation request must be made in writing. (4) A participation request may be made jointly by two or more community bodies. (5) In this Part— Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 11

“outcome improvement process”, in relation to a public service authority, means a process established or to be established by the authority with a view to improving an outcome that results from, or is contributed to by virtue of, the provision of a public service, “participation request” means a request made under subsection (1), “public service” means a service provided to the public by or on behalf of a public service authority, “specified outcome” means an outcome of the type mentioned in subsection (2)(a).

14 Participation requests: regulations (1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make further provision about participation requests. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision for or in connection with specifying— (a) the manner in which requests are to be made, (b) the procedure to be followed by public service authorities in relation to requests, (c) the information to be provided in connection with requests (in addition to that required under section 13(2)). (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide that an outcome may not be specified under section 13(2)(a) if it results from, or is contributed to by virtue of, the provision of such public service as may be specified in the regulations. (4) A public service may be specified under subsection (3)— (a) in general, or (b) by reference to— (i) the public service authority by or on behalf of which it is provided, (ii) an area in which the service is provided, (iii) land in respect of which the service is provided, (iv) circumstances, or cases, in which the service is provided.

Decisions about participation requests 15 Participation requests: decisions (1) This section applies where a participation request is made by a community body to a public service authority. (2) The authority must decide whether to agree to or refuse the participation request. (3) In reaching its decision under subsection (2), the authority must take into consideration the following matters— (a) the reasons set out in the request under section 13(2)(b), (b) any other information provided in support of the request (whether or not such other information is contained in the request or otherwise provided), 12 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

(c) whether agreeing to the request mentioned in subsection (2) would be likely to promote or improve— (i) economic development, (ii) regeneration, (iii) public health, (iv) social wellbeing, or (v) environmental wellbeing, (d) the nature of the community described in the constitution of the body (see section 11(2)(c)), (e) any other benefits that might arise if the request were agreed to, and (f) any other matter (whether or not included in or arising out of the request) that the authority considers relevant. (4) The authority must agree to the request unless there are reasonable grounds for refusing it. (5) The authority must, before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (6), give notice (in this Part, a “decision notice”) to the body of— (a) its decision to agree to or refuse the request, and (b) if its decision is to refuse the request, the reasons for the decision. (6) The period is— (a) a period prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, or (b) such longer period as may be agreed between the authority and the body. (7) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about— (a) the information (in addition to that required under this Part) that a decision notice is to contain, and (b) the manner in which a decision notice is to be given.

16 Decision notice: information about outcome improvement process (1) This section applies where a public service authority gives a decision notice agreeing to a participation request by a community body. (2) Where the authority at the time of giving the notice has established an outcome improvement process, the decision notice must— (a) describe the operation of the outcome improvement process, (b) specify what stage in the process has been reached, (c) explain how and to what extent the body is expected to participate in the process, and (d) if any other person participates in the process, describe how the person participates. (3) Where the authority at the time of giving the notice has not established an outcome improvement process, the decision notice must— (a) describe how the proposed process is intended to operate, Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 13

(b) explain how and to what extent the body which made the participation request is expected to participate in the proposed process, and (c) if any other person is expected to participate in the proposed process, describe how the person is expected to participate.

17 Proposed outcome improvement process (1) This section applies where a public service authority gives a community body a decision notice as mentioned in section 16(3). (2) The body may make written representations in relation to the proposed outcome improvement process. (3) Any representations under subsection (2) must be made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given. (4) Before giving notice under subsection (5), the authority must take into consideration any representations made under subsection (2). (5) The authority must, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (3), give a notice to the body containing details of the outcome improvement process that is to be established. (6) The authority must publish such information about the process as may be specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers. (7) The authority must publish the information mentioned in subsection (6) on a website or by other electronic means.

Outcome improvement processes: establishment and modification 18 Duty to establish and maintain outcome improvement process A public service authority that gives notice under section 17(5) must— (a) before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given, establish the outcome improvement process in respect of which the notice is given by taking whatever steps are necessary to initiate the process, and (b) maintain that process.

19 Modification of outcome improvement process (1) This section applies where a public service authority establishes an outcome improvement process under section 18(a) following a participation request by a community body. (2) Following consultation with the body, the authority may modify the outcome improvement process. (3) Where the outcome improvement process is modified under subsection (2), the authority must publish such information about the modification as may be specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.

14 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

Reporting 20 Reporting (1) This section applies where— (a) a participation request has been made, and (b) the outcome improvement process relating to that request is complete. (2) The public service authority that established the process must publish a report— (a) summarising the outcomes of the process, including whether (and, if so, how and to what extent) the specified outcome to which the process related has been improved, (b) describing how and to what extent the participation of the community body that made the participation request to which the process related influenced the process and the outcomes, and (c) explaining how the authority intends to keep the community body and any other persons informed about— (i) changes in the outcomes of the process, and (ii) any other matters relating to the outcomes. (3) The authority must publish the report mentioned in subsection (2) on a website or by other electronic means. (4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about reports published under subsection (2), including the information (in addition to that required under that subsection) that reports are to contain.

Interpretation of Part 2 21 Interpretation of Part 2 In this Part— “decision notice” is to be construed in accordance with section 15(5), “outcome improvement process” has the meaning given by section 13(5), “participation request” has the meaning given by section 13(5), “public service” has the meaning given by section 13(5), “specified outcome” has the meaning given by section 13(5).

PART 3

COMMON GOOD PROPERTY Registers 22 Common good registers (1) Each local authority must establish and maintain a register of property which is held by the authority as part of the common good (a “common good register”). (2) Before establishing a common good register, a local authority must publish a list of property that it proposes to include in the register. Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 15

(3) The list may be published in such a way as the local authority may determine. (4) On publishing a list under subsection (2), the local authority must— (a) notify the bodies mentioned in subsection (5) of the publication, and (b) invite those bodies to make representations in respect of the list. (5) The bodies are— (a) any community council established for the local authority’s area, and (b) any community body of which the authority is aware. (6) In establishing a common good register, a local authority must have regard to— (a) any representations made under subsection (4)(b) by a body mentioned in subsection (5), and (b) any representations made by other persons in respect of the list published under subsection (2). (7) Representations as mentioned in subsection (6) may in particular be made in relation to— (a) whether property proposed to be included in the register is part of the common good, (b) the identification of other property which, in the opinion of the body or person making the representation, is part of the common good. (8) A local authority must— (a) make arrangements to enable members of the public to inspect, free of charge, its common good register at reasonable times and at such places as the authority may determine, and (b) make its common good register available on a website, or by other electronic means, to members of the public.

23 Guidance about common good registers (1) In carrying out any of the duties imposed on it by section 22, a local authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers in relation to the duties. (2) Before issuing any such guidance, the Scottish Ministers must consult— (a) local authorities, (b) community councils, and (c) such community bodies as the Scottish Ministers think fit.

Disposal and use 24 Disposal and use of common good property: consultation (1) Subsection (2) applies where a local authority is considering— (a) disposing of any property which is held by the authority as part of the common good, or (b) changing the use to which any such property is put. 16 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

(2) Before taking any decision to dispose of, or change the use of, such property the local authority must publish details about the proposed disposal or, as the case may be, the use to which the authority proposes to put the property. (3) The details may be published in such a way as the local authority may determine. (4) On publishing details about its proposals under subsection (2), the local authority must— (a) notify the bodies mentioned in subsection (5) of the publication, and (b) invite those bodies to make representations in respect of the proposals. (5) The bodies are— (a) any community council established for the local authority’s area, and (b) any community body that is known by the authority to have an interest in the property. (6) In deciding whether or not to dispose of any property held by a local authority as part of the common good, or to change the use to which any such property is put, the authority must have regard to— (a) any representations made under subsection (4)(b) by a body mentioned in subsection (5), and (b) any representations made by other persons in respect of its proposals published under subsection (2).

25 Disposal etc. of common good property: guidance (1) In carrying out any of the duties imposed on it by section 24, a local authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers in relation to the duties. (2) A local authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers in relation to the management and use of property that forms part of the common good. (3) Before issuing any guidance as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2), the Scottish Ministers must consult— (a) local authorities, (b) community councils, and (c) such community bodies as the Scottish Ministers think fit.

Interpretation 26 Interpretation of Part 3 In this Part— “community bodies” has the meaning given in section 15(4) of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, “community council” means a community council established by a local authority under Part 4 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 17

PART 4

LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES UNDER BUILDING (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 27 Liability for expenses of work under Building (Scotland) Act 2003 (1) The Building (Scotland) Act 2003 is amended as follows. (2) Before section 44, insert— “43A Administrative expenses and interest in connection with carrying out work (1) A local authority may recover from a person who is liable for expenses under section 25(7)(b), 26(3)(b), 27(7)(b), 28(10)(b), 29(2) or (3) or 30(4)(b)— (a) any administrative expenses (including fees in respect of registration) reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with recovering those expenses, and (b) interest at such reasonable rate as the authority may determine on the expenses mentioned in those sections and paragraph (a) in respect of the period beginning on a date specified by the authority and ending when the whole amount of the expenses is paid. (2) The date specified under subsection (1)(b) must be after the date on which a demand for payment for the expenses referred to in that subsection is served by the authority. (3) In subsection (1)(a), “registration” means registration of— (a) a notice of liability for expenses under section 43B, (b) a notice of discharge under section 43D. (4) In this Part, “relevant expenses” means expenses mentioned in section 25(7)(b), 26(3)(b), 27(7)(b), 28(10)(b), 29(2) or (3) or 30(4)(b) or subsection (1)(a) of this section.

43B Liability of owners and successors for expenses and interest (1) An owner of a building who is liable for relevant expenses or for interest under section 43A(1)(b) does not, by virtue only of ceasing to be such an owner, cease to be liable for those expenses or that interest. (2) Subject to subsection (3), where a person becomes the owner of a building (any such person being referred to in this section as a “new owner”) the person is severally liable with any former owner of the building for— (a) any relevant expenses for which the former owner is liable, and (b) any interest for which the former owner is liable under section 43A(1)(b). (3) A new owner is liable as mentioned in subsection (2) only if— (a) a notice (in this Part, a “notice of liability for expenses”) in the form prescribed under section 36 is registered in relation to the building, and (b) the notice was registered at least 14 days before the acquisition date. (4) A notice of liability of expenses is to specify— (a) the relevant expenses for which the owner of the building is liable, 18 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

(b) the work to which the expenses relate, and (c) whether interest is payable under section 43A(1)(b). (5) In this section, “acquisition date” means the date on which the new owner acquired right to the building. (6) Where a new owner of a building pays any relevant expenses, or interest, for which a former owner of the building is liable, the new owner may recover the amount so paid from the former owner. (7) A person who is entitled to recover an amount under subsection (6) does not, by virtue only of ceasing to be the owner of the building, cease to be entitled to recover that amount. (8) This section applies as respects any relevant expenses and interest for which an owner of a building becomes liable on or after the day on which this section comes into force.

43C Notice of liability for expenses: further provision (1) A notice of liability for expenses may be registered only on the application of a local authority. (2) A notice of liability for expenses may be registered in respect of— (a) expenses relating to more than one set of works carried out on a building, (b) different owners of a building in respect of the expenses of carrying out work on the building. (3) The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland is not required to investigate or determine whether the information contained in a notice of liability for expenses submitted for registration is accurate.

43D Discharge of notice of liability for expenses (1) Subsection (2) applies where— (a) a notice of liability for expenses in relation to a building is registered, (b) any liability for relevant expenses to which the notice relates has been fully discharged, and (c) any liability under section 43A(1)(b) for interest on such expenses has been fully discharged. (2) The local authority which registered the notice must apply to register a notice (in this Part, a “notice of discharge”) in the form prescribed under section 36 stating that liability has been fully discharged. (3) On being registered, a notice of discharge discharges the notice of liability for expenses. (4) The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland is not required to investigate or determine whether the information contained in a notice of discharge submitted for registration is accurate.

Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 19

43E Meaning of “register” in relation to notices (1) In relation to a notice mentioned in subsection (2), “register” means register the information contained in the notice in question in the Land Register of Scotland or, as appropriate, record the notice in question in the Register of Sasines; and “registered” and other related expressions are to be read accordingly. (2) The notices are— (a) a notice of liability for expenses, (b) a notice of discharge.”. (3) In section 44 (expenses)— (a) in subsection (1)— (i) the words from “of” to the end of the subsection become paragraph (a) of that subsection, (ii) after that paragraph insert— “(b) administrative expenses incurred by the authority in connection with recovering expenses mentioned in paragraph (a) in relation to a building, (c) interest on expenses mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relating to a building.”, (b) after subsection (5) insert— “(6) Subsection (3) applies in relation to administrative expenses and interest mentioned in subsection (1)(b) and (c) as it applies in relation to expenses mentioned in that subsection; and subsections (4) and (5) apply accordingly for the purposes of that application.”. (4) In section 45 (compulsory purchase where owner cannot be found), after subsection (4) add— “(5) In subsection (1)(b), “expenses” includes administrative expenses, and interest, recoverable under section 43A(1).”.

PART 5

GENERAL 28 Subordinate legislation (1) Any power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order or regulations under this Act includes a power to make— (a) different provision for different purposes, (b) incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision or savings. (2) An order under section 29(1) containing provisions which add to, replace or omit any part of the text of an Act is subject to affirmative procedure. (3) All other orders and regulations under this Act are subject to the negative procedure. (4) This section does not apply to orders under section 30(2). 20 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

29 Ancillary provision (1) The Scottish Ministers may by order make such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or transitory provision or savings as they consider necessary or expedient for the purposes of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, any provision of this Act. (2) An order under this section may modify any enactment (including this Act), instrument or document.

30 Commencement (1) This Part comes into force on the day after Royal Assent. (2) The remaining provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by order appoint. (3) An order under subsection (2) may include transitional or transitory provision or savings.

31 Short title The short title of this Act is the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2014. Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill 21

SCHEDULE 1 (introduced by section 2(1))

RELEVANT AUTHORITIES The board of management of a college of further education (those expressions having the same meanings as in section 36(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992) The British Waterways Board The Crofting Commission A Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 Highlands and Islands Enterprise A local authority A National Park authority established by virtue of schedule 1 to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 The Police Service of Scotland The Scottish Court Service Scottish Enterprise The Scottish Environment Protection Agency The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service The Scottish Ministers Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Water

SCHEDULE 2 (introduced by section 12(1))

PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITIES The board of management of a college of further education (those expressions having the same meanings as in section 36(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992) A Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 Highlands and Islands Enterprise A local authority A National Park authority established by virtue of schedule 1 to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 The Police Service of Scotland Scottish Enterprise The Scottish Environment Protection Agency 22 Draft Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Scottish Natural Heritage

© Crown copyright 2013

ISBN: 978-1-78412-027-6

APS Group Scotland DPPAS18905 (11/13)

www.scotland.gov.uk ITEM 10

Response on the UK Government’s Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map

Report by the Chief Executive

Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to agree the response to the UK Government’s Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map (see Appendix 2).

1.2 At its meeting on the 25 September 2013 Scottish Borders Council agreed the response to the UK Government’s Assisted Areas Map Stage One Consultation 2014- 2020. This involved a joint approach being taken to identify Census wards working with Dumfries and Galloway Council, Midlothian Council and East Lothian Council based on the Borders Railway/ A7 corridor. The final submission to the UK Government proposed granting Assisted Area status to 51 wards including 17 in the Scottish Borders.

1.3 Thirty One of the 51 wards in this submission have been included in the proposed Assisted Area Map in the Stage 2 consultation. This includes 13 in the Scottish Borders. (see Appendix 1 map and Appendix 2 p.85)

1.4 It is considered that the proposals in the Stage 2 consultation are a good result for the four Councils, with 31 wards now included in the draft Assisted Area Map, where there was no coverage at all previously. The Scottish Government has indicated that there are significant population constraints on getting additional coverage. This means if more wards are added, this will need to be balanced by taking out wards elsewhere within the proposed area identified in the previous submission.

1.5 The UK Government is requesting responses to the Stage 2: Draft Assisted Area Map by Friday 7 February 2014.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Council agrees to support the UK Government’s proposed Assisted Area Map 2014 - 2020 and the proposed coverage of census wards in the Scottish Borders, as set out in the Stage 2 Assisted Area Map 2014-2020 consultation paper.

Scottish Borders Council, 30th January 2014 1 3 Background 3.1 At the meeting on the 25 of September 2013 Scottish Borders Council agreed its response to the UK Government’s Assisted Areas Map Stage One Consultation 2014- 2020. This involved a joint approach being taken to identify wards working with Dumfries and Galloway Council, Midlothian Council and East Lothian Council based on the opportunities around the Borders Railway and textiles sector. It delegated authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Executive Member for Economic Development, to approve the final submission of census wards for the Scottish Borders.

3.2 In December 2013 the UK Government issued a Stage 2 consultation paper (see Appendix 2) which set out its response to the Stage One Consultation. This included the draft proposal for the new Assisted Area Map for the period 2014-2020. (see Appendix 2). The paper indicates that the Scottish Government was involved in the development of the Map.

3.3 The final Stage 1 submission made by Scottish Borders Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council, Midlothian Council and East Lothian Council, proposed granting Assisted Area status to 51 census wards. These are based on the former Council wards that applied in 2007.

3.4 Thirty One of the 51 wards in this earlier submission have been included in the proposed Assisted Area Map (see Appendix 1 map). This includes 13 of the 17 wards in the Scottish Borders that were in earlier submission. The accepted wards from Scottish Borders are; Burnfoot & Mansfield; Earlston, Gordon & District; Forest; Galawater & Lauderdale; Hermitage; Lower Langlee & Tweedbank; Melrose & District; Netherdale; Old Selkirk; Scotts View; Silverbuthall, Teviot & Central; and Wilton.

3.5 The submitted wards in the earlier submission that have not been included in the draft Assisted Areas Map from Scottish Borders are: Alewater & Denholm; Kilknowe & Clovenfords; Mossilee & Central; and Weensland.

4. The Response 4.1 It is considered that the proposals in the Stage 2 consultation are a good result for the four Councils, with 31 wards now included in the draft Assisted Area Map, where there was no coverage at all previously. This coverage will provide new opportunities for grant assistance for specific businesses investing in these areas. It will also allow these areas that are covered to compete on a level playing field with other areas of Scotland and the UK that have the benefit of Assisted Areas coverage.

4.2 The Scottish Government has indicated that the main restricting factor for the inclusion of wards in the submission made by the four Councils was the maximum population coverage as defined by UK Regional Aid Guidelines, which were approved by the European Commission in July 2013. This means if more wards are added that wards elsewhere within the proposed Assisted Area coverage would need to be removed in order to balance the population coverage. For this reason it is important to support the proposed Assisted Areas Map and the 13 wards that are to be covered in the Scottish Borders.

Scottish Borders Council, 30th January 2014 2 4.3 Part of the strength of our initial submission was the strategic partnership approach that we used to pull together a joint response from the four Local Authorities. It is important that the response to the Stage 2 Consultation is made in the same way, in order to reinforce the strategic value of this new Assisted Area coverage. Officers have continued to have a dialogue with the other three Councils in order to align and agree a strong joint response.

5 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial There are no financial implications arising from this report. (a) 5.2 Risk and Mitigations (a) It is important that the Council takes the opportunity to respond to this consultation as the designation of Assisted Area status for parts of the Scottish Borders could greatly assist the development of the local economy. The economic benefits of Assisted Area status will not be limited to the specific wards within the Assisted Area, but will create wider economic benefits impacting on local labour markets and supply chains.

(b) The Scottish Borders Economic Strategy 2023 contains a specific action to lobby for special assistance to overcome our current disadvantage in attracting inward investment. Assisted Area Status will deliver this action, and allow the public sector to offer greater financial assistance to companies to locate in the Scottish Borders.

5.3 Equalities (a) An Equalities Impact Assessment is not required as this is a response to a Consultation paper. However, achieving Assisted Area status should deliver benefits for social inclusion by creating new employment opportunities.

5.4 Acting Sustainably (a) There could be significant economic benefits to the Scottish Borders arising from this report. Assisted Area status could deliver significant benefits in terms of employment and GDP alongside the development of the Borders Railway and Superfast Broadband.

5.5 Carbon Management (a) There are no known effects on carbon emissions associated with this report.

5.6 Rural Proofing (a) There could be economic benefits to a number of rural areas in the Scottish Borders if proposed Assisted Area Map is approved.

6 CONSULTATION 6.1 The Corporate Management Team, the Chief Financial Officer, Head of Corporate Governance, Head of Human Resources, Clerk to the Council, Head of Strategic Policy, and Head of Risk and Audit have been consulted on this report.

Scottish Borders Council, 30th January 2014 3 Approved by

Chief Executive Signature …………………………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Douglas Scott Senior Policy Advisor, Chief Executive’s Department tel 01835 825155

Bryan McGrath Head of Economic Development and Environment tel 01835 826525

Background Papers: UK Government Department of Business, Innovation and Skills Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1, December 2013

Previous Minute Reference: Scottish Borders Council 25th September 2013

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Douglas Scott can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at: Douglas Scott, Senior Policy Advisor, Chief Executive’s Department, tel 01835 825155 [email protected]

Scottish Borders Council, 30th January 2014 4 Regional Assisted Area Map (2014 -2020)

South of Scotland

Core Corridor Proposal

Dumfries and Galloway, Midlothian, Scottish Borders Council Assisted Area Status (2014 -2020): South of Scotland

Stage 2 Proposed from Government Scottish Borders Council !(

!( Galawater and Lauderdale (A4)

Earlston, Gordon and District

!(

!( Lower Langlee and Tweedbank !( Melrose and District Netherdale !( !( Legend !( Scott's View Local Authority Old Selkirk Forest AAS Stage 2 Proposed Burnfoot and Mansfield !( No Wilton Silverbuthall Yes !( !( Main Town Teviot and Central Truck Road A Class Road Hermitage

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database 5 right 2014. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey [ Licence number 100023423. Miles Appendix 2

2014-2020 ASSISTED AREAS MAP

Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

DECEMBER 2013

1 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Contents

1. Foreword from the Minister of State for Business and Energy...... 3

2. Introduction ...... 4

3. Background to the Update of the Assisted Areas Map...... 5

4. How to Respond and Make Any Queries...... 8

5. Confidentiality & Data Protection...... 9

6. Analysis of Responses and Government Response to the First Stage Consultation ...... 9

7. Responding to the Consultation...... 20

8. What Happens Next? ...... 20

Annex A: Principles for Government Consultations...... 22

Annex B: The Draft Assisted Areas Map for the UK 2014-2020 ...... 23

Annex C: Areas Requiring Criterion 5 Applications ...... 24

Annex D: Proposed Assisted Areas Coverage by Ward...... 25

Annex E: List of Individuals/Organisations Consulted in Stage 2...... 103

Annex F: List of Respondents to the Stage 1 Consultation ...... 104

Annex G: Consultation Stage 2: 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map Response Form...... 107

2 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

1. Foreword from the Minister of State for Business and Energy

On 31 July 2013, the Government launched a first stage consultation on updating the Assisted Areas Map for 2014-2020, in response to new European Commission guidelines on regional aid.

Assisted Area status allows small businesses and large enterprises in less economically advantaged locations to benefit from additional financial support under EU Regional Aid Guidelines. This support is offered to encourage business in these communities to grow, innovate and thrive.

It is important to stress though that regional aid is only one of the many ways in which we address areas of economic need across the country. In fact, many business support schemes do not depend on regional aid. Other types of funding are available aimed at tackling specific market failures that can occur regardless of geography, such as aid for R&D, risk capital, SME investments, training, or environmental protection.

In order to inform decisions about where regional aid can have the most impact, the Government sought local intelligence, as we believe that businesses and other local stakeholders should help set the strategic direction for their area. The responses we received to the first stage consultation have confirmed this belief. The assistance of local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and development agencies has helped identify those locations best placed to make an important contribution not only to their local economy, but also to UK growth.

Our priority is to secure the recovery and ensure sustainable growth in the economy. Updating the Assisted Areas Map for 2014-2020 delivers an opportunity to help rebalance the UK economy and drive sustainable growth. Rebalancing the economy is about spreading our success - both geographically and by sector - and supporting the world class industries we already have, as well as the new ones that we are developing.

The first stage consultation on updating the Assisted Areas Map ended on 30 September. The Government has carefully considered all the responses, and is grateful for the evidence which has helped shape the draft UK Assisted Areas Map. This document forms the second stage consultation, and contains our draft Map and Government’s response to the first stage consultation. Over the next seven weeks, we will welcome your views on our conclusions and on the draft Map. The finalised Map will then be submitted to the Commission for approval in early spring 2014.

The Rt. Hon. Michael Fallon MP

3 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

2. Introduction

1. This document sets out the Government’s Response to the 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map Consultation Stage 1: Common Principles and Local Intelligence (which ran between 31 July and 30 September 2013). It also includes the draft proposal for a new Assisted Areas Map for the period 2014-2020. Assisted Areas are those areas where regional aid can be offered to undertakings, typically businesses, under state aid rules.

2. The Government is consulting on the draft Map, which has been developed using: information submitted during Stage 1 of the Assisted Areas consultation; Government held intelligence on the potential to use regional aid to lever further investment and growth; and assessing economic need against a set of criteria. Stage 1 consulted on draft principles for defining the areas that should be included on the draft Map, and sought local intelligence and priorities on areas of economic opportunity and need. Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) took the lead preparing responses in England, and Local Authorities (LAs) led on responses in Scotland and Wales. Almost 90% of respondents supported the Government’s proposed principles for developing the draft Map1. There was also widespread support for Government having localised the process for identifying economic opportunities for potential inclusion.

3. The draft Map has been developed in conjunction with both the Welsh Government and Scottish Government. The Government announced earlier this year that Northern Ireland should continue to benefit from 100% coverage for the medium term.

4. The purpose of this consultation is to seek views on the draft Assisted Areas Map, taking into consideration the Government’s response to Stage 1 of the consultation, and the need to comply with the Commission’s Regional Aid Guidelines. The closing date for responses to the Stage 2 consultation is Friday 7 February 2014.

1 See paragraph 29 below 4 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

3. Background to the Update of the Assisted Areas Map

The EU Regional Aid Guidelines 5. The new Regional Aid Guidelines2 (RAG) were issued on 19 June 2013. The RAG is one part of a wider package of State Aid frameworks. All of these State Aid frameworks are being reviewed by the Commission through a ‘State Aid Modernisation’ programme which was launched in May 20123. The modernisation programme aims to promote a more efficient use of public resources, ensuring that aid is well-designed and targeted, and fosters sustainable, smart and inclusive growth in a competitive internal market. Revision of the Procedural and Enabling Regulations, and the guidelines on Broadband and Regional aid, have been completed. Revision of the remaining guidelines, which includes those on Environmental and Energy aid; aid for Research & Development & Innovation and for Risk Capital, is on-going.

6. The new RAG will apply from 1 July 2014 to 2020, replacing the current RAG, due to expire on 30 June 2014. In line with the wider State Aid Modernisation process, the current RAG has been kept in force by the Commission for a further six months from its original expiry date of December 31st 2013. The 2014-2020 UK Assisted Areas Map must be drawn in accordance with the new RAG. The Stage 1 consultation provided a summary of the main changes from the current RAG.

Relevance to Growth Policy in the UK 7. The Government announced its ‘Plan for Growth4’ in 2011, which included an objective to achieve sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly distributed across the country and sectors. The Government wants to ensure that regional aid helps geographically and sectorally rebalance the economy, addresses local economic need, increases productivity and raises employment rates. In addition to the UK Government’s Growth Plan, the Devolved Administrations - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - also have regional development plans.

8. The Government's approach to Industrial Strategy5 was announced in September 2012, and builds on the ‘Plan for Growth’. It explores how the Government can work with the private sector to encourage economic growth. It analyses which industrial sectors could make the greater contribution to future economic growth and employment in the UK, and then considers which Government action could add most value. Sectors considered include parts of advanced manufacturing, including aerospace, automotive and life sciences. Manufacturing is considered particularly relevant to the granting of regional aid, given its capital intensive nature and its deep, sometimes local, supply chains.

Assisted Areas and Use of Regional Aid 9. Assisted Areas are those areas where regional aid can be offered to undertakings, typically businesses, under Commission state aid rules. In Great Britain the main examples of schemes offering regional aid are:

2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:209:0001:0045:EN:PDF 3 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of regions EU State Aid Modernisation (SAM), COM/2012/0209 final 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/31584/2011budget growth.pdf 5 https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/using-industrial-strategy-to-help-the-uk-economy-and-business- compete-and-grow 5 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

 Regional Growth Fund - operates in England and supports projects and programmes that are using private sector investment to create economic growth and sustainable employment.  Regional Selective Assistance - primary Scottish scheme under the RAG and is administered by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. Grants may be given in conjunction with support under other aid frameworks, for example R&D or skills and training.  Welsh Government Business Finance - offers discretionary financial support to eligible businesses in key business sectors and certain strategically important projects outside these. It helps fund capital investment, job creation, research, development and innovation and certain eligible revenue projects throughout Wales.

o Business Premises Renovation Allowance (BPRA) is predicated on Assisted Area status. It gives an incentive to bring derelict or unused properties back into use, by giving an initial allowance of 100% for expenditure on converting or renovating unused business premises in a disadvantaged area. o The Enhanced Capital Allowances permitted at some Enterprise Zones are reliant on Assisted Area status.

Parameters for the Draft 2014–2020 Map 10. Under the new RAG, the maximum proportion of the UK population covered by the Assisted Areas will be 27.05%, compared to 23.9% covered on the 2007-2013 Map.

11. The following UK NUTS areas will automatically qualify for Assisted Area status under the new RAG:  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly and West Wales and the Valleys. These areas qualify as ‘a’ areas under the RAG on grounds of having a GDP per capita of less than 75% of the EU average.  Caithness & Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty, Lochaber, Skye & Lochalsh, Arran & Cumbrae and Argyll & Bute and Eilean Siar. These areas are predefined as ‘c’ areas under the RAG on grounds of being sparsely populated, with a population density below 12.5 persons per square kilometre.

12. In addition, in June 2013 the Government announced that Northern Ireland will maintain its 100% coverage6 (at least until any mid-term review of 2014-2020 Assisted Areas coverage), owing to its unique circumstances.

13. When preparing the draft Map, Government took account of:  Responses to Stage 1 of the consultation  National economic datasets  Commercial and economic intelligence  Government strategy and policies e.g. the UK Industrial Policy and the location and nature of Enterprise Zones  The views of key national teams responsible for policies supported by regional aid

6 Building A Prosperous And United Community, June 2013 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/206979/Building a Prosperous and United Community.pdf 6 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

 Regional economic plans and priorities were also considered in Scotland and Wales.

Public Sector Equality Duty 14. BIS, as a public authority, must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic (which include, amongst other characteristics, age, disability, race and sex) and persons who do not share it;

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

BIS has had (and will continue to have) due regard to these principles.

7 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

4. How to Respond and Make Any Queries

15.The consultation closes on 7 February 2014. Until that date, you can respond to the consultation using the interactive digital map, obtainable via https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/assisted-areas-map-2014-to-2020-stage-2

16.For those who do not wish to respond using the interactive digital map, response forms are available electronically until 7 February 2014 on the consultation page: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/assisted-areas-map-2014-to-2020-stage-2 Response forms or any queries should be submitted by email or letter to:

Assisted Areas Team Local Growth Directorate 4th Floor, Spur 2 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET

Email: [email protected]

17.If the response or query concerns an area of Scotland, please copy in:

Future Funds and Regional Aid Team European Structural Funds Division Scottish Government Atlantic Quay 150 Broomielaw Glasgow G2 8LU

Email: [email protected]

18.If the response or query concerns an area of Wales, please copy in:

Assisted Areas Mailbox, 1st floor South, Strategy Team Economy, Science and Transport Department QED Centre Main Avenue Treforest Industrial Estate Treforest Pontypridd Rhondda Cynon Taf CF37 5YR

Email: [email protected]

8 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

19. A list of those organisations and individuals consulted is in Annex E. We would welcome suggestions of others who may wish to be involved in this consultation process.

20. Reference to the Government’s consultation principles is included in Annex A. If you do not feel that the principles have been adhered to, details of how to respond are also included in Annex A.

21. Under Cabinet Office guidance, BIS consultations are digital by default but, if required, printed copies of the consultation document can be obtained from:

BIS Publications Orderline ADMAIL 528 London SW1W 8YT Tel: 0845-015 0010 Fax: 0845-015 0020 Minicom: 0845-015 0030 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for- business-innovation-skills

22. Other versions of the document in Braille, other languages, including Welsh, or audiocassette are available on request from BIS Publications Orderline.

5. Confidentiality & Data Protection

23. Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or release to other parties or to disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). If you want information, including personal data that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.

24. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

6. Analysis of Responses and Government Response to the First Stage Consultation

25. Stage 1 of the consultation began on 31 July 2013, with publication of ‘2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map - Consultation Stage 1: Common Principles and Local Intelligence’.

9 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

26.72 completed response forms were returned to Government. A further 32 responses were received in other formats before the deadline; almost all of these were in support of LEP or LA responses for their area. The analysis of location and type of organisation below concentrates on the official Form 1 and Form 2 response forms returned to BIS. The Government response takes into account all views expressed, in all types of response received, that engaged with the questions posed by Stage 1 of the consultation. A full list of respondents is in Annex F.

27.Local Authorities (LAs) in Scotland and Wales and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England were asked to return response Form 1, which offered more questions to encourage the return of prioritised local intelligence. All other respondents were asked to complete response Form 2. Tables 1 and 2 show the broad types of organisations that returned completed response forms and their locations. Where organisations submitted joint responses, these have been included as a single response in the tables and map below.

Table 1: Respondents by Organisation Wales Scotland England Total

LEP n/a n/a 27 27

LA 4 18 15 37

Business 0 0 2 2

Professional 0 0 1 1 Body

Other 2 1 2 5

Total 6 19 47 72

Table 2: Respondents by Country ResponseForm1 ResponseForm2 Total

England 27 20 47

Scotland 18 1 19

Wales 4 2 6

Total 49 23 72

10 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Figure 1 - Locations of Respondents using Form 1 and Form 2

28. Government is seeking to refresh the Map, not simply to add coverage to those places that already have it. Economic geography evolves, as have the rules under which the Map is drawn including the nature of projects that regional aid can be granted to. Assisted Area status does not benefit every ward in the country that currently has the designation and could be economically beneficial to many wards that currently do not. Even with increased population coverage, difficult decisions have had to be made as to which areas are included on the draft Assisted Areas Map 2014-2020. The overwhelming majority (41 out of 49) of Form 1 responses by LEPs and local authorities made cases for increased coverage in their area.

11 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

6a. Common Principles

29.Question D01 asked, Do you broadly support the principles for developing the 2014- 2020 Assisted Areas Map set out in paragraphs 108-116 of the [Stage 1] consultation document? Of the completed response forms received, 89% said yes. Only 8% did not broadly agree. The remainder did not answer the question.

30.Question D02 asked respondents, if there are any principles you do not support, please specify which ones you do not, evidencing why. While 89% said yes to D01, 64% (46 returns) offered further views about the principles for developing the 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map. The comments returned were often technical in nature; some suggested the removal or altering of particular principles, others were supportive or sought further explanation. Principle 7 garnered the most comments from respondents, with Principles 3 and 4 each being commented on in around 10% of returns. Fewer than 10% of respondents commented on each of the other principles.

Principle 1: Assisted Areas in the UK should reflect opportunities to support businesses with regional aid in locations that will support the economies of economically disadvantaged places. 31.The Government has analysed the consultation responses carefully and considered where Assisted Area status could be used to lever in investment that supports growth in less economically advantaged areas. Updating the UK’s Assisted Areas Map for 201420 is an opportunity to help to rebalance the UK economy, helping to drive strong sustainable growth at geographical scales ranging from the local to the national. This has been done against a background of increasing overall population coverage, allowing scope for new areas to have the opportunity for inclusion on the Assisted Areas Map 2014-2020. No respondents challenged this principle.

Principle 2: A combination of quantitative and qualitative economic evidence and intelligence (such as consultation responses), and relevant economic policy considerations should be used by Government to determine a place's relative economic need and economic opportunity in terms of the potential to use regional aid to support economic convergence objectives. 32.There were no direct challenges to this principle, although some respondents requested further information as to the nature of the evidence and intelligence used. The starting point from which the draft Assisted Areas Map 2014-2020 has been drawn are the responses received from Stage 1 of the consultation, specifically the mapping exercises respondents were asked to carry out.

33.Government has also taken into account national economic intelligence, policies and data. Policy examples include the UK Industrial Strategy, including its sector strategies, and in Scotland and Wales, regional and local economic plans and priorities. Enterprise Zones (EZs) with Enhanced Capital Allowances (ECAs) are predicated on Assisted Area status, as is Business Premises Renovation Allowance (BPRA). All EZs with ECAs are included on the draft Map as key drivers of future economic growth with policy aims 12 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

consistent with those of the Regional Aid Guidelines. Also included are many areas containing key business premises that could benefit from BPRA.

34.Economic data that has been considered in terms of highlighting potential economic opportunities includes fields from the Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES), the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR), and Business Enterprise Research and Development (BERD) data.

Principle 3: In some circumstances, the primary purpose of designating some wards as Assisted Areas may be to link together other wards containing the characteristics sought for Assisted Area status – i.e. significant economic opportunities that could catalyse disadvantaged economies – within a minimum contiguous population (typically 100,000 people). 35.While the aim of this principle is to make it clear that some wards may be included as ‘link’ wards ensuring contiguity, the few comments made were typically in disagreement with the minimum population sizes and contiguity requirements as set out in the Commission's Regional Aid Guidelines. An example of one such return included, “Principle 3: We are content with the idea of a broadly contiguous area, but, we would like the flexibility to have within this area an 'island' of wards without AA status. We understand the argument from BIS that any areas within nominated wards are likely to have economic need, and this would be true of the wards we would want to omit. But the issue for us is that it would be at the expense of wards with even greater economic need and opportunity.”

36.Government is bound by the minimum population size and contiguity of Assisted Areas as expressed in the Regional Aid Guidelines and as such cannot deviate from these. Further, in line with the Commission’s general requirement for Assisted Areas to have a minimum population of 100,000, BIS considers that the Commission is unlikely to approve any zones of Assisted Area coverage that wholly enclose areas without coverage, if the area enclosed has a resident population of fewer than 100,000 residents.

37.Queries were also received asking why the UK is building its non-predefined Assisted Areas from wards and not from statistical units such as Super Output Areas and Data Zones. This was because the Commission’s Regional Aid Guidelines state that Member States must use their LAU2 units (Local Administrative Unit – Layer 2) as the building blocks for their non-predefined Assisted Areas. In the UK, the LAU2 units are the ward boundaries used in preparing the draft Map.

Principle 4: The 2007-2013 Assisted Areas Map should be a material consideration when developing its 2014-2020 successor. 38. Around 10% of respondents commented on this principle, and the majority of comments interpreted the principle to mean that the starting point for developing the Assisted Areas Map 2014-2020 should be the inclusion of wards currently on the 2007-2013 Assisted Areas Map, and to either argue for or against this. Government has not used the individual wards included in the 2007-2013 Assisted Areas Map as a starting point 13 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

for developing the draft Map presented for consultation at Stage 2. However, the current Assisted Areas Map 2007-2013 has been of use when asking areas with current coverage to assess and prioritise their coverage. In developing the draft 2014-2020 Map, Government has recognised that many areas that have benefitted from Assisted Area status in 2007-2013 should continue to do so in 2014-2020. The Government therefore concludes that the 2007-13 Assisted Areas Map has been a consideration when developing the 2014-2020 Map, but this does not signal an automatic entitlement for any Assisted Areas to remain on the Map unchanged.

Principle 5: Providing eligibility to support large firms with regional aid should be a consideration of the 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map given there are fewer constraints on Government to support small and medium sized enterprises with capital investment under other forms of state aid. 39. Changes to regional aid rules mean that Government has also refined its approach to the new Assisted Areas Map 2014-2020. For the UK Assisted Areas Map 2007-2013 Government viewed a major purpose of Assisted Area coverage as giving flexibility to support larger companies. With further restrictions on regional aid to large enterprises under the new Regional Aid Guidelines, Government is taking a balanced approach. For the 2014-2020 Map, the aim is to support a range of small, medium and large sized enterprises. A range of industrial and commercial development sites have also been included to help future businesses flourish.

Principle 6: Offering UK public bodies the flexibility to invest regional aid in expanding and developing UK manufacturing should be a key goal when developing the Assisted Areas Map. 40. Manufacturing as an industry is well placed to benefit from regional aid, typically in the form of capital investment. Expanding and developing manufacturing can assist in Government’s broader objective of rebalancing the UK economy both geographically and by sector due to the frequent presence of localised supply chains. No respondents challenged this principle.

Principle 7: The metrics of economic need that should be used to inform the Map’s development are: a) Low Employment Rate b) Low Skills Rate c) High Working Age Benefit Claimant Count Rate d) Low population growth/ net out-migration of working age population e) High rates of manufacturing 41. Most responses to Question D02, ‘If there are any principles you do not support, please 14 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

specify which ones you do not, evidencing why’ focused on Principle 7.

42. For Principle 7, there were 9 responses commenting negatively on low population growth/ net out-migration of working age population (metric ‘d’) and 3 responses commenting negatively on high rates of manufacturing (metric ‘e’). No other metric proposed in Principle 7 received more than 2 negative comments.

43. Respondents from areas with high population growth raised the issue that this can also be a cause for increased economic need. In addition it was expressed that in certain areas out-migration of working age population could be ‘masked’ by immigration of a population that is elderly or in need of social housing. Government recognises that Principle 7 ‘d’ could be perceived as an inconsistent indicator of need and, while Government has had regard generally to population changes and migration in preparing the draft Map, has therefore decided not to use this metric when assessing economic need.

44. In relation to high rates of manufacturing, responses focused on the fact that this metric would not highlight potential for new manufacturing jobs and could be skewed by a single recent closure of a major manufacturing firm. Government accepts that this metric will not always capture the potential for new manufacturing jobs. Rather this metric can be used as an indicator of an area’s current ability to benefit from regional aid, a key aim of the Assisted Areas Map, with new opportunities captured elsewhere in respondents’ returns.

45. In summary, the metrics used in considering potential areas for inclusion on the Map are as follows:

 Employment rate, excluding full time students - compared across Great Britain (2011 census data).

 Skills levels, the proportion below Level 2. Given inconsistencies between Scottish census data and that for England and Wales, for this metric only, the assessment is not at the GB level and evaluates Scottish areas within Scotland and England and Wales areas within England and Wales (2011 census data). There was a slight misalignment between paragraph 82 of the Stage 1 guidelines, which noted that Government proposed to define a low skills rate at level 2 and below, and paragraph 83, where it suggests that Government planned to define low skills as being below level 2. We have used the latter measure, although of course, there will be a strong correlation in any case between data for below Level 2 and data at Level 2 or below.

 Working age benefit claimant count rate - compared across GB (May 2013 DWP data).

 Proportion of employment in manufacturing, taken from the 2012 Inter-Departmental Business Register, being the most complete source at detailed geographical level. Again, this is compared across GB.

46. At the time of testing, the data used was the most recent available at the required level of detail. Please note that some of the 2011 census data is not yet publically available.

15 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Principle 8: It is proposed that relative economic need will be considered at two spatial scales: 1) at the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) level in England, and at the Local Authority (LA) level in Wales and Scotland; and 2) at the potential Assisted Area level or in its constituent wards 47.Two responses were received on this principle, one arguing that the LEP area is too large and economically diverse to be used as a spatial unit when considering economic need; the other supporting the use of the LEP as a unit given that whole sub-regional economies need to be considered not just individual wards.

48.After evaluation, we believe that considering economic need at the Assisted Area level is the most appropriate geographical scale. The zone of Assisted Area coverage is the spatial unit used on the Map and employing it well aligns the UK process with the Commission’s Regional Aid Guidelines. Using the Assisted Area as a zone of consideration also streamlines the method, focuses on the areas under consideration, and smoothes any potential inconsistencies that might be found in individual ward level data.

6b. Considering Economic Need

Commission Criteria 49.Paragraph 168 of the Commission’s Regional Aid Guidelines states that a Member State may designate non-predefined ‘c’ areas on the basis of the following criteria:

(a) Criterion 1: contiguous areas of at least 100 000 inhabitants located in NUTS 2 or NUTS 3 regions that have:

- a GDP per capita below or equal to the EU-27 average, or

- an unemployment rate above or equal to 115% of the national average.

(b) Criterion 2: NUTS 3 regions of less than 100 000 inhabitants that

have: - a GDP per capita below or equal to the EU-27 average, or

- an unemployment rate above or equal to 115% of the national average.

(c) Criterion 3: islands or contiguous areas characterised by similar geographical isolation (for example, peninsulas or mountain areas) that have:

- a GDP per capita below or equal to the EU-27 average, or

- an unemployment rate above or equal to 115% of the national average.

16 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

- or less than 5 000 inhabitants.

(d) Criterion 4: NUTS 3 regions, or parts of NUTS 3 regions that form contiguous areas, that are adjacent to an ‘a’ area or that share a land border with a country outside the EEA or European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

(e) Criterion 5: contiguous areas of at least 50 000 inhabitants that are undergoing major structural change or are in serious relative decline, provided that such areas are not located in NUTS 3 regions or contiguous areas that fulfil the conditions to be designated as predefined areas or under Criteria 1 to 4.

Criterion 4 in the UK 50.Covering key economic assets in ‘criterion 4 areas’ can support economic growth in the ‘a’ areas demarcated by the Commission as being in the most need of support from Regional Aid. As such, areas eligible for criterion 4 can qualify for inclusion on the 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map because of this adjacency factor. However, in line with the RAG, the UK Government considers that in locations bordering ‘a’ areas, where higher aid intensities are possible, localised distortions in the locational preferences of firms may occur. Therefore Government does not propose designating all wards that border ‘a’ areas as Assisted Areas as we are looking for the best opportunities to drive economic growth in these areas and in the ‘a’ areas they border.

Northern Ireland and Scottish Highlands & Islands 51.In recognition of their unique circumstances, the UK Government made representations for Northern Ireland and the whole of the Highlands and Islands to be predefined as ‘c’ areas by the Commission on the 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map. Only some of the Highlands and Islands was subsequently predefined by the Commission (see paragraph 53). The UK Government has therefore decided that all of Northern Ireland; Inverness, Nairn, Moray, and Badenoch and Strathspey NUTS3; Orkney Islands NUTS3; and Shetland Islands NUTS3 should be granted ‘c’ coverage from the population coverage the UK has been awarded (at least until any mid-term review of the 2014-2020 Map)7.

52.Further details of Assisted Area coverage and the wider economic situation in Northern Ireland are available in “Building a Prosperous and United Community”, issued by the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive in June 2013. This announced a package of measures to help rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy.

53.Paragraph 158 of the Regional Aid Guidelines states that NUTS 2 regions with fewer than 8 inhabitants per km2 or NUTS 3 regions with fewer than 12.5 inhabitants per km2

7 If the UK holds a mid-term review of the Map, any changes are due to come into effect on 1 January 2017 – all Assisted Areas in the UK would be considered if such a review takes place.

17 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

can be predefined as sparsely populated ‘c’ areas by the Commission. Caithness & Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty; Lochaber, Skye & Lochalsh, Arran & Cumbrae and Argyll & Bute; and Eilean Siar (Western Isles) are to be pre-designated under this criterion. This is because the location incentive allowed under the RAG is frequently used to overcome natural barriers to development, such as distance from and time to reach main European markets, difficult topography, sparse population and a narrow labour market base, which are typical features of remoter mountain and island areas.

54. The UK and Scottish Governments consider that the Highlands and Islands as a whole is characterised by these features, with the only major concentration of population (Inverness) the same distance from London as London is from Stuttgart; the Shetland Islands are some 200 km from the Scottish mainland, and of course further from main markets; and all areas other than Inverness city itself with population densities in the extremely low range of the EU (ranging from 7 people per square km to 11.5 people per sq km). This is already implicitly recognised in the pre-designation of parts of the Highlands and Islands by the Commission rules. A consistent approach to the whole Highlands and Islands is ensured by the inclusion of the whole NUTS2 area on the Map.

Metrics of Economic Need 55. Economic need in other Assisted Areas with less singular characteristics has been demonstrated using a method similar to that used for creating the UK’s current Assisted Areas Map 2007-2013, i.e. assessing areas according to a set of metrics and the difference of these metrics from the mean (as measured by standard deviations). There are two main differences compared to when this exercise was carried out for the 2007- 2013 Assisted Areas Map:

i. Firstly, we have a higher population for the Assisted Areas Map 2014-2020 as coverage has risen from 23.9% to 27.05% of the UK population.

ii. Second, in the 2007-13 Map, the whole country was divided up into Employment Opportunity Zones (EOZs) and standard deviations taken on this basis. The use of EOZs was in part a reflection of a historical requirement to evidence self- containment of economic areas by the Commission in 2000-2006. This time around, because we are not employing EOZs, and the proposed Assisted Areas, which are the units under considerations, do not cover the whole of Great Britain, ward level data has been used to generate the standard deviations to be used in combination with national averages. Because EOZs were aggregations of wards, quite a lot of the variation disappears and the standard deviation of EOZs is lower than the standard deviation of wards. This means that applying exactly the same assessment as last time would result in fewer potential areas meeting the standard, which would not be consistent with (i) above.

