Agenda Document Pack - Executive Committee - 07/08/2024
South Lanarkshire Council · 7 August 2024
Back to Executive Committee — 7 August 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Council Offices, Almada Street Hamilton, ML3 0AA Tuesday, 30 July 2024 Dear Councillor Executive Committee The Members listed below are requested to attend a meeting of the above Committee to be held as follows:- Date: Wednesday, 07 August 2024 Time: 10:00 Venue: Hybrid - Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA The business to be considered at the meeting is listed overleaf. Yours sincerely Paul Manning Chief Executive Members Joe Fagan (Chair/ex officio), Gerry Convery (Depute Chair), Alex Allison, John Anderson, Robert Brown, Andy Carmichael, Maureen Chalmers, Ross Clark, Margaret Cooper, Andrea Cowan, Maureen Devlin, Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Lynsey Hamilton, Susan Kerr, Eileen Logan, Katy Loudon, Hugh Macdonald, Ian McAllan, Catherine McClymont, Kenny McCreary, Lesley McDonald, Davie McLachlan, Richard Nelson, Mo Razzaq, Kirsten Robb, John Ross, David Shearer, Margaret B Walker Substitutes John Bradley, Walter Brogan, Poppy Corbett, Margaret Cowie, Elise Frame, Celine Handibode, Graeme Horne, Martin Hose, Ross Lambie, Elaine McDougall, Norman Rae, Graham Scott, David Watson 1
Page 2
BUSINESS 1 Declaration of Interests 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting Minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 26 June 2024 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) 5 - 18 Monitoring Item(s) 3 Revenue Budget Monitoring for Period 1 April to 14 June 2024 Report dated 1 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 19 - 24 4 Capital Budget 2024/2025 and Monitoring for Period 3 - 1 April to 14 June 2024 Report dated 16 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 25 - 32 5 Additional Funding from Scottish Government and Other External Sources Report dated 2 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 33 - 36 Item(s) for Decision 6 South Lanarkshire Council Response to Pre-budget Scrutiny Call for Evidence on Managing Scotland’s Finances Report dated 16 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 37 - 54 7 National Care Service – Update Report dated 24 July 2024 by the Director, Health and Social Care. (Copy attached) 55 - 72 8 Outcome of the Consultation Proposal to Alter the Qualifying Distance for Mainstream Secondary School Transport Report dated 17 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Education Resources). (Copy attached) 73 - 186 9 Glasgow City Region City Deal - Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project - Full Business Case Report dated 17 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached) 187 - 194 10 Land and Property Transfers and Disposals Report dated 5 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Housing and Technical Resources). (Copy attached) 195 - 198 11 Consumer Duty: Consumer Scotland Act 2020 Report dated 16 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 199 - 202 12 Religious Representation on the Education Resources Committee Joint report dated 16 July 2024 by the Executive Directors (Finance and Corporate Resources) and (Education Resources). (Copy attached) 203 - 204 2
Page 3
Item(s) for Noting 13 Employee Wellbeing Support Report dated 17 July 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources). (Copy attached) 205 - 218 Urgent Business 14 Urgent Business Any other items of business which the Chair decides are urgent. For further information, please contact:- Clerk Name: Tracy Slater Clerk Telephone: 07385 370089 Clerk Email: tracy.slater@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 3
Page 4
4
Page 5
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Minutes of meeting held via Confero and in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 26 June 2024 Chair: Councillor Joe Fagan (ex officio) Councillors Present: Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor John Anderson, Councillor Robert Brown, Councillor Maureen Chalmers, Councillor Ross Clark, Councillor Gerry Convery (Depute), Councillor Margaret Cooper, Councillor Andrea Cowan, Councillor Margaret Cowie (substitute for Councillor Mo Razzaq), Councillor Maureen Devlin, Councillor Gladys Ferguson-Miller, Councillor Lynsey Hamilton, Councillor Susan Kerr, Councillor Eileen Logan, Councillor Katy Loudon, Councillor Hugh Macdonald, Councillor Ian McAllan, Councillor Catherine McClymont, Councillor Kenny McCreary, Councillor Lesley McDonald, Councillor Mark McGeever, Councillor Davie McLachlan, Councillor Richard Nelson, Councillor John Ross, Councillor Graham Scott (substitute for Councillor Andy Carmichael), Councillor David Shearer, Councillor Margaret B Walker Councillors' Apologies: Councillor Andy Carmichael, Councillor Mo Razzaq, Councillor Kirsten Robb Attending: Chief Executive’s Service P Manning, Chief Executive; N Reid, Research and Improvement Manager Community and Enterprise Resources D Booth, Executive Director; F Carlin, Head of Planning and Regulatory Services; K Carr, Head of Facilities, Waste and Grounds Services; C Park, Head of Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services Education Resources C McKenzie, Executive Director Finance and Corporate Resources J Taylor, Executive Director; K McLeod, Administration Assistant; M Milne, Head of Personnel Services; T Slater, Administration Adviser; I Strachan, Head of Administration and Legal Services Housing and Technical Resources S Gibson, Executive Director; J Read, Strategy and Policy Adviser; J Smith, Strategy Team Leader (Built Environment) Health and Social Care/Social Work Resources S Sengupta, Director, Health and Social Care 1 Declaration of Interests No interests were declared. 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 8 May 2024 were submitted for approval as a correct record. The Committee decided: that the minutes be approved as a correct record. 2 5
Page 6
3 Revenue Budget Year-End – 2023/2024 A report dated 3 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on the overall financial position of the Council’s General Fund Revenue Account and Housing Revenue Account for the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024. Information was provided on:- the Council’s overall probable outturn position previously reported to the Executive Committee on 24 January 2024 of a breakeven position, which included the corporate transfer to reserves of £9 million the year-end outturn position across Resources, Corporate Items, Loan Charges and Council Tax, which was an underspend of £0.128 million after proposed transfers to reserves of £26.223 million. This included the transfer to reserves approved as part of the probable outturn of £23.985 million and a proposed additional year-end transfer to reserves of £2.238 million the year-end position within Social Work Resources’ Adult and Older People Services, which included a £1.446 million commitment in relation to the element of the budget delegated to the Integration Joint Board (IJB). This was an increase of £0.174 million from the predicted outturn position the proposal to set aside the £0.128 million underspend to assist in future budget strategies, including pay award requirements which would result in a breakeven position the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) which was a breakeven position after a transfer to the HRA reserve of £0.360 million The Chair advised of an enquiry by Councillor Robb in relation to a potential amendment in relation to the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) and Feed In Tariff (FIT) at Appendix 4 of the report, where this could be set aside for CEEF (Central Energy Efficiency Fund). Having taken advice from the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources), the Chair considered that an amendment would not be necessary and asked the Committee to note the request to be considered when that future programme was being put together. The Committee decided: (1) that across Resources, Corporate Items, Loan Charges and Council Tax, the year-end underspend of £0.128 million, after proposed transfers to reserves, as detailed in section 4 and Appendix 1 of the report, be noted; (2) that an additional £0.174 million underspend in the element of the Adult and Older People budget delegated to the IJB, as detailed in section 4.5 of the report, which allowed the IJB to retain this within their reserves for future care costs, be approved; (3) to note that the underspend of £0.128 million was after the previously approved probable outturn transfers to reserves of £23.985 million, as detailed in Appendix 3 of the report; (4) that the requests for additional year-end transfers to reserves totalling £2.238 million, as detailed in Appendix 4 of the report, be approved; (5) that the proposal that the £0.128 million underspend, after proposed transfers to reserves, be set aside to assist in future budget strategies, including pay award requirements as detailed in section 4.11 of the report, resulting in a breakeven position for the Council, be approved; (6) that the breakeven position on the HRA, as detailed in section 5 of the report, be noted; and 6
Page 7
(7) that the request to consider the set-aside of the RHI and FIT monies for CEEF be noted. [Reference: Minutes of 24 January 2024 (Paragraph 3) and Minutes of South Lanarkshire Council of 27 March 2024 (Paragraph 10)] 4 Revenue Budget Monitoring for Period 2 – 1 April 2024 to 17 May 2024 A report dated 10 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on the overall financial position of the General Fund Revenue Account and the Housing Revenue Account for the period 1 April to 17 May 2024 and a projection for the year to 31 March 2025. As at 17 May 2024, the projected outturn position on the General Fund Revenue Account and Housing Revenue Account was a breakeven position, as detailed in appendices 1 and 2 to the report respectively. Information was provided on a number of key budget areas including:- the move of the Central Energy Fund and Net Zero Innovation Fund to the budget line 2024/2024 Investments – Transfer to Reserves 2024/2025 funding for teacher numbers employers’ pension contributions increase for teachers employers’ pension contributions decrease for non-teachers the continued budget pressures within Social Work Resources’ Children and Families Services UK Government Consequentials, the Council’s share of which was £3.710 million, and proposing the set-aside of this for higher than budgeted pay claims in 2024/2025 the transfer of Employability Services to Community and Enterprise Resources the bid for funding to cancel school meal debt the budgeted underspend in loan charges an update on the Loans Fund Review An officer and the Chair responded to members’ questions on the use of the UK Government Consequentials. The Committee decided: (1) that the projected breakeven position on the General Fund Revenue Account for 2024/2025, and the actual spend as at 17 May 2024, as detailed in section 4 and Appendix 1 of the report, be noted; (2) that the additional £3.710 million UK Government Consequentials be set aside as a contingency for higher than budgeted pay claims in 2024/2025, as detailed in sections 4.15 to 4.17 of the report; and (3) that the projected breakeven position on the Housing Revenue Account for 2024/2025, and the actual spend as at 17 May 2024, as detailed in section 5 and Appendix 2 of the report, be noted. 7
Page 8
5 Capital Budget Monitoring Final Outturn – 2023/2024 A report dated 5 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on:- the outturn position of the General Services and Housing Capital Programmes for the year ended 31 March 2024 the projects, expressed in financial terms, which had been carried forward into 2024/2025 Total spend on the General Services Capital Programme 2023/2024, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, amounted to £64.244 million. This compared to the budget of £78.365 million and resulted in an underspend of £14.121 million. This would be carried forward to the 2024/2025 financial year. Details were provided in Appendix 2 on the reasons for the underspend and those projects that would continue into 2024/2025. Information was also provided on the year end accounting adjustments. The Housing Capital Programme 2023/2024, as detailed in Appendix 3 to the report, totalled £67.443 million, with actual expenditure amounting to £62.240 million, a net underspend of £5.203 million. Details were given on the reasons for the underspend, which would be carried forward to the Capital Programme 2024/2025. In response to a member’s question, the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) gave an undertaking to report back on the Cathkin Bypass Grant Payments. The Committee decided: (1) that the outturn on the 2023/2024 General Services Programme of £64.244 million, as detailed in section 5.1 of the report, be noted; (2) that the £14.121 million of General Services Capital Programme be carried forward into 2024/2025, as detailed in section 5.9 of the report; (3) that the outturn on the 2023/2024 Housing Capital Programme of £62.240 million, as detailed in section 5.11 of the report, be noted; (4) that the £5.203 million of Housing Capital Programme be carried forward into future years, as detailed in section 5.12 of the report; and (5) to note that the level of overall spend anticipated in 2024/2025, for both the General Services and Housing Capital Programmes, would be the subject of a separate report to the Committee, as detailed in sections 5.10 and 5.14 of the report. 6 Capital Budget 2024/2025 and Monitoring for Period 2 - 1 April 2024 to 17 May 2024 A report dated 7 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on:- consolidation of capital budget monitoring to give a Council-wide summary of the 2024/2025 Capital Programme, including 2023/2024 carry forward progress on the Capital Programme for the period 1 April to 17 May 2024 At its meeting on 21 February 2024, the Council agreed a General Services base budget for 2024/2025 amounting to £49.512 million. Since the approval of this programme, the financial year end and additional funding received had resulted in a revised General Services base budget position for 2024/2025 of £73.850 million. Detail was provided in Appendix 2 to the report. 8
Page 9
Since the budget was approved in February 2024, Resources had submitted proposed adjustments totalling £8.790 million. A detailed breakdown of those proposals was provided in Appendix 1 to the report and, if approved, the total capital spending programme for 2024/2025 would be £82.640 million. Appendix 3 summarised the programme spend and funding for the General Fund. Budget for the period amounted to £2.020 million and, as at 17 May 2024, £2.020 million had been spent. Information was provided on the delay to the balance of funding for the Hairmyres Station Park and Ride project of £2 million. It was proposed that the Council borrow the balance of funding, on a short-term basis, to be reimbursed by Transport Scotland in future financial years. The Housing Capital Programme for 2024/2025 amounted to £77.303 million. The Final Outturn report for financial year 2023/2024 noted a carry forward of £5.203 million into future years. Further analysis of the budget confirmed that £3.418 million was required in 2024/2025, with the remainder being carried forward into future years. Budget for the period amounted to £5.050 million and, as at 17 May 2024, £5.050 million had been spent on the Housing Capital Programme. The position on the General Fund Capital Programme and the Housing Capital Programme would be monitored by the Financial Resources Scrutiny Forum. An officer responded to a member’s question in relation to borrowing for the Hairmyres Station Park and Ride project and the Chair thanked those officers and politicians who had worked to secure the funding solution for the project. The Committee decided: (1) that the position of the General Fund Capital Programme, as detailed in section 4 of the report, and the Housing Capital Programme, as detailed in section 5 of the report, be approved; (2) that the Council borrow £2 million, on a short-term basis, to fund the balance of the Hairmyres Station Park and Ride project spend, as detailed in Section 4.10 of the report; (3) that the adjustments to the General Fund programme, as detailed in Appendix 1 of the report, be approved; and (4) that the revised programmes be monitored by the Financial Resources Scrutiny Forum. [Reference: Minutes of South Lanarkshire Council of 21 February 2024 (Paragraphs 3 and 4)] 7 Additional Funding from Scottish Government and Other External Sources A report dated 4 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on additional funding, totalling £3.320 million, which had been made available to the Council by the Scottish Government and other external sources. The funding had been allocated as follows:- Revenue Funding Resource 2024/2025 (£m) Finance and Corporate 0.347 Community and Enterprise 0.195 Total 0.542 9
Page 10
Capital Funding Resource 2024/2025 (£m) Education 1.200 Community and Enterprise 1.578 Total 2.778 Overall Total 3.320 The Committee decided: that the report be noted. [Reference: Minutes of 8 May 2024 (Paragraph 5)] 8 Employee Workforce Monitoring Information - April 2023 to March 2024 - Yearly Summary A report dated 23 May 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on workforce monitoring information relating to the Council for the period April 2023 to March 2024, as follows:- attendance statistics occupational health statistics accident/incident statistics disciplinary hearings, grievances and Dignity at Work cases employee development labour turnover/analysis of leavers and exit interviews recruitment monitoring staffing watch as at 9 March 2024 In response to a member’s question in relation to psychological absences and employee wellbeing, the Head of Personnel Services gave an undertaking to submit a report to a future committee on the work that was being carried out in this area. The Committee decided: that the report be noted. [Reference: Minutes of 22 November 2023 (Paragraph 6)] 9 2025/2026 and 2027/2028 Revenue Budget Strategy A report dated 6 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on the Budget Strategy for 2025/2026 to 2027/2028. Information was provided on:- the scale of the financial challenges facing local government across the years 2025/2026 to 2027/2028, with an expected budget gap for this Council of £77.275 million the required Transformational Change Programme required to drive continuous improvement and efficiencies and link into the Budget Strategy the proposed timeline for the next steps of the budget process which would include updating budget estimates and undertaking Council-wide reviews to inform savings for the coming years the future Reserves Strategy enhancing the focus on financial resilience 10
Page 11
communication and engagement with elected members and the public the risks for the budget An officer responded to a member’s question in relation to the Council’s Insurance Fund. The Committee decided: (1) that the Revenue Budget position for 2025/2026 to 2027/2028, as detailed in section 4 and table 1 of the report, outlining the Budget Gap of £77.275 million, be approved; (2) that the Transformational Change Programme, as detailed in Section 5 of the report, be noted; (3) that the summary and next steps, as detailed in section 6 of the report, including the timeline provided in Table 2 of the report, be noted; (4) to note that a Reserves Strategy would be presented to members in Autumn 2024, as detailed in section 7.4, with an update on Financial Resilience being reported to the Risk and Audit Scrutiny Committee in September, as detailed in section 8.3 of the report; and (5) that the risks detailed in the Other Implications section at paragraph 14.3 of the report be noted. [Reference: Minutes of South Lanarkshire Council of 21 February 2024 (Paragraph 2)] 10 South Lanarkshire Council Armed Forces Community Covenant Strategy 2024 to 2027 A report dated 17 May 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on a proposed new Armed Forces Community Covenant Strategy and Action Plan 2024 to 2027, attached as an appendix to the report. Information was provided on the background to the Armed Forces Community Covenant which the Council had signed up to with a range of partners including the NHS, military, voluntary and charity sectors. The new Covenant Strategy and Action Plan built on the work the Council had carried out to date to support veterans and their families. The aims of the Covenant were to:- encourage local communities to support the armed forces community in their areas nurture public understanding and awareness amongst the public of issues affecting the armed forces community recognise and remember the sacrifices made by the armed forces community encourage activities which helped to integrate the armed forces community into local life encourage the armed forces community to help and support the wider community, whether through participation in events and joint projects, or other forms of engagement A local group had been established, originally under the co-ordination of the army, entitled Lanarkshire Firm Base and now renamed Lanarkshire Armed Forces Community and Veterans Covenant Group. This brought together a range of organisations and Community Planning partners to work together to improve services and supports to local veterans and their families. The Armed Forces Act 2021 further established the commitments in the Covenant with the creation of the statutory Armed Forces Duty. 11
Page 12
An annual report on the Council’s work in promoting the Covenant would be reported in early 2025 to a meeting of the full Council. Councillor Nelson proposed an amendment to the Strategy and Action Plan to incorporate justice services, unpaid work and non-custodial sentences, which would include mental health and substance misuse. The Head of Administration and Legal Services recommended that, if approved, authority be delegated to the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources), in consultation with Councillor Horsham, as the Council’s Armed Forces Champion, Councillor Nelson and the Director, Health and Social Care to agree a form of wording to be included within the Strategy. The Committee decided: (1) that the Council’s Armed Forces Community Covenant Strategy 2024 to 2027 be approved, subject the amendment proposed by Councillor Nelson; (2) that the Armed Forces Community Covenant Strategy Action Plan for the period 2024 to 2027 be approved; (3) to note that an annual report on the Council’s work in promoting the Armed Forces Community Covenant would be reported to South Lanarkshire Council in early 2025; and (4) that authority be delegated to the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources), in consultation with Councillor Horsham, as the Council’s Armed Forces Champion, Councillor Nelson and the Director, Health and Social Care to agree a form of wording for the amendment to the Strategy. [Reference: Minutes of South Lanarkshire Council of 31 January 2024 (Paragraph 4)] In terms of Standing Order No 14, the Chair adjourned the meeting following this item of business at 11:18am and reconvened at 11:30am 11 Recommendations Referred from Resource Committee A report dated 18 June 2024 by the Chief Executive was submitted on:- recommendations referred to this Committee by the Community and Enterprise Resources Committee at its meeting held on 18 June 2024 in relation to South Lanarkshire Council Bereavement Services Strategy 2024 to 2033. the proposed Introduction of a Charge for Uplift of Household Garden Waste (Burgundy) Bin The recommendations in relation to the South Lanarkshire Council Bereavement Services Strategy 2024 to 2033 were as follows:- that the Bereavement Services Strategy 2024 to 2033 be approved that the new crematorium service time pilot be approved that the new and harmonised charges be approved In relation to the Introduction of a Charge for Uplift of Household Garden Waste (Burgundy) Bin, the Community and Enterprise Resources Committee agreed that the matter be referred, without endorsement, to this Committee for consideration. It was proposed that:- a charge be introduced for the uplift of burgundy bins containing garden waste the Waste Services’ establishment be increased by 4 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) on a temporary basis and 9 FTE on a permanent basis the vehicle establishment for Waste Services be increased 12
Page 13
Officers responded to members’ question in relation to various aspects of the report. Councillor Fagan, seconded by Councillor Convery, moved the recommendations in the report with the following additional recommendation in relation to the Introduction of a Charge for Uplift of Household Garden Waste (Burgundy) Bin:- “that officers be asked to undertake work to develop a scheme to provide home composters to households affected by the introduction of the garden waste permit scheme and that external funding or a share of income generated by a permit charge be considered among potential funding sources for such an incentive. Officers are asked to report back to Committee with the scheme developed, for approval.” Councillor McAllan, seconded by Councillor Cowan, moved as an amendment that Committee reject the recommendation for the charge and wait until legislation was introduced before tailoring the Council’s approach. On a vote being taken using the electronic voting system, 15 members voted for the motion, 10 for the amendment and 3 abstained. The motion was declared carried. The Committee decided: (1) that the recommendations referred by the Community and Enterprise Resources Committee in relation to the Council’s Council Bereavement Services Strategy 2024 to 2033 be approved; and (2) that, in relation to the introduction of a charge for the uplift of household garden waste (burgundy) bins:- the proposal to introduce a charge for the uplift of burgundy bins containing garden waste be approved the increase of the Waste Services’ establishment by 4 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) on a temporary basis and 9 FTE on a permanent basis be approved the increase of the vehicle establishment for Waste Services be approved officers to develop a scheme to provide home composters to households affected by the introduction of the garden waste permit scheme and external funding or a share of income generated by a permit charge to be considered among potential funding sources for such an incentive, with a report to be brought back to Committee, with the scheme developed, for approval [Reference: Minutes of the Community and Enterprise Resources Committee of 18 June 2024 (Paragraphs 8 and 9)] 12 South Lanarkshire Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES) A report dated 5 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Housing and Technical Resources) was submitted on the Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES) and Delivery Plan, attached as appendices to the report. Information was provided on:- the public and stakeholder consultation and engagement on the draft Strategy and Delivery Plan which covered an 8-week period, closing on 12 April 2024 the priorities and structure of the Strategy and Delivery Plan which, if approved, would be published on the Council website as separate documents the proposed monitoring, reporting and governance arrangements 13
Page 14
The Committee decided: (1) that the findings from consultation and engagement with stakeholders regarding the LHEES be noted; (2) that the finalised LHEES and Delivery Plan be approved; and (3) that the proposed governance, monitoring and reporting arrangements be approved. [Reference: Minutes of the Climate Change and Sustainability Committee of 28 February 2024 (Paragraph 6)] 13 South Lanarkshire's State of the Environment Report 2023 A report dated 7 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on South Lanarkshire’s State of the Environment Report 2023. The report had been prepared using data from across the Council, partner agencies and government bodies. The findings, detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, showed that:- 17 indicators had a ‘Good’ rating, with 11 of those showing improvement 23 indicators had a ‘Fair’ rating, with 8 of those showing improvement 7 indicators had a ‘Poor’ rating, with 3 of those showing improvement If approved, the full State of the Environment Report would be made available on the Council’s website. The Committee decided: that the State of the Environment Report 2023 be approved and disseminated across the Council and to relevant Council partners and external agencies for use in the preparation of plans, policies, programmes and strategies, as a Strategic Environmental Assessment and an information resource. 14 Strategic Environmental Assessment Progress 2023/2024 A report dated 6 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on progress in carrying out Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) on the Council’s policies, plans, programmes and strategies. The Council had a statutory duty to consider and carry out an SEA for all its policies, plans, programmes and strategies as they were being developed or refreshed. The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 required the Council to assess whether plans were within the scope of the legislation and whether SEA was required. This could be considered either through Pre-screening or Screening. 4 assessments of plans had been completed at the Pre-screening stage, as detailed in Table 1 of the report. At that stage, the Council had informed the Scottish Government that those plans were exempt from SEA as their implementation would have no, or minimal, effect on the environment. 3 plans had been finalised at screening stage, as detailed in Table 2 of the report. A formal determination had been made and agreed by the Consultation Authorities that further SEA work was not required for those plans. 14
Page 15
During 2023/2024, 2 scoping reports were submitted for consideration and agreed by the Consultation Authorities for the forthcoming Local Transport Strategy and the revised Management Plan for the New Lanark World Heritage Site. Following a comprehensive process, the assessment methodology for each plan was set out in Environmental Reports and submitted to the SEA Gateway. The assessment of the plans would be conducted during the current financial year. The final stage of the SEA process was the preparation and submission of a Post Adoption Statement to the SEA Gateway. This Statement sets out the key findings from the SEA and how those had been taken into account in the final adopted plan. In 2023/2024, the Local Housing Strategy had been adopted and a Post Adoption Statement submitted, as statutorily required. 2024/2025 SEA work would focus on a range of Council-led plans, including the Local Development Plan 3, Open Space Strategy, Air Quality Strategy and Tree Strategy. The Committee decided: that the statutory requirement for Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) to inform the development of Council led policies, plans, programmes and strategies be noted. [Reference: Minutes of 21 June 2023 (Paragraph 12)] 15 South Lanarkshire Local Housing Strategy Annual Review 2023/2024 A report dated 31 May 2024 by the Executive Director (Housing and Technical Resources) was submitted providing an update on the progress made during 2023/2024 against delivering the agreed outcomes set out in the Local Housing Strategy (LHS) 2022 to 2027. A summary of significant changes, which had taken place both nationally and locally since the last review of the LHS, was provided in the report. The LHS was structured around 5 chapters and 8 priority outcomes and was monitored through 107 indicators, comprising 72 actions and 35 measures, which showed that:- 3 indicators had been completed in full 62 indicators were categorised as green and were on course to achieve with no issues anticipated 10 indicators were categorised as amber with some minor slippage against targets 3 indicators were categorised as red with below anticipated performance 29 indicators would be reported at a later date Actions to address the red and amber indicators were outlined in the report together with highlights in areas where good progress had been identified. In line with trends across Scotland, South Lanarkshire continued to experience unprecedented demand for statutory homeless services. As well as providing the opportunity to assess and report on the progress made against each of the actions and measures contained in the Strategy, the annual review also allowed for a general re-examination to ensure that the objectives, actions and measures identified remained appropriate, relevant and measurable. During the annual review, 7 proposed revised actions had been identified, as detailed in the report. Those would be incorporated in the LHS action plan for 2024/2025. 15
Page 16
The Committee decided: that the progress on actions for delivering the agreed LHS priority outcomes across the 5 chapters be noted. [Reference: Minutes of 30 November 2022 (Paragraph 6)] Councillor Nelson left the meeting during this item of business 16 Resource Plans and Connect Reporting 2024/2025 A report dated 24 May 2024 by the Chief Executive was submitted on the 2024/2025 Resource Plans. The Resource Plans for 2024/2025 had been prepared in line with corporate Resource Planning guidance and a Resource Plan template. In preparing the 2024/2025 Plans, Resources had undertaken a horizon scanning and situational awareness exercise covering:- social change, legislation and policies areas for improvement, including the Local Government Benchmarking Framework (LGBF) customer views and external inspection results other triggers for action such as top risks From that exercise, a maximum of 10 areas had been selected for inclusion and development in each Resource Plan and those were detailed in the report. The Resource Plans 2024/2025 were provided as a link contained in the report. Resources had used the 6 Connect outcomes to generate their own Resource outcomes, supported by a range of actions and measures. Additional actions and measures had also been developed under the heading Delivering the Plan and Achieving Best Value. Details were given on the number of measures from each Resource Plan and achieving Best Value. Progress reports would be submitted to the Performance and Review Scrutiny Forum and appropriate Resource Committee for monitoring at Quarters 2 and 4. The Committee decided: (1) that the Resource Plans 2024/2025, prepared in line with revised corporate Guidance, be noted; and (2) that the reporting intentions in relation to Connect, as detailed in Section 5 of the report, be noted. [Reference: Minutes of 21 June 2023 (Paragraph 13)] 17 Amendments to Committee Memberships A report dated 7 June 2024 by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) was submitted on action taken, in terms of Standing Order No 37(c), because of the timescales involved, by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources), in consultation with the Chair and an ex officio member, to replace Councillor Handibode with Councillor Williams as a member of the Education Appeals Committee. 16
Page 17
The Committee decided: that the following action taken, in terms of Standing Order No 37(c), by the Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources), in consultation with the Chair and an ex officio member, to replace Councillor Handibode with Councillor Williams as a member of the Education Appeals Committee, be noted. 18 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business. 17
Page 18
18
Page 19
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Revenue Budget Monitoring for Period 1 April 2024 to 14 June 2024 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- [purpose] advise Committee of the forecast for the year to 31 March 2025 for the Council’s General Fund Revenue Account and Housing Revenue Account, and the actual spend position for the period 1 April 2024 to 14 June 2024 [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Executive Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) that the projected break-even position on the General Fund Revenue Account for 2024/2025, and the actual spend as at 14 June 2024 (section 4 and Appendix 1), be noted; and (2) that the projected break-even position on the Housing Revenue Account for 2024/2025, and the actual spend as at 14 June 2024 (section 5 and Appendix 2 of the report), be noted. 3. Background 3.1. This overview report will summarise the projected outturn for 2024/2025 for both the Council’s General Fund (section 4) and for the Housing Revenue Account (section 5). It will also provide the actual spend as at 14 June 2024. 4. General Services 2024/2025 Projected Outturn as at 14 June 2024 4.1. As at 14 June 2024, the projected outturn position for 2024/2025 on the General Services budget is break-even (Appendix 1). 4.2. Section 4.3 onwards provides detail on a number of key budget areas. 4.3. Teacher Numbers: As previously reported, in relation to 2024/2025, the Council has now received notification that the allocation of funding for teacher numbers of £145.5 million for 2024/2025 will be distributed via Specific Resource Grants, and those grants will be conditional on councils agreeing at the outset to maintain teacher numbers. Our share of the £145.5 million funding is £9.379 million. Scottish Government have indicated that they will consider mitigations presented by councils for reducing teachers but that we will not know if mitigations will be acceptable until much later in the year. 3 19
Page 20
4.4. Scottish Government have also indicated that any reduction in funding will be proportionate for the actual number of teachers reduced against the baseline, rather than losing the full amount. 4.5. A further letter is being sent to the Scottish Government in relation to SLC position, as we do expect our teacher numbers to reduce this year. This is due to two main areas. The first is a reduction in teacher numbers due to the end of the Council investment in Early Level Teachers, around 46 FTE, which were recruited for a two- year fixed term period from August 2022. These temporary arrangements have now ended as the temporary funding has been used and therefore our teacher numbers will reduce. Secondly, there is a national reduction in Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) compared to last year which has a current impact of 28 FTE fewer NQTs available for the Council. 4.6. COSLA Leaders’ discussions have concluded at this stage that councils cannot sign a grant offer letter that restricts the use of funding in this way. Further engagement with the Scottish Government is being pursued. 4.7. Employers Pension Contribution Increase (Teachers): As of 1 April 2024, the Council’s pension contribution for Teachers’ Pensions was increased from 23% to 26% of basic pay. The cost to the Council is an estimated £5.5 million however, the Council has not yet been notified of funding to support this increase. That said, the Scottish Government expect to receive funding for this from the UK Government and have committed to passing this on to councils. 4.8. School Meal Debt: As advised previously, national School Meal debt fund of £1.500 million was announced by the First Minister in May 2024 to support Local Authorities to cancel School Meal debt. Local Authorities will have the opportunity to bid for one- off funding based on their decision to write off debt at a local level. Funding is available to support retrospective debt prior to April 2024 and applications are to be submitted by 1 August 2024. Officers are considering a bid submission. Information on the bid and its outcome will be provided when known. 5. Housing Revenue Account Position 5.1. As at 14 June 2024, Appendix 2 of the report shows a break-even position on the Housing Revenue Account. 6. Employee Implications 6.1. None. 7. Financial Implications 7.1. As detailed in sections 4 to 5 of the report. 8. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 8.1. There are no implications for climate change, sustainability or the environment in terms of the information contained in this report. 9. Other Implications 9.1. The main risk associated with the Council’s Revenue Budget is that there is an overspend. The risk has been assessed as low given the detailed budget management applied across the Resources. The risk is managed through four weekly Budget Monitoring Meetings at which any variance is analysed. In addition, the probable outturn exercise ensures early warning for corrective action to be taken where appropriate. 20
Page 21
9.2. There are no implications for sustainability in terms of the information contained in this report. 10. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 10.1. This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to an existing policy, function or strategy and therefore no impact assessment is required. 10.2. There is also no requirement to undertake any consultation in terms of the information contained in this report. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 1 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, Effective, Efficient and Transparent Previous References None List of Background Papers Financial Ledger and budget monitoring results to 14 June 2024 Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: Lorraine O'Hagan, Head of Finance (Strategy) Ext: 2601 (Tel: 01698 452601) E-mail: lorraine.o'hagan@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 21
Page 22
Appendix 1 Revised Projected Projected % Note Year to Date Annual Outturn Outturn Actual Budget Variance Resources: £m £m £m £m Community and Enterprise Resources 124.842 124.842 0.000 0.00% 22.304 Facilities Waste and Grounds 76.062 75.867 0.195 0.26% 13.212 Leisure and Culture 21.738 21.738 0.000 0.00% 4.306 Planning and Regulatory Services 4.678 4.634 0.044 0.94% 0.720 Enterprise and Sustainable Development 5.729 5.719 0.010 0.17% 0.905 Roads, Transportation and Fleet 16.635 16.884 (0.249) (1.50%) 3.161 Education Resources 455.161 455.161 0.000 0.00% 81.810 Education 455.161 455.161 0.000 0.00% 81.810 Finance and Corporate Resources 37.822 37.822 0.000 0.00% 17.203 Finance Services - Strategy 1.858 1.858 0.000 0.00% 0.681 Finance Services - Transactions 16.922 16.922 0.000 0.00% 10.525 Audit and Compliance Services 0.320 0.320 0.000 0.00% 0.100 Information Technology Services 5.904 5.904 0.000 0.00% 3.157 Communications and Strategy Services 2.387 2.387 0.000 0.00% 0.452 Administration and Licensing Services 4.075 4.075 0.000 0.00% 0.955 Personnel Services 6.356 6.356 0.000 0.00% 1.333 Housing & Technical Resources 13.584 13.584 0.000 0.00% 10.716 Housing Services 8.768 8.719 0.049 0.56% 0.433 Property Services 4.816 4.865 (0.049) (1.02%) 10.283 Social Work Resources 233.959 233.959 0.000 0.00% 46.464 Performance and Support Services 6.046 6.046 0.000 0.00% 0.930 Children and Families 46.663 46.663 0.000 0.00% 8.489 Adults and Older People 180.513 180.513 0.000 0.00% 37.010 Justice and Substance Misuse 0.737 0.737 0.000 0.00% 0.035 Joint Boards 1.902 1.902 0.000 0.00% 0.439 867.270 867.270 0.000 0.00% 178.936 Revised Projected Projected Year to Date Annual Outturn Outturn Actual Budget Variance Summary: £m £m £m £m Resources Total 867.270 867.270 0.000 0.00% 178.936 CFCR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00% 0.000 Loan Charges 39.589 39.589 0.000 0.00% 0.000 Corporate Items 16.045 16.045 0.000 0.00% 0.585 Employers Contribution - T/f to Reserves 22.965 22.965 0.000 0.00% 0.000 Investments - 23-24 T/f to Reserves 0.325 0.325 0.000 0.00% 0.000 Total Expenditure 946.194 946.194 0.000 0.00% 179.521 Council Tax 181.587 181.587 0.000 0.00% 41.905 Less: Council Tax Reduction Scheme (23.544) (23.544) 0.000 0.00% (5.433) 158.043 158.043 0.000 0.00% 36.472 General Revenue Grant 385.417 385.417 0.000 0.00% 88.942 Non Domestic Rates 364.911 364.911 0.000 0.00% 84.210 Transfer from Reserves 37.823 37.823 0.000 0.00% 0.000 Total Income 946.194 946.194 0.000 0.00% 209.624 Net Expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00% (30.103) Period Ended 14 June 2024 (No.3) Revenue Budget Monitoring Report SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL 22
Page 23
Appendix 2 Revised Projected Projected Year to Date Annual Outturn Outturn % Note Actual Budget Variance Budget Category £m £m £m £m Employee Costs 13.782 13.782 0.000 0.00% 2.607 Property Costs 59.203 59.203 0.000 0.00% 5.407 Supplies and Services 1.543 1.543 0.000 0.00% 0.062 Transport and Plant 0.195 0.195 0.000 0.00% 0.016 Administration 5.594 5.594 0.000 0.00% 0.091 Payment to Other Bodies 2.975 2.975 0.000 0.00% 0.552 Payment to Contractors 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.00% 0.171 Transfer Payments 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00% 0.000 Financing Charges 33.573 33.573 0.000 0.00% 7.734 Total Controllable Exp. 116.965 116.965 0.000 0.00% 16.640 Total Controllable Inc. (123.398) (123.398) 0.000 0.00% (21.158) Transfer to/(from) Balance Sheet (4.229) (4.229) 0.000 0.00% 0.000 Net Controllable Exp. (10.662) (10.662) 0.000 0.00% (4.518) Loan Charges 10.662 10.662 0.000 0.00% 4.518 Net Controllable Exp. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00% 0.000 Variance Explanations No variances to note. Virements None. SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL Revenue Budget Monitoring Report Period Ended 14 June 2024 (No.3) Housing Revenue Account 23
Page 24
24
Page 25
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Capital Budget 2024/2025 and Monitoring for Period 3 - 1 April 2024 to 14 June 2024 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- update the Executive Committee of progress on the General Fund Capital Programme and the Housing Capital Programme for the period 1 April 2024 to 14 June 2024 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- (1) that the period 3 position (ended 14 June 2024) of the General Fund Capital Programme detailed in Appendices 2 to 3 and the Housing Capital Programme at Appendix 4, be noted; (2) that the adjustments to the General Fund programme, listed at Appendix 1, be approved; and (3) that the revised programmes be monitored by the Financial Resources Scrutiny Forum. 3. Background 3.1. The attached statements to this report provide a summarised monitoring position as at 14 June 2024. Spending has been split into two separate sections: General Fund Capital Programme including Education, Social Work, Roads and Transportation and General Services (Section 4) Housing Capital Programme (Section 5) 4. General Fund Capital Programme 4.1. 2024/2025 Budget: The revised programme for the General Fund is £85.248 million. 4.2. This programme of £85.248 million reflects the base budget approved at Executive Committee on 26 June 2024 as well as £2.608 million of adjustments to the programme proposed in this report (Appendix 1). This includes an amendment approved as part of the 2024/2025 Council Revenue Budget, where revenue monies were identified to fund £7.200 million capital investment in roads. The Roads Service has now confirmed that £1.800 million of this £7.2 million will be spent in financial year 2024/2025. The programme and adjustments are shown in Appendix 2. 4 25
Page 26
4.3. The funding available to support the programme is detailed in Appendix 3. 4.4. 2024/2025 Forecast: In line with our move to the new Fusion IT system, the focus of capital monitoring will now be the forecast spend position for the financial year. This will routinely be compared to the annual budget and will mean that Resources will have early warning of any in-year project overspends or slippage, and will allow corrective action to be taken, when possible, either to bring spend back in on line, or to accelerate another approved project so that maximum spend can be incurred in year. 4.5. As noted in 4.1, the total capital spending programme for the year is £85.248 million. The detailed programme and spend for the General Fund are shown in Appendix 3. 4.6. Appendix 3 also shows a forecast for the financial year of £85.248 million. 4.7. Secondary Schools: The scope of works for each of the schools is currently being reviewed as well as the level of spend that can be achieved in 2024/2025. It now appears unlikely that we will be in a position to award a construction contract in 2024/2025 with potentially only expenditure on design costs being incurred this financial year. Education and Housing and Technical Resources are reviewing the timetable for works and resultant spend profiles, and an exception will be proposed in the next monitoring report. 4.8. 2024/2025 Actual Position: Actual spend incurred to the 14 June 2024 totals £5.131 million. 4.9. Actual funding received to 14 June 2024 is £43.214 million. This is shown in Appendix 3. Relevant officers will continue to closely monitor the generation of all income. 5. Housing Capital Programme 5.1. 2024/25 Budget: Appendix 4 summarises the position on the Housing programme as at 14 June 2024. The revised capital programme for the year is £77.248 million, as approved by the Executive Committee on 26 June 2024. Programmed funding for the year also totals £77.248 million. The funding sources are also detailed in Appendix 4. 5.2. 2024/2024 Forecast: As with the General Services Programme, the focus of capital monitoring for the Housing Programme will also be the annual forecast spend position in comparison to the budget. As noted in 5.1, the total capital spending programme for the year is £77.248 million. Current estimates from Housing and Technical Resources have identified an outturn of £77.248 million for the year. 5.3. 2024/2025 Actual Position: Spend to 14 June 2024 on the Housing Capital Programme amounts to £10.075 million. 5.4. As at 14 June 2024, £10.075 million of funding had been received. 5.5. Regular monitoring of both the General Fund Programme and the Housing Programme will be carried out in detail by the Financial Resources Scrutiny Forum and reported on a regular basis to the Executive Committee. 26
Page 27
6. Employee Implications 6.1. None. 7. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 7.1. There are no implications for climate change, sustainability or the environment in terms of the information contained in this report. 8. Other Implications 8.1. The main risk associated with the Council’s Capital Programme is an overspend. The risk has been assessed as low given the detailed project management plans prepared and monitored for each project. The risk of overspend is managed through four weekly Investment management meetings. 9. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 7.1 This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to existing policy, function, or strategy and therefore no impact assessment is required. 7.2. There was also no requirement to undertake any consultation in terms of the information contained in this report. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 16 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, Effective, Efficient and Transparent Previous References Executive Committee, 28 June 2024 List of Background Papers Capital Ledger prints to 14 June 2024 Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: Lorraine O’Hagan, Head of Finance (Strategy) Ext: 2601(Tel: 01698 452601) E-mail: lorraine.o’hagan@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 27
Page 28
Appendix 1 Proposed Adjustments Community and Enterprise Resources Roads Carriageways and Associated Infrastructure The amendments approved as part of the 2024/2025 Council Revenue Budget included an additional allocation of permanent revenue budget to fund borrowing and facilitate £7.2 million of capital investment in roads. The Roads Service has now confirmed that they plan to utilise £1.8 million per annum over the next 4 years. Approval is sought to increase the 2024/2025 Capital Programme by £1.8 million to allow this additional investment to progress. Education Resources Kirkstyles ELCC Centre – Playground Improvements Developer contributions have been identified to fund hardstanding and drainage improvements to Nursey Centre playgrounds and improve the condition of the external play area and facilities. Approval is sought to increase the 2024/2025 Capital Programme by £0.035m to fund these improvements using Developer Contributions. £1.800m £0.035m Education Growth and Capacities A grant funding allocation of £1.2 million has been received from Salix’s Public Sector Heat Decarbonisation Fund to contribute towards retrofitting the heating system at Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School, East Kilbride. As £0.427 million of this award was already included in the original funding package for the project, this is an additional funding award of £0.773 million for the capital programme. The Growth and Capacities programme of works has incurred increased costs in relation to the new Jackton Primary School, East Kilbride, as the project incurred higher costs due to building control requirements, extension of time needed and other necessary programme changes during construction resulting in higher costs. Taking account of the additional funding allocation of £0.773 million, the overall costs of this programme of works can be managed within the funding available. £0.773m Minor Adjustments £0.000m TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS £2.608m 28