56. Consequently the manner in which the metrics set out in paragraph 45 have been deployed has been updated compared to the method used in the development of the 2007-2013 Map. An area qualifying under Criteria 1, 2, 3 or 5 (Regional Aid Guidelines, paragraph 168) when being assessed by the metrics of economic need is eligible for inclusion on the draft Assisted Areas Map 2014-2020 if it meets at least one of the following: 18 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

a. More than one standard deviation away from the mean for at least one metric (in the direction that suggests inclusion);

b. More than half a standard deviation away for at least two metrics (in the direction that suggests inclusion); or

c. Above average for all four metrics (again, ‘above’ is used, but this is to mean in the direction supporting inclusion).

57. This last approach (c) is new, but supported by the fact that the others are, in effect, tighter than before. Analysis suggests that a similar number of individual wards would pass the above assessment as passed it when preparing the 2007-2013 UK Assisted Areas Map under the system using only (a) and (b) above.

58. Meeting the assessments set out in paragraph 56 does not mean that an area is necessarily added to the Map. As stated previously, when choosing wards to add to the draft Map, Government has typically sought ones that contain economic opportunities that could be unlocked by regional aid to support growth in less advantaged economies.

6c. Criterion 5 Applications

59. It is set out in the Regional Aid Guidelines that an area must meet one of five criteria for inclusion on a Member State’s Assisted Areas Map (Regional Aid Guidelines, paragraph 168).

60. In order to provide Assisted Areas coverage to an area listed in Annex C below, special dispensation from the Commission is required evidencing major structural change or serious relative decline – as per criterion 5, RAG paragraph 168. In response to Stage 1 of the consultation, Cheshire and Warrington LEP have put forward a case for Ellesmere Port to be included on the Assisted Areas Map 2014-2020 by means of a criterion 5 application.

61. Cheshire and Warrington LEP provided evidence at Stage 1 that the returned wards are compliant with the principles set out in the Stage 1 consultation document and with paragraph 168 of the Regional Aid Guidelines. These wards have also both been assessed for their economic need as set out in paragraph 56 above. The returned wards in Ellesmere Port have been included on the draft Assisted Areas Map 2014- 2020 in Annex B for consultation. This is ahead of a final decision from Government, after the Stage 2 consultation, on whether they are proposed to the Commission for inclusion on the 2014-2020 UK Assisted Areas Map.

6d. Population Reserve

62. Respondents were asked in Question D03, Do you consider that the country your area lies within (England, Scotland or Wales) should hold back a population reserve for it to add to the 2014-2020 Map at a later date?

19 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

63. As set out in the Stage 1 consultation, a population reserve could offer some flexibility for providing Assisted Area status for responding to as yet unknown opportunities or shocks over the life of the next Assisted Areas Map. This approach also provides flexibility to respond to any requests made by the Commission while the draft Map is being agreed - as we consider that it will be preferable to add coverage to the draft Map rather than rearrange wards at that stage. The drawback is that some coverage would not be applied for the whole lifespan of the Map.

64. Around three-quarters of respondents to Stage 1 asked for a reserve not to be kept. BIS can still see some merit in holding a reserve and will decide on whether to hold a small reserve after Stage 2 of the consultation, reflecting on economic circumstances and the perceived likelihood at that time of the Commission requesting any changes to the draft Map submitted to them for approval. Any remaining coverage could then be used to respond to as yet unknown opportunities or shocks over the life of the next Assisted Areas Map. Any reserve kept beyond the point that the UK Map is submitted to the Commission will total no more than 1/50th of the UK’s allotted population coverage - a small proportion, reflecting the Stage 1 consultation responses.

7. Responding to the Consultation

65. The UK Government has prepared a draft UK 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map for this Stage of the consultation, which can be found at Annex B and also online via https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/assisted-areas-map-2014-to-2020- stage-2. This online version offers search, select, zooming and panning functionality.

66. If you have views on this draft Assisted Areas Map, please respond using the response form on the online map or in Annex G. Responses should provide supporting evidence and take into account the Government’s response to Stage 1 and the need to comply with the Regional Aid Guidelines.

67. As in Stage 1, Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in England and Local Authorities (LAs) in Scotland and Wales are requested to play a lead role in working with local partners to collate responses for their areas.

68. Annex D contains a list of wards covered on the draft Map.

8. What Happens Next?

69. This consultation on the draft Map will close on 7 February 2014. This builds on Stage 1 of the Assisted Areas consultation which ran from 31 July to 30 September 2013.

70. The responses to this stage of consultation will, along with the responses to Stage 1, inform the final Assisted Areas Map which will be submitted to the Commission for approval in spring 2014.

71. Notice of the final Map (subject to changes by the Commission) will be published in places that include the .Gov website, the LEP Network website www.lepnetwork.org.uk, the Local Government Association website www.local.gov.uk, the Welsh Government website www.wales.gov.uk, and the Scottish Government website, 20 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

www.scotland.gov.uk. All LEPs and LAs in Great Britain will also be contacted directly by letter to inform them of the final Map.

21 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Annex A: Principles for Government Consultations

The principles that Government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Consultation-Principles.pdf

Comments or complaints on the conduct of this consultation If you wish to comment on the conduct of this consultation or make a complaint about the way this consultation has been conducted, please write to:

John Conway, BIS Consultation Co-ordinator, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET

Telephone John on 020 7215 6402 or e-mail to: [email protected]

However if you wish to comment on the specific policy proposals you should contact the policy lead (see section 4).

22 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Annex B: The Draft Assisted Areas Map for the UK 2014-2020

23 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Annex C: Areas Requiring Criterion 5 Applications

NUTS3 areas of England and Scotland where Criterion 5 applications to the Commission would be required if Assisted Areas are to be designated within them. There are no areas in Wales that require Criterion 5 applications in order to receive Assisted Area status.

NUTS3 Name NUTS3 code Warrington UKD61 Cheshire East UKD62 Cheshire West and Chester UKD63 Leicestershire CC and Rutland UKF22 West Northamptonshire UKF24 Hertfordshire UKH23 Berkshire UKJ11 Milton Keynes UKJ12 Buckinghamshire CC UKJ13 Oxfordshire UKJ14 Brighton and Hove UKJ21 Surrey UKJ23 West Sussex UKJ24 Portsmouth UKJ31 Southampton UKJ32 Hampshire CC UKJ33 Bristol, City of UKK11 BathandNorthEastSomerset UKK12 Gloucestershire UKK13 Swindon UKK14

Edinburgh, City of UKM25 West Lothian UKM28 Aberdeen City and Aberdeen UKM50 Note: due to an administrative oversight, Leicester was also included on the equivalent table in Stage 1

24 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Annex D: Proposed Assisted Areas Coverage by Ward

This list does not include wards in those areas predefined by the European Commission (‘Cornwall and Isles of Scilly NUTS2’; ‘West Wales and the Valleys NUTS2’; ‘Caithness & Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty, Lochaber, Skye & Lochalsh, Arran & Cumbrae NUTS3’; ‘Argyll & Bute NUTS3’; and ‘Eilean Siar NUTS3’) or in Northern Ireland.

The ward boundaries used in England and Wales are sourced from the May 2011 Ordnance Survey Boundary-LineTM data. The 2011 census was based on this boundary set. In Scotland, to meet the RAG’s requirement to use LAU2 units (RAG paragraph 169), 2006 single member wards had to be used.

The coastal extents of wards are made available by Ordnance Survey at two different resolutions: 'extent of the realm' (usually this is the Mean Low Water Mark but in some cases boundaries extend beyond this to include offshore islands) and 'clipped to the coastline' (Mean High Water Mark) giving the coastline a more orthodox appearance. If a coastal boundary on the draft Map appears differently to how you were expecting, this may be the reason. Contiguous areas can be formed using the ‘extent of the realm’ boundaries.

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05003115 Aspatria Ward Allerdale

E05003123 Ellen Ward Allerdale

E05003124 Ellenborough Ward Allerdale

E05003125 Ewanrigg Ward Allerdale

E05003126 Flimby Ward Allerdale

E05003127 Harrington Ward Allerdale

E05003128 Holme Ward Allerdale

E05003130 Marsh Ward Allerdale

E05003131 Moorclose Ward Allerdale

E05003132 Moss Bay Ward Allerdale

E05003133 Netherhall Ward Allerdale

E05003136 Seaton Ward Allerdale

25 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05003137 Silloth Ward Allerdale

E05003138 Solway Ward Allerdale

E05003134 St. John's Ward Allerdale

E05003135 St. Michael's Ward Allerdale

E05003140 Wampool Ward Allerdale

E05003142 Waver Ward Allerdale

E05003144 Wigton Ward Allerdale

E05008522 HeanorEastWard AmberValley

E05003292 HeanorWestWard AmberValley

E05003293 Ironville and Riddings Ward Amber Valley

E05003295 Langley Mill and Aldercar Amber Valley Ward

E05008524 Shipley Park, Horsley and Amber Valley Horsley Woodhouse Ward

E05003299 SomercotesWard AmberValley

UKM2101023 Arbirlot and Hospitalfield Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101025 Arbroath North Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102007 Ardler Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102003 Balgay Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102015 Balgillo Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102025 Baxter Park Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101026 Brothock Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102002 Camperdown Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101022 Carnoustie East Angus and Dundee City

26 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM2102009 Claverhouse Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101029 Cliffburn Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102018 Craigiebank Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102013 Douglas Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102024 East Port Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102029 Fairmuir Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101028 Harbour Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101027 Hayshead and Lunan Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102026 Hilltown Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101024 Keptie Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102023 Law Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102020 Lochee East Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102004 Lochee West Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102022 Logie Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102011 Longhaugh Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101011 Montrose Central Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101010 Montrose Ferryden Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102001 Ninewells Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102012 Pitkerro Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102005 Riverside Angus and Dundee City

UKM2101017 Sidlaw East and Ashludie Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102028 Stobswell Angus and Dundee City

UKM2102021 Tay Bridges Angus and Dundee City 27 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM2102010 Whitfield Angus and Dundee City

E05006365 Hucknall West Ward Ashfield

E05006367 Kirkby in Ashfield Central Ashfield Ward

E05006368 Kirkby in Ashfield East Ward Ashfield

E05006369 Kirkby in Ashfield West Ward Ashfield

E05006372 Sutton in Ashfield East Ward Ashfield

E05006374 Sutton in Ashfield West Ward Ashfield

E05006376 Woodhouse Ward Ashfield

E05000038 River Ward Barking and Dagenham

E05000039 Thames Ward Barking and Dagenham

E05000976 CentralWard Barnsley

E05000977 Cudworth Ward Barnsley

E05000978 Darfield Ward Barnsley

E05000980 DartonWestWard Barnsley

E05000981 Dearne North Ward Barnsley

E05000982 DearneSouthWard Barnsley

E05000983 Dodworth Ward Barnsley

E05000984 Hoyland Milton Ward Barnsley

E05000986 MonkBrettonWard Barnsley

E05000987 NorthEastWard Barnsley

E05000989 Penistone East Ward Barnsley

E05000991 Rockingham Ward Barnsley

28 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000993 St.HelensWard Barnsley

E05000994 StairfootWard Barnsley

E05000995 Wombwell Ward Barnsley

E05003145 Barrow Island Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003146 Central Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003147 Dalton North Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003148 Dalton South Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003149 Hawcoat Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003150 Hindpool Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003151 Newbarns Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003152 Ormsgill Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003153 Parkside Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003154 Risedale Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003155 Roosecote Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003156 Walney North Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05003157 Walney South Ward Barrow-in-Furness

E05006378 Blyth Ward Bassetlaw

E05006387 Harworth Ward Bassetlaw

E05006388 Langold Ward Bassetlaw

E05006395 Welbeck Ward Bassetlaw

E05006399 Worksop North West Ward Bassetlaw

E05006401 Worksop South East Ward Bassetlaw

E05006400 Worksop South Ward Bassetlaw 29 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000084 Thamesmead East Ward Bexley

E05001178 Acocks Green Ward Birmingham

E05001179 AstonWard Birmingham

E05001182 BordesleyGreenWard Birmingham

E05001185 Edgbaston Ward Birmingham

E05001190 Hodge Hill Ward Birmingham

E05001193 Ladywood Ward Birmingham

E05001194 Longbridge Ward Birmingham

E05001196 Moseley and Kings Heath Birmingham Ward

E05001197 Nechells Ward Birmingham

E05001200 PerryBarrWard Birmingham

E05001202 Selly Oak Ward Birmingham

E05001204 Sheldon Ward Birmingham

E05001205 SohoWard Birmingham

E05001206 South Yardley Ward Birmingham

E05001207 SparkbrookWard Birmingham

E05001208 Springfield Ward Birmingham

E05001212 Sutton New Hall Ward Birmingham

E05001215 Tyburn Ward Birmingham

E05001216 Washwood Heath Ward Birmingham

E05001620 Audley Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001621 Bastwell Ward Blackburn with Darwen

30 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001624 Earcroft Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001625 East Rural Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001626 Ewood Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001627 Fernhurst Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001628 Higher Croft Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001629 Little Harwood Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001631 Marsh House Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001633 Mill Hill Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001635 Queen's Park Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001636 Roe Lee Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001637 Shadsworth with Whitebirk Blackburn with Darwen Ward

E05001638 ShearBrowWard BlackburnwithDarwen

E05001639 Sudell Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001640 Sunnyhurst Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001641 Wensley Fold Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001642 Whitehall Ward Blackburn with Darwen

E05001644 Bispham Ward Blackpool

E05001645 Bloomfield Ward Blackpool

E05001646 Brunswick Ward Blackpool

E05001647 Claremont Ward Blackpool

E05001648 Clifton Ward Blackpool

E05001652 IngthorpeWard Blackpool

31 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001657 SquiresGateWard Blackpool

E05001658 Stanley Ward Blackpool

E05001659 Talbot Ward Blackpool

E05001662 Warbreck Ward Blackpool

E05001663 Waterloo Ward Blackpool

E05003303 Barlborough Ward Bolsover

E05003305 Bolsover North West Ward Bolsover

E05003307 Bolsover West Ward Bolsover

E05003308 Clowne North Ward Bolsover

E05003309 ClowneSouthWard Bolsover

E05003310 Elmton-with-Creswell Ward Bolsover

E05003311 PinxtonWard Bolsover

E05003314 ShirebrookEastWard Bolsover

E05003317 ShirebrookSouthEastWard Bolsover

E05003319 SouthNormantonEastWard Bolsover

E05003320 South Normanton West Ward Bolsover

E05003322 Whitwell Ward Bolsover

E05000654 CromptonWard Bolton

E05000655 Farnworth Ward Bolton

E05000656 GreatLeverWard Bolton

E05000657 Halliwell Ward Bolton

E05000662 HultonWard Bolton

E05000665 RumworthWard Bolton

32 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001345 Bowling and Barkerend Ward Bradford

E05001346 Bradford Moor Ward Bradford

E05001347 City Ward Bradford

E05001365 Tong Ward Bradford

E05001370 Wyke Ward Bradford

E05007823 Alvechurch Ward Bromsgrove

E05007828 Furlongs Ward Bromsgrove

E05007830 Hillside Ward Bromsgrove

E05007840 Tardebigge Ward Bromsgrove

E05007841 Uffdown Ward Bromsgrove

E05006406 Beeston Rylands Ward Broxtowe

E05005150 BankHallWard Burnley

E05005151 Briercliffe Ward Burnley

E05005154 Coal Clough with Deerplay Burnley Ward

E05005155 Daneshouse with Burnley Stoneyholme Ward

E05005157 GawthorpeWard Burnley

E05005158 HaptonwithParkWard Burnley

E05005159 LaneheadWard Burnley

E05005160 QueensgateWard Burnley

E05005161 Rosegrove with Lowerhouse Burnley Ward

E05005162 Rosehill with Burnley Wood Burnley Ward

33 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05005163 Trinity Ward Burnley

E05000672 EastWard Bury

E05000675 Moorside Ward Bury

E05001371 Brighouse Ward Calderdale

E05001373 Elland Ward Calderdale

E05006903 Cannock East Ward Cannock Chase

E05006905 Cannock South Ward Cannock Chase

E05006914 NortonCanesWard CannockChase

W05000854 Butetown ED Cardiff

Pontprennau/Old St. Mellons W05000900 ED Cardiff

W05000879 Splott ED Cardiff

W05000902 Trowbridge ED Cardiff

E05003158 Belah Ward Carlisle

E05003162 Burgh Ward Carlisle

E05003163 Castle Ward Carlisle

E05003166 Denton Holme Ward Carlisle

E05003171 Longtown & Rockcliffe Ward Carlisle

E05003175 Stanwix Rural Ward Carlisle

E05008787 Dunstable-Icknield Ward Central Bedfordshire

E05008795 Houghton Hall Ward Central Bedfordshire

E05008800 Parkside Ward Central Bedfordshire

E05008668 Ellesmere Port Town Ward Cheshire West and Chester

34 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05008669 Elton Ward Cheshire West and Chester

E05008674 GrangeWard CheshireWestandChester

E05008682 Ledsham and Manor Ward Cheshire West and Chester

E05008687 Netherpool Ward Cheshire West and Chester

E05008690 Rossmore Ward Cheshire West and Chester

E05008691 St. Paul's Ward Cheshire West and Chester

E05008694 Strawberry Ward Cheshire West and Chester

E05008695 SuttonWard CheshireWestandChester

E05008701 WhitbyWard CheshireWestandChester

E05003327 DunstonWard Chesterfield

E05003328 Hasland Ward Chesterfield

E05003329 Hollingwood and Inkersall Chesterfield Ward

E05003330 Holmebrook Ward Chesterfield

E05003333 Lowgates and Woodthorpe Chesterfield Ward

E05003334 Middlecroft and Poolsbrook Chesterfield Ward

E05003335 Moor Ward Chesterfield

E05003336 OldWhittingtonWard Chesterfield

E05003338 St. Helen's Ward Chesterfield

E05003339 St. Leonard's Ward Chesterfield

UKM2202029 Aberdour and Burntisland Clackmannanshire and Fife West

UKM2201011 Alloa East Clackmannanshire and Fife

35 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM2201012 Alloa Mar Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2201013 Alloa West Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202053 Auchmuty and Woodside Clackmannanshire and Fife West

UKM2202030 Auchtertool and Burntisland Clackmannanshire and Fife East

UKM2202013 Brucefield and Nethertown Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202045 Buckhaven and Denbeath Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202061 Cadham, Pitcoudie Clackmannanshire and Fife and Balfarg

UKM2202037 Cardenden, Cluny and Clackmannanshire and Fife Chapel

UKM2202056 Caskieberran and Rimbleton Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2201008 Clackmannan Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202023 Cowdenbeath Central Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202022 Crossgates and Mossside Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202027 Crosshill and Lochgelly North Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202021 Dalgety Bay East Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202020 Dalgety Bay West and Hillend Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2201018 Delph and Cambus Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2201007 Devon and Clackmannan Clackmannanshire and Fife North

UKM2202039 Dunnikier Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202043 Dysart and Gallatown Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2201009 Gartmorn Clackmannanshire and Fife

36 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM2202042 Glebe Park, Pathhead and Clackmannanshire and Fife Sinclairtown

UKM2202010 Halbeath, Hill of Beath and Clackmannanshire and Fife Kingseat

UKM2202040 Hayfield and Balsusney Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202019 Inverkeithing East and North Clackmannanshire and Fife Queensferry

UKM2202018 Inverkeithing West Clackmannanshire and Fife and Rosyth South

UKM2202038 Kinglassie, Bowhill and Clackmannanshire and Fife Dundonald

UKM2202048 Leven East Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202049 Leven West and Kirkland Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202015 Limekilns and Pitreavie Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202012 Linburn Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202028 Lumphinnans and Lochgelly Clackmannanshire and Fife South

UKM2202052 Markinch and Woodside East Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2201001 Menstrie Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202047 Methil Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202046 Methilhill Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202024 Oakfield and Cowdenbeath Clackmannanshire and Fife North

UKM2202014 Pitcorthie Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202054 Pitteuchar and Finglassie Clackmannanshire and Fife North

UKM2202017 Rosyth East Clackmannanshire and Fife

37 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM2202016 Rosyth West Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202041 Smeaton and Overton Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202055 Thornton, Stenton and Clackmannanshire and Fife Finglassie South

UKM2202044 Wemyss and Muiredge Clackmannanshire and Fife

UKM2202011 Woodmill Clackmannanshire and Fife

E05003180 Arlecdon Ward Copeland

E05003181 Beckermet Ward Copeland

E05003182 BootleWard Copeland

E05003183 BranstyWard Copeland

E05003184 Cleator Moor North Ward Copeland

E05003185 CleatorMoorSouthWard Copeland

E05003186 Distington Ward Copeland

E05003187 Egremont North Ward Copeland

E05003188 EgremontSouthWard Copeland

E05003190 Frizington Ward Copeland

E05003191 GosforthWard Copeland

E05003192 Harbour Ward Copeland

E05003193 Haverigg Ward Copeland

E05003194 Hensingham Ward Copeland

E05003195 Hillcrest Ward Copeland

E05003196 Holborn Hill Ward Copeland

E05003197 Kells Ward Copeland

38 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05003198 Millom Without Ward Copeland

E05003199 Mirehouse Ward Copeland

E05003200 MoresbyWard Copeland

E05003201 Newtown Ward Copeland

E05003203 SandwithWard Copeland

E05003204 Seascale Ward Copeland

E05003202 St.BeesWard Copeland

E05007955 AnnfieldPlainED CountyDurham

E05007956 AycliffeEastED CountyDurham

E05007957 AycliffeNorthED CountyDurham

E05007958 AycliffeWestED CountyDurham

E05007959 BarnardCastleEastED CountyDurham

E05007961 BelmontED CountyDurham

E05007963 BishopAucklandTownED CountyDurham

E05007965 BrandonED CountyDurham

E05007966 Burnopfield and Dipton ED County Durham

E05007970 ChiltonED CountyDurham

E05007971 ConsettNorthED CountyDurham

E05007972 CoundonED CountyDurham

E05007974 Craghead and South Moor County Durham ED

E05007977 DawdonED CountyDurham

E05007979 Delves Lane and Consett County Durham South ED

39 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05007980 DenesideED CountyDurham

E05007981 DurhamSouthED CountyDurham

E05007982 EasingtonED CountyDurham

E05007983 ElvetED CountyDurham

E05007985 EvenwoodED CountyDurham

E05007986 Ferryhill ED County Durham

E05007988 GilesgateED CountyDurham

E05007989 HordenED CountyDurham

E05007991 Leadgate and MedomsleyED County Durham

E05007993 MurtonED CountyDurham

E05007994 Neville's Cross ED County Durham

E05007997 PeltonED CountyDurham

E05007998 PeterleeEastED CountyDurham

E05007999 PeterleeWestED CountyDurham

E05008001 SeahamED CountyDurham

E05008002 SedgefieldED CountyDurham

E05008004 ShildonEastED CountyDurham

E05008005 ShildonWestED CountyDurham

E05008006 ShottonED CountyDurham

E05008007 Spennymoor and County Durham Middlestone ED

E05008008 StanleyED CountyDurham

E05008009 Tanfield ED County Durham

40 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05008011 TrimdonED CountyDurham

E05008012 TudhoeED CountyDurham

E05008014 WestAucklandED CountyDurham

E05008015 Willington ED County Durham

E05008017 Woodhouse Close ED County Durham

E05001218 BablakeWard Coventry

E05001219 Binley and Willenhall Ward Coventry

E05001220 Cheylesmore Ward Coventry

E05001221 Earlsdon Ward Coventry

E05001222 Foleshill Ward Coventry

E05001223 Henley Ward Coventry

E05001224 Holbrook Ward Coventry

E05001225 LongfordWard Coventry

E05001226 LowerStokeWard Coventry

E05001227 Radford Ward Coventry

E05001228 St. Michael's Ward Coventry

E05001230 UpperStokeWard Coventry

E05001231 Wainbody Ward Coventry

E05001232 Westwood Ward Coventry

E05001235 WykenWard Coventry

E05001553 Bank Top Ward Darlington

E05001554 Central Ward Darlington

E05001558 EastbourneWard Darlington 41 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001559 Faverdale Ward Darlington

E05001564 Heighington and Coniscliffe Darlington Ward

E05001568 Lingfield Ward Darlington

E05001569 Middleton St. George Ward Darlington

E05001576 Sadberge and Whessoe Darlington Ward

E05001769 AlvastonWard Derby

E05001770 Arboretum Ward Derby

E05001775 Darley Ward Derby

E05001776 Derwent Ward Derby

E05001782 Sinfin Ward Derby

E05000997 Adwick Ward Doncaster

E05000998 ArmthorpeWard Doncaster

E05000999 Askern Spa Ward Doncaster

E05001000 Balby Ward Doncaster

E05001001 Bentley Ward Doncaster

E05001002 Bessacarr and Cantley Ward Doncaster

E05001003 Central Ward Doncaster

E05001004 Conisbrough and Denaby Doncaster Ward

E05001005 Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Doncaster Barnby Dun Ward

E05001006 Edlington and Warmsworth Doncaster Ward

42 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001007 Finningley Ward Doncaster

E05001009 Hatfield Ward Doncaster

E05001010 Mexborough Ward Doncaster

E05001011 Rossington Ward Doncaster

E05001013 Stainforth and Doncaster Moorends Ward

E05001014 Thorne Ward Doncaster

E05001015 Torne Valley Ward Doncaster

E05001016 Town Moor Ward Doncaster

E05001017 Wheatley Ward Doncaster

E05004947 EastryWard Dover

E05004949 Little Stour and Ashstone Dover Ward

E05004959 SandwichWard Dover

E05001236 AmblecoteWard Dudley

E05001237 Belle Vale Ward Dudley

E05001238 Brierley Hill Ward Dudley

E05001239 Brockmoor and Dudley Pensnett Ward

E05001240 Castle and Priory Ward Dudley

E05001241 Coseley East Ward Dudley

E05001242 CradleyandFoxcoteWard Dudley

E05001244 Halesowen North Ward Dudley

E05001245 HalesowenSouthWard Dudley

43 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001247 Kingswinford North and Wall Dudley Heath Ward

E05001249 LyeandWollescoteWard Dudley

E05001250 Netherton, Woodside and St. Dudley Andrews Ward

E05001253 Quarry Bank and Dudley Dudley Wood Ward

E05001254 St. James's Ward Dudley

E05001255 St.Thomas'sWard Dudley

UKM3200038 Annan Central Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200039 Annan East Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200037 Annan West Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200035 Caerlaverock Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200042 Canonbie and Kirtle Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200040 Chapelcross Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200018 Criffel Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200044 Dryfe and Lockerbie East Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200033 Georgetown Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200031 Heathhall Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200036 Hoddom and Kinmount Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200043 Langholm and Upper Eskdale Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200045 Lockerbie and Upper Dumfries & Galloway Annandale

UKM3200029 Marchmount Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200047 Moffat Dumfries & Galloway

44 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3200032 Nithsdale East Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3200041 Solway Border Dumfries & Galloway

UKM3301006 Altonhill, Hillhead and East Ayrshire and North Longpark Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302024 Ardrossan North East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302023 Ardrossan South East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301027 Auchinleck East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302015 Beith East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302008 Bourtreehill East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301012 Crookedholm, Moscow, East Ayrshire and North Galston West and Hurlford Ayrshire mainland North

UKM3301005 Crosshouse, Gatehead and East Ayrshire and North Knockentiber Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301028 Cumnock West East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302016 Dalry East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302006 Dreghorn East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301025 Drongan, Stair East Ayrshire and North and Rankinston Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301020 Galston East East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302017 Garnock East East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland 45 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3301014 Grange/Howard East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301019 Hurlford East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302002 Irvine Townhead East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302001 Irvine West East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302019 Kilbirnie North East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302018 Kilbirnie South East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301009 Kilmarnock Central East East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301015 Kilmarnock Central South East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301008 Kilmarnock Central West East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302010 Kilwinning East East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302011 Kilwinning South East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302012 Kilwinning West East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302026 Largs South and Fairlie East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301013 Newmilns East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301004 North Kilmarnock, East Ayrshire and North Fenwick and Waterside Ayrshire mainland

46 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3301010 North New Farm Loch and East Ayrshire and North Dean Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301026 Ochiltree, Skares, Netherthird East Ayrshire and North and Craigens Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302020 Saltcoats East East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302022 Saltcoats North East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302021 South Beach East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3301011 South New Farm Loch East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302013 Stevenston North East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302014 Stevenston South East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3302025 West Kilbride East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire mainland

UKM3102018 Alexandria North/Tullichewan East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102019 Balloch East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102013 Barloan/Overtoun East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102011 Bowling/Milton/Old Kilpatrick East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3103021 Cadder/Langbrae East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond 47 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3102002 Dalmuir/Central East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102014 Dumbarton North East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102015 Dumbarton Central East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102012 Dumbarton East East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3101007 Garelochhead and Cove East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102007 Kilbowie West East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3103014 Kirkintilloch Central East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3103015 Lenzie East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102003 Mountblow East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102017 Renton/Alexandria South East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102022 Riverside East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

48 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3101009 Roseneath, Clynder and East Dunbartonshire, West Kilcreggan Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM3102001 Whitecrook East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond

UKM2302005 Bilston/Roslin East Lothian and Midlothian

UKM2302008 Bonnyrigg North East Lothian and Midlothian

UKM2301009 CockenzieandPortSeton EastLothianandMidlothian

UKM2302014 Dalkeith/Eskbank EastLothianandMidlothian

UKM2302015 Dalkeith/Woodburn East Lothian and Midlothian

UKM2302006 Loanhead EastLothianandMidlothian

UKM2302018 Mayfield South East Lothian and Midlothian

UKM2302016 Newbattle/Pathhead EastLothianandMidlothian

UKM2301008 PrestonpansEast EastLothianandMidlothian

UKM2301007 PrestonpansWest EastLothianandMidlothian

UKM2301006 Wallyford/Whitecraig East Lothian and Midlothian

E05001693 Dale Ward East Riding of Yorkshire

E05001698 Hessle Ward East Riding of Yorkshire

E05001708 South Hunsley Ward East Riding of Yorkshire

E05001709 South West Holderness Ward East Riding of Yorkshire

E05006917 AbbeyWard EastStaffordshire

E05006918 Anglesey Ward East Staffordshire

E05006920 Branston Ward East Staffordshire

E05006922 BurtonWard EastStaffordshire

49 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05006923 ChurnetWard EastStaffordshire

E05006925 EtonParkWard EastStaffordshire

E05006926 HeathWard EastStaffordshire

E05006928 NeedwoodWard EastStaffordshire

E05006930 ShobnallWard EastStaffordshire

E05006932 StrettonWard EastStaffordshire

E05006933 TownWard EastStaffordshire

E05003369 CotmanhayWard Erewash

E05003375 Ilkeston North Ward Erewash

E05003377 Little Eaton and Breadsall Erewash Ward

UKM2600015 Borrowstoun Falkirk

UKM2600001 Camelon Falkirk

UKM2600019 Carrongrange Falkirk

UKM2600006 Dawson Falkirk

UKM2600014 Dean Falkirk

UKM2600012 Dundas/Kerse Falkirk

UKM2600017 Forthside Falkirk

UKM2600007 Grahamsford Falkirk

UKM2600013 Grange and Blackness Falkirk

UKM2600011 Inchyra Falkirk

UKM2600018 Kinnaird Falkirk

UKM2600016 Kinneil and Whitecross Falkirk

50 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM2600021 Larbert Falkirk

UKM2600008 Middlefield Falkirk

UKM2600028 Polmont Falkirk

UKM2600002 Summerford Falkirk

UKM2600004 Town Centre Falkirk

UKM2600020 Tryst Falkirk

UKM2600009 Zetland Falkirk

W05000181 Aston ED Flintshire

W05000182 Bagillt East ED Flintshire

W05000183 Bagillt West ED Flintshire

W05000184 Broughton North East ED Flintshire

W05000185 Broughton South ED Flintshire

W05000186 Brynford ED Flintshire

W05000189 Buckley Mountain ED Flintshire

W05000192 Caerwys ED Flintshire

W05000193 Cilcain ED Flintshire

W05000194 Connah's Quay Central ED Flintshire

W05000195 Connah's Quay Golftyn ED Flintshire

W05000196 Connah's Quay South ED Flintshire

W05000197 Connah's Quay Wepre ED Flintshire

W05000198 Ewloe ED Flintshire

W05000199 Ffynnongroyw ED Flintshire

W05000200 Flint Castle ED Flintshire 51 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

W05000201 Flint Coleshill ED Flintshire

W05000202 Flint Oakenholt ED Flintshire

W05000203 Flint Trelawny ED Flintshire

W05000204 Greenfield ED Flintshire

W05000205 Gronant ED Flintshire

W05000208 Halkyn ED Flintshire

W05000209 Hawarden ED Flintshire

W05000211 Holywell Central ED Flintshire

W05000212 Holywell East ED Flintshire

W05000213 Holywell West ED Flintshire

W05000217 Mancot ED Flintshire

W05000222 Mostyn ED Flintshire

W05000224 Northop ED Flintshire

W05000225 Northop Hall ED Flintshire

W05000227 Queensferry ED Flintshire

W05000230 Sealand ED Flintshire

W05000231 Shotton East ED Flintshire

W05000232 Shotton Higher ED Flintshire

W05000233 Shotton West ED Flintshire

Trelawnyd and Gwaenysgor W05000234 ED Flintshire

W05000236 Whitford ED Flintshire

E05005202 St. Leonards Ward Fylde

52 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05005205 Warton and Westby Ward Fylde

E05001067 BirtleyWard Gateshead

E05001068 BlaydonWard Gateshead

E05001069 BridgesWard Gateshead

E05001071 ChowdeneWard Gateshead

E05001072 Crawcrook and Greenside Gateshead Ward

E05001073 Deckham Ward Gateshead

E05001074 DunstonandTeamsWard Gateshead

E05001076 FellingWard Gateshead

E05001077 High Fell Ward Gateshead

E05001078 LamesleyWard Gateshead

E05001079 Lobley Hill and Bensham Gateshead Ward

E05001080 LowFellWard Gateshead

E05001081 PelawandHeworthWard Gateshead

E05001082 Ryton, Crookhill and Stella Gateshead Ward

E05001083 SaltwellWard Gateshead

E05001084 Wardley and Leam Lane Gateshead Ward

E05001085 Whickham North Ward Gateshead

E05001087 Windy Nook and Whitehills Gateshead Ward

E05006425 Burton Joyce and Stoke Gedling Bardolph Ward

53 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05006430 GedlingWard Gedling

E05006435 Netherfield and Colwick Ward Gedling

UKM3400017 Anderston Glasgow City

UKM3400024 Ashfield Glasgow City

UKM3400045 Braidfauld Glasgow City

UKM3400035 Bridgeton/Dalmarnock Glasgow City

UKM3400034 Calton Glasgow City

UKM3400078 Carmunnock Glasgow City

UKM3400037 Carntyne Glasgow City

UKM3400033 Dennistoun Glasgow City

UKM3400051 Drumoyne Glasgow City

UKM3400050 Easterhouse Glasgow City

UKM3400039 Gartcraig Glasgow City

UKM3400049 Garthamlock Glasgow City

UKM3400052 Govan Glasgow City

UKM3400012 Hayburn Glasgow City

UKM3400066 Hutchesontown GlasgowCity

UKM3400053 Ibrox Glasgow City

UKM3400016 Kelvingrove Glasgow City

UKM3400026 Keppochhill Glasgow City

UKM3400054 Kingston Glasgow City

UKM3400027 Merchant City Glasgow City

UKM3400032 Milnbank Glasgow City 54 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3400023 Milton Glasgow City

UKM3400046 Mount Vernon Glasgow City

UKM3400056 North Cardonald Glasgow City

UKM3400036 Parkhead Glasgow City

UKM3400015 Partick Glasgow City

UKM3400040 Queenslie Glasgow City

UKM3400038 Robroyston Glasgow City

UKM3400028 Royston Glasgow City

UKM3400010 Scotstoun Glasgow City

UKM3400043 Shettleston GlasgowCity

UKM3400022 Summerston Glasgow City

UKM3400044 Tollcross Park Glasgow City

UKM3400075 Toryglen Glasgow City

UKM3400011 Victoria Park Glasgow City

UKM3400006 Yoker Glasgow City

E05005784 Bradwell North Ward Great Yarmouth

E05005785 Bradwell South and Hopton Great Yarmouth Ward

E05005787 Caister South Ward Great Yarmouth

E05005788 Central And Northgate Ward Great Yarmouth

E05005789 Claydon Ward Great Yarmouth

E05005792 GorlestonWard GreatYarmouth

E05005794 Magdalen Ward Great Yarmouth

55 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05005795 Nelson Ward Great Yarmouth

E05005798 Southtown and Cobholm Great Yarmouth Ward

E05005797 St. Andrews Ward Great Yarmouth

E05005800 Yarmouth North Ward Great Yarmouth

E05000221 GlyndonWard Greenwich

E05000228 Thamesmead Moorings Ward Greenwich

E05000230 Woolwich Riverside Ward Greenwich

E05001577 AppletonWard Halton

E05001582 Daresbury Ward Halton

E05001583 Ditton Ward Halton

E05001585 GrangeWard Halton

E05001586 HaleWard Halton

E05001587 HaltonBrookWard Halton

E05001581 Halton Castle Ward Halton

E05001588 HaltonLeaWard Halton

E05001589 HaltonViewWard Halton

E05001590 HeathWard Halton

E05001592 KingswayWard Halton

E05001593 MerseyWard Halton

E05001596 Riverside Ward Halton

E05001597 Windmill Hill Ward Halton

E05001465 BrusWard Hartlepool

56 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001467 Dyke House Ward Hartlepool

E05001468 Elwick Ward Hartlepool

E05001469 FensWard Hartlepool

E05001470 Foggy Furze Ward Hartlepool

E05001472 GreathamWard Hartlepool

E05001477 RossmereWard Hartlepool

E05001479 SeatonWard Hartlepool

E05001478 St. Hilda Ward Hartlepool

E05001480 StrantonWard Hartlepool

E05003929 Ashdown Ward Hastings

E05003930 Baird Ward Hastings

E05003931 BraybrookeWard Hastings

E05003932 Castle Ward Hastings

E05003933 Central St. Leonards Ward Hastings

E05003935 Gensing Ward Hastings

E05003936 Hollington Ward Hastings

E05003937 Maze Hill Ward Hastings

E05003938 Old Hastings Ward Hastings

E05003939 Ore Ward Hastings

E05003941 Silverhill Ward Hastings

E05003942 Tressell Ward Hastings

E05003943 WestSt.LeonardsWard Hastings

E05003944 Wishing Tree Ward Hastings 57 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05003397 Dinting Ward High Peak

E05003399 Hadfield North Ward High Peak

E05003400 Hadfield South Ward High Peak

E05003403 Howard Town Ward High Peak

E05003408 PadfieldWard HighPeak

E05005206 Altham Ward Hyndburn

E05005211 Clayton-le-Moors Ward Hyndburn

E05005212 HuncoatWard Hyndburn

E05005218 Rishton Ward Hyndburn

UKM3502029 Arkleston and Newmains Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502040 Bishopton Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502017 Blackhall and Hawkhead Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502026 Blythswood Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502027 Deanside Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502038 Erskine Central Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502036 Erskine S.E and Inchinnan Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502039 Erskine West Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502003 Ferguslie Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

58 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3502018 Gallowhill and Whitehaugh Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502035 Houston and Langbank Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502004 Linwood East Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502030 Moorpark Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502011 Paisley Central Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502037 Parkmains Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502019 Sandyford Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502016 Seedhill Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502001 Shortroods Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502002 St James Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3502028 Townhead Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503001 Ward 1 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503010 Ward 10 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503012 Ward 12 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503013 Ward 13 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

59 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3503014 Ward 14 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503015 Ward 15 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503016 Ward 16 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503017 Ward 17 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503018 Ward 18 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503019 Ward 19 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503002 Ward 2 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503003 Ward 3 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503004 Ward 4 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503005 Ward 5 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503006 Ward 6 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503007 Ward 7 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503008 Ward 8 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM3503009 Ward 9 Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

UKM6201008 Ardersier, Croy and Petty Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

60 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM6202002 Badenoch East Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6202001 BadenochWest Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201012 Ballifeary Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201023 Balloch Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201001 Beauly and Strathglass Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204016 Buckie Central Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204017 Buckie East and Findochty Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204015 Buckie West Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204008 Burghsea Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201011 Canal Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201016 Crown Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201019 Culduthel Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201007 Culloden Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201021 Drumossie Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204002 Elgin - Bishopmill East Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

61 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM6204001 Elgin - Bishopmill West Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204003 Elgin - Cathedral Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204004 Elgin - Central West Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204019 Fife - Keith and Strathisla Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6203003 Finderne Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204007 Finderne Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6203002 Forres Central Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6203001 Forres East Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6203004 Forres West and Altyre Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6203008 Glenlivet Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6202005 GrantownonSpey Inverness&NairnandMoray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6203005 Heldon and Laich Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204009 Heldon and Laich Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201014 Hilton Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204013 Innes Inverness&NairnandMoray, Badenoch & Strathspey

62 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM6201020 Inshes Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201006 Inverness Central Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201010 Inverness West Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204020 Keith Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201002 Kirkhill Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204014 Lennox Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204012 Lhanbryde and Birnie Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201018 Loch Ness East Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201009 Loch Ness West Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201013 Lochardil Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204010 Lossiemouth East Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204011 Lossiemouth West Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201005 Merkinch Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201004 Muirtown Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201024 Nairn Alltan Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

63 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM6201027 Nairn Auldearn Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201026 Nairn Cawdor Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201025 Nairn Ninian Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204006 NewElginEast Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204005 New Elgin West Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201017 Raigmore Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204018 Rathford Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6203006 Rural Keith and Rothes Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6204021 Rural Keith and Rothes Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201003 Scorguie Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6203007 Speyside Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6202004 Strathspey North East Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6202003 Strathspey South Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201022 Westhill and Smithton Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey

UKM6201015 Milton Inverness and Nairn and Moray, Badenoch and Strathpey

E05008480 Binstead and Fishbourne ED Isle of Wight 64 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05008481 Brading, St. Helens and Isle of Wight Bembridge ED

E05008485 CowesMedinaED IsleofWight

E05008486 Cowes North ED Isle of Wight

E05008487 CowesSouthandNorthwood Isle of Wight ED

E05008488 CowesWestandGurnardED Isle of Wight

E05008489 EastCowesED IsleofWight

E05008490 FreshwaterNorthED IsleofWight

E05008493 Havenstreet, Ashey and Isle of Wight Haylands ED

E05008494 LakeNorthED IsleofWight

E05008495 LakeSouthED IsleofWight

E05008496 NettlestoneandSeaviewED IsleofWight

E05008497 NewportCentralED IsleofWight

E05008498 NewportEastED IsleofWight

E05008499 Newport North ED Isle of Wight

E05008500 NewportSouthED IsleofWight

E05008501 Newport West ED Isle of Wight

E05008502 Parkhurst ED Isle of Wight

E05008503 Ryde East ED Isle of Wight

E05008504 RydeNorthEastED IsleofWight

E05008505 Ryde North West ED Isle of Wight

E05008506 RydeSouthED IsleofWight

65 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05008507 Ryde West ED Isle of Wight

E05008508 SandownNorthED IsleofWight

E05008509 SandownSouthED IsleofWight

E05008515 West Wight ED Isle of Wight

E05008516 Whippingham and Isle of Wight Osborne ED

E05008517 Wootton Bridge ED Isle of Wight

E05001669 Bricknell Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001671 Drypool Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001672 Holderness Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001676 Marfleet Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001677 Myton Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001679 Newland Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001681 Pickering Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001684 Southcoates West Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001682 St. Andrew's Ward Kingston upon Hull, City of

E05001390 BatleyEastWard Kirklees

E05001392 Birstall and Birkenshaw Ward Kirklees

E05001393 Cleckheaton Ward Kirklees

E05001396 Dalton Ward Kirklees

E05001398 Dewsbury East Ward Kirklees

E05001408 Liversedge and Gomersal Kirklees Ward

E05000865 Cherryfield Ward Knowsley

66 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000866 Halewood North Ward Knowsley

E05000867 HalewoodSouthWard Knowsley

E05000868 Halewood West Ward Knowsley

E05000869 KirkbyCentralWard Knowsley

E05000870 LongviewWard Knowsley

E05000871 NorthwoodWard Knowsley

E05000874 Prescot East Ward Knowsley

E05000875 Prescot West Ward Knowsley

E05000877 St.BartholomewsWard Knowsley

E05000878 St.GabrielsWard Knowsley

E05000879 St.MichaelsWard Knowsley

E05000883 Whiston North Ward Knowsley

E05000884 Whiston South Ward Knowsley

E05000885 Whitefield Ward Knowsley

E05001415 BeestonandHolbeckWard Leeds

E05001417 Burmantofts and Richmond Leeds Hill Ward

E05001420 CityandHunsletWard Leeds

E05001441 TempleNewsamWard Leeds

E05001784 Abbey Ward Leicester

E05001786 BeaumontLeysWard Leicester

E05001787 Belgrave Ward Leicester

E05001789 Castle Ward Leicester

67 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001799 New Parks Ward Leicester

E05001798 Latimer Leicester

E05001800 Rushey Mead Ward Leicester

E05006939 Alrewas and Fradley Ward Lichfield

E05000886 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool Ward

E05000887 Anfield Ward Liverpool

E05000889 CentralWard Liverpool

E05000892 ClubmoorWard Liverpool

E05000893 CountyWard Liverpool

E05000894 Cressington Ward Liverpool

E05000895 Croxteth Ward Liverpool

E05000896 EvertonWard Liverpool

E05000897 Fazakerley Ward Liverpool

E05000899 Kensington and Fairfield Liverpool Ward

E05000900 Kirkdale Ward Liverpool

E05000901 KnottyAshWard Liverpool

E05000903 Norris Green Ward Liverpool

E05000904 OldSwanWard Liverpool

E05000905 PictonWard Liverpool

E05000906 PrincesParkWard Liverpool

E05000907 Riverside Ward Liverpool

E05000909 Speke-GarstonWard Liverpool

68 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000908 St. Michael's Ward Liverpool

E05000910 Tuebrook and Stoneycroft Liverpool Ward

E05000911 Warbreck Ward Liverpool

E05000912 Wavertree Ward Liverpool

E05000913 West Derby Ward Liverpool

E05002194 Biscot Ward Luton

E05002196 ChallneyWard Luton

E05002197 Crawley Ward Luton

E05002198 DallowWard Luton

E05002200 High Town Ward Luton

E05002203 LewseyWard Luton

E05002208 SouthWard Luton

E05002209 StopsleyWard Luton

E05002211 Wigmore Ward Luton

E05000687 Ancoats and Clayton Ward Manchester

E05000688 Ardwick Ward Manchester

E05000689 Baguley Ward Manchester

E05000690 BradfordWard Manchester

E05000697 City Centre Ward Manchester

E05000704 HarpurheyWard Manchester

E05000706 Hulme Ward Manchester

E05000709 Miles Platting and Newton Manchester Heath Ward

69 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000715 Sharston Ward Manchester

E05000718 Woodhouse Park Ward Manchester

E05008857 Abbott Ward Mansfield

E05008858 Berry Hill Ward Mansfield

E05008868 Kingsway Ward Mansfield

E05008870 Lindhurst Ward Mansfield

E05008871 Ling Forest Ward Mansfield

E05008874 Maun Valley Ward Mansfield

E05008876 Netherfield Ward Mansfield

E05008878 Newlands Ward Mansfield

E05008879 OakTreeWard Mansfield

E05008880 Oakham Ward Mansfield

E05008883 Penniment Ward Mansfield

E05008886 Ransom Ward Mansfield

E05008888 Sherwood Ward Mansfield

E05008890 Woodhouse Ward Mansfield

E05008892 Yeoman Hill Ward Mansfield

E05002249 ChathamCentralWard Medway

E05002251 Gillingham North Ward Medway

E05002256 Peninsula Ward Medway

E05002258 Rainham Central Ward Medway

E05002261 River Ward Medway

70 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05002263 Rochester South and Horsted Medway Ward

E05002268 TwydallWard Medway

E05002270 Watling Ward Medway

E05001483 Ayresome Ward Middlesbrough

E05001487 Clairville Ward Middlesbrough

E05001488 Coulby Newham Ward Middlesbrough

E05001489 Gresham Ward Middlesbrough

E05001497 Middlehaven Ward Middlesbrough

E05001494 North Ormesby and Brambles Middlesbrough Farm Ward

E05001499 Pallister Ward Middlesbrough

E05001502 StaintonandThorntonWard Middlesbrough

E05001504 University Ward Middlesbrough

E05006472 Clipstone Ward Newark and Sherwood

E05001089 Benwell and Scotswood Newcastle upon Tyne Ward

E05001091 Byker Ward Newcastle upon Tyne

E05001092 Castle Ward Newcastle upon Tyne

E05001096 Elswick Ward Newcastle upon Tyne

E05001097 FawdonWard NewcastleuponTyne

E05001100 LemingtonWard NewcastleuponTyne

E05001104 Ouseburn Ward Newcastle upon Tyne

E05001106 SouthHeatonWard NewcastleuponTyne

71 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001108 Walker Ward Newcastle upon Tyne

E05001109 Walkergate Ward Newcastle upon Tyne

E05001112 WestGosforthWard NewcastleuponTyne

E05001111 WestgateWard NewcastleuponTyne

E05001114 Woolsington Ward Newcastle upon Tyne

E05006965 Bradwell Ward Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006967 Chesterton Ward Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006969 Cross Heath Ward Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006971 Holditch Ward Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006972 Keele Ward Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006977 MayBankWard Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006979 Porthill Ward Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006984 Thistleberry Ward Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006985 TownWard Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05006987 Wolstanton Ward Newcastle-under-Lyme