Page 29
APPENDIX 2 SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2023/24 GENERAL FUND PROGRAMME FOR PERIOD 1 APRIL 2024 TO 14 JUNE 2024 £m Total Base Budget (including carry forward from 2023/2024) 82.640 Proposed Adjustments – Period 3 2.608 Total Revised Budget 85.248 2024/25 Budget Period 3 Proposed Adjustments Revised 2024/25 Budget Resource £m £m £m Community & Enterprise 58.664 1.800 60.464 Education 8.234 0.808 9.042 Finance & Corporate 3.086 - 3.086 Housing & Technical 11.629 - 11.629 Social Work 1.027 - 1.027 TOTAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME 82.640 2.608 85.248 29
Page 30
APPENDIX 3 SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2023/24 GENERAL FUND PROGRAMME FOR PERIOD 1 APRIL 2024 TO 14 JUNE 2024 2024/25 Original Estimate inc C/F 2024/25 Revised Budget 2024/25 Forecast Spend 2024/25 Forecast Variance 2024/25 Actual to 14/06/24 Expenditure £m £m £m £m £m General Fund Programme 73.850 85.248 85.248 - 5.131 Income 2024/25 Budget 2024/25 Revised Budget 2024/25 Actual To 14/06/24 £m £m £m Prudential Borrowing 32.564 34.364 34.364 Developers Contributions 8.800 8.835 0.000 Partners (Including Scotland’s Public Sector Heat Decarbonisaton Fund, Cycling Scotland, Transport Scotland and REF / Wind Farms) 0.958 1.731 0.446 Scottish Government: - Capital Grant 20.156 22.278 3.359 - Cycling, Walking and Safer Routes (now included in General Capital Grant) 1.440 0.000 0.000 - Vacant and Derelict Land 1.793 1.793 1.368 - Regeneration Capital Grant 2.170 2.170 0.993 - Place Based Investment Programme 0.727 0.727 0.727 Shared Prosperity Fund 2.645 2.653 0.000 Levelling Up Fund 0.000 7.400 0.000 Capital Receipts 1.340 1.340 0.000 Specific Reserves 1.257 1.957 1.957 Revenue Contribution 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTAL FUNDING 73.850 85.248 43.214 30
Page 31
APPENDIX 4 SOUTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2023/24 HOUSING PROGRAMME FOR PERIOD 1 APRIL 2024 TO 14 JUNE 2024 2024/25 Annual Budget 2024/25 Forecast Spend 2024/25 Forecast Variance 2024/25 Actual to 14/06/24 £m £m £m £m Expenditure 2024/25 Budget 77.248 77.248 - 10.075 2024/25 Annual Budget 2024/25 Actual to 14/06/24 £m £m Income Capital Receipts 0.000 0.093 Capital Receipts – Land Sales 0.000 0.172 Capital Funded from Current Revenue 33.506 9.325 Prudential Borrowing 23.677 0.000 Scottish Government Specific Grant: - New Build 16.945 0.000 - Open Market Purchase Scheme 3.000 0.000 - Mortgage to Rent 0.120 0.282 Other Income 0.000 0.203 77.248 10.075 31
Page 32
32
Page 33
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Additional Funding from Scottish Government and Other External Sources 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- [purpose] advise Members of additional funding that has been made available to the Council by the Scottish Government and other external sources since the last report to this Committee (26 June 2024) [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) that the additional funding totalling £7.612 million, detailed in appendices 1 and 2, be noted. 3. Background 3.1. The Council is periodically advised of additional funding which is made available from the Scottish Government and other sources to enable various initiatives to be undertaken. 3.2. Additional funding may either be paid through the General Revenue/Capital Grant mechanism or by the completion of appropriate grant claims. 3.3. Details of the additional funding are attached in appendices 1 and 2 of the report. The report details additional funding that has been reported by Resources as part of the additional resources notification process, as well as any additional funding that has increased the Council’s budget by more than £0.100 million. 4. Employee Implications 4.1. None. 5. Financial Implications 5.1. Additional Revenue funding of £6.412 million has been identified for 2024/2025. These are detailed in Appendix 1. 5.2. Additional Capital funding of £1.200 million has been confirmed for 2024/2025. This is detailed in Appendix 2. 5 33
Page 34
5.3. The total additional funding is therefore £7.612 million, and Resource budgets will be updated to reflect this additional funding as required. Where appropriate, details of spending plans will be presented to Resource Committees for approval. 6. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 6.1. There are no implications for climate change, sustainability or the environment in terms of the information contained in this report. 7. Other Implications 7.1. There are no other implications in terms of the information contained in this report. 8. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 8.1. This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to existing policy, function or strategy and, therefore, no impact assessment is required. 7.2. There was also no requirement to undertake any consultation in terms of the information contained in this report. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 2 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, Effective, Efficient and Transparent Previous References Executive Committee, 26 June 2024 List of Background Papers Additional Funding Reports 7 June to 2 July 2024 Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: Lorraine O’Hagan, Head of Finance (Strategy) Ext: 2601 (Tel: 01698 452601) E-mail: lorraine.o’hagan@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 34
Page 35
Appendix 1 Additional Revenue Funding Resource Description 2024/2025 £m Total £m Method Community and Enterprise No-One Left Behind (NOLB) Scottish Government have now confirmed the Council’s NOLB Grant Offer for 2024/2025. This will allow the Council to continue to deliver on its Employability objectives, in line with grant conditions. 4.144 4.144 Scottish Government – Grant Offer Corporate Items 2023/2024 Local Government Pay Award (Employability) Scottish Government have now provided funding for part of the 2023/2024 Pay Award, repurposed from national underspends on Employability projects in 2023/2024. The Council were required to fund this cost initially, and monies were transferred from reserves in 2023/2024. This funding now received will be transferred to reserves to replenish what was previously drawn down. 1.239 1.239 Scottish Government – General Revenue Grant Education Scottish Milk and Healthy Snack Scheme Funding to support the delivery of the scheme in 2024/2025 is distributed based on actual uptake reported as part of the 2023/24 reconciliation. It comprises three parts: • 3% Administration Fee - £0.025m • 2024/25 Milk and Snack Costs - £1.024m • Less: 2023/24 Underspend - (£0.020m) 1.029 1.029 Scottish Government – Ring Fenced Grant TOTAL REVENUE FUNDING 6.412 6.412 35
Page 36
Appendix 2 Additional Capital Funding Resource Description 2024/2025 £m Total £m Method Education Public Sector Heat Decarbonisation Fund Funding to contribute towards retrofitting the heating system at Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School, East Kilbride. An amount of £0.427m had already been assumed by the Council, so this represents an additional allocation of £0.773m. 1.200 1.200 Salix TOTAL CAPITAL FUNDING 1.200 1.200 36
Page 37
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: South Lanarkshire Council Response to Pre-budget Scrutiny Call for Evidence on Managing Scotland’s Finances 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- [purpose] present the Council’s response to the call for evidence issued by the Finance and Public Administration Committee of the Scottish Parliament as part of the pre- budget scrutiny process [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [] (1) that the South Lanarkshire response to the call for evidence – attached at appendix 1 – be approved; and (2) that the response be submitted to the Scottish Parliament by the deadline of 12 August 2024. [1recs] 3. Background 3.1. In recent years, in line with the recommendations of the Budget Process Review Group report, Scottish Parliament subject committees have undertaken pre-budget scrutiny, in advance of the publication of the Scottish budget. 3.2. The intention is that committees will use pre-budget reports to influence the formulation of spending proposals while they are still in development. In order to facilitate this, committees are required to publish pre-budget reports at least six weeks prior to the Scottish budget. The requirement to engage early in the budget process with local government is reflected in the developing Fiscal Framework element of the New Deal for Local Government jointly agreed between the Scottish Government and COSLA. 3.3. As part of its pre-budget scrutiny, the Finance and Public Administration Committee of the Scottish Parliament issued a call for evidence on 10 June to inform its enquiry, which this year is on the topic of Managing Scotland’s Finances: A Strategic Approach. 3.4. This report presents the Council’s input to this call for evidence for Committee approval. 6 37
Page 38
4. The Pre-budget Scrutiny Call for Evidence 4.1. The focus of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s enquiry is: the Scottish Government’s priorities progress on the Scottish Government’s public service reform programme the Scottish Government’s approach to taxation - including what its draft tax strategy should include and how potential behavioural responses impact business and individuals how the Scottish Government is using its capital expenditure to achieve innovation, productivity, and growth 4.2. More specifically, the Committee states that the primary objectives of this year’s pre- budget scrutiny enquiry are: to establish progress made in relation to the Scottish Government’s 10-year public service reform programme to influence development of the Scottish Government’s tax strategy by seeking views on what key elements the strategy should include to bring greater transparency to the potential impacts of behavioural change arising from the Scottish Government’s approach to taxation to scrutinise the effectiveness of the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to grow the tax base and increase labour market participation, productivity, and growth, and what further actions are needed to establish in what areas the Scottish Government should prioritise its limited capital spend to achieve most progress with innovation, productivity, and growth 4.3. To help inform its enquiry, the Committee has asked for views on the following questions: 1. In May 2024, the First Minister set out his four priorities to guide the Scottish Government’s decision-making on policy and the budget. He said his four priorities are: Eradicating child poverty; Growing the economy; Tackling the climate emergency; Delivering better public services. Are these the right priorities for the Scottish Budget 2025-26 and, if not, where should the Scottish Government focus its attention? 2. What taxation and spending decisions should the Scottish Government take to make most progress against each of the First Minister’s four priorities, within the current financial climate? 3. What are the potential impacts of focussing budget decisions on these four priorities on those groups of society who traditionally experience inequality? 4. In December 2023, the Scottish Government said in the first three years of its ten-year reform programme it must have made progress in a range of areas, including: agreeing a common vision and a clear set of goals for reform; developing a programme of work across the public services system to support long-term reform; ensuring strategic investment to sustain capacity for reform and disinvestment in areas that don’t align with its vision and objectives; removing, wherever possible, any identified barriers to reform; that reform actions are making progress against more qualitative indicators of change, improvement, and success. What progress has the Scottish Government made against these specific goals in relation to public service reform? 38
Page 39
5. Are there any improvements that can be made to achieve faster progress with public service reform and improved outcomes? 6. Taking account of the Scottish Government’s recently published Public Sector Pay Policy 2024-25, what are the implications of its multi-year framework, which offers pay metrics above forecasts levels of inflation, on public sector bodies and on the Scottish Budget for 2025-26 and for the subsequent two years. 7. What elements should a new draft tax strategy include to achieve such a tax system? 8. How should a new draft tax strategy address potential impacts of behavioural change on individuals, businesses, and the overall tax take? 9. What actions should the Scottish Government take to grow the tax base and increase labour market participation, productivity, and Scotland’s economic growth? 10. The First Minister said that growing the economy will also be achieved through tackling the climate emergency by investing in green energy and infrastructure. What steps should the Scottish Government take, in its Budget for 2025-26, to grow the economy in this way? 11. Given the limited capital budget available, in which areas should the Scottish Government prioritise its capital spend in the Scottish Budget 2025-26 to deliver increased productivity, innovation, and growth? 4.4. Within the Council’s response, attached at appendix 1, Committee is asked to note the following key points: When identifying spending priorities, the Scottish Government should assess the financial consequence of these initiatives, against the budget reductions being experienced in core local government services. There are difficult choices to be made around spending priorities, because if there is focussed spend on certain areas, then other areas may suffer and this could have significant consequences on public wellbeing, outcomes and inequalities. Fundamentally, local government requires to be properly funded, and without that funding, the ability to achieve the Scottish Government objectives is significantly impaired. Fair funding is key to ensure local services can be delivered. The Scottish Government can reduce the pressures on local authorities by reconsideration of their policy demands leaving more money for the essential core services that local authorities need to provide. An example of this is the teacher numbers policy, where councils are now being penalised through a financial holdback if they do not maintain teacher numbers. These restrictions on how councils spend their money are exacerbating the critical financial position in which councils find themselves. 39
Page 40
From a Local Government perspective it is important to have a shared vision which is also backed up by a pragmatic and sustainable approach to the allocation of funding. In the current financial climate, now more than ever, difficult decisions have to be made. It would be helpful to have a shared narrative which explains that the prioritisation of one policy area (such as health) may have direct and material consequences on other policy areas (council services such as roads, libraries, leisure facilities, etc). The impact of a smaller share of Scottish Government funding being provided to local authorities, together with the current inflationary climate, is that our potential to contribute to long-term outcomes and common goals (as articulated by the National Outcomes, for example) through preventative input is currently much diminished. The scale of the issues facing councils is unprecedented, with levels of cuts for council services on a scale we have never seen before. Given the focus of these types of services, cuts will inevitably disproportionately impact deprived communities, with undesirable consequences for public expenditure and outcomes across a number of domains. Local Government has wide-ranging influence in progressing shared sustainability. However, transitioning to green technologies and investing in infrastructure across these areas will require major investment at a time when local authorities are facing critical pressures in funding due to the unprecedented level of inflation over the last three years, on top of many years of having to make savings/cuts. The income derived from the new tax strategy should be sufficient to ensure fair and stable funding is provided across the public sector to allow the provision of good public services that meet the expectations of the public. The new tax strategy should also reflect the principles of fairness, transparency, and proportionality. In addition, the strategy should recognise the role of locally set taxes such as council tax and the decision-making role of local authorities. 4.5. As noted above, the Parliamentary Committee has issued its call for views as part of the normal pre-budget scrutiny process. The Committee will hear oral evidence in September/October 2024 and will publish its report in early November. 5. Next steps 5.1. The deadline for the call for views is 12 August 2024. If approved by Committee, the Council will submit the submission at appendix 1 as its response. 6. Employee Implications 6.1. There are significant potential implications for staff across the Council as a consequence of decisions made about how to support the Scottish Government’s priorities through the budget 2025-26. 7. Financial Implications 7.1. There are significant potential financial implications for the Council arising from decisions taken in relation to the Scottish Budget 2025-26. The response prepared by the Council underlines and scale and significance of the financial challenges facing local government. 40
Page 41
8. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 8.1. There are no direct climate change, sustainability and natural environment implications arising from this report. 9. Other Implications 9.1. Considering the detail of the report and identifying actions as appropriate contribute towards effective risk management. There are very significant risks to local government arising from the decisions taken in the Scottish Budget 2025-26. 10. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 10.1. This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to an existing policy, function or strategy and, therefore, no impact assessment is required. 10.2. Consultation was undertaken internally on the contents of this report. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 16 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Objectives/Priorities/Outcomes • Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent Previous References • None List of Background Papers • None Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Tom Little, Head of Communications and Strategy Ext: 4904 (Tel: 01698.454904) E-mail: Tom.Little@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 41
Page 42
Appendix 1 Scottish Government priorities In May 2024, the First Minister set out his four priorities to guide the Scottish Government’s decision-making on policy and the budget. He said his four priorities are: • Eradicating child poverty • Growing the economy • Tackling the climate emergency • Delivering better public services. 1. Are these the right priorities for the Scottish Budget 2025-26 and, if not, where should the Scottish Government focus its attention? These priorities are undoubtedly important, and have significant overlaps with the ambitions of Local Authorities themselves. It is important however that , when identifying any spending priorities, the Scottish Government assess the financial consequence of these initiatives, against the budget reductions being experienced in core local government services – core services which already include the 4 priorities noted above. There are difficult choices to be made concerning decisions on spending priorities - that is true for Scottish Government and at Local Government levels - if we focus spend on certain areas, then other areas may suffer and could have significant consequences on public wellbeing, outcomes and inequalities. It is vital that any asks of local government to further support these priorities needs the funding to accompany any ask as it cannot redirect any other core funding. We already play a key role in tackling these issues and mitigating adverse impacts on communities across Scotland. This includes education, early learning and childcare through financial inclusion and welfare services to housing and housing support services. In terms of sustainability and a just transition, Local Government has wide- ranging influence across multiple domains relevant to the achievement of our shared sustainability objectives – including planning, land use and development management, flood risk management, energy efficiency, waste management, electric vehicle infrastructure, biodiversity and nature-based solutions, regeneration, digital connectivity and inclusion, economic development and business support. Other than Scottish Government, Local Government is the only part of the public sector with a footprint covering so many inter-related aspects of population wellbeing, the economy and the climate change and 42
Page 43
sustainability agenda. However, the financial challenges faced by local government limit the ability of councils to plan and invest in dealing with long-term systemic challenges around poverty and inequality, wellbeing, climate change, and the ongoing economic recovery following the pandemic. Fundamentally, Local Government requires to be properly funded. Flat cash, real terms reduction in core funding has contributed towards Local authorities requiring to make cuts that affect the lives of everyone. Without proper funding our ability to contribute towards achieving these objectives is significantly impaired. Through Cosla local government have called for Fair Funding to be provided for essential Local Services and infrastructure, by setting multiyear budgets that enable long term planning and fair pay for our workforce. This is key to ensure continued delivery of local services. Councils are having to make increasingly difficult decisions in order to balance budgets and this cannot be sustained, even in the short term. This has been reiterated in recent Accounts Commission Report, which highlights that councils are currently facing a total gap of £585m that is estimated to increase to £780m by 2026/27, with around 70% of council budgets directed to specific policy commitments making local decision making almost impossible. As covered above, there are significant overlaps between these Scottish Government priorities and the vital role Local Authorities play in the delivery of public services including these key priorities around poverty, economic growth and climate. Councils represent the best route for Government to ensure delivery of these priorities. Without sufficient funding, the achievement of these objectives is jeopardised. The Scottish Government can reduce the pressures on local authorities by reconsideration of their policy demands leaving more money for the essential core services that local authorities need to provide. An example of this is the teacher numbers policy, where councils are now being penalised through a financial holdback if they do not maintain teacher numbers. These restrictions on policy intents are exacerbating the critical financial position in which councils find themselves. There is therefore a strong case for Scottish Government to look at its policy demands in order to allow more funds to flow to the 4 priority areas being proposed. We would suggest that there may be a requirement to consider other areas of policy demand 43
Page 44
asked of councils in order to release funding for these 4 priority areas. It is noted that Health and Social Care does not feature as one of the key priorities, despite the real focus and pressure to reduce delays particularly around hospital discharge where financial ( and workforce) pressures are the barriers to being able to facilitate increasing demands for care. 2. What taxation and spending decisions should the Scottish Government take to make most progress against each of the First Minister’s four priorities, within the current financial climate? As noted in the response to question 1, there are difficult choices to be made in terms of balancing these priorities alongside core local government provision. If decisions are made to focus funds on these priorities, then this could mean less spent elsewhere, which in turn could have significant consequences on public wellbeing and inequalities. To address this, any new initiatives or policy intent, must be fully funded. Our views on taxation are contained in the responses to Q7 through Q9. 3. What are the potential impacts of focussing budget decisions on these four priorities on those groups of society who traditionally experience inequality? The concern is that by focussing on these 4 priorities, the Government needs to redirect budgets from other areas that are already supporting these and other groups in society that traditionally experience inequality. If Government supports these 4 areas, then there is a risk that local government funding is reduced, or targeted in a different way and therefore local government support for other areas reduces. This may mean that as the other areas are affected and there are unintended consequences, there could be significant impact on public wellbeing, outcomes and inequalities. Public service reform In December 2023, the Scottish Government said in the first three years of its ten-year reform programme it must have made progress in a range of areas, including: • agreeing a common vision and a clear set of goals for reform, • developing a programme of work across the public services system to support long-term reform, • ensuring strategic investment to sustain capacity for reform and disinvestment in areas that don’t align with its vision and objectives, • removing, wherever possible, any identified barriers to reform, that reform actions are making progress against more qualitative indicators of change, improvement, and success 44
Page 45
4. What progress has the Scottish Government made against these specific goals in relation to public service reform? As discussed at previous Finance and Public Administration Committee sessions (see 20 June 2023, p.12), there is a question over what “reform” means, and clarity about what it entails (and why it is necessary) is essential. Part of that clarity is a shared narrative about the priorities for public expenditure and the role that different parts of the public sector play in achieving national shared objectives and outcomes , combined with funding decisions which actively support long-term change and fundamental reform. Local Government is well-placed to be the key partner in the Scottish Government's public service reform programme. to ensure success in this area there needs to be continued development towards empowerment for councils to support local services. Actions by the Scottish government including imposition of council tax freezes and continued restrictions around how funds can be spent stand in the way for councils to be fully empowered to support the reform agenda. Some specific comments are provided below Common vision and clear goals From a Local Government perspective it is important to have a shared vision which is also backed up by a pragmatic and sustainable approach to the allocation of funding. The Verity House Agreement, which sets out a statement of intent around a more collaborative approach to delivering shared priorities, is a step in the right direction. In the current financial climate, now more than ever, difficult decisions have to be made. This is clear at the local and national levels and it would be helpful to go further and develop a strong shared narrative which explains that the prioritisation of one policy area (such as health) may have direct and material consequences on other policy areas (council services such as roads, libraries, leisure facilities, etc). In addition, however, a coherent reform agenda needs to align policy goals with the resources necessary to achieve the desired outcomes. We believe there is much greater scope to do this effectively across the public sector in Scotland. We do not believe this coherence is fully evident, and that is illustrated in the current funding arrangements for local government. We would argue that the impact Scottish Government funding being provided to local authorities, together with the current inflationary climate, is that our potential to contribute to long-term outcomes and common goals (as articulated by the National 45
Page 46
Outcomes, for example) through preventative input is currently much diminished. Developing a programme of work As set out in the Programme for Government 2023-24, the Scottish Government sees work on public sector reform as encompassing a wide range of topics, including but not limited to public sector property management, progressive procurement, digitalisation, review of the Community Empowerment Act, and completion of the Democracy Matters national conversation. In addition to this there is a commitment to work more collaboratively with local government through the Verity House Agreement across a range of agendas including Community Wealth Building, Children’s Services Planning Partnerships, Planning Reform, and the working group of sources of local government funding. The breadth and scope of these ambitions points to the scale and complexities of the public sector reform challenge, however there is a risk that these initiatives appear as discrete items of work, with insufficient clarity around how they support the overriding objective, which – as the Programme for Government states – is to “prioritise early support and prevention, ensuring services are able to provide targeted and tailored support that reflects the diverse needs of people and communities [to]… improve people’s quality of life across the country and help to reduce the demand for services in the future.” As yet, beyond broad statements in the Programme for Government, we have not seen a coherent and focused programme of work which unifies the disparate elements of the public sector reform agenda. In terms of progress on specific areas of reform from a local government perspective local government is an important player in transformation including Digital transformation ( and the work of the Local Government Digital Office). There is also still work to do to progress on maximising revenue, in particular around the Fiscal Framework. In other areas of reform ( such as the National Care Service) , progress has been stilted with what has been progressed very much not reflecting an agreed position across parties, including the lack of visibility on financial impacts . Ensuring strategic investment for reform The Committee has previously (20 June 2023, p.22) discussed how local government, by being at the heart of intervention and prevention, can save money in the 46
Page 47
long-term, yet the savings do not flow back to local government. Indeed, the reverse is the case, with many of these services potentially facing cuts. There is a larger issue here about money and resources following policy. In order to achieve the necessary reforms, funding needs to be made available to support the change. An example is net zero (see Q10 below) which the Accounts Commission has said will cost £1.1bn and which in South Lanarkshire is clearly well beyond the capital budget at the council’s disposal. Public Sector reform needs to achieve the shifts in resourcing – the investment and disinvestment – required to actuate the changes required. What we are seeing in many instances is the reverse of what is required, with strategic investment funding being cut or delayed – for example as we note in answer to Q11 on capital funding, compromising our ability to realise our ambitions around spending to increase productively, achieving innovation and promoting growth. Other examples include the cuts to the Scottish Government’s housing budget, which comes at a time when housing and homelessness is recognised as a national emergency. Locally, we have seen funding cuts to Partners which have jeopardised initiatives such as park and ride facilities at Hairmyres, East Kilbride, and confusion around funding for major projects such as Clyde Gateway and the strategic investment in the school estate announced through the £2billion Learning Estate Investment Programme. These examples illustrate a disconnect between policy aspirations and strategic investment. To achieve better outcomes – and better use of money – we need to combine more strategic and long-term planning and delivery with increased local empowerment – fiscal empowerment, functional empowerment and community empowerment. Removal of barriers One of the developments we would like to see is a more strategic and transparent approach to local government funding. The funding provided from the Scottish Budget to Local Government comes from different departmental budgets within the overall Scottish Budget and it is often difficult to see what departments have set aside for providing funding to Local Government. This leads to debate over what makes up Local Government funding, what is core funding which can be used flexibly, compared with departmental funding lines 47
Page 48
which are provided with conditionality attached and constraints on flexibility. This approach to funding undermines local flexibilities and the ability to take a strategic approach over the longer term. 5. Are there any improvements that can be made to achieve faster progress with public service reform and improved outcomes? The Committee’s report on its enquiry into effective decision-making (SP paper 425, July 2023) notes that “A consistent theme arising in evidence was the need to shift the focus more away from firefighting to address short-term issues to tackling longer term issues...” (par 118, p.23) We would endorse this view that a longer perspective needs to be taken. In relation to funding, there is a need to support longer-term financial planning and decision-making, and also continue to move away from ring-fenced allocations which constrain innovation and flexibility to respond to local conditions and priorities. In relation to the longer-term attainment of outcomes, a longer-term focus is needed to support the long-term, systemic changes required to shift to prevention. 6. The Scottish Government recently published its Public Sector Pay Policy 2024- 25 which offers pay metrics above forecast levels of inflation. What are the implications of its multiyear framework on Public Sector bodies and on the Scottish Budget for 2025-2026? And for the subsequent two years? The public sector pay policy does not apply to local government. While the PSPP seems like a positive proposal for salary increases, and that should benefit staff, the reality is noted in the policy document itself which includes reference to funding and the requirement to cut staff to pay for the pay increase. Ultimately, salary increases will be achieved, however staffing numbers will reduce, this will impact on and be detrimental to services through reducing the number of local government jobs/services provided. This will impact on the economy and potentially local government ability to support other activity, such as Modern Apprenticeship, Graduate Apprenticeship programmes. This will be in addition to the previous years of austerity that have already impacted on service provision. Taxation The Scottish Government plans to publish a draft tax strategy alongside its Medium-Term Financial Strategy. It established a Tax Advisory Group which first met in July 2023. Its purpose includes providing advice on: “the development of a tax system that is fit for purpose, delivers sustainable public finances and supports high quality public services and a flourishing economy”, building on the Scottish Government’s Framework for Tax 2021. 48
Page 49
The Scottish Government said: “We want to build a tax system that works for everyone in Scotland, while allowing us to continue to deliver high-quality public services and keep our finances on a sustainable footing.” 7. What elements should a new draft tax strategy include to achieve such a tax system? The income derived from the new tax strategy should be sufficient to ensure fair and stable funding is provided across the public sector to allow the provision of good public services that meet the expectations of the public. The new tax strategy should also reflect the principles of fairness, transparency, and proportionality. In addition, the strategy should recognise the role of locally set taxes such as council tax and the decision- making role of local authorities. 8. How should a new draft tax strategy address potential impacts of behavioural change on individuals, businesses, and the overall tax take? The tax strategy should anticipate the behaviour of individuals and businesses may change as the taxation rules are changed. Strong anti-avoidance measures should be built in, and allowances made in income forecasts for the impact of tax avoidance behaviour. 9. What actions should the Scottish Government take to grow the tax base and increase labour market participation, productivity, and Scotland’s economic growth? Council Tax - The imposition of a council tax freeze was incongruous with the fact that Council Tax is ( and should be) the tool available to local government to generate local taxes, that help meet the needs of local people. Council tax needs to remain a locally controlled tax, and not be subject to Government influence without due consultation and agreement. Council Tax Reform should be the tool to allow a reset on what is a dated system, bringing in considerations around potential revaluation and land values. Rates relief – one of the most consistent issues raised by businesses across all sectors and in all locations is the financial burden of rates. While there are a number of support schemes in place, e.g. small business bonus scheme, there is little flexibility to target the existing support to areas of greatest need and to increase support without impacting on other budgets. Increased Scottish Government support in this area would increase the ability of economic development agencies to support business and improve sustainability and survival rates. Through these measures more businesses can thrive in town centres and work towards sustainability and increased jobs and ‘tax take’. Any additional funds provided to councils should not however be ringfenced and it should remain for councils to decide themselves how funds are spent. 49
Page 50
Investment Zones – the proposals around investment zones and the level of applications in the Glasgow City region illustrates the potential to attract investment business and jobs if the conditions are attractive. Advanced manufacturing, green economy and life sciences have been identified as key opportunities across the region where the use of tax incentives could increase investment, create jobs and increase the longer-term tax base. Tourist Tax – the introduction of a tourist tax may bring much needed funding in certain locations across a key sector which has been facing challenges around recruitment following Brexit. Large cities may be more resilient to a tax than areas where tourism is less core to the economy. Registration for VAT – through business support agencies additional resources should be made available to grow businesses from micro business into SME’s, bringing them into the VAT threshold. This will benefit the businesses through growth and sustainability and also the ‘tax take’ through increased VAT. Skills and employability – the ability to grow many businesses is reliant on retraining existing members of the workforce; aligning new members of the workforce with emerging opportunities; and keeping experienced members of the workforce in employment longer to maximise the benefit of their experience and create an improved knowledge transfer. Environmental Taxes – consideration could be given to applying levies on environmentally harmful activities in order to promote sustainability (linked to Q10). In some other countries facilities producing certain levels of greenhouse gas emissions face carbon taxes to incentivise carbon reduction. Climate emergency The First Minister said that growing the economy will also be achieved through tackling the climate emergency by investing in green energy and infrastructure. 10. What steps should the Scottish Government take, in its Budget for 2025-26, to grow the economy in this way? It is important to raise the question whether the Scottish Government's aspirations on sustainability, including growing the green economy, have been achievable to date. The decision by the Scottish Government to drop the pledge to cut Scotland’s carbon emissions by 75% by 2030 is a clear example of having to recalibrate on its aspirations. 50
Page 51
Despite the existence of its Climate Change Plan 2018-2032, the Scottish Government has yet to put in place a credible coherent framework for local government to achieve sustainability targets. Following the recent independent Climate Change Committee report on the 2030 target, COSLA stated that climate change needs a ‘genuine team Scotland’ approach and ‘a more empowered Local Government’. It is therefore important that the Local and Scottish Government Climate Delivery Framework is quickly established and that the expected collaborative working between local and Scottish government leads to more rapid progress in decarbonising key sectors such as transport and heat. As part of the new Framework, consideration needs to be given to the ‘at scale’ investment required for this transformative, once in a generation, change. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimate that an average £1.1 billion additional capital investment per year is required to meet net zero targets (20% of the Government’s budget). The longer such investment is postponed, the more costly climate adaptation will be in the long run and the more devastating the effect on the economy, public finances, and society in general. Local Government has wide-ranging influence across multiple domains relevant to the achievement of shared sustainability goals. However, transitioning to green technologies and investing in infrastructure across these areas will require major investment at a time when local authorities are facing critical pressures in funding due to the unprecedented level of inflation over the last three years, on top of many years of having to make savings/cuts. As an example of the level of investment required, South Lanarkshire Council has recently estimated that decarbonizing its non- domestic estate alone would cost £900m. To address this, the Scottish Government could take steps to increase funding for this sector and provide funding across several financial years rather than the current single year budget arrangements. Such a continued and stable investment programme would encourage innovation, collaboration and drive efficiencies, not just with Local Government partners, but also with the private sector. In addition, the Scottish Government could provide more awareness and training for local authorities, and generally simplify the process to access Scottish Government net zero grants and loans. At the moment, it can be very difficult for local authorities to meet all the criteria for these funding opportunities, and often 51
Page 52
local authorities are caught up in a bidding process with each other. It would be more beneficial to unlock an equitable spread of funding across local authorities. In terms of prioritising investment, the Scottish Government should prioritise action on new green technologies (research and development) and on energy infrastructure such as Air Source Heat Pumps, district heating, Low and Zero Carbon Technologies, waste heat, etc In line with this investment infrastructure and new technologies, the Scottish Government should continue to work with the education and skills development sectors to create a skilled workforce that can drive innovation and productivity. Aside from increased and multi-year budgets for local authorities, Scottish Government is encouraged to create the right conditions for private sector investment in Scotland which could include: • Stable and consistent regulatory environment – Clear and consistent regulations and targets. • Infrastructure Development (as outlined above) • Investment Incentives – such as tax breaks, investment zones, grants etc which could be targeted at specific sectors. Capital expenditure The Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecasted that Scotland’s capital budget is expected to fall by 20 per cent in real terms between 2023-24 and 2028-29. 11. Given the limited capital budget available, in which areas should the Scottish Government prioritise its capital spend in the Scottish Budget 2025-26 to deliver increased productivity, innovation, and growth? When considering how Scottish Government plan for achieving these outcomes with their limited capital budget, recognition needs to be given to the significant reduction that Local Authority core capital funding has faced , and the cuts elsewhere to capital funding that impacts on local government. The Council’s General Capital Grant has not returned to pre-pandemic levels and we have seen an almost 30% reduction in General Capital Grant - this impacts any ability to realise our ambitions around spending to increase productively, achieving innovation and promoting growth. The result is older facilities that take more revenue budget to run/maintain, they become unaffordable and potentially need to close/reduce services provided. 52
Page 53
Cuts to Housing capital funds (Affordable Housing Funding ) at a time where councils ( and the Scottish Government) are declaring housing emergencies sits completely at odds with the need to continue to provide basis public services, before we even consider growth. Other capital funding, directed through other bodies and the Scottish Government itself that then fund projects undertaken by Councils has also been cut, with no notice, again with real impacts on planned projects that fall into the Scottish Government ambitions around increasing productivity, innovation and growth . This includes funding for Strathclyde Passenger Transport, as well as Place Based Investment funding, and Clyde Gateway Urban Regeneration Company. While it is acknowledged that councils can borrow to fund capital spend, the pressures on the revenue budget mean that this scope is reduced. These cuts in grant significantly reduces the ability for councils to meet their core needs on capital investment, but also limits the ability to consider transformational change programmes, or capital spend for regeneration, or for meeting carbon targets. Given levels of funding that have been made available, capital planning priorities for Local Authorities end up being around keeping the business running, rather than being progressive and transformational to deliver productivity, innovation and growth. If the Scottish Government are asking councils to look beyond their current priority of keeping essential existing assets operational, and focus on productivity, innovation and growth, then as their local government partner, funding to support the Governments priorities has to follow the policies. Further cuts to funding around core capital funding, housing and other areas will not support innovation and growth 53
Page 54
54
Page 55
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Director, Health and Social Care Subject: National Care Service – Update 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is:- [purpose] to provide the Committee with an update on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Executive Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) that the update on the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill is noted; and (2) that Committee agree the submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s Call for Views as in Appendix 2. [1recs] 3. Background 3.1. The National Care Service (Scotland) (NCS) Bill was published in June 2022 providing for the establishment of a NCS under the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. The NCS Bill as published in June 2022 provided for the transfer of listed social care and social work authority local authority functions, staff and assets to Scottish Ministers or newly established care boards. 3.2. In common with the approval process of other legislation, the NCS Bill is proceeding through three stages: Stage 1 – consideration of the general principles of the Bill by Parliamentary Committee(s) and a debate and decision on these by the Parliament. Stage 2 – detailed consideration of the Bill by Parliamentary Committee(s). Stage 3 – final consideration of the Bill by the Parliament and a decision whether it should be passed or rejected. After a Bill has been passed and has received royal assent, it then becomes an Act of Parliament with implementation to follow. 3.3. Progress with the development of an NCS and the associated Bill has been the subject of previous updates to Executive Committee in August 2022 and February 2024, with the latter noting that the deadline for completion of Stage 1 had been extended to 1 March 2024. The NCS Bill has formally passed Stage 1 and is now at Stage 2 of the scrutiny process. 7 55
Page 56
3.4. On 24 June 2024, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport wrote to the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee to confirm a range of proposed amendments to the Bill that would be submitted for the Stage 2 deadline. A copy of the letter and associated documentation is available here: https://yourviews.parliament.scot/health/national-care-service-stage-2-call-for-views/ 3.5. Since the Call for Views was issued, Audit Scotland has published its report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and performance 2024. This states that: “Social care and primary and community healthcare services in Scotland currently face complex and unprecedented pressures and challenges. These challenges are not easily resolved and are worsening. There is an increased demand for services, deepening challenges in sustaining the workforce, alongside increasing financial pressures. These longstanding challenges have been exacerbated by the cost-of- living crisis, increasing cost of provision of services and a changing policy landscape. The Covid-19 pandemic has also had a lasting impact on this sector, given the impact on health and social care staff and the need to continue to protect vulnerable people.” https://audit.scot/uploads/2024-07/nr_240725_ijb_performance_analysis.pdf 4. Summary of Proposed Stage 2 Amendments to Bill 4.1. The Scottish Government’s vision for the NCS as set out in the policy memorandum at the time of introduction remains the same: Enable people of all ages to access timely, consistent, equitable and fair, high- quality health and social care support across Scotland. Provide services that are co-designed with people who access and deliver care and support, respecting, protecting and fulfilling their human rights. Provide support for unpaid carers, recognising the value of what they do and supporting them to look after their health and wellbeing so they can continue to care, if they so wish, and have a life beyond caring. Support and value the workforce. Ensure that health, social work and social care support are integrated with other services, prioritising dignity and respect, and taking account of individual circumstances to improve outcomes for individuals and communities. Ensure there is an emphasis on continuous improvement at the centre of everything. Provide opportunities for training and development, including the creation of a National Social Work Agency providing national leadership, oversight and support. Recognise the value of the investment in social care support, contribute to the wellbeing economy, make the best use of public funds, and remove unnecessary duplication. 4.2. Following tripartite discussions with COSLA and the NHS, an agreement was reached in the summer of 2023 on shared accountability for the NCS. Scottish Ministers would exercise strategic framework accountability for NCS services including a role in setting policy, having oversight and providing direction. The NHS and local government would each retain responsibility for service delivery. Staff would continue to be employed by local authorities, and councils would still be responsible for assets like buildings and the delivery of services. 56