E05000475 Beckton Ward Newham

E05000479 CustomHouseWard Newham

E05000491 Royal Docks Ward Newham

W05000839 Graig ED Newport

W05000841 Liswerry ED Newport

W05000842 Llanwern ED Newport

W05000844 Marshfield ED Newport

W05000845 Pillgwenlly ED Newport 72 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

W05000850 Stow Hill ED Newport

W05000851 Tredegar Park ED Newport

E05003543 Fremington Ward North Devon

E05003549 InstowWard NorthDevon

E05003420 Clay Cross North Ward North East Derbyshire

E05003421 Clay Cross South Ward North East Derbyshire

E05003429 Grassmoor Ward North East Derbyshire

E05003430 Holmewood and Heath Ward North East Derbyshire

E05003438 Sutton Ward North East Derbyshire

E05003439 Tupton Ward North East Derbyshire

E05001713 Croft Baker Ward North East Lincolnshire

E05001714 East Marsh Ward North East Lincolnshire

E05001715 Freshney Ward North East Lincolnshire

E05001719 Immingham Ward North East Lincolnshire

E05001722 SidneySussexWard NorthEastLincolnshire

E05001725 West Marsh Ward North East Lincolnshire

E05001726 Wolds Ward North East Lincolnshire

UKM3600043 Airdrie Central North Lanarkshire

UKM3600036 Bargeddie and Langloan North Lanarkshire

UKM3600007 Belhaven North Lanarkshire

UKM3600024 Bellshill North North Lanarkshire

UKM3600020 Benhar North Lanarkshire

UKM3600032 Blairpark North Lanarkshire 73 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3600002 Calder Valley North Lanarkshire

UKM3600050 Calderbank North Lanarkshire

UKM3600060 Carbrain East North Lanarkshire

UKM3600061 Carbrain West and North Lanarkshire Greenfaulds

UKM3600051 Chapelhall North Lanarkshire

UKM3600069 Chryston and Auchinloch North Lanarkshire

UKM3600034 Coatbridge Central North Lanarkshire

UKM3600062 Condorrat Central North Lanarkshire

UKM3600063 Condorrat North and North Lanarkshire Westfield

UKM3600006 Craigneuk North Lanarkshire

UKM3600049 Craigneuk and Petersburn North Lanarkshire

UKM3600018 Dykehead North Lanarkshire

UKM3600003 Forgewood North Lanarkshire

UKM3600015 Garrion North Lanarkshire

UKM3600030 Hattonrig North Lanarkshire

UKM3600027 Holytown North Lanarkshire

UKM3600038 Kirkshaws North Lanarkshire

UKM3600037 Kirkwood North Lanarkshire

UKM3600012 Knowetop NorthLanarkshire

UKM3600067 Moodiesburn East and North Lanarkshire Blackwood West

UKM3600068 Moodiesburn West and North Lanarkshire Gartcosh

74 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3600028 Mossend East and New North Lanarkshire Stevenston North

UKM3600026 Mossend West North Lanarkshire and Thorndean

UKM3600013 Muirhouse and Netherton North Lanarkshire

UKM3600005 New Stevenston and Carfin North Lanarkshire

UKM3600047 North Cairnhill and Coatdyke North Lanarkshire

UKM3600033 North Central and Glenboig North Lanarkshire

UKM3600004 North Motherwell North Lanarkshire

UKM3600040 Old Monkland North Lanarkshire

UKM3600025 Orbiston North Lanarkshire

UKM3600014 Pather and Gowkthrapple North Lanarkshire

UKM3600052 Salsburgh North Lanarkshire

UKM3600054 Seafar and The Village North Lanarkshire

UKM3600039 Shawhead NorthLanarkshire

UKM3600035 Sikeside and Carnbroe North Lanarkshire

UKM3600048 South East Cairnhill and North Lanarkshire Gartlea

UKM3600070 Stepps North Lanarkshire

UKM3600031 Townhead North Lanarkshire

UKM3600023 Viewpark North Lanarkshire

UKM3600057 Westerwood, North Lanarkshire Carrickstone and Dullatur

UKM3600041 Whinhall North Lanarkshire

E05001732 BartonWard NorthLincolnshire

75 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001734 Brigg and Wolds Ward North Lincolnshire

E05001738 Burton upon Stather and North Lincolnshire Winterton Ward

E05001739 Crosby and Park Ward North Lincolnshire

E05001740 Ferry Ward North Lincolnshire

E05001741 Frodingham Ward North Lincolnshire

E05001744 Town Ward North Lincolnshire

E05001117 Camperdown Ward North Tyneside

E05001118 Chirton Ward North Tyneside

E05001119 Collingwood Ward North Tyneside

E05001123 LongbentonWard NorthTyneside

E05001127 PrestonWard NorthTyneside

E05001128 Riverside Ward North Tyneside

E05001130 Tynemouth Ward North Tyneside

E05001131 Valley Ward North Tyneside

E05001132 Wallsend Ward North Tyneside

E05001133 Weetslade Ward North Tyneside

E05007462 Coleshill North Ward North Warwickshire

E05007464 Curdworth Ward North Warwickshire

E05007473 Water Orton Ward North Warwickshire

E05008021 AshingtonCentralED Northumberland

E05008030 BothalED Northumberland

E05008031 Bywell ED Northumberland

76 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05008033 Choppington ED Northumberland

E05008034 College ED Northumberland

E05008035 Corbridge ED Northumberland

E05008036 Cowpen ED Northumberland

E05008037 Cramlington East ED Northumberland

E05008038 Cramlington Eastfield ED Northumberland

E05008039 Cramlington North ED Northumberland

E05008040 Cramlington South East ED Northumberland

E05008041 Cramlington Village ED Northumberland

E05008042 Cramlington West ED Northumberland

E05008043 Croft ED Northumberland

E05008046 Haydon ED Northumberland

E05008051 Hirst ED Northumberland

E05008052 Holywell ED Northumberland

E05008055 KittyBrewsterED Northumberland

E05008058 LynemouthED Northumberland

E05008059 Morpeth Kirkhill ED Northumberland

E05008060 Morpeth North ED Northumberland

E05008061 Morpeth Stobhill ED Northumberland

E05008062 Newbiggin Central and Northumberland East ED

E05008063 Newsham ED Northumberland

E05008065 PegswoodED Northumberland

77 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05008072 PrudhoeWestED Northumberland

E05008074 Seaton with Newbiggin West Northumberland ED

E05008075 Seghill with Seaton Delaval Northumberland ED

E05008077 Sleekburn ED Northumberland

E05008080 StakefordED Northumberland

E05008082 Ulgham ED Northumberland

E05008083 Wensleydale ED Northumberland

E05001824 BasfordWard Nottingham

E05001827 Bilborough Ward Nottingham

E05001828 Bridge Ward Nottingham

E05001829 Bulwell Ward Nottingham

E05001833 Dales Ward Nottingham

E05001834 DunkirkandLentonWard Nottingham

E05001835 LeenValleyWard Nottingham

E05001837 Radford and Park Ward Nottingham

E05007475 ArburyWard NuneatonandBedworth

E05007476 AttleboroughWard NuneatonandBedworth

E05007478 BedeWard NuneatonandBedworth

E05007479 BulkingtonWard NuneatonandBedworth

E05007485 PoplarWard NuneatonandBedworth

E05007486 St.NicolasWard NuneatonandBedworth

E05007489 Wem Brook Ward Nuneaton and Bedworth

78 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05007490 Whitestone Ward Nuneaton and Bedworth

E05000720 ChaddertonCentralWard Oldham

E05000721 Chadderton North Ward Oldham

E05000722 ChaddertonSouthWard Oldham

E05000723 Coldhurst Ward Oldham

E05000725 Failsworth East Ward Oldham

E05000735 St. Mary's Ward Oldham

E05000738 Werneth Ward Oldham

UKM6500002 Berstane and Work Orkney Islands

UKM6500015 Birsay and Dounby Orkney Islands

UKM6500005 Brandyquoy OrkneyIslands

UKM6500014 Evie, Rendall, Rousay, Orkney Islands Egilsay and Wyre

UKM6500012 FirthandSunnybrae OrkneyIslands

UKM6500013 Harray and Stenness Orkney Islands

UKM6500018 Holm and Burray Orkney Islands

UKM6500004 Lynnfield OrkneyIslands

UKM6500011 Orphir,WallsandFlotta OrkneyIslands

UKM6500021 Papa Westray, Westray and Orkney Islands Eday

UKM6500006 Papdale Orkney Islands

UKM6500001 Pickaquoy Orkney Islands

UKM6500020 Sanday, North Orkney Islands Ronaldsay and Stronsay

79 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM6500016 Sandwick and Stromness Orkney Islands Landward

UKM6500007 Scapa and Kirkwall South Orkney Islands West

UKM6500008 Shapinsay and Kirkwall Orkney Islands Harbour

UKM6500019 South Ronaldsay Orkney Islands

UKM6500017 St Andrew's Deerness and Orkney Islands Wideford

UKM6500009 Stromness North Orkney Islands

UKM6500010 Stromness South, Graemsay Orkney Islands and North Hoy

UKM6500003 Warrenfield Orkney Islands

E05005250 BarrowfordWard Pendle

E05005251 Blacko and Higherford Ward Pendle

E05005253 BradleyWard Pendle

E05005254 BrierfieldWard Pendle

E05005255 CloverHillWard Pendle

E05005256 CoatesWard Pendle

E05008551 EarbyWard Pendle

E05008552 Foulridge Ward Pendle

E05005263 OldLaundBoothWard Pendle

E05005264 ReedleyWard Pendle

E05005267 Walverden Ward Pendle

E05005269 Whitefield Ward Pendle

80 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM2702006 Argyll Perth & Kinross and Stirling

UKM2702002 Logie Perth & Kinross and Stirling

UKM2702013 Polmaise Perth & Kinross and Stirling

UKM2702004 Raploch Perth & Kinross and Stirling

UKM2702014 Sauchenford Perth & Kinross and Stirling

E05002078 BudsheadWard Plymouth

E05002080 DevonportWard Plymouth

E05002085 Honicknowle Ward Plymouth

E05002086 MoorViewWard Plymouth

E05002095 SouthwayWard Plymouth

E05002093 St.BudeauxWard Plymouth

E05002094 St. Peter and the Waterfront Plymouth Ward

E05002097 SuttonandMount Plymouth Gould Ward

W05000284 Aber-Craf ED Powys

W05000295 Cwm-Twrch ED Powys

W05000354 Ynyscedwyn ED Powys

W05000356 Ystradgynlais ED Powys

E05001505 BrottonWard RedcarandCleveland

E05001506 Coatham Ward Redcar and Cleveland

E05001507 Dormanstown Ward Redcar and Cleveland

E05001509 Grangetown Ward Redcar and Cleveland

E05001510 Guisborough Ward Redcar and Cleveland

81 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001513 Lockwood Ward Redcar and Cleveland

E05001514 LoftusWard RedcarandCleveland

E05001515 LongbeckWard RedcarandCleveland

E05001520 SaltburnWard RedcarandCleveland

E05001521 SkeltonWard RedcarandCleveland

E05001522 SouthBankWard RedcarandCleveland

E05001519 St.Germain'sWard RedcarandCleveland

E05001525 Westworth Ward Redcar and Cleveland

E05007868 AbbeyWard Redditch

E05007872 Church Hill Ward Redditch

E05007874 GreenlandsWard Redditch

E05007876 LodgeParkWard Redditch

E05007877 MatchboroughWard Redditch

E05007879 Winyates Ward Redditch

E05000741 Castleton Ward Rochdale

E05000745 HopwoodHallWard Rochdale

E05000746 Kingsway Ward Rochdale

E05000748 Milkstone and Deeplish Ward Rochdale

E05000751 North Heywood Ward Rochdale

E05000757 WestHeywoodWard Rochdale

E05003968 CentralWard Rother

E05003976 OldTownWard Rother

E05003979 Sackville Ward Rother 82 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05003984 SidleyWard Rother

E05003981 St.MichaelsWard Rother

E05001019 BostonCastleWard Rotherham

E05001020 Brinsworth and Catcliffe Ward Rotherham

E05008936 Dinnington Ward Rotherham

E05001022 HellabyWard Rotherham

E05001023 Holderness Ward Rotherham

E05001024 HooberWard Rotherham

E05001025 KeppelWard Rotherham

E05001026 MaltbyWard Rotherham

E05001027 Rawmarsh Ward Rotherham

E05001028 RotherValeWard Rotherham

E05001029 RotherhamEastWard Rotherham

E05001030 Rotherham West Ward Rotherham

E05001031 Silverwood Ward Rotherham

E05001032 SitwellWard Rotherham

E05001033 SwintonWard Rotherham

E05001034 Valley Ward Rotherham

E05001035 Wales Ward Rotherham

E05001036 WathWard Rotherham

E05001037 Wickersley Ward Rotherham

E05001038 Wingfield Ward Rotherham

E05007501 Fosse Ward Rugby 83 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000759 BartonWard Salford

E05000762 Cadishead Ward Salford

E05000765 Irlam Ward Salford

E05000770 OrdsallWard Salford

E05000776 WeasteandSeedleyWard Salford

E05001261 BlackheathWard Sandwell

E05001264 Cradley Heath and Old Hill Sandwell Ward

E05001265 Friar Park Ward Sandwell

E05001267 GreatBridgeWard Sandwell

E05001268 GreetsGreenandLyngWard Sandwell

E05001269 HateleyHeathWard Sandwell

E05001270 LangleyWard Sandwell

E05001273 OldburyWard Sandwell

E05001274 PrincesEndWard Sandwell

E05001275 RowleyWard Sandwell

E05001277 SmethwickWard Sandwell

E05001278 SohoandVictoriaWard Sandwell

E05001276 St.PaulsWard Sandwell

E05001279 TiptonGreenWard Sandwell

E05001280 TividaleWard Sandwell

E05001281 Wednesbury North Ward Sandwell

E05001282 WednesburySouthWard Sandwell

84 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001283 West Bromwich Central Ward Sandwell

UKM2400013 Burnfoot and Mansfield Scottish Borders

UKM2400019 Earlston, Gordon and District Scottish Borders

UKM2400024 Forest Scottish Borders

UKM2400018 GalawaterandLauderdale ScottishBorders

UKM2400012 Hermitage Scottish Borders

UKM2400026 Lower Langlee and Scottish Borders Tweedbank

UKM2400020 Melrose and District Scottish Borders

UKM2400025 Netherdale Scottish Borders

UKM2400023 Old Selkirk Scottish Borders

UKM2400021 Scott's View Scottish Borders

UKM2400014 Silverbuthall Scottish Borders

UKM2400016 Teviot and Central Scottish Borders

UKM2400017 Wilton Scottish Borders

E05000937 DerbyWard Sefton

E05000942 Linacre Ward Sefton

E05000943 Litherland Ward Sefton

E05000946 MolyneuxWard Sefton

E05000947 Netherton and Orrell Ward Sefton

E05000952 SudellWard Sefton

E05006361 Whitley Ward Selby

E05001041 BeightonWard Sheffield

85 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001044 Burngreave Ward Sheffield

E05001045 CentralWard Sheffield

E05001047 Darnall Ward Sheffield

E05001049 East Ecclesfield Ward Sheffield

E05001051 Firth Park Ward Sheffield

E05001055 Hillsborough Ward Sheffield

E05001057 Mosborough Ward Sheffield

E05001060 Shiregreen and Brightside Sheffield Ward

E05001061 SoutheyWard Sheffield

E05001063 Stocksbridge and Upper Don Sheffield Ward

E05001064 Walkley Ward Sheffield

E05001065 West Ecclesfield Ward Sheffield

E05001066 Woodhouse Ward Sheffield

UKM6600004 Breiwick Shetland Islands

UKM6600019 Burra/Trondra Shetland Islands

UKM6600002 Clickimin Shetland Islands

UKM6600020 Cunningsburgh Shetland Islands and Sandwick

UKM6600013 Delting East and Lunnasting Shetland Islands

UKM6600012 Delting West Shetland Islands

UKM6600022 Dunrossness Shetland Islands

UKM6600006 HarbourandBressay ShetlandIslands

86 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM6600014 Nesting, Whiteness, Shetland Islands Girlsta and Gott

UKM6600007 North ShetlandIslands

UKM6600003 NorthCentral ShetlandIslands

UKM6600011 Northmavine, Muckle Shetland Islands Roe and Busta

UKM6600017 Sandsting, Aithsting and Shetland Islands Weisdale

UKM6600021 Sandwick, Levenwick and Shetland Islands Bigton

UKM6600015 Scalloway ShetlandIslands

UKM6600001 Sound ShetlandIslands

UKM6600005 SouthCentral ShetlandIslands

UKM6600009 Unst and Island of Fetlar Shetland Islands

UKM6600008 Upper Sound, Shetland Islands Gulberwick and Quarff

UKM6600018 Walls, Sandness and Clousta Shetland Islands

UKM6600016 Whalsay/Skerries Shetland Islands

UKM6600010 Yell Shetland Islands

E05008189 Shifnal South and Cosford Shropshire ED

E05001284 BickenhillWard Solihull

E05001286 Castle Bromwich Ward Solihull

E05001289 Elmdon Ward Solihull

E05001292 Lyndon Ward Solihull

UKM3700024 Annbank Mossblown South Ayrshire St Quivox 87 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3700014 Ayr Central South Ayrshire

UKM3700013 Ayr Craigie South Ayrshire

UKM3700011 Ayr Lochside South Ayrshire

UKM3700010 Ayr Newton South Ayrshire

UKM3700012 Ayr Whitletts South Ayrshire

UKM3700022 Dundonald and Loans South Ayrshire

UKM3700008 Prestwick Kingcase South Ayrshire

UKM3700006 Prestwick St Cuthbert's and South Ayrshire Monkton

UKM3700007 Prestwick St Nicholas' South Ayrshire

UKM3700005 Prestwick St Ninian's South Ayrshire

UKM3700009 Prestwick Toll South Ayrshire

UKM3700003 Troon East South Ayrshire

UKM3700001 Troon North South Ayrshire

UKM3700004 Troon South South Ayrshire

UKM3700002 Troon West South Ayrshire

E05008811 Etwall Ward South Derbyshire

E05008820 Stenson Ward South Derbyshire

E05008822 Willington and Findern Ward South Derbyshire

E05003561 AvonandHarbourneWard SouthHams

E05003562 Bickleigh and Shaugh Ward South Hams

E05003564 Cornwood and Sparkwell South Hams Ward

E05003568 EastDartWard SouthHams

88 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05003570 ErmeValleyWard SouthHams

E05003571 Ivybridge Central Ward South Hams

E05003572 Ivybridge Filham Ward South Hams

E05003573 Ivybridge Woodlands Ward South Hams

E05003584 TotnesBridgetownWard SouthHams

E05003585 TotnesTownWard SouthHams

E05003237 BroughtonWard SouthLakeland

E05003262 LowFurnessWard SouthLakeland

E05003264 Mid Furness Ward South Lakeland

E05003269 Ulverston Central Ward South Lakeland

E05003270 Ulverston East Ward South Lakeland

E05003271 Ulverston North Ward South Lakeland

E05003272 UlverstonSouthWard SouthLakeland

E05003273 Ulverston Town Ward South Lakeland

E05003274 Ulverston West Ward South Lakeland

UKM3800060 Burgh South Lanarkshire

UKM3800061 Cairns South Lanarkshire

UKM3800063 Cambuslang Central South Lanarkshire

UKM3800005 Clyde Valley South Lanarkshire

UKM3800051 Dalserf South Lanarkshire

UKM3800067 Eastfield South Lanarkshire

UKM3800024 Heatheryknowe South Lanarkshire

UKM3800036 High Blantyre South Lanarkshire 89 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

UKM3800002 LanarkSouth SouthLanarkshire

UKM3800054 Larkhall South South Lanarkshire

UKM3800013 Law/Carluke South Lanarkshire

UKM3800030 Lindsay South Lanarkshire

UKM3800028 Mossneuk/Kittoch South Lanarkshire

UKM3800056 Rutherglen West South Lanarkshire

UKM3800029 Stewartfield South Lanarkshire

UKM3800026 Whitehills South Lanarkshire

E05006988 Bilbrook Ward South Staffordshire

E05006989 Brewood and Coven Ward South Staffordshire

E05006995 Featherstone and Shareshill South Staffordshire Ward

E05007009 Wheaton Aston, South Staffordshire Bishopswood and Lapley Ward

E05001135 BeaconandBentsWard SouthTyneside

E05001136 BedeWard SouthTyneside

E05001138 Boldon Colliery Ward South Tyneside

E05001141 Fellgate and Hedworth Ward South Tyneside

E05001143 HebburnNorthWard SouthTyneside

E05001144 HebburnSouthWard SouthTyneside

E05001146 MonktonWard SouthTyneside

E05001147 PrimroseWard SouthTyneside

E05001148 Simonside and Rekendyke South Tyneside Ward

90 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000917 BlackbrookWard St.Helens

E05000919 Earlestown Ward St. Helens

E05000920 Eccleston Ward St. Helens

E05000921 Haydock Ward St. Helens

E05000922 MossBankWard St.Helens

E05000923 Newton Ward St. Helens

E05000924 ParrWard St.Helens

E05000925 Rainford Ward St. Helens

E05000926 Rainhill Ward St. Helens

E05000927 SuttonWard St.Helens

E05000928 ThattoHeathWard St.Helens

E05000929 TownCentreWard St.Helens

E05000930 West Park Ward St. Helens

E05000931 Windle Ward St. Helens

E05007013 BarlastonandOultonWard Stafford

E05007021 Fulford Ward Stafford

E05007051 Cheadle West Ward Staffordshire Moorlands

E05007052 Checkley Ward Staffordshire Moorlands

E05007056 Forsbrook Ward Staffordshire Moorlands

E05000783 Brinnington and CentralWard Stockport

E05000784 CheadleandGatleyWard Stockport

E05000785 Cheadle Hulme North Ward Stockport

91 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000788 Edgeley and Cheadle Heath Stockport Ward

E05001527 Billingham Central Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001528 Billingham East Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001529 Billingham North Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001530 Billingham South Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001531 Billingham West Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001532 Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree Stockton-on-Tees Ward

E05001533 Eaglescliffe Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001534 Fairfield Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001535 Grangefield Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001536 Hardwick Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001537 HartburnWard Stockton-on-Tees

E05001540 Mandale and Victoria Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001541 Newtown Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001542 Northern Parishes Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001543 NortonNorthWard Stockton-on-Tees

E05001544 NortonSouthWard Stockton-on-Tees

E05001545 Norton West Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001546 Parkfield and Oxbridge Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001547 Roseworth Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001548 StainsbyHillWard Stockton-on-Tees

E05001549 Stockton Town Centre Ward Stockton-on-Tees

92 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001550 Village Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05001551 Western Parishes Ward Stockton-on-Tees

E05008715 Baddeley, Milton and Norton Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008718 BlurtonEastWard Stoke-on-Trent

E05008719 Blurton West and Newstead Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008720 Boothen and Oak Hill Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008721 Bradeley and Chell Heath Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008722 Broadway and Longton East Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008723 Burslem Central Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008724 Burslem Park Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008725 Dresden and Florence Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008726 Eaton Park Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008727 Etruria and Hanley Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008728 Fenton East Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008729 Fenton West and Mount Stoke-on-Trent Pleasant Ward

E05008731 Goldenhill and Sandyford Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008733 Hanford and Trentham Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008734 Hanley Park and Shelton Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008735 Hartshill and Basford Ward Stoke-on-Trent

93 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05008736 Hollybush and Longton West Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008737 Joiner's Square Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008738 Lightwood North and Stoke-on-Trent Normacot Ward

E05008739 Little Chell and Stanfield Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008740 Meir Hay Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008742 Meir Park Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008743 MeirSouthWard Stoke-on-Trent

E05008744 Moorcroft Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008745 PenkhullandStokeWard Stoke-on-Trent

E05008746 Sandford Hill Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05008748 Springfields and Trent Vale Stoke-on-Trent Ward

E05008749 Tunstall Ward Stoke-on-Trent

E05001154 CastleWard Sunderland

E05001156 Doxford Ward Sunderland

E05001158 HendonWard Sunderland

E05001159 HettonWard Sunderland

E05001160 HoughtonWard Sunderland

E05001161 Millfield Ward Sunderland

E05001162 Pallion Ward Sunderland

E05001163 Redhill Ward Sunderland

E05001164 RyhopeWard Sunderland

94 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001172 SouthwickWard Sunderland

E05001165 St.Anne'sWard Sunderland

E05001167 St. Michael's Ward Sunderland

E05001168 St.Peter'sWard Sunderland

E05001173 Washington Central Ward Sunderland

E05001174 Washington East Ward Sunderland

E05001175 Washington North Ward Sunderland

E05001176 Washington South Ward Sunderland

E05001177 Washington West Ward Sunderland

E05005059 Chalkwell Ward Swale

E05005064 Iwade and Lower Halstow Swale Ward

E05005065 KemsleyWard Swale

E05005067 Milton Regis Ward Swale

E05005069 Murston Ward Swale

E05005070 Queenborough and Halfway Swale Ward

E05005074 SheernessEastWard Swale

E05005075 SheernessWestWard Swale

E05005080 Woodstock Ward Swale

E05000803 Audenshaw Ward Tameside

E05000807 Droylsden East Ward Tameside

E05000809 Dukinfield Ward Tameside

E05000812 Hyde Newton Ward Tameside

95 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000814 LongdendaleWard Tameside

E05000816 St.Peter'sWard Tameside

E05003595 Buckland and Milber Ward Teignbridge

E05003596 Bushell Ward Teignbridge

E05008600 College Ward Teignbridge

E05003602 Ipplepen Ward Teignbridge

E05003605 Kerswell-with-Combe Ward Teignbridge

E05001886 College Ward Telford and Wrekin

E05001887 Cuckoo Oak Ward Telford and Wrekin

E05001889 DonningtonWard TelfordandWrekin

E05001894 HadleyandLeegomeryWard TelfordandWrekin

E05001895 HaygateWard TelfordandWrekin

E05001901 Malinslee Ward Telford and Wrekin

E05001908 Priorslee Ward Telford and Wrekin

E05001909 St.GeorgesWard TelfordandWrekin

E05001911 The Nedge Ward Telford and Wrekin

E05001914 Wrockwardine Wood and Telford and Wrekin Trench Ward

E05005081 Beacon Road Ward Thanet

E05005084 BradstoweWard Thanet

E05005085 CentralHarbourWard Thanet

E05005086 Cliffsend and Pegwell Ward Thanet

E05005087 Cliftonville East Ward Thanet

96 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05005088 Cliftonville West Ward Thanet

E05005089 Dane Valley Ward Thanet

E05005090 Eastcliff Ward Thanet

E05005091 Garlinge Ward Thanet

E05005092 Kingsgate Ward Thanet

E05005093 Margate Central Ward Thanet

E05005094 NethercourtWard Thanet

E05005095 Newington Ward Thanet

E05005096 NorthwoodWard Thanet

E05005098 Salmestone Ward Thanet

E05005099 Sir Moses Montefiore Ward Thanet

E05005097 St.PetersWard Thanet

E05005100 Thanet Villages Ward Thanet

E05005101 Viking Ward Thanet

W05000646 Peterston-super-Ely ED The Vale of Glamorgan

W05000648 Rhoose ED The Vale of Glamorgan

W05000649 St. Athan ED The Vale of Glamorgan

E05002099 Blatchcombe Ward Torbay

E05002109 Shiphay-with-the-Willows Torbay Ward

E05002110 TormohunWard Torbay

E05003615 Appledore Ward Torridge

E05003616 Bideford East Ward Torridge

97 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05003617 Bideford North Ward Torridge

E05003618 Bideford South Ward Torridge

E05003621 Clovelly Bay Ward Torridge

E05003624 Hartland and Bradworthy Torridge Ward

E05003626 Kenwith Ward Torridge

E05003627 Monkleigh and Torridge Littleham Ward

E05003628 Northam Ward Torridge

E05003629 Orchard Hill Ward Torridge

E05003633 Torrington Ward Torridge

E05003636 Westward Ho! Ward Torridge

E05000824 Bucklow-St. Martins Ward Trafford

E05000826 Davyhulme East Ward Trafford

E05000827 Davyhulme West Ward Trafford

E05000829 Gorse Hill Ward Trafford

E05001446 Altofts and Whitwood Ward Wakefield

E05001447 Castleford Central and Wakefield Glasshoughton Ward

E05001449 Featherstone Ward Wakefield

E05001452 Knottingley Ward Wakefield

E05001453 Normanton Ward Wakefield

E05001455 Pontefract North Ward Wakefield

E05001457 South Elmsall and South Wakefield Kirkby Ward

98 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001301 Aldridge Central and South Walsall Ward

E05001302 Aldridge North and Walsall Walsall Wood Ward

E05001303 Bentley and Darlaston North Walsall Ward

E05001304 Birchills Leamore Ward Walsall

E05001307 Bloxwich West Ward Walsall

E05001308 Brownhills Ward Walsall

E05001309 Darlaston South Ward Walsall

E05001310 Paddock Ward Walsall

E05001311 Palfrey Ward Walsall

E05001312 Pelsall Ward Walsall

E05001314 Pleck Ward Walsall

E05001315 Rushall-Shelfield Ward Walsall

E05001317 ShortHeathWard Walsall

E05001316 St. Matthew's Ward Walsall

E05001320 Willenhall South Ward Walsall

E05007556 Stoneleigh Ward Warwick

E05007234 GuntonandCortonWard Waveney

E05007236 Harbour Ward Waveney

E05007237 Kessingland Ward Waveney

E05007238 Kirkley Ward Waveney

E05007239 Lothingland Ward Waveney

99 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05007240 Normanston Ward Waveney

E05007242 Oulton Broad Ward Waveney

E05007241 OultonWard Waveney

E05007243 Pakefield Ward Waveney

E05007244 St. Margaret's Ward Waveney

E05007248 Whitton Ward Waveney

E05005374 Skelmersdale North Ward West Lancashire

E05005375 Skelmersdale South Ward West Lancashire

E05005378 Up Holland Ward West Lancashire

E05000840 AbramWard Wigan

E05000844 Atherleigh Ward Wigan

E05000845 Atherton Ward Wigan

E05000846 Bryn Ward Wigan

E05000847 Douglas Ward Wigan

E05000854 Leigh West Ward Wigan

E05000857 Pemberton Ward Wigan

E05000861 Wigan Central Ward Wigan

E05000864 Worsley Mesnes Ward Wigan

E05000954 Bebington Ward Wirral

E05000955 BidstonandSt.JamesWard Wirral

E05000956 Birkenhead and Tranmere Wirral Ward

E05000957 Bromborough Ward Wirral

100 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05000958 Clatterbridge Ward Wirral

E05000959 Claughton Ward Wirral

E05000960 EasthamWard Wirral

E05000964 Leasowe and Moreton East Wirral Ward

E05000965 Liscard Ward Wirral

E05000967 New Brighton Ward Wirral

E05000968 Oxton Ward Wirral

E05000970 Prenton Ward Wirral

E05000971 Rock Ferry Ward Wirral

E05000972 Seacombe Ward Wirral

E05000973 Upton Ward Wirral

E05000974 Wallasey Ward Wirral

E05001321 Bilston East Ward Wolverhampton

E05001322 Bilston North Ward Wolverhampton

E05001323 Blakenhall Ward Wolverhampton

E05001324 Bushbury North Ward Wolverhampton

E05001325 Bushbury South and Low Hill Wolverhampton Ward

E05001326 East Park Ward Wolverhampton

E05001327 Ettingshall Ward Wolverhampton

E05001329 Graiseley Ward Wolverhampton

E05001330 Heath Town Ward Wolverhampton

E05001336 Spring Vale Ward Wolverhampton

101 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

WARD CODE WARD NAME LA NAME

E05001335 St. Peter's Ward Wolverhampton

E05001340 Wednesfield South Ward Wolverhampton

E05007884 Claines Ward Worcester

E05007893 Warndon Parish North Ward Worcester

E05007894 Warndon Parish South Ward Worcester

E05007892 Warndon Ward Worcester

E05007919 Lovett and North Wychavon Claines Ward

E05005382 BourneWard Wyre

E05005387 Carleton Ward Wyre

E05005396 Mount Ward Wyre

E05005399 PharosWard Wyre

E05005403 StainaWard Wyre

E05007927 Aggborough and Spennells Wyre Forest Ward

E05007930 Blakedown and Chaddesley Wyre Forest Ward

E05007939 Oldington and Foley Wyre Forest Park Ward

102 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Annex E: List of Individuals/Organisations Consulted in Stage 2

A letter alerting organisations to this consultation is being sent to:

* Every local authority in England, Scotland and Wales

* Every Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) in England

* A number of interested national organisations. These are:

 British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) / LEP Network

 Chief Economic Development Officers Society (CEDOS)

 Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

 EEF – the Manufacturers’ Organisation (Engineering Employers Federation)

 Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)

 Industrial Communities Alliance (ICA)

 Institute of Directors (IoD)

 Institute of Economic Development (IED)

 Local Government Association (LGA)

 Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

 Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI)

 Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA)

 Trades Union Congress (TUC)

103 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Annex F: List of Respondents to the Stage 1 Consultation

England Andrew Stephenson, MP for Pendle BAe Systems Integrated System Technologies Ltd Black Country LEP Blackpool, Fylde & Wyre EDC Bolsover District Council Catherine Bearder, MEP for South East Cheshire and Warrington LEP Coventry and Warwickshire LEP Cumbria LEP D2N2 LEP Devon County Council Discovery Park Ltd Dover District Council, Thanet District Council and Kent County Council East Kent Regeneration Board East Sussex County Council English Heritage Federation of Small Business, Kent and Medway Regional Office General Motors UK GKN Aerospace Services Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP Greater Cambridge and Greater Peterborough LEP Greater Lincolnshire LEP Greater Manchester LEP Hastings Borough Council Hastings Borough Council, Rother District Council, and Sea Change Sussex Heart of South West LEP Humber LEP Industrial Communities Alliance Institute of Economic Development Kent Business Advisory Board Kent County Council Lancashire LEP Leeds City Region LEP Leicester and Leicestershire LEP Liverpool City Region LEP London Enterprise Panel Luton Borough Council Manston Airport Marches LEP Marketing & Business Development New Anglia LEP North East LEP North Lincolnshire Council Northamptonshire LEP Nottingham City Council Nottinghamshire County Council Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) 104 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Paul Sharpe Associates LLP Peter Williams Television Sheffield City Region LEP Solent LEP South East LEP South East Midlands LEP Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Sparshatts of Kent Ltd Stoke-on-Trent & Staffordshire LEP Swale Borough Council and Medway Council Swale Skills Centre Tees Valley LEP Tendring District Council Thames Gateway Kent Partnership Thanet Business Forum The Physiotherapy Centre Thurrock Council and Gravesham Borough Council Tillett Racing Seats Torbay Council Trenport Investments Ltd TUC, Southern and Eastern Regional Council Worcestershire LEP

Scotland Angus Council Clackmannanshire Council Dundee City Council East Ayrshire Council East Dunbartonshire Council East of Scotland European Consortium Falkirk Council Fife Council Glasgow City Council Highlands & Islands Enterprise Highlands & Islands European Partnership Members (Shetland Islands Council, Orkney Islands Council, The Moray Council, The Highland Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise) Inverclyde Council North Ayrshire Council North Lanarkshire Council Renfrewshire Council Scottish Borders Council, Dumfries & Galloway Council, Midlothian Council, East Lothian Council South Ayrshire Council South Lanarkshire Council Stirling Council West Dunbartonshire Council

105 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Wales Alun Cairns MP, Vale of Glamorgan Cardiff Council, Newport City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Council Cllr Ian Johnson - Plaid Cymru - Barry/Vale of Glamorgan Flintshire County Council Mersey Dee Alliance Mid Wales Manufacturing Group (MWMG) North Wales Economic Ambition Board Powys County Council Powys Regeneration Partnership (PRP) The Vale of Glamorgan Council The WLGA Regional Partnership Board for Central & South West Wales Wales Probation Service Welsh Local Government Association

In addition, a number of other businesses and MPs submitted letters of support for their LEP or local authority’s position after the consultation closed.

106 Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Annex G: Consultation Stage 2: 2014-2020 Assisted Areas Map Response Form

The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, make available, on public request, individual responses.

The closing date for this consultation is 07/02/2014

Name: Organisation (if applicable): Address:

Please return completed forms to: Assisted Areas Team Local Growth Directorate 4th Floor, Spur 2 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET email: [email protected]

Please tick the box from the list of options below which best describes you as a respondent. This allows views to be presented by group type.

Local Enterprise Partnership

Local Authority

Business representative organisation/trade body

Central government

Individual

Large business (over 250 staff)

Other (please describe) Consultation Stage 2: Draft Assisted Areas Map and Government’s Response to Stage 1

Question 1 (Section 7 of consultation document) Providing supporting evidence, what are your views on the draft Assisted Areas Map, given the Government’s response to Stage 1 and the need to comply with the Regional Aid Guidelines?

Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to acknowledge receipt of individual responses unless you tick the box below.

Please acknowledge this reply (to check a box – double click on it and in the resulting message box, please change the ‘default value’ to ‘checked’)

Please check this box if you do not want any of the information provided on this form to be released should the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills receive a Freedom of Information Request. See Section 5 of the Consultation Document for further details.

At BIS we carry out our research on many different topics and consultations. As your views are valuable to us, would it be okay if we were to contact you again from time to time either for research or to send through consultation documents?

Yes No

108 ITEM 11

MOBILE LIBRARY and OUTREACH SERVICE – OPTIONS REPORT

Report by Director of Education and Lifelong Learning

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

1.1 This report proposes changes to the Mobile Library and Outreach Service (MLOS) with the aim of providing an appropriate level of service, whilst contributing to financial savings required as part of the Transformation Agenda.

1.2 The Administration's proposed 2014/15 - 2018/19 Financial Plan contains savings required of £405,000 for the whole of Community Services. This report details options which have been reviewed by the Education and Lifelong Learning and Integrated Children’s Services Transformation Board for making some of these recurring savings from within the Mobile Library and Outreach Service area. The options are:

x Option 1: Status quo. x Option 2: Restructure the Mobile Library and Outreach Service round 3 active mobile vehicles plus a reserve vehicle and extend the range of services provided. x Option 3: Complete removal of mobile and outreach service.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 It is recommended that Council approves Option 2 as detailed in the report, for the restructure of the Mobile Library and Outreach Service through a reduced fleet of 3 active mobile vans and a backup vehicle, which will deliver savings of c£130k while still allowing the support of priorities identified in the Corporate Plan.

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 1 3 BACKGROUND

3.1 The Mobile Library and Outreach Service has just about the longest reach of any Council provision, supporting rural inclusion and providing a service right out into the Scottish Borders rural communities.

3.2 All MLOS routes were reviewed in 2012 and reconfigured on a 3-weekly cycle (which is consistent with static library borrowing periods) around 5 mobile vehicles servicing defined geographical areas. Vehicles visit large and small villages providing a community focus with communities coming together to visit the library and meet with neighbours. Single houses/ farms are also visited providing a vital link to these places. Some rural schools and nurseries are also included with initiatives like Bookbug being delivered on the mobile. In all the service covers approx 590 regular stops.

3.3 MLOS also provide a mobile library service to 27 care homes and sheltered housing complexes, as well as delivering a tailored service to individuals who are housebound. The housebound service provides a valuable link to Council services and information, as well as providing library services for those who are unable to leave their homes, whether through illness, infirmity, disability or carer responsibilities. Across the Scottish Borders area there were 218 recorded housebound clients in 2012-13 where MLOS provided this service. It is recognised that through greater promotion of this service by both Libraries and partners that the service could potentially be of greater benefit to a much wider audience.

3.4 In addition to the mobile units, the Library and Information Service also uses a delivery van to move stock between static libraries, deliver internal mail to libraries, provide an ad-hoc museum delivery/collection service and collect/deliver Primary school project boxes at the beginning and end of school terms. This delivery service is currently not in the scope for this review.

3.5 Mobile libraries offer the same selection of stock as static libraries; however, the collections held on the vehicles are smaller and more tailored to meet the requirements of the communities/users they serve. Unlike with static libraries, the number of items being borrowed (‘issues’) from mobiles has grown slightly over recent years. However, with the increase in online technology for books, movies and music and the availability of discounted supermarket paperbacks, competition for static and mobile libraries is anticipated to increase, particularly amongst the younger and middle aged groups.

Over the last 5 years, an average of 18% of all SBC library issues are done via the MLOS, with an average of 2,300 active borrowers and almost 80,000 issues per annum

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 % Static issues 340,557 332,972 321,262 -6% Mobile issues 75,156 77,528 80,135 7% Static active members 19,073 18,120 17,808 -7% Mobile Active members 2,177 2,073 1,932 -11%

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 2 3.6 Unlike the town libraries the mobile units cannot provide the same/ unbroken service because:

x Historically there has been no spare vehicle available to act as a backup in the event of breakdown or routine servicing. x There is no budget to fund relief staffing when a driver (mobile/outreach assistant) is sick or on annual leave.

Therefore, if a scheduled visit is cancelled it can be six weeks between before the mobile visits that community again.

4 SERVICE BUDGET/COSTS

4.1 The proposed 2014/15 budget allocation of £299k covers 5.5 fte staff and supports 5 vehicles. We are currently operating with 4.6 fte staff. The staff cost/vehicle cost split for the mobile vehicles are broadly 50/50.

4.2 Vehicle Fleet Prior to 2005, all vehicles were purchased through leasing, but since then all have been purchased through the Fleet Management capital expenditure plan where the Service pays depreciation and interest charges into a fund over a period of approx 7 years. This also enables a fund to accumulate ensuring there is sufficient budget to replace vehicles on a 7 year cycle. It is vital that budget provision for replacement is built into any restructured Mobile library Service. The current active fleet of 5 vehicles all belong to the Council. Two are relatively new, purchased in 2010/11 but the remaining three were purchased between 2004 and 2006 and are now due for replacement.

5 OPTIONS

5.1 Library and Information Services are expected to deliver savings contributing to the Cultural Savings target of £406k from2014/15. As part of this review, Officers have looked at a number of variations round the level of service provision for mobile library and outreach services have narrowed in on three, two of which generate financial savings that will significantly contribute to this overall requirement. These options are:

x Option 1: Status quo, ie consider changes to the scope and delivery of the services but do this by retaining the same resources; budget, staffing and vehicles. This option delivers no financial savings. x Option 2: Restructure the scope and delivery of the service through a reduced fleet of three active vehicles and a backup. This delivers savings of c £130k while still allowing the support of priorities identified in the Corporate Plan. x Option3: Complete withdrawal of Mobile Library service. This delivers savings of c£300k.

5.2 Option 2 is being recommended as the preferred option and is detailed below in 5.3. Further information on Options 1 and 3 is provided in Appendix1.

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 3 5.3 Preferred Option – Option 2: Restructure the scope and delivery of the service through a reduced fleet of three active vehicles and a backup.

(a) The Service would be delivered by:- x 3 MLS vehicles plus one retained as a backup x 3 fte staff plus an allocation of 0.6fte for holiday/sickness cover to ensure continuity of service.

(b) The main impact on current service users will be around routes and delivery cycle. A comprehensive review of both will be required and it is likely that to retain the policy of visiting individual settlements the service would have to move from a 3-weekly to a 4-weekly cycle. To retain a 3-weekly cycle for all users it is likely that that mobiles would have to cease the ‘to the door’ policy and replace it with centralised stops where some users would have to travel to the mobile rather than it going to them. While Libraries will maintain a housebound service this change would impact on those without access transport. Should option 2 be approved a briefing on the revised routes stops and delivery cycles will be issued to members.

(c) To support this option one of the three oldest vehicles, all due or past their replacement date, will be replaced with a new vehicle. This vehicle will take advantage of advances in mobile library design to be more flexible in terms of scope and use - the interior can be easily reconfigured to different specifications and shelving units can be quickly changed to carry stock suitable to targeted audiences. Consideration will also be given to internet connectivity across the three vehicles and particularly with the new vehicle. This type of van will allow for greater partnership opportunities as exampled below.

(d) One of the remaining two older vehicles will be retained as a back up to cover breakdowns and provide capacity to support some of the partnerships and new initiatives detailed in 6 below. The remaining vehicle will be sold.

(e) The current housebound service, including visits to sheltered housing, will be protected and by developing new partnerships, as exampled in 6 below, the numbers benefiting from the service are likely to increase.

(f) As this proposal reduces the staffing requirement from 4.6 fte to 3 fte plus 0.6 fte relief there will be an impact on existing staff. Managers will work with HR to minimise this impact.

(g) This Option retains the ability for the Mobile and Outreach service to be remodelled to provide greater opportunities for partnership working, widening the user base and developing links to wider corporate strategies as detail in section 6 below. Option 1 will also allow for remodelling to make these same connections but it does not deliver savings

(h) Indicative savings from this option are c£130k per annum.

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 4 6 LINKS TO CORPORATE STRATEGY

6.1 Through its role in providing library and information services to rural communities and housebound users, the Mobile and Outreach Service is either currently delivering or has the potential to deliver against key overarching corporate strategies; the Corporate Improvement Plan, the Single Outcome Agreement and the Administration’s Manifesto, Ambitious for the Borders.

6.2 Corporate Improvement Plan Priority 2: Improving attainment and achievement levels for all our children and young people, both within and outwith the formal curriculum.

Pupils attending town schools have the opportunity of regular school visits to their local library to support project and literacy work. The mobile libraries currently visit a number of rural schools. As part of any remodelling, further consideration will be given to supporting a regular cycle of visits to all rural schools. The mobile service also provides parents and children living in rural locations with access to resources to support learning.

6.3 Corporate Improvement Plan Priority 3: Providing high quality support, care and protection to children, young people, adults, families and older people

Mobile Libraries and Outreach Services can support the work currently being developed though both the Early Years Collaborative and the Older Peoples Joint Commissioning Strategy.

(a) The Early Years Collaborative has a targeted objective of supporting literacy and promoting reading to children, particularly in the identified deprivation localities. As the planned multi-use Early Years centres are developed in Philiphaugh, Langlee, Burnfoot and Eyemouth there are opportunities for library staff to run Bookbug sessions in these centres for parents, carers and preschool children. These sessions could be co- ordinated with visits from a mobile library so that there are immediate opportunities to access specially selected stock to support the promotion of reading delivered via the centres. The provision of a mobile vehicle would also introduce some parents and young children to libraries and encourage greater use of the town libraries.

(b) The provision of a mobile library and outreach service supports the work of The Older Peoples Joint Commissioning Strategy by providing another point of contact between public services and older and vulnerable people. In addition to providing information from other public agencies and signposting users to other support routes there is also the opportunity for the Mobile Service to work more closely with other public agencies who could use the vehicles and the network of stops to support their own outreach work. This links into support round Welfare Reform Act, Social Care (Self-directed Support) and the Equalities agenda. Working in partnership with Social Work is also likely to result in increased referrals to the housebound service. The provision of a home delivery service to the housebound and vulnerable supports independent living. This also links well to SOA 15 Our people are able to maintain their independence as they get older and are able to access support when they need it and Ambitious for the Borders Providing flexible services to support and respect Borderers in later life. Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 5 6.4 Corporate Improvement Plan Priority 4: Building the capacity and resilience of our communities and voluntary sector

The Corporate Improvement Plan identifies Library and Information Services as core business in supporting this priority. In terms of supporting resilient communities there are already examples of the mobile library service working with communities by scheduling visits to coincide with community activities. Both activities benefit from increased numbers and therefore increased viability. By retaining a mobile and outreach service as per options 1 or 2 and as the resilient community network becomes more robust, this type of closer working with communities and local volunteers will continue to develop.

6.5 Corporate Improvement Plan Priority 8: Ensuring excellent, adaptable, collaborative and accessible public service

Also links to SOA 10 - We live in well-designed, sustainable places where we are able to access the amenities and services we need and Ambitious for the Borders Supporting our communities through a focussed programme of regeneration and rural development. By continuing to provide a Library and Information provision to the rural and housebound communities the Mobile and Outreach Library Service provides accessible services delivered locally to the proportion of the Scottish Borders who don’t always have the means of accessing these services via the static sites.

6.6 Impact on possible establishment of a Culture Trust

Although the Council has still to take a view on whether or not to transfer a range of cultural services to a Trust and whether or not Library and Information Services should be part of any possible trust decisions taken on the future of the mobile library will have an impact on the viability of a Trust. Noble Openshaw, appointed to provide an independent assessment on the options appraisal on whether to retain services internally or transfer them to a trust, make the following comments on “Critical Mass”

It has been our observation, from a number of cultural service reviews across Scotland that the case for transfer of services to an Arms Length Organisation (ALO) depends on the volume of the services and concomitant assets to be transferred, the “critical mass”.

Maintaining the mobile service as per options 1 or 2 allows this critical mass to be maintained or largely maintained. The withdrawal options 3 would significantly reduce this critical mass and would be to the detriment of any proposals to establish a Culture Trust.

7 IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Financial

(a) Recurring savings are required for the Library and Information Service to contribute to the Cultural Services savings target. Removal of service (Options 3) offers substantial savings but there is significant risk of public and political opposition. Removal of the service could also incur significant redundancy costs.

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 6 (b) Option 2 delivers a significant proportion of the required savings, c£130,000. Options on identifying the balance of savings required will be brought to the Council later in 2014.

(c) Retaining a service (Options 1, or 2) will require a continuation of the vehicle replacement programme. In 2014, the oldest active MLOS vehicle will be almost 10 years old and overdue for replacement. (Cost estimated at £110,000).

7.2 Risks and Mitigations for recommended option, Option 2

Risk Description Possible Mitigation Negative Changes were made to x Consultation with users and publicity/ routes in October 2012 via media to reinforce Public that affected all/most message of continuation of opposition users. This proposes the service in difficult further change and financial times. reduction in service x Reinforce message of level only 18 months protection of housebound on. users. x Reinforce message of remodelling and realigning service to attract new users and thus protecting sustainability. x Reinforce message that Libraries will continue to deliver a quality service and more consistent service - budget for relief staff and vehicle

Lack of Reducing the number x Retain one of the existing vehicles of vehicles will mean fleet as a spare so that for those remaining will be first time there is cover when working harder and a vehicle is off the road this may impact on service if one or more vehicle breaks down Lack of staff The mobile library x Options 2 establishes a relief cover service currently has staff budget for first time to no cover for staff cover for staff absence/ absence or holidays. holidays to ensure more When staff are off consistency of service communities miss that visit and have to wait until next cycle. In a 4 week cycle an absence would result in no visit for 8 weeks

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 7 Customer use Any reduction to the x Effective route planning of service service, be it fewer x Exploration of different decreases visits, removal of working patterns for drivers. individual farm visits or x Alternative and improved just changes to the offers to communities/ timetable could result schools to encourage new in a decline in use users. x Full understanding of the number of housebound users and geographical spread

7.3 Equalities (a) An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out on the report’s recommendation, Option 2 and it is anticipated that there are no adverse equality implications as service delivery will be maintained. A full EIA Assessment has also been carried out for Option 3 and this indicated that there would be a negative impact on some equality groups.

7.4 Acting Sustainably (a) The report’s recommendation, Option 2, will not have any negative impacts on acting sustainable. It does provide opportunities to support resilient communities.

7.5 Carbon Management (a) By reducing the mobile fleet as per Option 2 there will be a reduction in carbon emissions.

7.6 Rural Proofing (a) A full Rural Proofing assessment has been carried out for Options 2 & 3. Option 2 is broadly neutral but Option 3 does raise a number of negative issues.

7.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation (a) There are no changes to be made to either the Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation

8 CONSULTATION

8.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Audit and Risk, HR Manager, the Clerk to the Council and the Head of Strategic Policy have been consulted and their comments have been incorporated in the final report.

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 8 Approved by

Director of Education & Lifelong Learning Signature – GLENN RODGER

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Ian Brown Cultural Services Manager 01835 824000

Background Papers: [insert list of background papers used in compiling report] Previous Minute Reference: [insert last Minute reference (if any)]

Note – You can get this document on tape, in large print and various other formats by contacting us at the address below. In addition, contact the address below for information on language translations, additional copies, or to arrange for an Officer to meet with you to explain any areas of the publication that you would like clarified. Contact Ian Brown at Council Headquarters on 01835 824000.

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 9 APPENDIX 1

MOBILE LIBRARY and OUTREACH SERVICE – OPTIONS REPORT

Appendix 1 Options Considered

1. As part of the review officers considered a number of variations round the level of service provision and the optimum number of vehicles required to balance savings against viable service delivery. This was narrowed to three, two of which generate financial savings that will significantly contribute to this overall requirement.

2. Option 1: No Change Status Quo Retain 5 mobiles and current staffing establishment. The service will continue to look at ways to improve service delivery, review routes and support current and further change initiatives as exampled in section 6 of the report. This option delivers no significant savings.

3. Option 2 : Restructure the scope and delivery of the service through a reduced fleet of three vehicles This option is described in detail in Paragraph 5.3 of the main report and potential links to other Council and Transformation strategies are exampled in Section 6 of the report Indicative savings from this option are c£130,000 per annum.

4. Option 3 : Removal of Mobile Library Service

4.1 Details

a) Removal of Mobile Library Service to all rural communities

b) Dispose of 5 vehicles

c) 4.6 posts declared redundant with implications for redeployment and possible redundancy payments

d) Retain service to housebound users and sheltered housing by using the delivery van to provide a pre- selected service.

e) This option provides the provides an indicative saving of c£300k.

4.2 Impact and Possible Implications

a) The Scottish Borders is the fourth most rural local authority in mainland Scotland. Removing the mobile libraries will impact on the c 50% of the population of the Scottish Borders not directly served by a town library.

b) A Rural Proofing assessment has been carried out for Options 3 which does raise a number of negative issues.

c) As the delivery van has little excess capacity any continued housebound service will be minimal. This will significantly impact on an at risk group. C20% of the population of the Scottish Borders are aged 65 or over with c24% living in a rural location and this group is expected to increase by over

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 10 70% over the next 25 years. The implication is that the need and demand for this service is likely to increase.

d) A full EIA Assessment has been carried out for Option 3 and this indicated that there could be a negative impact on the following equality groups Age, Disability, Gender, Poverty/Social Exclusion, Health, Staff

e) No opportunities to work more closely with other partners or support other strategic initiatives

f) Doing away with the mobile fleet removes the ability to provide back up to public libraries, and therefore would not be available to provide an alternative service should some of the public libraries be considered for closure in the future

g) Maximum negative impact and the certainty of public and political opposition which could go as far as a legal challenge.

h) This option provides indicative saving of c£300k but with significant impact on staff, users and social inclusion along with the certainty of public and political opposition. Opposition and the possibility of litigation are likely to delay the realisation of savings.

4.3 Alternative methods of delivery

As part of the review some thought was given to alternative methods of delivery to mitigate against the total withdrawal of the mobile fleet.

a) Making use of the Resilient Communities Network - this is not sufficiently mature or widespread at this time to be a viable alternative.

b) Mail delivery service- based on a unit cost of £5 per item for postage and packing and an average of 80,000 items issued annually this would cost more than the current mobile service budget!

c) Digital Service. On the assumption that 25% of the 2,300 regular users already have an e-reader providing the remaining 75% with a free e reader at a cost of C£50 would have a one-off cost of c £90,000 in addition to the cost of implementing the service and providing and updating a range of e- book titles. However the poor broadband connectivity in some of the rural areas, affordability, platform compatibility and the Library Service’s current limited digital offering (e-audio books and e-magazines) are not sufficiently robust to provide a viable free and inclusive service to make up for the withdrawal of the mobiles. This suggestion also assumes that the mobile customers, many of who are already in the 60+ group, are sufficient technology literate to take advantage of the digital offering. However, it is noted that as improvements are made in digital technology and connectivity this may provide options for improvements to service delivery in the future.

d) Digital Service – the national context. Even for local authorities who have a more comprehensive list of e-titles the range of material available to public libraries for lending is extremely limited, due to issues over publishers lending rights and cost of provision. Scotland Excel have dropped e-books from the Public Library stock supply contract because the market is not sufficiently developed and too volatile to negotiate discounts that would deliver any economies of scale for the consortium of local authorities.

Scottish Borders Council - 30 January 2014 11 Decision Matrix for Mobile Library Review

Impact on Align to Links to possble Supports Supports Supports Possible Noticable Delivers Corporate Early establish Public Impact on Option DESCRIPTION Saving Rural Vulnerable Communi Legal Reduction savings Imprvmnt Years ment of Reaction staff Inclusion groups ties Challenge in Service Plan Strategy Culture Trust

Status Quo : £0 1 Do Nothing reduction to 3 -£99,000 2 mobiles complete -£284,000 3 removal of

RED AMBER GREEN

Decision Matrix for Mobile Library Review (black and white version)

Impact on Align to Links to possble Supports Supports Supports Possible Noticable Delivers Corporate Early establish Public Impact on Option DESCRIPTION Saving Rural Vulnerable Communi Legal Reduction savings Imprvmnt Years ment of Reaction staff Inclusion groups ties Challenge in Service Plan Strategy Culture Trust

Status Quo : £0 1 Do Nothing reduction to 3 -£99,000 2 mobiles complete -£284,000 3 removal of

RED AMBER GREEN ITEM 12

INTERIM PROPOSALS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADDITIONAL EARLY YEARS AND CHILDCARE HOURS

Report by Director of Education and Lifelong Learning

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

1.1 This report sets out an interim model on how the Council will ensure all 3 and 4 years olds receive 600 hours of Early Learning and Childcare from August 2014.

1.2 The Children and Young Peoples (Scotland) Bill introduces a new concept of pre school as Early Learning and Childcare. The Bill sets out an entitlement for all 3 and 4 year olds, 600 hours Early Learning and Childcare per year. Current entitlement is 475 hours. This also includes the most vulnerable 2 year olds who are or have been, since turning two, looked after or subject to a Kinship Order.

1.3 An Early Years Review group has been established to plan for implementation.

1.4 An interim model of implementation of 600 hours for August 2014 for all school nurseries is now proposed. This interim model would increase the session times within School Nurseries from 2½ hours to 3 hours 10 minutes per session for all 3 & 4 year olds. The additional staffing required will be at Nursery Nurse level.

1.5 Implementation of 600 hours through an Early Level Class is being considered for the very small nurseries. It proposes a link with P1 children to ensure sustainability of rural nursery provision.

1.6 After consultation with commissioned private and voluntary groups, each of these groups must agree their Implementation Plan for delivering 600 hours with the Education and Lifelong Learning Early Years Team before 17 February 2014. These groups may offer differing session patterns to schools. These differing session patterns will provide the first steps towards a more flexible service. A full review of Early Years Commissioning arrangements will now be carried out.

1.7 Work is ongoing on other aspects of The Bill including final models which offer maximum flexibility and choice for parents.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 1 2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 I recommend that the Council:- a) Agree to the increase in school nursery session time to 3 hours 10 minutes from August 2014. a) Agree to recruit additional Nursery Nurse staffing into E&LL Nurseries to ensure the deliver of 600 hours. c) Agree to initiate a review of Early Years Commissioning arrangements and bring a further report back with recommendations as a result of such a review.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 2 3 BACKGROUND

3.1 Scottish Borders Council currently has Nursery Classes in 46 of their schools. Classes vary in size the largest being 40 children in the morning and 40 children in the afternoon, giving a total of 80 children attending each week, to small Nurseries with less than 5 children in our more rural areas.

3.2 All Scottish Borders Nursery Classes run 5 sessions per week of 2½ hours per session. This equates to an annual allowance of 475 hours.

3.3 This allocation of time will be increased to 600 hours from August 2014.

3.4 In order to ensure we can deliver Early Learning and Childcare for all children, we currently commission approximately 600 places per year with private and voluntary groups across the Authority.

3.5 The Bill sets considerable challenges – 600 hours, increased flexibility for parents and regular consultation with parents, all of which will impact on the Council and its Partners providing services.

3.6 The Scottish Government has allocated Scottish Borders Council £1.165 million in revenue and £719,000 in capital costs to implement these changes.

4 INTERIM MODEL - SCHOOLS

4.1 An interim model is proposed for schools where each session will increase to 3 hours 10 minutes. As a result the weekly Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Teacher contact time rises to 31 hours 40 minutes. Teaching Staff currently have contact time of 22½ hours FTE each week. In order to implement this increase, additional staffing will need to be put in place. The Review Groups preferred option is to use additional Nursery Nurses to fill this gap.

4.2 Nursery Nurse contracts are 35 hours per week. Nursery Nurses will be able to cover the increase in time on their present contracts but with a significant reduction in non contact time. Unlike Teachers, Nursery Nurses have no stipulated non contact time. It is recognised there will be a need for Nursery Nurses to have time to prepare the setting and carry out other professional responsibilities associated with the post and it is proposed that one session of cover will be provided (pro rata) for each Nursery Nurse.

4.3 The additional costs to implement this interim plan in School Nurseries is £361,000 this means the equivalent of 15 additional Nursery Nurse posts.

4.4 To support this interim model, revised enrolment procedures have been drawn up. These are attached as Appendix 1.

5 INTERIM MODEL – PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY GROUPS

5.1 Education & Lifelong Learning Early Years Team have began discussions with private and voluntary groups on how they might implement the additional hours and providers have been asked to submit their plans to Scottish Borders Council before enrolment on 17 February 2014.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 3 5.2 Funding to private and voluntary sector providers is £3.40 per place per hour. The total increase in funding required to fund the additional hours is £255,000, taking the annual payment per funded place from £1644 to £2069.

5.3 It is proposed to conduct a review of the commissioning arrangements with the private and voluntary Early Years Providers with a view to increasing the current funding level. This will include benchmarking with Local Authorities across Scotland and taking into account the increased expectation around Curriculum for Excellence, Getting It Right For Every Child and attendance at mandatory meetings. A full report with recommendations will be presented in April 2014.

6 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL

6.1 The Early Years Review Group continue to consider other aspects of the new legislation and during the course of 2014 will bring forward additional reports outlining how these will be approached. These include:-

x Early Learning and Childcare provision for any 2 year old who is looked after, or has at any point been looked after since their second birthday or is subject to a Kinship Care Order.

x Future flexible models of delivery of 600 hours involving regular parental consultation.

x Review of nursery estate and fit for purpose facilities to deliver Early Learning and Childcare through the capital budget.

x Early Level Class - Scottish Borders Council currently has a number of very small Nurseries. In order to sustain this provision both economically and continue to deliver a high quality Early Learning and Childcare Service and deliver 600 hours, a Working Group is considering how these hours can be delivered by linking the Nursery Class and the P1 class.

x Curriculum for Excellence Early Level Implementation.

7 IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Financial

The additional resources identified by the Scottish Government for Scottish Borders Council will fund the Interim Model as described in sections 4 and 5 of this report and will enable us to address the other issues listed in section 6 above.

7.2 Risk and Mitigations

(a) There is a risk that the Council will be unable to recruit sufficient additional qualified staff to fill the posts. Early Years Managers are currently reviewing the Early Years Workforce to explore ways to deploy the current staff more flexibly.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 4 (b) There is a risk that private and voluntary groups will be unable to meet the increased hours. The Early Years Team are in ongoing contact with current Commissioned Services to assist and support them to plan for the new legislation. This will be supported by the proposed review of commissioning arrangements.

(c) Our ability to comply with all the Care Inspectorate Regulations and Recommendations around the increased hours. The Early Years Team will keep in close contact with the Care Inspectorate in the months leading up to the implementation of the 600 hours and thereafter in order to identify and mitigate any emerging issues.

7.3 Equalities

(a) An EIA has been carried out and results are available.

7.4 Rural Proofing

Already access to Nursery and Childcare is inconsistent because of the small numbers requiring the service. The possibility of running combined Nursery/P1 classes is being explored where there are pre-school numbers of between 5 and 10. Enhanced childcare opportunities will benefit parents and carers in rural areas and the review of commissioning arrangements with the private and voluntary sector, including Childminders, should help create employment opportunities in the Childcare Sector in the more rural communities.

7.5 Acting Sustainably

(a) Increasing hours of Childcare is a key aim of the Children and Young Peoples Bill. It aims to support regeneration through allowing people (esp. women) back to work. (b) The increase in time will increase the number of people required to work in the Childcare Sector creating a number of employment opportunities.

7.6 Carbon Management

(a) It is not yet known what the impact of the increase in time will be on carbon emissions.

8 CONSULTATION

8.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, the Head of Audit and Risk, the Clerk to the Council and the Head of Strategic Policy have been consulted and their comments incorporated in the final report.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 5 Approved by

Director of Education & Lifelong Learning Signature – GLENN RODGER

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Janice Chapman Early Years Manager, Education and Lifelong Learning

Background Papers:

Note – You can get this document on tape, in large print and various other formats by contacting us at the address below. In addition, contact the address below for information on language translations, additional copies, or to arrange for an Officer to meet with you to explain any areas of the publication that you would like clarified. Contact the Communications Unit at Council Headquarters on 01835 826592.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 6 Appendix 1

ITEM 1

Guidelines for schools on implementing changes to nursery

Enrolment for 600 hours

Early Learning and Childcare

December 2013 ( version)

ENROLMENT

1. From August 2014 all 3 and 4 year olds will be entitled to an increase in funded places within Nursery Classes now called Early Learning and Childcare.

2. Following a number of consultations with Headteachers an interim model of implementation was agreed in schools.

3. From August 2014 all School Nurseries will have an increased session time from 2½ hours to 3 Hours 10 minutes.

4. Partner Providers will be able to provide a more flexible option to meet parents work patterns.

5. Enrolment week for Early Learning and Childcare was changed this year to week beginning 17 February 2014. This change allows providers to decide how these increased hours will be implemented.

6. Scottish Borders Council will place an advert in the local press and on the Council’s website the week beginning 10 February 2014.

7. The advert indicates that application forms should be obtained from any Early Learning and Childcare setting along with a leaflet which lists all settings who can deliver 600 hours and an Information for Parents’ sheet.

8. The form should be returned to the first choice setting.

9. Updated information on the process of allocation of places will be with Schools in February 201 4.

10. The staffing required to implement this increase in Schools is attached in Appendix 1.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 7 11. Schools should return Enrolment Form 1 appendix 2 along with enrolment forms to Early Years Team ( EYT) by 28 February.

12. Schools should be proactive in enrolment and try to enrol all known 3 year olds during enrolment week. It may be worth having a discussion with Health Visitors and asking them to give out enrolment forms.

13. Significant changes to numbers enrolling will mean changes to staffing. Staffing requirements will be finalised by Friday 14 March 2014. Changes of personnel required will then be subject to redeployment.

14. New staffing posts will be subject to redeployment.

15. The redeployment pool will be operational from end March 2014. Changes to staffing will be finalised by May/June 2014.

STAFFING STRUCTURES

Principles

1. Each nursery will be staffed by Teachers and Nursery Nurses. 2. In Nurseries with AM & PM sessions the Teacher will teach 2 ½ hours of the 3 hour 10 minute session on 4 ½ days per week. The teacher will have one session per week of RICCT covered by a Nursery Nurse ( RICCT). 3. In Nurseries with only one session AM or PM the Teacher will teach 2¼ hours per day and will have a 15 minute RICCT session at the end covered by Nursery Nurse (2). 4. Existing Senior Nursery Nurses / Nursery Nurses (1) will be in each session the full 3 hours 10 minutes. 5. New Nursery Nurses (2) will cover the time in each session when the teacher is not there. 6. New Nursery Nurses (3) will cover one session for each full time SNN /Nursery Nurse (1) to allow them time out of class in AM / PM classes. 7. In AM or PM classes one session of NN cover will be allocated to the school who will manage the time and allow both members of staff time out of class. 8. Nursery Nurse (2) will have non contact time either at the end of the session (AM or PM ) or during the lunch break (AM &PM nurseries). 9. Nursery Nurse (3) will have no non contact time.

See appendix 1 for breakdown of additional staffing and total allocations

Implementing staffing structures

1. Individual schools must agree a suitable timetable for their Nursery Sessions opening and closing times to suit the needs of their parents and their school. 2. Schools may wish to share the proposed timetables across the Learning Community and with private and voluntary groups in their area. 3. Once decided, Schools must send their timetables into EYT for information. Time tables should be into EYT by 24 January 2014. 4. The times additional staffing will be required will be identified through the timetable. This will be the vacancy (s) for your school. This vacancy (s) will then go into the redeployment pool for consideration. Should we be unable to recruit from redeployment then vacancies will go to advert.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 8 Time line Process Date required Signed off (school record) Staffing updates 19 December 2013 Timetables for opening / 24January 2014 closing Enrolment week 17 February 2014 Enrolment form 1 returned 28 February 2014 Individual schools issues 3 – 7 February Early Years Team Staffing requirements finalised 14 March 2014 Places allocated to parents End of April 2014 New staff recruited April – June 2014

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 9 Enrolment Appendix 1 Staffing allocations to implement 600 hours

Contract times Teachers/ SNN /NN

1.0 FT E = 35 hours 0.5 FTE = 17 ½ hours 0.4 FTE = 14 hours 0.3 FTE = 10 ½ hours 0.2 FTE = 7 hours 0.1 FTE = 3 ½ hours

Nursery size Teacher SNN / NN (1) NN (2) NN (3) Teacher RICCT Total additional staffing cover 40/40 1 x 1.0 FTE 3 x 1.0 FTE 1 x 9 hours 10 3 x 3 hours 10 1 x 2 ½ hours 18 hours 40 minutes minutes minutes 30 /30 1 x 1.0 FTE 2 x 1.0 FTE 1 x 9 hours 10 2 x 3 hours 10 1 x 2 ½ hours 15 hours 30 minutes minutes minutes 20 /20 1 x 1.0 FTE 1x 1.0 FTE 1 x 9 hours 10 1 x 3 hours 10 1 x 2 ½ hours 12 hours 20 minutes minutes Minutes

There are a number of inconsistencies with staffing particularly in small nurseries and in some larger nurseries which will need to be sorted out school by school. Once enrolment numbers are in the Early Years Team will go through this exercise.

Nursery size Teacher SNN / NN (1) NN (2) NN (3) Teacher RICCT Total additional staffing cover 0.1 FTE 1 x 0.4 FTE 1 x 1 hour 10 1 x 3 hours 10 Not required cover 4 hours 20 minutes 1 x 0.5 FTE minutes minutes by NN (2) Up top 20 AM or 0.2 FTE 1 x 0.3 FTE 2 x 1 hour 10 1 x 3 hours 10 Not required 5 hours 50 minutes PM session only 1 x 0.5 FTE minutes minutes covered by NN(2) 0.3 FTE 1 x 0.2 FTE 3 x 1 hours 10 1 x 3 hours 10 Not required 6 hours 40 minutes 1x 0.5 FTE minutes minutes covered by NN(2) 0.4 FTE 1 x 0.1 FTE 4 x 1 hours 10 1 x 3 hours 10 Not required 7 hours 50 minutes 1x 0.5 FTE minutes minutes covered by NN(2) 0.5 FTE 1 x 0.5 FTE 5 x 1 hours 1 x 3 hours 10 Not required 9 hours 10 minutes minutes covered by NN(2)

APWG – January 2014 1 Enrolment Appendix 2

ENROLMENT FORM 2014/15

ENROLMENT WEEK 17TH February 2014 Please return to Early Years Team by February 28th 2014

SCHOOL NAME …………………………………………………………. Capacity of Nursery………………………………..

5 places 4 places 3 places 2 places 1 place 4 year olds

3 years olds – August

3 year olds – January

3 year olds – April

Deferred entry January / February August – September birthdays birthdays

APWG – January 2014 2 ITEM 13

Review of Neighbourhood Operations’ Services (the former Environmental Services – Parks and Open Spaces, Street Cleansing, Bereavement Services and Public Conveniences)

Report by Director of Environment & Infrastructure

Scottish Borders Council

30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

1.1 This report proposes the approach to be used in progressing with a review of Neighbourhood Operation’s Services.

1.2 The Council’s current revenue financial plan 2013-14 to 2017-18 includes within it a target of £450,000 savings from a “review of Parks and Open Spaces” provision, profiled as £250,000 in 2014-15 and £200,000 in 2015-16.

1.3 From April 2013 Neighbourhood Operations has delivered a “joined up” Neighbourhood Service, encompassing all of the former Environmental Services functions, and their resources, of Parks and Open Spaces, Bereavement Services, Public Conveniences and Street Cleansing. This approach develops the original successful SBLocal approach.

1.4 Having completed an initial review process officers have concluded that in order to achieve the savings contained within the revenue financial plan the review of Neighbourhood Operation Services must include all of the former Environmental Services, as all of the resources are now co-joined and inter- dependent on each other to ensure delivery of the whole service.

1.5 Neighbourhood Operations also includes roads maintenance and winter maintenance services, however these are not within the scope of this review.

1.6 The services to be reviewed are all universal services that are high profile in individual communities and are greatly valued across the Borders. As such any changes to these services should be managed with great care ensuring that the views of communities are integral to the development of the proposals and the decisions that are made. To that end it is proposed that Neighbourhood Area Managers undertake a three step process with each step involving consultation with local Ward Members.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 1 2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 I recommend that the Council:-

(a) Agrees to the review of Neighbourhood Operations’ Services, including Parks and Open Spaces provision, Bereavement Services, Public Conveniences and Street Cleansing.

(b) Agrees to the inclusion of maintenance within Burial Grounds as part of the assessment

(c) Agrees to the assessment criteria being used as the basis of the review of grounds maintenance (see Appendix One)

(d) Agrees to the establishment of a community fund which is created to support the growth in volunteer/community involvement/partnership development aimed at delivering the revenue financial plan savings targets

(e) Agrees that the discussion in respect of service reviews should commence with Ward Members and then extend to Community Councils and or other community groups as identified by local members

(f) Agrees that service changes which have an impact on the public will only be implemented following agreement on a locality by locality basis at Area Forums; and

(g) Agrees to authorise the Head of Neighbourhood Services to make service adjustments to services where they have no immediate impact on the public

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 2 3. CONSULTATION AND DECISION MAKING

3.1 It is recommended that Neighbourhood Area Managers should commence discussion in respect of service reviews with Ward Members. Draft proposals which set out the way forward will emerge following appropriate discussion and agreement with local Members and should then extend to Community Councils and or other community groups as identified by local members.

3.2 Thirdly it is suggested that service changes which have an impact on the public are only finally agreed following agreement on a locality by locality basis at Area Forums. It is very likely that these changes may require some funding on a one off basis and it is suggested that the Director of Environment and Infrastructure establishes a community fund from within available revenue budgets to support the growth in volunteer/community involvement/partnership development aimed at supporting the delivery of the revenue financial plan savings targets.

3.3 The clear intention is to commence the service changes on a consultative and voluntary basis. However, it should be recognised that should the full extent of savings be unable to be realised through this route then an alternative route will need to be agreed. This is likely to require proposals being made to Area Forums, after discussion with Members, but may not include the active participation and or agreement of community groups in delivering future services. This would inevitably therefore require a net reduction in the service experienced by the wider public in any given community.

3.4 Finally there a set of operational matters than can be revised, for example the emptying of street litter bins and it is recommended that officers are authorised to make adjustments to these services where they have no immediate impact on the public.

4 The Review Process – Parks and Open Spaces

4.1 The approach to the review of Parks and Open Spaces will be integrated and prioritised, allowing decisions to be taken with a clear understanding of the risk and implications that may arise from the decisions.

4.2 The review will segment the service into the following areas:

Maintenance of open spaces

4.3 A baseline review including costs associated with the maintenance of open spaces throughout the region, site by site, resulting in a prioritised assessment, identifying areas for potential reductions/changes to current maintenance standards.

4.4 The review proposes to use an assessment framework (See Appendix One) to facilitate a consistent assessment to the current provision and maintenance standards of open space throughout the Borders.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 3 4.5 The review will highlight to the best available knowledge what land is owned by SBC, what land is the responsibility of SBC through statutory legislation (ie. Burial Grounds) and what land is not owned or the statutory responsibility of SBC.

Sports pitches

4.6 Identification of sports pitches and users, highlighting opportunities to enter into third party agreements with sporting groups which would see the pitch transferred to third parties who would in turn take on pitch maintenance.

4.7 Review of the current charging regime identifying opportunities to ensure appropriate recovery of costs and overheads where appropriate.

Allotments

4.8 Review of charges for Allotments

4.9 Identification of locations where discussions should be taken forward aimed at handing over management and maintenance to an allotment group.

Events use of open spaces and associated Fees and Charges

4.10 Review of current charging regime identifying opportunities to ensure appropriate recovery of costs and overheads where appropriate.

5 The Review Process – Burial Grounds

5.1 The Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855 establishes the Council’s legal responsibility to provide, maintain and administer cemeteries and burial grounds.

5.2 Burial grounds extend to 98 hectares of ground, which is approximately 15% of the total area of land maintained by Neighbourhoods Operations. Burial grounds, due to their nature contain many obstructed grass areas with lots of historic monuments and areas of uneven ground. They require a significant amount of staff resource to maintain them to even a satisfactory standard.

5.3 The review process proposes to segregate burial grounds into three categories: Active, Closed and Churchyards and to identify opportunities therein for: A - Reduction in SBC maintenance (whole area and or partial area) and increased maintenance by third parties B - Reduction in SBC maintenance (whole area and or partial area) C - Cessation of SBC maintenance (whole or partial area) D - Promoting increased biodiversity with consequential changes to maintenance regimes

6 The Review Process – Public Conveniences

6.1 SBC provides 43 public conveniences throughout the region, with cleaning operations being delivered through the Neighbourhood Operations service.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 4 6.2 Staffing changes in the last three years have seen the numbers of staff employed directly to undertake cleaning activities fall from 14 FTE in 2010 to just 3 FTE in 2013, with the toilets now being cleaned by neighbourhood operatives as part of their mix of duties in grounds maintenance, street cleansing and burials.

6.3 Future opportunities include the creation and publicity of a regional scheme that promotes public conveniences in third party locations as well as partnerships for certain facilities where other bodies exist to take on the provision of facilities in future; eg St Abbs Harbour Trust

6.4 Since 2011 Neighbourhoods Operations have been monitoring the daily usage of public conveniences, details of which are available. This data will assist in decision making. Usage varies however there appears to be three levels of usage and therefore profile for the existing facilities. This suggests three options relating to future strategy.

6.5 Key Strategic facilities – These facilities have levels of use above 300 visits per week. They are situated at economically active locations and clearly support the performance of the region’s economy in being available for use by visitors and shoppers in the region. They will be actively managed and where possible improved.

6.6 Neighbourhood facilities – These facilities have levels below 300 visits per week, are not being utilised effectively therefore not delivering best value. Discussion should be held with individual Communities to better understand their views and to influence how a better value service can be provided.

6.7 Comfort Scheme – Facilities that are used less than 100 times per week which, should communities decide they could be closed, could be alternatively provided through the creation of a comfort facility, ie. a facility located in a local business or community facility which is advertised as available for public use, for which the organisation/business could receive an annual payment from SBC towards the costs of making the toilets available to public use.

7 The Review Process – Street Cleansing

7.1 The litter bin strategy has been in place since 2008. Following the implementation of Neighbourhood Services it is appropriate to undertake a review and update of the litter bin strategy to reflect changes to working practices and reflect on lessons learned following the implementation in 2008.

7.2 Matters for inclusion in the review include, but are not limited to, changes in new technology in the industry, reviewing the route based emptying of litter bins and reviewing the appropriateness of bin locations.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 5 8 IMPLICATIONS

8.1 Financial

(a) The aim of the review programme is to generate savings of £450,000. £250k in 2014-15 and £200k in 2015-16.

(b) The majority of savings are likely to be generated from changes to grounds maintenance services.

(c) In order to increase community involvement in the various service areas a limited budget, established from available revenue budgets, may be required to initiate and provide support to community groups setting up and taking over maintenance and provision where SBC is withdrawing from service provision and maintenance.

8.2 Risk and Mitigations

(a) Changes to provision and maintenance of services as identified within section 4 to 7 of this report will vary in their impact and significance to the Borders, however all of the changes present a similar risk to the reputation of the Council locally, regionally and nationally. In order to mitigate this risk, sustained and meaningful consultation regarding any proposed changes will be required with the Elected Members as well as the Communities that they represent in the Borders.

(b) Further risk assessments and mitigating strategies will be developed for each aspect of the programme as the various reviews develop.

8.3 Equalities

(a) An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out on the proposal detailed in this report relating to grounds maintenance, and it is anticipated that there are some adverse equality implications. It will be appropriate that this is updated to reflect current proposals.

(b) An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out on a proposal similar to that detailed at section 6 of this report relating to public conveniences and it is anticipated that there are some adverse equality implications. It will be appropriate that this is updated to reflect current proposals.

8.4 Acting Sustainably

The implementation of changes as detailed at sections 4 to 7 of this report will deliver substantial reductions in terms of Council resources being deployed throughout the region. This will reduce the use of resources and contribute positively to the Councils requirements to ensure that its services are delivered within a sustainable organisational framework.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 6 8.5 Carbon Management

The implementation of changes as detailed at sections 4 to 7 of this report will deliver substantial reductions in terms of Council resources being deployed throughout the region. This will reduce the use of resources and contribute positively to the Councils requirements to reduce its carbon footprint and ensure that its services are delivered within a sustainable organisational framework.

8.6 Rural Proofing

There is no rural proofing implication within this report.

8.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation

There are no changes required to the Councils Scheme of Administration required as a result of the proposals being outlined in this report.

9 CONSULTATION

9.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Strategic Policy, the Head of Audit and Risk, the HR Manager and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and their comments have been incorporated into the report.

Approved by

Director of Environment & Infrastructure Signature ………………………………….

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Kenny Hastings Neighbourhood Operations Manager (01835 824000 x5507)

Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: None

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at Jacqueline Whitelaw, Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, Tel 01835 825413, Fax 01835 825071, email [email protected].

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 7 Appendix One – Open Space Assessment Framework

PARKS REVIEW – Interpretive Table REVISED DRAFT

Maintenance Carbon Economic Landscape Cultural Score Ownership Equalities Accessibility Cost Input Output Value Value

0 Not SBC n/a n/a No Income n/a Very low Unfair/Unequal Inaccessible

1 n/a Very High Very High n/a Low Low n/a n/a

2 n/a High High n/a Medium Medium n/a Accessible

3 n/a Medium Medium n/a High High n/a n/a

Very Easily 4 SBC Low Low Income Very High Very High Fair/Equal Accessible

Notes

Ownership – Does SBC own the area being maintained, or have a statutory obligation to maintain the area? If yes, the area will score four (4), if no, the area will score zero (0).

Maintenance cost – What are the costs associated with the provision and maintenance of the area? An area will score one (1) if the costs are very high to provide/maintain and will score four (4) where the costs are low to provide/maintain. Examples of areas which score one (1) include floral displays/hanging baskets and play areas. Areas that score two (2) include High Amenity grass areas and rose beds. Those that score three (3) include Amenity grass, shrub beds and hedges. Those that score four (4) include rough grass and woodland areas.

Carbon input – What are the inputs associated with the provision and maintenance of the area? An area will score one (1) if the carbon inputs are very high to provide/maintain and will score four (4) where the carbon inputs are low to provide/maintain. Examples of areas which score one (1) include floral displays/hanging baskets. Areas that score two (2) include high amenity grass areas and play areas. Those that score three (3) include amenity grass, shrub beds and hedges. Those that score four (4) include rough grass and woodland areas.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 8 Economic output – Does the area generate any income to SBC as a result the provision and maintenance of the area? Areas which generate any income at all will score four (4), examples of which include cemeteries, sports pitches, allotments, woodlands and more formal parks and recreation grounds. Those that do not generate any income will score zero (0), these areas would include amenity green space.

Landscape value – Does the area contribute to the landscape value/visual appeal of an area as a result of its provision and maintenance and, if so, to what significance/impact? Examples of areas that will score four (4) include formally laid out gardens (e.g. Henderson Park, Coldstream/Bank Street, Galashiels/Old Gala House, Galashiels/the Walled Garden, Hawick), woodlands, village greens set in central locations within settlements and war memorials. Areas scoring three (3) include shrub beds and hedges, wildflower areas situated in high profile settings, adjacent to busy arterial routes and at prominent buildings/settings. Areas scoring two (2) include amenity grass areas, sports pitches, play areas, areas situated in less prominent transport locations perhaps within or adjacent to housing developments. Areas scoring one (1) include less formal grass/scrub land situated away from main arterial routes not visible to visitors and passers-by.

Cultural value – Does the area support or contribute to cultural values through its use or maintenance? Locally important scores zero (0), the area is not generally utilised for activities beyond that of the immediate area in which it is located. Neighbourhood important sites score one (1) where the area is used and has an importance that serves the neighbourhood extending beyond the immediate vicinity, it may be used for events such as school sports days, one-off local events, etc. Regionally important sites score two (2), examples may include sports pitches used for events, or camping areas, etc. Areas which score three (3) would have national importance and these would include war memorials, areas used for civic festivals, such as the Common Ridings, and include sites such as the Tweed Green, Coldstream and the Raid Stane site, Galashiels. Those areas which are of international importance would score four (4), they would include archaeologically sensitive sites which contribute to the Borders region and make it renowned internationally, Examples may include Coldingham Priory.

Equalities – Through the provision and maintenance of the area, does it contribute to the equality obligations placed on Scottish Borders Council? Areas will score four (4) where contribute positively to SBC’s obligations through their provision and maintenance examples include children’s play areas and sports grounds. Areas that do not contribute positively towards SBC’s obligations through their provision and maintenance will score zero (0) examples include amenity green spaces.

Accessibility – As a result of its provision and maintenance, does the area deliver benefits in terms of accessibility to the region? Areas which are inaccessible and or do not support access will score zero (0) examples include steep embankment areas, floral areas, shrub beds and hedges. Areas that are accessible and support access will score two (2) examples include road side verges and amenity green spaces within settlements. Areas that greatly contribute to the access of the area and/or support the issue of access through their provision and maintenance will score four (4) examples include footpaths and link routes in and around settlements.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 9 PARKS REVIEW - Interpretive Table REVISED DRAFT

Maintenance Carbon Economic Landscape Cultural Equalities Score Ownership Accessibility Cost Input Output Value Value Impact

0 Not SBC n/a n/a No Income n/a Very Low Minimal Inaccessible

1 n/a Very High Very High n/a Low Low n/a n/a

2 n/a High High n/a Medium Medium Moderate Accessible

3 n/a Medium Medium n/a High High n/a n/a

Very Easily 4 SBC Low Low Income Very High Very High Significant Accessible

Notes

Ownership – Does SBC own the area being maintained, or have a statutory obligation to maintain the area? SCORE: 0 - No 4 - Yes

Maintenance cost – What are the costs associated with the provision and maintenance of the area? SCORE: 1 - Very High to provide/maintain: e.g. floral displays/hanging baskets and play areas. 2 - High: high amenity grass areas and rose beds. 3 - Medium: amenity grass, shrub beds and hedges. 4 - Low to provide/maintain: e.g. rough grass and woodland areas.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 10 Carbon input – What are the inputs associated with the provision and maintenance of the area? SCORE: 1 - Carbon inputs Very High to provide/maintain: e.g. floral displays/hanging baskets. 2 - High: High amenity grass areas and play areas. 3 - Medium: e.g. amenity grass, shrub bed, hedges. 4 - Low to provide/maintain: e.g. rough grass and woodland areas.

Economic output – Does the area generate any income to SBC as a result of the provision and maintenance of the area? SCORE: 0 - No income (does not generate any income: e.g. amenity green space). 4 - Income (generates any income at all: e.g. cemeteries, sports pitches, allotments, woodlands and more formal parks and recreation grounds. ).

Landscape value – Does the area contribute to the landscape value/visual appeal of an area as a result of its provision and maintenance and, if so, to what significance/impact? SCORE: 1 - Low: e.g. less formal grass/scrubland situated away from main arterial routes not visible to visitors and passers-by. 2 - Medium: e.g. amenity grass areas, sports pitches, play areas, areas situated in less prominent transport locations perhaps within or adjacent to housing developments. 3 - High: e.g. shrub beds and hedges, wildflower areas situated in high profile settings, adjacent to busy arterial routes and at prominent buildings/settings. 4 - Very High: e.g. formally laid out gardens (Henderson Park, Coldstream; Bank Street, Galashiels; Old Gala House, Galashiels; the Walled Garden, Hawick), woodlands, village greens set in central locations within settlements and war memorials.

Cultural value – Does the area support, or contribute to, cultural value through its use or maintenance? SCORE: 0 - Very Low: locally important, e.g. the area is not generally utilised for activities beyond that of the immediate area in which it is located. 1 - Low: of neighbourhood importance, where the area is used and has an importance that serves the neighbourhood extending beyond the immediate vicinity, e.g. used for events such as school sports days, one-off local events, etc. 2 - Medium: Regionally important, e.g. may include sports pitches used for events, or camping areas, etc. 3 - High: Nationally important, e.g. war memorials, areas used for civic festivals, such as the Common Ridings, and include sites such as the Tweed Green, Coldstream and the Raid Stane site, Galashiels. 4 - Very High: International importance, e.g. archaeologically sensitive sites which contribute to the Borders region and make it renowned internationally, examples may include Coldingham Priory.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 11 Equalities impact – Through its provision and maintenance does the area meet the needs of the community it serves, in terms of the function and type of open space it provides? SCORE: 0 - Minimal: Serves minimal need/purpose to the community e.g. roadside verges that are not required for access/community safety. 2 - Moderate: Moderately meets the needs of the community it serves. 4 - Significant: Significantly meets the needs of the community it serves e.g. leisure, recreation, quality of life, community safety, worship.

Accessibility – As a result of its provision and maintenance, does the area deliver benefits in terms of accessibility to the region. SCORE: 0 - Inaccessible: inaccessible and/or does not support access, e.g. steep embankment areas, floral areas, shrub beds and hedges. 2 - Accessible: accessible to public and/or supports access, e.g. roadside verges and amenity green spaces within settlements. 4 - Very accessible: greatly contributes to the access of the area and/or supports the issue of access through its provision and maintenance, e.g. footpaths and link routes in and around settlements.

Scottish Borders Council – 30 January 2014 12 ITEM 14

Charity Funds Reorganisation.

Report by the Chief Financial Officer

Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a series of actions, which will clarify and simplify the management of Council Charity Funds, modernise the purposes of these funds and improve the access by local communities to such funds, many of which have not been accessed for a number of years.

1.2 Under current Scottish Local Authority and Scottish Charity Regulations all Charities, the Trustees of which are exclusively elected members of the Council, will each have to be subject to a full external audit of their accounts for the year to 31 March 2014 unless they are in the process of being wound up and subsequently reorganised.

1.3 The report seeks approval for the formation of 3 new Council Charities relating to the relief of poverty, Education and Community Enhancement, which will enable the existing Council Charity Funds to be reorganised into them. Following reorganisation the existing Charity Funds could be wound up. Accordingly it is planned to apply to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) to wind up the Council’s existing Non common Good Charity Funds by 31 March 2014.

1.4 The funds held by each of the 3 new Charities would be held in discrete “Restricted Funds” the operational control of which would it is proposed be delegated to elected members on a geographical basis.

1.5 In order to improve the use of funds held by the Council, which are not currently one of the registered as charities and have outdated purposes a review of those funds will be undertaken and where appropriate reorganizational activity will be undertaken to transfer the funds into the appropriate New Charity.

1.6 No changes are proposed for the existing Registered Charity containing the Common Good Funds.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Council approves (a) the establishment and registration of three new Charities, each having all of the elected members of the Council as Trustees and having the purpose of Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014

1 (1) the advancement of education and cultural exchange; (2) the prevention or relief of poverty, the relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage and the advancement of health: and, (3) Community enhancement including the advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science, the upkeep of heritage assets and the provision of recreational facilities, or the organisation of recreational activities, with the object of improving the conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities or activities are primarily intended.

(b) the reorganisation of the existing Council Charity Funds, excluding the Common Good Charity Fund, into one of the new Charities as above.

(c) the winding up of the existing Council Charity Funds, excluding the Common Good Fund Charity, following their successful reorganisation.

(d) the use of engagement from external legal services since the current work priorities in the SBC Legal Services section will not permit the proposed actions to be completed by the end of March 2014.

(e) the ongoing review and if appropriate reorganisation of the unregistered Funds into the appropriate New Charity.

(f) and requests a further report including internal governance arrangements on completion of this work.

Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014

2 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 Prior to the setting up of the OSCR all bodies in Scotland which wanted to take advantage of tax legislation and other cost reductions beneficial to charities, had to register with the Inland Revenue as charities. Previous Town, County, District and Regional Councils operating within the Borders had at various times taken advantage of this facility and between them some 112 different Trusts, Endowments, Funds and Bequests had been registered as Charities with the Inland Revenue out of a total of 289 such structures now managed by this Council. However there is no apparent strategy applied to determine those funds which were so registered. When OSCR was set up the Inland Revenue passed over to OSCR the information on bodies registered with them as Charities and those bodies were then all adopted as Scottish Charities Registered with OSCR, although many of these Charities appear not to have OSCR compliant constitutions or eligible charitable purposes.

3.2 Charities, whose Trustees are exclusively elected members of the Council, are bound by the regulations issued under both the Local Authority (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. Under these regulations each Registered Charity will have to have its Annual Accounts subject to a full audit no matter the size of the Charity for the financial year ended on 31 March 2014. However Audit Scotland and OSCR have agreed that there will be no audit requirement if an application has been made to wind a charity up prior to 31 March 2014.

3.3 In order to wind up any of the existing SBC managed Charities there has to be a suitable Charity into which the funds can be transferred through a reorganisation and thereafter held therein as a Restricted Fund ie a fund held for a clear identified purpose.

3.4 The Charities held by the Council are set out in Appendix 1 to this report and are grouped by Council Ward and general Charitable Purpose and Appendix 2 sets out in a similar way the funds which are held but are not Charities.

3.5 Many of the Funds are very restrictive in their use and are effectively moribund as they cannot now be used for the initially detailed purpose. In several cases for specific geographic areas a number of different funds exist that provide benefit for the same purpose.

3.6 The current charities hold funds in the main for the following purposes:- Educational prizes and bursaries Welfare and the relief of poverty Heritage, memorials, environment and grave maintenance.

Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014

3 4 CREATION OF NEW CHARITIES AND REORGANISATION OF EXISTING CHARITIES 4.1 In order to both make the management of and access to the current charity funds easier, and reduce ongoing running costs including future external audit costs, it is proposed to rationalise the current funds held as registered charities into three new registered charities.

4.2 This will permit the Council to update the purposes for which the funds are held so that whilst they will be similar to those currently in place they will be expressed in modern language and be compliant with OSCR’s charity test, so improving access to these funds by the public.

4.3 The management of each of the three new charities will be along the following lines, with all Councillors being Trustees of each charity. For the two Charities whose purposes are detailed in 2.1(a) 2 and 3 above the activities of each fund transferred into each charity will be delegated to Chief Financial Officer in consultation with the councillors of the areas covered by the original fund. For the Charity whose purpose is the advancement of education the activities will be delegated in the same way as is applicable to the current Education Trusts and Funds. In this way the original general purpose and geographic restriction intended by the donor will be respected.

4.4 The activity outlines above will require immediate legal assistance and whilst this would normally be obtained from the Council’s Legal Service it is accepted that existing work priorities currently precludes them from meeting the required timescales. It is therefore proposed to engage an external legal service with the appropriate skills in establishing charities, at a cost of between £5,000 and £10,000 to be funded from the existing external Audit budget.

5 REORGANISATION OF OTHER FUNDS HELD AND NOT REGISTERED AS CHARITIES 5.1 Upon rationalisation of the existing charities the opportunity will also be taken to review the remaining 177 separate Trusts, Endowments, Funds and Bequests managed by this Council.

5.2 Whilst the potential cost of external audit is not applicable to these funds they still require rationalisation to reduce their running costs and make them more accessible to the public and relevant to the 21st Century rather than times when they were originally set up.

5.3 The route to achieve this objective is currently being investigated and it is proposed that a review of these funds and appropriate rationalisation Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014

4 should follow on from the activities outlined in section 4 above.

6 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Financial There are no financial implications, other than those explained above in Sections 3, 4 and 5.

6.2 Risk and Mitigations No significant risk to the financial position of the charity funds is identified.

6.3 Equalities It is anticipated that there are no adverse equality implications arising from the proposals contained in this report.

6.4 Acting Sustainably Whilst there are no economic, social or environmental effects arising from the proposals contained in this report, there should be easier access to funds by beneficiaries, which will impact upon the economic, social and environment of the Borders. The clarified administration and fund amalgamations should produce more sustainable Funds.

6.5 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation There are no changes required to the Scheme of Administration or Scheme of delegation arising from the proposals contained in this report.

7 CONSULTATION 7.1 The Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Strategic Policy, the Head of Audit and Risk, the HR Manager and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and their appropriate comments have been incorporated into this report.