Page 57
https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/health-social-care-and-sport- committee/correspondence/2023/national-care-service-minister-response-december- 2023.pdf 4.3. The current accountability arrangements as illustrated by Audit Scotland are included in Appendix 1. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 notes that that “the current model of governance is complicated”. 4.4. Following the Stage 1 process the Scottish Government is proposing a number of key amendments for the Stage 2 process, notably (further detail attached in Appendix 2): The creation of a National Care Service Board (NCSB) accountable to Scottish Ministers to provide national oversight and improvement of social work services, social care services and community health services which fall within the scope of the NCS. Reformed integration authorities as the vehicle for local planning and delivery in the form of National Care Service Local Boards (NCSLBs), which will ultimately replace the role currently performed by Integration Joint Boards (IJBs). NCSLBs being then accountable to the NCSB through their strategic plans and annual performance reports in delivering the intended outcomes of an NCS. 4.5. The Scottish Government has also proposed the following areas for inclusion within the Stage 2 Bill, noting that Scottish Government has stated that further work needs to be undertaken to confirm the legislative approach for each: direct funding of NCSLBs inclusion of children’s social work services within the NCS inclusion of justice social work services within the NCS Anne’s Law 4.6. In early July 2024, the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee issued a Call for Views with regards to the draft amendments which the Scottish Government is proposing at Stage 2 of the Bill. The deadline for submissions is 30 August 2024. https://yourviews.parliament.scot/health/national-care-service-stage-2-call-for-views/ 4.7. The proposed Council response to this Call for Views is included in Appendix 3. The substance of the submission reflects the Council’s response to the Scottish Government’s Consultation on the National Care Service as previously agreed by members. Subject to Committee approval, officers will submit the response on the Council’s behalf and also share with COSLA and SOLACE. 5. Employee Implications 5.1. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 states: “Across the primary and community health and social care sector there are difficulties in recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce. Without significant changes in how services are provided and organised, this issue will get worse as demand continues to increase and the workforce pool continues to contract.” 57
Page 58
5.2. The Bill as it stands and inclusive of any accepted amendments, proposes that statutory delivery functions remain with local government and NHS Boards, along with assets and employment. 6. Financial Implications 6.1. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 states: “In common with other public sector bodies, financial pressures arising from rising inflation, pay uplifts, the cost-of-living crisis and Covid-19 legacy costs are making it difficult to sustain services at their current level. IJBs are also experiencing an increase in prescribing costs. IJBs have had to achieve savings as part of their partner funding allocations for several years and achieving these savings, while maintaining service levels, has become increasingly difficult. IJBs are now having to consider more significant options as statutory duties have to be prioritised. This includes ending funding for some care and support services, to ensure financial sustainability in the medium to long term.” “Funding to IJBs in 2022/23 decreased by £1.1 billion (nine per cent) in real terms to £11.0 billion; a £342 million decrease in cash terms. IJBs received £1.0 billion of additional funding in 2021/22 to support their response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Excluding the 2021/22 Covid-19 related funding, this shows an underlying decrease of £68 million in real terms, representing a 1.0 per cent decrease.” 6.2. In evidence given to the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee on 25 January 2024, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport stated that planned amendments to the NCS Bill means that the set-up costs are now estimated by the Scottish Government as being between £120m and £227m over the full 10 years after its introduction. Details of this can be sourced in the attached link. Meeting of the Parliament: 25/01/2024 | Scottish Parliament Website 7. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 7.1. There are no implications for climate change, sustainability or the environment in terms of the information contained in this report. 8. Other Implications 8.1. The potential implications and impact of an NCS are included in the Council’s top risks and detailed in the risk register as follows: The Council is materially affected by the implications arising from the National Care Service Bill (high risk). 8.2. The Council’s top risks are currently being reviewed and evaluated. Part of these considerations will be a review of the current risk status of the NCS for the Council. At this stage, these are proposed amendments. Until further detail becomes available, it is difficult to predict with any certainty, what the impact will be for local government and the current strategic planning and delivery of social care within a Council context. 58
Page 59
8.3. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 notes that that “the current model of governance is complicated”. The proposed submission in Appendix 3 notes that the proposed arrangements at 4.4. have the potential to bring about more complex governance arrangements than those which exist at present. It is also not clear from the amendments proposed, what level of accountability and interaction the NCSLBs as proposed would have with local Council and NHS Board decision-making processes. 9. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 9.1. This report does not introduce any new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to existing policy, function or strategy, and therefore, no impact assessment is required. 9.2. There is also no requirement to undertake any consultation in terms of the information contained in this report. Professor Soumen Sengupta Director, Health and Social Care 24 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, efficient, effective and transparent Previous References • Executive Committee – Response to National Care Service Bill (24 August 2022) • Executive Committee Report – National Care Service Update (21 February 2024) List of Background Papers • None Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Professor Soumen Sengupta Director, Health and Social Care E-mail: soumen.sengupta@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 59
Page 60
Current Accountability Arrangements Appendix 1 60
Page 61
Proposed Stage 2 Amendments to National Care Service Bill Appendix 2 No Theme/Area Changes Proposed 1 Principles Amendments to include provisions to provide greater clarity on what is meant by human rights and to expand on the principle around early intervention and prevention to more fully reflect the importance of ongoing care and support for example, people with long term conditions and the importance of rehabilitative care alongside early intervention and preventative care. 2 Responsibility for the NCS Instead of transferring functions to Scottish Ministers, local authorities and NHS Boards should retain legal responsibility for the delivery of services as well as retaining associated staff and assets. It is proposed that Scottish Ministers set the national strategy for the NCS, the intention being to guide an NCS Board and local NCS boards. 3 Structures and Governance Proposed that a new National Care Service Board should be established as a new ‘public body’ with a legal identity separate from the Scottish Government. This is different to original proposal whereby it was proposed that the NCS would be either an Executive Agency of Government or part of the core Scottish Government staffed by civil servants. The NCS Board would then oversee NCS local boards with a view to securing continuous improvement in the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. NCS Local Boards will report to the NCS Board. Membership of the NCS Board will include as a minimum, appointees who represent Scottish Ministers, local government, NHS Boards and people with lived experience of accessing or delivering integrated health and social care services, including unpaid carers. The NCS Board would report to Scottish Ministers, Local Government and NHS Boards. 4 Support and Improvement Framework Propose that powers to intervene at a local level with regard to issues such as performance will transfer from Scottish Ministers to the NCS Board. The NCS Board will have a function to monitor NCS services and where it identifies the need for improvement, take appropriate action. 5 Strategic Planning Propose that the NCS Board has responsibility to commission any national services. The NCS Board would have specific responsibility for monitoring improvement of the performance of NCS services. This will give the NCS Board the means to request information, reports and performance data from local NCS boards, local authorities and NHS Boards in fulfilling this oversight role. Local NCS Boards will be required to have a strategic plan, which sets out their vison, objectives and budgets for their area. This should be done through an ethical commissioning approach to reflect NCS principles. The NCS Board will provide review and feedback on local NCS Board strategic plans to ensure they reflect the NCS 61
Page 62
strategy and principles and take appropriate account of local population needs and national outcomes. The NCS Board will receive a copy of the local NCS boards’ Annual Performance Reports to ensure that local boards have carried out their integration functions and associated responsibilities. 6 Additional NCS Board Proposals As a result of the proposed amendment to establish an NCS Board as a new public body, a number of provisions around how this body will operate include requirements to: • Prepare a Corporate Plan to be approved by Scottish Ministers and laid before the Scottish Parliament. • Produce an annual report. • Have the ability to employ staff and determine their terms and conditions. Initially, the Chief Executive of the NCS Board will be appointed by Scottish Ministers. • Ability to undertake other functions such as establishing committees/sub-committees, appointing and removing Board members and charging for services or the carrying out of functions. 7 Reform of Existing Structures Proposed that the current delivery model for integration in the form of the Integration Joint Board (IJB) is reformed. This would see all current integration arrangements removed with the exception of the IJB model. IJBs would be renamed to NCS Local Boards (NCSLBs) and the delivery model would be consistent and not have the option of the Body Corporate or Lead Agency model per the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Highland being the only Lead Agency model nationally, would then require to dissolve and be replaced by a reformed NCSLB. As well as the proposed amendments to the NCS (Scotland) Bill, the Scottish Government intends to also utilise existing regulation making powers available to them under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Aspects such as the role and remit of localities, the chairing of local NCS Boards, the inclusion of lived experience in local decision making and local committee structures and governance will all be considered 8 Children and Justice Social Work Services The Scottish Government’s preference is for children’s and justice social work services to be included within the NCS. The detail of how this will work has still to be confirmed. 9 Supplementary and Related Areas Although no specific amendments are proposed at Stage 2 of the Bill, other related areas such as Alcohol and Drug Partnerships (ADPs), Public Protection, Breaks for Carers, Anne’s Law, Contracts for Voluntary Organisations, Regulation of Social Services, Equal Opportunities, Children’s Rights, Fairer Scotland Assessment, Island Communities, Human Rights, Effects of the Bill on Local Government and Sustainable Development are being considered in terms of the impact and opportunities the Bill brings in relation to these. 10 National Social Work Agency The Government intends to make specific reference in the Bill to the creation of a National Social Work Agency (NSWA). A further amendment is proposed to put the role of the National Chief Social Work Advisor on a statutory 62
Page 63
footing, with the NSWA being the body which would support this role. 11 Direct Funding The intention of the Scottish Government remains to introduce legislation which would give Scottish Ministers the powers to directly fund reformed integration authorities. However, it is recognised this area is very complex and consequently further and more detailed work will be undertaken to ensure that any amendments for Stage 2 proposals support the intended outcomes of the NCS. 63
Page 64
Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee Appendix 3 Call for Views - South Lanarkshire Council Proposed Response National Care Service Strategy 1. What is your view of the proposed National Care Service strategy (see proposed new sections 1A to 1E)? • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer (3000 characters max). Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 notes that “whole system collaborative working is needed as part of a clear national strategy for health and social care that will promote improved outcomes across Scotland but reflects the need to respond to local priorities.” South Lanarkshire Council is committed to whole system working with local partners in respect of health and social care. The Council recognises the importance of a national strategy that supports and enables such whole system working – one that is fully costed and appropriately funded; is realistic about the implications of demographic change for both service demand and workforce availability; and where Scottish Government engages with the public on why and how models of care and service delivery have to be updated, redesigned and reformed. In the spirit of consistency and co-design, the provisions for a proposed National Care Service strategy would be strengthened by: • Specifying when the first national strategy needs to be completed and published, including that this should be in advance of NCLBs then beginning the preparation of their first strategic plans under these new legislative and structural arrangements. • A requirement for the national strategy to be subject to the equivalent guidance and/or requirements for the strategic plans that the NCSLBs will be required to produce. This includes the time period being three years (rather than five); and importantly that any annual reporting coincides with when verified data is available, as currently this is not possible for the required publication timelines for Integration Joint Board (IJB) Annual Performance Reports. • A requirement for the national strategy to be accompanied by a financial and workforce framework, with the financial framework independently assessed (e.g. by Audit Scotland) and necessary resources then committed to. • Being explicit on there being an obligation on Scottish Government to have due regard for and be then clear on the relationship(s) between this statutorily produced national strategy and all other related national strategies for non-integrated services where there are nonetheless dependencies and/or implications. • That the consultation by Scottish Government in preparing the national strategy should be subject to the Planning with People Guidance and as so the same requirements as per the Community Engagement Act. • That in keeping with the commitment to co-design, that the decision to review the national strategy should be taken by Ministers after Scottish Government have undertaken public consultation, with the findings of this shared publicly. 64
Page 65
National Care Service Board 2. What is your view of the proposal to create a National Care Service Board, and the provisions about the role and functions of the Board (see in particular new Chapter 1B of Part 1, and new schedule 2C)? • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer. The Council agrees that there is a role for a national approach and consistency with regards to national improvement, standards and oversight. Whether this is best served through the establishment of a NCS Board as proposed here – i.e. adding an additional substantive non-governmental public body to Scotland’s public sector landscape - needs further clarification with regards to the points listed below: • The governance and accountability arrangements with regards to health and social care integration is already complex, and there is a potential risk that this could be further complicated. • Concerns previously raised about the provisions for the NCS Board to remove members of a NCSLB, including locally elected members, and the implications that then has for local accountability. • The costs of creating and then running a new national Board with its associated infrastructure, particularly given the financial challenges facing local and front-line health and social care services. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 notes that that “the current model of governance is complicated”. Local health and social care planning and delivery is already subject to a very high level of reporting and scrutiny in a range of formal governance forums – arguably, much more than other parts of the public sector. There is a potential risk that a new NCS Board and the further bureaucracy it will entail will further complicate and/or distract from the difficult decisions and actions required to address the substantial challenges for health and social care development and delivery, notably in respect of recurrent funding and workforce supply. As stated by the Christie Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services (2011) – and remains the case today – “Governance and accountability must be simplified, streamlined and coordinated emphasising the assessment of costs and performance”. The Council acknowledges the Scottish Government’s movement through the course of the Stage 1 Bill process to a shared accountability agreement – and recognises the considerable efforts of COSLA in doing this. It continues to be the Council’s position that, at its simplest terms, legislative or structural change is not necessary for – nor an alternative to – providing the significant and urgent investment required in social work and social care. 65
Page 66
Creation of local boards and removal of other integration models 3. What is your view of the proposal to establish National Care Service local boards and to remove other integration models (see in particular Chapter 1A of Part 1, and new schedules 2A and 2B)? • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer. The Council acknowledges the Scottish Government’s movement through the course of the Stage 1 Bill process to a shared accountability agreement – and recognises the considerable efforts of COSLA in doing this. Given the work over the recent years to develop mature partnership relationships within the current – already complex - governance model, the Council welcomes as preferable the emphasis on reforming rather than abolishing IJBs and replacing with the care boards as was proposed at the start of Stage 1. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 states that: “Social care and primary and community healthcare services in Scotland currently face complex and unprecedented pressures and challenges. These challenges are not easily resolved and are worsening. There is an increased demand for services, deepening challenges in sustaining the workforce, alongside increasing financial pressures. These longstanding challenges have been exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis, increasing cost of provision of services and a changing policy landscape. The Covid-19 pandemic has also had a lasting impact on this sector, given the impact on health and social care staff and the need to continue to protect vulnerable people.” Given that analysis by Audit Scotland, it continues to be the Council’s position that, at its simplest terms, legislative or structural change is not necessary for – nor an alternative to – providing the significant and urgent investment required in social work and social care. Monitoring and improvement and commissioning 4. What is your view of the proposed new provisions on monitoring and improvement (see new sections 12K and 12L) and on commissioning (see new section 12M)? Monitoring and Improvement • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer. As stated by the Christie Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services (2011) – and remains the case today – “services must be open to independent oversight and challenge, including benchmarked comparisons, and state clearly how they are improving outcomes and efficiency”. 66
Page 67
Local health and social care planning and delivery is already subject to a very high level of reporting and scrutiny in a range of formal governance forums – including to different parts of the Scottish Government - arguably, much more than other parts of the public sector. As such, there is a potential risk that a new NCS Board that would bring further bureaucracy that would distract and dilute resources and attention from addressing what will frequently be “wicked” performance issues and long-term challenges for local services. As such, the proposals would be strengthened by a greater emphasis on and commitment to be simplifying, streamlining and coordinating monitoring and improvement support for local services. There is a strong case for improved coordination and clarity of national monitoring and improvement activity across health and social care – across Scottish Government and across the range of national regulatory, scrutiny and improvement bodies. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 states that “data quality and availability is insufficient to fully assess the performance of IJBs and inform actions to improve outcomes for service users with a lack of joint data across the system”. There is a pressing need to increase the pace of development work at a national level to address this - including reviewing and updating the data collected and metrics used to measure performance across social care and community health and care – e.g. revisiting the 2017 National Review of Targets and Indicators for Health and Social Care – and to do this with local government as a full partner, e.g. with greater involvement of the Improvement Service to work alongside Public Health Scotland. Alongside this there is also an opportunity then and an imperative to revisit and streamline that national monitoring and improvement landscape – as the position stated in 2007 The Crerar Review (The report of the independent review of regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling of public services in Scotland) is arguably still applicable today: “Complexity also arises from the way that scrutiny bodies carry out their business and the way they are set up and run. The result is a wide variety of scrutiny methodologies, organisational structures and governance arrangements, and large numbers of different players with the ability and right to both direct and create new scrutiny. Such complexity makes joint working on cross-cutting and complex issues more difficult to organise effectively. We believe there is scope to build more consistent leadership and control to ensure more strategic and flexible use of scrutiny resources.” With respect to the NCS Board having the power to intervene at a local level where it finds services to be falling short, greater clarity is required to provide reassurance that such interventions would be undertaken in a manner that was evidence-based, transparent, proportionate and supportive. This includes clarity of the criteria that would be applied to determine whether a service was falling short and then when it had improved sufficiently (e.g. a mechanism equivalent to the NHS Scotland: Support and Intervention Framework); and who would be involved in leading and engaging in such improvement support. Given that the proposals here relate to all functions and services delegated to the proposed NCSLBs, it would be also important to have greater clarity in terms of such statutory functions delivered by those services on behalf of Councils (e.g. in relation to public protection); and what the relationship would be with the NHS Scotland: Support and Intervention Framework given the health care services that would then lie within the auspices of the NCS by virtue of their being delegated to NCSLBs. Does there need to be something here about the relationship with SLC/NHSL in terms of their governance responsibilities at a local level? 67
Page 68
Commissioning • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer. The provisions would be strengthened by being clear on the technical differences in the terms strategic commissioning (i.e. the process of identifying what is to be provided) and procurement (i.e. identifying how and who will provide the services - the process of contracting or purchasing specific services to meet identified requirements). Under the current arrangements, IJBs do not procure services – this is done by the relevant councils or the NHS; and can be from the public, private and third sector. In relation to procurement, the Council very much welcomes the work of Scotland Excel in social care. There is a strong case for taking a “balcony” view of what social care services could and should be better commissioned, procured and indeed organised at different geographic levels – i.e. local, regional and national. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 states that “national approaches to improve commissioning have been slow to progress but are developing.” There is an imperative to increase the pace here, with an opportunity for a stronger and more co- ordinated approach at either national or regional level with regard to very specialist, complex care and inevitably expensive care, where demand for services is difficult to predict; and when required, provision is increasingly challenging for local areas to secure in a manner that would be professionally sound, financially sustainable and (crucially) meets the expectations of individuals and their families to reflect ethical commissioning principles. The Council recognises the importance of aligning as far as is possible to delivering specific outcomes – but that the existing expectations on strategic commissioning often do not sufficiently recognise the parameters within which decisions about realigning resources have to be responsibly made (e.g. in respect of terms and conditions of staff; regulatory obligations and the new requirements of safe staffing legislation). Strategic commissioning in an environment where there is insufficient recurrent funding for existing service expectations or to meet the demands of demographic change will inevitably – and regrettably - then involves very difficult decisions about how and where to substantially reduce expenditure within budgets rather than discussions about how to release monies for re-investment in services elsewhere. This is very frustrating for all local partners and communities, not least as it makes it even harder to further develop and expand evidence- based early intervention and prevention in the manner recommended by the Christie Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services (2011). National Chief Social Work Adviser and the National Social Work Agency 5. What is your view of the proposed new provisions to designate a National Chief Social Work Adviser and for the creation of a National Social Work Agency (see new section 26A)? • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion 68
Page 69
Please use the text box below to expand on your answer. The Council recognise the importance of a constructive and positive working relationship between local authority Chief Social Work Officers and the Scottish Government Chief Social Work Adviser as already exists. The Council has a general concern about the further creation of an additional non- governmental public body to add to the already arguable “cluttered” national regulatory, scrutiny and improvement landscape. Recognising the outcome of the 2023 Social care: Independent Review of Inspection, Scrutiny and Regulation, Stage 2 of the Bill does provide a further opportunity to revisit scope to (as a minimum) clarify the distinctive roles and then relationships between the proposed National Social Work Agency, the Scottish Social Services Council, the Care Inspectorate and (indeed) Healthcare Improvement Scotland; and (preferably) actively propose opportunities to streamline , simplify and reduce the costs of the various functions and service required at a national level. Amendments to the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 The Minister’s covering letter states: “We intend to improve local delivery through reform of integration authorities. Integration authorities are existing bodies established under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. Local reform will require some new provisions in this Bill amending the 2014 Act, as well as the exercise of existing powers under that Act.” 6. What is your view of the proposed amendments to the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014, as set out in the marked up version of the Act? • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer. The Council acknowledges the Scottish Government’s movement through the course of the Stage 1 Bill process to a shared accountability agreement – and recognises the considerable efforts of COSLA in doing this. Given the work over the recent years to develop mature partnership relationships within the current – already complex - governance model, the Council welcomes as preferable the emphasis on reforming rather than abolishing IJBs and replacing with the care boards as was proposed at the start of Stage 1. It is difficult to fully comment on the proposed changes given the detail provided to-date. It continues to be the Council’s position that, at its simplest terms, legislative or structural change is not necessary for – nor an alternative to – providing the significant and urgent investment required in social work and social care. 69
Page 70
Areas of further work The Minister’s covering letter states: “There remain a small number of areas where further work is needed to confirm which legislative approach would best deliver the intended changes and strengthen their future practical implementation. Those areas are: • Direct funding • Inclusion of children’s services • Inclusion of Justice Social Work • Anne’s Law “The intention of this approach is to free up COSLA and local government colleagues from further negotiation on these issues and allow them to focus specifically on the mission to reduce Delayed Discharges in the coming weeks and months.” 7. What is your view of the Scottish Government’s proposed approach to addressing the areas of further work outlined in the Minister’s covering letter? Direct funding • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer referring to the specific areas of further work that you are commenting on. As has been articulated through COSLA, proposals being considered to directly fund remain concerning to the Council. Inclusion of children's services • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer referring to the specific areas of further work that you are commenting on. As has been articulated by COSLA, it continues to be the Council’s view that it should be for local elected members’ processes to decide upon the inclusion of children’s social work services at a local level. Inclusion of Justice Social Work • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion 70
Page 71
Please use the text box below to expand on your answer referring to the specific areas of further work that you are commenting on. As has been articulated by COSLA, it continues to be the Council’s view that it should be for local elected members’ processes to decide upon the inclusion of social work justice services at a local level. Anne's Law Anne’s Law is a piece of planned Scottish legislation which is intended to strengthen the rights of people living in adult and older people’s care homes to see and spend time with the people who are important to them, even in the event of an outbreak of infectious disease. • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer referring to the specific areas of further work that you are commenting on. Anne’s Law has rightly received widespread national support. In respect of the amendments to the Bill as proposed, it is difficult to fully comment on the proposed changes though given the detail provide to-date. Draft National Care Service Charter As part of the package shared with the Committee, the Scottish Government has provided an update on co-design of the NCS Charter and an initial draft of the National Care Service Charter. 8. What is your view of the initial draft of the National Care Service Charter? • Strongly support • Tend to support • Partly support and partly oppose • Tend to oppose • Strongly oppose • Undecided / no opinion Please use the text box below to expand on your answer. If an NCS is to be established, then the Council recognises the value of such a National Care Service Charter. The co-production of the draft Charter is to be welcomed, with it being well written and easy to follow. The linkage between the National Care Service Charter and how it interfaces with other requirements, for example the national Health and Social Care Standards needs to be better understood, as again the landscape is cluttered and complex. Importantly, it is important that expectations set by any such Charter have been independently assessed as realistically deliverable, both in terms of workforce and funding. There is an opportunity through Stage 2 of the Bill process for Scottish Government to work with key stakeholders – including Social Work Scotland and Health 71
Page 72
and Social Care Scotland - to actively propose opportunities to streamline and simplify that landscape. Other comments 9. Do you have any other comments on the Scottish Government’s proposed draft Stage 2 amendments to the National Care Service Bill? Please use this text box to provide your answer. As stated by the Christie Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services (2011) – and remains the case today – “governance and accountability must be simplified, streamlined and coordinated emphasising the assessment of costs and performance”. Audit Scotland’s recently published report Integration Joint Boards: Finance and Performance 2024 states that “social care and primary and community healthcare services in Scotland currently face complex and unprecedented pressures and challenges. These challenges are not easily resolved and are worsening.” Local health and social care planning and delivery is already subject to a very high level of reporting and scrutiny in a range of formal governance forums – arguably, much more than other parts of the public sector. There is a potential risk that a new National Care Service Board and the further bureaucracy it will entail will further complicate and/or distract from the difficult decisions and actions required to address the substantial challenges for health and social care development and delivery, notably in respect of recurrent funding and workforce supply. The Council acknowledges the Scottish Government’s movement through the course of the Stage 1 Bill process to a shared accountability agreement – and recognises the considerable efforts of COSLA in doing this. It continues to be the Council’s position that, at its simplest terms, legislative or structural change is not necessary for – nor an alternative to – providing the significant and urgent investment required in social work and social care. 72
Page 73
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Education Resources) Subject: Outcome of the Consultation Proposal to Alter the Qualifying Distance for Mainstream Secondary School Transport 1. Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of the report is to:- ♦ inform the Executive Committee on the outcome of the statutory consultation to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport (from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles). 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- (1) that after considering and giving due regard to (i) the published consultation outcome report in full and (ii) the impact assessments referred to at Section 10 of this report: ♦ the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport should be changed to more than 3 miles (currently more than 2 miles); and ♦ the proposal be implemented from the start of the school session in August 2025. This will allow time for those parents affected to make alternative arrangements, and also for the implementation of potential actions identified to help minimise the impact of the concerns raised, where practicable. 3. Background 3.1 The legal duty within the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is for councils to provide school transport for: ♦ any child aged under 8 years who lives more than 2 miles from their catchment school; and ♦ any child aged 8 years and over who lives more than 3 miles from their catchment school South Lanarkshire Council currently provides free mainstream school transport for: ♦ all primary pupils who live more than one mile from their catchment school; and ♦ all secondary pupils who live more than two miles from their catchment school 8 73
Page 74
3.2 This proposed position is more generous than legislation requires and is in line with arrangements currently in place in most other councils in Scotland. 19 other councils already operate the provision of mainstream secondary school transport for those pupils living more than 3 miles from school and have done so for some time. 3.3 Under a backdrop of financial pressure both across the council as a whole and within the budget of Education Resources, on 22 November 2023 a decision was taken by Executive Committee to consult on the proposal to alter the qualifying distance for mainstream secondary school transport (from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles). 3.4 A statutory consultation, in terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 was carried out over the period 15 January 2024 to 15 March 2024 during which time all interested parties could access the proposal document and were invited to submit written representations. In addition, a number of public meetings were held where stakeholders could ask questions and express opinions on the proposal. As part of the process, Education Scotland also attended the public meetings and then undertook their own engagement, including parents and pupils, and produced a report for consideration and response. 3.5 Actions undertaken by schools to specifically promote pupil awareness and engagement in the consultation process included regular posts on Google Classroom, information in weekly pupil newsletters, information given at school assemblies and discussions within pupil council meetings and PSE class settings. 3.6 The proposed change would relate only to the mainstream secondary school sector and would affect only those pupils living between 2 and 3 miles from their catchment school. Other aspects of the council’s current policy on the provision of transport to school did not form part of the consultation and therefore no change was proposed, for example, the allocation of transport on medical or ASN (additional support needs) grounds, or undertaking a safe walking route assessment where parents raise a road safety concern. The provision of transport to mainstream primary schools and the ASN sector will continue as is. 3.7 Following completion of the consultation, the council considered the original proposal and reflected upon all responses received, including the report provided by Education Scotland. The consultation outcome report was published on the 24 May 2024 and a copy can be found at Appendix 1 of this report. Public opinion on the proposal was gathered via an online response form where respondents identified whether they agreed, disagreed or were undecided on the proposal. 3.8 Section 6 - 8 of the consultation outcome report includes the council response to comments received, which due to the volume of responses was categorised into headings. 3.9 The full list of all written comments received via the online survey was included in Appendix 4 of the consultation outcome report, which was issued as a separate document due to its size. Personal data including names and any other information which may identify the respondent or their family was redacted. The full document is not included as an appendix to this report but can be viewed here: Consultation outcome report comments, complaints and consultations - South Lanarkshire Council 74
Page 75
4. Consultation Outcome 4.1 The outcome of the consultation, as reflected in the consultation outcome report, is summarised in the following paragraphs. 4.2 Of the 6,315 representations made 84% did not agree with the proposal. 92% of all respondents fell into 3 groups: 55% (3,480) were parents, 22% (1,368) were pupils and 15% (965) were members of the public/community. This view was echoed in the public meetings held. 4.3 Of all parents responding 92% were not in favour of the proposal with 8% in favour/undecided. By contrast, it is interesting to note that 33% of pupils supported the proposal, 11% were undecided and 56% were against it. Of the members of the public/community who responded, 89% were against the proposal, broadly in line with the views of the parents. Chart 1: Breakdown by response from parents, pupils, and members of the public 4.4 Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the consultation outcome report identified the main issues of concern raised during the consultation and the council response, including how it could work to mitigate some of the concerns. A summary of these concerns expressed are listed below. The main concerns were identified as:- ♦ Safe walking routes (64% of respondents) - traffic speed, narrow paths, lack of safe crossing places, walking in the dark via potentially unlit/poorly lit routes, through underpasses or other areas of anti-social behaviour with some potential likelihood of attack. Some commented they did not agree with the use of the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines as personal safety is not taken into account as it is assumed the child will be accompanied by a responsible adult. 75
Page 76
♦ Lack of alternative transport mode / 3 miles is too far to walk (63% of respondents) - no public service or no direct service to school, timings not fitting with school start and finish times, the capacity of services to cater for an increase in passengers, long walks while carrying school resources in inclement weather. ♦ Impact on local communities around school (37% of respondents) - congestion, increased car emissions and risk of accidents due to more parents driving. (See Section 8 of this report) ♦ Childcare arrangements and financial impact on parents (22% of respondents) - impact on parents’ work may see them having to adjust or reduce working hours, suggestion that the biggest impact would be on women, and parents with disabilities stated they would find it difficult to accompany their child to school. Some other issues identified included:- ♦ Attainment and attendance - extra travelling time would produce tired pupils and could have a negative impact on attendance and the capacity to learn which would then impact attainment. ♦ Discrimination against pupils choosing a denominational education. Some alternative proposals were made but were not possible:- ♦ Retain transport but apply a charge - not possible under the Public Services Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR), as most of the commercial vehicles contracted by SPT are not PSVAR complaint and therefore a charge cannot be levied. ♦ Retain transport by re-directing national under 22 bus pass monies - was confirmed by the Scottish Government that this funding goes direct to operators and is not for councils. 4.5 Education Scotland’s report recommended that if the proposal were to be approved, the council should work with stakeholders to mitigate against the range of concerns raised. 4.6 Mitigations which could be considered are summarised below:- ♦ Secondary school pupils are eligible to access the Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme and this entitlement will be promoted further to all pupils. ♦ The council will engage with bus operators to seek any potential opportunity for them to increase or adjust public bus routes, helping to make the use of under 22 bus passes more accessible. ♦ The council will promote wider active travel opportunities and independence e.g. cycle routes, walking groups (also improving health and wellbeing and social interaction), any park and stride opportunities. ♦ The policy of offering free privilege places (i.e. where any dedicated school transport may have spare capacity) will continue. There is a prioritisation process, e.g. priority 1 supports families where adults may have disabilities, with wider access to others thereafter. ♦ Schools can signpost families to other available help such as benefit entitlement e.g. through Money Matters advice, via either individual conversations or general messages on social media. ♦ We recognise that there is potential for some children with protected characteristics to be affected by bullying if faced with longer walking/bus travel to school. Schools can provide individual support through the council’s Promoting Positive Behaviour and Anti-Bullying policies. 76
Page 77
♦ Unsafe walking routes: Safe walking route assessments will continue to be undertaken where families express road safety concerns. West of Scotland Road Safety Forum Guidelines are applied and are congruent to 2021 Scottish Government Guidance, which does not contain any reference to personal safety or detail any specific factors requiring an assessment in these terms. References made to the safety of the pupil all link to factors on public roads with regards to infrastructure or traffic. ♦ Investigation into concerns over anti-social behaviour and violence suggested that reported incidents generally take place out with the times pupils are walking to and from school. Community safety issues that can arise tend to be a much wider issue which cannot be resolved via a school transport policy. The council works in partnership with Police Scotland and a range of other community safety partners to tackle all forms of criminality and anti-social behaviour. Concerns raised were shared with relevant partners and discussions on this area will continue if the revised transport proposals come into effect. ♦ Where parents may still choose to take their children to school by car, potentially causing congestion around schools, the council will consider car free zones, prevention of engine idling, linking parents and bus operators who may be interested in parent led group transport, car sharing. Also, building in as many positive factors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable and active travel within each secondary school’s travel plan. ♦ Schools working with young people to create groups from the same area to walk or use public transport together to reduce anxiety and improve independence. ♦ Attendance and attainment: It remains the legal responsibility of parents to ensure their child attends school. Post COVID there is a national focus on improving attendance with an increased number of strategies and supports to help young people engage. These would be deployed where attendance may change, however 19 other local authorities already operate the provision of school transport beyond 3 miles and have done so for some time and there is no evidence to suggest that this has had any direct impact on learning. Consideration to be given to supervised access for changing or access to lockers if required. ♦ In terms of denominational disadvantage, children residing in our rural areas would be unaffected by the proposal due to the large catchment area and lack of proximity to their catchment denominational school. This is also the case for the towns of Larkhall and Strathaven. A high-level analysis on the projected impact across the main urban settlements of Hamilton, East Kilbride and Cambuslang/Rutherglen, based on the number of pupils currently being transported, was undertaken. It has shown that the total overall likely impact is largely the same irrespective of denomination. ♦ Any child or young person with a disability will not be impacted as there is no proposed change to the existing part of the policy relating to the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds. A safe walking route assessment will still be undertaken where parents raise any road safety concerns. 5. Educational Impact and Consultation Recommendation 5.1 Despite the fact that a significant number of respondents were not in agreement with the proposal, the council considered this against the potential mitigation factors provided, the need to make financial savings, and that approving the proposal could save the council £2m per annum. 77
Page 78
5.2 In January 2024, the Accounts Commission for Scotland stated that frank discussions are needed with local communities about the future of council services and difficult decisions will need to be made. A recent report prepared by Audit Scotland and released by the Accounts Commission (Local government budgets 2024/25 | Audit Scotland) reaffirms that Scottish councils are facing a significant gap between the money needed to deliver local services and the money they have available. Together, all 32 councils have a gap of £585 million for 2024/2025. This is estimated to increase to £780 million by 2026/2027. 5.3 Within South Lanarkshire, savings of around £77m will be required over the next three years, with £21m already currently being implemented for 2024/25 and a review of service priorities is required. 5.4 In addition, due to rising costs, the annual spend on mainstream school transport has grown from £6m in 2021/22 to over £10m in 2023/24, an increase of £4m, 66%, and is projected to increase again to more than £11m in 2024/25. These costs are not sustainable for the service. This overspend is having to be managed within the existing total education annual budget, including through the use of some reserve funds available and the non-filling of posts. However, moving forward, the use of reserve funds will no longer be available as fund balances are now all used. 5.5 If this proposal is not implemented, then other parts of education will need to be considered for significant service reduction or termination in order to balance the education budget. Offsetting this level of spending would potentially mean cuts to front line education services on top of the agreed savings of £5m being implemented for 2024/25 which include a 50% reduction to school libraries, 25% reduction to school technicians, the removal of summer club provision, together with the significant level of savings also required for the next 3 years. 5.6 To provide an indication of how serious the impact of a further £2m budget reduction would be within Education Resources, this would equate to a reduction of approximately 100 school support assistants or 30 teaching posts. Other impacts could potentially include a reduction in access to pupil support services such as school counsellors and educational psychologists, speech and language therapy as well as a reduction in the provision of learning resources impacting the ability to offer a stimulating curriculum. This would have a direct impact on the support available for children, young people and families and impact on learning and teaching in schools. 5.7 It should be noted that the level of prioritisation given to Education Resources relative to the size of budget, around 50% of the total council budget, has afforded protection in respect of the depth of savings taken in previous years. This financial year, 2024/25, Education Resources contributed around only 20% towards the overall level of savings required to balance the council budget. This means that other services across the council have been routinely more impacted by annual budget savings over an extended number of years. This is not sustainable as could mean elements of these services would no longer meet minimum statutory requirements. 5.8 It is also acknowledged that the current level of transport provision is already beyond the council’s statutory responsibilities for which it receives funding. 19 other councils already operate the provision of mainstream secondary school transport at the legislative level of more than 3 miles from school and have done so for some time. There is no evidence to suggest that this has had any direct impact on learning. 78
Page 79
5.9 Therefore, proceeding with this proposal would seek to minimise the cumulative impact of budget reductions across front line services with Education Resources. The main educational benefit of implementing this proposal is therefore to protect resources that are prioritised on frontline learning and teaching, and to maintain provision of other valuable non-statutory services. 5.10 It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved and that the qualifying distance for mainstream secondary school transport be increased from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. An implementation date of August 2025 will allow for necessary operational planning and time for affected parents to make alternative arrangements. 5.11 Whilst the legal responsibility to get children and young people to school where the distance from home is 3 miles or less sits with parents, we recognise this proposal would have an impact on families if implemented. The council would strive to implement the mitigating actions identified in the outcome report and summarised in paragraph 4.6 above and section 9 below, where practicable to do so. 6. Employee Implications 6.1 No impact on employees. 7. Financial Implications (please also refer to section 5 of this report) 7.1 The annual spend on mainstream school transport has grown from £6m in 2021/22 to over £10m in 2023/24, an increase of £4m, 66%. The forecast for 2024/25 is in excess of £11m. Currently, this overspend is having to be managed within the existing total education annual budget and is not sustainable. This overspend is having to be managed within the existing total education annual budget, including the non-filling of posts and through the use of some reserve funds, which are no longer be available as fund balances are now all used. 7.2 The proposal was considered under a backdrop of financial pressure and a review of service priorities including consideration of the council’s statutory responsibilities. Currently the council’s transport policy is more generous than required by legislation. 7.3 It is estimated the change in distance criteria could save the council approximately £2m per annum when fully implemented. 8. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 8.1 The change in policy could allow for an increase in opportunities for walking and cycling to school and may result in a reduction in the use of cars at the school locations. 33% of young people responding agreed with the proposal. The council will work with schools and families to attempt to affect a change in behaviours and to build in as many positive factors as possible to promote, support and encourage safe, sustainable, and active travel within School Travel Plans. 8.2 Included within the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 is the duty for councils to reduce carbon emissions from its activities and influence the reduction of carbon emissions in the wider community. Completion of the council’s sustainability impact assessment aims to consider likely effects of proposals on South Lanarkshire’s people, infrastructure, natural and physical environment, as well consider as the steps taken (or planned) to mitigate any adverse impacts. A copy of this assessment has bene appended to this report. (Appendix 2). 79
Page 80
8.3 The change in transport policy would reduce carbon output from council activity, however, at this stage the impact of car emissions is unknown as it is recognised that some benefits will only come to fruition if more sustainable or active travel methods are taken up by the wider community. 8.4 Where parents may still choose to take private vehicles, alternative options that could be considered, and which the council will investigate and promote for each school affected are: ♦ Public Transport – continued promotion of the under 22 free bus travel scheme allowing free access to public bus services, where possible. ♦ Apply for privilege transport, where the remaining dedicated school transport vehicles have spare seats. ♦ Car Free Zones - pilots could be considered in some schools where this would be appropriate, and community and school support is strong. ♦ This would also include the prevention of engine idling where we may have congestion around schools as well as further promoting air quality initiatives. ♦ Park and Stride options – where families could be encouraged to drive only part of the journey with the final section completed by foot. This could increase partnerships within the community by approaching businesses in the local area. ♦ Car Sharing – beyond active travel, parents will be encouraged to car share when transporting their children to school if there are no other suitable alternatives for travel. ♦ Parent Led Transport - many parents may wish to arrange transport privately for a group of children from their area. Education Resources can provide a list of possible providers which can be issued to parents on request. 9. Other Implications - next steps 9.1 The next stages would involve completion of the distance re-measurement exercise, working in partnership with SPT to prepare new contract requirements based on a lower number of distanced entitled pupils and undertaking the tendering process and subsequent contract awards. Parents will be advised of the changes to transport entitlement based on the new distance criteria. 9.2 Where parents express a concern over road safety, a safe walking route assessment can be requested. It is intended that a request form will be made available. This assessment will be undertaken by Roads colleagues, in accordance with the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines, and assuming the child is accompanied by a responsible adult. If a route is deemed unsafe, transport will be provided. 9.3 During the consultation, several hundred requests were received from parents wishing to know the measured walking route and/or the safe route to be taken where they expressed road safety concerns. All of those who requested a measured walking route within the consultation period received one. In respect of requests for safe walking route assessments, a significant number of them were responded to during the consultation period. Those requests that were not responded to within the consultation period will be progressed pending a decision on the proposal. 80
Page 81
9.4 To assist with mitigation of negative impacts, the council is committed to working with schools, pupils and parents from each secondary school. We will strive to identify local issues e.g. surveying parents on how they intend getting their child to school, review of school travel plans, promotion of wider active travel such as under 22 bus pass scheme or walking bus initiatives, any park and stride potential, connecting parents interested in parent led transport. 9.5 Also, given more than a fifth of all respondents were pupils, and 33% of them were in favour of the proposal, consideration should also be given as to how they feel this could be implemented successfully. 10. Consultations and Equality Impact Assessments 10.1 A consultation was undertaken as described in paragraphs 3.4 to 3.8. 10.2 An Equality Impact Assessment was carried out as part of the consultation deliberations to consider potential impacts on the protected characteristics and is available on the council website. This assessment has been updated following comments made during the consultation. Given the level of interest, the full assessment was specifically included as an appendix in the consultation outcome report. (Appendix 1). 10.3 Further impact assessments considered relevant as part of the proposal have also been undertaken: ♦ Appendix 3 - Fairer Scotland Duty Impact Assessment. ♦ Appendix 4 - Consumer Duty Impact Assessment: The Consumer Duty is the subject of a separate report on the agenda for this meeting of the Committee, but is essentially a duty on the Council to have regard to the impact of relevant decisions on consumers and the desirability of reducing harm to consumers. ♦ Appendix 5 - Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment: The completion of this impact assessment assists the council in demonstrating it is meeting its duties in terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which came into force in July of this year. ♦ Armed Forces Covernant Duty - Consideration of the potential impact on armed forces families was also included within the children’s rights and wellbeing impact assessment, by the council giving due regard to the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant. The Covenant is, essentially, a promise that the armed forces community will be treated fairly and face no disadvantage when accessing public and commercial services, with special provision made in appropriate cases. 10.4 If the recommendation to proceed with the proposal to alter the qualifying distance for mainstream secondary school is agreed, the mitigating factors identified will be considered for action during the course of the next year before implementation in August 2025. Carole McKenzie Executive Director (Education Resources) 17 July 2024 81
Page 82
Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes ♦ Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent Previous References Consultation Proposal Document List of Background Papers Executive Committee Report dated 22 November 2023 Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact: - Lynn Sherry, Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) Ext: 5620 (Tel: 01698 455620) E-mail: Lynn.Sherry@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 82
Page 83
Education Resources Consultation outcome report We consulted on the proposal to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. Contents 1 Purpose of the report 2 Background to the consultation 3 Consultation process 4 Request for an extension to the consultation period 5 Consultation responses and analysis 6 Consultation comments 7 Alternative proposals put forward 8 Education Scotland’s report and the council’s Educational Benefit response 9 Appendix 1: Public meetings 10 Appendix 1A Notes from Holy Cross High School group meeting 11 Appendix 1B Notes from Trinity High School pre-arranged group meeting 12 Appendix 2: Equality Impact Assessment form 13 Appendix 3 – Education Scotland report 14 Appendix 4 – Survey comments This document has been issued by South Lanarkshire Council under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. A copy of this consultation outcome report is available in all school establishments, local council buildings, council libraries and via the council website. If you need this information in another language or format, please contact us to discuss how we can best meet your needs. Phone 0303 123 1015 Email: equalities@southlanarkshire.gov.uk Appendix 1 8 83
Page 84
Purpose of the report The purpose of this report is to provide information on the responses received from the statutory consultation exercise undertaken which proposed to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. This includes a report from Education Scotland on the educational aspects of the proposal and Education Resources’ responses to all questions and issues raised during the consultation period. Background to the consultation The legal responsibility within the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is for councils to provide school transport for: • any child aged under 8 years who lives more than 2 miles from their catchment school, and; • any child aged 8 years and over who lives more than 3 miles from their catchment school. South Lanarkshire Council currently provides free mainstream school transport for: • all primary pupils who live more than one mile from their catchment school; and, • all secondary pupils who live more than two miles from their catchment school. This position is more generous than the law requires and more generous than most other councils in Scotland. The proposal is to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. It has been made under a backdrop of financial pressure both across the council as a whole and within the budget of Education Resources. This proposal only relates to the qualifying distance for free mainstream secondary school transport. Other aspects of the policy remain unaltered, for example, any road safety issues would still be assessed by undertaking road safety checks (in accordance with the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines and assuming the child is accompanied by a responsible adult. The provision of mainstream primary school transport and transport to ASN (additional support needs) bases and schools are not affected by this proposal. If approved, the proposal would not come into effect until August 2025. Consultation process Approval was given on 22 November 2023 by the Council’s Executive Committee to undertake a statutory consultation on the proposal to: • alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. The consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. The consultation commenced on 15 January 2024 and notification of the intent to consult was made via the local press and the council’s social media during the week commencing 8 January 84
Page 85
2024. Emails were also sent to statutory consultees to advise of the consultation and of how to access the information on the proposal. A copy of the consultation proposal document was made available in all school establishments, local council buildings, council libraries and via the council website. All mainstream primary and secondary schools were emailed details of the consultation and asked to share via their social media/communication channels. Schools were also asked to ensure pupils were aware of the consultation and how to participate. An online survey form was available for ease of responding, although responses were also received by email. In addition, a frequently asked questions document was produced together with an online form to allow parents to request a safe walking route assessment where they had concerns. The initial closing date was 1 March 2024, section 4 outlines the background of an extension of the closing date to 15 March 2024. Public Meetings The following public meetings were held between 5pm – 8pm as follows: Clydesdale Area: 29 January 2024 Lanark Grammar School Hamilton Area: 30 January 2024 Holy Cross High School Rutherglen/Cambuslang Area: 31 January 2024 Trinity High School East Kilbride Area: 1 February 2024 St Andrew’s and St Bride’s High School Format of the meetings Four public meetings were held, one in each geographical location of South Lanarkshire. Parents and other interested parties were invited to book an individual 30-minute slot to hear of the proposal, ask questions and express concerns, opinions or suggestions. All who requested a time slot were able to be accommodated, the vast majority within their first preferred time slot. On arrival, attendees registered and had the opportunity to view a presentation on the main points of the consultation. They were also given an FAQ document and QR codes to access the online survey response form and to request a safe walking route assessment. Attendees were able to dis- cuss issues with an Education Officer and/or a Roads Engineer, and if additional time was required to discuss issues this was accommodated. The concerns and comments received at the public meetings were on the same general themes as the responses to the online survey. Notes were taken by officers for each discussion to ensure points raised were recorded and these have been summarised in Appendix 1. This format was decided upon following previous public meetings where it was felt that, due to large numbers, the majority of attendees were not able to get the opportunity to make their point or discuss their own circumstance. At two of the public meetings, it was requested that a group meeting was held instead of 1 to 1 sessions. This was arranged as requested and a note of both meetings are included in Appendices 1A and 1B. Following the end of the consultation, the council has considered the feedback received from the online and written responses and oral representations made during the public meetings. Education Scotland was provided with a summary of all relevant written responses received and oral representations made, and the subsequent report produced by them has also been considered by the council. 85
Page 86
Request for an extension to the consultation period During the consultation, it was requested that the closing date should be extended due to some parents expressing concerns about a perceived lack of information/inaccurate walking routes. A number of parents felt they required to have confirmation of the walking distance and the outcome of any safe walking route assessment before they would be able to submit their views on the proposal. There is a significant piece of work required to confirm the new distances from home to school based on the proposed change in eligibility to the qualifying distance of more than 3 miles. A high- level estimation indicates around 2,000 secondary school pupils could be affected. As such, there was never a commitment given to complete this task within the 6-week consultation period. Rather the consultation was around the principle of the change to distance. Education Resources received several hundred requests from parents wishing to know the measured walking route and/or the safe route to be taken where they expressed road safety concerns, and we managed to respond to a significant number of them during the consultation period. Indeed, all those who requested a measured walking route within the consultation period were issued with this prior to the closing date. Requests for a safe walking route assessment have been recorded and the information held. Should the proposal be approved, those requests that were not responded to within the consultation period will be issued to our Roads department for them to assess. In contrast, we received thousands of responses from parents able to consider the principle of altering distance eligibility from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles, despite them not having confirmation of distance measurements and/or an assessment of any road safety concerns raised by them. Table 1: Percentage of responses per week of the consultation As can be seen above, over 40% of the overall responses received were completed within the first week of the consultation period when no further information other than that contained within the proposal document was available. The week following the public meetings, week 4, resulted in 16% of the responses being submitted. Final council social media reminders and a further push by schools to ensure as many stakeholders as possible participated in the consultation resulted in 18% of all responses being made in the last 2 weeks. 86
Page 87
Therefore, the council do not agree there were grounds for a time extension on the basis of inaccurate information or omissions within the proposal document. The proposal being consulted on was asking stakeholders whether they agree or disagree with the principle of altering the qualifying distance for mainstream secondary school transport to more than 3 miles. Furthermore, we also received feedback from some stakeholders who believed pupils were not being appropriately consulted, however 22% of the responses to the consultation were made by pupils (see Chart 2). In addition to the social media messages issued by the council and schools, actions undertaken by schools ranged from regular posts on Google classroom, information in weekly pupil newsletters, information given at school assemblies and discussions within pupil council meetings and PSE class settings. As such, the council disagree there was a lack of engagement with young people. However, the council did listen to feedback from some stakeholders who indicated they would benefit from more time to reflect on the proposal. The council agreed to extend the consultation period by two weeks to ensure as many stakeholders as possible could engage with the process and allow more time for them to consider their response. If approved, the proposal would not come into effect until August 2025, thereby allowing the council time to complete the necessary planning and preparation and advise parents in good time whether their children will receive transport or whether they require to make alternative arrangements. Consultation responses and analysis This section provides an analysis of responses to the statutory consultation proposal document (received by end of the consultation period, 15 March 2024). The main method used to respond to the consultation was by online survey, however some responses were received and recorded via email. In total, the number of responses received was 6,315**. **where respondents have entered multiple responses, comments have been amalgamated into one complete response. The breakdown of responses according to whether they agreed or disagreed to the proposal is contained in Table 2 and Chart 1, with a breakdown by category of respondent in Table 3 and Chart 2 below. Table 2: Total number of responses Responses Number % of responses In favour of the proposal 824 13% Not in favour of the proposal 5,276 84% Undecided 204 3% Field left blank 11 - Total 6,315 100% 87
Page 88
Chart 1: Percentage responses – agreed/disagreed/undecided Table 3: Breakdown of responses by category of respondent Respondent Total responses For Against Undecided Field left blank Parents 3,480 236 3,205 39 Pupils 1,368 453 760 144 11 Member of public/other interested party 965 97 856 12 Community Council 7 1 6 0 Member of staff 43 1 42 0 Parent Council 62 2 58 2 Elected Member 12 2 8 2 Trade Union 12 3 8 1 Other 366 29 333 4 Total 6,315 824 5,276 204 11 13% 84% 3% 0% percentage responses Yes No Undecided left blank 88
Page 89
Chart 2: Number of responses and percentage responses by category of respondent As can be seen in Chart 2 above, the majority of responses were from parents, pupils, and members of the public/community. Over half (55%) of those who responded were parents and over a fifth (22%) were pupils. Chart 3 below shows the breakdown of responses by these 3 groups. It can be seen that 92% of parents responding were not in favour of the proposal with only 8% in favour/undecided. By contrast, it is interesting to note that 33% of pupils supported the proposal, 11% were undecided and 56% were against it. Of the members of the public/community who responded, 89% were against the proposal, broadly in line with the views of the parents. Chart 3: Breakdown by response from parents, pupils, and members of the public 89
Page 90
Chart 4 below outlines the percentage of respondents who identified broad areas of concern with the proposal as requested by the online survey form. These broad areas of concerns were also expanded upon by some respondents with further detailed comments added. These areas of concern will be outlined and considered within section 6 of this report. Chart 4: Areas of concern by percentage Consultation comments There were 2,597 specific written comments added by those responding to the proposal, in addition to the comments received at the public meetings. The full list of all comments received via the online survey is included in Appendix 4, which has been issued as a separate document due to its size. Personal data has been redacted including names and any other information which may identify the respondent or their family. The main issues raised via both written responses and oral representations at the public meetings by those against the proposal are outlined below. Area of concern 1: Safe walking routes 64% of respondents were concerned about establishing a safe walking route to school. Respondents commented that they did not agree with the use of the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines as being appropriate to assess routes as they felt strongly that personal safety should be a factor when assessing routes. Issues raised within specific comments included: • Road safety issues e.g. from volume and speed of traffic, lack of pavements to accident levels • Believe personal safety should be a factor when undertaking a safe walking route assessment: o Walking in the dark via potentially unlit/poorly lit routes 64% 63% 22% 37% percentage of responses After referring to West of Scotland Road Safety Guidance I still have a concern over the availability of safe walking routes for my child/me Lack of alternative transport modes for my child/me Childcare arrangements Impact on local communities around the School 90
Page 91
o Walking through underpasses and areas where anti-social behaviours take place o In particular areas, concern over likelihood of bullying/attacks on pupils – both from adults and also from other pupils, particularly those from rival schools Council response: It was clear from the strength of feeling from respondents that there are genuine concerns about road safety and personal safety within some communities, with some reference to anti-social behaviour and crime within particular areas. As regards safe walking route assessments, the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines are considered to be an appropriate guide for the purposes of assessing walked routes to schools and are congruent to Scottish Government School Transport Guidance 2021. The Scottish Government School Transport Guidance 2021 does not contain any reference to personal safety or detail any specific factors requiring an assessment in these terms. The statement ‘local authorities are further required to have regard to the safety of the pupil’ (paragraph 10) does not relate to personal safety matters during a walked route to school which is further covered within section 2 of the guidance, detailing potential considerations to be made in relation to walked routes to school. These all link to factors on public roads with regard to infrastructure or traffic. The West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines consider such factors as relevant to each route, applicable to both rural and urban settings, across the authority and are based on established and current engineering principles. The absence of lighting does not make a route unsafe in relation to road safety and is therefore not a deciding factor for the provision of school transport on the basis of road safety. Our assessment processes therefore do not record whether lighting is present or not. Other safety factors within the Scottish Government School Transport Guidance 2021 relate to transport provision such as seatbelts, pupil supervision and behaviour whilst on school transport. The Scottish Government document is consistent with the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines with regards to specific personal safety aspects. The West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidance and Scottish Government transport guidelines from 2021 are clear that it remains the responsibility of parents and guardians to get their children to school. Where pupils do not have the required road safety skills to walk unaccompanied, parents may have to accompany them. By parents sharing this responsibility with other parents, including walking in groups, this could reduce the impact on individual families and increase a greater sense of community by fostering relationships within local areas. As regards the reference to anti-social behaviour and crime within particular areas, the majority of secondary school pupils do not receive free school transport with many of them already walking to school through the same communities. A high-level investigation suggested that reported incidents generally take place out with the times pupils are walking to and from school. Community safety issues that can arise tend to be a much wider issue which cannot be resolved via a school transport policy. Across South Lanarkshire, the council works in partnership with Police Scotland and a range of other community safety partners to tackle all forms of criminality and anti-social behaviour, with robust monitoring and reporting processes in place. Concerns raised during the consultation have been shared with relevant partners and discussions on this area will continue if the revised transport proposals come into effect. 91
Page 92
Schools also have a promoting positive behaviour and anti-bullying policy which promotes respectful attitudes and behaviours at all times. Inappropriate behaviours should be reported, and schools can work with the child, parents and other partner agencies within the wider community to consider appropriate actions and resolution. Area of concern 2: Lack of alternative transport mode/3 miles is too far to walk 63% of respondents were concerned about the lack of suitable alternative transport modes. There was a significant number of additional comments provided around the issues of public transport limitations which included: • No service in areas where pupils lived • No direct service to the catchment school therefore requiring more than 1 bus to be taken • Timings of service do not fit with school start and finish times • Capacity of services to cater for an increase in passengers – already can be difficult to access buses as they are full • Impact on ability of members of the public to access buses • The proposal could become more viable if public transport options were available in the right locations at the right times – particularly given the under 22 bus pass scheme allowing pupils to travel for free In addition, the majority of those who are against the proposal felt that 3 miles is too far to walk and adds an unreasonable amount of time on to the school day. 3 miles could take around 1 hour to walk and result in pupils walking to and from school in the dark. Council response: The council wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills asking for the government’s assistance to deal with rising transport costs and to consider if under 22 bus pass funding could be given to the council to help maintain the current level of provision. The response advised that dedicated school transport does not fall within the definition of eligible services as regards the under 22 free bus pass scheme, as school transport is generally not registered as a local bus service or made available to members of the public. (To be registered requires compliance with the Public Services Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR). These regulations require certain buses and coaches to incorporate additional features to enable those with disabilities to travel on them comfortably and safely. The vast majority of the commercial fleet contracted via SPT on behalf of the council is not PSVAR compliant). In addition, the response advised that councils receive funding via the local government block grant to meet statutory obligations on school transport, therefore it would not be possible for the funding from the under 22 free bus pass scheme to be used to supplement the funding already received. By utilising other means of travel, for example public bus services, some of those affected by the proposal could reduce the distance to be walked. However, it is recognised that public transport in some areas is either already busy or timings do not fit in with the times of the school day. Should the proposal be implemented we will continue to consider what else can be done to support families who do not have access to alternative transport and feel 3 miles is too far to walk. This could include: • The council will engage with bus operators to seek any opportunity for them to increase or adjust public bus routes, potentially making under 22 bus passes more accessible. 92
Page 93
• Parent Led Transport - many parents may wish to arrange transport privately for a group of children from their area. Education Resources can provide a list of contractors which can be issued to parents on request. • Improve car sharing opportunities by connecting groups of pupils and parents, for example P7s moving to S1. • Apply for privilege transport, where dedicated school transport vehicles have spare seats. • Consider possible park and stride options so parents can drop children part way and they can walk the rest. • Promote wider active travel, for example, appropriate cycle routes, creation of walking groups with other pupils (may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction). These options will be more fully explored should the decision be taken to proceed with this pro- posal. The council would engage with families who are no longer entitled to transport via a survey to ascertain how their children will travel to and from school, and then work with schools, parents, and pupils to support alternative transport arrangements where possible. The situation will require to be monitored and schools should seek to build in as many positive factors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable, and active travel within their School Travel Plan. Area of concern 3: Impact of local communities around school 37% of respondents identified the impact on local communities around school as a concern. Additional comments provided included congestion and environmental concerns: • Parents will drive children to school increasing congestion around schools • Impact on the local community from increased congestion around schools • Increase in emissions as more cars on the road • Contrary to sustainability agenda • Increase risk of accidents Council response: The council has statutory duties under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 that require that it must, in exercising its functions, act in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of carbon emissions reduction targets, in the way best calculated to help deliver any statutory climate change adaptation programme, and in a way that it considers is most sustainable. A Sustainability Impact Assessment was undertaken by the council. The proposed change in transport policy would reduce carbon output from council activity, however, at this stage the impact of car emissions is unknown as it is recognised that some benefits will only come to fruition if more sustainable or active travel methods are taken up by the wider community. The council must work with schools and families to alter beliefs around options which move towards more sustainable or active forms of travel. The consultation has shown that 33% of young people responding agreed with the proposal. However, despite this, it is acknowledged that some parents may still opt to take their child to school by car which would create traffic congestion. To mitigate this, alternative options that could be considered, and which the council will investigate for each school affected are: • Car Free Zones - pilots could be considered in some schools where this would be appropriate, and community and school support is strong. • This would also include the prevention of engine idling where we may have congestion around schools as well as further promoting air quality initiatives. 93
Page 94
• Park and Stride options – where families could be encouraged to drive only part of the journey with the final section completed by foot. This could increase partnerships within the community by approaching local supermarkets or businesses. • Car Sharing – beyond active travel, parents will be encouraged to car share when transporting their children to school if there are no other suitable alternatives for travel. • Promote and encourage participation of the school community within road safety and active travel themed focus weeks, events, or challenges, aiding towards safer school environments and incentivising the uptake of non-motorised travel. • Additional road safety/active travel education and training delivered by schools to increase road safety skills and the confidence to walk, cycle or use other sustainable travel modes. • Parent Led Transport - many parents may wish to arrange transport privately for a group of children from their area. Education Resources can provide a list of contractors which can be issued to parents on request. • Public Transport –continued promotion of the under 22 free bus travel scheme allowing free access to public bus services, where possible. • Apply for privilege transport, where dedicated school transport vehicles have spare seats. The situation will require to be monitored and schools should seek to build in as many positive factors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable, and active travel within their School Travel Plan. Transport audit visits by health and safety officers will also be taken into consideration which provide further focus for relevant action relating to school grounds and the surrounding environment during school run periods. Area of concern 4: Childcare arrangements and financial impact on parents 22% of respondents were concerned about the impact on existing childcare arrangements. Additional comments indicated concerns that: • As a result of having to get children to school and manage other childcare issues, this would impact on parents’ work and may see them having to adjust or reduce their working hours • This would then have a further impact on the finances of families affected • The biggest impact would be on women, who are often the primary caregiver • Parents with disabilities stated they would find it difficult to accompany their child to school In addition, there were concerns raised over the increase in costs for families in terms of fuel if choosing to drive children to school, train fares and also in terms of additional clothing and footwear. Council response: The council undertook an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) prior to the commencement of the consultation period. This was subsequently updated through the consultation period and will continue to be updated as required should the proposal be approved. The EQIA recognises the potential impact of the proposal on some of those who would be directly affected by any change. The council initially sought to minimise impact by not proposing a change to school transport for primary aged children or children in an additional support needs (ASN) base or school. All factors giving rise to additional support needs fall into the four overlapping themes of the learning environment, family circumstances, disability or health need, and social and emotional factors. To mitigate some of the potential effects of the secondary school transport proposal, the EQIA sets out some of the measures that could be used assist with socio-economic aspects or support for parents with disabilities, such as: • Engagement with bus operators to discuss potential opportunities for routes, accessed via an 94
Page 95
under 22 free bus pass. • Promotion of wider active travel for young people to assist in becoming more independent – e.g. cycle routes, walking groups (which may also improve health and wellbeing and social in- teraction), park and stride, connecting parents who may wish to car share or operate parent led group transport. • Access to privilege transport where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity. The full EQIA has been attached in Appendix 2 of this report. The council already recognises the financial pressures that some families are under. In respect of potential financial impact, the council will continue to promote where appropriate: • The under 22 free bus pass scheme. • Further benefits that are available for eligible parents and families, for example education maintenance allowance, eligible entitlement to free school meals from P6 onwards and footwear and clothing grants. • Access to money matters for financial advice and support. Further information on these benefits and applications can be found on our Benefits and money advice page. Other areas of concern raised Impact on attendance, learning and attainment Parents raised concerns that the extra travelling time added to the school day would produce tired pupils, who may also arrive late. This could have a negative impact on attendance, and the capacity to learn, which would then impact their attainment. In addition, during inclement weather pupils may arrive wet and cold. Council Response: Within this proposal, the Council remains committed to ensuring that our schools provide high quality learning experiences which create a fertile environment for children and young people to flourish. Our school leaders strive for excellence, are empowered to build their school community around the needs of their learners and are encouraged to engage with all stakeholders to understand what makes them unique. 19 other council already operate the provision of school transport for those over 3 miles and have done so for some time. There is no evidence to suggest that this has had any direct impact on learning. As regards attendance, it remains the legal responsibility of parents to ensure their child attends school. Post covid there has been a national focus on improving attendance due to the level of young people experiencing anxiety. The council has an increased number of strategies and supports to help young people re-engage with their education. Attendance recording and tracking also allows school to identify changes in attendance in individual children and therefore take proactive action. Any such changes that may arise due to the proposed change to secondary school transport distance eligibility would be identified in the same manner. The child and adolescent health and well-being evidence review from September 2018 states that physical activity guidelines recommend 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity a day, and that active travel to and from school is one way of meeting this recommendation. The council is aware that, above active travel as part of our daily life, many young people are involved in clubs that see them participate in a huge number of activities and sports involving varying levels of physical commitment towards training and competition. Consideration can be given to potential options for controlled supervised access to allow changing for those who may need it during inclement weather. 95
Page 96
Impact on pupils with additional support needs/disabilities There was concern raised by a small number of parents regarding the ability of young people with additional support needs being able to safely walk to school or access public transport. Council response: The council’s current policy in relation to children receiving transport on the grounds of medical or ASN remains unaffected by this proposal. All children who currently receive transport will continue to do so, and any new cases considered on an individual basis. Discrimination against pupils choosing a denominational education A small number of responses referenced the impact the proposal would have on those who choose a denominational education. Views expressed, including representatives from Catholic based organisations, highlighted concern over an increased impact on pupils attending a denominational school due to them having larger catchment areas. It was suggested that there was a possibility of an unintended consequence that parents would choose to send their child to a non-denominational school nearer to their home thereby leading to falling rolls in the denominational sector. Council response: Larger catchment areas can also mean that more pupils will already be receiving transport. As such, more may already live over 3 miles away therefore would still qualify for transport under this proposal. Children residing in our rural areas who attend denominational schools would be unaffected by the proposal due to the large catchment area and lack of proximity to their catchment denominational school. This is also the case for the towns of Larkhall and Strathaven. Therefore, a high-level analysis on the projected impact across the main urban settlements of Hamilton, East Kilbride and Cambuslang/Rutherglen, based on the number of pupils currently being transported, was undertaken. It has shown that the total overall likely impact is largely the same irrespective of denomination. Alternative proposals put forward A number of respondents put forward suggestions as to what the council could consider to mitigate the effects of the proposal or to minimise the numbers affected by it. Consider subsidised travel/apply charges Council response: The Public Services Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) now require certain buses and coaches to incorporate additional features to enable those with disabilities to travel on them comfortably and safely. In addition, if such a bus or coach does not comply with PSVAR then the Council cannot charge. The vast majority of the commercial fleet contracted via SPT on behalf of the Council is not PSVAR compliant. As such, the council could not offer the option to parents to pay for school transport on a consistent basis across the entirety of South Lanarkshire, which would create practical challenges for families, and a risk that the council was said to be operating in a discriminatory and inconsistent manner. In addition, transport services eligible to charge are any registered local services in terms of section 2 of the Transport Act 1985 or are services normally available to members of the general public. School transport would not fall into this category. Redirect the Under 22 bus pass monies to maintain current level of transport Council response: 96
Page 97
The council does not receive monies from the under 22 free bus travel scheme. This funding comes directly from the Scottish Government to operators and therefore the council is currently unable to alter this provision. After writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills asking for the government’s assistance to deal with rising transport costs and to consider if under 22 bus pass funding could be given to the council to help maintain the current level of provision, the response provided advised that councils receive funding via the local government block grant to meet statutory obligations on school transport, therefore it would not be possible for the funding from the under 22 free bus pass scheme to be used to supplement the funding already received. Ensure there are lockers in schools and adequate changing facilities for example due to inclement weather Council response: The council can work with schools to consider the number of lockers across schools and how they are best allocated to pupils. In terms of changing facilities again, should the proposal go ahead schools could consider potential options for controlled supervised access. Build more local secondary schools thereby having smaller catchments and therefore less pupils impacted - specifically in Cambuslang and Earnock/West Craigs areas of Hamilton/ impact greater due to the merger of secondary schools previously. Council response: Whilst this would mean less pupils would be impacted by the proposal; this is not a cost-effective solution for the council and does not provide best value with regards to the use of the council’s existing school building estate and the significant financial costs for management and other running costs associated with a new secondary school building. Whilst there were other comments that this proposal has had a more significant impact than if the council had not merged a number of schools 20 years ago, we believe decisions taken at that time have benefitted our young people and provided them with modern, fit for purpose schools. Education Scotland’s report and the council’s Educational Benefit response The council sent a copy of the proposal document to Education Scotland in its role as a statutory consultee. After the consultation period ended, Education Scotland was provided with a summary of all relevant written responses received and oral representations made at the public meetings. The council received a copy of Education Scotland’s report in April 2024 (See Appendix 3). The council welcomed the very helpful report and in particular has noted the following summary from the report: “South Lanarkshire Council has identified the need to make financial savings through aligning their secondary school transport arrangements more closely to national guidance. They state that this will continue to protect resources that are prioritised on frontline learning and teaching and maintain provision of other valuable non-statutory services. HM Inspectors agree that the proposal is in line with national guidance and statutory walking distances. However, almost all stakeholders raised notable concerns. These include the capacity of current public transport services and a lack of information on safe walking routes. They are concerned about the impact this may have on families. It will be important for the council to review walking routes and consider any changes in traffic and other factors to ensure safe routes to school. Almost all stakeholders are also concerned about the potential negative impact on attendance at school and on attainment and achievement. HM Inspectors agree that there are potential benefits of adopting more active means of travelling to and from school. However, HM Inspectors do not agree that the council has sufficiently set out the potential educational benefits of this proposal. The council may wish to provide additional information on the impact of not proceeding with the proposal in its final report. HM Inspectors recommend, if the proposal is agreed, that the council should work with stakeholders to mitigate against the range of concerns raised.” 97
Page 98
Council response: (on comments not already covered elsewhere in this report): (a) “It will be important for the council to review walking routes and consider any changes in traffic and other factors to ensure safe routes to school.” The council received several hundred requests from parents wishing to know the measured walking route and/or have a safe walking route assessment undertaken where they expressed concerns. Requests for a safe walking route assessment have been recorded and the information held. Should the proposal be approved, this information will be issued to our Roads department for them to assess and communication made with parents. If approved, the proposal would not come into effect until August 2025, thereby allowing the council time to complete the necessary planning and preparation and advise parents in good time whether their children will receive transport or whether they require to make alternative arrangements. (b) “HM Inspectors do not agree that the council has sufficiently set out the potential educational benefits of this proposal. The council may wish to provide additional information on the impact of not proceeding with the proposal in its final report.” Educational Benefit: The council is committed to supporting all children, young people, and families. Education is one of the council’s main priorities, and over the years focus has remained on supporting children and families and on maximising the use of resources to facilitate learning and teaching. However, with likely savings of £77m over the next three years and £21m currently being implemented for 2024/25, the council has had to reassess service priorities. This significant financial challenge is a serious threat substantiated by other organisations beyond South Lanarkshire Council. In January 2024, the Accounts Commission for Scotland stated that frank discussions are needed with local communities about the future of council services and difficult decisions will need to be made. While councils received more money in total (from the Scottish Government, Council Tax, and other sources) in 2022/23 than in the previous year, councils had less money to spend in real terms and some of the funding is directed towards certain policies. Increasing demand for services, inflation and the cost-of-living crisis means that the financial outlook for councils is extremely challenging. Councils will have to make difficult decisions about cuts to services and how services are delivered. In February 2024, the President of COSLA, Shona Morrison, stated COSLA’s initial analysis shows real terms cut in revenue and capital spending power leaving local authorities services at breaking point, with some having to stop altogether. In addition, due to rising costs, the annual spend on mainstream school transport has grown from £6m in 2021/22 to over £10m in 2023/24, an increase of £4m, 66%, and is projected to increase again to around £11.m in 2024/25. This is also evident through increased costs of additional support needs (ASN) school transport at similar levels. These costs are not sustainable for the service. This overspend is having to be managed within the existing total education annual budget, including through the use of some reserve funds available and the non-filling of posts. However, moving forward, the use of reserve funds will no longer be available as fund balances are now all used, and the main educational benefit of implementing this proposal is therefore to reduce costs and protect resources that are prioritised on frontline learning and teaching, and to maintain some provision of other valuable non-statutory services. If fully implemented it is estimated this proposal could save the council approximately £2m per annum. 98