Approved by

David Robertson - Chief Financial Officer Signature …………………………………

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Andrew R S Mitchell Senior Financial Analyst, Financial Services. 01835 824000 Extn 5974

Background Papers: Previous Minute Reference:

Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014

5 Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Andrew Mitchell can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies. Contact us at Andrew Mitchell, Senior Financial Analyst, Financial Services, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Tel: 01835 824000 Extn 5974 Fax: 01835 825011, email: [email protected]

Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014

6 SBC Funds which are Registered Charities Appendix 1

Charity Charitable Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities Registration purpose pre 1996 Number/s Number or if in by:- For Key to SBC SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue italics numbers Charity re re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at possible see foot of Poverty & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 charitable appendix Welfare & Recreation & Health £ £ £ £ £ purpose

Funds to be managed by delegation to Councillors by Ward

Tweeddale West Relief of Poverty SC043896 Brown Bequest For the poor of Drumelzier Parish T/dale 1 5 1.48 0.00 1.48 0.00 375.87

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment SC018720 Miss J. M. Aitken Bequest Family Burial Grd.-W.Linton T/dale 1 5 3.05 3.05 0.00 133.38 242.09

Tweeddale East & West Relief of Poverty SC018718 Miss Erskine's Mortification For the poor of Peebles T/dale 1 & 2 5 6.31 0.00 6.31 320.07 328.55 For the poor of Peebles-toPeebles SC018719 John Hope Benevolent Fund Parish Trust comm T/dale 1 & 2 5 38.08 0.00 38.08 1,000.00 580.93

Relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage To Peebles Senior Citizens Co-ord SC018722 Mary Allan Bequest Comm T/dale 1 & 2 5 40.50 40.50 0.00 2,100.00 1,880.54 SC043896 Dunwhinny - Ferguson SW BRC 1 & 2 5 169.53 0.00 169.53 9,330.94 5,887.60 SC043896 Dunwhinny - Simpson SW BRC 1 & 2 5 698.68 0.00 698.68 7,247.24 12,935.94

Tweeddale East Relief of Poverty SC018717 McCall and Veitch Bequest Poor of Traquair Parish T/dale 2 5 10.79 10.79 0.00 647.35 148.55

Galashiels & District Relief of Poverty SC043896 Ex Provost Mercers Bequest No1 Poor of Galashiels E & L 3 5 15.97 15.97 0.00 1,000.00 56.75

SC043896 G.D.Gibson's Bequest Poor of Gala.(not on Public assistance) E & L 3 5 26.96 26.96 0.00 1,500.00 844.08 SC019161 Murray Coal Fund Coals Galashiels E & L 3 5 23.34 23.34 0.00 895.68 1,866.91 SC043896 Robert Watson Fund Poor of Galashiels E & L 3 5 794.36 794.36 0.00 50,178.43 1,002.24 SC043896 William Forrester's Bequest Poor & Distressed-Galashiels E & L 3 5 359.41 359.41 0.00 22,590.50 902.01

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment SC019158 Hymers Forrester Bequest Family Burial-Ladhope E & L 3 5 12.88 12.88 0.00 477.88 873.77 SC019159 Ladhope Burying Ground Fund Ladhope Burial Grd.Maint. E & L 3 5 33.95 33.95 0.00 933.39 0.00

Selkirkshire Relief of Poverty SC043896 Clive Craig- Brown Bequest Distressed-Selkirk E & L 4 5 155.33 0.00 155.33 8,288.50 6,437.61

1 of 13 Charity Charitable Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities Registration purpose pre 1996 Number/s Number or if in by:- For Key to SBC SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue italics numbers Charity re re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at possible see foot of Poverty & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 charitable appendix Welfare & Recreation & Health £ £ £ £ £ purpose SC043896 George D.Gibson's Bequest Poor of Selkirk E & L 4 5 98.33 0.00 98.33 5,300.00 3,862.48 SC043896 Sir John Robert's bequest Poor of Selkirk E & L 4 5 54.38 0.00 54.38 2,700.00 3,059.36 SC043896 T. J .S. Roberts Trust Poor of Selkirk E & L 4 5 125.76 0.00 125.76 7,046.33 3,869.58 SC043896 Thomas B.Williamson Bequest Poor of Selkirk E & L 4 5 18.86 0.00 18.86 900.00 1,206.43

Improvements in the Environment SC019156 William Dick's Mortification Lighting.& Improvs. -Bowden E & L 4 5 9.78 0.00 9.78 501.30 489.18

Leaderdale & Melrose Relief of Poverty Indegent burgesses of Lauder, their SC043896 Dalrymple's Mortification widows and orphans E & L 5 5 13.06 0.00 13.06 640.65 769.48 SC043896 Raith's Mortification Indegent burgesses of Lauder, E & L 5 5 27.22 0.00 27.22 970.00 3,332.89 SC019164 Welsh bequest Food/clothing-Poor of Lauder E & L 5 5 3.68 0.00 3.68 168.63 264.37 Sick,aged & infirm-Private nursing & SC019160 Melrose Benevolent Trust Fund Medical aids E & L 5 5 31.49 0.00 31.49 1,358.38 1,109.32 SC019157 Miss Helen Gibson's Trust Poor of Melrose E & L 5 5 29.81 29.81 0.00 1,583.96 1,236.05 SC019587 Sibbald Bequest Poor -Parish of Melrose E & L 5 5 11.82 11.82 0.00 335.26 1,656.69 SC043896 Waugh Bequest Poor of Melrose E & L 5 5 10.10 10.10 0.00 500.04 334.72

The advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science SC019162 Ormiston Trust Institute Community of Melrose E & L 5 5 16,427.07 16,427.07 0.00 55,355.53 305.48

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment SC043896 I Wallace's Bequest Burial Ground-Earston B/shire 5 5 2.86 2.86 0.00 41.71 558.26

Mid Berwickshire Relief of Poverty For the aged and heads of families in SC017678 Fairs Bequest Coldstream B/shire 6 5 35.43 0.00 35.43 1,466.15 3,163.33 SC017675 Blacks Bequest Coldstream-Poor/Burial Grds. B/shire 6 5 45.58 0.00 45.58 2,353.42 2,204.28 SC043896 Dunlop Bequest Widows and Spinsters- Duns B/shire 6 5 514.19 0.00 514.19 12,500.00 80,971.32 SC017677 Duns Parish Coal Fund Fuel- Poor of Duns B/shire 6 5 18.27 0.00 18.27 453.78 2,840.94 SC018703 Hamilton Bequest Poor in the parish of Polworth B/shire 6 5 1.80 0.00 1.80 113.53 1,769.15 SC043896 Lands At Calfward Poor in the parish of Fogo B/shire 6 5 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 23.33 SC017679 Lord Majoribanks Bequest For the poor of Duns B/shire 6 5 26.33 0.00 26.33 397.01 2,173.75 SC017680 Macwatt Bequest For the poor of Duns B/shire 6 5 169.98 -6.00 175.98 5,850.29 19,911.17 SC017683 Watson Bequest For the poor of Cranshaw B/shire 6 5 207.65 0.00 207.65 5,216.78 29,673.60

Improvements in the Environment / recreation SC043896 Longformacus Public Park Upkeep of Public Park B/shire 6 5 3.36 3.36 0.00 200.00 52.71 SC019163 Henderson Endowment Public Park-Gordon E & L 6 5 4.19 0.00 4.19 284.19 257.32

2 of 13 Charity Charitable Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities Registration purpose pre 1996 Number/s Number or if in by:- For Key to SBC SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue italics numbers Charity re re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at possible see foot of Poverty & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 charitable appendix Welfare & Recreation & Health £ £ £ £ £ purpose The advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science SC043896 Coldstream War Mem. Fund Upkeep of war memorial B/shire 6 5 0.61 0.61 0.00 32.12 27.76 SC043896 Majoriebanks Bequest B/shire 6 5 26.40 0.00 26.40 1,036.61 2,580.22

Relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage SC017681 Robertson Bequest Coldstream Cottage Hospital B/shire 6 5 2.64 0.00 2.64 100.00 42.73 SC018704 Cameron's Bequest Cameron House-Coldstream B/shire 6 5 39.16 0.00 39.16 2,000.00 1,980.98

East Berwickshire Relief of Poverty SC017676 George Collin Coals for Parish of Eyemouth B/shire 7 5 6.28 0.00 6.28 125.00 553.29

The advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science SC043896 Ayton War Mem. Fund Upkeep of Ayton war memorial B/shire 7 5 20.71 20.71 0.00 53.87 5,038.82

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment SC017674 Bell ( Peelwalls ) Burial Ground- Ayton B/shire 7 5 0.49 0.49 0.00 20.00 2.44

Former Borders Regional Council Advancement of health SC043896 Miss AT Waldie Trust Trainee Nurses BRC tba-ED 5 264.70 0.00 264.70 1,892.52 16,042.76

Jedburgh & District Relief of Poverty SC043896 Edgar Bequest Poor- Parish of Maxton Rox 9 5 7.69 0.00 7.69 113.27 1,508.20 SC043896 ExProv.MrsLaidlaws Benefaction Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 3.16 3.16 0.00 200.75 0.00 SC043896 Henry Laidlaw Trust Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 28.54 28.54 0.00 1,811.77 0.00 SC019590 J N Halliburtons Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 6.71 6.71 0.00 425.36 0.00 SC043896 James West Browns Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 1.26 1.26 0.00 80.30 0.00 SC043896 Jedburgh Coal Fund Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 171.10 0.00 171.10 401.50 9,034.40 SC043896 John Herbetson Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 23.29 23.29 0.00 1,477.97 0.00 SC043896 John Hunters Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 3.64 3.64 0.00 230.75 0.00 SC043896 John Murrays Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 1.44 1.44 0.00 91.78 0.00 SC019591 Katherine Veitch Memorial Fund Women of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 134.13 0.00 134.13 5,539.41 12,022.69 SC043896 Mrs M Cheetham Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 2.64 2.64 0.00 167.39 0.00 SC043896 Robert Meggits Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 18.97 18.97 0.00 1,204.50 0.00

Improvements in the Environment / recreation SC019589 Allerley Well Park Trust For Parks Rox 9 5 28.98 28.98 0.00 1,440.00 0.00

Hawick & Denholm Relief of Poverty SC019586 Denhlom Bairns Trust Poor/Orphans/Widows-Denholm. Rox 10 5 17.38 0.00 17.38 500.00 2,425.52

3 of 13 Charity Charitable Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities Registration purpose pre 1996 Number/s Number or if in by:- For Key to SBC SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue italics numbers Charity re re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at possible see foot of Poverty & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 charitable appendix Welfare & Recreation & Health £ £ £ £ £ purpose SC043896 Elliot Mortification Poor- Parish of Minto Rox 10 5 11.90 0.00 11.90 72.12 2,743.51 SC043896 Ewan Trust Sick/Poor Hobkirk Rox 10 5 16.18 0.00 16.18 419.83 2,441.27 SC043896 William Laidlaw Memorial Fund Residents of Hobkirk Rox 10 5 6.70 0.00 6.70 423.69 14.06

Hawick & Denholm and Hawick & Hermitage Relief of Poverty SC043896 Joshua Goodfellows Bequest Poor of Hawick Rox 10,11 5 1.75 0.00 1.75 45.00 265.53 Poor of Hawick-Preference to Ex SC019584 Lt J B Innes Memorial Fund Soldiers Rox 10,11 5 78.70 0.00 78.70 1,000.00 3,308.26 SC043896 Mrs Adams Bequest Poor of Hawick Rox 10,11 5 2.08 0.00 2.08 60.00 287.70 SC043896 Mrs Hobkirks Fund Poor Women of Hawick Rox 10,11 5 16.93 0.00 16.93 600.00 1,912.92

The advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science SC043896 Alex Grieves Bequest(1) Seats-Hawick/2mile radius Rox 10,11 5 6.46 6.46 0.00 409.37 0.00 SC043896 Alex Grieves Bequest(2) Wilton Pk.Musm.showcases Rox 10,11 5 4.41 4.41 0.00 280.00 0.00 SC019585 Hawick War Memorial Fund War Memorial Rox 10,11 5 82.20 82.20 0.00 1,014.45 16,314.52 SC019588 Jean Hunter Scott Bequest Amenities in Hawick Rox 10,11 5 24.30 0.00 24.30 0.00 6,186.58 SC043896 Wm Browns Bequest(1) Lighting Fountains and clocks Hawick Rox 10,11 5 4.57 4.57 0.00 290.00 0.00

Hawick & Hermitage Relief of Poverty SC043896 McKinlay Trust Castleton Poor Rox 11 5 2.70 0.00 2.70 65.24 429.11

Advancement of health SC043896 R B Formans Bequest Nurses-Roberton/Teviothead Rox 11 5 98.99 0.00 98.99 813.94 21,951.75

Funds to be managed as existing Education Trusts

Advancement of Education Tweeddale West SC043896 Dr. Milne Memorial Fund 2/3 to Newlands Pri. Sch. BRC 1 5 45.14 0.00 45.14 396.63 723.66 SC043896 Dr. Milne Memorial Fund 1/3 to West Linton Prim. Sch BRC 1 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 SC043896 James Robertson Trust Eddleston School BRC 1 5 39.23 0.00 39.23 351.50 451.77 Tweeddale East & West SC043896 Col. Jem Richard Prize Fund Peebles High Sch.-Prizes BRC 1 & 2 5 101.80 0.00 101.80 900.90 1,476.82 Peebles High School-Prizes Head boy SC043896 Geoffrey Simpson Bequest & Girl BRC 1 & 2 5 1,150.58 1,982.00 -831.42 10,567.46 4,240.67 SC043896 John Jamieson Prize Fund Peebles High School-PrizesBiology BRC 1 & 2 5 20.13 0.00 20.13 176.10 347.16 SC043896 Peebles Public Library For upkeep of Library T/dale 1 & 2 5 3.20 3.20 0.00 187.03 64.92 Peebles High School-wildlife SCO15647 Thomas Howden Wildlife Award observation prize BRC 1 & 2 5 134.32 0.00 134.32 1,174.62 2,324.02 SC043896 Walter Geddes Prize fund Peebles High School-Prizes latin BRC 1 & 2 5 37.37 0.00 37.37 324.88 698.02 SC043896 Peebleshire Educational Trust BRC 1&2 ED 5 1,614.82 1,417.00 197.82 14,888.86 5,755.19

4 of 13 Charity Charitable Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities Registration purpose pre 1996 Number/s Number or if in by:- For Key to SBC SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue italics numbers Charity re re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at possible see foot of Poverty & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 charitable appendix Welfare & Recreation & Health £ £ £ £ £ purpose Tweeddale East SC043896 Campbell Calderhead Prize Caddonfoot Prim. Sch Prizes BRC 2 5 29.58 0.00 29.58 264.28 357.84 SC043896 Mr. & Mrs WF Johnstone Fund St.Ronans Secondary-Prize BRC 2 5 22.31 0.00 22.31 191.63 481.17 Galashiels & District SC043896 Kenneth Cochrane Library fund Geographic Jnls.Gala. Libry. E & L 3 5 12.40 0.00 12.40 555.92 933.91 SC043896 Mary Dickson Prize Fund Glendinning Prim.Prize to Dux BRC 3 5 38.16 0.00 38.16 344.68 367.14 SC043896 Murray Medal Fund Galashiels Academy Prize to Dux BRC 3 5 125.81 0.00 125.81 1,129.01 1,400.18 Selkirkshire SC043896 Kennedy Medal Fund Selkirk High School prize to Dux BRC 4 5 23.01 0.00 23.01 205.90 272.87 SC043896 Selkirk Library Fund ELL L ib BRC4 5 17.76 0.00 17.76 443.25 2,750.47 Mid Berwickshire SC043896 Coldstream Guards Prize Coldstream Pri. Sch-Prizes BRC 6ED 5 52.27 0.00 52.27 477.70 351.00 SC043896 Hans D Langmack Prize Fund Coldstream Pri. Sch-Prizes BRC 6 5 25.47 0.00 25.47 228.52 286.88 SC043896 L/C FW Dobson Coldstream Pri. Sch.-Prizes BRC 6 5 224.59 0.00 224.59 2,022.45 2,308.86 SC043896 Special Air Service Reg. Fund Coldstream Pri. Sch-Prizes BRC 6 5 55.43 0.00 55.43 497.19 625.39 Swinton-Bibles for Primary SC017682 Swinton Village Trust school/accom for aged B/shire 6 5 62.47 0.00 62.47 1,394.20 10,334.54 Former County of Berwickshire SC043896 Berwickshire Educational Trust. Prizes,Visual Arts & Drama etc BRC Old County ED 5 429.66 300.00 129.66 3,968.97 1,408.70 East Berwickshire SC043896 C W Dunnet Award Eyemouth High School BRC 7 5 16.33 0.00 16.33 148.74 117.54 SC043896 J. Purves Bequest Eyemouth Sch. Maths Prize BRC 7 5 112.46 0.00 112.46 999.14 1,523.27 SC043896 Jane Grieves Endow. Chirnside Chirnside Sch.Prizes/Bks/Eqt. BRC 7 5 48.03 0.00 48.03 427.19 638.72 SC043896 Jean Kincaird Grieve Endow. Whitsome Sc.Prizes/Bks/Eqt. BRC 7 5 58.06 0.00 58.06 511.62 904.20 Kelso &District SC043896 Kelso Library Book Fund ELL L ib BRC8 5 3.36 0.00 3.36 100.00 454.34 Outward bound or adventure source selection on character & general SC043896 JAS Henderson Memorial attainment BRC tba-ED 5 2,451.68 640.00 1,811.68 0.00 13,516.18 For higher education attendance SC043896 Sir Walter Leitch Scholarship selected on academic achievement BRC tba-ED 5 2,450.95 400.00 2,050.95 0.00 13,574.40 Former County of Selkirkshire SC043896 Selkirkshire Educational Trust Prizes, Travel, Drama etc BRC Old County ED 5 895.31 775.00 120.31 8,272.08 2,737.27 Jedburgh & District SC043896 Jedburgh Public Library Fund ELL L ib BRC9 5 9.93 0.00 9.93 390.45 971.25 SC043896 Mrs Cleland Memorial Prizes Heiton PS - Prizes BRC 9 5 29.83 0.00 29.83 261.24 507.45 Hawick & Denholm and Hawick & Hermitage SC020932 Isabella Thom Prize Fund Hawick High - Chemistry BRC 10,11 ED 5 88.02 77.00 11.02 823.06 706.69 Former County of Roxburghshire SC043896 Roxburghshire Educational Trust BRC Old County ED 5 7,049.79 6,215.25 834.54 64,957.41 26,243.74 Former Borders Regional Council SC043896 Andrew, Agnes, John Kyle Bequest Student in furtherance of Arts BRC tba-ED 5 51.23 45.00 6.23 468.84 276.16 Key to Ward Numbers.

5 of 13 Charity Charitable Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities Registration purpose pre 1996 Number/s Number or if in by:- For Key to SBC SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue italics numbers Charity re re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at possible see foot of Poverty & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 charitable appendix Welfare & Recreation & Health £ £ £ £ £ purpose

1 Tweeddale West 2 Tweeddale East 3 Galashiels & District 4 Selkirkshire 5 Leaderdale & Melrose 6 Mid Berwickshire 7 East Berwickshire 8 Kelso &District 9 Jedburgh & District 10 Hawick & Denholm 11 Hawick & Hermitage

6 of 13 SBC Funds which are NOT Registered Charities Appendix 2

Possible Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities charitable pre 1996 Number/s purpose by:- For Key to SBC Charity SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue numbers re Poverty, re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at see foot of Health & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 appendix Welfare & Recreation £ £ £ £ £ Funds to be managed by delegation to Councillors by Ward

Tweeddale West Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment West Linton War Memorial Fund W.Linton War Memorial T/dale 1 5 1.42 1.42 0.00 83.43 28.96 Robert Millar Mortification Fund For West Linton Golf Club T/dale 1 5 4.01 0.00 4.01 100.00 132.81

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Gracie Bequest Family Burial Grd.-Stobo T/dale 1 0.92 0.92 0.00 32.28 103.70 Murray Trust Bequest Family Burial Grd.-Broughton T/dale 1 4.39 4.39 0.00 92.50 297.60 P H Cosen Bequest Family Burial Grd.-Broughton T/dale 1 6.87 6.87 0.00 195.83 8.28 Thomas Ross Bequest Family Burial Grd.-W.Linton T/dale 1 0.17 0.17 0.00 5.00 23.05 Elliot Bequest 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00

Tweeddale East & West Relief of Poverty Frank Mathieson's Bequest Peebles Town Old Folk's Treat T/dale 1 & 2 5 4.82 4.82 0.00 306.00 0.00 Mrs Buist's Bequst Peebles Town Poor Coal Fund T/dale 1 & 2 5 5.87 0.00 5.87 300.00 294.75

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment Peebles County War Memorial Fund Peebles War Memorial T/dale 1 & 2 5 4.41 4.41 0.00 0.00 1,119.23 Chambers Institution Trust T/dale 1 & 2 5 87,330.53 67,284.09 20,046.44 0.00 119,248.77

Relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage Disabled Sailors' & Soldiers fund for PeeblesshireFor the benefit of ex-servicemen & families T/dale 1 & 2 5 111.24 0.00 111.24 3,900.00 2,979.98

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Mrs J O Hogg's bequest Peebles cemetary T/dale 1 & 2 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 155.27 Peebles Cemetary-Lair Enclosure Peebles cemetary T/dale 1 & 2 5.57 5.57 0.00 116.82 347.07 Boy's Brigade Silver Plate Fund Silver Plate for Annl.Competn. T/dale 1 & 2 4.82 0.00 4.82 167.09 557.63

Accum.to 2127,then if Peebles not part of Frank D Peebles Junior Fund UK,50% to descendants of FD Peebles. T/dale 1 & 2 3.07 0.00 3.07 103.69 364.58

Tweeddale East Relief of Poverty D F Story Bequest Innerleithen -Coals for Poor T/dale 2 5 32.43 32.43 0.00 54.70 16.09 R. Laidlaw's Gift Innerleithen Christmas Fund T/dale 2 5 0.36 0.36 0.00 450.65 90.29

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment C. M Stenhouse's Bequest Innerleithen War Memorial T/dale 2 5 8.69 8.69 0.00 97.57 428.78 Lady Thomson's Endowment Fund Playgrd. Equipt.-Walkerburn T/dale 2 5 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 25.15 Sir Walter Scott Statue Fund Paint Scott Statue-Clovenfords E & L 2 5 6.50 0.00 6.50 307.28 430.74 Walkerburn War Memorial Fund Walkerburn War Memorial T/dale 2 5 8.93 8.93 0.00 150.00 936.33

7 of 13 Possible Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities charitable pre 1996 Number/s purpose by:- For Key to SBC Charity SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue numbers re Poverty, re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at see foot of Health & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 appendix Welfare & Recreation £ £ £ £ £ William Muir's Bequest Innerleithen Town Clock T/dale 2 5 18.56 18.56 0.00 303.54 269.13

Possible Non Charitable Purpose J. W. Riddell Bequest Burial Ground-Caddonfoot E & L 2 3.52 3.52 0.00 100.00 492.60 Peter Lockie's Bequest Burial Ground-Caddonfoot E & L 2 0.70 0.70 0.00 20.00 97.23 Provost Mathieson Bequest Family Burial Grd.-Innerleithen T/dale 2 1.64 1.64 0.00 51.50 213.97

Galashiels & District Relief of Poverty Christopher Boyd's Bequest Poor of Galashiels E & L 3 5 516.92 516.92 0.00 32,561.89 1,016.16 George Knox's Estate Support to elder people in Gala E & L 3 5 6,668.41 0.00 6,668.41 430,006.26 0.00 King Edward Memorial Coal Fund Fuel-Galashiels E & L 3 5 9.90 9.90 0.00 550.00 313.29

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment Ex Provost Mercers Bequest No2 To form Gala C.G.Fund E & L 3 5 17.11 17.11 0.00 1,000.00 343.73 Ladhope Estate Community of Gala. E & L 3 5 1,829.66 1,829.66 0.00 123,254.16 0.00 Miss Janet Flint's Bequest Use by Burgh of Galashiels E & L 3 5 9.32 0.00 9.32 544.90 200.12 Miss N.M.Taket's Braw Lads Gathering Fund For Braw Lads' Gathering or other festival E & L 3 5 0.99 0.00 0.99 50.00 51.53 Dickson Shield( Municipal Baths) Swimming Medal E & L 3 5 4.97 0.00 4.97 213.57 413.84 War Memorial fund Galshiels War Memorial E & L 3 5 63.23 63.23 0.00 3,146.20 2,696.48

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Eastlands Burying Ground Fund Eastlands Burial Grd.Maint. E & L 3 23.01 23.01 0.00 1,460.60 0.00

Selkirkshire Relief of Poverty Anderson Trust Poor of Selkirk E & L 4 5 18.48 0.00 18.48 885.82 1,167.35 Ashkirk Parish Welfare Fund Sick & aged-Ashkirk Parish E & L 4 5 11.40 0.00 11.40 590.90 540.84 David Grieves Bequest Poor- Bowden at Christmas Rox 4 5 1.84 0.00 1.84 63.95 211.71 Poor & Industrious Protestant Widows & James Hart Trust Fund Spinters - Selkirk E & L 4 5 105.24 0.00 105.24 3,144.50 2,792.50 MacDonald Legacy Orphans-Selkirk Parish E & L 4 5 26.00 0.00 26.00 1,282.53 1,496.65 Robert's Trust Poor of Selkirk E & L 4 5 218.13 0.00 218.13 11,931.50 7,869.93

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment Flodden Memorial Fund Maintenance of Monument E & L 4 5 27.67 27.67 0.00 1,450.00 1,223.80 Fraser Memorial fund Maintenance of Monument E & L 4 5 1.62 1.62 0.00 65.00 153.27 James Hogg Centenary Fund Maintenance of Monument E & L 4 5 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.00 180.85 John Brodie Bequest Tablets for Notabilities-Selkirk E & L 4 5 13.12 0.00 13.12 750.00 344.97 John Pollock Bequest Selkirk Std.Bearer's Medal E & L 4 5 4.79 0.00 4.79 280.00 101.51 King George V Playing Field Upkeep of Field E & L 4 5 32.21 0.00 32.21 200.00 592.40 Selkirk Std. Bearer Memorial Fund Maintenance of Memorial E & L 4 5 21.84 21.84 0.00 1,100.00 1,142.65 Sir Walter Scott Monument Fund Upkeep of Monument E & L 4 5 3.63 3.63 0.00 180.00 199.13 Yarrow Public Hall Trust Upkeep of Yarrow Hall E & L 4 5 11.67 0.00 11.67 578.20 661.92

8 of 13 Possible Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities charitable pre 1996 Number/s purpose by:- For Key to SBC Charity SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue numbers re Poverty, re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at see foot of Health & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 appendix Welfare & Recreation £ £ £ £ £ Possible Non Charitable Purpose Brewster bequest Burial Grd.-Wairds Cemetery E & L 5 8.58 8.58 0.00 343.51 0.00 Somerville Bequest Burial Ground - Selkirk E & L 4 0.16 0.16 0.00 10.00 0.00 T.D.B.Hutchinson Bequest Burial Ground - Selkirk E & L 4 0.59 0.59 0.00 37.50 0.00 Thomas Dickson Bequest Graves of self & wife-Ettrick E & L 4 1.61 1.61 0.00 40.00 247.43 Rodger Bequest Burial Ground - Selkirk E & L 4 0.16 0.16 0.00 10.00 0.00 Rev. R. Birkett's fund Tombstone/grave-Kirkhope E & L 4 0.47 0.47 0.00 10.00 78.28 Meade Trust Family grave-Hangingshaw E & L 4 76.15 76.15 0.00 4,834.21 0.00 Miss E.Chalmer's Bequest Burial Ground-Ashkirk E & L 4 0.15 0.15 0.00 4.00 19.75 Miss Euphemia Ballantyne's Beqst. Burial Ground - Selkirk E & L 4 0.16 0.16 0.00 10.00 0.00 Miss Helen A.Lawson Bequest Burial Ground -Selkirk E & L 4 0.39 0.39 0.00 25.00 0.00 Miss Thomasina Riddell's Bequest Burial Ground -Selkirk E & L 4 2.76 2.76 0.00 175.00 0.00 Graves of James Hogg,W.Laid- law, PJ Mrs E.Parr Fund Phillips-etrreick E & L 4 3.40 3.40 0.00 150.00 264.76 Mrs Katherine A.Steven Bequest Burial Ground -Selkirk E & L 4 0.39 0.39 0.00 25.00 0.00 Mrs Robina H McCracken's Bequest Burial Ground -Selkirk E & L 4 0.63 0.63 0.00 40.00 0.00 Mrs.Elizabeth Hogg Bequest Burial Ground -Selkirk E & L 4 1.42 1.42 0.00 90.00 0.00 Pringle Bequest Burial- Bowden Churchyard Rox 4 0.26 0.26 0.00 15.00 5.08 Alexander Kirk Bequest Burial Ground - Selkirk E & L 4 0.16 0.16 0.00 10.00 0.00 James Barrie's Bequest Burial Ground - Selkirk E & L 4 0.47 0.47 0.00 30.00 0.00 Alex Kirk Fund Thos.Murray's headstone - Kirkhope E & L 4 0.38 0.38 0.00 10.00 56.07

Leaderdale & Melrose Relief of Poverty Colvins Fund ( Lauder) Poor in parish of Lauder B/shire 5 5 16.22 0.00 16.22 0.00 4,129.82 Miss Annzilla P.Tillie's Bequest Deserving aged -Lauder E & L 5 5 56.23 0.00 56.23 3,030.70 2,209.10 Mrs J.G.Robson's Bequest Aged and Poor of Lauder E & L 5 5 10.82 0.00 10.82 500.00 756.11 William Hill Trust No2 Melrose, Gattonside,Newstead-pensioners E & L 5 5 88.59 0.00 88.59 5,600.00 185.83

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment Curle Bequest Improv.Melrose Childrens' Pond E & L 5 5 9.50 0.00 9.50 453.30 606.79 Unknown-except Council now own mill Earlston Mill Meadow meadow E & L 5 5 24.85 0.00 24.85 1,300.00 1,333.56 Earston Back Row Repair Fund E & L 5 5 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 33.76 Fraser Bequest (1) To form nucleus of a Melrose C.G.Fund E & L 5 5 198.05 198.05 0.00 10,886.47 6,734.84 Gibson Park Trust Community of Melrose E & L 5 5 3,285.87 3,285.87 0.00 22,163.41 2,644.26 Greenyard Trust Community of Melrose E & L 5 5 69.66 69.66 0.00 4,700.00 1,287.16 Lauder Light railway E & L 5 5 2.20 0.00 2.20 69.83 280.58 Miss Isabella Wallace's Fund Amenities of Earston E & L 5 5 158.94 0.00 158.94 5,688.00 6,635.71 Orminston Trust ( Meikle Clock) Community of Melrose E & L 5 5 0.58 0.58 0.00 36.14 0.00 William Hill Trust No3 Inhabitants of Melrose E & L 5 5 5,388.90 1,250.00 4,138.90 119,327.77 46,146.64

Possible Non Charitable Purpose William Hill Trust No1 Family Grave E & L 5 3.15 3.15 0.00 200.00 0.00 Fraser Bequest (2) Family Burial Grd.-Melrose E & L 5 1.47 1.47 0.00 92.86 0.00 Hunter Bequest Burial Grd.-Abbey Chrchyard E & L 5 1.26 1.26 0.00 79.84 0.00 Kirkwood bequest Tombstone-Lauder Cemetery E & L 5 0.38 0.38 0.00 10.00 55.55

9 of 13 Possible Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities charitable pre 1996 Number/s purpose by:- For Key to SBC Charity SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue numbers re Poverty, re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at see foot of Health & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 appendix Welfare & Recreation £ £ £ £ £ Nash bequest Burial Grd.-Wairds Cemetery E & L 5 0.63 0.63 0.00 39.44 0.00 Philpott Bequest Burial Grd.-Wairds Cemetery E & L 5 1.40 1.40 0.00 56.14 0.00 Phin Bequest Burial Grd.-Abbey Churchyd. E & L 5 1.31 1.31 0.00 83.20 0.00 William Murray's Fund Murray Tombstone-Lauder E & L 5 0.37 0.37 0.00 10.00 52.66 Winser legacy Burial Grd.-Melrose E & L 5 7.88 7.88 0.00 500.00 0.00 Woods Bequest Burial Ground-Earston B/shire 5 1.71 1.71 0.00 24.82 338.26

Mid Berwickshire Relief of Poverty Bogend & Cairnsmill Poor in the parish of Fogo B/shire 6 5 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 4.51 Lands At Harcarse Poor in the parish of Fogo B/shire 6 5 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.53 W M Swan Bequest Housing-Poor of Duns B/shire 6 5 483.76 0.00 483.76 11,082.49 78,886.01

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment Coldstream Assoc.Trusts Fund Trust Fund Coldstream Assoc. B/shire 6 5 6.42 0.00 6.42 100.00 1,234.84 Greenlaw Parish Acc For upkeep of village green B/shire 6 5 0.99 0.99 0.00 59.77 14.59 Langton Parish Acc Upkeep of village hall B/shire 6 5 3.56 0.00 3.56 111.00 459.08 Longformacus Village Hall For Upkeep of Hall B/shire 6 5 11.84 0.00 11.84 500.00 1,017.25

Advancement of health I K Forrest Life Save Trust Award for life saving at BHS pool duns B/shire 6 5 9.82 0.00 9.82 208.78 1,667.98

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Mrs A A Swan Duns B G Maint. of burial ground in Duns B/shire 6 1.71 1.71 0.00 100.00 33.90 Mrs M C A Taubman Burial Ground- Polwarth B/shire 6 1.71 1.71 0.00 100.00 33.90 Mrs. Agnes Dodds Burial Ground- Greenlaw B/shire 6 0.77 0.77 0.00 45.44 15.41 Rutherford B G Trust Burial Ground- Gordon B/shire 6 0.44 0.44 0.00 25.59 6.37

East Berwickshire Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment Miss A Y Redpath Trust Benefit Parish of Coldingham B/shire 7 5 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 8.67

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Robt. Elliot B G Trust Burial Ground- Coldingham B/shire 7 0.18 0.18 0.00 10.60 3.60

Former County of Berwickshire Advancement of health Marie Curie Mem. Fund To assist Marie Curie Fund B/shire Old County ED 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 398.95

Kelso &District Relief of Poverty Kelso Coal Fund Poor of Kelso Rox 8 5 30.46 0.00 30.46 0.00 1,202.49 Miss Agnes P Johnstons Bequest Poor of Kelso Rox 8 5 5.42 5.42 0.00 344.70 0.00 Miss Catherine JM Walkers Beq. Poor of Kelso Rox 8 5 7.98 7.98 0.00 506.64 0.00 Miss Jane Broomfields Bequest Poor of Kelso Rox 8 5 0.47 0.47 0.00 30.00 0.00 Miss Janet Woods Bequest Poor of Kelso Rox 8 5 3.90 3.90 0.00 200.00 190.00

10 of 13 Possible Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities charitable pre 1996 Number/s purpose by:- For Key to SBC Charity SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue numbers re Poverty, re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at see foot of Health & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 appendix Welfare & Recreation £ £ £ £ £ Mrs Jane Hubners Bequest Poor of Kelso Rox 8 5 8.07 8.07 0.00 507.84 15.00

Relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage John L Smith Bequest Holidays in Country- Kelso Rox 8 5 15.89 0.00 15.89 305.14 2,827.43

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Burial Ground Bequests (Kelso) Burial Ground Maintenance Rox 8 49.15 49.15 0.00 3,119.93 0.00 Hownam Trust Fund Upkeep of graves B/shire 8 1.41 1.41 0.00 82.60 28.02 John Kerrs Bequest John Kerr Burial- Yetholm Rox 8 0.16 0.16 0.00 10.00 0.00 Miss Mary Smiths Bequest Family Grave-Kirk Yetholm Rox 8 0.16 0.16 0.00 10.00 0.00 Morrison Bequest Burial- Sprouston Rox 8 0.43 0.43 0.00 27.44 0.00 Mrs Mills Bequest Burial Liars- Sprouston Rox 8 0.63 0.63 0.00 40.00 0.00 R Browns Bequest Burials/Lairs- Sprouston Rox 8 0.24 0.24 0.00 15.00 0.00 Roberth Dodds Burial Ground- Ednam B/shire 8 0.86 0.86 0.00 5.00 197.29

Former County of Selkirkshire Relief of Poverty The Dryden Fund Trust Poor -County of Selkirk E & L Old County ED 5 10.70 0.00 10.70 500.00 726.25

Jedburgh & District Relief of Poverty Miss A T Waldies Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 32.29 32.29 0.00 2,049.90 0.00 J J Barr Bequest Poor of Jedburgh Rox 9 5 7.88 7.88 0.00 500.00 0.00

Relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage 5 Holidays at Home Week (1943) Hols.at Home Wk.Entertainment Rox 9 0.37 0.00 0.37 2.85 82.88

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment Mertoun War Memorial War memorial- Mertoun E & L 9 5 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 44.07 Mini Bus Fund Purch and Maintenance Rox 9 5 62.32 0.00 62.32 4,196.98 -901.21 Abbey Floodlighting Fund Floodlighting-Abbey Rev Rox 9 5 1.55 1.55 0.00 75.00 94.96 Mrs Hopes Bequest for BrewsterMemorial Tablet on House/Tomb Rox 9 5 10.35 0.00 10.35 118.55 2,162.42 Queen Marys House For Roof Repair Rox 9 5 1.95 0.00 1.95 0.00 495.46 Robert Jack Bequest Plants-Q.Mary's Ground Rox 9 5 1.97 1.97 0.00 125.00 0.00 Roxburgh War Memorial War Memorial Rox 9 5 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.00 181.99 Roxburgh war Memorial Roxburgh war memorial E & L 9 5 0.26 0.26 0.00 17.12 29.77

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Chisholm Bequest Burials - Maxton Rox 9 2.44 2.44 0.00 142.51 49.73 Hamilton Bequest Burial- St Boswells Rox 9 7.88 7.88 0.00 53.63 18.14 Huggan Bequest Family Burial-Castlewood Rox 9 0.79 0.79 0.00 50.00 0.00 Miss C J Barries Bequest Family Burial - Oxnam Rox 9 1.58 1.58 0.00 100.00 0.00 Mrs Isabella D R Doves Bequest Family Grave-St.Boswells Rox 9 0.42 0.42 0.00 25.00 6.92 Mrs McNair Trust Burial Liars in Oxnam Rox 9 0.85 0.85 0.00 54.00 0.00 Ramsay-Fairfax Bequest Burial- St. Boswells Rox 9 2.41 2.41 0.00 131.75 86.04 W H Thomsons Trust Burial Liars- Roxburgh Rox 9 3.15 3.15 0.00 200.00 -0.96 War Graves Upkeep Castlewood Lairs 468/469 Rox 9 0.39 0.39 0.00 25.00 0.00

11 of 13 Possible Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities charitable pre 1996 Number/s purpose by:- For Key to SBC Charity SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue numbers re Poverty, re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at see foot of Health & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 appendix Welfare & Recreation £ £ £ £ £ Yair Bequest Burial- Eckford Rox 9 0.99 0.99 0.00 28.00 2.02

Hawick & Denholm Non Charitable Purpose Alexander Ritchies Bequest Burial Liars- Denholm Rox 10 0.39 0.39 0.00 25.00 0.00 G H L Oliver Bequest Family Grave- Hobkirk Rox 10 2.97 2.97 0.00 188.18 0.00 Mrs Susan Bells Bequest Burial- Hobkirk Rox 10 0.13 0.13 0.00 8.03 0.00

Hawick & Denholm and Hawick & Hermitage Relief of Poverty Marion Law Bequest Aged & Poor in Hawick Rox 10,11 5 45.28 0.00 45.28 1,000.00 7,532.78

Advancement of Heritage/improvement in Environment Hawick War Memor.(Flower Section) War Memorial Rox 10,11 5 0.80 0.80 0.00 51.25 0.00 James Elliots Bequest Hawick Common Riding Rox 10,11 5 7.60 7.60 0.00 482.08 0.00 Hawick Common Riding- Horse Race Flex Wm Browns Bequest(2) Stakes Rox 10,11 5 3.15 3.15 0.00 200.00 0.00

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Sundry Family Burial Grounds Family Burial Grounds Rox 10,11 189.48 189.48 0.00 11,611.92 0.00 W Rutherford Bequest Burial-Wilton/Local Charities. Rox 10,11 115.62 115.62 0.00 2,955.22 17,515.35

Hawick & Hermitage Possible Non Charitable Purpose Barton Bequest Lairs- Teviothead Rox 11 4.82 4.82 0.00 305.32 0.00 Home Bequest Burial- Teviothead Rox 11 0.16 0.16 0.00 10.00 0.00 Miss Jessie Patersons Bequest Burial Ground- Roberton Rox 11 0.79 0.79 0.00 50.00 0.00

Possible Non Charitable Purpose Ainslie Bequest Family Burial Ground Rox tba 0.79 0.79 0.00 49.97 0.00 Heron-Maxwell Trust Miss J.E.H.Maxwell Burial Rox tba 1.14 1.14 0.00 33.00 0.00

Other Tweedside Physical & Antiquarian Socy. Caretaking-Articles with Council Rox tba 8.10 0.00 8.10 0.00 2,061.82 William Hall's Trust For Religious Purposes- Rox tba 1.33 0.00 1.33 40.15 178.10 Paterson Fund E & L tba 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.00 53.81

Further info required. Advancement of health Marie Curie Memorial Foundation Welfare Fund E & L tba 5 2.29 0.00 2.29 0.00 185.58

Funds to be managed as existing Education Trusts Advancement of Education Tweeddale East & West Peebles Library Fund ELL L ib BRC1 & 2 5 1.27 0.00 1.27 0.00 322.70 Tweeddale East Innerleithen Public Library For upkeep of Library T/dale 2 5 16.85 16.85 0.00 496.95 83.29

12 of 13 Possible Fund Name Currently known fund purpose Managed Ward Proposed New Charities charitable pre 1996 Number/s purpose by:- For Key to SBC Charity SBC Charity SBC Total Total Net Capital Revenue numbers re Poverty, re Heritage, Charity re Income Expenditure Revenue Balance at Balance at see foot of Health & Environment Education 2012/13 2012/13 Surplus 1.4.13 1.4.13 appendix Welfare & Recreation £ £ £ £ £ Innerleithen Fund ELL L ib BRC2 5 1.08 0.00 1.08 0.00 273.72 Galashiels & District Miss A P Pringles Bequest Stow Pri. School-Prizes BRC 3 5 23.29 0.00 23.29 204.96 368.76 Wright Bequest Prize Fund Heriot School-Prizes BRC 3 5 20.44 0.00 20.44 177.19 400.95 Selkirkshire Selkirk High School- creative writing 4,5 &6 McKinney bequest year BRC 4 5 35.28 0.00 35.28 2,121.78 521.85 Selkirk High School - personal social Prof. K J Dennis Centennial Fund development BRC 4 5 1,018.48 0.00 1,018.48 9,100.29 12,396.55 Leaderdale & Melrose Books,tapes,videos-Lauder Primary sch/Public Hall/Library.From 2012 to library only after Revenue bal returns to Lauder library trust (marion Turnbull) Credit. E & L 5 5 505.88 0.00 505.88 32,164.82 307.98 East Berwickshire Common sense & best sense of humour, Isabella Ritchie Collin Bequest Eyemouth BRC 7 5 3.88 0.00 3.88 244.17 16.96 Hawick & Denholm and Hawick & Hermitage Houston Family Prize £500rcd 04/05 Best pupil in history yr 5, Hawick High BRC 10,11 ED 5 8.27 2.00 6.27 524.60 15.33 Former Borders Regional Council Jane & Robert Wallace Music BRC tba-ED 5 118.66 56.00 62.66 1,079.31 879.67 Midlothian Educational Trust BRC tba-ED 5 1.07 0.00 1.07 15.18 54.94 Key to Ward Numbers.

1 Tweeddale West 2 Tweeddale East 3 Galashiels & District 4 Selkirkshire 5 Leaderdale & Melrose 6 Mid Berwickshire 7 East Berwickshire 8 Kelso &District 9 Jedburgh & District 10 Hawick & Denholm 11 Hawick & Hermitage

13 of 13 ITEM 15

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION SCHEME (SCOTLAND) GOVERNANCE CONSULTATION

Report by Chief Financial Officer

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 The report proposes the response from the Council in relation to the Scottish Public Pension Agency discussion paper for the governance arrangements of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) to have effect from 1 April 2015.

1.2 The Council has been given the opportunity to respond to a discussion paper on the governance arrangements for the changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) flowing from the Public Sector Pension Act 2013. The response to this paper is required by 3 February 2014.

1.3 Appendix 1 contains a summary of the questions and the proposed responses to this discussion paper. Appendix 2 contains the full discussion paper incorporating the proposed responses from the Council which will be submitted to the Scottish Public Pensions Agency.

2 STATUS OF REPORT 2.1 This report is being presented without having been subject to the full consultation process due to the need to gain Council agreement to the response before the submission deadline of the 3 February 2014.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Council consider the proposed response as set out in Appendix 2 and approve this, with any revisions considered necessary, as the submission to the Scottish Public Pensions Agency.

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 1 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (the Act) includes several key provisions relating to the administration and governance of the new public service pension schemes established under Section 1 of the Act. In the case of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) in Scotland, these arrangements will apply to the new Scheme which comes into effect on 1 April 2015.

4.2 The Scottish Public Pensions Agency (SPPA) has been tasked with the development of the new regulations to enable these changes. 4.3 The Council has received a request to comment, via a discussion paper, on the new governance arrangements. This paper explores four specific aspects of the Act relating to future arrangements for a new Scheme Manager, a Pensions Board , a Scheme Advisory Board and the future structure of the Local Government Pension Scheme in Scotland all of which have implications for the governance arrangements of the Pension Fund administered by the Council.

5 PROPOSAL 5.1 Appendix 1 contains a summary of all the questions contained in the discussion document and the proposed comments. Appendix 2 contains the full discussion document incorporating these comments in the format that will be submitted to SPPA.

5.1 One of the key areas for the consideration with the regard to the submission of comments for the Council are in relation to the form in which a new Pension Board with equal voting rights for employer (not just the Council) and member representatives is incorporated into the governance of the Fund.

5.2 The other area of importance is linked to the fact that a Heads of Agreement on the LGPS (Scotland) has been determined including agreement to review its current structure. This is covered by Question 30 in the Appendices.

6 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Financial There will be financial implications for the Scottish Borders Pension Fund as a result of implement the Act requirements and the guidance that will emerge following this consultation. However until the final form of governance for the LGPS (Scotland) is understood it is not possible to quantify these. Any costs, however, will have to be met by the Pension Fund’s resources not the Council’s.

6.2 Risk and Mitigations The report via the comments proposed to be submitted address the areas where the Council perceives challenges that are required to be overcome and makes proposals as to how these could be addressed.

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 2 6.3 Equalities As this is a response a discussion paper no Equalities Impact Assessment has been undertaken. The Equalities Impact Assessment for the new legislation will be undertaken by SPPA.

6.4 Acting Sustainably There are no economic, social or environmental effects making this submission to the consultation

6.5 Carbon Management There are no effects on carbon emissions.

6.6 Rural Proofing This section does not apply as this report does not relate to a new or amended policy or strategy.

6.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation The response to the consultation does not require any changes at present, however depending on what is included in the new regulations for LGPS (Scotland) it may be necessary to make changes to either the Scheme of Administration or the Scheme of Delegation. If this is required it will be reported to Committee as appropriate.

6 CONSULTATION 6.1 Unfortunately the requirement to submit a response by the 3 February has meant that this report has not been fully consulted on prior to incorporation into the Council agenda.

6.2 The Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Strategic Policy, the Head of Audit and Risk, the HR Manager and the Clerk to the Council have received a copy of this report any comments that they have will be reported at the Council meeting.

6.3 The Elected Members who sit on the Pension Fund Committee have been circulated the consultation response and any comments that they have will be reported at the Council meeting.

Approved by

David Robertson Chief Financial Officer Signature …………………………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 3 Lynn Mirley Corporate Finance Manager, 01835 825016

Background Papers: Public Sector Pensions Act 2013 Previous Minute Reference:

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. The Treasury Team can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at: Treasury Team, Finance, Scottish Borders Council, Council HQ, Newtown St Boswells, MELROSE, TD2 0SA. Tel: 01835 825016 Email: [email protected]

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 4 Appendix 1

Summary of Proposed Answers to Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) New Governance Arrangements Discussion paper

Pension Board

Q1. What “other matters”, if any, should we include in Scheme regulations to add to the role of local pension boards?

Comments:

None

Any “other matters” that are specified in the Scheme regulations should be consistent with the Pension Boards’ primary aim to support the securing of compliance with regulations and the Pension Regulator.

Q2. Should Scheme regulations make it clear that nobody with a conflict of interest, as defined, may be appointed to or sit on a pension board?

Comments:

In principle, the Scheme regulations should reflect the Public Sector Pensions Act.

An additional requirement in the regulations could be the imposition of a duty on Pension Board members to self-declare any conflicts of interest as and when they occur.

It would be useful for Scheme Managers, and avoid any doubt, if Scottish Ministerial guidance was issued to inform the determination and interpretation of what constitutes a conflict of interest in relation to membership of a Pension Board. It may be appropriate to provide a document similar that of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

Q3. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the type of information that may be “reasonably required”?

Comments:

No.

However Scottish Ministerial guidance on this would be useful.

Page 1 of 11 Q4. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the requirement for managers/administering authorities to undertake regular checks to ensure board members do not have any conflicts of interest?

Comments:

The Act appears to be sufficient for the purposes of the regulations.

However Scottish Ministerial guidance to manage expectations would be useful.

An appropriate mechanism could be the requirement for members to provide an annual return confirming no anticipated conflict of interests, and have declarations of interest as a standing part of any meeting agenda.

Q5. Although not required by the Act, should Scheme regulations prescribe a minimum number of employer and employee representatives?

Comments:

No.

The membership numbers should be left to local discretion given the significant differences in the size and complexity (both in terms of investments and employers) of the Scottish Funds, and in the structures of governance that are in place already.

The requirement for Pension Board Members to demonstrate extensive knowledge and understanding to perform their assisting/scrutiny role has the potential to have an impact the number of Pension Board Members that can be recruited.

Q6. How should the governance of the local government pension scheme in Scotland change to incorporate the changes required by the Act?