Page 99
If this proposal is not implemented, then other parts of education will need to be considered for significant service reduction or termination in order to balance the education budget. Offsetting this level of spending would potentially mean cuts to front line education services on top of the agreed savings of £5m being implemented for 2024/25 which include a 50% reduction to school libraries, 25% reduction to school technicians, the removal of summer club provision, together with the significant level of savings also required for the next 3 years. To provide an indication of how serious the impact of a further £2m budget reduction would be within Education Resources, this would equate to a reduction of approximately 100 school support assistants or 30 teaching posts. Other impacts could potentially include a reduction in access to pupil support services such as school counsellors and educational psychologists, speech and language therapy as well as a reduction in the provision of learning resources impacting the ability to offer a stimulating curriculum. This would have a direct impact on the support available for children, young people and families and impact on learning and teaching in schools. It should be noted that the level of prioritisation given to Education Resources relative to the size of budget, around 50% of the total council budget, has afforded protection in respect of the depth of savings taken in previous years. This financial year, 2024/25, Education Resources contributed around only 20% towards the overall level of savings required to balance the council budget. This means that other services across the council have been routinely more impacted by budget savings over an extended number of years. This is not sustainable as we move forward as could mean elements of these services would no longer meet minimum statutory requirements. If Education Resources were to be asked to contribute its full proportionate share towards future savings over the next 3 years, this would equate to around £40m. This could also impact on provision across services such as early learning and childcare, specialist support in schools, Psychological Services and the Youth Family and Community Learning Service. Therefore, proceeding with this proposal would seek to minimise the cumulative level of impact across front services with Education Resources. Whilst the legal responsibility to get children and young people to school where the distance from home is 3 miles or less sits with parents, we recognise this proposal would have an impact on families if implemented. We would therefore ensure that parents are able to work with schools to identify active travel opportunities and to implement travel plans which would look to mitigate the volume of traffic around our schools. In addition, this proposal provides an opportunity to encourage young people to adopt other means of travelling to school such as walking, cycling, and scooting where it is appropriate to do so. The potential benefits include contributing to an active lifestyle with a positive impact on mental focus and mood, and the opportunity to build resilience and independence in our young people including possible increased use of the under 22 free bus travel scheme. (c) “HM Inspectors recommend, if the proposal is agreed, that the council should work with stakeholders to mitigate against the range of concerns raised.” The Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA) for this proposal is shown in Appendix 2, which provides information on the potential impacts on the 7 protected characters, with particular details of potential impacts provided in respect of age, disability, religion and belief, and sex(gender). The EQIA also stated that we considered this proposal under the Fairer Scotland Duty. We have recognised that it will have a socio-economic impact for those with a low income, including women being the primary caregiver, for example by having to balance making alternative travel arrangements with maintaining work commitments or accessing opportunities to increase working hours; and parents with disabilities making it difficult to accompany their child to school if no longer entitled to transport. Some initiatives that will help to mitigate these impacts are also provided in the EQIA including: 99
Page 100
• All secondary school pupils are eligible to access the Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme. • Council will engage with bus operators to seek any potential opportunity for them to increase or adjust public bus routes, making under 22 bus passes more accessible. • Council to promote wider active travel for example. cycle routes, walking groups (may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), park and stride, parent led group transport. • Safe walking route assessment if concerns over road safety raised by parents. • Apply for privilege transport (where dedicated school transport vehicles have spare seats). Priority 1 offering privileged places to support families where adults may have disabilities. Wider access to others thereafter. • Signpost families to support available through other agencies, for example benefit entitle- ment. The provision of mainstream primary school transport and transport to ASN (additional support needs) bases and schools are not affected by this proposal. Physical activity guidelines recommend 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity a day and advises one way of meeting this recommendation is through active travel to and from school. Appendix 1: Public meetings On arrival attendees registered and a presentation of the main points of the proposal was available to view. Copies of the proposal document, West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines, FAQ’s, QR codes and response forms were available in paper copy for those who wanted them. Attendees were then taken to an officer to discuss the proposal. Attendees were given the opportunity to speak with other officers if their questions required a more detailed answer. The slots were set up as 30-minute appointments, however, attendees who required longer than this were given the time they needed. Time spent with officers ranged from 10/15 minutes to over 2 hours ensuring that everyone had the chance to ask questions and give their views. Attendees who preferred to have a group appointment were also given the opportunity to do this. Venue Date Number of attendees Number who did not attend Lanark Grammar School Monday 29 January 8 0 Holy Cross High School Tuesday 30 January 120 10 Trinity High School Wednesday 31 January 54 in time slots Approx. 30- 35 booked into a group meeting 6 St Andrew’s and St Bride’s High School Thursday 1 February 36 10 Discussions have been collated and listed by individual schools in order to ascertain local areas of particular concern as well as general comments around the proposal. 100
Page 101
Lanark Grammar - 29 January 2024 Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Lesmahagow and Milton across road from each other – already congestion around school School travel plan for schools needs to be updated to consider the issues 1 Lanark – bus only 3 minutes after school finish time – will the bus service times be changed? SLC do not run the service buses but could engage with contractors to advise of commercial opportunity should the proposal be approved. 1 Blackwood – Lesmahagow Truck stop is very rural – no lights No street lights Fatality on the road Childcare/shift patterns an issue 1 Blackwood/Kirkmuirhill to Lesmahagow Should both areas qualify as have to walk the same route? B7078 is a dangerous route 1 Bus operators previously would not change times to match in with school day 1 Alternative proposal – where there is no viable public transport – continue to provide transport 1 Kirkfieldbank village - Gradient of Kirkfieldbank not accounted for within West of Scotland guidelines. 1 Disjoint between parents understanding of road safety and the guidelines and also between the guidelines and reality 1 Holy Cross High School - Tuesday 30 January 2024 In addition to individual time slots a group of parents requested on the night that they would prefer to speak as a group. This was accommodated and a note of this discussion is in Appendix 1A. Calderside Academy Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Safety of underpass A large number of attendees commented that they did not think that the underpass that would form part of the walking route to Calderside is safe. Comments were made about drugs/drink/needles/broken glass being present in the underpass and that locally it is referred to as “junkie tunnel” Information was given that some pupils avoid the underpass altogether and cross at the roundabout where there is no crossing at all. 55 Industrial Estate – safety Concerns over safety for pupils walking through industrial estates 18 Volume of traffic 4 Time taken to walk. 60mins + 14 Catchment issue – not parents fault the catchment school is so far/should have 11 101
Page 102
Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue local school 2 schools are closer but not in the catchment Could pupils change schools, for example placing requests? 4 Would pupils on free school meals be entitled to transport still? Could this be considered 1 Closure of Earnock – promise made that transport would be provided Money was used to fund buses – what happened to the funds? 21 Lockers – access to changing/storage of wet clothes 11 Consideration to alter to 2.5 miles 1 Personal safety needs to be taken into account 13 Attendance will be affected/barrier to attending 15 Under 22 – will contractors out on buses? 1 Long day will impact on learning 9 West of Scotland Road Safety guidelines – should not require parents to accompany children to school, parents would need to walk 12 miles per day 1 Lack of public bus service – would require 2 buses, 1 mile walk to nearest bus stop 46 Increase in congestion/impact on environment 29 Hillhouse road unsafe 4 Ensure pupils are asked their opinion 2 Give parents the option to pay for bus/subsidised travel 11 Consider a different model – free for S1-3, surcharge for S4-6, consult on the amount 1 Consider the age of the pupils in assessments 1 Clarity on how routes are calculated Officers confirmed that unsafe routes are not used to calculate distance 1 Concern that children arrive at school cold and wet 9 Working parents cannot afford the time to accompany children 6 Disabled parents unable to walk their child to school 1 Part of route passes building where community payback teams congregate – concern over safety of this 1 Childrens safety should come before savings 2 Other services would be better to be removed rather than this one/what else is being considered instead of transport 1 Commitment to review walking routes. If found to be unsafe then transport would be provided 1 Change in policy during a cost of living crisis should not happen 8 Attainment will be affected – child exhausted, already behind due to covid 9 Route previously assessed as unsafe so what has changed? 1 Walking route would take past another school, issues between schools previously 14 How much would it cost to reintroduce school crossing patrollers/change school times as this would need to be considered to keep safe 1 Problems for disadvantage children to have proper clothing and footwear 2 Black school uniform causing issues 5 Scottish Government guidelines 2021 – 1.1 – duty on local authority 1 Parent group bus – who would carry responsibility 2 Extra-curricular activities impacted 5 Impact when trying to get children in different schools there on time 5 Concern over children with autisms ability to cope with a walk to school Could there be dispensation for pupils with autism? 2 Pupils with medical needs/anxiety may struggle to complete the length of walk 2 102
Page 103
Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue required Concern for vulnerable pupils who may not attend – social work or child protection pupils 1 Remove the denominational element and then pupils attend nearest geographical school 1 Larkhall Academy Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Public transport unreliable 1 Have to walk along 50mph road where cars regularly speed 1 103
Page 104
St John Ogilvie High Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Dangerous underpass Intimated by officers that whilst road safety is the only consideration for walking route assessments where there is a real concern/danger then an additional mechanism may allow for personal safety to be considered whilst reiterating police. 1 Increased congestion 1 Increased traffic volume 1 Hillhouse Road unsafe 1 Long day will impact on learning 1 Public transport timings don’t fit school day 1 Buses will still drive past street for those living further out 1 Have to walk along 50mph road where cars regularly speed 1 Concern over behaviour when large groups of pupils waiting on public buses 1 Removal of transport putting additional stress and pressure on parents/home life 1 Holy Cross High Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue More traffic congestion 3 Working parents cannot afford the time to accompany children 1 Personal safety needs to be taken into account 3 Concern over children with autisms ability to cope with a walk to school Could there be dispensation for pupils with autism? 1 Walking route would take past another school, issues between schools previously 1 Barrier to attending school 1 Black school uniform causing issues 1 Cost of living – financial pressures 1 Contradictory to 20-minute neighbourhoods 1 Could transport incur a charge for parents instead? 1 104
Page 105
Trinity High School - 31 January 2024 In addition to the format of individual slots, a group of parents requested a group meeting with officers instead. A note was taken of this group meeting, and this can be seen in Appendix 1B. Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue General issues Consider environmental impact - Increased emissions - Increase in traffic 1 What consideration has been given to getting to carbon neutral -How does this link to the Environmental Improvement plan 1 Greenlees Road – hill – too long to cope with twice a day 1 Concerns with underpass Greenlees Road - Pupils won’t use the underpass 2 increase the volume of traffic/congestion 9 Public transport – 5-20 min walk to get to bus stop, then need to change buses is there capacity for all the additional pupils if full of school pupils this is unfair on the general public insufficient infrastructure unreliable and doesn’t fit into school times 10 Concern over the mixing of 3 schools on public transport/ in streets 2 Denominational schools have larger catchment so bigger impact Nearest school to home is Cathkin but Trinity chosen as a faith school – now feeling penalised for that choice. 2 Impact on extra-curricular activities 4 Length of time walk to school would take 7 Inclement weather – impact on ability to learn 3 No additional family support to aid with the journey to school – working parents 2 Cost of school day Additional costs associated with walking – wear and tear on shoes, changes of clothing Poverty gap will widen 2 Length of school day – affect attainment/study time 5 New Housing development – too many houses and far from existing schools 1 Consider parents paying for transport 3 Westburn road – concerns over non-continuous footway, have to cross same road multiple times 1 Impact on attendance 5 Impact on ASN pupils in mainstream education 2 Insufficient lockers 1 Could earlier drops at school be facilitated for working parents? 1 Impact on mental health 1 Impact on learning 1 Would council consider buying own buses? 1 What is the legal position if parent does not accompany the child on walk 1 105
Page 106
Cathkin High Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Weather conditions – pupils wet and cold and not wanting to learn 2 - Impact on attainment 3 Equality impact assessment (EIA) - Discrimination as the responsible adult is likely to be female EIA should have accounted for gender 2 United nations charter for children – the right to be consulted – when is this happening 1 Girfec not being fulfilled 3 Budgets considered not children 1 public transport insufficient infrastructure capacity no public transport option under 22 bus pass is pointless when there is not a service available ask SPT to increase capacity/change routes 11 Poorest people will be impacted – replacing shoes , no money for public transport 1 Amount of traffic will increase 5 Mainstream children with autism – how would they deal with coming to school 1 Will an assessment be done with the child walking a route to school 1 Roads issues Volume of traffic already in the area – a road count had been conducted with 1333 vehicles counted in 1 hour period and roads incidents witnessed Concern over junction of Howieshill Road/Hamilton Road Greenlees Road – concern over speed/volume of traffic Hamilton Road – high volumes of traffic Vicarland Road – only path at one side – not suitable for larger groups 8 Paths not gritted 1 Street lighting inadequate 1 Unfair policy for ASN pupils within mainstream education 2 Increase in volume of traffic Emissions Increase risk of accidents 2 Lack of lockers at Cathkin 1 Length of time to walk 3 miles too far – consider 2.5 miles 6 Concern over different schools mixing/potential for fighting 1 Concern about effect on mental health 2 Personal safety should be considered 5 What other saving options have been considered 1 Council should have known Drumsagard would be an issue 1 Cathkin breakfast club- concern about asking child to walk long distance to attend this 1 Must ensure that pupils voices are heard 1 Impact on attendance 4 Should consider removing free under 22 travel and use money to retain school transport 1 Impact on extra curricular activities 1 106
Page 107
Uddingston Grammar Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Concerns over safety – Westburn Road and Blantyre Farm Road 2 Impact on extra curricular activities 1 Length of time to walk 1 Concerns over Howieshill Road/Hamilton Road junction 1 Lack of public transport 1 St Andrews and St Brides High School - 1 February 2024 Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Public transport concerns Capacity Availability No direct service 16 Impact on attendance 5 Road Safety – volume of traffic increase 6 Paths are unsafe Path goes through woods 4 underpasses Inadequate lighting 11 Lessons learned from other councils that have implemented this 2 Is subsidised school bus travel an option 5 Impact on capacity to learn/study 4 Personal safety should be considered 6 Impact on extra curricular activities 4 Length of time to walk distance 7 When schools were merged advised transport would be provided 2 Not realistic for those playing instruments to carry that distance to school 2 Redirect under 22 money to school transport 1 Impact on environment – 1 bus =50 cars/congestion 6 Consider change to S4-6 pupils but S1-3 still to get bus 2 Will not help with promoting health 1 Insufficient facilities in schools for changing from wet clothes 2 Calderglen Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Public transport What scope is there for improving No direct bus service Bus times don’t fit in with school start and finish times 4 Personal safety should be considered 2 Length of time to walk distance 1 107
Page 108
Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Route safety concerns Underpasses Lack of lighting 3 Closure of schools in EK – promised they would get transport 1 Increase in volume of traffic 1 Consider the use of shuttle buses – not school specific and with designated stop for pick up (not multiple pick ups) 1 Inclement weather – pupils sitting all day in wet things 1 Duncanrig Secondary Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Personal safety should be considered 2 Concerns over walking route Underpasses Lack of lighting Wooded areas 8 Public transport – no direct buses 4 Length of time to walk distance 2 Is subsidised school bus travel an option 2 Impact on length of the school day 1 Concern over children’s mental health 1 Impact on attendance 1 St John Ogilvie Issues raised Number of attendees that raised issue Public transport No direct bus 1 Concerns over walking route Underpass 1 Concern over different schools all meeting 1 Impact on the length of the school day 1 Will wardens be used to control traffic around schools 1 108
Page 109
Appendix 1A Notes from Holy Cross High School group meeting 30 January 2024. David Hinshelwood with West Craig parental group. During the meeting a number of parents approached to request their preference was to have a group meeting to discuss matters. DH – Introduced himself, advised that this consultation is more 1-1 basis unless a preferred group setting as when this happened in 2015, a survey was completed that only 10% of parents and the public got to ask questions. This time around all parents can raise their concerns, staff will be taking notes, concerns recorded, and a report created from all the responses we receive. All responses will also be filled online. DH- Confirmed we have 3 road safety officers with us today, which can guide parents to specific walking routes and discuss some factors which are considered whilst planning and deciding which walking routes are deemed safe. Parent – Are the safe walking routes completed during school times? As our pupils would need to leave the house for before 7.30am for this to work. DH – The road officers walk all routes during school core times to ensure the volume of traffic, timing to school, and other factors are as accurate as possible. Parent – Why is this happening now, is the whole of SLC affected? DH – This issue is council wide, and all areas are affected. Parent – The issue we also have is that in our estate, West Craig’s – two neighbours who live next to each other could mean, one pupil is entitled and out with the mile measurement, and the next- door pupil must walk to school, this is unfair, we are all in one neighbourhood, is this a correct calculation of the route? DH- Unfortunately, the 3-mile mark must be cut off somewhere, the routes are measured from the house pathway, or drive and to the school gates. This is the distance measured when working out which pupils are out with the mile mark. Parent – How is this measured? DH – Within the council we have a GIS system which accurately calculates the distance, we upload the pupils’ address, and this works out the route and miles. This also ensures all addresses are calculated level with each other, if one system is used single handily, this ensures all calculations are equal and not showing different miles on google maps for example. If you believe a route is unsafe, we have a form regarding road safety concerns which will be looked into and considered. Parent - West craigs is an unsafe walking area, there are loads of underpass floods in winter, parks to walk through and vulnerable kids which you feel is safe for them. What personal safety measures are you ensuring? DH – all routes are calculated and if deemed safe assessments are carried out believing that the pupils are accompanied by a responsible adult, this doesn’t have to be the parents. Parent – Parents cannot accommodate this; we work and have full time jobs. Parent – Who decided this? Parent – Will we be given benefits if we are to stop working to accommodate the council’s proposal and walk our children? DH – This currently doesn’t happen to the pupils which are walking the current cut off miles to their school, we are the most generous council when it comes to the distance and receiving transport. Parent – So we should give up our job’s to walk children to school? DH- There is a factor considered of parental responsibility. Parent – Parents stop working and SLC will then give out more money to stay at home, as everyone will claim benefits. Unsafe for children to walk alone and we cannot walk with them. Parent – What about personal safety, you must look at this as per Scottish Government Guidelines Parent – Vulnerable kids require transport. UK law requires personal safety to be considered. DH - We consider however cannot base our decision on this alone. Parent – Even if they walk, there are no lockers for kids and wet jackets. DH – This is why in this discussion, we note your concerns and then consult with the schools and ask they work with us, there are currently pupils walking two miles which will also have these issues. We can look into ways of helping if this was to go ahead. Parent – who answers our questions? 109
Page 110
DH – We record the questions; we will look for the information. Public consultation happens now, we take notes, point of view given from parents– are you happy with 1-1 consultations as personal question are given by parents? Parent - The length of time out of house is a massive concern, West Craigs has no public transport, 2 hour walks every day, kids come home, homework, exercise, socialise – 12 hours a week, they will be exhausted. They need to be awake by 6am to then walk over an hour one way, this will ruin their education. Never mind, more shoes, waterproofs and the costing factor of this, parents will not be able to afford it. Parent- Did your kids walk 6 miles per day. Would you personally walk this route? Parent –Reaction time for 1 second thinking time, from the guidelines to cross a road. Who came up with this? Parent – Children who went to Little Earnock and Blantyre, were meant to have transport provided. DH – There was nothing legally promised that transport would always be provided for pupils of Earnock. Catchment under 2 miles and made their own way. DH - I have walked this route personally. Parent – What do us parents do? DH – Consultation currently undergoing, 4 public events this week, 1st March – fill out consultation form report provided before then, education propose and comments back to us, individual responses will receive answers to their questions. Report is then published for the pubic to view. All answered questions what committee it goes to approval, Officers are gathering information and taking concerns on board. Parent - Black uniform, cannot see kids, accidents will happen especially in dark winter mornings when all the pupils have on is a black jacket. Parent – When are the buses to be cancelled? Parent – Public transport is a massive issue 2 buses crammed onto the public bus we don’t have. Parent –Massive issue, public transport. DH – currently 200 families affected and making their own arrangements. Parent – Concerns for education- poorly active pupils during the day. Parent – My child has chronic asthma and cannot walk, health and wellbeing or to stop working to provide care for him? DH – There is a medical element for mainstream transport. Parent – I applied for medical transport – got refused. Parent – I also have a blue badge and cannot walk my child. DH – possible alternatives – public buses, parents arrange alternative transport, share cars, park and stride, drop off closer. Parents – These costs for more parents stop working? We will stop paying taxes. DH – 6 million pounds, now 10 million pound is the spend for mainstream. Parent – take school meals away then, there are other services you can stop to keep on top of your budget, child safety should not be one of them. DH – Scottish Government control what we must spend for budgets, we also have hard choices on how to spend money. Parent – Children’s welfare should not be negotiable; I have input this on the online forum All Parents – congestion is a main issue. LS- introduces lady from Education Scotland and confirms notes are being taken regarding main concerns raised. Parent – how do maps show 55 minutes for 11-year-old to walk, is deemed safe? DH – Pupils are not forced to walk, talk to your neighbourhood, is there a possibility to car share, park and stride? You will know what will suit your lifestyle the most. Parent – Snow concerns, 2 hours to walk home all uphill – global warming. Parent – crossing patrollers, past technology park- we require this. DH – We would refer to our road officers to determine if they would be suitable and where we could implement them for the crossings. Parent – The routes deemed safe are not, we require crossing patrollers – kids walking is not enough to be deemed as safe. DH –Roads safety assessment takes factors into consideration such as width of pavement, traffic, how busy this is, pedestrian crossings, safe vision of the road? Parent – No answers for parents, we have so many questions 110
Page 111
Parent – Pupils must leave the house at 7am to get to school, too early to leave in the morning. One kid can walk a different speed. Google maps – 55 minutes Parent – Parents who don’t have cars are in a very unfortunate position. Pupils will stop attending school, low attendance rates which you will then blame the parents for. DH – Pupil projections, no plans for new high schools. No funding for new schools. Parent- Housing told us we would have more schools. Parent – Who overturned this decision in 2015? DH – A decision was made not to go ahead; the Committee decided it was not a proposal to go ahead with. Fill in the forms, give your opinions. Parent – Some child will get knocked down Parent - £15 a day there and back, on taxis- it is too expensive. Parent – Who made the decision? DH – Look at the minutes of committee minutes. LS – 22/11/15 recorded on South Lanarkshire notes, YouTube has the minutes. decision made to drop the primary consultation also as this was originally considered however not deemed safe. Parent – This will affect people going to work on public transport, crammed with pupils and no safety on public buses. Parent – The eligible kids bus in the street will go up and pass all the kids which are not eligible and must walk, how does this make sense. DH – This is the case currently, there is a cut off for the current arrangements on qualifying distance, privilege places are also available however not guaranteed. Parent – Child accidents, knocked down, taxi not affordable, parents cannot work, cannot walk them 3 miles is too far, no boundaries, horrific routes, unsafe. DH – Point of consultation, receive views online. Any unsafe deemed walking route would get a bus. West of Scotland link online to show safe walking routes. Road Officers will re-access all walking routes look and volume of traffic. Implementation date August 2025 to make parents aware. Parent – Winter assessment required. DH – Road assessment not weather, lighting isn’t considered in the assessment, road safety professionals undertake the assessment. Parent – Can I move my child to St John’s? DH – This would have to be via a placing request, not in the catchment, although an unpopular opinion, this is parental responsibility to make arrangements for personal safety. Parent – We will stop working and claim benefits. DH – Different options suit different parents, arrangements and other alternatives must be considered to suit each family affected. Parent – No streetlights, too busy roads- so unsafe. Parent – Undesirable adults commute to the building the pupils will need to walk by for community service – Commute where kids would be walking by this is very dangerous. Parent – My child cannot walk there. Parent – The council don’t care, claim benefits, and walk your kids to school. Accidents will happen, kids will get robbed, or worse. DH – Please fill out the consultation form and any personal circumstances, what this means to your family. We have been asked to promote the under 22 bus scheme – use this pass for free on all public buses. This will help financially and locally; this is a government led decision. Online forum. Follow our processes to give your opinion. 111
Page 112
Appendix 1B Notes from Trinity High School pre-arranged group meeting 31 January 2024 with representation from Cathkin High Community Group. Prior to the public meeting held at Trinity High School on Wednesday 31 January, a number of parents had approached us to say they would like to discuss matters as a group, and this was facilitated. In attendance was the Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate), the Support Services Manager and the Manager from Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services. Concerns were noted, along with the concerns of other parents that attended that evening. Meeting with Cathkin High Community Group Wednesday 31 January 2024 Summary of meeting Lynn Sherry thanked everyone for attending and introductions were made. – David Hinshelwood, Support Services Manager and Stuart Laird, Roads, and Transport Manager. Lynn advised that as part of the consultation on the change of policy, notes would be taken to record issues and concerns raised at the meeting. LS advised that the consultation process will close on 1 March 2024. The information will then be collated and included in a report to Education Scotland. LS then opened the meeting to the attendees. The first question to the panel by a parent was how many people in attendance from SLC walk to work? LS advised that she lives 15 miles away – parent responded that this was Lynn’s choice. Parent commented that their home address was zoned to Cathkin High School, and this is too far away and that there is no direct bus route. The walking route involves the children walking up two very steep hills. Calderside Academy is closer. Parents stated that this issue was previously consulted on, and nothing has changed. If there was a local school, then less people would need to travel. New houses are being built increasing pupil numbers and congestion in the area. Why not build a new High School? Parents discussed the four primary schools in the area and the need for an extension and rezoning of the catchment area for Newton Farm Primary School due to the increasing school roll. Parents also raised concerns that they moved to the area as they were told that transport would be included, as there were no local schools nearby, parents confirmed this was the reason most of them chose to live in that specific area and we are now removing this from them. LS stated she accepts that the local community feels strongly about not having a High school in their area but advised the first port of call is to use the assets we have. When planning a new school consideration is given to current and future pupil numbers, the cost to build a new secondary school would be 40 million pounds. Parent then commented that it was SLC decision not to provide a secondary school and that SLC should put in services for people in the estate. Parent asked – Why now? Parents views remain the same, Council have money to save but are putting our kids at risk. LS explained about the financial pressures and Education’s Statutory responsibility to provide school transport. Lynn also advised that discussion took place about reducing primary school transport and confirmed a decision not to consult on changing transport for primary. LS also confirmed that we were more generous in terms of statutory provision for transport, and that 19 other local councils have went ahead with the 3-mile proposal which is the statutory for secondary aged children. Parent commented that in 2015 the decision was not to proceed. 95% of those who responded stated it was a terrible idea and this was accepted by the executive committee. Parent advised the survey responses in 2015 were not considered and asked if the current surveys are going to be considered or is this simply an exercise and the change is going ahead. The parent then asked is there a threshold for this proposal to be removed and asked what the process and how many elected members opinions count for this threshold. Parent also asked what a safe walking route is and can you give us an example. 112
Page 113
LS advised the financial situation is worse than a number of years ago and that all the information gathered throughout this process would be collated, considered, and reported to Councillors who would then make the decision. Lynn asked if 3 miles is too far and advised the feedback, she is receiving from other parents is that 3 miles is unrealistic. Lynn asked if 2.5 miles would be realistic and is there a compromise? Most of the parents indicated that reducing the proposal to 2.5 miles would take them out of the equation, and they would still receive free transport. 1 parent stated that each parent was attending the meeting for their own child, and that they would agree to a different change which they believed would limit their personal risks. A suggestion was made that some parents may be willing to pay towards school transport and that the transport could be subsidised. The transport perhaps could be means tested for children who receive free school meals, so they do not pay. Parent directed attendees to the wording on the presentation regarding a safe walking route and expressed concerns that personal safety is not taken into consideration and that all assessments are carried out assuming the child is accompanied by an adult. Parents advise that they work, and it is unrealistic to stop working and it would be difficult for employers to support the change in working hours to accommodate the drop off and pick up at school. A reduction in working hours would have financial implications. Parents in the area work and contribute to Council Tax which pays for services. LS advised that the responsible adult does not need to be a parent. Parent stated that it would take 6 hours a day to walk your child to and from school and that representatives at the meeting would not walk the route. Parents reiterated that personal safety should be part of the assessment. Parent advised that pupils at Cathkin High School have 2 long days and if you included the walking time this would equate to the children being out of the house for 9 hours which is longer than a working day. Is it acceptable for a child to be out the house for 9 hours often carrying additional items like PE kits and musical instruments in all weathers. Parents informed the meeting that the safe walking routes emailed today were wrong and not quality checked. Parents will be raising a formal complaint. For this to be a viable consultation this information should have been accurate. The written instruction did not match the indicated route. Parents also expressed concern about the links on the Council Website not working. An officer acknowledged the mistake with the walking routes and apologised for the error. LS confirmed that the information from the previous consultation in 2015 had been taken down however the link still existed. Education Resources were not being deceptive or malicious. DH advised that information can be accessed by going onto SLC website and following the file where you can see examples of safe walking routes. David advised that the consultation is about changing miles and not consulting on safe walking routes, and the generic examples were given to parents to allow them to identify pinch points. There is an online form which allows parents to record their concerns. Parents asked why representatives from SLC were not prepared for the meeting and informed the meeting not one address on the website was for the Drumsagard area. Parents also stated that when you access the online form on the website you need to agree to the road safety guidelines. LS confirmed the form has now been updated and the agreement relating to the privacy notice on using personal data. Parent asked if the views of young people are being considered and is concerned that the language used in the consultation document is not suitable for them. Parent asked what platforms are being used to consult with the young people and refers to UNCRC articles 12 and 13. Parent informed the meeting that there are sex offenders and a rehabilitation centre in the area– the parent asked how is this safe for young people and stated GIRFEC is not being supported, the documents are not child friendly, and pupils are not being given a chance to express themselves. LS advised that information is shared on social media, and that discussions have taken place with Head Teachers to get a sense of the concerns. Staff have been talking about this at school assemblies. Pupil Councils in some primary schools have also been involved. Schools are discussing and consulting with pupils and collating the response. A pupil in attendance stated he did not feel it is a safe route and stated you will see people you wouldn’t be safe walking beside them. LS acknowledged the concerns. 113
Page 114
Parent enquired if discussions had taken place with the Community Police Officer regarding local issues including the Eva Burrows Centre and the number of times police are in attendance. LS agreed to take this as an action- post meeting- education attending the community planning partnership board meeting 13th of March. Parent asked about children with Additional Support Needs who attend a mainstream school but do not qualify for ASN Transport. Pupils currently benefit from school transport but now could be asked to walk to school - is this acceptable with their difficulties? The children are not being protected. Parent also states walking to school would have implications for children who attend school on a reduced timetable. Parent commented that parents will be looking to home school their children. LS advised parents that we do have an ASN policy. LS also agreed to return to schools to see what information they gathered from pupils and what feedback was received when they were asking them their views. LS confirmed this would be considered for the report. Action- post meeting schools requested to encourage pupil views, QR codes were issues to secondary schools for ease of young pupils to respond to the online survey. Pupil in attendance informed the meeting that some pupils live five minutes from the school and even they are worried about walking to school. Parents are concerned about their children’s mental health and social anxiety and asked if other areas of the budget have been looked at. Parent also asked why transport sits under Education Resources. Parent requested that transport be protected, and that Education Resources look elsewhere for the saving. Parent concerned that personal safety is not considered. Parent advised that a parent walking with their child to school will not mean it is safe. LS acknowledged the community safety issues and informed attendees that approximately 16,000 pupils are under the 2-mile threshold and are currently getting to school without school transport. Parent stated less time walking reduces the risk of personal safety concerns. Parent asked why a new high school was not built on the old Cairns Primary site as this has now been sold for housing. Parents purchased their homes knowing there was no high school in the area but on the premise of qualifying for transport. Councillors also backed the decision at the time on the provision that transport be provided. Parents expressed concern about the congestion on the walking route as it passes 2 primary schools. Parents also concerned about bullying issues and rivalry between pupils at the 3 local secondary schools in the area. The parents informed the meeting that the schools currently operate different lunch breaks and staff with walkie talkies escort some pupils to the shops at lunch time. Police are called to deal with incidents. All schools have Campus Police and there are videos on social media showing the incidents. (note takers struggled to hear due to too many parents talking at once) Pupil in attendance asked LS if she would let her own child walk the route. LS confirmed she was not aware of the specific route but advised the Roads Officer will discuss the safe routes in your area. Parent offered to show LS the route on her phone which shows an area with no lights through a park and asked would LS walk this route as a lone woman? LS stated she understood the concerns and that we would note these for the purpose of the consultation. Parent asked would it take a murder or molestation of a child, before the council was to apologise, understand the concerns or go back on their decision and change the miles of walking back to the original miles. Parent stated that the weather would have an impact on attendance and referred to the recent weather when the pavements were covered in ice and people struggled to walk. Reference was also made to the recent heavy rain and that the children would be soaked attending school, therefore walking around in wet and heavy uniforms, sitting cold during class time and also the cost of the additional clothes or shoes which may put a financial burden on some parents. Parent stated the walking route should be via main roads and not parks. Parent stated that 16,000 pupils are already making their own way to school and Education Resources are now adding more pupils to this. There has been no consultation with the bus companies to provide/improve public transport – however this is not going to happen. This will see 114
Page 115
an increase of 200/300 cars on the roads causing congestion and sustainability issues. In 2015 a car click count was carried out and 1100 cars were counted on the safe walking route. Your document refers to 240 cars as being the criteria. A further car count is being arranged. LS introduced SL- Road’s engineer. SL advised the meeting that the guidance that attendees will have seen or are aware of was pulled together by SLC and other local authorities. It is purely for road safety and not personal safety. SL appreciated that there are wider safety concerns. SL explained the assessment process in detail referring to the flow chart within the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum Guidance, which included examples such as, the width of the pavements used for the safe route, the visibility for both the pedestrian and driver of the vehicles on the road, and also the congestion or number of cars driving by to limit any road safety concerns. Parent expressed concern that on the walking route provided some of the pavements narrow. In particular the left-hand side pavement narrows on Howieshill Road, and cars need to come out slightly further at this junction to see due to the brick wall at the railway station. This is not safe for the children. LS asked parents if they could allow LS to finish his answer before asking further questions. Parents asked if the new crossings installed at Brownside Road/Greenlees Road and Vicars Walk are there as a result of the proposal to change school transport. SL advised the crossings were paid for by developers. Parent disagreed with this comment. Parent asked why the pedestrian crossing was not used in the walking route as this would be safer and suggested it was not used as it was 300/400 yards further up the road which would take the route over 3 miles. SL advised the existing walking route and crossing point is deemed safe. However, the point of the consultation is to raise concerns and these concerns will be reassessed. Things do and can change, because a route was deemed safe once doesn’t mean it is still safe. The routes have been collated over a number of years. SL confirmed there is an additional form on the website where you can request the safe walking assessment. Parent asked for clarification on the measuring process as some of the routes have very small margins. DH advised the measure starts at the end of the child’s driveway or path and is measured to the nearest active school gate. The implementation date would be August 2025 and part of the process is for road engineers to look at the routes. Some parents currently have generic walking routes. Parents were advised they can request a route from their home address. (Numerous parents interjecting at the same time) Parent stated that children are advised to always go to a proper crossing point – why did the route not do this? This is contrary to what children are taught. Parent asked the panel when the safe walking route was walked. DH advised that a generic route had been provided. Parent asked if due diligence had been taken and stated if you walk this route using the crossing it takes the route over 3 miles. DH stated that we are asking parents for their concerns so they can consult on the route and reiterated that the consultation was about the change to distance and not safe walking routes. Parents complained to the panel that they had received the wrong walking routes – One was for the wrong school, and others do not have an exact distance. Lack of correct information goes against transparency. Parent also asked why the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum Guidance is different to the Scottish Government guidance which was updated in 2021. Scottish Government guidance says wooded areas and streetlights are issues, but West of Scotland Road Safety Forum Guidance doesn’t. SL asked the group if their view was that the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum Guidance needed to be updated? Parent asked how to complain – the authority is not prepared, routes not provided. DH informed the attendees that the proposal could impact on 2500 pupils and to do measure those routes is a huge undertaking. Parents are the eyes and ears of the community and know the routes. Going forward routes will be generated, and feedback noted. Parent who resides in Newton Farm has not received a copy of the walking route. Parent asked do we have an opportunity to come back – what is the process? LS advised that once the consultation period is over all views and responses will be collated and summarised into a 115
Page 116
report. Lynn encouraged everyone to complete the survey. The report will be published 3 weeks before it is considered by elected members. Parent advised lockers are not getting used in Cathkin High School and asked how pupil store wet clothes? Parent also expressed concern that not all mitigating factors are considered. Some families will not be able to afford a change of clothes. LS advised that similar issues came up in 2015 and discussion took place about purchasing lockers and identifying areas for pupils to change. Education is looking to assist with issues and will try to mitigate as much as possible but not saying we can eradicate all issues. LS confirmed that this was the reason we were asking parents to engage in our consultation, that if the proposal was to go ahead, we had an idea of what potential changes we could put in place to alleviate some of the issues which the parents believe the pupils would face, such as the use of lockers, additional space for wet clothes and so on. (Numerous parents interjecting at the same time) Parent asked how to provide feedback once the report has been published – and expressed concerns that parents had not been provided with all the information for this consultation. – How do we say we don’t agree with the publication? LS advised we would need to consider if this would become a 2nd or 3rd consultation. RH, Education Scotland introduced himself and advised parents that once the consultation ends the Council will gather the information and this is sent to Inspectors at Education Scotland. The Inspectors then have 3 weeks to carry out their work including visiting school and those who may be impacted. Education Scotland will then prepare an impartial report for the Council to consider. Education Scotland will publish the report on their website. Representatives from Education Scotland will not walk the route but will explore the routes where concerns are being raised. Parents invited panel members to walk the route on 10 February at 1pm, advising the walk will take approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes. SL stated he was happy to walk the route with a small group. (parent to link with SL at end of meeting to provide contact details). Parent suggested the walk take place on a weekday at a school time. DH confirmed that he would also walk the route. Parent requested that a measure is taken during this walk of the route. DH advised parents that SLC measure the distance from home to school using the GIS system (Geographical Information System). The system is the approved measuring system used by the authority and is operated using ordnance survey digital mapping and is updated by the estates department. Parent asked if they could track the route on different apps whilst walking the route to see how accurate the GIS system is. DH advised that if you use apps and google maps you are likely to get different measures. By using the GIS system there is a consistent approach across the authority. Parent asked if they could have access to the GIS system as most people are within 25 metres of the 3 miles qualifying distance. DH advised that once they have walked the route, he would then provide individual routes for each address. David reiterated that the consultation was in the relation to the change to distance. DH also explained that currently any parent who applies for transport on safety grounds does not get transport until the route has been checked. If consultation approved the change would not be implemented until August 2025, this gives time to check routes. Rep attended the meeting on behalf of Clare Haughey MSP and expressed his concerns about the quality and lack of information provided to parents. Rep asked why the consultation was being truncated into six weeks and asked why the consultation could not be extended to allow parents time to get the correct information. Parents need time to see what is involved and see how it affects them personally. Parents do not feel they have the correct information to enable them to comment on routes and so on. LS advised that the consultation went live in January 2024 and will close on 1 March 2024 – The reason Education are doing it now is to allow time for them to link with SPT to look at route planning, contract tendering for the new session to go out in January to allow them to be in place for August. 6 weeks is the statutory consultation time period. Parent asked to extend the consultation to allow us to get things right. 116
Page 117
Rep advised he gets and understands the timelines but suggests that we extend the consultation period by another six weeks as people feel this has been jumped on them and they feel they have not been given time to be listened to. Parent stated that during the discovery period we have failed to provide the required information, this should be a priority. LS acknowledged there has been an issue with parents receiving accurate information and asked if 2.5 miles would make a difference – would this make life easier – does it change your viewpoint. Do you think 2.5 miles is acceptable? Safe/Unsafe would it change your viewpoint? Parent stated that the physical effort to walk 3 miles is significantly more than 2. This is going to have an impact on attendance and attainment. Pupils will not go to school if the weather is poor and how can they work/study if they are in wet clothes. Councillor Katy Loudon stated that listening to the meeting that big feelings are coming through, she had already attended meetings in two other areas. Cllr Loudon is concerned about the inaccurate/out of date information being provided which undermines trust and is concerned about how we regain this trust. Cllr Loudon was disappointed that the information sent out this morning was wrong – parents have been requesting this information for weeks. The authority was aware the meeting was coming up and were not organised. There are really specific circumstances in the ward due to housing and a lack of a secondary school. Cllr Loudon went on to express her disappointment on the lack of organisation and information provided and felt people don’t have the information they require. Parent asked if there are other budget areas that could be cut that doesn’t affect the kids. What is the backup plan? LS advised the meeting that proposed budget cuts are on the Council Website. Parent asked why personal safety is not a factor and why do we keep discussing road safety. Sex offenders will now know these routes as they have been published on the website. Parents did not ask SLC to move known sex offenders into the area. LS informed the meeting she would feed this back to the Council. Parent asked if any of the two gentlemen in attendance have children and what would they do in this situation. DH confirmed he is a parent and grandparent and advised that we would need to make a personal decision on how to get the children to school. He acknowledged that these are difficult personal decisions and would look to see what options are available to them as a family. He urged attendees to fill in the survey/questionnaires to allow the authority to get a strength of feeling. Parent stated that they are being asked to choose between work and personal safety. Does the parent go to work and worry about her child walking on her own to school or does she stop working and transport her child to school – this is not a choice. Parent advised Sex offenders can see the park and it is really dark. DH noted concerns about Community Safety. Parent asked if when something happens to a child – is that when SLC will put on buses. LS informed the meeting that she understands their safety concerns and that we need to look at the wider community issues. There are children walking less than 2 miles that are having the same issues. Parent less miles/less time walking. Parent discussed the situation at Walnut Gate – 2 of the 5 pupils qualify for transport. Parent asked if the other children could apply for privilege transport. DH informed the parent that it would depend on the catchment area and any spare capacity within the contract. Parent with a particular situation with privilege transport raised her concerns and DH suggested he speak to her at the end of the meeting in private. Parent referred to the Quality Impact Assessment and was surprised to see that gender was not a protective characteristic. Parent advised that women are the primary carers and provided figures highlighting more women going into the workforce. Figures for April – June last year shows an increase from 62.5% - 78.9%. Parent advised this change in distance is detrimental to women and will impact on single parent families. Parent will then drive child to school causing more congestion. Parent advised NLC consultation included gender as a protective characteristic. (Parent will email the statistics quoted). 117
Page 118
LS advised that gender was discussed but it was decided to use the word parent, as each family has different circumstances, this point was not included as we did not feel that only women were being discriminated against, as there are parents who are lone fathers, or other circumstances. Parent felt this was discriminating against women and asked if this could be changed. LS advised the document could be reviewed and updated. A pupil in attendance informed the meeting that thinking about sex offenders makes me scared walking the route. It is scaring me right now – This will make kids not want to go to school and fake being sick, so they do not need to go to school. Pupil in attendance also made the point that they do not want to worry about their walking route, as a child he wants to have fun, and learn in school, and not be scared of the idea of walking to his own education, he said this was not right and why were we making the pupil do this. Parent advised that this would be what the kids would be talking about tomorrow in the playground. Parent asked if they should be looking at budget cuts in other areas, should we be looking at the wider saving budget document. LS advised that the wider budget document was there for consultation. Parent stated that money was found during Covid – could we not get more of this money to keep the children safe. Parent asked where all the money is going from the sale of land as it has not been spent on the community. There are 100 plus new houses being built meaning more pupils. LS assumed the land does not belong to the council, however there is a process where the developers pay money as a one-off payment. Parent asked if cuts can be made from somewhere else in Education. If the cuts are not from the buses, is it schools that take the hit. Another parent interrupted with the statement yes or no answer - do you receive a bonus? DH No bonus –. and all staff members are here as volunteers with unpaid time for events like tonight. Parent asked about Training Budget. DH advised he had a £7000 budget to cover training for support staff including support staff in schools and that all these budgets have been looked at. Parent stated the risk increases the further you walk, and this will have an impact on attendance and attainment. Parent asked if we consider that they will pay for transport. LS - Once we get a sense of the situation we can consider. It is not a no to these suggestions. Parent - When this is over do you come back with solutions and alternatives. LS asked if the parents have alternatives. Parent – There is no public transport in the area – children do have the under 22 bus pass, can this be removed, and the money used for school transport DH -This is a Scottish Government scheme that is promoted by schools. LS – We will note the suggestion. Parent – The under 22 bus pass is not an option, there is a general misconception that because we live in a built-up area that there will be buses. There is only one bus the No 65 which the children can access by walking to the main road. The bus comes once an hour and will normally only have 5/6 spaces available. SPT have said no additional routes/buses are planned. DH – scheduled to meet bus operator on Friday – bus operator has suggestions that may assist families. This information will feed into the consultation. Parent formally requested an extension to the consultation and requested the correct information and asked how to complain. LS – directed attendees to the Council Website – Have your say. Rep from C Haughey office advise Cllr Haughey will be writing to SLC to request an extension to the consultation process. Parent - links to information not working, wrong routes, lack of preparation for meeting is not acceptable and is insulting, do not have faith correct decision will be reached. Staff here as face of SLC should have been better prepared for questions. Parent – If this proposal goes ahead, a lot of people will drive causing congestion. This will affect everyone going to Cathkin High School. The train times do not work, and this proposal would see 200 pupils on the platforms. Cllr Loudon. – People will be asking for an extension to the consultation. Once more information is available what opportunities will people have in this area- could there be another public meeting/forum? Or is there another way area specific points can be viewed or shared. Possible 118
Page 119
further public meeting to be arranged after the walking route is walked and before any decisions are made. LS – We can consider how we can engage again and come back to you. LS – Closed the meeting. Meeting started at 7pm and LS advised at 8.20 the school let was on until 8.30 so we could continue. Meeting closed at 8.40. 119
Page 120
Appendix 2: Equality Impact Assessment form Resource - Education Resources Service/establishment - Support Services Lead officer - Lynn Sherry, Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) Group members Lynn Sherry, Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) David Hinshelwood, Support Services Manager Molly Magee, Information and Communications Officer (Chair) Policy title - Alteration of Mainstream Secondary School Transport Qualifying Distance The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of the policy The council currently provides mainstream secondary school transport where a pupil lives more than 2 miles from their catchment school (and mainstream primary school transport where a pupil lives more than 1 mile from their catchment school). The statutory responsibility of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is to provide school transport for: • any child aged under 8 years who lives more than 2 miles from their catchment school, and; • any child aged 8 years and over who lives more than 3 miles from their catchment school. Given financial challenges faced by the council and increasing costs in respect of transport services, the council is undertaking a statutory public consultation to seek views on the proposal to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. Other aspects of the policy remain unaltered, for example, the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds, or any road safety concerns raised by parents would still be assessed by undertaking a safe walking route check. The provision of mainstream primary school transport and transport to ASN (additional support needs) bases and schools will continue as is, only a change to secondary school transport is being considered in this proposal. Budget savings options, which are currently under consideration for the financial year 2024/25, for Education Resources, total £7m. In addition, due to rising costs, the annual spend on mainstream school transport has grown from £6m in 2021/22 to a forecasted £10m in 2023/24, an increase of £4m (66%). Against the annual school transport budget, the overspend is currently approximately £4m and this issue is having to be managed within the existing total education annual budget. This proposal would help protect from further cuts that would impact on schools directly. Intended Outcome: - Given the financial challenges, if fully implemented, it is estimated that this proposal could save approximately £2m per annum and would assist with the continued protection of resources prioritised on frontline learning and teaching. It would bring secondary school transport provision into line with statutory levels and the majority of other councils. The consequences of this would be that less pupils will qualify for free school transport (estimated at around 2,000 pupils), meaning families would have to make their own alternative arrangements. Services/partners/stakeholder/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of the policy. Education Resources employees, Roads officers, SPT and external transport partners 120
Page 121
1. Who will be affected by this policy? Pupils, parents and carers, external transport partners, schools. 2. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Statutory consultees including parents/carers, pupils, staff, parent councils, community councils. 3. Please outline any particular needs which equality groups may have in relation to this policy, what evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Protected Characteristics Age What effect/difference will your policy have on people? By the very nature of this provision, this proposal will be focused on all young people attending mainstream secondary school regardless of age or stage. If active travel is promoted and adopted this change could support independence and improve health and wellbeing. How do you know that? It is estimated that around 2,000 secondary school pupils may be impacted. Distance measure- ments and road safety checks, where requested, will identify those individual mainstream sec- ondary school pupils who would not be entitled to transport. Analysis of the respondents to our public consultation show 74% of them are within the working age range of 16-64yrs with 78% of them having childcare responsibilities. To assist: • All secondary school pupils are eligible to access the Free Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme. (engagement with bus operators to discuss potential opportunities for routes) • Council to promote wider active travel and independence – for example cycle routes, walking groups (which may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), park and stride, parent led group transport. • Access to privileged transport where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity. • Safe walking route assessment if concerns over road safety raised by parents. The situation will require to be monitored and schools should seek to build in as many posi- tive factors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable, and active travel within their School Travel Plan. Disability What effect/difference will your policy have on people? It is not anticipated that the young people within this protected characteristic group will be nega- tively impacted by this saving, as there is no change proposed in this area of the mainstream school transport policy. However, it is recognised that some adults within families may have a disability potentially mak- ing it difficult for them to accompany their child to school, if required, if no longer entitled to transport on distance. There may also be potential for a negative socio-economic impact. 121
Page 122
How do you know that? The proposal affects only the distance entitlement element of the school transport policy. All pupils who currently receive transport on medical or ASN grounds will continue to do so, and we will continue to assess any new cases on an individual basis. (Information held in schools, SEEMIS, Citrix database (SPT)). Scottish Household Survey) shows the percentage of adults (16+) self- identifying with a long- term disability at 35% in 2021. There may a reasonable adjustment or other supports available to assist, for example • This group is deemed a priority 1 for access to privileged transport (where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity). • All secondary school pupils are eligible to access the Free Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme. (engagement with bus operators to discuss potential opportunities for routes) • Council to promote wider active travel and independence– for example cycle routes, walking groups (which may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), park and stride, parent led group transport. • The council will continue to signpost families to supports available through other agencies For example, benefit entitlement. • Safe walking route assessment if concerns over road safety raised by parents. The situation will require to be monitored and schools should seek to build in as many positive factors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable, and active travel within their School Travel Plan. Gender reassignment What effect/difference will your policy have on people? There is no evidence that the group covered by this protected characteristic have particular needs in relation to this saving. How do you know that? Individual support may be appropriate. Schools have a promoting positive behaviour and anti- bullying policy. No negative impact has been identified through the consultation feedback. Marriage and civil partnership What effect/difference will your policy have on people? There is no evidence that the group covered by this protected characteristic have particular needs in relation to this saving. How do you know that? No negative impact has been identified. Pregnancy and maternity What effect/difference will your policy have on people? There is no evidence that the group covered by this protected characteristic have particular needs in relation to this saving. 122
Page 123
How do you know that? Individual support may be appropriate. No negative impact has been identified. Race What effect/difference will your policy have on people? There is no evidence that the group covered by this protected characteristic have particular needs in relation to this saving. How do you know that? Individual support may be appropriate. Schools have a promoting positive behaviour and anti- bullying policy. No negative impact has been identified through the consultation feedback. Religion and belief What effect/difference will your policy have on people? At this time there is no evidence that the group covered by this protected characteristic have par- ticular needs in relation to this saving. How do you know that? High level analysis indicates no negative impact. Consistent application of policy whether sec- ondary schools are denominational or non- denominational. If approved, we will continue to moni- tor the impact on numbers of pupils affected across different schools as more information be- comes available. Sex (Gender) What effect/difference will your policy have on people? Whilst this proposal is not focused on a particular gender of school pupils, we recognise that it has the potential to impact on parents with childcare responsibilities, particularly women. It is accepted that women are usually primary caregivers and so would likely be more involved in getting children to school. Impact may increase due to having several children; and in the time required if the qualifying distance is increased. There is also potential for a negative socio-economic impact to parents with childcare responsibili- ties, particularly women. For example by having to balance making alternative travel arrangements with maintaining work commitments or accessing opportunities to increase working hours. How do you know that? Distance measurements and road safety checks would identify the individual mainstream second- ary school pupils who would not be entitled to transport. Analysis of the respondents to our public consultation show 69% of them identified as female and of that cohort, 66% are within the working age range of 16-64yrs and have childcare responsibilities. To assist with socio-economic aspects: • All secondary school pupils are eligible to access the Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme. (engagement with bus operators to discuss potential opportunities for routes) 123
Page 124
• Council to promote wider active travel and independence – for example cycle routes, walk- ing groups (which may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), park and stride, connecting parents who may wish to car share or operate parent led group transport. • Access to privilege transport where dedicated school transport • may have spare capacity. • Safe walking route assessment if concerns over road safety raised by parents. The situation will require to be monitored and schools should seek to build in as many positive fac- tors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable, and active travel within their School Travel Plan. Sexual orientation What effect/difference will your policy have on people? There is no evidence that the group covered by this protected characteristic have particular needs in relation to this saving. How do you know that? Individual support may be appropriate. Schools have a promoting positive behaviour and anti- bullying policy. No negative impact has been identified through the consultation feedback. 4. If any negative impact is identified, please explain how you will address this? Please outline any proposed actions in the action plan below Action required Promote and assist pupils to access under 22 bus passes, if appropriate. Person responsible School Offices Date to be completed June 25 Outcome Encourage pupils to use this alternative means of travelling to school where possible to do so. Min- imise traffic congestion. Action required Potential engagement with bus operators Person responsible Council Date to be completed May 25 Outcome Seek any potential opportunity to increase or adjust public bus routes, making under 22 bus passes more accessible. Action required Promotion of Active Travel Person responsible Roads officers (with schools) Date to be completed June 25 Outcome Advertise and encourage more pupils and parents to make use of other forms of active travel. 124
Page 125
Action required Continuation of Privilege Transport Policy Person responsible Education HQ Date to be completed Ongoing Outcome Access to privilege transport where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity. Action required In addition to the above, consider support available to assist adults within families who have disa- bilities. Person responsible Education HQ Date to be completed Ongoing Outcome Priority 1 offering of privilege places (where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity) to support families where adults may have disabilities. Action required In addition to the above, consider support available to assist adults within families who have disa- bilities. Person responsible Education HQ Date to be completed Ongoing Outcome Priority 1 offering of privilege places (where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity) to support families where adults may have disabilities. Wider access to others thereafter. Signpost families to supports available through other agencies for example benefit entitlement. Action required Schools to produce an updated School Travel Plan to support and encourage safe, sustainable and active travel. Person responsible Secondary Schools (with support from Roads Officers if required) Date to be completed June 25 Outcome Promote and assist parents/pupils in finding alternative options of travelling to school. (see sec- tion 6 of the consultation proposal document). Also connecting groups of pupils and parents for example P7s moving to becoming S1. Minimise traffic congestion. Action required Monitor the number of pupils affected across all schools whether denominational or non- denominational. Person responsible Education HQ Date to be completed Ongoing Outcome Ensure the consistent application of policy and identify the impact on numbers of pupils affected across different schools, (denominational/non- denominational). 125
Page 126
5. If the policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be imple- mented, please provide justification for this. There is potential for some of the groups covered by the protected characteristics (age gender, disability and religion) to be negatively impacted by this proposal. This is due to the fact that: • the transport provision in question is only provided to young people of secondary school age. • there is recognition that, as women are the primary caregivers, this proposal will likely affect their ability to balance making alternative travel arrangements with maintaining existing work commitments or accessing opportunities to increase working hours. • some adults within families may have a disability potentially making it difficult for them to accompany their child to school if no longer entitled to transport on distance. High level analysis indicates no negative impact. Consistent application of policy whether sec- ondary schools are denominational or non- denominational. If approved, we will continue to monitor the impact on numbers of pupils affected across different schools as more information becomes available. Given the current and prospective financial challenges facing the council, the proposal, if ap- proved, would help protect against further cuts that would cumulatively directly impact schools and other educational establishments. It would assist in bringing the council more into line with our statutory responsibility and with the policy of the majority of other councils. This proposal only relates to the qualifying distance for free mainstream secondary school transport. Other aspects of the policy remain unaltered, for example, the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds, or any road safety concerns raised by parents would still be assessed by undertaking a safe walking route checks. The provision of mainstream primary school transport and transport to ASN (additional support needs) bases and schools are not affected by this proposal. We have considered this proposal under the Fairer Scotland Duty. This proposal is not a new strategy, however, it is an alteration to an existing policy and we do recognise that it will have a socio-economic impact for those with a low income, including women being the primary care- giver, for example by having to balance making alternative travel arrangements with maintaining work commitments or accessing opportunities to increase working hours; and parents with disa- bilities making it difficult to accompany their child to school, if required, where no longer entitled to transport. We have listed below some initiatives that will help to mitigate this impact: • All secondary school pupils are eligible to access the Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme. • Council will engage with bus operators to seek any potential opportunity for them to increase or adjust public bus routes, making under 22 bus passes more accessible. • Council to promote wider active travel and independence for example cycle routes, walk- ing groups (may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), park and stride, parent led group transport. • Priority 1 offering of privilege places (where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity) to support families where adults may have disabilities. Wider access to others thereafter. • Signpost families to supports available through other agencies for example benefit entitle- ment. • All factors giving rise to additional support needs fall into the four overlapping themes of the learning environment, family circumstances, disability or health need, and social and emotional factors. 126
Page 127
6. How will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Monitoring information will be collected through e.g. SPT and Education HQ, Support Services. Liaise with schools and roads colleagues pre and post implementation. 7. What is your recommendation for the policy? Introduce * n/a Modify* n/a Pilot* n/a Don’t introduce* n/a * This proposal is subject to public consultation therefore this question is not applicable at this point in time. 8. Conclusion The public consultation closed on 15 March 2024. All views, including that of Education Scotland, have been considered. A final consultation report will be prepared and published, with the council making a decision thereafter. The conclusion of this impact assessment is that there is potential for one of the groups covered within the protected characteristic of age to be negatively impacted by this proposal. This is due to the fact that the proposal relates to secondary school pupils only. Within the protected characteristic of gender, while this proposal is not focused on a particular gender of school pupils, we recognise it has the potential to bring a negative socio-economic impact to parents with childcare responsibilities, particularly women. For example, by having to balance making alternative travel arrangements with maintaining work commitments or accessing opportunities to increase working hours. Within the protected characteristic of disability, all pupils who currently receive transport on medical or ASN grounds will continue to do so, and we will continue to assess any new cases on an individual basis. However, it may be difficult for some adults within families to accompany their child to school, if required, if no longer entitled to transport on distance. All factors giving rise to additional support needs fall into the four overlapping themes of the learning environment, family circumstances, disability or health need, and social and emotional factors. Within the protected characteristic of religion, there is no identified impact at this stage when looking at denominational /non-denominational schools, however there will be a requirement to monitor the impact on numbers of pupils affected across different schools, (denominational and non-denominational), if the proposal is accepted and preparatory work is undertaken. As shown within section 6 of the consultation outcome report, there are potential mitigation factors such as by promoting and encouraging the uptake of wider active travel and independence for example cycle routes, walking groups (may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), park and stride, connecting parents who may wish to car share or operate parent led group transport, and where possible by accessing the Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme. The council will also engage with bus operators to seek any potential opportunity for them to increase or adjust public bus routes, making under 22 bus passes more accessible. Privilege transport policy will continue, (that is where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity), with priority 1 offering of privilege places to support families where adults may have disabilities and wider access to others thereafter. Continue to signpost families to supports available through other agencies for example benefit entitlement. Completed by Molly Magee Date 22/05/2024 127
Page 128
Appendix 3 – Education Scotland report Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 Report by Education Scotland addressing educational aspects of the proposal by South Lanarkshire Council to alter distance thresholds for mainstream secondary pupils to qualify for free school transport. April 2024 128
Page 129
Introduction 1.1 This report from Education Scotland has been prepared by His Majesty’s Inspectors of Education (HM Inspectors) in accordance with the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”). The purpose of the report is to provide an independent and impartial consideration of a proposal by South Lanarkshire Council. The proposal is to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school to qualify for free school transport from more than two miles to more than three miles. Section 2 of the report sets out brief details of the consultation process. Section 3 of the report sets out HM Inspectors’ consideration of the educational aspects of the proposal, including significant views expressed by consultees. Section 4 summarises HM Inspectors’ view. Upon receipt of this report, the Act requires the council to consider it alongside any relevant considerations the council received and then prepare its consultation report. The council’s consultation report should include this report and must contain an explanation of how, in finalising the proposal, it has reviewed the initial proposal, including a summary of points raised during the consultation process and the council’s response to them. The council has to publish its consultation report at least three weeks before it takes its final decision. 1.2 HM Inspectors considered: • the likely effects of the proposal for children and young people of the schools; any other users; children likely to become pupils within two years of the date of publication of the proposal paper; • any other likely effects of the proposal; • how the council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects that may arise from the proposal; and • the educational benefits the council believes will result from implementation of the proposal, and the council’s reasons for coming to these beliefs. 1.3 In preparing this report, HM Inspectors undertook the following activities: • attendance at four public meetings held on 29, 30, 31 January and 1 February 2024 in connection with the council’s proposal; • consideration of all relevant documentation provided by the council in relation to the proposal, specifically the educational benefits statement and related consultation documents, written and oral submissions from parents and others; • visits to the sites of Calderside Academy, Cathkin High School, Holy Cross High School, Lesmahagow High School, St Andrew’s and St Bride’s High School, Blackwood Primary School, Hallside Primary School, St Bride’s Primary School, St Elizabeth’s Primary School and St Vincent’s Primary School, including discussion with relevant consultees; and • discussion with relevant consultees including representatives from the Diocese of Motherwell. Consultation process 1.4 South Lanarkshire Council undertook the consultation on its proposal(s) with reference to the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. 1.5 The consultation ran from 15 January until 15 March 2024. A copy of the consultation proposal document was made available in all school establishments, local council buildings,libraries and via the council website. All mainstream primary and secondary schools were emailed details of the consultation and asked to share it on their social media and communication channels. Schools were also asked to ensure pupils were aware of the consultation and how to participate. Public meetings were held in Lanark Grammar School, Holy Cross High School, Trinity High School and St Andrew’s and St Bride’s High School. A total of 253 stakeholders attended these meetings. This included two group meetings that were requested by parents for the public meetings in Trinity High School and Holy Cross High School. 129
Page 130
1.6 The council received 6,315 consultation responses to the proposal from a range of stakeholders. Of these, 13% are in favour of the proposal and 84% are not in favour. There were 3,480 responses received from parents, almost of whom are against the proposal. There were 965 responses from members of the public and other interested parties. Almost all of these, are also against the proposal. Approximately 22% of the respondents to the survey identified themselves as school pupils. The majority of them are not in favour and a few are undecided. Staff, parent councils, elected members, trade unions and community councils returned fewer responses. Most of these do not support the proposal. 1.7 Not all respondents left comments. Those who did cited a range of reasons for not supporting the proposal. The council will need to address these comments in their outcome report. Educational aspects of proposal 1.8 The council’s educational benefit statement highlights financial pressures it faces. The council believes that the proposal, if implemented, will protect schools from further cuts that would impact on them directly. They state this would continue to protect resources that are prioritised on frontline learning and teaching and maintain the provision of other non-statutory services. The council believes encouraging young people to adopt more active means of travel will have potential benefits. This will contribute to an active, healthy lifestyle, have a positive impact on mental focus and mood, and the opportunity to build resilience in young people. The council also states the proposal could reduce traffic around schools. This would contribute to the council’s sustainability agenda of reducing carbon emissions. A few young people, parents and staff, that met with HM Inspectors, agree that walking to and from school could improve health and wellbeing. HM Inspectors agree that there are potential benefits from active travel to school. However, HM Inspectors do not agree that the council have demonstrated fully the educational benefits of the proposal to stakeholders, including young people. 1.9 If the proposal is implemented, the council estimates an approximate two million pound saving per annum. The number of school bus routes would be reduced to accommodate those pupils who would remain entitled. All stakeholders that met with HM Inspectors stated that whilst young people may have access to public transport through the Young Scot Under 22 travel scheme, this did not resolve the potential transport issue entirely. Almost all stakeholders that met with HM Inspectors raised concerns about the frequency, reliability and affordability of current public transport services. A majority of stakeholders indicated there are areas where the public bus service is limited and that current public transport timetables do not align with the school day. Almost all stakeholders are concerned that the transport infrastructure in South Lanarkshire may not have the capacity to meet an increase in demand for travel to and from schools. Almost all stakeholders also disagree that the proposal will reduce carbon emissions. They believe the number of cars being used to transport young people to and from school will increase. This could increase congestion further and negatively impact on the environment. 1.10 While the proposed distance will meet expectations set out in the Scottish Government’s School Transport Guidance 2021, almost all stakeholders are concerned it is too far. Almost all expressed concern about the safety of the proposed walking routes, particularly in poor weather across all seasons. Almost all young people and parents that met with HM Inspectors feel they need additional information about the criteria used to determine acceptable walking routes. Almost all stakeholders raised concerns about the speed of traffic on busy roads and the lack of safe crossing places and crossing patrols. Almost all stakeholders noted issues with street lighting, narrow paths, and walking routes through underpasses, parks and near woodland areas. Most stakeholders highlighted the lack of cycle routes in the local authority area. Most stakeholders raised concerns about long walks while carrying a school bag and heavy equipment, such as musical instruments. 1.11 A majority of stakeholders who met with HM Inspectors are concerned that the proposal disproportionately affects the most disadvantaged areas and families in the authority. A minority of stakeholders also highlighted that this may negatively impact families with additional caring 130
Page 131
responsibilities, including those with siblings at different schools. They are concerned about the impact on working families, as working routines or employment may be negatively affected by this proposal. Almost all stakeholders that met with HM Inspectors believe there would be a need to purchase additional clothing for the wet weather conditions, which families may not be able to fund. During the consultation process, the council updated their Equality Impact Assessment on the proposal. HM Inspectors recommend that the council continues to work with stakeholders to share information and minimise the potential negative socio-economic impact for families. 1.12 Almost all stakeholders that met with HM Inspectors are concerned the proposal may negatively impact on attainment and achievement. They are concerned the lack of public transport may lead to an increase in arriving late to school or absenteeism. A minority of stakeholders feel there may be a need for staff to revise the school start and finish times to relieve congestion, particularly on shared campuses. If the proposal is agreed, the council will need to monitor any change in attendance and address any negative impact. 1.13 Almost all stakeholders that met with HM Inspectors believe the proposal could impact negatively on young people’s wellbeing including those that may require additional support. For example, young people being anxious about using public transport and their personal safety walking to and from school. Most stakeholders that met with HM Inspectors are concerned about the potential negative impact on young people accessing activities after school. A few secondary pupils noted they have part-time jobs that start after school. They are concerned that the additional travel time may negatively impact on their employment. Almost all stakeholders that met with HM Inspectors believe young people would need to get up earlier and may get less sleep and miss breakfast. They are concerned this may affect young people’s energy, mood, readiness to learn and ability to concentrate in school. 1.14 All stakeholders that met with HM Inspectors with association to the Roman Catholic faith, including representatives from the Diocese of Motherwell, do not support the proposal. They are concerned that the proposal could affect young people attending denominational schools. Stakeholders noted that the catchment area for Roman Catholic schools is usually larger and there may be non-denominational schools closer to home. Almost all stakeholders, with association to the Roman Catholic faith believe the proposed changes restrict young people’s right to an accessible Roman Catholic education. Summary South Lanarkshire Council has identified the need to make financial savings through aligning their secondary school transport arrangements more in line with legislation. They state that this will continue to protect resources that are prioritised on frontline learning and teaching and maintain provision of other valuable non-statutory services. HM Inspectors agree that the proposal is in line with national guidance and statutory walking distances. However, almost all stakeholders that metwith HM Inspectors raised notable concerns. These include the capacity of current public transport services and a lack of information on safe walking routes. They are concerned about the impact this may have on families. It will be important for the council to review walking routes and consider any changes in traffic and other factors to ensure safe routes to school. Almost all stakeholders are also concerned about the potential negative impact on attendance at school and on attainment and achievement. HM Inspectors agree that there are potential benefits of adopting more active means of travelling to and from school. However, HM Inspectors do not agree that the council has sufficiently set out the potential educational benefits of this proposal. The council may wish to provide additional information on the impact of not proceeding with the proposal in its final report. HM Inspectors recommend, if the proposal is agreed, that the council should work with stakeholders to mitigate against the range of concerns raised. HM Inspectors April 2024 131
Page 132
Appendix 4 – Survey comments All comments that were made by respondents are contained within Appendix 4 which has been issued as a separate file due to its size. 132
Page 133
Appendix 2 Sustainability Impact Assessment for Revenue Budget Proposals Background Information Reducing our contribution to climate change and taking action to reduce the impacts of climate change is central to living and working sustainably. The Council has a statutory duty under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 to: reduce carbon emissions from its activities and influence the reduction of carbon emissions in the wider community; take action to adapt to the impacts caused by the effects of climate change – in our local communities, on our buildings, infrastructure, service delivery and the natural environment; and; to act sustainably in everything it does as a Council The above legislation requires the Council to consider all the above within its decision-making processes. The Council’s revenue budget process is one of these decision-making processes and this template aims to ensure that factors related to carbon, climate change adaptation and sustainability are included within a budget proposal. Completion of this template also supports the Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2020 which requires public bodies to include in their annual climate change reports “how the body will align its spending plans and use of resources with emissions targets”. Use of the template will help mitigate one of the Council’s top risks: ‘the failure to meet sustainable development and climate change objectives’ and supports a main objective of the Council’s Sustainable Development and Climate Change Strategy 2022-2027: ‘to build a sustainable, climate resilient and net zero South Lanarkshire together in a fair and inclusive way’. Completing a Sustainability Impact Assessment of Budget Proposals This sustainability impact assessment aims to consider likely effects of budget proposals on South Lanarkshire’s people, infrastructure, natural and physical environment. It is not an in- depth expert assessment but rather a high-level assessment which helps consider impacts in terms of carbon emissions, adapting to the effects of climate change, social justice, economic wellbeing, and good environmental stewardship, as well as the steps taken (or planned) to mitigate any adverse impacts. It is expected that this template will accompany submission of any revenue budget proposal. • Guidance on completing the assessment is available. • Support in completing the form can also be requested from the Council’s Sustainable Development Officers by emailing Sustainability@southlanarkshire.gov.uk. 8 133
Page 134
Please complete the proposal information template, before moving on to the completion of the sustainability impact assessment. OVERALL PROPOSAL INFORMATION Proposal Title: Altering the distance criteria for mainstream secondary school transport. Proposal Information: The proposal is to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. Prepared By: Education Resources. Actions Required: Actions required to mitigate the negative effects of the proposal, should it be implemented: Promotion of health benefits of walking. Promotion of cycling and availability of cycle routes across SLC. Schools to support active travel – bike sheds, groups of parent/child walking and cycling buses for parental reassurance. Road safety awareness materials/talks to be promoted to both teachers and schools. Possible support to link parents who wish to car share or co-ordinate group transport. Other aspects of the policy remain unaltered, for example, any road safety issues would still be assessed by undertaking road safety checks (in accordance with the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines) and assuming the child is accompanied by a responsible adult. Unknown impact of car emissions should parents choose to drive their child to school. Could consider car free zones around schools to discourage this and promote Scottish Government target of reducing car journeys by 20%. This would also include the prevention of engine idling where we may have congestion around schools as well as further promoting air quality initiatives. Under 22 bus passes are available however, it is recognised that this would require engagement with transport operators to assess capacity and commercial viability, which may be limited. If this proposal is implemented, a survey of families no longer entitled to transport could be undertaken to ascertain how their children are travelling to and from school. This could support discussion about alternatives and what the council could do to support pupils and parents as a community. 134
Page 135
Table 1.0: Sustainability Impact Assessment SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 1 Energy (usage, demand and generation) Does the activity/propo sal impact energy demand, use and provision? No Not applicable Neutral/ No Impact 2 Water (quality, demand, use and disposal) Does the activity/propo sal impact on the sustainable use, management and conservation of water? No Not applicable Neutral/ No Impact 135
Page 136
SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 3 Environmenta l Good Stewardship (air and soil quality, noise and light pollution) Does the activity/propo sal result in any emissions to air, soil and/or water? Does the activity/propo sal impact air quality or noise and light pollution? Unknown May be better air quality as fewer dedicated school transport vehicles, which were older diesel engines, however this may be offset if parents then chose to drive their children to school. Council and school should promote and encourage active travel. However, increased cars may lead to increased congestion at school drop-off points, increased engine idling and a decrease in air quality through an increase in emissions of particulate matter > 2.5. (PM 2.5) Unknown/ Further Information Required 4 Waste (total volume, end of life disposal and recycling, resource use and product consumption) Does the activity/propo sal impact waste generation or disposal methods? No Not applicable Neutral/ No Impact 136
Page 137
SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 5 Active Travel and Sustainable Transport (walking, wheeling, cycling) Does the activity/propo sal impact the use of fossil fuelled vehicles and the provision of low carbon travel opportunities in communities ? Yes - positive Less school transport vehicles (which are not electric). However, other buses operating are largely still ICE vehicles, albeit more electric options will become available and SLC continues to monitor this. Whilst there is a positive in removing ICE vehicles from the road, the policy may result in more ICE vehicles transporting children to and from school. This may result in increased vehicular emissions and particulate matter, therefore negatively influence air quality (as discussed in section 3). Instead, promotion and attention will be paid to encourage more low-carbon opportunities such as walking, cycling and scooting and where possible, the use of alternative public transport arrangements, such as the Under 22 bus passes. Unknown/ Further Information Required We will carry out survey/ analysis of changing transport habits at a school level as a result of the proposal (should it be agreed), which would then inform targeted interventio ns to reduce car travel 6 Transport (Fleet) Does the activity/propo sal impact the use of Council- owned fleet/ staff travel? No Not applicable Neutral/ No Impact 137
Page 138
SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 7 Communities (resilience, awareness, communicatio n, skills) Does this activity help build awareness, willingness, and skills in our communities to address climate change? Yes - positive The proposal, if agreed, connects with Scottish Government transport policy objectives of moving towards active travel, with less reliance on fossil fuel vehicles. Switching modes especially on shorter journeys such as the school run. Minor Beneficial 138