Comments:

There is currently inconsistency between the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Public Sector Pensions Act with regards to the governance and legal form for the practical operation of the Pension Boards. This is further complicated if the Pension Board and Scheme Manager’s statutory committee are combined, especially in relation to the 2/3rd Councillor voting rule.

Accessing the appropriate skills and expertises to undertake the Pension Board Member role properly may prove challenging and costly. As a result it may be appropriate to consider establishing fewer expert Pension Boards that can assist several Scottish Scheme Managers.

Clarification in terms of how to provide secretarial, legal and financial advice to these new Pension Boards is also required especially in light of the focus to avoid conflicts of interest.

Page 2 of 11 Q7. Should the new Scheme regulations require local pension boards to be a body separate from the statutory committee or for it to be combined as a single body? It would be helpful if you could provide the reasons which support your answer.

Comments:

In light of previous comments and the key focus of the Pension Board’s role being to assist in securing compliance it is not appropriate to combine the statutory committee and the Pension Board.

Factors that support this perspective:

x The importance of the Pension Boards’ independence and the absence of any conflict of interest in its role of scrutinising the securing of compliance to the regulations and sound governance.

x The fact that equal voting rights on the Pension Boards does not reflect the underlying impact of the Scheme’s statutory committee decisions, which are predominantly concerned decisions on investment and the objective of fund’s long term affordability and sustainability. Under the scheme funding mechanism it is the employers in the Scheme not members that bear the risk around these investment decisions.

x The legal complication relating to the committee membership and voting rights between the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Public Sector Pensions Act.

x Separation would make the management of pensions’ business through the decision making process more manageable and ensure clearer accountabilities and remits for the Pension Boards and statutory committees.

Q8. To what extent should the new Scheme regulations specify the types of members of the pension boards?

Comments:

No detailed specification is required in the Scheme regulations; rather Scottish Ministerial guidance should be developed relation to the membership of the Pension Boards. This could be incorporated into the same guidance document suggested for Conflicts of Interest.

Page 3 of 11 Q9. How should the Pension Boards be chaired?

Comments:

This should be left to local determination by each Scheme fund and the approach to the election, tenure and duties of the chair should be included in the Pension Board’s constitution.

The constitution of the Pension Boards should be subject to the same requirement to consult with Employers and Members as is required by other key pensions’ documents such as the Funding Strategy Statement.

In addition cognisance should be taken of the public appointments policy.

Q10. What should happen in the event of a tied vote at a Pensions Board?

Comments:

This should be left to local determination by each Scheme fund and the approach to the management of decision making should be included in the Pension Board’s constitution. However a sensible approach would seem to be the common practice of the casting vote of the Chair.

The constitution of the Pension Boards should be subject to the same requirement to consult with Employers and Members as is required by other key pensions’ documents such as the Funding Strategy Statement.

Q11. To what extent should the new Scheme regulations specify the manner in which members of the pensions boards are selected?

Comments:

As with the number of members, the manner for selecting members of the Pension Board should be left to local discretion given the significant differences in the size and complexity of the Scottish Funds, and in the structures of governance that are in place already.

The approach to the selection of members should be included in the Pension Board’s constitution.

The constitution of the Pension Boards should be subject to the same requirement to consult with Employers and Members as is required by other key pensions’ documents such as the Funding Strategy Statement.

In addition cognisance should be taken of the public appointments policy.

Page 4 of 11 Q12. Should the introduction of the pension board affect employer and member representation in other parts of funds’ governance? If yes, how?

Comments:

Potentially yes.

Scottish Borders Council currently operates a single Pension Fund Committee which also includes non voting membership from trade unions and other employer bodies. This Committee makes all decisions in relation to the management of the Pension Fund under authority delegated by full Council via the Scheme of Administration for Council Committees. The introduction of the Pension Board will require the Council, as Administering Authority to review these arrangements and establish where and how best to have the appropriate employer and member representation in the decision making and scrutiny of this decision making.

Q13. Should the new Scheme regulations include a requirement for each local pension board to publish an annual statement of its work and for this to be sent to the relevant scheme manager, all scheme employers, the scheme advisory board and Pensions Regulator?

Comments:

Yes, although this should be only a short statement and could be included in the Pension Fund Annual Report.

Scottish Ministerial guidance on content of the annual statement would be useful and would promote consistency across the Scottish LGPS reporting.

Q14. Apart from the training and qualification criteria that may be covered by the Pensions Regulator in a code of practice, are there any specific issues that we should aim to cover in the new Scheme regulations as well?

Comments:

No

Scheme Advisory Board

Q15. Should Scheme regulations simply replicate the wording of the Act? If not, what specific areas of work should the new Scheme regulations prescribe?

Comments:

Yes, in general it should.

However it would also be useful and proper for the regulations to include the provision to allow the Scheme Advisory Board to initiate the provision of advice to the responsible authority.

Page 5 of 11 Q16. Should Scheme regulations include a general provision enabling the scheme advisory board to advise Scottish Ministers on the desirability of changes to the Scheme as and when deemed necessary?

Comments:

Yes, providing the members of the Scheme Advisory Board are subject to the same rigorous knowledge and understanding requirements as the Pension Board Members.

Q17. Are there any specific areas of advice that Scheme regulations should prohibit the scheme advisory board from giving?

Comments:

No.

However, it is vital to the Scheme Managers that all bodies involved in the scrutiny and advisory roles for the Scottish LGPS have clear lines of communication, accountability and responsibility. It is important that all involved understand how the Scheme Advisory Board will interact with the other parties involved with the LGPS in Scotland (e.g. Pension Regulatory, Responsible Authority).

Q18. What would be your preference be for establishing membership of the scheme advisory board?

Comments:

The current SLOGPAG membership into the new Scheme Advisory Board is too narrow to be continued into the new Scheme Advisory Board.

The Council supports the proposal that SLOGPAG is given the responsibility for considering and making recommendations in relation to establishing membership of the Scheme Advisory Board and developing the initial Board constitution. The Council however would want to ensure that it is provided the appropriate opportunity to input into this development and this should also apply to the other Scottish Borders Council Pension Fund stakeholders.

Irrespective of the manner in which the membership is established, it is important to the quality of work and the success of the Scheme Advisory Board that all of the members appointed must be subject to the significant knowledge and understanding standards to enable them to perform their role. The independence and expertise of these members is also important to its successful operation.

Page 6 of 11 Q19. Should Scheme regulations require the Scottish Ministers to approve any recommendation made for the position of Chair?

Comments:

Linked to the response to Q18 above, the Council suggest that rather than include this in the Scheme regulations, this is incorporated into the constitution developed for the Scheme Advisory Board. As previously suggested this development could be undertaken by SLOGPAG in conjunction with the work on the membership structure. The constitution would require to be consulted on widely with all stakeholders.

Q20. Should Scheme regulations prescribe tenure of office? If so, what should the maximum period of office be and should this also apply to the Chair of the board?

Comments:

Linked to the response to Q18/19 above, the Council suggest that rather than include this in the Scheme regulations, this is incorporated into the constitution developed for the Scheme Advisory Board. As previously suggested this development could be undertaken by SLOGPAG in conjunction with the work on the membership structure. The constitution would require to be consulted on widely with all stakeholders.

It is suggested that tenures for the Board membership should be of a length which reflects the complexity of the pensions area and allows the Board to benefit from the build up of the knowledge and understanding required of members. It would be sensible that there is a staggered tenure for the initial members to reduce the risk of the significant loss of knowledge as a result of too many members retiring/resigning from the Board at the same time.

Q21. Should Scheme regulations make provision for board members, including the Chair, to be removed in prescribed circumstances, for example, for failing to attend a minimum number of meetings per annum? If so, who should be responsible for removing members and in what circumstances (other than where a conflict of interest has arisen) should removal be sought?

Comments:

The constitution of the Scheme Advisory Board would seem to be the appropriate place to make these provisions, and the determination of these should be included as part of its development, and subject to the same consultation suggested above.

Page 7 of 11 Q22. Should Scheme regulations prescribe a minimum number of meetings in each year? If so, how many?

Comments:

The constitution of the Scheme Advisory Board would seem to be the appropriate place to make this provision, and the determination of the appropriate frequency should be included as part of its development, and subject to the same consultation suggested above.

It would not be unreasonable to expect at least 2 meetings per year.

Q23. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the number of attendees for the board to be quorate? If so, how many or what percentage of the board’s membership should be required to be in attendance?

Comments:

The constitution of the Scheme Advisory Board rather than the regulations would seem to be the appropriate place to make this provision, and the determination of the appropriate frequency should be included as part of its development, and subject to the same consultation suggested above. This would allow increased flexibility over time to adapt the Scheme Advisory Board’s operation as it evolves and the new scheme becomes established.

Q24. Rather than make specific provision in Scheme regulations, should the matters discussed at Q16 to Q23 be left as matters for the scheme advisory board itself to consider and determine?

Comments:

The Council, in its previous answers suggested that SLOGPAG should be given the initial role to determine the constitution and membership profile of the Scheme Advisory Board following extensive stakeholder engagement and consultation.

This constitution, however, should include an appropriate provision that prevents the Scheme Advisory Board from making amendments without the involvement of stakeholders, in particular the Responsible Authority, the Pension Regulator and the Scheme Managers.

Q25. What other specific issues should SLOGPAG consider prior to the Board being established?

Comments:

The priority for the work up to the commencement of the Scheme Advisory Board is to gain clarity and agreement on its membership, remit and constitution. Following this there will need to be focus on ensuring that the new members have the appropriate level of knowledge and understanding prior to commencement in April 2015.

There will be a need to develop a single point of reference or guidance document on the Page 8 of 11 various topics indicated in the responses to the previous questions. These topics include Pension Boards - membership including conflicts of interest and annual statements,

Guidance on how and when the requirements of the Pensions Regulator will have to be implemented by Scheme Managers.

Supporting the implementation of the scheme changes that will go live in April 2015.

For any data collection, the issue of data consistency between the Scheme Managers will need to be addressed prior to the commencement of any data collection process.

Q26. Under what circumstances should a Shadow Board be established prior to April 2015?

Comments:

The priority for the work up to the commencement of the Scheme Advisory Board is to gain clarity and agreement on its membership, remit and constitution. Following this there will need to be focus on ensuring that the new members have the appropriate level of knowledge and understanding prior to commencement in April 2015.

It is the Council’s opinion that this takes priority over the establishment of a temporary Shadow Board, and in the event that a Shadow Board is established prior to April 2015 it is to be operated in line with the agreed constitution/membership for the Scheme Advisory Board and use the time to work towards the new membership gaining the knowledge and understanding required.

Q27. Do you agree that the scheme advisory board should be funded by a mandatory levy on all Scheme pension fund authorities? If not, what alternative approach would you propose?

Comments:

The Council is of the view that the funding of all Public Sector Pension Scheme Advisory Boards should be consistent.

In principle yes a proportionate mandatory levy would seem appropriate. However the Scheme Advisory Board must ensure the funding provided from the individual pension funds is utilised in a transparent and value for money manner and that this reflects the current resource constraints on public finances. This is important as the new legislation will significantly increase the governance costs on the pension funds and the Scheme Managers are required to be accountable for this increased expenditure.

The Council as Scheme Manager would wish for the budget and funding arranagements for the Scheme Advisory Board to be subject to some form of independent annual audit, review and approval mechanism to ensure its financial accountability.

Page 9 of 11 Q28. How should the subscription vary by fund? Should it be a fixed fee for all funds or proportional to their membership?

Comments:

Whilst it is appreciated that an element of the Scheme Advisory Board’s work will apply equally to all Schemes, the Council is of the view that there will also be an element of the work that is fund size dependant. In light of the significant range of fund sizes in the Scottish LGPS it would therefore seem appropriate for the subscription be proportionate to the size of the fund possibly based on membership numbers of scheme employer organisations.

Q29. What would be your preferred manner of legal constitution of the scheme advisory board and how should Scheme regulations deal with the issue of personal liability protection for board members?

Comments:

No comment.

Q30. What factors should be taken into account in a review of the structure of the Scottish LGPS?

Comments:

x The Council strongly supports the continuation of local determination with regard to investment priorities and funding implications.

x Any reform of structure of the Scottish LGPS, including the number of administering authorities, must based upon comparable empirical data, with regard to the investment performance of funds over time and their expense to asset ratio and not a theoretical estimate of economies of scale that may accrue from a smaller number of larger funds.

x The success of any structure review requires:

o there to be clear objectives at the outset, o the recommendations that result are in line with the agreed initial objectives, o the review outcomes to demonstrate clear improvement above what is currently being delivered in terms of administration, investment, performance, scheme affordability, governance and employer/member accountability, o timescales for the review are realistic and reflect the other significant pensions’ management burdens and delivery requirements that are currently impacting on the Scheme Managers due to the April 2015 implementation date.

Page 10 of 11 Q31. Would it be preferable to retain a ‘light touch’ to governance in the Scheme regulations, with reference instead to a Governance Compliance Document which would contain the detailed governance requirements?

Comments:

Yes as this will allow flexibility to reflect local decision making structures and other local considerations.

Continuation of Scottish Ministerial guidance in this area would ensure the consistency that is required across Scheme Managers.

Page 11 of 11 APPENDIX 2 Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) New Governance Arrangements

Discussion paper

FINAL Version 1.0 – 23 December 2013

1 Contents

How to Respond 3

Introduction 4

Part 1 - Scheme Manager 5

Part 2 - Pension Board 5

Implementation 6

Membership of Pension Boards 9

Accountability of the Board 11

Training and Qualifications 11

Part 3 - Scheme Advisory Board 12

Membership 12

Implementation 13

Shadow Advisory Board 16

Resourcing of the Advisory Board 17

Constitution 18

Part 4 – Review of the Structure of the Scottish LGPS 18

General 19

Conclusion 19

List of Questions 20-21

Consultation response form 22

Heads of Agreement 24

2 How to respond

You should respond to this discussion paper by Monday 3 February 2014

You can respond by email to; [email protected]

When responding please ensure you have the words “Scheme governance discussion paper” in the email subject line.

Alternately you can write to: Kimberly Linge, Policy Manager, Local Government Pension Scheme, Scottish Pensions Agency, 7 Tweedside Park, Tweedbank, Galashiels, TD1 3TE.

When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If responding on behalf of an organisation, please give a summary of the people and organisations it represents and, where relevant, who else you have consulted in reaching your conclusions.

Introduction

The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 includes several key provisions relating to the administration and governance of the new public service pension schemes established under Section 1 of the Act. In the case of the Local Government Pension Scheme in Scotland, these arrangements will apply to the new Scheme which comes into effect on 1 April 2015.

This paper explores four specific sections of the Act which impact on the governance arrangements in the new Scheme:- x Scheme manager x Pension board x Pension board information, and x Scheme advisory board

Each section includes background and a more detailed summary of what we are required to include in the new Scheme to comply with the Act. Where appropriate, the paper also invites comment on consequential issues. Responses to the questions posed throughout the paper will enable us to start work on preparing draft regulations on governance for consultation early in 2014.

3 Part 1 -“Scheme manager”

1.1 Section 4 of the Act requires the new Scheme regulations to provide for a person (“the scheme manager”) to be responsible for managing or administering the Scheme. The term “person” is not to be taken literally. In the Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland), the “scheme manager” for the purposes of Section 4 will be each of the individual Scheme administering authorities in Scotland.

Part 2 - “Pension board”

1.2 Section 5 of the Act requires the new Scheme regulations to provide for the establishment of a board with responsibility for assisting the scheme manager, or each scheme manager, in:-

a) securing compliance with the scheme regulations and other legislation relating to the governance and administration of the scheme and any statutory pension scheme connected with it; b) securing compliance with requirements imposed in relation to the scheme and any connected scheme by the Pensions Regulator, and c) such other matters as the scheme regulations may specify.

1.3 In making these regulations, Scottish Ministers as the “responsible authority”, must have regard to the desirability of securing the effective and efficient governance and administration of the Scheme and any connected schemes.

1.4 Regulations will also need to include provision requiring each scheme manager to be satisfied that a person to be appointed as a member of a pension board does not have a conflict of interest, either at the outset, or from time to time. Section 5(5)of the Act defines “conflict of interest” as any financial or other interest which is likely to prejudice the person’s exercise of functions as a member of the board, but does not include a financial or other interest arising merely by virtue of being a member of the Scheme.

1.5 Scheme regulations will also need to require any person appointed to the pension board or proposed to be appointed, to provide information that can reasonably be requested by the scheme manager to determine whether or not a conflict of interest exists.

1.6 By virtue of Section 5(4)(c), the regulations will also need to ensure that each pension board includes employer representatives and member representatives in equal numbers. Under the Act “employer representatives” means persons appointed to the board for the purpose of representing employers for the Scheme and “member representatives” means persons appointed to the board for the purpose of representing members of the Scheme. In this respect, it is noted that the Act permits nominations for scheme member representatives to come from trades unions or from members who are not members of trades unions.

4 1.7 Under Section 5(7) of the Act, where the scheme manager is a committee of a local authority, Scheme regulations may provide for that committee also to be the board for the purposes of Section 5.

1.8 Scheme regulations will also need to include provision for each scheme manager to publish information about the pension board and to keep that information up to date. This information includes who the members of the board are; representation on the board of members of the scheme and the matters falling within the board’s responsibility.

Implementation

1.9 It is clear that the new Scheme regulations will need to require each scheme manager/administering authority to establish their own pension board.

1.10 To comply with Section 5 of the Act, the new Scheme regulations will need to include the role of each pension board to assist the scheme manager/administering authority in securing compliance with scheme regulations and other legislation; with the Pension Regulator’s codes of practice and with any other matters specified in Scheme regulations.

Q1. What “other matters”, if any, should we include in Scheme regulations to add to the role of local pension boards?

Comments:

None

Any “other matters” that are specified in the Scheme regulations should be consistent with the Pension Boards’ primary aim to support the securing of compliance with regulations and the Pension Regulator.

Please use this space for additional comments

1.11 There is a requirement for scheme managers/administering authorities to check that no person appointed to the board has any conflict of interest as defined in the Act and also to undertake regular checks;

5 Q2. Should Scheme regulations make it clear that nobody with a conflict of interest, as defined, may be appointed to or sit on a pension board?

Comments:

In principle, the Scheme regulations should reflect the Public Sector Pensions Act.

An additional requirement in the regulations could be the imposition of a duty on Pension Board members to self-declare any conflicts of interest as and when they occur.

It would be useful for Scheme Managers, and avoid any doubt, if Scottish Ministerial guidance was issued to inform the determination and interpretation of what constitutes a conflict of interest in relation to membership of a Pension Board. It may be appropriate to provide a document similar that of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

Please use this space for additional comments

1.12 There is a provision requiring a member of the board or person proposed to be a board member to provide whatever information about conflict of interest that the scheme manager/administering authority reasonably require.

Q3. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the type of information that may be “reasonably required”?

Comments:

No.

However Scottish Ministerial guidance on this would be useful.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q4. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the requirement for managers/administering authorities to undertake regular checks to ensure board members do not have any conflicts of interest?

Comments:

The Act appears to be sufficient for the purposes of the regulations.

However Scottish Ministerial guidance to manage expectations would be useful.

An appropriate mechanism could be the requirement for members to provide an annual return confirming no anticipated conflict of interests, and have declarations of interest as a standing part of any meeting agenda.

Please use this space for additional comments

6 1.13 There is a requirement that each pension board must include employer representatives and member representatives in equal numbers.

Q5. Although not required by the Act, should Scheme regulations prescribe a minimum number of employer and employee representatives?

Comments:

No.

The membership numbers should be left to local discretion given the significant differences in the size and complexity (both in terms of investments and employers) of the Scottish Funds, and in the structures of governance that are in place already.

The requirement for Pension Board Members to demonstrate extensive knowledge and understanding to perform their assisting/scrutiny role has the potential to have an impact the number of Pension Board Members that can be recruited.

Please use this space for additional comments

1.14 Section 5(7) of the Act would allow the new Scheme regulations to permit a committee of a local authority to also be the local pension board. This option was deliberately left open in the Act to ensure that a proper discussion of the issues with all interested parties could be undertaken.

1.15 The argument for and against separate bodies is finely balanced. Those who support the committee and pension board being one and the same body argue that local government cannot afford to spend more time and money setting up new bodies, particularly when the function could easily be undertaken by existing pension or investment committees. Others argue that a statutory decision making committee is in no position to fulfil the clear scrutiny role set out in the Act. It cannot, in effect, scrutinise itself and be in a position to assure the scheme manager that it is complying with all relevant legislation and Pension Regulator’s codes of practice.

1.16 Whilst we are seeking your views on the status of local pension boards and statutory committees, it is likely that Scheme Regulations will require that the final outcome must be applied consistently across the Scheme as a whole, i.e. all pension boards will either be combined or separated from statutory committees.

7 Q6. How should the governance of the local government pension scheme in Scotland change to incorporate the changes required by the Act?

Comments:

There is currently inconsistency between the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Public Sector Pensions Act with regards to the governance and legal form for the practical operation of the Pension Boards. This is further complicated if the Pension Board and Scheme Manager’s statutory committee are combined, especially in relation to the 2/3rd Councillor voting rule.

Accessing the appropriate skills and expertises to undertake the Pension Board Member role properly may prove challenging and costly. As a result it may be appropriate to consider establishing fewer expert Pension Boards that can assist several Scottish Scheme Managers.

Clarification in terms of how to provide secretarial, legal and financial advice to these new Pension Boards is also required especially in light of the focus to avoid conflicts of interest.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q7. Should the new Scheme regulations require local pension boards to be a body separate from the statutory committee or for it to be combined as a single body? It would be helpful if you could provide the reasons which support your answer.

Comments:

In light of previous comments and the key focus of the Pension Board’s role being to assist in securing compliance it is not appropriate to combine the statutory committee and the Pension Board.

Factors that support this perspective:

x The importance of the Pension Boards’ independence and the absence of any conflict of interest in its role of scrutinising the securing of compliance to the regulations and sound governance.

x The fact that equal voting rights on the Pension Boards does not reflect the underlying impact of the Scheme’s statutory committee decisions, which are predominantly concerned decisions on investment and the objective of fund’s long term affordability and sustainability. Under the scheme funding mechanism it is the employers in the Scheme not members that bear the risk around these investment decisions.

x The legal complication relating to the committee membership and voting rights between the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Public Sector Pensions Act.

8 x Separation would make the management of pensions’ business through the decision making process more manageable and ensure clearer accountabilities and remits for the Pension Boards and statutory committees.

Please use this space for additional comments

Membership of Pensions Boards

1.17 Apart from requiring equal numbers of employer and scheme member representatives and the restriction on conflicts of interest, the Act is silent on key issues of the pension board including, for example, membership, constitution, frequency of meetings, the nomination process and training.

Q8. To what extent should the new Scheme regulations specify the types of members of the pension boards?

Comments:

No detailed specification is required in the Scheme regulations; rather Scottish Ministerial guidance should be developed relation to the membership of the Pension Boards. This could be incorporated into the same guidance document suggested for Conflicts of Interest.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q9. How should the Pension Boards be chaired?

Comments:

This should be left to local determination by each Scheme fund and the approach to the election, tenure and duties of the chair should be included in the Pension Board’s constitution.

The constitution of the Pension Boards should be subject to the same requirement to consult with Employers and Members as is required by other key pensions’ documents such as the Funding Strategy Statement.

In addition cognisance should be taken of the public appointments policy.

Please use this space for additional comments

9 Q10. What should happen in the event of a tied vote at a Pensions Board?

Comments:

This should be left to local determination by each Scheme fund and the approach to the management of decision making should be included in the Pension Board’s constitution. However a sensible approach would seem to be the common practice of the casting vote of the Chair.

The constitution of the Pension Boards should be subject to the same requirement to consult with Employers and Members as is required by other key pensions’ documents such as the Funding Strategy Statement.

Please use this space for additional comments

1.18 The appointment process should be clear and transparent to ensure accountability of the board.

Q11. To what extent should the new Scheme regulations specify the manner in which members of the pensions boards are selected?

Comments:

As with the number of members, the manner for selecting members of the Pension Board should be left to local discretion given the significant differences in the size and complexity of the Scottish Funds, and in the structures of governance that are in place already.

The approach to the selection of members should be included in the Pension Board’s constitution.

The constitution of the Pension Boards should be subject to the same requirement to consult with Employers and Members as is required by other key pensions’ documents such as the Funding Strategy Statement.

In addition cognisance should be taken of the public appointments policy.

Please use this space for additional comments

1.19 Guidance currently sets best practice for funds to include representatives of participating employers, admitted bodies and scheme members (including pensioner and deferred members) in their governance. However the pension board will compel member and employer representation.

Q12. Should the introduction of the pension board affect employer and member representation in other parts of funds’ governance? If yes, how?

10 Comments:

Potentially yes.

Scottish Borders Council currently operates a single Pension Fund Committee which also includes non voting membership from trade unions and other employer bodies. This Committee makes all decisions in relation to the management of the Pension Fund under authority delegated by full Council via the Scheme of Administration for Council Committees. The introduction of the Pension Board will require the Council, as Administering Authority to review these arrangements and establish where and how best to have the appropriate employer and member representation in the decision making and scrutiny of this decision making.

Please use this space for additional comments

11 Accountability of the Board

1.20 Under Section 6(1) of the Act, Scheme regulations will require scheme managers / administering authorities to publish certain membership details of their local pension board. Given that the main function of the board will be to assure the scheme manager/administering authority that those to whom they have delegated the pensions function are complying with legislation and codes of practice, there is a case for the new Scheme regulations to also require each board to publish an annual report summarising its work.

Q13. Should the new Scheme regulations include a requirement for each local pension board to publish an annual statement of its work and for this to be sent to the relevant scheme manager, all scheme employers, the scheme advisory board and Pensions Regulator?

Comments:

Yes, although this should be only a short statement and could be included in the Pension Fund Annual Report.

Scottish Ministerial guidance on content of the annual statement would be useful and would promote consistency across the Scottish LGPS reporting.

Please use this space for additional comments

Training and qualifications

1.21 Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Act amends Section 90 of The Pensions Act 2004 and requires the Pensions Regulator to issue various codes of practice, including one on the requirements for knowledge and understanding of members appointed to pension boards of public service pension schemes.

1.22 Scottish Ministers, together with other interested parties, are being consulted on the content of this and other codes of practice and this ought to be sufficient to ensure that the specific circumstances of the Local Government Pension Scheme in Scotland and the role of new local pension boards can be taken into account.

Q14. Apart from the training and qualification criteria that may be covered by the Pensions Regulator in a code of practice, are there any specific issues that we should aim to cover in the new Scheme regulations as well?

Comments:

No

Please use this space for additional comments

12 Part 3 – “Scheme advisory board”

1.23 Section 7(1) of the Act will require Scheme regulations to provide for the establishment of a board with responsibility for providing advice to Scottish Ministers, at their request, on the desirability of changes to the Scheme.

1.24 For locally administered schemes, like the Local Government Pension Scheme in Scotland, where there is more than one scheme manager, Scheme regulations may also provide for the board to provide advice (on request or otherwise) to the Scheme managers or the Scheme’s pension boards, in relation to the effective and efficient administration and management of the Scheme or any pension fund of the Scheme.

1.25 Under Section 7(4), Scheme regulations will need to apply the same provisions relating to conflicts of interest to the scheme advisory board as described at paragraph 1.18 above, except that it will be for Scottish Ministers to consider and act on actual cases.

Membership

1.26 As Section 7 of the Act makes no provision for membership of the scheme advisory board, it will be for Scheme regulations to make such provision. This could be achieved in a number of different ways, for example:

x The Scottish Local Government Pensions Advisory Group (SLOGPAG), could consider and make recommendations to Scottish Ministers relating to the number of members, where those members should be drawn from and the balance of membership across the representative areas e.g. employer and employee representatives; x Scottish Ministers could appoint a small membership panel whose remit would be to nominate and appoint initial members of the board, including the Chairperson; x The membership profile of SLOGPAG could be carried forward.

Implementation

Scope/role

1.27 Section 7(1) of the Act defines the scope and role of the scheme advisory board in the widest possible terms (see paragraph 1.23 above). Replicating the wording of the Act in Scheme regulations would be advantageous in terms of allowing the work of the scheme advisory board to evolve without the need for regulatory amendments, but equally, there may be merit in clearly defining certain areas of work, for example, making recommendations to Scottish Ministers on cost management proposals.

13 Q15. Should Scheme regulations simply replicate the wording of the Act? If not, what specific areas of work should the new Scheme regulations prescribe?

Comments:

Yes, in general it should.

However it would also be useful and proper for the regulations to include the provision to allow the Scheme Advisory Board to initiate the provision of advice to the responsible authority.

Please use this space for additional comments

1.28 Section 7(1) of the Act provides that the scheme advisory board is responsible for providing advice to Scottish Ministers, as the responsible authority, at their request. It has been suggested that Scheme regulations include a requirement the advisory board to advise Scottish Ministers on the desirability of changes to the Scheme.

Q16. Should Scheme regulations include a general provision enabling the scheme advisory board to advise Scottish Ministers on the desirability of changes to the Scheme as and when deemed necessary?

Comments:

Yes, providing the members of the Scheme Advisory Board are subject to the same rigorous knowledge and understanding requirements as the Pension Board Members.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q17. Are there any specific areas of advice that Scheme regulations should prohibit the scheme advisory board from giving?

Comments:

No.

However, it is vital to the Scheme Managers that all bodies involved in the scrutiny and advisory roles for the Scottish LGPS have clear lines of communication, accountability and responsibility. It is important that all involved understand how the Scheme Advisory Board will interact with the other parties involved with the LGPS in Scotland (e.g. Pension Regulatory, Responsible Authority).

Please use this space for additional comments

14 Q18. What would be your preference be for establishing membership of the scheme advisory board?

Comments:

The current SLOGPAG membership into the new Scheme Advisory Board is too narrow to be continued into the new Scheme Advisory Board.

The Council supports the proposal that SLOGPAG is given the responsibility for considering and making recommendations in relation to establishing membership of the Scheme Advisory Board and developing the initial Board constitution. The Council however would want to ensure that it is provided the appropriate opportunity to input into this development and this should also apply to the other Scottish Borders Council Pension Fund stakeholders.

Irrespective of the manner in which the membership is established, it is important to the quality of work and the success of the Scheme Advisory Board that all of the members appointed must be subject to the significant knowledge and understanding standards to enable them to perform their role. The independence and expertise of these members is also important to its successful operation.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q19. Should Scheme regulations require the Scottish Ministers to approve any recommendation made for the position of Chair?

Comments:

Linked to the response to Q18 above, the Council suggest that rather than include this in the Scheme regulations, this is incorporated into the constitution developed for the Scheme Advisory Board. As previously suggested this development could be undertaken by SLOGPAG in conjunction with the work on the membership structure. The constitution would require to be consulted on widely with all stakeholders.

Please use this space for additional comments

15 Q20. Should Scheme regulations prescribe tenure of office? If so, what should the maximum period of office be and should this also apply to the Chair of the board?

Comments:

Linked to the response to Q18/19 above, the Council suggest that rather than include this in the Scheme regulations, this is incorporated into the constitution developed for the Scheme Advisory Board. As previously suggested this development could be undertaken by SLOGPAG in conjunction with the work on the membership structure. The constitution would require to be consulted on widely with all stakeholders.

It is suggested that tenures for the Board membership should be of a length which reflects the complexity of the pensions area and allows the Board to benefit from the build up of the knowledge and understanding required of members. It would be sensible that there is a staggered tenure for the initial members to reduce the risk of the significant loss of knowledge as a result of too many members retiring/resigning from the Board at the same time.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q21. Should Scheme regulations make provision for board members, including the Chair, to be removed in prescribed circumstances, for example, for failing to attend a minimum number of meetings per annum? If so, who should be responsible for removing members and in what circumstances (other than where a conflict of interest has arisen) should removal be sought?

Comments:

The constitution of the Scheme Advisory Board would seem to be the appropriate place to make these provisions, and the determination of these should be included as part of its development, and subject to the same consultation suggested above.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q22. Should Scheme regulations prescribe a minimum number of meetings in each year? If so, how many?

Comments:

The constitution of the Scheme Advisory Board would seem to be the appropriate place to make this provision, and the determination of the appropriate frequency should be included as part of its development, and subject to the same consultation suggested above.

It would not be unreasonable to expect at least 2 meetings per year.

Please use this space for additional comments

16 Q23. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the number of attendees for the board to be quorate? If so, how many or what percentage of the board’s membership should be required to be in attendance?

Comments:

The constitution of the Scheme Advisory Board rather than the regulations would seem to be the appropriate place to make this provision, and the determination of the appropriate frequency should be included as part of its development, and subject to the same consultation suggested above. This would allow increased flexibility over time to adapt the Scheme Advisory Board’s operation as it evolves and the new scheme becomes established.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q24. Rather than make specific provision in Scheme regulations, should the matters discussed at Q16 to Q23 be left as matters for the scheme advisory board itself to consider and determine?

Comments:

The Council, in its previous answers suggested that SLOGPAG should be given the initial role to determine the constitution and membership profile of the Scheme Advisory Board following extensive stakeholder engagement and consultation.

This constitution, however, should include an appropriate provision that prevents the Scheme Advisory Board from making amendments without the involvement of stakeholders, in particular the Responsible Authority, the Pension Regulator and the Scheme Managers.

Please use this space for additional comments

Shadow Advisory Board

1.29 The Scheme Advisory Board will be established from 1 April 2015 and the establishment of a Shadow Scheme Advisory Board will be kept under review, but such a Shadow Scheme Advisory Board is anticipated to be beneficial from Autumn 2014 onwards.

1.30 In the period until the Board (or Shadow Board) is established, SLOGPAG will review the governance arrangements within its agreed remit of developing a new Scottish LGPS. Topics for consideration will include, but are not limited to:

a. The structure of the 4 governance related roles identified by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 b. The membership and constitution of the Scheme Advisory Board c. Operation of the cost control mechanism d. The requirements of the Pensions Regulator

17 e. Publication of scheme information f. Relevant provisions in the Institutions of Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) g. Data collection

Q25. What other specific issues should SLOGPAG consider prior to the Board being established?

Comments:

The priority for the work up to the commencement of the Scheme Advisory Board is to gain clarity and agreement on its membership, remit and constitution. Following this there will need to be focus on ensuring that the new members have the appropriate level of knowledge and understanding prior to commencement in April 2015.

There will be a need to develop a single point of reference or guidance document on the various topics indicated in the responses to the previous questions. These topics include Pension Boards - membership including conflicts of interest and annual statements,

Guidance on how and when the requirements of the Pensions Regulator will have to be implemented by Scheme Managers.

Supporting the implementation of the scheme changes that will go live in April 2015.

For any data collection, the issue of data consistency between the Scheme Managers will need to be addressed prior to the commencement of any data collection process.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q26. Under what circumstances should a Shadow Board be established prior to April 2015?

Comments:

The priority for the work up to the commencement of the Scheme Advisory Board is to gain clarity and agreement on its membership, remit and constitution. Following this there will need to be focus on ensuring that the new members have the appropriate level of knowledge and understanding prior to commencement in April 2015.

It is the Council’s opinion that this takes priority over the establishment of a temporary Shadow Board, and in the event that a Shadow Board is established prior to April 2015 it is to be operated in line with the agreed constitution/membership for the Scheme Advisory Board and use the time to work towards the new membership gaining the knowledge and understanding required.

Please use this space for additional comments

18 Resourcing of the Advisory Board

1.31 If the scheme advisory board is to undertake its full range of duties effectively, it will need to have access to finance for example to pay for secretarial services and the necessary advice or analysis on which to base its decisions.

1.32 It is proposed this is regarded as an administration cost and therefore payable by the individual pension funds.

Q27. Do you agree that the scheme advisory board should be funded by a mandatory levy on all Scheme pension fund authorities? If not, what alternative approach would you propose?

Comments:

The Council is of the view that the funding of all Public Sector Pension Scheme Advisory Boards should be consistent.

In principle yes a proportionate mandatory levy would seem appropriate. However the Scheme Advisory Board must ensure the funding provided from the individual pension funds is utilised in a transparent and value for money manner and that this reflects the current resource constraints on public finances. This is important as the new legislation will significantly increase the governance costs on the pension funds and the Scheme Managers are required to be accountable for this increased expenditure.

The Council as Scheme Manager would wish for the budget and funding arranagements for the Scheme Advisory Board to be subject to some form of independent annual audit, review and approval mechanism to ensure its financial accountability.

Please use this space for additional comments

Q28. How should the subscription vary by fund? Should it be a fixed fee for all funds or proportional to their membership?

Comments:

Whilst it is appreciated that an element of the Scheme Advisory Board’s work will apply equally to all Schemes, the Council is of the view that there will also be an element of the work that is fund size dependant. In light of the significant range of fund sizes in the Scottish LGPS it would therefore seem appropriate for the subscription be proportionate to the size of the fund possibly based on membership numbers of scheme employer organisations.

Please use this space for additional comments

Constitution

1.33 The Act requires the setting up of the scheme advisory board but not the manner of its legal constitution. This would imply some form of body corporate to be set out in scheme regulations. Beyond setting out the corporate status of the board,

19 scheme regulations would also need to spell out the personal liability protection for board members.

Q29. What would be your preferred manner of legal constitution of the scheme advisory board and how should Scheme regulations deal with the issue of personal liability protection for board members?

Comments:

No comment.

Please use this space for additional comments

Part 4 – “Review of the Structure of the Scottish LGPS”

1.34 The Heads of Agreement includes the commitment for SLOGPAG or the Shadow Scheme Advisory Board, as appropriate, to establish a process, commencing April 2014, to consult on, and collate data relevant to, a review of the structure of the Scottish LGPS, in order for the Scheme Advisory Board to be in a position to complete such a review.

Q30. What factors should be taken into account in a review of the structure of the Scottish LGPS?

Comments:

x The Council strongly supports the continuation of local determination with regard to investment priorities and funding implications.

x Any reform of structure of the Scottish LGPS, including the number of administering authorities, must based upon comparable empirical data, with regard to the investment performance of funds over time and their expense to asset ratio and not a theoretical estimate of economies of scale that may accrue from a smaller number of larger funds.

x The success of any structure review requires:

o there to be clear objectives at the outset, o the recommendations that result are in line with the agreed initial objectives, o the review outcomes to demonstrate clear improvement above what is currently being delivered in terms of administration, investment, performance, scheme affordability, governance and employer/member accountability, o timescales for the review are realistic and reflect the other significant pensions’ management burdens and delivery requirements that are currently impacting on the Scheme Managers due to the April 2015 implementation date.

20 Please use this space for additional comments

General

1.35 The current LGPS (Scotland) Regulations have a light touch’ on governance, instead they refer to the Governance Compliance Statement. This allows for changes in governance arrangements to be made without having to amend existing regulations.

Q31. Would it be preferable to retain a ‘light touch’ to governance in the Scheme regulations, with reference instead to a Governance Compliance Document which would contain the detailed governance requirements?

Comments:

Yes as this will allow flexibility to reflect local decision making structures and other local considerations.

Continuation of Scottish Ministerial guidance in this area would ensure the consistency that is required across Scheme Managers.

Please use this space for additional comments

Conclusion

1.36 Scheme governance has a critical role in supporting the delivery of excellent LGPS performance and open and transparent governance arrangements have long been encouraged and supported in Scotland. We would strongly encourage you to consider this paper carefully and to respond to as many of the questions as you see fit. Your contribution will be of great assistance in helping us to prepare a set of draft regulations on Scheme governance for formal consultation.

21 List of Questions

Q1. What “other matters”, if any, should we include in Scheme regulations to add to the role of local pension boards?

Q2. Should Scheme regulations make it clear that nobody with a conflict of interest, as defined, may be appointed to or sit on a pension board?

Q3. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the type of information that may be “reasonably required”?

Q4. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the requirement for managers/administering authorities to undertake regular checks to ensure board members do not have any conflicts of interest?

Q5. Although not required by the Act, should Scheme regulations prescribe a minimum number of employer and employee representatives?

Q6. How should the governance of the local government pension scheme in Scotland change to incorporate the changes required by the Act?

Q7. Should the new Scheme regulations require local pension boards to be a body separate from the statutory committee or for it to be combined as a single body? It would be helpful if you could provide the reasons which support your answer.

Q8. To what extent should the new Scheme regulations specify the types of members of the pension boards?

Q9. How should the Pension Boards be chaired?

Q10. What should happen in the event of a tied vote at a Pensions Board?

Q11. To what extent should the new Scheme regulations specify the manner in which members of the pensions boards are selected?

Q12. Should the introduction of the pension board affect employer and member representation in other parts of funds’ governance? If yes, how?

Q13. Should the new Scheme regulations include a requirement for each local pension board to publish an annual statement of its work and for this to be sent to the relevant scheme manager, all scheme employers, the scheme advisory board and Pensions Regulator?

Q14. Apart from the training and qualification criteria that may be covered by the Pensions Regulator in a code of practice, are there any specific issues that we should aim to cover in the new Scheme regulations as well?

Q15. Should Scheme regulations simply replicate the wording of the Act? If not, what specific areas of work should the new Scheme regulations prescribe?

Q16. Should Scheme regulations include a general provision enabling the scheme advisory board to advise Scottish Ministers on the desirability of changes to the Scheme as and when deemed necessary?

22 Q17. Are there any specific areas of advice that Scheme regulations should prohibit the scheme advisory board from giving?

Q18. What would be your preference be for establishing membership of the scheme advisory board?

Q19. Should Scheme regulations require the Scottish Ministers to approve any recommendation made for the position of Chair?

Q20. Should Scheme regulations prescribe tenure of office? If so, what should the maximum period of office be and should this also apply to the Chair of the board?

Q21. Should Scheme regulations make provision for board members, including the Chair, to be removed in prescribed circumstances, for example, for failing to attend a minimum number of meetings per annum? If so, who should be responsible for removing members and in what circumstances (other than where a conflict of interest has arisen) should removal be sought?

Q22. Should Scheme regulations prescribe a minimum number of meetings in each year? If so, how many?

Q23. Should Scheme regulations prescribe the number of attendees for the board to be quorate? If so, how many or what percentage of the board’s membership should be required to be in attendance?

Q24. Rather than make specific provision in Scheme regulations, should the matters discussed at Q16 to Q23 be left as matters for the scheme advisory board itself to consider and determine?

Q25. What other specific issues should SLOGPAG consider prior to the Board being established?

Q26. Under what circumstances should a Shadow Board be established prior to April 2015?

Q27. Do you agree that the scheme advisory board should be funded by a mandatory levy on all Scheme pension fund authorities? If not, what alternative approach would you propose?

Q28. How should the subscription vary by fund? Should it be a fixed fee for all funds or proportional to their membership?

Q29. What would be your preferred manner of legal constitution of the scheme advisory board and how should Scheme regulations deal with the issue of personal liability protection for board members?

Q30. What factors should be taken into account in a review of the structure of the Scottish LGPS?

Q31. Would it be preferable to retain a ‘light touch’ to governance in the Scheme regulations, with reference instead to a Governance Compliance Document which would contain the detailed governance requirements?

23 CONSULTATION RESPONSE FORM LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION SCHEME (SCOTLAND) (please complete and return to the address at the end of the form to ensure that we handle your response appropriately). 1. Name/Organisation Organisation Name Scottish Borders Council Title

Surname

Forename

2. Postal Address Council HQ Newtown St Boswells Melrose

Postcode TD6 0SA Phone 01835 824000

Email [email protected]

3. Permissions - I am responding as… (please complete either sections (a), (b) and (d) or sections (c) and (d):

Individual or Group/Organisation

(a) Do you agree to your response being made (c) The name and address of your organisation available to the public (in Scottish Government will be made available to the public (in the library and/or on the Scottish Government web Scottish Government library and/or on the site)? Scottish Government web site).

Please state yes or no: (b) Where confidentiality is not requested, we will Are you content for your response to be make your responses available to the public on made available? the following basis Please state yes to one of the following: Please state yes or no: …YES………… Yes, make my response, name and ...... address all available or Yes, make my response available, ……... but not my name and address or Yes, make my response and name ……… available, but not my address

(d) We will share your response internally with other Scottish Government policy teams who may be addressing the issues you discuss. They may wish to contact you again in the future, but we require your permission to do so. Are you content for Scottish Government to contact you again in relation to this consultation exercise? Please state yes or no: ……YES………………………………….

24 Please e-mail your response to [email protected] or send via mail to:

LGPS Governance Consultation SPPA Policy 7 Tweedside Park Tweedbank Galashiels TD1 3TE

The closing date for receipt of comments is 3 February 2014.

25 Heads of Agreement - Scheme Governance proposals

The following details the governance proposals in the Heads of Agreement agreed by the Scottish Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Group.

x The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 identifies 4 core governance related roles which must be established from 1 April 2015:

a. Responsible Authority – the Scottish Ministers who make the regulations for the LGPS (Scotland) b. Scheme Manager – the function of managing and administering the scheme c. Pension Board – the body responsible for assisting the Scheme Manager in relation to compliance with scheme regulations and the requirements of the Pensions Regulator d. Scheme Advisory Board – the body responsible for providing advice to the Responsible Authority, at the authority’s request, on the desirability of changes to the scheme. The Scheme Advisory Board also provides advice to the Scheme Manager and Pension Board in relation to the effective and efficient administration and management of the scheme.

x SLOGPAG recognises the critical role governance has in supporting the delivery of excellent LGPS performance and therefore encourages and supports good practice through open and transparent governance arrangements.

x SLOGPAG will review the governance arrangements within its agreed remit of developing a new Scottish LGPS. Topics for consideration will include, but are not limited to:

a. The structure of the 4 governance related roles identified by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 b. The membership and constitution of the Scheme Advisory Board c. Operation of the cost control mechanism d. The requirements of the Pensions Regulator e. Publication of scheme information f. Relevant provisions in the Institutions of Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) g. Data collection x SLOGPAG will discharge its duties, as defined in the ‘Role of SLOGPAG’ document agreed by SLOGPAG members in December 2012, and will then cease to operate. x The Scheme Advisory Board will be established from 1 April 2015 and the establishment of a Shadow Scheme Advisory Board will be kept under review, but such a Shadow Scheme Advisory Board is anticipated to be beneficial from Autumn 2014 onwards. x It is anticipated that the Scheme Advisory Board will be bilateral with an equal number of employer and employee representatives. There will be an independent chair and the size of the Board will be around 15 people. In addition, advisors and observers will also attend the Board but will not have membership status. x SLOGPAG or the Shadow Scheme Advisory Board, as appropriate, will establish a process, commencing April 2014, to consult on, and collate data relevant to, a review

26 of the structure of the Scottish LGPS, in order for the Scheme Advisory Board to be in a position to complete such a review.

27 ITEM 16

CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2012-2013 Report by Acting Director of Social Work

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

1.1 This report informs Members of the activities which took place over the period 1 August 2012–31 July 2013 aimed at protecting children and young people in the Scottish Borders from abuse and neglect.

1.2 The Annual Report covers the main activities of the multi-agency Child Protection Committee (CPC) and its Sub Committees. In order to make it more accessible to staff, the format of this years report is shorter in length compared to previous reports focussing on the key functions of CPC. This information is presented in the Annual Report of the Scottish Borders Child Protection Committee which is included as an addendum to this report.

1.3 A review of the entire child protection procedures was completed during 2012 and a new version was launched in September of that year. A number of new sections and protocols were added or updated to ensure best practice and that they are in line with national guidance and legislation.

1.4 The management of child protection performance and practice is overseen by CPC. Performance information and self evaluation reports continued to be routinely reviewed by CPC and on a single agency basis to identify trends and inform practice as required.

1.5 Lessons learned and good practice examples from National and local child protection case reviews were brought to CPC through the Practice Development and Review Sub Committees. Where required, updates were made to the child protection procedures.

1.6 CPC continued to maintain and develop strong working links with local and national strategic groups. The CPC Chair, Lead Officer and CPC Training Officer attended a number of National Child protection meetings during the period.

1.7 CPC continued its commitment to raising awareness of child protection though the delivery of child protection training events, the CPC website and CPC newsletters.

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 1 1.8 Child Protection Training remains a key responsibility of CPC with a range of multi-agency and single agency events being held throughout the year

1.9 CPC continued its commitment to creating a positive and transparent culture of continuous learning based upon feedback from those who use and experience our services.

1.10 CPCs priorities for the forthcoming year (2013/2014), which are the basis of the CPC business plan, are included in the annual report.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 I recommend Council notes the content of the Child Protection Committee Annual Report (Appendix 1).

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 2 3 BACKGROUND

3.1 Scottish Borders Child Protection Committee (CPC) is an inter-agency group of senior staff which provides leadership in promoting the continual improvement of services in this area of work. This entails ensuring that there is an efficient and effective multi–agency response to reports of abuse through, for instance, reviewing and revising practice guidelines, joint training and reviewing of individual cases – all conducted within a culture of continuous learning. In addition, the Committee has a role to promote the safety of children through raising awareness in communities across the Scottish Borders of the key role which members of the public play.

3.2 The Child Protection Committee reports directly to the Critical Services Oversight Group (CSOG) consisting of Chief Executive (SBC), Chief Executive (NHS Borders) and Divisional Commander Police Scotland (Police).

3.3 CPC was chaired by Alan Blackie during the reporting period August 2012 to July 2013, before stepping down in August 2013. Duncan MacAulay took over the role of Independent CPC Chair in September 2013. Duncan has worked in the social work profession for over 35 years, holding several senior management posts including Director of Social Work and Chair of Child Protection Committee.