Page 139
SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 8 Reduced Inequalities and Social Justice (poverty, inclusion, cost of living, fair work) Does the proposal build capacity to identify and tackle poverty and exclusion? Does the proposal improve quality of life? Unknown Independent travel can build resilience and independence. Active travel can improve health and wellbeing. Any potential inclusion or poverty issues may be mitigated e.g. walking and cycling buses encouraged by schools to get groups of pupils walking together. Where public transport is used, possible use of free under 22 bus passes may mitigate costs associated. SLC’s Money Matters service can provide advice and support on finances and benefit entitlement. Unknown/ Further Information Required 139
Page 140
SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 9 Services (demand and use) Does the proposal or activity increase overall consumption of services or decrease them? No Decreases fossil fuel consumption by reducing school buses, assumption that pupils will be encouraged to walk, cycle or scoot. Insufficient electric vehicles. Other aspects of the policy remain unaltered, for example, any road safety issues would still be assessed by undertaking road safety checks (in accordance with the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines) and assuming the child is accompanied by a responsible adult. There are insufficient electric vehicles in the market to support school transport currently but the situation is being monitored. Major Beneficial. 140
Page 141
SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 10 Procurement/ Supply Chain (e.g. purchased goods and services, contractor and sub-contractor activities, local supply chain, SMEs, community wealth building) Does the activity/propo sal increase consumption of resources? Does the activity/propo sal impact local supply chains and local spend? Are there opportunities for local employment ? No Less procuring of services by the Council. Vast majority of transport operators have fleet which are predominantly run using fossil fuels. Unknown/ Further Information Required 11 Land Use and Land Use Change Does the activity/propo sal alter or change the function of land and/or impact on peatland or vacant and derelict land? No Not applicable Neutral/ No Impact 12 Nature/ Biodiversity (protection, restoration and enhancement) Does the activity/propo sal impact on the protection, enhancemen t and restoration of biodiversity and nature? No Not applicable Neutral/ No Impact 141
Page 142
SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 13 Health and Wellbeing (physical, mental and social) Does the proposal promote and support improved social, physical and mental wellbeing? Yes - positive Positive- Walking, cycling and scooting for health and mental wellbeing via increased physical activity. Use of Under 22 bus pass where possible. Promotion of independent/ or group travelling. Moderate Beneficial 14 Extreme weather/ climate events (drought, flooding, heat, storms) Does the activity/propo sal impact on resilience of both South Lanarkshire Council and communities to extreme weather events (flooding, drought, wildfires, storms)? No Not applicable Neutral/ No Impact 142
Page 143
SUSTAINABLITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE Ref No. Category Question(s) Yes/No/Unknow n Description of Impact If Yes, How Significan t is the Impact? 15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (increase or decrease in emissions) Does the activity/propo sal impact on greenhouse gas emissions? Unknown The removal of school transport and encouragement to switch to active travel - walking, cycling and scooting will reduce dedicated school transport fuel emissions and encourage lower emissions options such as bus travel through the use of Under 22 bus pass where possible. Conversely, there may also be a risk of increased emissions through increased single- occupancy ICE vehicle journeys and traffic congestion at peak times. Unknown/ Further Information Required 143
Page 144
144
Page 145
Fairer Scotland Duty Impact Assessment (v4.0) Appendix 3 1. Details of proposal Policy Title (include budget reference number if applicable) Proposal to Alter the Mainstream Secondary School Transport Qualifying Distance (from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles). Service Area (detail which service area and section this relates to) Education Resources Lead Officer (Name and job title) Lynn Sherry, Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) Other Officers/Partners involved (list names, job titles and organisations if applicable). Education Resources employees, Roads officers, SPT and external transport partners. Date assessment completed 23/05/2024 To fulfil their obligations under the duty, public bodies must be able to meet what the Act calls the key requirement in each case: to actively consider how they could reduce inequalities of outcome in any major strategic decision they make; and to publish a written assessment, showing how they’ve done this. 2. Potential Impact Which groups of people do you think will be, or potentially could be, impacted upon by the implementation of this policy? You should consider employees, clients, customers and service users. The alteration of mainstream secondary school transport qualifying distance within South Lanarkshire may impact on a range of people including pupils, parents/carers, and also external transport providers and secondary schools themselves. It is estimated that around 2,000 secondary school pupils may be impacted by this proposal. Distance measurements and road safety checks, where requested, will identify those individual mainstream secondary school pupils who would/would not be entitled to transport as a result of the proposal to alter the mainstream secondary school transport qualifying distance. Age By the very nature of this provision, this proposal will be focused on all young people attending mainstream secondary school regardless of age, gender, race or stage in their education. Gender It is accepted that women are usually primary caregivers and so would likely be more involved in getting children to school. Impact may increase due to having several children; and in the time required to get their children to school if the qualifying distance is increased. There is potential for a negative socio- economic impact to parents with childcare responsibilities, particularly women. e.g. by having to balance making alternative travel arrangements with maintaining work commitments or accessing opportunities to increase working hours. Disability It is not anticipated that young people with disabilities will be negatively impacted by this saving, as there is no change proposed in this area of the mainstream school transport policy. The proposal affects only the distance entitlement element of the school transport policy. All pupils who currently receive transport 8 145
Page 146
on medical or ASN grounds will continue to do so, and we will continue to assess any new cases on an individual basis. However, it is recognised that some adults within families may have a disability potentially making it difficult for them to accompany their child to school, if required, where no longer entitled to transport on distance. There may also be potential for a negative socio-economic impact. Religion Children residing in our rural areas who attend denominational schools would be unaffected by the proposal due to the large catchment area and lack of proximity to their catchment denominational school. This is also the case for the towns of Larkhall and Strathaven. Therefore, a high-level analysis on the projected impact across the main urban settlements of Hamilton, East Kilbride and Cambuslang/Rutherglen, based on the number of pupils currently being transported, was undertaken. It has shown that the total overall likely impact is largely the same irrespective of denomination. Therefore no negative impact has been identified at this stage. There will be a consistent application of policy whether secondary schools are denominational or non-denominational. 3. Protected Characteristics Age - Older people, young people and children The South Lanarkshire population has been progressively increasing over the last 20 years. At the time of the 2001 census the figures showed that SLC had a population of 302,216 residents. By the time of the 2011 census the population had increased by +4% to 313,830 residents, of which 17.7% were under 16, 65.5% were 16-64 and 16.9% were 65+. The most recent population estimate figures (NRS MYPE 2021) suggest that there are currently 322,630 residents (a +2.8% increase on the 2011 census), of which 16.3% are under 16, 62.9% are 16-64 and 20.8% are 65+. It is noticeable that while the percentage of both under 16’s and the 16-64 age group has reduced over the past 10 years, the share of the over 65 population has increased (up by +3.9% between 2011 and 2021) Although the South Lanarkshire population is growing and is projected to continue to grow, the population is also rapidly aging. The percentage of the population aged 65+ has increased from 15% in 2001, to up to over 20% in 2021. Over the same period (2001-2021) the number of people aged 85+ has increased by more than two thirds. It is expected that the area will continue to see a sizeable increase in general numbers of those aged 65+. The most recent population predictions (based on the 2018 estimate figures) suggest that the number of people aged 65+ will increase to 27% by 2038. Amongst age groups older than 65- 74 the increase in population is expected to be even more significant. The number of the over 75’s in South Lanarkshire are expected to grow by +40% by 2033, and then again up +60% by 2038. In contrast to the population trend amongst older people, the under 16 age group is expected to fall over the next 20 years, down by -7% by 2033, and another -8% by 2038. Whilst growth amongst the working age population is also expected to stagnate by 2033, and then go into decline (-2%) by 2038. Although net migration into South Lanarkshire from other areas of Scotland/UK (based on 2018 projections) is expected to in part compensate for the decline in the under 16 and working age populations, the demographic changes outlined (a progressively aging population) will inevitably increase demand for local health and social care services, as well 146
Page 147
as potentially a knock on impact on other services such as Housing and Transport. Disability - people with disabilities/long standing conditions The 2011 census shows that out of a total population of 313,830, just under a third (30.6%) identify as having one or more long standing disabilities or chronic health conditions, which is slightly above the Scottish average (29.9%). Breaking down the figures according to specific conditions, 16.5% report to having a physical disability (including blindness and hearing loss), 4.5% report to having a mental health problem, 2.2% report to having a learning disability (downs syndrome/ dyslexia), while 0.6% report to having a developmental disability (ASD, Asperger’s, Autism). A further 19.2% report to having an undisclosed disability/ health condition. No update from the census will be available until at least 2024. In terms of trend data alternatives to the census, figures from the Annual Population Survey would suggest that among the working age population with either a core or work limiting disability, the rate of employment has almost doubled over the past 9 years, increasing from 18,900 (43.3% of the disabled 16-64 population) in January to December 2014, up to 34,000 (62.3% of the disabled 16-64 population) at January to December 2022. The percentage of the working age population in employment in South Lanarkshire also trends above the Scottish average for past 7 years, with the most recent SLC figure of (62.3%) +9.9% higher than the Scottish average (52.2%), the widest gap between the two rate ever recorded. A comparison with the returns from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS) also suggests that the percentage adults (16+) self-identifying with a long- term physical and mental health condition (both life limiting and not life limiting) has been increasing in South Lanarkshire over the past 8 years that figures are available, from 25% of adults in 2012 up to 35% of adults in 2021. The SHS figures indicate that the percentage adults (16+) self- identifying with a long-term physical and mental health condition in South Lanarkshire (35%) is just -1% below the Scottish average (36%), which goes against recent trends in the SHS for this quest where the SLC average has historically been above the Scottish average. It should be noted that the methodology used in the SHS has changed from previous surveys (moving from a mixed methodology to gather responses to a telephone only survey) and subsequently the level of responses is only around a third in 2021 compared to 2019. Gender reassignment - Trans/Transgender Identity – anybody who’s gender identity or gender expression is different to the sex assigned to them at birth Currently there is no reliable base line data available in relation to the transgender population in South Lanarkshire, however, the council is taking steps to amend monitoring to include this characteristic. At a national level the Scotland 2022 census included a question on gender identity and asked whether a person considered themself to be trans, or have a trans history, this was a voluntary question with no requirement for completion. There are no official statistics published in relation to those who identify as transgender, or the number of people born intersex. Marriage or Civil Partnership – people who are married or in a civil partnership Due to a change in survey methodology, and a reduction of the survey sample, no results from the SHS 2021 were available on this question. The most recent figures from the Scottish Household Survey (2019) suggests that just over a third (33.4%) of people in South Lanarkshire are single or have never married, slightly lower than the Scottish average (36.3%). The percentage of the adult population in SLC that are married or in a civil 147
Page 148
partnership, now stands at 47.3% the lowest percentage ever recorded, and now slightly below the Scottish average (47.6%). In terms of the split between the popularity of marriage and civil partnerships, the latest figures from the National Registrars of Scotland (NRS) (2022) indicates that 99.9% (1,169) of South Lanarkshire couples continue to opt for marriage, with only 0.1% (11 couples) opting for a civil partnership, including 9 mixed sex couples, and 2 same sex couples. The figure of 1,169 couples opting for marriage is the highest recorded in South Lanarkshire for 14 years, but the popularity of mixed sex civil partnerships has also increased (11 couples) and is at the highest level recorded locally for 7 years. The 2022 NRS figures suggests that Marriage is marginally (by +2%) more popular in South Lanarkshire (99.9% of couples) as a partnership option, compared to Scotland as a whole (97.9% of couples) , with Scotland recording a higher rate of civil partnerships (2.1%) compared to SLC (0.1%). There are no statistics available for different types of marriage (e.g. heterosexual/ same sex) at the South Lanarkshire/ local authority level, but at the national/ Scotland level the split in popularity between marriage and civil partnership based on mixed sex/ same sex would suggest that marriage is more popular as a partnership choice among both mixed sex couples (marriage=98.2%/ civil partnership=1.8%), and same sex couples (91.7%/ civil partnership=8.3%) compared to a civil partnership, although civil partnerships are more common among same sex couples (mixed sex=1.8%/ same sex=8.3%). In terms of the split between mixed sex and same sex marriages, as a percentage of total marriages, around 4% of all marriages in Scotland were same sex in 2022, compared to 96% mixed sex, with both figures being roughly static/ unchanged for the past 6 years. Pregnancy and Maternity – woman who are pregnant and/or on maternity leave Statistics not available. Race and Ethnicity- people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and different racial backgrounds The 2011 census data showed that 95.4% (299,400) of our community identify as coming from a White Scottish or White British background, 1% (3,100) identify as White Irish, 0.4% (1,300) as White Polish and 0.8% (2,500) as White Other. 1.6% of the population identify as coming from an Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British background and 0.7% identify as from Other ethnic groups. No update from the census will be available until at least 2024. In terms of trend data alternatives to the census, figures from the Annual Population Survey (January to December 2022) would suggest that the vast majority of the SLC population (91.8% or 292,100) still identified as White and UK born (inc both Scottish and British), although the percentage has fallen over fallen over the past 11 years (it was 95.5% back in 2011). The APS figures also suggests that there has been an increase in the White non-UK born population (inc Irish/ Polish/ Eastern European/ White Commonwealth), more than doubling from 2.4% (7,500) in 2011, up to 5.5% (17,600) at January to December 2022. The Non-White population in SLC (inc those born and not born in the UK) has also increased, from 2.2% in 2011, up to 2.7% (8,500) at January to December 2022. Compared to the Scotland as a whole, South Lanarkshire continues to have a higher percentage of the population who identify as White and UK born (91.8%) against the Scottish average (87.2%), and a proportionally smaller White non-UK (SLC= 5.5% against Scotland=6.6%) and ethnic minority population (both UK born and born outside the UK, SLC= 2.7% against Scotland=6.6%) based on the January to December 2022 figures. 148
Page 149
The data from the Scottish Household Survey (2021) suggests that 88% of the adult (16+) population in South Lanarkshire identified as being White Scottish/ British, the lowest figure ever recorded. The percentage of the population who identify as being White Scottish/ British has fallen by -8% compared to the last SHS (2019) where 96% of the local population identified as being White Scottish/ British. The second largest ethnic group in SLC is now White Other (inc European, white commonwealth, but excluding Polish), with the number identifying as being from this background increasing from 3% of the SLC population in 2019, up to 7% in 2021. The percentage of the SLC population that identifies as being Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British, has doubled since 2019 from 1% to 2% in 2021. The percentage of other ethnic minority groups (inc Afro-Caribbean) has also increase to 3% of the SLC population in 2021, the highest figure recorded locally by the SHS. The latest SHS figures (2021) confirms that there has been a change in the balance of the ethnic minority population in South Lanarkshire, compared to the findings of the 2011 Census, with SLC recording a lower percentage of the population that identify as being as White/ British Scottish (88%) compared to the Scottish average (89%), the first time that this has happened. South Lanarkshire also now records a higher percentage of the population, compared to the Scottish average who identify as being from an Asian (SLC= 3%; Scotland= 2%) ethnic minority background (SLC= 3%; Scotland= 2%) or White other background (SLC= 7%; Scotland= 6%), the first time that has been recorded in the SHS or any other population survey (e.g. Census). Again it should be noted that the results from the SHS for SLC are based on smaller numbers than in previous editions of the SHS (370 respondents in 2021 against approx. 1,000 respondents in the years up to 2019), and that this could affect the accuracy of results when compared to the previous SHS surveys. All that can be said with certainty is that the SHS results, when taken in conjunction with the latest results from the APS (January to December 2022) would indicate that the percentage share in the White Scottish/ British population has been on the decline over the past 10 years in both SLC and Scotland, and that there has been an increase in the White Other and ethnic minority populations, during the same period, although the degree of change is open to question. Alternative figures on ethnicity among children of school age at a local authority level can be gathered from the Healthy Living Survey (HLS)(Scottish Government). Data from the latest HLS (2022) would suggest that slightly more pupils at SLC schools are from an ethnic minority background (compared to the share noted for ethnic minority adults through the APS), both at local primary and secondary schools, with 6.9% of pupils at SLC primary schools, and 5.9% of pupils at SLC secondary schools, identifying as being from an ethnic minority. The HLS 2022 findings do confirm the findings of the APS in terms of comparisons between South Lanarkshire and the Scottish average on the percentage of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds however as a share of total pupils, with the SLC averages for pupils identifying as ethnic minority for both primary and secondary significantly lower (SLC primary= 6.9% of pupils/ SLC secondary= 5.9% of pupils) than the Scotland wide figures (Scotland primary= 10.5% of pupils/ Scotland secondary= 9% of pupils) Religion or Belief – people with different religions and beliefs including those with no beliefs Due to a change in survey methodology, and a reduction of the survey sample, no results from the SHS 2021 were available on this question. The most recent data from the Scottish Household Survey (2019) indicates that a majority of adults (54.3%) in South Lanarkshire identify as belonging to a 149
Page 150
religious group. The percentage of adults with a religious belief in SLC (54.3%) is higher than the Scottish average (44.3%) where only a minority of respondents now state they have a religion. The trend on the question of religion both in SLC and across Scotland suggests that the percentage of adults who identify as having a religion has been progressively declining over the past 10 years however, in the case of South Lanarkshire falling from 69% back in 2009, down to 54.3% in 2019. Of adults who identified as religious in SLC, just under a third (30.4%) stated that they were Church of Scotland, while 16.7% stated that they were Roman Catholic (both higher percentages than the Scottish averages of 20.2% and 13.1%). Around 6.6% of adults in SLC identified as being from another Christian denomination (less than the Scottish average of 8%), while just 0.6% stated that they belonged to another religious group (inc Islam/ Hindu/ Jewish) much lower than the Scottish average of 3%. Sex - Gender Identity - women and men (girls and boys) and those who self- identify their gender The most recent population estimate (NRS MYPE 2021) suggests that there are 156,362 males and 166,268 females living in South Lanarkshire Based on the latest total estimated population 322,630 a gender split of 48.5% male and 51.5% female. The gender split for Scotland as a whole, based on the 2021 MYPE figures, is 48.8% male and 51.2% female, roughly in line with the balance in SLC. At a national level the Scotland 2022 census included a question on gender identity. Sexual Orientation – lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual/straight The 2011 census did not include a question on sexual orientation, but was included in the 2022 Scotland census. Due to a change in survey methodology, and a reduction of the survey sample, no results from the SHS 2021 were available for this question. The latest data from the Scottish Household Survey (2019) on this topic suggests that 97.3% of respondents in South Lanarkshire identified as being straight/heterosexual, with only 1.7% identifying as Gay/Lesbian, and 0.4% bisexual. The South Lanarkshire results from the SHS 2019 were exactly in line with the Scottish average. Comparing the results of the Scottish Household Survey (2019) with the results from the survey over the previous 7 years, there has been virtually no change in the percentage of SLC respondents identifying with the different sexual orientations since 2013. 4. Do you have evidence or reason to believe that this policy will or may impact on socio-economic inequalities? Consideration must be given particularly to children and families Socio-economic Disadvantage - Impact – What evidence do you have about socio-economic disadvantage and inequalities of outcome in relation to this issue or decision? Is it possible to gather new evidence, involving communities of interest? 150
Page 151
Low Income/Relative Income Poverty/ Child Poverty/– cannot afford to maintain regular payments such as bills, food, clothing, heating, and types of communications (phone/ digital/ transport) Deprivation (Income and Employment) The latest official figures (SIMD 2020) for South Lanarkshire show that 40,695 people were recorded as being Income Deprived, slightly down on the 41,670 people recorded as Income Deprived in 2016. As a percentage of the total population SL still has proportionately more people who are Income Deprived (12.8%) compared to the Scottish average (12.2%). The findings of the SIMD 2020 also suggested that 19,617 people in South Lanarkshire were recorded as being Employment Deprived, down on the 23,925 recorded as Employment Deprived in 2016. As with income deprivation however, the percentage of the working age population that are recorded as Employment Deprived is still higher in South Lanarkshire (9.7%) compared to the Scottish average (9.3%). The proportions of the population who are Income and Employment deprived in South Lanarkshire have continuously been above the Scottish averages since 2009, although the gap has closed slightly between 2016 and 2020. Low Pay (Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, ASHE) The latest figures from the ASHE (2022) indicates that the number/ percentage of employees (aged 16+) earning the real living wage in South Lanarkshire now stands at 90.8% (70,000 employees), the highest level ever recorded. Although the number/ percentage of employees in SLC earning the real living wage in SLC is at record levels (90.8%), the authority still lags behind the Scottish average (91%), although the gap between the SLC rate and the national average has reduced to just -0.2%.South Lanarkshire ranks 8th out of the 32 council areas in Scotland, for the percentage of employees earning the real living wage, the same position against the other council areas as 12 months ago. Average Pay (median gross weekly earnings) The latest figures from the ASHE (2022) indicates that South Lanarkshire residents on average earn £13 per week more than the Scottish average (SLC= £653 per week median average, Scotland= £640 per week median average), which is part of a longer term trend tracking back to 2014. The gap between the average weekly rate of pay in SLC (£653) and the Scottish average (£640) has narrowed over the past 12 months, from a gap of £31 per week in 2021, down to £13 per week in 2022, as a result of a faster increase in average pay rates across Scotland over the past year (between 2021 and 2022 average weekly median earnings have increased by +£20 in Scotland , compared to just +£2 per week in SLC). Average Pay by gender, male/ female earnings gap The level of full time pay amongst both men and women in South Lanarkshire has increased over the past 12 months according to the ASHE (2022) figures, although the rate of increase for both sexes has slowed compared to last year. While male FT pay in SLC has increased by +1.4% from £666 per week in 2021, to £675 per week in 2022, this is less than half the increase recorded between 2020 and 2021 (+3.6%). Female FT pay in SLC has performed even worse over the past 12 months, increasing by just +1.1%, from £631 in 2021, up to £638 in 2022, only around a sixth of the increase recorded last year (+7.4% between 2020 and 2021). The gap between male and female FT weekly median earnings in South Lanarkshire has also widened slightly (from +£35 per week in favour of men in 2021, up to +£37 per week in favour of men in 2022), as a direct result of the more limited growth in female earnings over the past year. Although the gap between male and female FT weekly earnings has widened locally over 151
Page 152
the past year, the weekly median pay differential between the sexes in SLC (+£37 per week average) is still the second closest ever recorded, and remains significantly better than the Scottish average gap for gender pay (e.g. across Scotland the average gap between male and female FT earnings is currently £70 per week, almost double the differential recorded in SLC= £37 per week). Child Poverty In term of Child Poverty, the most recent figures available indicate that levels in South Lanarkshire has been on the decline in recent years. The most recent figures from the DWP/ HMRC/ CPAG, after housing costs, suggests that 14,292 (or 22.8%) children in South Lanarkshire were living in relative low income households in 2021/22, a drop of -1.1% compared to pre-COVID levels (SLC figures for 2019/20= 14,723 or 23.1%). SLC has also consistently recorded lower levels of Child Poverty compared to the majority of other Scottish council areas and the Scottish average, with 22.8% of children living in poverty after housing costs in SLC in 2021/22, against the Scottish average of 24.5%. Different measures of child poverty do produce different results, however. The latest figures published by DWP/ HMRC on the percentage of children living in relative low income households ‘before housing costs’ indicates that 10,790 young people (19.4%) aged 0-17 in SLC were living in this type of poverty in SLC 2021/22, the highest level ever recorded locally. As with the relative child poverty before housing cost figure, SLC has historically recorded a lower level of this measure of child poverty compared to the Scottish average, with 19.4% of children living in living in relative low income households ‘before housing costs in SLC in 2021/22, against the Scottish average of 20.8%. Another alternative measure of gauging poverty levels among children is children in ‘absolute’ low income households before housing costs. Unlike relative poverty measures (both before and after housing costs) that calculate levels of poverty based on a comparison against a percentage of the UK household median income in the same year (defined as 60% or below of the UK average median), absolute poverty compares household income levels against a median in a given baseline year (2011), which is then adjusted to remove the effects of inflation. Again, based on this definition of child poverty the rate of children in absolute low income households before housing costs in South Lanarkshire is currently at a record high level according to the most recent figures, with 8,481 (15.2%) of children in SLC living in this type of household. Compared to the Scottish average, the same trend as relative poverty is noted, with SLC historically recording a lower rate of absolute child poverty than the national average, with 15.2% of children in SLC living in absolute low income households ‘before housing costs’ against the Scottish average of 19.1%. Fuel Poverty In terms of other poverty types, the main measure of fuel poverty is the Scottish House Condition Survey. The most recent figure from the SHCS (2017-2019) indicates that more than 1 in 5 households (21.8%) in South Lanarkshire were defined as fuel poor (e.g. households where more than 10% income being spent on energy bills). Comparing the latest 2017-19 figure, with the results of the SHCS from previous years suggests that fuel poverty among households is on the rise in SLC (e.g. the results from the previous 2016-18 SHCS suggested that 20% of households were recorded to be living in fuel poverty). Although fuel poverty has been increasing locally the trend figures from the SHCS going back the last 7 years (going back to 2010-12) also suggest that fuel poverty levels in South Lanarkshire have been consistently running below the Scottish average, with the latest 152
Page 153
2017-19 figures indicating a Scottish average of 24.4% of households in Scotland living on fuel poverty, +2.6% above the SLC percentage. The percentage of households in South Lanarkshire living in extreme fuel poverty (where 20% or more of household income is spent on energy costs) has also been increasing in recent years. The most recent figure from the SHCS (2017-2019) indicates that just under 1 in 10 households (9.4%) in SLC experienced extreme fuel poverty, almost double the rate that was recorded just 2 years earlier e.g. back in 2015-17, only 1 in 20 households (or 5%) were living in extreme fuel poverty. Again, comparing the South Lanarkshire with the Scottish average, although the percentage of households that live in extreme fuel poverty appears to be on the rise in SLC, the rate locally has consistently been lower than the Scottish average, with the 2017-19 figures indicating a Scottish average of 11.9% of households living in extreme fuel poverty, +2.5% above the SLC percentage. Data made available from local money advice services (the four Citizens Advice Bureau that cover South Lanarkshire) would suggest that the number of cases looking for energy or energy debt advice has increased over the past year by +36% (from 2,651 in 2021/22 to 3,614 in 2022/23). The level of financial gains secured for South Lanarkshire clients through energy advice provided by local CAB’s has almost doubled (+98% or £125K) over the past year, growing from £127K in gains 2021/22, up to £252K in 2022/23, the highest level on record. Food Poverty A proxy measure for food poverty is the number of individuals in receipt of emergency food parcels (through food bank referrals) in South Lanarkshire. The most recent figures available from the South Lanarkshire foodbanks indicates that the number of people being fed through emergency food distribution has increased by +40% from pre-COVID levels, from 41,293 in 2021/22 up to 57,709 in 2022/23. In terms of the demographics of people receiving emergency food aid a comparison the latest figures suggest that the number of adults receiving food parcels in SLC has increased by +45% from 24,836 in 2021/22 to 35,971 in 2022/23), while the number of children (under 16) receiving food parcels has increased by +32% over the past year, from 16,457 in 2021/22 up to 21,738 in 2022/23). Digital Exclusion One of the main measures of digital inclusion/exclusion, is the percentage of the population with home access to the internet. The latest figures from the Scottish Household Survey (2021), would suggest that the number of households with home access to the internet in South Lanarkshire has been increasing over recent years, and now (2019) stands at 96%, the highest figure ever recorded through the SHS. Compared to the Scottish average the percentage of households with home internet access in SLC is exactly in line with Scotland as a whole (96%). South Lanarkshire has generally recorded a figure for home internet access below than the Scottish average in the SHS previously. Statistics and measures relating to various types of income poverty in South Lanarkshire are shown in the table below. Income South Lanarkshire Scotland Residents (all ages) who are Income Deprived (SIMD 2020) 12.8% 12.2% 153
Page 154
Children (0-16) in Relative Low Income families (before Housing Costs) (DWP Stat Xplore/ HMRC- 2021/22) 19.4% 28.8% Children (0-16) living in Relative Poverty (after Housing Costs) (Campaign Against Child Poverty/ Child Poverty Action Group 2021/22, based on HMRC data) 22.8% 24.5% Free School Meal and Clothing Grant applications- Primary Schools (SLC Finance and IT, March 2023) 21.9% n/a Free School Meal and Clothing Grant applications- Secondary Schools (SLC Finance and IT, March 2023) 19.1% n/a Fuel Poverty- All households (SHCS 2017-19) 22% 24% Fuel Poverty- Families (inc families with children) (SHCS 2017-19) 17% 17% Fuel Poverty- Extreme Fuel Poverty (SHCS 2017-19) 9.4% 11.9% Internet Access at home (Scottish Household Survey 2021) 96% 96% 154
Page 155
Low and/or no wealth – enough money to meet basic living costs and pay bills but have no savings to deal with any unexpected spends and no provision for the future See information above Material Deprivation – being unable to access basic goods and services i.e. financial products like life insurance, repair/replace broken electrical goods, warm home, leisure and hobbies There are two principal measures of material deprivation in Scotland. One focused on children (Children in Families with Limited Resources dataset or CFLRS), the second on Pensioner households in material deprivation, which is sourced from the Family Resources survey (FRS), the results of which is only available at a national level. The CFLRS was originally developed as a set of experimental statistics, based on an analysis of datasets/ selected responses from the Scottish Household Survey (SHS). The initial measure for the CFLRS (2014-16) was designed to operate on a 3 year rolling average basis, but due to some of the survey responses not being available from the 2017, the data from that year had to be combined to calculate a 4 year average (2014-17). The most recent figures 2017-19 (CFLRS, SHS subset) suggests that the rate of children in families in South Lanarkshire suffering material deprivation (living in households with limited resources after housing costs) continues to run below the Scottish average, with South Lanarkshire recording a figure of 15.1%, against 16.6% of families in Scotland. The gap between the SLC rate for material deprivation and the Scottish average has also widened in SLC’s favour, compared to 2017-19. It should be noted that the most recent publication of data from the CFLRS dates back to the period 2017-19 and predates the economic/ social impact of COVID-19, as well as the current cost of living crisis. 155
Page 156
Area Deprivation – where you live (rural areas), where you work (accessibility of transport) The main measure of area deprivation is the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). The most recent publication (SIMD 2020) indicated that there were 88 data zones in South Lanarkshire that ranked within the worst quintile (20%) in Scotland, which was a drop of one data zone from the number that was recorded in 2016. In terms of the national share of deprived data zones, South Lanarkshire has the 4th highest share out of the 32 council areas, with the area containing 6% of Scotland’s most deprived 20% data zones, this is unchanged from previous SIMDs. The geographical spread of the most deprived 20% data zones in South Lanarkshire has also remained relatively unchanged since the publication of the first SIMD in 2004, with the deprived areas mostly concentrated in the urban/ suburban locations of South Lanarkshire. Of the 88 most deprived data zones in SLC, the vast majority are in either Hamilton/ Blantyre/Larkhall (41), Rutherglen/ Cambuslang (29), or East Kilbride (5). Less than a fifth (13) of the 20% data zones are in Clydesdale, and most of these are concentrated in rural towns/small rural towns such as Lanark, Carluke, Lesmahagow or Kirkmuirhill. In the past there have been limitations with the SIMD data with regards to accurately measuring levels of geographical deprivation in rural and sparsely populated areas, however in more recent publications of the SIMD, a greater emphasis has been placed on the importance of rural deprivation. The contribution of measures such as access to key services (drive and public transport travel times to key services and amenities) and connectivity (internet speeds/access to broadband) have been boosted in the scoring of the overall SIMD index, in order to try and give a more accurate picture. Another method of assessing rural deprivation can be obtained by looking at SIMD 2020 Access domain in isolation from the rest of the index. Closer analysis of the Access domain reveals that the greatest concentrations of Access deprived data zones are found in Clydesdale and Avondale. Of the 8 data zones in SLC ranked in the worst 1-5% for Access deprivation in Scotland, 7 are in the rural areas of Clydesdale (all in South and East Clydesdale in the data zones neighbouring the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway), while 1 (Drumclog) is in Avondale. When the analysis is widened to take into account the worst 1-10% of Access deprived data zones, the number of SLC data zones amongst the most deprived in Scotland increases 28, of which 17 are in Clydesdale and 3 are in Avondale. 156
Page 157
Socioeconomic Background – social class i.e. educational qualifications, and employment, unemployment Employment The most recent calendar year update figures from the Annual Population Survey (APS) (January to December 2022) highlights that 156,400 adults in South Lanarkshire were in employment, one of the highest levels ever recorded in the authority. The rate of adults in employment in South Lanarkshire continues to run well above the Scottish average with 79.8% of adults in SLC in employment compared to the Scottish average of 74.4%, the widest gap between the two rates noted to date. The latest quarterly update figures from the APS (for the 12-month period January to December 2022) indicates that 78,500 males were employment in South Lanarkshire, the highest of the mainland councils in Scotland and the second highest number ever recorded locally. The latest rate figure suggests that more than four fifths (83.6%) of working age males in South Lanarkshire were in employment during period January to December 2022, the second highest rate every recorded. The gap between the rate of male employment in SLC (83.6%) and the Scottish average (76.3%) has increased over the past year, and now sits at a +7.3% in favour of SLC, the second widest gap in male employment rates between SLC and Scotland ever recorded. Employment, gender split A similar pattern is seen for employment levels among females in South Lanarkshire, with 78,000 working age females (76.3%) in SLC being in employment at January to December 2022, the highest level recorded for more than two years. As with male employment, the levels of female employment SLC consistently runs at a higher level than the Scottish average, according to the latest figures. The January to December 2022 data suggests that 76.3% of working age females in SLC are in employment, +3.6% above the Scottish average of 72.7%. It is also worth noting that that the rate of female employment in SLC (76.3%) is currently (January to December 2022) higher than the average for male employment in Scotland (76.2%) Although employment rates among females in SLC is presently close to record levels, the rate of female employment in SLC (as it is for Scotland) is still lower than the male employment rate. The January to December 2022 data indicates that the gap between male and female employment rates in SLC currently stands at +7.3%, which is an improvement on the gap recorded at the same point last year (+9.6% in favour on men at January to December 2021). More negatively, the gender employment gap in favour of men in SLC (+7.3%) remains at around twice the Scottish average (+3.5%) according to the January to December 2022 data, which suggests that achieving parity between female and male employment rates locally are still an issue, despite the fact that the rate of employment for females in SLC in generally higher than the Scottish average. Employment, part-time/ full-time 157
Page 158
The latest January to December 2022 figures indicate that 26.6% of employees in SLC currently work part-time, the lowest percentage recorded for 12 months. The recent fall in the percentage of PT employees recorded in SLC, goes against the long-term trend of a growing number of people working part-time locally, with the ratio of PT to FT employees increasing for the past 3 years. The percentage of employees in SLC now working part time (26.6%), also remains above the Scottish average (24.8%), a trend that tracks back almost 2 years (trend beginning at the first COVID-19 lockdown). The issue of part-time work and the relationship to poverty and inequality becomes more apparent when comparing PT employment rates for men and women. The January to December 2022 APS figures suggest that the rate of PT working for women in SLC (37.4%) still continues to run at more than twice the rate recorded for men (15.7%). It is also worth noting that the incidence of part time working among both men and women in SLC and Scotland, has been on the increase since 2019. In the case of men in SLC, part time working has grown from just 1 in 20 (5.5%) males in total employment at January to December 2019, up to almost 1 in 6 males (15.7%) by at January to December 2022. Over the same period (2019- 2022) part time employment among females in SLC has also increased but only by +0.8%, from 36.6% of women working part time at January to December 2019, up to 37.4% at January to December 2022. Employment, Occupation In terms of employment by occupation sector (SOC 2020 classification) the latest yearly figures (January to December 2022) suggests that a lower proportion of the adult workforce in South Lanarkshire are employed in Management and Professional occupations (27%) compared to the Scottish average (33.8%), a historical trend. By contrast, in terms of elementary semi-skilled and unskilled (elementary) occupations South Lanarkshire continues to record a higher percentage of employees working in these sectors (22%) against the Scottish average (16%), according to the latest APS figures (January- December 2022) Employment, Occupation and gender Comparing the share of employment by occupational sector and sex/ gender, the latest figures (January to December 2022) indicate that a greater percentage of females to males are in employment in South Lanarkshire in 2 of the 3 highest earning occupations, with a higher rate of women in SLC (as a percentage of all those in work) employed as Professionals, (female= 19.7% against male=16.6%), and in the Associate Professional occupations (female=15.3%, against male=13.6%). For middle earning occupations women record a higher percentage of employees in occupational sectors such as Administrative and Secretarial occupations (female= 15.1%, against male=3%), Sales and Customer Service (female= 16.2%, against male=10.1%), and Caring, Leisure and Other Services (female= 12.1%, against 158
Page 159
male= 3%). The one middle ranking/ earning occupation where women do not outnumber men continues to be the Skilled Trades (female= 2%, against male= 12.6%). In terms of the lower skilled/ earning occupational groups a higher proportion of men than women in SLC work as Process, Plant and Machine Operatives (female= 4%, against male=15.2%), and Elementary occupations (female= 9.8%, against male=14.5%). Compared to the Scottish average, the rate of female employment in the higher earning occupations in SLC overall is generally higher or in line with the Scottish average, based on the January to December 2022 figures e.g. Managers (SLC= 6.9%, Scotland= 6.2%) and Associate Professional occupations; while the percentage of women in SLC that work in the Professions is lower when compared to the Scottish average (SLC= 19.7%, Scotland= 26.9%). At the other end of the occupation scale, in terms of semi-skilled and elementary occupations just over a fifth (22%) of women in SLC work in at this level of occupation, which is also significantly higher than the Scottish average (16.1%) however. Unemployment In terms of claimant unemployment (JSA/ UC claimant count) there were 6,055 unemployed claimants in South Lanarkshire at September 2023 (3% of the 16-64 population), equal the lowest rate ever recorded in SLC. The current rate of claimant unemployment in South Lanarkshire (3%) is in line the Scottish average (also 3%) according to the latest figures. Generally since 2004 the SLC rate for claimant unemployment has been above the Scottish average, but for the past 12 months the rate has either been in line or fallen below the national average. Unemployment and gender The rate of claimant unemployment amongst men (3.6%) in South Lanarkshire continues to run at a higher level than it does for women (2.4%), but the gap between the two rates has been narrowing, and now stands at just 1.2%, in favour of men, one of the closest recorded on record. While the rate of female claimants in SLC (2.4%) is equal to the Scottish average (2.4%), the SLC rate for male unemployment (3.6%), has fallen below the Scottish average (3.7%) at September 2023. It is worth noting that since 2004 the rate of claimant unemployment for males in South Lanarkshire has generally been above the Scottish average, but for the past 10 months the rate of men has in SLC either been in line or below. The split between male and female claimants as a percentage of all unemployed claimants also indicates that the percentage of female claimants, in comparison to males, is also at highest level ever observed. The September 2023 claimant count figures indicate that 59% of SLC unemployed claimants were male, compared to 41% female, the greatest percentage of females to male claimants recorded since 2004) 159
Page 160
Employment & Education South Lanarkshire Scotland Employment Rate (16- 64) (Annual Population Survey, Jan- Dec 2022) 79.8% 74.4% Employment Rate (16- 64) Gender (Male/ Female) (Annual Population Survey, Jan- Dec 2022) Males- 83.6% Females- 76.3% Gap= 7.3% Males- 76.2% Females- 72.7% Gap= 3.5% Employment Rate (16- 64) White/ Ethnic Minority (born in the UK) (Annual Population Survey, Jan- Dec 2022) White = 79.7% Ethnic Minority = 83% White= 74.9% Ethnic Minority= 68% Residents (16-64) who are Employment Deprived (SIMD 2020) 9.7% 9.3% JSA/ UC jobseeker claimant count (16-64) (September 2023) (NOMIS/ DWP) 3% 3% JSA/ UC jobseeker claimant count (16-64) Gender (Male/ Female) (September 2023) (NOMIS/ DWP) Male- 3.6% Female- 2.4% Gap= 1.2% Male- 3.7% Female- 2.4% Gap= 1.3% JSA/ UC jobseeker claimant count – young people (16-24) (September 2023) (NOMIS/ DWP) 3.5% 3.6% Universal Credit claimants (persons) In employment Out of employment (16-64) (DWP May 2023) 14.3% 4.8% 9.5% 12.8% 4.9% 8.9% No Qualifications (Annual Population Survey, Jan- Dec 2022) 7.9% 7.7% 160
Page 161
School Leaver Destinations- follow up survey (Scottish Government, SLDR Follow up survey 2022 Positive destination (all categories)= 93.2% Higher Education= 43.9% Further Education= 15% Training= 2.7% Employment = 31.4% Negative destination (all categories)= 4.7% Positive destination (all categories)= 93.2% Higher Education= 40.3% Further Education= 18.3% Training= 2.3% Employment = 31.5% Negative destination (all categories)= 5.7% 161
Page 162