3.4 Members of CPC remain committed to the protection of children as the focus of the Committee’s work. CPC has met regularly during the year. Much has been achieved by CPC and its Sub Groups through its inter- agency agenda and effective partnership work.

3.5 CPC oversees the development of all multi-agency child protection polices and procedures in the Scottish Borders and at the very forefront of this work are the online multi-agency child protection procedures available via the CPC website.

3.6 Various forms of public information have been circulated. This includes child protection posters, internet safety leaflets to parents, child trafficking information to staff and CPC Newsletters.

3.7 Local and national child protection news continues to be available via the CPC website and CPC newsletters.

3.8 There were 39 awareness raising training events delivered during the year, training approximately 860 people. There were also a number of advance training courses provided such as ‘Working with Dangerous, Difficult and Evasive Families’ and ‘Child Trafficking’.

3.9 CPC continued to acknowledge the importance of self evaluation and to support the ongoing development of the Self Evaluation Framework by the CPC Quality Improvement Sub Group. CPC continued to review the child protection performance report at each meeting.

4 IMPLICATIONS

4.1 Financial

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 3 There are no financial implications.

4.2 Risk and Mitigations The Annual Report is an important document for monitoring activity and for identifying areas of improvement. The risk of not collating information in this way would be a reduction in the quality of strategic work relating to Child Protection.

4.3 Equalities There are no equality implications.

4.4 Acting Sustainably There are no implications identified.

4.5 Carbon Management There are no implications identified. 4.6 Rural Proofing There are no implications identified.

4.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation There are no implications identified.

5 CONSULTATION

5.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Audit and Risk, The Head of Strategic Policy, the HR Manager and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and their comments are incorporated in the report.

Approved by

Acting Director of Social Work Signature …………………………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Gillian Nicol Child Protection Lead Officer Tel: 01835 825 080

Background Papers: Nil

Previous Minute Reference: Nil

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Susan Cannon can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact Susan Cannon, Social Work, Scottish Borders Council, Council HQ, Newtown St. Boswells, Melrose, TD6 OSA. Tel: 01835 825080

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 4

Scottish Borders Child Protection Committee

Annual Report 2012-2013

Vision: All children in the Scottish Borders have the right to grow up safe from abuse.

CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

Contents Page Message from the Independent Chair ………………..………………..… 2 Polices, Procedures and Protocols ………………..………………...…… 3 Performance Management ………………..………………..………….…. 3 Prompting Good Practice ………………..……………..….……………… 3 Communication and Planning ………………..………………..….……… 4 Training and Development …………….………………………..……....… 4 Self Evaluation ………………………………………………………….….. 6 Gathering Children / Parents Views …………………………………….. 7 Inspection ………………………………………………………………..….. 7 Local Child Protection Data …………………………………………….…. 7 Public Information / Awareness Raising ………………..…………..….... 8 Business Plan 2013-2014 ………………………………..……...... 9 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….. 9 How to report a concern about a child / young person ………………… 10 List of Acronyms …..……………………………………………………….. 10

For copies of this leaflet in large print, CD or other languages and format please contact 01835 825080

Message from the Chair

I am delighted to present to you the Scottish Borders Child Protection Committee (SBCPC) Annual report 2012/13 which provides a summary of the key work of the Committee over the year.

SBCPC changed their reporting period from August to July last year to coincide with new national reporting.

SBCPC key strategic planning for the year continued to focus around their business plan. Priorities included follow up on the findings from the Inspection in September 2011, improving self evaluation processes and outcomes for children, implementing multi- agency risk assessments, GIRFEC (Getting it right for every child) principles, implementation of the ‘named person’, reviewing the Scottish Borders child protection procedures and training and development.

I believe effective partnership working and strong leadership is a key strength in the protection of Scottish Borders children and young people. The 2011 inspection highlighted that staff work well together to meet children’s needs and keep them safe.

I would like to thank the Chief Officers group, SBCPC Members and their sub group Members for their ongoing contribution and support to the protection of children and young people in the Scottish Borders.

Alan Blackie Independent Chair Scottish Borders Child Protection Committee

Page 2 CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

Policies, procedures and protocols

SBCPC oversees the development of all multi-agency child protection polices and procedures in the Scottish Borders and at the very forefront of this work are the online multi-agency child protection procedures. The procedures are available on the SBCPC website www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

During the year a number of updates were made to the child protection procedures:

ƒ An extensive review of the entire procedures was undertaken in 2012 and a new version was launched in September 2012.

ƒ NHS Borders, through the child protection health action group, developed and introduced the ‘Unseen Child Policy’ to assist practitioners in determining the most appropriate course of action to be taken where a child is ‘unseen’. This was a recommendation from the Declan Hainey significant case review. ƒ A new section “vulnerable young persons protocol – children who are at risk of causing harm to themselves or others”. It is recognised that within the Scottish Borders there is a small number of children / young people at risk of causing significant harm to themselves or others. This risk may be as a consequence of their own behaviour or a consequence of others behaviour towards them. The “vulnerable young persons” protocol is intended to give staff guidance for the assessment, decision making and co-ordination of a multi-agency response to the needs of this group of children and young people.

ƒ A new section ‘legislation and policy’ provides staff with relevant legislation. Staff should be aware of their legal responsibilities and duties as well as understanding the legal framework within which they and other organisations and agencies operate.

ƒ A new section ‘alcohol and drug misuse’ provides guidance on parental substance misuse, young people and substance misuse and pregnancy and substance misuse.

ƒ Protocols around specific risk factors to children were reviewed and updated. These included children affected by domestic abuse, children with disabilities and children affected by parental mental health problems.

Performance Management

The Quality Improvement sub group is responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring child protection performance management activity on a multi-agency basis.

This is achieved through a multi-agency child protection performance / self evaluation framework which provide clear and measurable data set which can be used to understand the activity and outcomes of the current child protection practices and highlights questions that need to be asked and answered about the effectiveness of that practice.

A range of auditing tools and processes are utilised to gather information (data set) on different areas of child protection practice.

A performance management report is reviewed by SBCPC on a regular basis.

Page 3 CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

Promoting Good Practice

The findings and recommendations from National and local case reviews provide lessons to be learned and good practice examples and are brought to SBCPC through the Practice Development and Review Sub Groups. Any updates to the child protection procedures and inter-agency child protection training courses are then made

SBCPC continued to promote the principles and implementation of the GIRFEC (Getting it right for every child) approach which ensures the child or young person is always at the centre of every process and decision. All child protection training now includes sign posting to GIRFEC.

Communication and planning

Effective links are in place between SBCPC and wider partnership planning groups such as Integrated Children’s Services and the Children and Young People Planning Partnership. There are also strong links with adult protection, the alcohol and drugs partnerships and community safety groups.

The SBCPC Chair and the Child Protection Lead Officer attend the National CPC Chairs, Child Protection Lead Officers and Scottish Government meetings. They also attend a variety of seminars and conferences on behalf of the SBCPC.

The SBCPC Training and Development Officers participate in the National Trainers Group.

Training and Staff Development

One of SBCPCs key responsibilities is to assess and review the need for child protection training in the Borders and to ensure a high quality training programme is in place for practitioners and members of the public who come into contact with children or families/carers as part of their work, voluntary or leisure activities.

SBCPC continued to provide a range of multi-agency and single agency child protection training events throughout the year and details of courses and how to book a place are available on the SBCPC website.

Awareness raising training Ten courses were advertised in the child protection training calendar and approximately 320 people attended. This half day course is open to anyone who works with children or families/carers. A number of other awareness raising courses were held during the year including single agency/group courses.

Attendees Housing Police Foster carers 4% 1% Education 4% 24% Vol/Other 20%

SW Health 22% 25%

Page 4 CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

Multi-agency training This full day course is designed for practitioners, volunteers and managers from all agencies who are in regular contact or carry out direct work with children and/or their parents/carers and who have an organisational duty to learn more about child protection as they may attend a child protection case conference in the course of their work.

Five courses were held and approximately 170 people attended.

Attendees Vol/Other Police 6% Education 8% 25% SW 28%

Health 33%

Child trafficking / Sexual Exploitation raising awareness events Two events took place with approximately 40 participants at each. Participants must have undertaken previous child protection training to attend this half day course.

40% Attendees 32% 30% 22% 20% 15% 14%

10% 8% 5% 3% 2% 0% Education Social Work Health Police Safer Voluntary Housing Fire service communities Sector

Working with Difficult, Dangerous and Evasive Families Eight half day courses were held with approximately 20 attendees at each. This course is delivered by an external trainer and continues to be very popular with professionals.

Attendees 31% 29% 30% 24%

20% 12% 10% 2% 2% 0% Social Work Education NHS Voluntary Hous ing Community Sector Safety

National Risk Assessment framework The Training Sub Group is currently developing a multi-agency training program around the National Risk Assessment Toolkit for Child Protection which was launched in December 2012. Staff across all agencies are expected to use the tool in conjunction with current tools.

Page 5 CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

Joint Investigative Interviews Training and refresher courses are provided to social work and police professionals. This involved receiving training on the use of equipment for visual recording of interviews.

Public Protection Trainers Group This is a small group representing child protection, adult protection, MAPPA and VAWP, and aims to ensure a more coordinated approach is made to all aspects of Public Protection training in the Scottish Borders. The group are developing a public protection induction level training package which all agencies / groups will be able to utilise.

Child and Adult Protection inputs A short input on child protection continues to form part of all Adult Support and Protection Training events and vice versa for Child Protection. Joint child and adult protection briefings continue to be made available to groups of staff eg dental practices at their request.

NHS Borders Staff Training The NHS Borders Child Protection Training Strategy provides information about the levels and provision of child protection training for staff. ‘Child Protection Basic Knowledge and Understanding’ training is available to all staff at induction and an e- learning module is mandatory for all staff to complete every 2 years. Staff who work with children and young people are encouraged to attend the whole range of public protection training provided on a multi-agency basis based on their personal development plan and identified learning needs.

Police Scotland Training All probationary officers within Police Scotland complete a 12-week course at the Scottish Police College, which includes various modules relating to child protection and public vulnerability. On returning to Police Scotland, irrespective of divisional postings, all probationer officers receive further child protection input during their operational service. Officers out with their probation receive updated inputs in respect of legislative change and operating procedure. Officers with supervisory responsibility are provided with further training in respect of child protection, domestic abuse and vulnerability, which includes the IRD process.

National Framework for Learning and Development Training programmes are being reviewed and e-learning packages developed and these will be made available to staff and other agencies.

Self Evaluation

SBCPC recognises the responsibility of all partner agencies who work with children and their families, to offer services which meet national standards for child protection, and where possible, to exceed them.

SBCPC are committed to creating a positive and transparent culture of continuous learning based upon feedback from those who use and experience our services – children and young people, their families, local communities, staff and volunteers from front line practitioners to senior strategic managers.

Page 6 CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

Gathering Children and Parents Views

The views of children and families is important to SBCPC in order to inform and improve child protection practices.

Children’s views are gathered through ‘Viewpoint’, a computer based interactive programme which gathers the individual circumstances and experiences of children involved in the child protection process. Where appropriate, children (over 8 years) are invited to attend case conferences. The bi-annual Young People’s Survey asks school age children specific questions around child protection.

A questionnaire for gathering parent’s views on their experiences is currently being piloted. It is planned to role this out early 2014.

Inspections

There was no social work or child protection inspection in the year 2012-2013.

SBCPC continued to monitor the action plan developed following the Care Inspectorate inspection of child protection services in the Scottish Borders in September 2011.

One of the areas highlighted for improvement in the 2011 inspection was around identifying and following up on the wider health needs of children when a child protection medical examination has not been necessary. In response to this the Child Protection Health Action Group developed, piloted and introduced a NHS Borders ‘Health Needs Assessment Form’ for looked after children and children involved in the child protection process. The form identifies any wider needs of the child and referral to relevant agencies where appropriate. The feedback from staff has been very positive.

Local Child Protection Data

A total of 88 children’s names appeared on the Scottish Borders Child Protection Register between 1st August 2012 and 31st July 2013. There was an average of 33 children on the register per month which is down compared to the previous year. The number of children on the Register as of 31st July 2013 was 29.

There were 489 child protection referrals made in the year with the main source coming from professionals within education, health, social work and police. The number of referrals from the public has decreased slightly on the previous year.

Investigations by Age/Gender (Age at investigation end date)

80 There were 113 Child (60) 60 (45) Protection Investigations 29 completed in the year and 40 13 53% of these were female 20 18 17 (08) and 40% male. The remaining 11 14 7% were unborn. 0 8 Female Male Unborn

Unborn 0-4 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16+ years

Page 7 CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

% Case Conferences leading to registration

Not Registered A total of 49 Initial/pre- 10% birth/transfer-in child protection Registered case conferences took place in 90% the year with 90% of these leading to the child’s name being placed on the child protection register. It could be said this evidences the appropriateness of referrals.

Concerns identified at Case Conference

Emotional Abuse 43 The concern around the child is

Neglect 35 identified at the initial case conference and our statistics Parental M H Problems 31 show that emotional abuse (43%) Domestic Abuse 18 and neglect (35%) continue to be Parental Alcohol Abuse 16 the main concern. Other areas of Physical Abuse 14 concern are parental mental

Parental Drug M isuse 10 health problems (31%), parental

Sexual Abuse 4 substance misuse - alcohol (16%) and drugs (10%), domestic abuse Non Engaging Family 4 (18%), non engaging families Other Concerns 2 (4%) and sexual abuse (4%). In Child Exploitation 0 many cases children have more Child Placing Themselves at Risk 0 than one concern identified.

0 10203040

Public Information

SBCPC, through the Education Sub Group, has been successfully raising awareness in schools of human trafficking /sexual exploitation. The ‘Dangerous Loverboy’ short film on the subject has been endorsed by Parents Councils and Education staff in the Borders and it will be rolled out to secondary schools in 2013.

Practitioners and members of the public continue to be sign posted to the SBCPC website for information on local and national child protection news as well as information on training, the child protection procedures and what to do if they have concerns about a child or young person.

The Scottish Government provided CPCs with child protection leaflets with local telephone numbers printed on them. The leaflets have been distributed widely within the Borders including Schools, health centres, hospitals, voluntary organisations, family support centres and community centres.

A biannual SBCPC newsletter is disseminated widely to staff across all agencies. The newsletter is available on the SBCPC website.

Page 8 CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

Business Plan

SBCPC’s priorities for the forthcoming year 2013-2014 are:

ƒ Implement the National Risk Assessment Toolkit for child protection across all agencies in the Scottish Borders. ƒ Implement an inter-agency chronology system to improve information for assessment and planning ƒ Develop and introduce a questionnaire for gathering the views of parents / carers ƒ Develop and implement an inter-agency case file audit reporting process ƒ Maintain, evaluate and update Inter-agency child protection training and adapt or introduce courses as required ƒ Review the findings in the Care Inspectorate report of all joint child protection inspections 2009-2012 to assess if improvements in local practice are required. ƒ Ensure adequate training and support is in place for secondary school pupils who are taking more responsibility with younger pupils ƒ Develop and introduce a single pathway to manage emerging needs, concerns, vulnerability, significant harm and risks to children / young people. ƒ Review and update the Scottish Borders Vulnerable Young Persons (VYP) Protocol. ƒ Increase public awareness of child protection and what to do should people have concerns. ƒ Improve cross border child protection links with Northumberland and Cumbria.

Conclusion

The past year has presented many challenges for the SBCPC in respect to the current economic climate and the ever increasing requirement to evaluate services in order to continually develop and improve outcomes for children and their families involved in the child protection system.

SBCPC acknowledges the work of all concerned in protecting children in the Scottish Borders and is committed through its Business Plan to building on the progress that has been made.

Page 9 CPC Website – www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc

What to do if you have a concern

Child Protection is everyone’s responsibility!

If people suspect a child or young person is at risk of harm they should act without delay. For advice, information or to report a concern they should contact the Integrated Children’s Services (ICS) Locality Team in which the child lives:-

ICS Berwickshire Tel 01361 886115

ICS Eildon Tel: 01896 664158

ICS Cheviot Tel: 01573 227421

ICS Tweeddale Tel: 01721 726310

ICS Teviot & Liddesdale Tel: 01450 364777

OUT OF OFFICE HOURS Social Work Emergency Duty Team 01896 752111 or the police

If there is no answer, don’t give up, try another ICS office.

If you consider the child / young person is in immediate danger, call the police on 999 without delay.

List of Acronyms

SBCPC – Scottish Borders Child Protection Committee CPC – Child Protection Committee GIRFEC – Getting it Right for Every Child MAPPA – Multi-agency Public Protection Agency Arrangements VAWP – Violence Against Women Partnership IRD – Initial Referral discussion ICS - Integrated Children’s Services

Page 10

Child Protection is Everyone’s Responsibility!

Scottish Borders Child Protection Committee website www.onlineborders.org.uk/community/cpc ITEM 17

SCOTTISH BORDERS ADULT PROTECTION COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT (2012 – 2013)

Report by Acting Director of Social Work

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report informs members of the continuing progress in Scottish Borders in the development of an interagency approach to the support and protection of adults who are at risk of harm (as defined in the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007).

1.2 The Annual Report covers the activities of the Scottish Borders Adult Protection Committee during the period 1st April 2012 – 31st March 2013 (attached). The report highlights the continuing work being done in the Scottish Borders regarding completing statutory duties in relation to supporting and protecting adults at risk of harm in the area. This includes information on the Adult Protection Committee and its subcommittees; statistical information collated by the Adult Protection Unit; the operational work undertaken in order to meet the statutory requirements of the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 Act; and the Learning & Development programme adopted by the Scottish Borders.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Council endorses the Annual Report of the Scottish Borders Adult Protection Committee 2012/13 and agrees that it be published on the Council’s website and distributed.

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 1 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 The interagency Scottish Borders Adult Protection Committee and the Adult Protection Unit were established in 2005. This is the eighth Annual Report published, on behalf of the Adult Protection Committee.

3.2 The Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 was passed by the Scottish Government in February 2007 and received royal assent on 22 March 2007. Part 1 of the Act deals with the protection of adults at risk of harm and was implemented in October 2008. It introduced new measures to protect individuals who fall into the category of ‘adults at risk’.

4 ANNUAL REPORT 2012 - 2013

4.1 The Annual Report details the range and variety of activity undertaken by the Adult Protection Committee in working together to protect adults at risk in the Scottish Borders, and implement fully the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007.

4.2 In order to achieve its objectives, the Adult Protection Committee agreed an ‘Interagency Strategy and Plan for Protection of Adults at Risk (2012- 2015)’ in order to meet the statutory requirements of the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007. There are three subcommittees established in order to help the Adult Protection Committee and the Adult Protection Unit achieve the priorities in the Interagency Strategy.

4.3 A review of Adult Protection activity shows an overall increase in protection concerns since 2008. In 2012 – 2013 there were 1058 referrals received where there was a suspicion of an adult at risk of harm. This progressed to 189 Adult Protection concerns being investigated where it was known or believed that an adult was at risk as defined by the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2001. ‘Adults at risk’ are adults who x Are unable to safeguard their own well – being, property, rights or other interests x Are at risk of harm, and x Because they are affected by disability, mental disorder, illness or physical or mental infinity, are more vulnerable to being harmed than adults who are not so affected.

For those referrals that did not progress to an Adult Protection concern, as defined above, a significant number were signposted to other services for support.

4.4 Under the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, the Council has a duty to inquire and investigate situations where harm is suspected. The majority of inquiries and investigations are managed through the use of supportive interventions without resorting to the use of Protective Orders available via this Act; or other appropriate interventions via the Mental Health (Care & Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 or the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. This is in line with the principles of these Acts and what would be the least restrictive, most beneficial and proportionate response. Most situations are progressed by negotiation and cooperation, and consideration is given to other legal avenues where

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 2 appropriate. The sharing of appropriate information between partner agencies has ensured that individuals are suitably protected from harm without unnecessary intervention.

4.5 The Learning & Development programme adopted by the Scottish Borders attempts to deliver a bespoke approach to learning. The rolling programme of standard training sessions is open to all agencies (statutory, independent and third sector) based in the Scottish Borders, and the outcomes are based on the national training programme developed for the Scottish Government. It is acknowledged that it is important for all partners to work together in supporting and protecting adults at risk of harm, and multi-agency training helps to deliver this message to people who may have contact with adults at risk. In 2012-2013, a total of 2,435 people completed training modules.

5 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial There are no costs attached to any of the recommendations contained in this report.

5.2 Risk and Mitigations This report makes an important contribution to the overall management of risks of the Council and the governance of this important area of activity.

5.3 Equalities It is anticipated there will be no adverse equality implications due to race, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation or religion/belief arising from the proposals contained in this report.

5.4 Acting Sustainably There are no known effects on economic, social or environmental implications arising from this report.

5.5 Carbon Management There are no known effects on carbon emissions arising from this report.

5.6 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation There are no known changes required to either the Scheme of Administration or the Scheme of Delegation as a result of the proposals in this report.

6 CONSULTATION 6.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Audit and Risk, the Head of Strategic Policy, the HR Manager, the Clerk to the Council and Corporate Communications have been consulted and comments have been incorporated in the report.

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 3 6.2 The Adult Protection Committee and relevant subgroups were consulted.

Approved by

Acting Director of Social Work Signature …………………………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Jim Wilson Independent Chair of the Adult Protection Committee Tel: 01896 664159

Background Papers: Nil

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Diane Milne can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact Diane Milne, Social Work, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells, Melrose, TD6 OSA.

Scottish Borders Council, 30 January 2014 4 Scottish Borders Adult Protection Committee

Annual Report 2012 - 2013 Contents

1. Executive Summary ...... 3 2. The Adult Protection Committee’s and Unit ...... 5 The Adult Protection Committee ...... 5 The Adult Protection Interagency Operational Group...... 6 The Adult Protection Audit Subgroup...... 6 National Self Assessment / Audit tool ...... 6 Learning and development Subgroup ...... 7 The Scottish Borders Adult Protection Unit ...... 7 3. Adult Protection Activity (2012 – 2013) ...... 8 Adult Protection Referrals (Table 1) ...... 8 Adult Protection Concerns (Table 2) ...... 8 Percentage of Concerns by Age Range (Table 3) ...... 9 Percentage of Concerns by Gender (Table 4) ...... 10 Concerns by Primary Service User Group (Table 5)...... 10 Concerns by Primary Service User Group Cont. (Table 6) ...... 11 Types of Harm Reported (Table 7 & 8) ...... 11 Source of Referral (Table 9)...... 12 Source of Referral (Table10)...... 13 Setting of Service User at time of Referral (Table 11) ...... 13 4. Adult Protection Inquiries ...... 14 APU contacted since 2010 (Table 12) ...... 14 Agencies Involved in cases that reached the Adult Protection Interagency Referral Discussion (IRD)/Inquiry/Investigation Stage ...... 15 Outcomes of Concerns (Table 15)...... 16 5. Case Conferences...... 17 Percentage of referrals proceeding to Case Conference (Table 16) ...... 17 Adult Protection Case Conferences Held (Table 17)...... 17 Attendance at Case Conferences (Table 18) ...... 18 Large Scale Investigations...... 18 Significant Case & Incident Reviews ...... 18 6. Advocacy...... 18 7. Commentary on Annual Activity...... 19 8. Learning & Development Programme (2012-2013) ...... 20 9. Closing Statement...... 22

- 2 - 1. Executive Summary

This is the eighth annual report of the Scottish Borders Adult Protection Committee covering the period from 1st April 2012-31st March 2013.This report provides a summary of the work undertaken during this period by the Committee, its Sub Committees and the Adult Protection Unit, with particular reference to the implementation of the Inter Agency Strategy2012-2015 for the protection of adults at risk in Scottish Borders.

Adults at risk, as defined by the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 (ASPA), are individuals aged 16 or over who:- x are unable to safeguard their own well-being ,property, rights or other interests; x are at risk of harm; x because they are affected by disability, mental disorder, illness or physical or mental infirmity, are more vulnerable to being harmed than adults who are not so affected.

“Harm” includes physical and sexual harm, neglect, financial exploitation, and harassment.

A review of adult protection activity during the period shows an overall increase in protection concerns since 2008, with the majority of concerns regarding service users recorded as those with a learning disability followed by older people. Mostly females were referred, totally 68% of all referrals. Financial abuse and physical abuse continue to be reported as the most frequent form of harm. It is noted that on 24 occasions the Large Scale Investigation process was instigated due to concerns of potentially wider spread abuse. The report highlights the level of interagency cooperation involved in protecting vulnerable adults and details the learning and development programme in place to support staff. As in previous years the significant involvement of all agencies in attending and completing learning and development modules is noted.

During the course of the year the Adult Protection Committee decided to streamline and reduce to three the number of sub committees. The sub committees cover Audit, Operations, Learning & Development and report on progress at each meeting of the main committee.

Since the end of the reporting year the planned multiagency evaluation exercise referred to in the report, has taken place. A self evaluation workshop was held in April involving all partner agencies with external analysis provided by the Care Inspectorate and The National Adult Protection Coordinator. Extensive documentation providing supportive evidence of practice was made available against which services were evaluated. This allowed us to conclude that, in general terms, services are in place to support adults at risk of harm. All agencies are committed to continuous improvement and an action plan has been put in place to further develop identified areas of practice. In August revised Edinburgh, Lothian & Borders multiagency guidelines were issued and have been circulated to all partner agencies. Local Adult Support & Protection procedures are currently under review.

- 3 - In summary there is clear commitment across all agencies to working in partnership to protect adults at risk of harm. The increase in the ageing population, placing greater stress on carers and an increase in the number of people with complex needs will present challenges. Similarly financial pressures on individual households may impact on the context of adult protection. The commitment to tackling these issues will be reflected in the continuous review and implementation by committee of our interagency and associated strategies.

Jim Wilson Independent Chair Scottish Borders Adult Protection Committee

- 4 - 2. The Adult Protection Committee’s and Unit

The Adult Protection Committee In order to meet the statutory requirements of the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 the Adult Protection Committee implemented its agreed ‘Interagency Strategy and Plan for Protection of Adults at Risk (2012-2015) Interagency Strategies are informed by the legislative requirements that were made on Adult Protection Committees under the Act (sections 42 - 46), as well as local issues that the Committee is aware need to be actioned in order to maximise the safeguarding measures for adults at risk in the Scottish Borders. The Interagency Strategies are regularly reviewed and updated at the Committee’s bi- monthly meeting in order to make sure that there is progress towards achieving the objectives.

The Interagency Strategy for 2012–2015 aims to focus on four specific areas of work; x To keep under review the procedures and practices relating to the safeguarding of adults at risk; x To promote the highest standard of interagency in preventing or dealing with the causes and effects of harm to adults at risk; x To give information and advice to any public body or office holder on the exercise of functions which relate to safeguarding of adults; x To ensure appropriate cooperation between agencies.

In this regard training has been identified through our existing training strategy, and we are focusing on skills training in order to develop operational practice. To promote the highest standard of interagency practice a financial harm workshop was rolled out. Additionally there was further dissemination of harm prevention materials to SBC and health staff, which will assist staff to be vigilant to possible signs of harm. On a wider stage public awareness information, has been sent to all the local G.P. surgeries. We are looking to develop closer links with the fire and ambulance service. Recent work with the local A& E department, around an assessment tool to recognise and report harm, has been recognised nationally. SBC have a collocated public protection unit and child protection unit, promoting effective communication. Further links have been made with the voluntary and third sector, and plans for the second part of 2013 include more prevention work, which will be covered under the Interagency Operational Group section of this report.

The Committee has three standing subcommittees set up in order to achieve priorities of the Interagency Strategy. A decision was made during the course of the year to discontinue the Adult Protection NHS Operational Group, the view being that this group had achieved its original aims and had therefore served its purpose. Work will be absorbed and be continued through the Adult Protection Inter agency group, making efficient use of worker time.

- 5 - The Adult Protection Interagency Operational Group A working group on service user participation in Adult Protection/Case Conference process was established last year, to improve engagement and attendance in this area. The recommendations and findings will be actioned during the second part of 2013. Some of this work will include the independent sector carers groups and with the Borders Independent Advocacy Service (BIAS) to hopefully evidence improvement.

The rise of social media and the risks around this new format give fresh cause for concern. Research on this subject has identified that closer interagency working and guidance is required both nationally and locally, on keeping people safe.

The Joint Improvement Scotland (JIT) Risk assessment has been rolled out through the framework information system. Use of more complex risk assessments was an area of improvement from the last SBC Care Inspectorate report. We are aiming to ensure that we can evidence that the appropriate level of risk assessment has been implemented in any particular case. The use of this tool is being actively encouraged and further work will be carried out with staff and team leaders to increase the number of assessments.

Following discussion around a publicised Mental Welfare Commission report, the importance of chronologies, was identified by the group in March 2013. We have the chronology function within our framework system and during the course of this year we will review and monitor the use of this facility.

The Adult Protection Audit Subgroup The Audit Subgroup continues to meet every two months. Some of the key areas of work currently being addressed by the group are as follows:- Improve service user and carer involvement; work was indentified to improve service user and client involvement within the Adult Protection process; BIAS, the Princess Royal Trust Carers forum and Borders Voluntary Community Care Forum, will all contribute to promote and encourage client and carer participation in the Adult Protection process; Within SBC there is work ongoing with the locality teams to again promote and encourage client and carer participation.

National Self Assessment / Audit tool A self-evaluation workshop will be held in April 2013 and will involve all partner agencies, Police, Health and senior staff across SBC services. In addition external analysis will be provided through the involvement of a Senior Inspector at the Care Inspectorate and the National Adult Protection Co-ordinator. We aim to follow the format of the Self-evaluation Resource Book prepared by Dundee University and the Scottish Government and services will be self-assessed against a range of evaluation areas. Extensive documentation will be produced detailing evidence to measure and evaluate our services. As part of a prevention strategy the Borders Voluntary Community Care Forum (BVCCF) have been contracted to distribute an Adult Protection survey. This will go out to the Voluntary Sector, Health, Police, Carers groups and the third sector to get feedback on prevention and on the current Adult Protection process. Feedback will be collated by BVCCF and fed back to the Adult Protection Committee to review findings.

- 6 - The procedure for significant case and incident review has been amended. Further work needs carried out to bench mark our system against the health model; this may help with clarity and avoid duplication. This work will be carried out in partnership with the Adult protection unit and health colleagues during the later part of 2013. We have had one serious and significant case review in this period.

In relation to large scale inquires in the last year 24 planning meetings were held under the large scale inquiry process. In order to support the large scale inquiry process the community care reviewing team have introduced a traffic light system which highlights at an early stage failing standards within the registered care homes. In addition to this a nominated reviewing officer will be attached to each of the care homes.

Learning and development Subgroup The learning and development subgroup has responsibility for overseeing the interagency training strategy developed in Scottish Borders which provides tiered training appropriate to the needs of SBC, Health, Police and third sector employees.

In terms of specific training within the last year, financial harm training has been rolled out to service users and carers, this included input from trading standards and the safer community’s partnership.

SBC and Health are currently reviewing the use of an Elearning module as creative way of refreshing level two Adult Protection training.

Within Borders General Hospital extensive training was introduced to support the recognition and recording of adults at risk of harm. A screening tool was developed specifically for A&E and three of the receiving wards on admission to hospital. This tool has been recognised nationally, and addresses one of the Scottish government initiatives, of improving Adult Protection within A&E departments.

In terms of increasing staff awareness wallet cards have been sent to all NHS and SBC staff, these highlight potential harm and contact numbers. Further information and leaflets has been sent to all G.P. practices. Practice managers, in all health centres, have been approached to display Adult protection leaflets and information in the surgery waiting areas.

The Scottish Borders Adult Protection Unit The Unit continues to oversee and support the operational arrangements for dealing with adult protection cases, as well as implement the agreed training programme.

The Adult Protection Officers continue to link operationally with the local social work offices, which are responsible for progressing inquiries and investigations under the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007.

A Council Officer forum was established in order to provide a supportive arena for designated Council Officers alongside unit staff to discuss and improve practice. This is led by the Adult Protection Unit, and the agenda includes case reviews, research and debate and discussion of general issues that the Council Officers are coming across in Adult Protection.

- 7 - 3. Adult Protection Activity (2012 – 2013)

The Adult Protection Unit continues to monitor the statistics from the Social Work Information Management System (Framework-i). The Act was implemented on 31 October 2008 and from this time the Unit has been collecting the Adult Protection data sets requested by the Scottish Government. Unless otherwise stated, the figures below were collected in the period 1st April 2012 – 31st March 2013. [Please note for ease of reading pie charts: all charts start at the 12 o’clock position and follow in a clockwise direction in relation to the key on the right hand side.]

Adult Protection Referrals (Table 1) An Adult Protection referral to Scottish Borders Council occurs where any person suspects an Adult is at risk of harm. Referrals come from a large variety of sources. These Referrals come into Scottish Borders Council either through the Duty Hub in office hours, or, through the Emergency Duty Team which operates outwith office hours. During the course of 2012 – 2013 the following numbers of referrals were received.

Total number of Referrals 1058

Adult Protection Concerns (Table 2) Where it is appropriate referrals proceed to Adult Protection Concern. The criteria for an Adult Protection concern is as follows; where someone has reported to, or, it is suspected by Social Work, that an Adult is at risk of Harm as defined in the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007.

For those referrals that do not proceed to an Adult Protection concern, as defined above, a significant number will be signposted to other services for support. The following table reflects cases that have proceeded as Adult Protection concerns.

Adult Protection Concerns per Year since Implimentation of ASPA

350

295 300

250

189

s 200 l a r r e f e

R 150 133 113

100

50 41

0 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

- 8 - Adult Protection Concerns lead to initial inquiries and investigation by Council Officers within the Social Care & Health Team. Decisions are made through the responsible Team Leaders and Adult Protection Unit where required. The table shows that overall there has been an increase in the number of adult protection concerns since 2008. Whilst there were more then double the amount of referrals raised in 2011-2012 compared to the previous year this was due to a large number of medication errors being reported incorrectly. The issue has now been highlighted and resolved to ensure the referral rate accurately reflects the level of activity.

Percentage of Concerns by Age Range (Table 3)

Age Range 2012-13

45 40 40 31 35 26 30 21 23 25 17 20 16 15 15 10 4 5 0 16-19 16-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91+

Percentage of Concerns by Age Range (2012-13)

8% 2% 13% 16 - 19 16-30 2 1% 31-40 9% 4 1-50 51-60 8% 6 1-70 71-80 81-90 16% 11% 9 1+ 12%

These tables highlight that the highest percentage of Adult Protection Concerns were raised in relation to service users aged between 81-90 years old (21%), which is a modest increase on last year. The highest grouping last year was the 71- 80 age range, although this remains the second highest figure this year, the overall trend has reduced from (19%) to (16%) in this age range. The third highest grouping to comment on is the 16-30 age range, which has increased from (11%) last year to (13%) this year an increase of (2%).

- 9 - Percentage of Concerns by Gender (Table 4)

Percentage of Concerns by Gender (2012-13)

31% Male Female 69%

Table 4 shows that it was mostly females that were referred. This is a continuation of the trend of females being predominately referred, and virtually similar figures to the previous year.

Concerns by Primary Service User Group (Table 5)

Concerns by Primary Service User Group

80 64 60 45 40 21 14 13 20 5 0 2 0 3 5 0 3 0 - l t r y e s y e a r r e - h l l d a i a e r y l r g y r t c d e t e t s a t a t l p e i r t k d e o i r b n i u s n l h n l e s n c d i l a j s e s o i i l A e a n h t i i a e o e u l e u t n s e H n / r h n t e b h L I R O t O r d f b y s b t e H e P V a m O M f I a a S h s b n A O A e O i l e s H O i P u L D u D S D V

- 10 - Concerns by Primary Service User Group Cont. (Table 6)

Percentage of Concerns by Primary Service User Group (2012-13) Learning Disablility 2% Mental Health 3% 7% Sensory Loss 1% 2% Physical Disability

Older People

26% 36% Substance Abuse

Dementia

Other Vulnerable

8% Adult at Risk 3% 12% Other - Other functional impairment

Tables 5 & 6 show that the majority of the concerns were in relation to service users whose primary service user group was recorded as ‘Learning Disability’ followed by Older People. The numbers of concerns from the learning disability group has reduced from 100 to 64, and the numbers of referrals from the Older People group has reduced from 73 to 45. The reporting of inappropriate medication errors last year is highly responsible for the previous year’s high figures. Concerns from the mental health group are similar to last year at (21). The category of Sensory loss has recorded a decrease too; this figure has dropped from (14) last year to (5) this year. The category of ‘Other’ was used when the adult did not have a service user group already listed in the adult protection data set, such as person seeking financial advice, offender, palliative Care, acute Illness, and Non SBC Client. Once again there were no referrals received for clients who had a head injury or for HIV / Aids.

Types of Harm Reported (Table 7 & 8)

Types of Harm Reported

100 78 80 63 60 40 32 40 25 16 20 2 4 1 4 8 0 l l / s c l s / t a y n l i a l t a n r t t c l e c u o a a h m i c i c s o i o s a x i A n r i t s i r t g e e u e i g s o a l y c a / e a i b s S o t R g h n t m i n H l t i m A a e P a u o c o n r f t m l n e i N D h m a o i M l i t e f c O F r g s S y m n f c I e n s u s I o i P N H D

- 11 - Percentage of types of Harm Reported (2012-13)

1%

0% Physical 3% 1% 6% Psychological 23% 1% Neglect / Acts of Omission

9% Financial / Material

Sexual

Discriminatory

Human Rights 15% Information

29% Institutional

12% Self Harm / Neglect

Domestic Abuse

Tables 7 & 8 report that financial/material harm were reported the most at (29%) followed by physical harm at (23%), then neglect/act of omission at (12%). The physical harm figure remains the same as last year, and the financial harm/material harm has increased from (23) to (78), moving it to the most reported type of harm, this year. The second highest figure last year, was neglect / act of omission category; this has declined from (20%) last year, to (12%) this year. In summary there is a continuation of the trend that physical harm, financial/material harm, and neglect/act of omission, remain the three highest types of reported harm.

Compared to the previous year there was a decrease in reported concerns regarding the other concerns category, and two cases of Discriminatory Harm reported. This is an increase of one to last year.

Source of Referral (Table 9)

Source of Referral

35 31 31 30 25 18 19 20 16 15 15 11 12 9 10 5 3 4 4 3 5 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 r e t c e r r e r r r e i e c l P h e e y y i t s r n r t l e e e e e l a r t c m b c c a r a a m i G b r g h l k k a t r u a o l n n t r a i o r r u a m C o e o l u e e e N h H o o t n C e H P O f P e H a s g g * t c c a f e e W W M n n e c y A A r e r i m d o r l - M t o o r s t p e i a f y o e r t g a r l a l i i i l n s P s s C k l o n e e s C H i r i C r c e n s * p m A b I y c S u s o o i d e D t e y p i a t r f r u t n m S e / N t i u n a W F o o r o r e e a r l u i v S y a o i p t e H a i P h M r i h m e C s t n c P c * r d u * u m y o u n o s I A S m N l P C a m c o o C L *

- 12 - Source of Referral (Table10) *Care Inspectorate Source of Referral (2012-13) *Carer Community / District Nurse Community Psychiatric Nurse Family Member 10% 1%1%2% 5% 1% 1%2% 8% GP 1% 9% 3% 6% *Home Care Nurse or Allied Health Professional Psychiatric Consultant 8% 1%2% Housing Agency 16% 16% Independent Agency 6% 2% *Local Authority Care Home Member of Public Other

Tables 9 & 10 show that the majority of concerns were reported by independent agencies and others. This is a continuation of the trend, from last year. The reduction in the overall number of referrals from independent agencies is likely attributable to the change in the recording of medication errors, as referenced earlier. This year has seen a number of similar referrals from community district nurses, community occupational therapists (OTs), community psychiatric nurses, family members, GPs, hospital consultants (non psychiatric and psychiatric), hospital nurses/allied professionals. Police referrals have dropped from (20) to (15) although these figures are approximate, changes are being proposed for next year to more accurately chart police figures.

The category of ‘Other’ was used when the referral source was not already listed in the data set, such as: Community Care Assessor, Other Local Authority, Local Area Co-ordinator, Day Care Officer, Care Resource Team, Fraud Investigator, and Contracts Officer, this has increased from (26) last year to (31) this year.

Setting of Service User at time of Referral (Table 11)

Setting of Service User at time of Referral (2012-13) 4%

0%

7% Private Address Sheltered Housing Care Home 30% 54% NHS Ward Private Hospital Other

5%

- 13 - This above graph refers to where the Service User was residing at the time an Adult Protection Concern was reported. This may not be the place where suspected harm actually took place. Compared to the previous year, the figures are consistently similar.

4. Adult Protection Inquiries

Not all Adult Protection contact will lead to an Adult Protection concern or inquiry. The chart shows that the majority of the concerns that professional people are raising for advice are being screened and do not meet the criteria for referring as an Adult Protection Concern. Since implementation of the Act the APU has been recording how many times they are contacted for advice about a specific person, and how many of these contacts proceed to an Adult Protection Concern, on a quarterly basis.

APU contacted since 2010 (Table 12)

APU Contacted since 2010 (by quarter)

120 104 109 100 86 75 70 71 69 80 62 63 56 54 59 56 60 47 43 41 39 33 33 36 38 40 24 30 19 13 17 20 0 Mar-10 Jun-10 Sep-10 Dec-10 Mar-11 Jun-11 Sep-11 Dec-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 Dec-12 Mar-13

APU Contacted Resulted in AP Concern

When an Adult Protection Concern is recorded the Team Leader responsible is required to discuss the concern with other agencies involved with the adult at risk, such as Health or a service provider. If there is thought to be criminality involved they are required to have an Interagency Referral Discussion (IRD) with the Police. Consultation with the Adult Protection Unit on any aspect of the concern is available. These discussions, and consequent decisions, are recorded on Framework-i. Where the decision is taken to proceed under Adult Protection Guidelines, the Team Leader is required to record this as an Adult Protection Inquiry/Investigation, which would include any Council Officer visit or any external agency Investigation.

- 14 - Agencies Involved in cases that reached the Adult Protection Interagency Referral Discussion (IRD)/Inquiry/Investigation Stage

(Tables 13 & 14)

Agencies Involved

140 131

120 101 100 80 67 60 38 40 22 20 1 3 0 t r e h g e t n t e W l c n i i e a l h a S r t s d o e e o u n r t O P H o e a c p H e C e p d s n n I I

Percentage of Agancies Involved (2012-13) 10%

1%

0% SW 6% 37% Police Health Independent 18% Housing Care Inspectorate Other 28%

These tables show that Police representatives (28%) were the most involved in inquiries that were held, followed by Health (18%). As the Social Work Department is responsible for conducting inquiries under the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, they will be involved in all inquiries held. On analysing this data this is change from last year, where health involvement was at (21%), this year has seen police figures increase from (18%) to (28%) some of which may be due to an increase in financial and material types of harm. The category of ‘Other’ was used when the agency was not already listed in the data set, such as: the Office of the Public Guardian, Other Local Authority, Bank, Solicitor, Department of Work and Pensions, this figure has increased to (10%) on last years figure.

- 15 - Outcomes of Concerns (Table 15)

Outcome of Concern

140 124 130 120 110 100 92 90 80 71 66 70 60 50 40 30 21 22 20 5 5 7 5 10 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 r e A t e e t n e * s k n n s e l s n d y r r e r t P o r o n l * g o e h r a o u o i a a a i S i i n i t n o a t a t s s n t C A t l t c C t C e e i u a A c c n n i c n e O a P d P c n W d r r q P S a t i o n r o a m e o g S i e t n i l e e e i * m n n d e n A r e v c e e t I t r e A a s e d d a e r e g i m d o d c / g s a r k e m t c i i o o r g e n n r c w e l e e h g s n n t n t e s a t h t i o t e f a n e u g u e v e t a o c r o u o b r i r r l n L i d d r a r a n c n l S I e g n P v e e t u t P I u r e t e n u h n o o o o f A s e a a g l y u u i f a e u o r a r u C C r n R s g a t n n r n c t i i o n P l i i i P o i t u n t M P t c o n i t t N u o s r e a n n g u n e d m P t o o D i v w n o A a r C C n t C O I C S

This table refers to Outcomes from all Concerns received, both those that did and those that did not proceed to the Inquiry stage. The category of ‘Other’ was used when the outcome was not already listed in the data set, such as: Investigated by other Local Authority, Investigated by the Office of the Public Guardian, Ongoing NHS Investigation, Client Moved Area, Client Died, Large Scale Investigation.

There have been no applications for temporary banning orders within April 2012 and March 2013 and there have been no applications for assessment orders or removal orders under the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007. Offences committed under ASPA legislation. There were no obstruction offences in regards to Protection Orders and no offences by bodies corporate in breach of the Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007.

- 16 - 5. Case Conferences

Percentage of referrals proceeding to Case Conference (Table 16)

Adult Protection Case Conferences Held (Table 17)

Adult Protection Case Conferences held (2011-2013) 45 41 40 35 2011- 28 30 2012 23 24 25 21 20 16 13 2012- 15 12 2013 10 5 0 Initial AP Case Review AP Case LSI Planning/ AWIA Case Conf Conf Review Meeting Conference

- 17 - Attendance at Case Conferences (Table 18) The Adult Protection Committee monitors attendance levels at Case Conferences as it is important for involved professionals to send apologies and reports in their absence. This is also a useful way to monitor involvement of Service Users and Carer involvement in the Adult Protection process.

Percentage Attendance at Case Conferences (2012-2013)

2% % Present 18%

% Apologies

% Absent 80%

Large Scale Investigations There were 24 meetings held under the LSI procedure possibly involving at least 50 people. These were in relation to 6 Care Homes, 4 Supported Living environments, 1 Home Care Provider, and 2 various locations. The types of harm involved were physical harm, neglect/acts of omission, financial harm, poor tissue viability, poor moving and handling or use of restraint, medication issues and 1 reported incident of sexual harm.

Significant Case & Incident Reviews The APC Audit Subgroup received 1 request for Significant Case & Incident Reviews between April 2012 and March 2013.

6. Advocacy Borders Independent Advocacy Service (BIAS) reports to APC on a quarterly basis regarding service users involved in the Adult Protection process referred to them for support. During this period BIAS received a small number of new referrals, and continued to work with an existing client base. In the future BIAS will be involved in evaluating service users' experience of the Adult Protection process.

- 18 - 7. Commentary on Annual Activity

An area of particular interest has been the large percentage of independent agencies and care providers referring and reporting concerns. This is a testimony to the quality of the level two training we offer to the care and independent sector.

Financial harm is our largest reported area only marginally higher than Physical harm, which was highest last year. Older adults and Learning disability continue to be our groups which are reported most.

A collocated Public Protection unit helps efficient and effective flow of appropriate information. Many of the Police referrals are audited by the Adult Protection Unit alongside Police colleagues, this process helps prioritise the Adults at most risk but also provides an audit of the high number of cases which may be signposted to other services.

We continue to gather relevant data which we use to highlight issues and to share information with Scottish Government and other Authorities.

- 19 - 8. Learning & Development Programme (2012-2013)

The Learning & Development programme adopted by the Scottish Borders attempts to deliver a blended approach to learning. The content of the standard training sessions available (Level 1 – 3) in the rolling programme is based on the national training programme outcomes developed on behalf of the Scottish Government.

(Table 19) Numbers of People Attended by Sector Session & Number of times delivered SBC NHS Police Independent/ Other/ Fire Voluntary Unknown Level 1: NHS Borders - 158 - - - Basic Knowledge & ‘Protecting People’ Understanding Corporate Induction (12) Adult Support & NHS Borders ASP - 1232 - - - Protection (ASP) e-learning (12) Police Scotland - - 235 - - ASP e-learning Module Awareness Raising - - - 6 - (1) Level 2: ‘Supporting & 153 82 12 221 29 Knowledge & Protecting Adults Understanding at Risk’ Full Day Awareness Raising (23) ‘Supporting & 97 1 - 71 5 Protecting Adults at Risk’ Half Day Refresher ( 9) Level 3: ‘Supporting & 15 1 3 6 - Detailed Knowledge, Protecting Adults Understanding & at Risk’ 2 Day Skills Detailed Knowledge (2) Skills based 94 11 2 1 - Workshop for Council Officers (5) Total number of People attended, for all 359 1485 252 305 34 Adult Protection sessions:

In total 2435 staff have completed Adult Protection training.

- 20 - (Table 20)

Level 2 Evaluation Scores (2012 - 2013)

89%

89% 88%

88%

88% e r 87% o c S

e 87% g a r

e 86% v

A 85% 86%

85%

85%

84% ASPA Level 2 - Half Day Refresher Total ASPA Level 2 - Full Day Total

(Table 21)

Level 3 - 2 day Evaluation Scores (2012 - 2013)

100%

95% 90% 85% 85% 83% e r

o 80% c S

e 75% g a r

e 70% v A 65%

60%

55% 50% Day 1 Day 2

(Table 22)

Level 3 Skills based Workshops 2012-2013

90% 85%

80% 76% 73% 70% 60% 60% e r o c 50% S e g a 40% r e v A 30%

20%

10%

0% ASPA Level 3 - Council ASPA Level 3 - Protection Recording & Defensible Investigative Interview ing Officers Workshop Total Orders Workshop Total Decision Making Level 2/3 Full Day Level 3 Total

- 21 - 9. Closing Statement

During the next year we plan to hold more skills based training for Council Officer’s, future training will be adapted in light of feedback.

We propose to continue with half day refreshers for all Level 2 staff. We will explore e-learning as a way of refreshing training for some attendees, and this will offer more flexibility for accessing specific training sessions.

Ongoing work into the future will focus on the five national Adult Protection priorities, including Financial Harm & Client and Carer involvement at case conference.

David Powell Adult Protection Coordinator

- 22 - ITEM 18

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF SOCIAL WORK OFFICER 2013

Report by Acting Director of Social Work

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

30 January 2014

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

1.1 This is the sixth annual report of the Chief Social Work Officer on the work undertaken on the behalf of the Council by the Director of Social Work in the statutory role of Chief Social Work Officer. 1.2 The report provides the Council with an account of decisions taken by the Chief Social Work Officer in the statutory areas of Fostering and Adoption, Child Protection, Secure Orders, Adult Protection, Adults with Incapacity, Mental Health and Criminal Justice. 1.3 It also gives an overview of regulation and inspection, workforce issues and social policy themes over the year April 2012 to March 2013, and highlights some of the key challenges for Social Work for the coming year. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 I recommend that the Council approves the report of the Chief Social Work officer attached as Appendix 1 and in particular notes the elements noted in section 4 of this report.

Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014 1 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 The requirement that every local authority should have a professionally qualified Chief Social Work Officer is contained within Section 45 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994. This requirement was reinforced by the recommendation contained in the Changing Lives Report published by the 21st Century Social Work Review Group to strengthen the governance and leadership roles of the chief social work officer.

3.2 The Council agreed at its meeting on 27 September 2007 to receive an annual report from the Director of Social Work fulfilling the statutory role of Chief Social Work Officer.

4 OVERVIEW AND EVALUATION 4.1 As always this has been a very busy year for social work with some indicators of improving practice.

4.2 In 2012 there has been an Introduction to Corporate Parenting workshop held for Councillors.

4.3 In the year to March 2013, 9 children were adopted, which maintains a marked rise in comparison with previous years.

4.4 There has been a steady increase in Private Welfare Guardianships, which have risen to 41 as at 31 March 2013, however the number of Welfare Guardianships for which the Chief Social Work Officer has responsibility has been maintained at 20.

4.5 In the period April 2012 to March 2013, the Care Inspectorate carried out inspections on 13 SBC provided services, as well as 25 private care services and 42 in the voluntary/not-for-profit sector. These consisted of both announced and unannounced inspections. Overall, 70% of services were graded as ‘Good’, ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’. For Local Authority services this figure was 85.

5 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial There are no costs attached to any of the recommendations contained in this report. 5.2 Risk and Mitigations There are no specific concerns that need to be addressed in respect of the recommendations contained in this report. 5.3 Equalities It is anticipated that there will be no adverse equality implications arising from the work contained in this report 5.4 Acting Sustainably There are no anticipated economic, social or environmental effects. 5.5 Carbon Management Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014 2 There is no impact on the Council’s carbon emissions. 5.6 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation There are no changes required to either the Scheme of Administration or the Scheme of Delegation.

6 CONSULTATION 6.1 The Chief Financial Officer, Head of Corporate Governance, Head of Audit and Risk, Head of Strategic Policy, HR Manager and Clerk to the Council have been consulted and their comments are incorporated in the report.

Approved by

Stella Everingham, Acting Director of Social Work Signature ………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Stella Everingham Acting Director of Social Work 01835 824000 James Chiles Business Performance Officer 01835 824000 Bill Sim Workforce Planning and Development Manager 01835 824000

Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: None

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. James Chiles can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact James Chiles, Social Work, Scottish Borders Council, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, 01835 825080.

Scottish Borders Council 30 January 2014 3 Annual Report of the Chief Social Work Officer

April 2012 – March 2013

1. INTRODUCTION

The requirement that every local authority should have a professionally qualified Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO) is contained within Section 45 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. This replaced the requirement in Section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for each Local Authority to appoint a Director of Social Work.

The responsibilities of the CSWO are clearly laid out in the most recent guidance from the Scottish Government published in 2009. The CSWO is required to ensure the provision of appropriate professional advice in the discharge of local authorities' statutory social work and the role also needs to promote values and standards of professional practice to all social services workers in relation to promoting equality, fairness and social justice.

The role provides professional advice to local authorities including elected members and officers to carry out the Local Authority’s legal duties in relation to social work. The CSWO assists the Council to understand their responsibilities and the complexities involved when delivering social work services. Key to these are the Council’s role as corporate parent, ensuring effective child and adult protection arrangements, the management of high risk offenders as well as carrying out statutory mental health functions.

It is recognised that Social Work has a key contribution to the achievement of national and local outcomes. The CSWO also has a significant role to monitor and improve the quality of service provision and to advise on the identification and management of corporate risk insofar as they relate to social work services.

The CSWO also needs to work with Human Resources to ensure that all social services workers meet the requirements of the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) Code of Practice.

In the Scottish Borders the role of CSWO has been fulfilled by the Director of Social Work. This annual report covers the period from April 2012 to March 2013. It is set in the context of significant demographic challenges with a growing older population and a smaller working age population available to provide care and support. The Scottish

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 1 of 17 Borders has a predicted higher demand for services with an increase of 3,000 older people in the next 5 years. In addition there has been a significant increase in children and young people requiring out-of-area placements.

The report considers public policy issues in this period including legislative changes and proposals. This has been a particularly busy period including developments around Welfare Reform. It covers the very important Corporate Parenting agenda, child and adult protection activity and statutory activity within the Social Work department. It looks at the quality of service provision in the Scottish Borders as identified by the care inspectorate via regulation and inspection. It also looks at aspects of workforce development related to the delivery of a statutory social work service.

2. PUBLIC POLICY

2.1 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was introduced to Parliament in April 2013. It makes various provisions for the wellbeing of children and young people, which will have a significant impact on children’s services provided by local authorities.

Rights of children and young people The Bill places a duty on the Scottish Ministers to keep under consideration and further the rights of children and young people, and on the wider public sector to report on actions taken to forward the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Wellbeing and Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) To improve the way services work to support children, young people and families, the Bill will: x Ensure that all children and young people from birth to 18 years old have access to a Named Person; x Put in place a single planning process to support those children who require it; x Place a definition of wellbeing in legislation; and x Place duties on public bodies to coordinate the planning, design and delivery of services for children and young people with a focus on improving wellbeing outcomes, and report collectively on how they are improving those outcomes.

Early learning and childcare The Bill increases the amount and flexibility of free early learning and childcare from 475 hours a year to a minimum of 600 hours for three and four year olds; and certain vulnerable two year olds.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 2 of 17 Getting it right for looked after children The Bill defines corporate parenting and the bodies to which it will apply. Other changes include: x a duty on local authorities to assess a care leaver’s request for assistance up to and including the age of 25; x provision for additional support to be given to kinship carers x provision for families in distress to access appropriate family counselling; and x placing Scotland’s Adoption Register on a statutory footing.

Other Proposals The Bill strengthens existing legislation that affects children and young people by creating a new right to appeal a local authority decision to place a child in secure accommodation, and by making procedural changes in the areas of children’s hearings support arrangements and school closures.

2.2 FURTHER INTEGRATION OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES

As part of the ongoing business transformation programme by which Scottish Borders council seeks to meet the challenges of the current financial climate, a project has been convened to examine the opportunities for further integration of children’s services.

In the first instance, this work is focusing on opportunities for integration with Education & Lifelong Learning, at both an operational and strategic level. The transformation programme has a time frame of five years, with scaled benefits to be realised within that time.

2.3 CORPORATE PARENTING

Corporate Parenting is a major responsibility for Scottish Borders Council and one that we take very seriously. This agenda sits as key within the Children & Young People’s Planning Partnership and the Children’s Services plan 2012-15.

In 2012 we continued to work through the multi agency action plan that was agreed in 2011 following a full self evaluation of the work of the Corporate Parenting agenda. Key areas being addressed are x Improving provision of educational and operational opportunities and supports for children and young people Looked After at home x Supporting and improving attainment and achievement x Enabling Looked After children and young people to participate in community based activities and opportunities x Ensuring that Looked After and Accommodated Children will be supported with their mental health wellbeing, and drug and alcohol issues

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 3 of 17 There has been a reduction in the number of Looked After children and young people accessing the sport & leisure memberships which are contracted through Border Sport & Leisure, these memberships increased from 300 in 2010-11 to 350 memberships in 2011-12 however the actual usage has decreased to 36.5%. We have met with BSLT and they are re-drafting the publicity materials which will be sent out to all staff and carers to encourage a further up take on use of the facilities.

Raising awareness and understanding of the responsibilities to and needs of Looked After children and young people is a major area of responsibility within the Corporate Parenting role and therefore training is a major area. In 2012 there has been an Introduction to Corporate Parenting workshop held for Councillors, We Can & Must Do Better (LAC) 2 day training for 38 multi-agency staff. We can & Must Do Better materials are now available on line and the link to this web page has been sent to all LAC co-ordinators in schools and to staff in NHS Borders for information and personal study opportunities.

The Corporate Parenting groups have continued to focus on improving outcomes for all Looked After children and do this in close partnership with NHS Borders.

2.4 PRIVATE FOSTERING

Private Fostering is the term used when parents make arrangements with people who are not close relatives or officially approved foster carers to care for their children for 28 days or longer, where there are duties on the parent and the carer under the Foster Children (Private Fostering) (Scotland) Regulations 1985 to notify the relevant local authority of the arrangement. Once notified, local authorities have a duty to secure the well-being of every privately-fostered child.

Within Scottish Borders, the process was previously managed by a commissioned service, however the Private Fostering policy, procedure and guidance were revised in July 2011 and the service brought back in-house and is now managed by Integrated Children’s Services, with the Resources Team managing private fostering arrangements.

The ICS Resources Team currently oversees 2 private fostering arrangements in the Scottish Borders. The Scottish Government are due to publish good practice guidance for local authorities on Private Fostering at the end of November 2013 and run a national awareness-raising campaign in early December. Integrated Children’s Services will participate fully in this national campaign.

2.5 LEVEL OF SERVICE/CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTORY The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) is an assessment and case management tool used across Scotland within Criminal Justice Services.

Since being implemented within Scottish Borders over 300 assessments have been undertaken in respect of court reports, and around 100 full assessments have been undertaken in respect of offenders being supervised within the community.

As well as providing a comprehensive assessment and case management plan for each individual, data from LS/CMI can be analysed and used in the development of services. The data includes risk/needs factors, barriers to engagement, victim profiles and level of intensity.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 4 of 17 From the data collected up to the end of January 2013 the main areas identified from analysis undertaken by the Risk management Authority (RMA) were:

x General Risk/ Needs – Employment and Education, Companions, Leisure and Recreation and Alcohol and Drug Problems.

x Specific Risk/Needs – Problem-solving deficits, Anger management, and problems with compliance.

x Other client issues – financial problems, low self-esteem , evidence of emotional distress and accommodation problems.

x Barriers to engagement – denial/minimisation and motivation.

x Victim profile – the most frequent victims of physical assault were adult male victims, adult female partners and authority figures (mostly Police). Sexual assaults are diverse but few in number.

x Intensity level – The majority of cases were assessed as low or medium intensity with relatively few cases being assessed as high intensity and fewer still as very high intensity.

2.6 SELF DIRECTED SUPPORT

The Social Care (Self Directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 comes into effect as from April 2014. For Adult services, self-directed support (SDS) has been the default approach for people eligible for social care support since spring 2013.

One of the early priorities was to progress the cultural shift required among Social Work professionals to prepare for SDS. Initial training focused on outcomes and positive risk management. This was followed by a series of leadership sessions for Team Leaders and Assistant Team Leaders and nine one-day sessions for assessment and care management staff primarily covering process and procedures.

Over 100 staff from care providers have attended joint training sessions arranged through the Association for Real Change (ARC). This was followed up by the production of an SDS Information Pack for providers to facilitate training within organisations.

Preparatory work has been undertaken to prepare for the introduction of SDS in children’s services. Children’s needs tend to change more rapidly than adult needs, which has implications for resource allocation and the monitoring and review of support packages.

In March 2013, Scottish Borders hosted a national event for local authorities managed and coordinated by In Control Scotland, who are supporting local authorities in the introduction of SDS for children's services across Scotland. This highly successful event had representation from Highland, Aberdeen, and North Lanarkshire as well as a number of other local authorities.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 5 of 17 There has been promotion of SDS through leaflets, newsletters, and discussion with user and community groups. It is also promoted by the Borders Independent Advocacy Service (BIAS) and Encompass (formerly the Borders Direct Payment Agency) whose funding includes SDS promotion.

Future work will include the further rollout of staff development training to encompass the values and principles of SDS as well as the processes and procedures. There is also significant work required with service providers to develop suitable contracts and assess the impact on service providers of the shift towards SDS.

2.7 INTEGRATION OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

During 2012/13 the Scottish Government commenced a process of consultation on the legislative proposals to progress the integration of health and social care. The proposals included: x A requirement to integrate services for all adults x A requirement to set up an Integration body at local level with responsibility for a joint budget x Health and Social Care Partnerships to be held to account for the delivery of nationally agreed outcomes

Locally in a report to both the Council and NHS the partners made a commitment to the following principles in terms of integration:

x Focus on positive improved outcomes for service users x Early intervention x Personalised care and personal choice x Local democratic accountability x Build on place based, locality managed services x Integration should minimise structural change and maximise flexibility x To commence with adult primary community and social care

To progress the arrangements a decision was taken to establish a Pathfinder Board and to the appointment of a Programme Director for Integration both of which are now in place.

The importance of the Chief Social Work officer role in relation to maintaining the Local Authority statutory functions of adult protection, mental health and broader public safety along with the promotion of social work values has been highlighted as part of this discussion. This role will remain important to ensure effective care governance arrangements moving forward.

2.8 WELFARE REFORM

The Welfare Reform Act 2012 represents the biggest change to the welfare benefits system in 60 years. It aims to simplify the benefit system, protect the vulnerable, reduce benefit dependency and get more people into work. The Government has been implementing changes to the system on a phased basis since 2008.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 6 of 17 Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) replaced Incapacity Benefit for new claims from 2008, and the transfer of those unfit for work to ESA is still ongoing. Figures at 15 Nov 2012 (DWP tabulation tool) show that there was an ESA caseload in Scottish Borders of 2300 with a further 2820 claimants still to transfer to ESA.

The rate of successful transfer from Incapacity Benefits to ESA in Scotland is 76%. If that rate is applied to the numbers still to transfer in Scottish Borders it would suggest that a further 24% (619) previous claimants of incapacity benefits could be found fit for work. Many of these claimants will have been treated as incapacitated for some years and are likely to need a good deal of support in order to update skills for the current workplace and to adjust to any reduction in income.

ESA in Youth was abolished from April 2012 with claimants required to switch to income related ESA. This could impact groups with severe or long term illnesses or disabilities. Not all claimants will be able to get income related ESA e.g. if there is a working partner or capital provision made by parents

From 1 May 2012 – the period for which people in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) can receive ESA – contributions based was limited to 365 days. This legislation was applied retrospectively so that claimants in the work related activity group who had already received 365 days of ESA (C) ended their entitlement on 30 April 2012. It does not affect those in the Support Group. It means that ESA is no longer payable if the claimant or their partner have joint savings and investments over £16,000, has a partner working 24 hours or more a week or they themselves have another small income.

Income Support From May 2012 a change in the criteria for claiming Income Support means that lone parents no longer qualify when their youngest child turns age five unless they have another reason for claiming Income Support (like being a carer). They will have to claim Jobseekers Allowance instead and undertake job seeking activities as requested.

Tax Credits A number of important changes to tax credits took effect from 6 April 2012. The period for which a tax credit claim and certain changes of circumstances can be backdated was reduced from three months to one month. This could be difficult for some vulnerable new parents leading to potential loss of income. A new rule around the disregard of an income drop means that tax credits will not increase unless the drop in income is more than £2,500 Rules on work for couples claiming Working Tax Credit have been changed. Couples must now either work a combined total of 24 hours a week, with one working at least 16, or one of the couple must work at least 16 hours a week (with some exceptions). This impacts on working families where they are unable to find or work additional hours (e.g. because juggling caring responsibilities).

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 7 of 17 3. STATUTORY DUTIES AND DECISIONS Unless otherwise noted, all figures relate to the period April 2012 – March 2013.

3.1 FOSTERING AND ADOPTION Adoption is a positive route for a child where it is apparent that he or she is unlikely to be able to safely return to the immediate or extended family. There is a strong body of evidence to indicate that permanent and/or stable long term placements, including adoption, lead to better outcomes for the child where these placements can be put in place early enough to enable the child to form solid attachments with the carers. This is especially crucial in the early years of 0-3. In the year to March 2013, 9 children were adopted, which maintains a marked rise in comparison with previous years. This is due to dedicated work on better, more focused permanence planning especially in the Early Years Assessment Team where plans are being made for children who are Looked After from birth, where there is no realistic option of rehabilitation home. Drift and delay in permanence planning is a significant issue nationally. Integrated Children’s Services is working hard to address this with a number of initiatives including the establishment of a multi-agency Permanence Group to lead good practice and development of concurrent planning for children.

10-11 11-12 12-13 Children adopted 4 9 9 Children placed with prospective adopters at end of year 6 9 7

The Chief Social Work Officer is also the Agency Decision Maker (ADM) in terms of Fostering and Permanence decisions – Regulation 12 Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

It is the ADM’s responsibility to make decisions based on recommendations by the Fostering or Permanence Panels. In Scottish Borders Council these panels are held on a monthly basis and consider the following:

x Fostering assessments x Kinship Care Assessments x Foster carers reviews x Assessment of Prospective Adoptive Parents x Children being considered for Permanence ( Long term fostering and Adoption) x Matching of children with prospective adopters or long term foster carers x Advice & guidance on complex situations that may be considered for permanence

The ADM receives minutes of the meetings, meets with the chair of the meeting, if required, and makes decisions based on the recommendations.

It has been difficult to recruit sufficient additional foster carers to keep pace with demand, however this is being addressed and following a Member Officer Working

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 8 of 17 Group initiative in Dec 2011 there was an increased communication and recruitment strategy, an increase in fees payable to carers ranging from 20.12% to 35.9%, an increase in allowances payable of 15.18% and 16.43% bringing SBC rates closer to that of neighbouring local authorities, and the introduction of a retainer fee of £100 per week to carers who do not have a placement. The introduction of the retainer fee has helped in the recruitment of carers as they are guaranteed a small income for any period without a placement for a minimum of 8 weeks. There has been a marked increase in enquiries and subsequent assessments for Foster Carers.

10-11 11-12 12-13 Foster Carers approved 10 8 13 Foster Carers de-registered 9 10 4 Foster/Short Breaks Carers reviewed 30 37 26 Long term (permanent) foster carers approved 0 2 0 Children registered for permanence 7 9 7 Prospective adopters approved 1 8 6 Prospective adopters not approved 0 0 0

The recruitment of carers within Scottish Borders continues to be a challenge however as can be seen from the figures above, the Resources team have been successful in recruiting a number of carers. The difficulty remains that these are new carers with limited experience and training, something that can only be gained over time. Supporting and developing these carers is a long term programme. In addition it continues to be difficult, locally and nationally, to recruit carers for teenagers particularly those who present challenging behaviours.

2011 2012 2013 LAAC placed outside area as at 31 March 27% 27% 22%

The use of kinship carers in particular continues to have an effect on the requirements for large numbers of foster carers. Kinship care is a desirable outcome for children who are unable to be looked after by their birth parents, and enables children to remain and be cared for within their extended family and community, with clear benefits for their identity and sense of belonging as they develop. This reduces the need for local authority foster carers and promotes better outcome for the children themselves.

2011 2012 2013 Kinship placements as at 31 March 38 41 37

The total number of Looked After and Accommodated Children had been increasing up to 2011, in line with a national trend. There has been a drop in numbers locally however it is too early to say if this is a result of the focus on early intervention work within the Integrated Children’s Service.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 9 of 17 The number of children & young people who are looked after is at its lowest level since 2008. National figures are not yet available for 2013, but there were early signs in 2012 that the upward trend of an increase of approximately 4% per year had stopped.

2011 2012 2013 Looked After Children as at 31 March (SBC) 221 211 186 Looked After Children as at 31 July (Scotland) 16,231 16,248 tba

To allow for comparison, these figures can be reflected as a percentage of the population aged 0-17.

% of pop. Aged 0-17 2011 2012 2013 Looked After Children as at 31 March (SBC) 1.0 0.9 0.8 Looked After Children as at 31 July (Scotland) 1.6 1.6

3.2 CHILD PROTECTION The number of children on the child protection register remains low at 28, which is well below the national average rate per head of population. The national average is 3.0 per 1,000 population aged 0-15. The Scottish Borders has an equivalent rate of 1.4. The proportion of children who have been re-registered within 2 years has been maintained at a low level of 4% (this represents a single child). This indicates that the decisions to de-register children are appropriate and not leading to further risk for children. The average age of children on the register has dropped slightly, with 64% of registered children now being aged 4 or under. The length of time that children spend on the register has also dropped in comparison to 2011-12, down to 28 weeks which is a similar level to 2010-11.

10-11 11-12 12-13 Children on the Child Protection Register (31 March) 30 34 28 Children re-registered within 2 years (31 March) 3% 3% 4% Children registered during the year 64 61 58 Children de-registered during the year 67 57 64 Children on register aged 4 or under (31 March) 59% 59% 64% Average number of weeks registered 26 32 28

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 10 of 17 3.3 SECURE ORDERS No children were the subject of a Secure Order by the Children’s Hearing process during 2012/13, the last such case since being in 2010. Secure Orders are used very infrequently in Scottish Borders, and more early- intervention and community-based support packages are considered to be a better approach to these complex cases.

3.4 ADULT PROTECTION A total of 189 Adult Protection Adult Protection Concerns were received in 2012- 13, a decrease on 2011-12, but still higher than in previous years. An Adult Protection Concern is where there is a referral reported that an “adult is at risk of harm” as defined under Adult Protection Act.

10-11 11-12 12-13 Adult Protection Concerns 133 292 189

There had been a significant increase in Concerns in 2011/12. However, close examination of records showed that this was due to a shift in policy to report and record medication errors in care settings. This resulted in an additional 54 Concerns. This process was reviewed, as only errors resulting in harm need to be reported and has resulted in a reduction in Concerns. Clients with a Learning Disability and Older People (excluding people with dementia) and are by far the largest client groups being referred, accounting for 29% and 23% of the referrals received respectively. The reasons for Concerns are quite diverse, with, financial/material harm (25%), physical harm (24%) and self harm/neglect (13%) being the most common, but significant numbers of concerns for Acts of omission/neglect (9%) psychological abuse (9%), sexual abuse (3%) are also recorded. There has been a steady increase in large scale investigation meetings; however initial case conferences and review case conferences have reduced compared to 2011-12. 10-11 11-12 12-13 Initial Case Conferences 25 41 23 Review Case Conferences 14 28 12 Large Scale Investigation Meetings 11 19 24

3.5 ADULTS WITH INCAPACITY There has been a steady increase in Private Welfare Guardianships, which have risen to 41 as at 31 March 2013, however the number of Welfare Guardianships for which the Chief Social Work Officer has responsibility has been maintained at 20.

As at 31 March 2011 2012 2013 Private Welfare Guardianships 30 37 41 Chief SW Officer Welfare Guardianships 14 20 20

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 11 of 17 3.6 MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 came into effect in October 2005. The Act enables medical professionals to detain and treat people against their will on grounds of mental disorder. This term is used to cover mental health problems, personality disorders and learning disabilities. The Act is based on a set of guiding principles. In brief, they are; x Non-discrimination x Equality x Respect for diversity x Reciprocity x Informal care x Participation x Respect for carers x Least restrictive alternative x Benefit x Child welfare

The Act allows for people to be placed on different kinds of compulsory order according to their particular circumstances. There are three main kinds of compulsory powers: x Emergency detention This allows someone to be detained in hospital for up to 72 hours where hospital admission is required urgently to allow the person’s condition to be assessed. It will only take place if recommended by a doctor. Wherever possible, the agreement of a Mental Health Officer (a social worker specially trained in mental health) is also obtained. x Short-term detention This allows someone to be detained in hospital for up to 28 days. It will only take place where it is recommended by a specially trained doctor (a psychiatrist) and agreed by a Mental Health Officer. The Act refers to short- term detention as the ‘preferred gateway’ to detention. x Compulsory Treatment Order (CTO) This has to be approved by a Tribunal following an application by a Mental Health Officer. The application has to include two medical recommendations and a plan of care detailing the care and treatment proposed for the patient. The patient, the patient’s named person and the patient’s primary carer are entitled to have any objections that they have heard by the Tribunal. The patient and the named person are entitled to free legal representation for the Tribunal hearing. The number of uses of all three kinds of powers has been increasing, although the emergency detentions have only returned to previous levels following a drop in 2011-12. 10-11 11-12 12-13 Emergency Detentions 21 14 19 Short-term Detentions 54 55 70 Compulsory Treatment Orders 13 TBA 28

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 12 of 17 3.7 CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) is the framework which joins up the agencies who manage sex offenders. The fundamental purpose of MAPPA is public safety and the reduction of serious harm. The introduction of MAPPA across Scotland in April 2007 gave a consistent approach to the management of offenders, providing a framework for assessing and managing the risk posed by some of those offenders. There are three levels at which risk is assessed and managed under the MAPPA. These levels are: x Level 1: ordinary risk management x Level 2: local inter-agency risk management x Level 3: Multi-agency Public Protection Panels (MAPPP)

In Scottish Borders we have agreed that there should be two operational panels that meet monthly - MAPPA Panel Level 1 and MAPPA Panel Level 2. The MAPPA Level 3 Panel is arranged as and when required. The Level 1 and Level 2 panels are very well supported by all partner agencies and are regularly attended by members of staff with decision making powers. Specific staff, such as case managers or support workers will be invited to attend as required. The number of discussions held at level 1 in 2012-13 was significantly lower than 2011-12, while those at level 2 and 3 were at very much the same level.

10-11 11-12 12-13 Level 1 152 151 128 Level 2 22 28 28 Level 3 3 2 3

From April 2012 to March 2013 the overall number of sex offenders subject to MAPPA within the Scottish Borders was 106 out of a total across Lothian and Borders of 717. 102 of these cases were managed at level 1 and 3 at level 2 with only one case being managed at level 3.

4. REGULATION AND INSPECTION

Since April 2011 the Care Inspectorate has held responsibility for inspecting all Social Work services in Scotland, including Child Protection services, and ensuring that care service providers meet the Scottish Governments National Care Standards.

In the period April 2012 to March 2013, the Care Inspectorate carried out inspections on 13 SBC provided services, as well as 25 private care services and 42 in the voluntary/not-for-profit sector. These consisted of both announced and unannounced inspections.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 13 of 17 The inspections covered a range of services, summarised as follows.

Local Voluntary Service Description Private Total Authority /Non-Profit Adult Placement 1 1 Care Home 6 15 9 30 Fostering Agency 1 1 Housing Support 1 3 15 19 Nurse Agency 1 1 Support Service 5 6 17 28 Total 13 24 43 80

The inspections are based on quality themes and grade each service on a scale from 1 (Unsatisfactory) to 6 (Excellent).

Quality Themes: Quality Grades: x Care and Support 1. Unsatisfactory x Environment 2. Weak x Staffing 3. Adequate x Management 4. Good 5. Very Good 6. Excellent

Not all services are graded for every theme. For instance, the Adoption service does not provide services in any particular premises and therefore is not graded for Environment. Overall, 70% of services were graded as ‘Good’, ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’. For Local Authority services this figure was 85.

Overall Summary

Quality Grading Quality Theme 1 2 3 4 5 6 Care and Support 5 5 9 32 24 - Environment 3 1 14 11 6 - Staffing 2 6 12 34 30 1 Management and Leadership 4 8 8 36 19 - Total 14 20 43 113 69 1 5% 8% 17% 43% 27% 1%

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 14 of 17 Local Authority Services

Quality Grading Quality Theme 1 2 3 4 5 6 Care and Support - - 1 9 3 - Environment - - 3 5 1 - Staffing - - 2 9 2 - Management and Leadership - - 1 9 3 - Total - - 7 32 9 - - - 15% 67% 19% -

Private Services

Quality Grading Quality Theme 1 2 3 4 5 6 Care and Support 4 4 6 5 4 - Environment 3 1 4 3 4 - Staffing 1 6 8 4 3 1 Management and Leadership 3 6 4 7 3 - Total 11 17 22 19 14 1 13% 20% 26% 23% 17% 1%

Voluntary and Not-for-Profit Services

Quality Grading Quality Theme 1 2 3 4 5 6 Care and Support 1 1 2 18 17 - Environment - - 7 3 1 - Staffing 1 - 2 21 15 - Management and Leadership 1 2 3 20 13 - Total 3 3 14 62 46 - 2% 2% 11% 48% 36% 0%

5. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The integration of Health and Social Care and the further integration of Children’s Services will inevitably have ongoing staffing implications as joint structures are developed and working practices are reviewed. National legislation will continue to generate significant changes, e.g. the Self-directed Support (SDS) Bill sets out significant changes to the way that clients will decide upon the services most suitable for them. This will affect the role of Social Work staff and require a review of support

Staff are the most important resource to Social Work Services and vital to the effective delivery of critical services. Scottish Borders Council faces significant budget challenges and competing demands for services; and, it is the responsibility of all managers within these financial constraints to ensure that the staffing resource across all teams is appropriate and adequate to address needs.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 15 of 17 Central to the national agenda for the social services workforce is the need for the workforce to be supported by organisations which value and promote learning and prioritise human resources development in order to deliver a versatile and skilled workforce that is fit for purpose. Our staff have shown a real commitment to invest in this agenda. This year’s Annual Awards Ceremony celebrated the achievements of around 150 members of staff in respect of qualifications gained or accredited training.

The registration of the workforce with the Scottish Social Services Council is a major part of the drive for higher standards in social services nationally and will bring the workforce in line with other professional groups. This process started in 2003 with qualified social workers where the Department has 82 social worker qualified staff in Adult Services and 68 in Children’s Services. Other groups now required to be registered include residential child care, all managers of residential, day and home care in Adult Services, all workers in adult residential care and nurseries. With the register for home care workers due to open in 2017 the majority of social care / social work staff will require to be registered by the end of the decade.

Social Work Services supports unqualified staff to access opportunities to achieve qualifications in preparation for registration and this agenda will continue to be a priority over the coming years.

The Social Work Workforce Planning Group, established to further improve co- ordination and to ensure consistent workforce planning across the Department and with internal and external partners, has produced a Workforce Planning & development Strategy 2013-2017 – a five year plan to sustain and build upon a workforce with the talent, skills and flexibility to meet changing needs, which reflects the diversity of the population in Scottish Borders.

This strategy is a high level assessment of the staffing needs for all Social Work Services and identifies methods to address the changing workforce demands. It summarises the findings and recommendations resulting from a series of Workforce Planning workshops and other discussions to:

(a)Establish a set of guiding principles for future Workforce Planning activity and decision-making for Social Work Services

(b)Establish a common understanding of the nature of staff resources required to deliver Social Work services in the immediate and longer term

(c) Devise an action plan to identify the risks, gaps and opportunities which could impact successful delivery of services The Guiding Principles of the Workforce Planning Strategy provide a reference point for all decision making and planning which impacts on the workforce and resource requirements:

x actively retain, develop and attract staff with the necessary skills and commitment to deliver very good outcome focussed services based on the needs of service users. x ensure that all our recruitment and development is fair, promotes equality, eliminates discrimination and includes those furthest from the job market. x communicate key messages to staff effectively and often, including meaningful involvement in change.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 16 of 17 x invest in learning and development to meet statutory requirements and maximise staff potential. x proactively engage in succession planning internally and externally to address the risks of losing vital skills through staff turnover and retirement. x use forecasting information to inform future staffing levels and make use of all available tools to ensure required growths and reductions in advance. x encourage and support the adoption of these workforce planning guiding principles across commissioned services and partners. x support managers and staff to reduce absence levels by embracing attendance management. x regularly monitor the delivery and effectiveness of the Workforce Planning Strategy, including guiding principles.

Whilst there are difficulties in projecting figures beyond the next two years given major transformation and the number of reviews the information gathered to support the strategy setting process enables the Workforce Planning & Development Team to produce and maintain key information on Workforce Capacity, Qualification Levels and workforce registration requirements. This informs the production of detailed specifications and targets for training delivery over the next five years to ensure that there is equitable access to training and that essential training and qualifications targets are met.

Through the SBLearn initiative the Workforce Planning & Development Team are implementing the use of e-learning across all services and, where appropriate, elearning options for training will augment or replace existing delivery to ensure wider coverage of training.

A multi-agency Workforce Development Group has also been created as a sub-group of the Children and Young People’s Planning Partnership, with a focus on developing joint development opportunities and training for all staff working with children and young people.

Annual Report of the CSWO Page 17 of 17 Item No. 21(a) Calendar of Meetings 2013/14

Changes to Accommodate European Elections on Thursday, 22 May 2014

Committee Approved Date Proposed New Date Economic Development Tuesday, 13 May Thursday, 15 May Group Executive Tuesday, 20 May Tuesday, 13 May

Hawick Common Good Tuesday, 20 May Tuesday, 17 June Fund Sub-Committee Teviot & Liddesdale Area Tuesday, 20 May Cancel – next meeting on Forum Tuesday, 17 June Item No. 21(b) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL CALENDAR OF MEETINGS DRAFT CALENDAR OF MEETINGS AUGUST 2014-2015 Aug-14 FRI (SH) 1 AUG SAT 2 AUG SUN 3 AUG MON (SH) 4 AUG PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES (SH) 5 AUG WED (SH) 6 AUG THUR (SH) 7 AUG FRI (SH) 8 AUG POLICE, FIRE & RESCUE AND SAFER COMMS BOARD 9.30 a.m. SAT 9 AUG SUN 10 AUG MON (SH) 11 AUG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. TUES (SH) 12 AUG WED (SH) 13 AUG THUR (SH) 14 AUG THUR (SH) 14 AUG EILDON AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. FRI (SH) 15 AUG SAT 16 AUG SUN 17 AUG MON (SH) 18 AUG LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. TUES 19 AUG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 19 AUG HAWICK CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 4.00 p.m. TUES 19 AUG TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 20 AUG JEDBURGH CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 4.30 p.m. WED 20 AUG KELSO CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 5.30 p.m. WED 20 AUG CHEVIOT AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. THUR 21 AUG ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 21 AUG PETITIONS COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. FRI 22 AUG LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 22 AUG CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 23 AUG SUN 24 AUG MON 25 AUG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 2.00 p.m. TUES 26 AUG LAUDER CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 26 AUG WILLIAM HILL TRUST SUB-COMMITTEE 3.30 p.m. WED 27 AUG GALASHIELS CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 5.00 p.m. THUR 28 AUG SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 29 AUG SAT 30 AUG SUN 31 AUG Sep-14 MON 1 SEP PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 2 SEP EDUCATION COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 2 SEP SELKIRK COMMON CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 3.00 p.m. WED 3 SEP PEEBLES CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 5.00 p.m. WED 3 SEP TWEEDDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. THUR 4 SEP PENSION FUND COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 4 SEP EDUCATION PERFORMANCE HMIE SUB-CTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 4 SEP EMPLOYEE COUNCIL 3.00 p.m. THUR 4 SEP DUNS CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 5.00 p.m. THUR 4 SEP BERWICKSHIRE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. FRI 5 SEP SAT 6 SEP SUN 7 SEP MON 8 SEP CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. MON 8 SEP TRADING OPERATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 9 SEP SOCIAL WORK & HOUSING COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 9 SEP STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. WED 10 SEP THUR 11 SEP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. THUR 11 SEP COMMUNITY PLANNING STRATEGIC BOARD 2.00 p.m. FRI 12 SEP SAT 13 SEP 1 SUN 14 SEP MON 15 SEP TUES 16 SEP WED 17 SEP THUR 18 SEP SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM FRI 19 SEP SAT 20 SEP SUN 21 SEP MON 22 SEP LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. MON 22 SEP HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP BOARD 2.30 p.m. TUES 23 SEP WED 24 SEP JCG: TEACHERS 2.00 p.m. THUR 25 SEP SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 26 SEP LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 26 SEP CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 27 SEP SUN 28 SEP MON 29 SEP AUDIT COMMITTEE 10.15 a.m. TUES 30 SEP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. Oct-14 WED 1 OCT THUR 2 OCT ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 2 OCT COMMUNITY PLANNING STRATEGIC BOARD 2.00 p.m. FRI 3 OCT SAT 4 OCT SUN 5 OCT MON 6 OCT PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 7 OCT LOCAL LICENSING FORUM 4.00 p.m. WED 8 OCT THUR 9 OCT FRI 10 OCT SAT 11 OCT SUN 12 OCT MON (SH) 13 OCT TUES (SH) 14 OCT WED (SH) 15 OCT THUR (SH) 16 OCT FRI (SH) 17 OCT SAT 18 OCT SUN 19 OCT MON 20 OCT LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. TUES 21 OCT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 21 OCT TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 22 OCT JCG: STAFF 10.00 a.m. THUR 23 OCT PETITIONS COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. FRI 24 OCT LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 24 OCT CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 25 OCT SUN 26 OCT MON 27 OCT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. TUES 28 OCT LAUDER COMMON GOOD FUND SUB-COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 28 OCT WILLIAM HILL TRUST SUB-COMMITTEE 3.30 p.m. WED 29 OCT SELKIRK COMMON GOOD FUND SUB-COMMITTEE 3.00 p.m. THUR 30 OCT SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 31 OCT Nov-14 SAT 1 NOV SUN 2 NOV MON 3 NOV PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 4 NOV SOCIAL WORK & HOUSING COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. WED 5 NOV THUR 6 NOV FRI 7 NOV SAT 8 NOV SUN 9 NOV MON 10 NOV AUDIT COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. MON 10 NOV TRADING OPERATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 11 NOV EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. 2 WED 12 NOV THUR 13 NOV ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. THUR 13 NOV EILDON AREA FORUM FRI 14 NOV POLICE, FIRE & RESCUE AND SAFER COMMS BOARD 9.30 a.m. SAT 15 NOV SUN 16 NOV MON 17 NOV LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. TUES 18 NOV HAWICK COMMON GOOD FUND SUB-CTEE 4.00 p.m. TUES 18 NOV TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 19 NOV THUR 20 NOV SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 21 NOV LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 21 NOV CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 22 NOV SUN 23 NOV MON 24 NOV CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. TUES 25 NOV EDUCATION COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. WED 26 NOV JEDBURGH CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 4.30 p.m. WED 26 NOV KELSO CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 5.30 p.m. WED 26 NOV CHEVIOT AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. THUR 27 NOV EDUCATION PERFORMANCE HMIE SUB-CTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 27 NOV COMMUNITY PLANNING STRATEGIC BOARD 2.00 p.m. FRI 28 NOV SAT 29 NOV SUN 30 NOV MON 1 DEC ST ANDREWS DAY HOLIDAY TUES 2 DEC WED 3 DEC PEEBLES CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 5.00 p.m. WED 3 DEC TWEEDDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. THUR 4 DEC ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 4 DEC EMPLOYEE COUNCIL 3.00 p.m. THUR 4 DEC BERWICKSHIRE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. FRI 5 DEC SAT 6 DEC SUN 7 DEC MON 8 DEC PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 9 DEC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. WED 10 DEC THUR 11 DEC PENSION FUND COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 11 DEC PETITIONS COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. FRI 12 DEC SAT 13 DEC SUN 14 DEC MON 15 DEC LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. MON 15 DEC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 2.00 p.m. MON 15 DEC HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP BOARD 2.30 p.m. TUES 16 DEC TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 17 DEC THUR 18 DEC SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 19 DEC LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 19 DEC CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 20 DEC SUN 21 DEC MON (SH) 22 DEC TUES (SH) 23 DEC WED (SH) 24 DEC THUR (SH) 25 DEC HOLIDAY FRI (SH) 26 DEC HOLIDAY SAT 27 DEC SUN 28 DEC MON (SH) 29 DEC HOLIDAY TUES (SH) 30 DEC HOLIDAY WED (SH) 31 DEC HOLIDAY Jan-15 THUR(SH) 1 JAN HOLIDAY FRI (SH) 2 JAN HOLIDAY SAT 3 JAN 3 SUN 4 JAN MON (SH) 5 JAN TUES 6 JAN WED 7 JAN THUR 8 JAN FRI 9 JAN SAT 10 JAN SUN 11 JAN MON 12 JAN PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 13 JAN EDUCATION COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 13 JAN SOCIAL WORK & HOUSING COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. WED 14 JAN THUR 15 JAN FRI 16 JAN SAT 17 JAN SUN 18 JAN MON 19 JAN AUDIT COMMITTEE 10.15 a.m. TUES 20 JAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 20 JAN TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 21 JAN THUR 22 JAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. FRI 23 JAN LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 23 JAN CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 24 JAN SUN 25 JAN MON 26 JAN LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. MON 26 JAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 2.00 p.m. TUES 27 JAN STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 27 JAN LOCAL LICENSING FORUM 4.00 p.m. WED 28 JAN THUR 29 JAN SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 30 JAN SAT 31 JAN Feb-15 SUN 1 FEB MON 2 FEB PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 3 FEB WED 4 FEB JCG: STAFF 10.00 a.m. WED 4 FEB JEDBURGH CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 4.30 p.m. WED 4 FEB KELSO CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 5.30 p.m. WED 4 FEB CHEVIOT AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. THUR 5 FEB ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. FRI 6 FEB SAT 7 FEB SUN 8 FEB MON 9 FEB TUES 10 FEB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. WED 11 FEB THUR 12 FEB SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL (SPECIAL) 10.00 a.m. THUR 12 FEB EILDON AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. FRI 13 FEB POLICE, FIRE & RESCUE AND SAFER COMMS BOARD 9.30 a.m. SAT 14 FEB SUN 15 FEB MON 16 FEB LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. TUES 17 FEB HAWICK COMMON GOOD FUND SUB-CTEE 4.00 p.m. TUES 17 FEB TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 18 FEB SELKIRK CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 3.00 p.m. THUR 19 FEB PETITIONS COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. FRI 20 FEB LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 20 FEB CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 21 FEB SUN 22 FEB MON 23 FEB TRADING OPERATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 24 FEB LAUDER COMMON GOOD FUND SUB-COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 24 FEB WILLIAM HILL TRUST SUB-COMMITTEE 3.30 p.m. WED 25 FEB JCG: TEACHERS 2.00 p.m. THUR 26 FEB SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. 4 FRI 27 FEB SAT 28 FEB Mar-15 SUN 1 MAR MON 2 MAR PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 3 MAR WED 4 MAR PEEBLES COMMON GOOD FUND SUB-COMMITTEE 5.00 p.m. WED 4 MAR TWEEDDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. THUR 5 MAR PENSION FUND COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 5 MAR COMMUNITY PLANNING STRATEGIC BOARD 2.00 p.m. THUR 5 MAR BERWICKSHIRE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. FRI 6 MAR SAT 7 MAR SUN 8 MAR MON 9 MAR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. TUES 10 MAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. WED 11 MAR THUR 12 MAR EDUCATION PERFORMANCE HMIE SUB-CTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 12 MAR EMPLOYEE COUNCIL 3.00 p.m. FRI 13 MAR SAT 14 MAR SUN 15 MAR MON 16 MAR LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. TUES 17 MAR EDUCATION COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 17 MAR TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 18 MAR THUR 19 MAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. FRI 20 MAR LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 20 MAR CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 21 MAR SUN 22 MAR MON 23 MAR AUDIT COMMITTEE 10.15 a.m. MON 23 MAR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP BOARD 2.30 p.m. TUES 24 MAR SOCIAL WORK & HOUSING COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 24 MAR LOCAL LICENSING FORUM 4.00 p.m. WED 25 MAR THUR 26 MAR SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 27 MAR SAT 28 MAR SUN 29 MAR MON 30 MAR PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 31 MAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. Apr-15 WED 1 APR THUR 2 APR PETITIONS COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. FRI (SH) 3 APR SAT 4 APR SUN 5 APR MON(SH) 6 APR TUES(SH) 7 APR WED(SH) 8 APR THUR(SH) 9 APR FRI(SH) 10 APR SAT 11 APR SUN 12 APR MON (SH) 13 APR TUES (SH) 14 APR WED (SH) 15 APR THUR (SH) 16 APR FRI (SH) 17 APR SAT 18 APR SUN 19 APR MON 20 APR LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. TUES 21 APR TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 22 APR THUR 23 APR SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 24 APR LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. 5 FRI 24 APR CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 25 APR SUN 26 APR MON 27 APR PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. MON 27 APR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 2.00 p.m. TUES 28 APR EDUCATION COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. WED 29 APR THUR 30 APR ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. May-15 FRI 1 MAY SAT 2 MAY SUN 3 MAY MON 4 MAY PUBLIC HOLIDAY TUES 5 MAY WED 6 MAY THUR 7 MAY WESTMINSTER ELECTION FRI 8 MAY SAT 9 MAY SUN 10 MAY MON 11 MAY AUDIT COMMITTEE 10.15 a.m. TUES 12 MAY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. WED 13 MAY THUR 14 MAY EILDON AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. FRI 15 MAY POLICE, FIRE & RESCUE AND SAFER COMMS BOARD 9.30 a.m. SAT 16 MAY SUN 17 MAY MON 18 MAY LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. TUES 19 MAY HAWICK CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 4.00 p.m. TUES 19 MAY TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 20 MAY THUR 21 MAY EMPLOYEE COUNCIL 3.00 p.m. FRI 22 MAY LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 22 MAY CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 23 MAY SUN 24 MAY MON 25 MAY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. TUES 26 MAY STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. WED 27 MAY PEEBLES CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 5.00 p.m. WED 27 MAY TWEEDDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. THUR 28 MAY SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 29 MAY SAT 30 MAY SUN 31 MAY Jun-15 MON 1 JUN PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 2 JUN EDUCATION COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. WED 3 JUN JCG: TEACHERS 2.00 p.m. WED 3 JUN JEDBURGH COMMON GOOD FUND SUB-CTEE 4.30 p.m. WED 3 JUN KELSO COMMON GOOD FUND SUB-COMMITTEE 5.30 p.m. WED 3 JUN CHEVIOT AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. THUR 4 JUN EDUCATION PERFORMANCE HMIE SUB-CTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 4 JUN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP 2.00 p.m. THUR 4 JUN BERWICKSHIRE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. FRI 5 JUN SAT 6 JUN SUN 7 JUN MON 8 JUN TRADING OPERATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 9 JUN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 9 JUN LOCAL LICENSING FORUM 4.00 p.m. WED 10 JUN JCG: STAFF 10.00 a.m. WED 10 JUN SELKIRK CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 3.00 p.m. THUR 11 JUN ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 11 JUN COMMUNITY PLANNING STRATEGIC BOARD 2.00 p.m. FRI 12 JUN SAT 13 JUN SUN 14 JUN MON 15 JUN LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. 6 TUES 16 JUN SOCIAL WORK & HOUSING COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. TUES 16 JUN LAUDER CGF SUB-COMMITTEE 2.00 p.m. TUES 16 JUN WILLIAM HILL TRUST SUB-COMMITTEE 3.30 p.m. TUES 16 JUN TEVIOT & LIDDESDALE AREA FORUM 6.30 p.m. WED 17 JUN THUR 18 JUN PENSION FUND COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. THUR 18 JUN PETITIONS COMMITTEE 10.00 a.m. FRI 19 JUN LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI 19 JUN CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 20 JUN SUN 21 JUN MON 22 JUN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP 10.00 a.m. MON 22 JUN HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE PARTNERSHIP BOARD 2.30 p.m. TUES 23 JUN WED 24 JUN THUR 25 JUN SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 10.00 a.m. FRI 26 JUN SAT 27 JUN SUN 28 JUN MON 29 JUN PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS 10.00 a.m. TUES 30 JUN AUDIT COMMITTEE 10.15 a.m. Jul-15 WED 1 JUL THUR (SH) 2 JUL FRI (SH) 3 JUL SAT 4 JUL SUN 5 JUL MON (SH) 6 JUL TUES (SH) 7 JUL WED (SH) 8 JUL THUR (SH) 9 JUL FRI (SH) 10 JUL SAT 11 JUL SUN 12 JUL MON (SH) 13 JUL TUES (SH) 14 JUL WED (SH) 15 JUL THUR (SH) 16 JUL FRI (SH) 17 JUL SAT 18 JUL SUN 19 JUL MON (SH) 20 JUL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 10.00 a.m. TUES (SH) 21 JUL WED (SH) 22 JUL THUR (SH) 23 JUL FRI (SH) 24 JUL LICENSING BOARD 10.00 a.m. FRI (SH) 24 JUL CIVIC GOVERNMENT LICENSING COMMITTEE 11.00 a.m. SAT 25 JUL SUN 26 JUL MON (SH) 27 JUL TUES (SH) 28 JUL WED (SH) 29 JUL THUR (SH) 30 JUL FRI (SH) 31 JUL

(SH) School Holiday

7