Additional analysis One of the responsibilities placed on local authorities by the Fairer Scotland Duty is to consider methods of how to assess the impact of council plans and policies on minority groups where equality is an issue. In this respect the scope of the FSD would therefore include trying to assess the impact of council policies or strategies on groups more susceptible to economic disadvantage or lack of opportunities for economic advancement due to their social background/age/marital status or ethnic group. One of the problems facing local authorities is how to accurately measure the impact of any strategy or policies on these groups. At the moment there is a significant lack of data available from national surveys on the effects of poverty and inequality at the local authority level on minority groups. One example of this is the results from one of the main surveys designed to measure the impact of poverty and material deprivation, the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS contains a wealth of useful data on poverty and material deprivation levels on different types of household, but the majority of the results are only available at a national level. The results from the FRS confirms that characteristics such as gender/ ethnic group/ disability/ marital status/ age etc. does have a bearing on life chances and influence poverty levels. Starting with gender, the last figures for the FRS (2017-20) suggests that relative poverty is highest for single women with children (38%). The poverty rate for single women without children by contrast was 27%. For single men without children the rate of poverty was 34%. Estimates for single fathers are not available due to small sample sizes. Until 2010-13, the gap in poverty rates between these groups had been narrowed, but since 2013 the trends suggest that rates of poverty have been widened based on these household types. The difference in poverty rates between households from different ethnic backgrounds is also stark. The latest FRS data for 2015-20, confirms that people from non-white minority ethnic groups (both UK and non-UK born) are much more likely to be in relative poverty (after housing costs) compared to those from the ‘White - British’ and ‘White - Other’ backgrounds. More than two fifths of ‘Asian or Asian British’ ethnic households (41%), and ‘Mixed, Black or Black British and Other’ ethnic households (43%) were living in poverty according to the FRS 2015-20. By contrast around a quarter of households (24%) from the ‘White - Other’ group (inc Eastern European) are recorded as living in poverty. Levels of poverty among households from a ‘White - British’ background are even lower (just 18%), less than half the rate for Asian or Asian British’ and the ‘Mixed, Black or Black British and Other’ ethnic groups. Poverty rates remain higher for households where a family member is disabled (both adult and/ or child) compared to a household where no-one is disabled. The FRS 2017-20, indicates that the poverty rate (after housing costs) for households with a disabled person is 23%. This compares with an average poverty rate of 17% of households without disabled members. In terms of the influence of marital status, the 2017-20 FRS data implies that the relative poverty rate (after housing costs) is highest for single adult and divorced (or separated) adult households (both 27%). Married couple households are the least likely to be in poverty (13%), while widowed and cohabiting adult households are slightly more likely to experience poverty (19%). Poverty among widowed and divorced/separated adults has largely decreased over the past 15 years, whereas the trend for singles, cohabiting and married adults has tended to remain unchanged. The FRS also confirms that poverty levels differ according to the age of the household head. Over the last 15 years, households headed by those under 24 have been consistently more likely to be in relative poverty compared to older adult households. In 2017-20, while 28% of adults aged 16-24 were recorded to be in relative poverty (after housing costs), only 15% of households headed by an adult aged 65 or older lived in poverty. 162
Page 163
5. Results Executive Committee of 22 November 2023 approved a public consultation on the proposal to alter the mainstream secondary school transport qualifying distance (from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles). A proposal document was published, widely publicised and a series of public meetings held. It is recognised that the proposal has the potential to bring a negative socio-economic impact to parents and carers with childcare responsibilities, particularly women and those with a disability. Gender:- We have undertaken some initial analysis of the respondents to our consultation. 73% of all respondents identified as female and of that cohort, 75% are within the working age range of 16-64yrs and have childcare responsibilities (under 14yrs). These results, along with the data collated and detailed above, including rates of pay being less than men, more females working part time, and the last figures for the FRS (2017-20) suggesting relative poverty is highest for single women with children, show there will likely be a negative socio-economic impact. Disability:- It is not anticipated that young people with disabilities will be negatively impacted by this saving, as there is no change proposed in this area of the mainstream school transport policy. The proposal affects only the distance entitlement element of the school transport policy. All pupils who currently receive transport on medical or ASN grounds will continue to do so, and we will continue to assess any new cases on an individual basis. However, it is recognised that some adults within families may have a disability potentially making it difficult for them to accompany their child to school, if required, where no longer entitled to transport on distance. Scottish Household Survey shows the percentage of adults(16+) self-identifying with a long-term disability at 35% in 2021. Poverty rates remain higher for households where a family member is disabled (both adult and/ or child) compared to a household where no-one is disabled. The FRS 2017-20, indicates that the poverty rate (after housing costs) for households with a disabled person is 23%. This compares with an average poverty rate of 17% of households without disabled members. 6. Conclusion Under the Fairer Scotland Duty, while this proposal is not a new strategy, it is an alteration to an existing policy and we do recognise that it has the potential to bring a negative socio-economic impact for those with a low income, including: • women being the primary caregiver, and • parents with disabilities particularly where unemployment and low incomes are prevalent. There is also a potential general impact on parents/carers from the additional strain on childcare and for those who may have multiple children at different schools and have difficulty in getting their children to school. Listed below are some initiatives that will help to mitigate this impact: To mitigate the inequalities of outcome caused by the socio-economic disadvantages arising from the proposal, the following actions and outcomes have been identified: • all secondary school pupils are eligible to access the Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme. The scheme will be promoted within schools. • council will engage with bus operators to seek any potential opportunity for them to increase or adjust public bus routes, making Under 22 Free Bus Passes more accessible. • council will promote wider active travel and independence – e.g. cycle routes, walking groups (which may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), park and stride, connecting parents who may wish to car share or operate parent led group transport. • council will continue providing access to privilege transport where dedicated school transport may have spare capacity. Priority 1 allocation of spaces remains where there may be a family with an adult disability. • council will conduct safe walking route assessment where concerns over road safety are raised by parents. 163
Page 164
• secondary schools should seek to build in as many positive factors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable and active travel for their pupils within their School Travel Plan. • council will monitor the impact of the implementation of the proposal should it be approved. Signed by Lead Officer Lynn Sherry Designation Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) Date 23/05/2024 164
Page 165
Education Resources Consumer duty impact assessment This template is for completing a consumer duty impact assessment, as referred to in Annex F of How to meet the consumer duty: guidance for public authorities (draft). Subject : Altering the qualifying distance for mainstream secondary school transport The council currently provides mainstream secondary school transport where a pupil lives more than 2 miles from their catchment school (and for mainstream primary school transport where a pupil lives more than 1 mile from their catchment school). The statutory responsibility of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is to provide school transport for: • any child aged under 8 years who lives more than 2 miles from their catchment school, and; • any child aged 8 years and over who lives more than 3 miles from their catchment school. Given financial pressures, the council is having to implement £21m of savings in 2024/25 and is facing further savings of £77m over the next three years. In addition, due to rising costs, the annual spend on mainstream school transport has grown from £6m in 2021/22 to over £10m in 2023/24, an increase of £4m, 66%, and is projected to increase again to around £11m in 2024/25. These costs are not sustainable for the service. This overspend is having to be managed within the existing total education annual budget, including using some reserve funds available and the non-filling of posts. As a result, the council has had to reassess service priorities and agreed to undertake a statutory public consultation to seek views on the proposal to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school to qualify for free school transport, from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. Appendix 4 8 165
Page 166
Other aspects of the policy did not form part of the consultation and so no change was proposed for example, the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds, or any road safety concerns raised by parents would still be assessed by undertaking a safe walking route check. Also, the provision of mainstream primary school transport and transport to ASN (additional support needs) bases and schools will continue as is, only a change to secondary school transport is being considered in this proposal. Stage Tasks Outcome Planning (1) Decide if this is a strategic decision or not. If not, then proceed to stage 5 This proposal would involve a change to the council’s free mainstream secondary school transport policy in terms of qualifying distance criteria. It would require approval at the council’s Executive Committee, and as such, this is regarded as a decision of a strategic nature in terms of section 21 of the Consumer Scotland Act 2020. Decide if the strategic decision will impact on consumers. If not, then proceed to stage 5 The proposal would have an impact on secondary school pupils and families. This may also potentially impact on particular consumers who may be deemed more vulnerable to negative impacts e.g. • a socio-economic impact on parents and carers with childcare responsibilities and children at different schools/nurseries. In particular, for women who are usually the primary caregivers. • some adults within families may have a disability, potentially making it difficult for them to accompany their child to school • a disproportionate impact in respect of religion due to the numbers of pupils affected across different schools, (denominational and non- denominational). If this is a strategic decision, that will have an impact on consumers, then develop a plan for how to complete stages 2-5, including required consumer engagement A ‘plan’ has developed under the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. This consultation exercise has resulted in the gathering of stakeholder opinion and a consultation outcome report identified concerns and negative impacts. Potential actions were also identified to help mitigate the negative impacts, where possible. After review of the new consumer duty and guidance, it is 166
Page 167
believed this report constitutes a ‘plan’ which enables the council to be satisfied that the requirements of the duty have been, and are being met. Understand the aims and outcomes of the proposal and identify alternative options AIM: Currently, the provision of school transport within South Lanarkshire is more generous than required by legislation. The aim is to consider bringing the council policy on school transport more into line with the legislative position, for which we receive funding from the Scottish Government. It could help to protect vital services from further cuts beyond that which may already have to be incurred over the coming years due to the unprecedented financial challenges being faced by Scottish councils. The council will work with schools, parents, pupils and others to assist with the impact of this change, including the promotion and encouragement of more sustainable and active travel forms. INTENDED OUTCOME: Given the financial challenges, if fully implemented, it is estimated that this proposal could save approximately £2m per annum and would assist with the continued protection of resources prioritised on frontline learning and teaching. It would bring secondary school transport provision into line with statutory levels and the majority of other councils. (19 of 32 councils already operate a distance criteria of more than 3 miles for secondary school pupils and have done for a number of years.) The consequences of this would be that less pupils will qualify for free school transport (estimated at around 2,000 pupils affected), meaning families would have to make their own alternative arrangements. If approved, the proposal would not come into effect until August 2025, thereby allowing the council time to complete the necessary planning and preparation and advise parents in good time whether their children will receive transport or whether they require to make alternative arrangements. The council would also work with each school community to identify and implement any mitigating factors which may be applicable in their local setting. 167
Page 168
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: Not progressing with this proposal would require budget cuts from other sectors which would impact learning and teaching , or potential implementation of a charge on parents. Evidence gathering (2) To have regard to: • The impact of those decisions on consumers in Scotland • The desirability of reducing harm to consumers in Scotland guidance has 5 stages and is outcomes-based within a framework of the 7 Consumer Principles adopted by Consumer Scotland. These are Access, Choice, Safety, Information, Fairness, Representation, Redress. Sufficient evidence gathered to answer: • What is the proposal trying to achieve? • What are the impacts on consumers, if any? Consultation has taken place in accordance with Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. This consultation exercise has provided sufficient evidence that engagement with consumers has taken place. Around 6,000 pupils are currently transported to school each day. 2,000 may be impacted by this proposal. 6,315 consultation responses were received, 55% of respondents were parents and 22% were pupils. Consultation outcome report is available here: Secondary school transport - consultation - South Lanarkshire Council. Given the need for the council to make significant financial savings and reduce expenditure on school transport, which has increased from £6m in 2021/22 to £10m in 23/24, the proposal would save an estimate £2m if transport provision returned to the statutory level for secondary pupils of more than 3 miles. This would be consistent with the level of council funding received and would protect other sectors of education from further budget cuts. Consumers are identified as pupils and parents. Concerns raised about the impacts on them by both the council and stakeholders during the consultation included: • Safe walking routes - e.g. poor lighting, lack of pavements, speed, areas of antisocial behaviour • Lack of alternative transport mode / 3 miles is too far to walk - no/limited public service, inclement weather, heavy school bags 168
Page 169
• What are the impacts, if any, on consumers in vulnerable circumstances? • Is it likely that harm will be experienced by consumers as a result of this proposal? • Impact on local communities around school - congestion, emissions, accidents • Reduction in attainment and attendance - tired, cold, affecting learning • Some young people reported being anxious about using public transport and their personal safety walking to and from school. Impacts on more vulnerable consumers include: • socio-economic impact on parents with childcare responsibilities and children at different schools/nurseries. In particular, for women who are usually the primary caregivers, it may affect their ability to balance making alternative travel arrangements whilst maintaining existing work commitments or accessing opportunities to increase working hours. Some parents may be faced with an additional cost due to limited alternative travel options. • some adults within families may have a disability, potentially making it difficult for them to accompany their child to school if no longer entitled to transport on distance. • there may be a disproportionate impact in respect of religion due to the numbers of pupils affected across different schools, (denominational and non-denominational). There may be a financial impact due to cost of transport - train, fuel if driving their children to school, complications with childcare v work, loss of working hours. Isolation to those families with a disability or discrimination to those with a different religion. This could limit the choice of alternative options of getting to school, the fairness of opportunity and affect access to education. 169
Page 170
• What alternative proposals are there that can improve outcomes for consumers and/or reduce harm to consumers? The consultation produced alternative suggestions that were felt more acceptable as they did not remove transport and so would therefore lessen the potential inconvenience, childcare issues or disadvantage to families:- This would have a direct impact on the support available for children, young people and families and impact on learning and teaching in schools. • Levy a charge or attempt to access the under 22 bus pass funding to support the continuation of current school transport levels. These were considered but are not possible:- o Retain transport but apply a charge - not possible under the Public Services Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR), as most of the commercial vehicles contracted by SPT are not PSVAR complaint and therefore a charge cannot be levied. o Retain transport by re-directing national under 22 bus pass monies - was confirmed by the Scottish Government that this money if for public operators and not for local councils. • Do not implement the proposal. However, if this proposal is not implemented, then other parts of education would need to be considered for significant service reduction or termination in order to balance the education budget. To provide an indication of how serious the impact of a further £2m budget reduction would be, this would equate to a reduction of approximately 100 school support assistants or 30 teaching posts. Other impacts could potentially include a reduction in access to pupil support services such as school counsellors and educational psychologists, speech and language therapy as well as a reduction in the provision of learning resources impacting the ability to offer a stimulating curriculum. This would have a direct impact on the support available for children, young people and families and impact on learning and teaching in schools. 170
Page 171
• How do these alternative proposals compare to the original proposal? • Has your engagement with consumers established any themes you hadn’t previously considered? They are either not possible, or the council would require to find alternative savings that would have more of a direct negative impact on learning and teaching. (see above). All themes and comments received during the consultation period in respect of the proposal have been considered under the Consumer Duty. 6,315 online consultation responses, 4 public meetings and a report from Education Scotland on the findings from their own engagement exercise has allowed for a depth of engagement which has brough forward a large number of concerns and negative impacts. (Actions undertaken by schools to specifically promote pupil awareness and engagement in the consultation process included regular posts on Google Classroom, information in weekly pupil newsletters, information given at school assemblies and discussions within pupil council meetings and PSE class settings). Identify and fill any gaps in evidence to answer questions above In terms of fairness and denominational disadvantage, children residing in our rural areas would be unaffected by the proposal due to the large catchment area and lack of proximity to their catchment denominational school. This is also the case for the towns of Larkhall and Strathaven. Therefore, a high-level analysis on the projected impact across the main urban settlements of Hamilton, East Kilbride and Cambuslang/Rutherglen, based on the number of pupils currently being transported, was undertaken. It has shown that the total overall likely impact is largely the same irrespective of denomination. In terms of safety, investigation into concerns over anti-social behaviour and violence suggested that reported incidents generally take place out with the times pupils are walking to and from school. Community safety issues that can 171
Page 172
arise tend to be a much wider issue which cannot be resolved via a school transport policy. The council works in partnership with Police Scotland and a range of other community safety partners to tackle all forms of criminality and anti-social behaviour. Concerns raised were shared with relevant partners and discussions on this area will continue if the revised transport proposals come into effect. Assessment and improvement of proposal (3) Consider answers to stage 2 to assess the impact of the strategic decision on consumers Concerns and potential impacts which may cause harm have been identified in section 2 above. The subsequent desirability to reduce harm is evidenced by the creation of a list of potential actions which could help, at least partly, to mitigating some of the potential harm as follows: • pupils are eligible to access the Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme and this entitlement will be promoted further to all pupils. • The council will engage with bus operators to seek any potential opportunity for them to increase or adjust public bus routes, helping to make the use of under 22 bus passes more accessible. • The council will promote wider active travel opportunities and independence e.g. cycle routes, walking groups (may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), any park and stride opportunities. • Priority 1 pupils offering of privilege places (where remaining dedicated school transport may have spare capacity) to support families where adults may have disabilities. Wider access to others thereafter. • Schools can signpost families to other available help such as benefit entitlement e.g. through Money Matters advice, via either individual conversations or general messages on social media. • We recognise that there is potential for some children to be affected by bullying if faced with longer walking/bus travel to school. Schools can provide individual support through the council’s Promoting Positive Behaviour and 172
Page 173
Anti-Bullying policies. • Unsafe walking routes: Safe walking route assessments will be undertaken where families express road safety concerns. West of Scotland Road Safety Forum Guidelines are applied and are congruent to 2021 Scottish Government Guidance. • Where parents may still choose to take their children to school by car, potentially causing congestion around schools, emissions and risk of accidents: council will consider car free zones, prevention of engine idling, linking parents and bus operators who may be interested in parent led group transport, car sharing. Also, building in as many positive factors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable and active travel within each secondary school’s travel plan. Travel audit visits by health and safety officers will provide further focus for relevant action relating to school grounds and the surrounding environment during school run periods. • Schools working with young people to create groups of from same areas to walk or use public transport together to reduce anxiety and improve independence. • Attendance and attainment: It remains the legal responsibility of parents to ensure their child attend school. Post COVID there is a national focus on improving attendance with an increased number of strategies and supports to help young people engage. 19 other local authorities already operate the provision of school transport beyond 3 miles and have done so for some time. There is no evidence to suggest that this has had any direct impact on learning. Consideration to be given to supervised access for changing or access to lockers if required. • Any child or young person with a disability will not be impacted as there is no proposed change to the existing part of the policy relating to the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds. A safe walking route assessment will still be undertaken where parents raise any road safety concerns. 173
Page 174
Consider if any improvements need to be made to the initial proposal in light of findings of impact on consumers The council is committed to working with schools, pupils and parents from each secondary school and will strive to identify local issues and actions which could be implemented to assist with the desire to reduce harm to consumers. With implementation recommended for August 2025, this provides time for parents affected to make alternative arrangements and for any actions to -reduce harm to be considered and implemented. Consider if any further consumer engagement is necessary Subject to the Executive Committee’s decision, there will be an implementation period when further engagement with schools, pupils and families will take place. Decision (4) Consider the findings of previous stages and agree any changes to the proposal A consultation outcome report has been produced and a decision will be taken by the council’s Executive Committee. The proposal was reviewed in line with the requirement of the Consumer Duty. Any feedback or changes requested following the decision of the Executive Committee will require to be considered. 174
Page 175
Document clearly how you have met the consumer duty: • The impact of the strategic decision on consumers and the desirability of reducing harm to consumers have been considered throughout the process. • That an outcomes-based approach has been taken to achieve the best outcomes for consumers. The consultation outcome report incorporated the information gathered from the extensive public consultation. The proposal was reviewed in line with the requirement of the Consumer Duty. 6,315 responses were received and within them there were numerous concerns expressed over the impact that children and families would feel. These were analysed and then categorised into similar groups, where they were considered and a response provided for each. The desire to reduce harm can be evidenced by the number and range of actions identified in the responses in the consultation outcome report (summarised in section 3 above), and in the commitment to work with schools, parents and families during the implementation period. If the proposal is approved by the council, there is a commitment that further engagement will take place to communicate the change, and work with school communities to consider appropriate actions to reduce harm. The council will seek to implement all actions across secondary schools which are possible and relevant within each local school community setting. Publication (5) The Consumer Scotland 2020 Act requires public authorities to publish information about the steps which they have taken to meet the duty. This impact assessment will be within the Executive Committee report. Will likely be picked up as part of annual reporting on the council’s duties in respect of the Consumer Duty. DATE: 18 July 2024 COMPLETED BY: Lynn Sherry, Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) David Hinshelwood, Support Services Manager 175
Page 176
176
Page 177
Appendix 5 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment Form (CRWIA) Resource Education Resources, South Lanarkshire Council Service/establishment Support Services Lead officer Lynn Sherry, Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) 1. Brief Summary (Name the policy and describe its overall aims. Which national outcome does this policy/measure contribute to?) Consultation on altering the qualifying distance for mainstream secondary school transport The council currently provides mainstream secondary school transport where a pupil lives more than 2 miles from their catchment school (and for mainstream primary school transport where a pupil lives more than 1 mile from their catchment school). The statutory responsibility of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is to provide school transport for: • any child aged under 8 years who lives more than 2 miles from their catchment school, and; • any child aged 8 years and over who lives more than 3 miles from their catchment school. Given financial pressures, the council is having to implement £21m of savings in 2024/25 and is facing further savings of £77m over the next three years. In addition, due to rising costs, the annual spend on mainstream school transport has grown from £6m in 2021/22 to over £10m in 2023/24, an increase of £4m, 66%, and is projected to increase again to around £11m in 2024/25. These costs are not sustainable for the service. This overspend is having to be managed within the existing total education annual budget, including using some reserve funds available and the non-filling of posts. As a result, the council has had to reassess service priorities and agreed to undertake a statutory public consultation to seek views on the proposal to alter the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school to qualify for free school transport, from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles. Other aspects of the policy did not form part of the consultation and so no change was proposed for example, the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds, or any road safety concerns raised by parents would still be assessed by undertaking a safe walking route check. Also, the provision of mainstream primary school transport and transport to ASN (additional support needs) bases and schools will continue as is, only a change to secondary school transport is being considered in this proposal. Intended Outcome:- Given the financial challenges, if fully implemented, it is estimated that this proposal could save approximately £2m per annum and would assist with the continued protection of resources prioritised on frontline learning and teaching. It would bring secondary school transport provision into line with statutory levels and the majority of other councils. (19 of 32 councils already operate a distance criteria of more than 3 miles for secondary school pupils and have done for a number of years.) The consequences of this would be that less pupils will qualify for free school transport (estimated at around 2,000 pupils affected), meaning families would have to make their own alternative arrangements. If approved, the proposal would not come into effect until August 2025, thereby allowing the council time to complete the necessary planning and preparation and advise parents in good time whether their children will receive transport or whether they require to make alternative arrangements. The council would also work with each school community to identify and implement any mitigating factors which may be applicable in their local setting. 8 177
Page 178
2. What aspects of the policy/measure will affect children and young people up to the age of 18? (The Articles of the UNCRC and the child wellbeing indicators under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 apply to all children and young people up to the age of 18, including non-citizen and undocumented children and young people.) Whilst this savings proposal will not focus on a particular age-group, the fact that it is specific to mainstream secondary school transport means that the 11-18 age group will be affected. The only change affecting this group would relate to the distance criteria. Other aspects of the policy did not form part of the consultation and so no change was proposed for example, the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds, or any road safety concerns raised by parents would still be assessed by undertaking a safe walking route check. 3. What likely impact – direct or indirect – will the policy/measure have on children and young people? (‘Direct’ impact refers to policies/measures where children and young people are directly affected by the proposed changes, e.g. in early years, education, child protection or looked after children (children in care). ‘Indirect’ impact refers to policies/measures that are not directly aimed at children but will have an impact on them. Examples include: welfare reforms, parental leave, housing supply, or local transport schemes.) The impact would relate only to the distance that a mainstream secondary school pupil must live from their catchment school in order to qualify for free school transport (i.e. from more than 2 miles to more than 3 miles). The consequences of this would be that less pupils will qualify for free school transport (estimated at around 2,000 pupils affected), meaning families would have to make their own alternative arrangements. 4. Which groups of children and young people will be affected? (Under the UNCRC, ‘children’ can refer to: individual children, groups of children, or children in general. Some groups of children will relate to the groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation. ‘Groups’ can also refer to children by age band or setting, or those who are eligible for special protection or assistance: e.g. preschool children, children in hospital, children in rural areas, looked after children, young people who offend, victims of abuse or exploitation, child migrants, or children living in poverty.) This savings proposal is focused on children and young people in mainstream secondary school therefore the 11-18 age group will be affected. There is potential that care experienced pupils and armed forces families children may be impacted. 5. Is a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment required? CRWIA? (Please state if a CRWIA will be carried out or not. Please explain your reasons.) This proposal will require a CRWIA as it will have an impact on children aged 11-18 who are attending mainstream secondary school and are currently eligible for free school transport where they live more than 2 miles from their catchment school. This proposal would change that qualifying distance to more than 3 miles. The consequences of this would be that less pupils will qualify for free school transport. CRWIA Declaration Tick relevant section and complete the form. CRWIA required CRWIA not required ✓ Authorisation Policy lead Name, title, division (or equivalent) Lynn Sherry, Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) Date 31/05/2024 178
Page 179
CRWIA Stage 2 1. Which articles of the UNCRC does this policy/measure impact on? (List all relevant Articles of the UNCRC and Optional Protocols. While all articles of the UNCRC are given equal weight and are seen as complementing each other, the four general principles of the UNCRC (non-discrimination; the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and the child’s right to have their views given due weight) underpin all other rights in the Convention, and should always be considered in your assessment. Please refer to Annex 1 for UNCRC Article set out in Clusters and Annex 2 for General Comments on the Articles.) All UNCRC rights are underpinned by the four general principles: Article 2 - Non-discrimination (regardless of ethnicity, sex, religion, language, ability or family background. Article 3 - Best interests of the child are a priority when making decisions. Article 6 - Right to life, survival and development; and Article 12 - The child’s right to have their views given due weight. In addition to the articles reflecting the general principles, the following specific articles are relevant to this Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment Form (CRWIA): Article 18 - Governments must support parents by creating support services for children and giving parents the help they need to raise their children. Article 24 - The right to have a clean and safe environment. Article 28 - The right of the child to education. Article 31 - The right to relax and play. 2. What impact will the policy/measure will have on children’s rights? (Positive/Neutral/Negative) There is potential for children and young people aged 11-18 who attend mainstream secondary school to be negatively impacted by this proposal. The pupils affected would relate to those currently receiving free school transport due to living between 2 and 3 miles from their catchment school. The potential negative impact is due to the fact that: • the change to transport provision in question is only being considered for young people of secondary school age. (Article 2) • there may be a socio-economic impact on parents and carers with childcare responsibilities and children at different schools/nurseries. In particular, for women who are usually the primary caregivers, it may affect their ability to balance making alternative travel arrangements whilst maintaining existing work commitments or accessing opportunities to increase working hours. Some parents may be faced with an additional cost due to limited alternative travel options. (Article 2 & 6) • some adults within families may have a disability, potentially making it difficult for them to accompany their child to school if no longer entitled to transport on distance. (Article 2 & 6) ** any child or young person with a disability will not be impacted as there is no proposed change to the existing part of the policy relating to the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds, and any road safety concerns raised by parents would still be assessed by undertaking a safe walking route check. • there may be a disproportionate impact in respect of religion due to the numbers of pupils affected across different schools, (denominational and non-denominational). (Article 2) 179
Page 180
In addition, particular areas of concern from respondents to the consultation (including children and young people) which could negatively impact on them are detailed below: • Safe walking routes - concerns over speed of traffic on busy roads, narrow paths, lack of safe crossing places and crossing patrols, walking in the dark via potentially unlit/poorly lit routes, through underpasses or other areas of anti-social behaviour with some potential likelihood of attack. They commented that they did not agree with the use of the West of Scotland Road Safety Forum guidelines as personal safety is not a factor, as it is assumed the child will be accompanied by a responsible adult. (Article 18) • Lack of alternative transport mode / 3 miles is too far to walk - concerns around public transport limitations included no service or no direct service to school therefore requiring more than 1 bus, timings not fitting with school start and finish times, the capacity of services to cater for an increase in passengers, long walks while carrying a school bag and heavy equipment, such as musical instruments. (Article 6) • Impact on local communities around school – congestion and environmental concerns due to more parents driving resulting in increased car emissions and an increased risk of accidents. (Article 24) Other areas of concern raised: • Attainment and Attendance - concerns that the extra travelling time added to the school day would produce tired pupils and could have a negative impact on attendance, and the capacity to learn which would then impact the attainment of affected pupils. (Article 28) • Some young people reported being anxious about using public transport and their personal safety walking to and from school. (Article 6) • Some children and young people highlighted the potential negative impact on accessing activities after school, or getting to their part-time jobs that start after school. They are concerned that the additional travel time may negatively impact on their employment. (Article 31) Positive responses included: • Parents, carers, children and young people being supportive if the decision saved money for other things. (Article 18) • The increase in pupils’ physical wellbeing due to increased exercise from more active travel arrangements. (Articles 24 & 31) • The benefits from making a contribution to local efforts on climate change and sustainability. (Article 24) 3. Will there be different impacts on different groups of children and young people? ( Which groups of children will be affected by the policy/measure? Are there competing interests between different groups of children and young people, or between children and young people and other groups?) Any change in distance criteria as part of the proposal would have the potential to affect all ages of mainstream secondary pupils aged 11-18 years. It is not anticipated there will be any conflicting interests between different groups of children, young people or any other groups due to the proposed change in policy. We have considered the impact on a number of specific groups of children and young people including: Children of armed forces families: As part of our duty under the Armed Forces Covenant, we have considered specific impact for this cohort of pupils. We do not anticipate that the proposal will disadvantage children of armed forces families any more than their peers who are not connected to armed forces families. Care experienced children and young people: While it is anticipated that most care experienced pupils will not be disproportionately disadvantaged, the added complexity of being care experienced particularly when outside the family home may mean their circumstances are exacerbated. As a control measure, we will actively monitor this situation through our designated senior managers in all secondary establishments, to provide early support if necessary. 180
Page 181
4. If a negative impact is assessed for any area of rights or any group of children and young people, can you explain why this is necessary and proportionate? What options have you considered to modify the proposal, or mitigate the impact? (If options to modify the policy/measure are included here, include associated resource implications where relevant.) Modification of the proposal was already considered and as such, the provision of mainstream primary school transport and transport to ASN (additional support needs) bases and schools will continue as is and did not form part of the proposal. Comments received about retaining transport but charging parents is not possible under the Public Services Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR), as most of the commercial vehicles contracted by SPT are not PSVAR complaint and therefore a charge cannot be levied. Any child or young person with a disability will not be impacted as there is no proposed change to the existing part of the policy relating to the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds. A safe walking route assessment will still be undertaken where parents raise any road safety concerns. Given the high percentage of respondents against the proposal, if the proposal was not to proceed, then other parts of education would need to be considered for significant service reduction or termination in order to balance the education budget. To provide some indication of how serious the impact of a further £2m budget reduction would be (beyond other budget pressures and savings cuts across the council), this could equate to 100 school support assistants or 30 teachers. It could also impact on other areas such as school counsellors, educational psychologist, speech and language therapy as well as a reduction in the provision of learning resources, impacting the ability to offer a stimulating curriculum. This would have a direct impact on the support available for children and young people, and impact directly on learning and teaching in schools. Given the current and prospective financial challenges facing the council (£77m over the next 3 years), the proposal, if approved, would help protect against further cuts that would impact on schools directly. It would assist in bringing the council more into line with our statutory responsibility, for which we receive grant funding, and the policy of the majority of other councils across Scotland. Mitigating the impact This proposal only relates to the qualifying distance for free mainstream secondary school transport only. Other aspects of the policy remain unaltered, for example, any road safety issues would still be assessed by undertaking road safety checks. Following on from question 2 which identifies potential negative impacts, we have considered a range of actions that may help to mitigate such impacts. These are listed below and are included within section 6 of the consultation outcome report. Secondary school mainstream transport - consultation outcome report (May 2024) Comments, complaints and consultations - South Lanarkshire Council : • All secondary school pupils are eligible to access the Under 22 Free Bus Pass Scheme and this entitlement will be promoted further to all pupils. • The council will engage with bus operators to seek any potential opportunity for them to increase or adjust public bus routes, helping to make the use of under 22 bus passes more accessible. • The council will promote wider active travel opportunities and independence e.g. cycle routes, walking groups (may also improve health and wellbeing and social interaction), and any park and stride opportunities. • Priority 1 pupils offering of privilege places (where remaining dedicated school transport may have spare capacity) to support families where adults may have disabilities. Wider access to others thereafter. • Schools can signpost families to other available help such as benefit entitlement e.g. through Money Matters advice, via either individual conversations or general messages on social media. • In terms of denominational disadvantage, children residing in our rural areas would be unaffected by the proposal due to the large catchment area and lack of proximity to their catchment denominational school. This is also the case for the towns of Larkhall and Strathaven. Therefore, a high-level analysis on the projected impact across the main urban settlements of Hamilton, East Kilbride and Cambuslang/Rutherglen, based on the number of pupils currently being transported, was undertaken. 181
Page 182
It has shown that the total overall likely impact is largely the same irrespective of denomination. • We recognise that there is potential for some children with protected characteristics to be affected by bullying if faced with longer walking/bus travel to school. Schools can provide individual support through the Council’s Promoting Positive Behaviour and Anti-Bullying policies. • Unsafe walking routes: Safe walking route assessments can be undertaken where families express road safety concerns. West of Scotland Road Safety Forum Guidelines are applied and are congruent to 2021 Scottish Government Guidance. For information, the guidance documents can be found online West of Scotland Road Safety Forum: Guidance and FAQs Secondary school information - South Lanarkshire Council. • Investigation into concerns over anti-social behaviour and violence suggested that reported incidents generally take place out with the times pupils are walking to and from school. Community safety issues that can arise tend to be a much wider issue which cannot be resolved via a school transport policy. The council works in partnership with Police Scotland and a range of other community safety partners to tackle all forms of criminality and anti-social behaviour. Concerns raised were shared with relevant partners and discussions on this area will continue if the revised transport proposals come into effect. • Where parents may still choose to take their children to school by car, potentially causing congestion around schools: council will consider car free zones, prevention of engine idling, linking parents and bus operators who may be interested in parent led group transport, car sharing. Also, building in as many positive factors as possible to support and encourage safe, sustainable and active travel within each secondary school’s travel plan. Travel audit visits by health and safety officers will provide further focus for relevant action relating to school grounds and the surrounding environment during school run periods. • Schools working with young people to create groups from same areas to walk or use public transport together to reduce anxiety and improve independence. • Attendance and attainment: It remains the legal responsibility of parents to ensure their child attend school. Post COVID there is a national focus on improving attendance with an increased number of strategies and supports to help young people engage. 19 other local authorities already operate the provision of school transport beyond 3 miles and have done so for some time. There is no evidence to suggest that this has had any direct impact on learning. Consideration to be given to supervised access for changing or access to lockers if required. • Any child or young person with a disability will not be impacted as there is no proposed change to the existing part of the policy relating to the allocation of transport on medical or ASN grounds. A safe walking route assessment will still be undertaken where parents raise any road safety concerns. • All care experienced pupils affected will be offered additional support through the designated senior manager staff if the change in policy is evidenced to be having an adverse effect on individual pupils. Education and Social Work staff will monitor this situation as required. • While armed forces families (parents and children) have had the opportunity to respond to the proposal as part of the public consultation, we will carry out direct engagement to ensure that pupils and families are not at an added disadvantage due to their status. 5. How will the policy/measure give better or further effect to the implementation of the UNCRC in Scotland? (This will inform Scottish Ministers’ duty to report to Parliament on children’s rights under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.) While the proposed change in policy is not intended to ‘give better or further effect’ to the implementation of the UNCRC in South Lanarkshire, the consultation process undertaken allowed for the voice of children and young people to be heard. If the proposal is implemented, the council is committed to working with schools, parents and pupils and so will provide the opportunity for children and young people to take an active role in helping to design and implement solutions, similar to those referenced in sections 2 and 4 above, that will help lessen the impact of the decision. This therefore increases the opportunity to contribute towards: • Article 12 - the child’s right to have their views given due weight. and, • Article 28 - The right of the child to education. • Article 29 - That education of the child should support the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential. 182
Page 183
To support our commitment to the above articles, the council are committed to ensuring that the views of children and young people are reflected in decisions that affect them. This commitment extends to decision making over the best use of council budgets and the delivery of the widest range of public services. A new project is being developed to ensure that children and young people are aware of and understand the challenges ahead for public sector funding and support them to contribute to the process of determining ways to offer the best range of council services possible. The changes in school transport policy and other aspects of education services will be part of this process. 6. Have you consulted with relevant stakeholders, including involving children and young people in the development of the policy / measure? (This would include public or targeted consultations with children and young people, their parents/carers and the children’s workforce. To make an informed assessment of the impact, the views of the children and young people who will be affected by the policy/measure should be considered fully. If the policy/measure has changed as a result of consultation with stakeholders, please set this out.) Yes, we have consulted with the relevant stakeholders, which includes children. Under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, if a local authority proposes to discontinue arrangements for the provision of transport for pupils attending a denominational school, they must conduct a statutory consultation and engage with statutory consultees. However, as this proposal could affect all secondary school pupils irrespective of denomination, a decision was taken to consult with all stakeholders potentially affected. This involved communication on the consultation itself via press adverts, social media messages issued by the council and schools, access to the proposal document, use of an online survey response form to capture opinion and the opportunity to attend a number of public meetings. Actions undertaken by schools to specifically promote pupil awareness and engagement in the consultation process included regular posts on Google Classroom, information in weekly pupil newsletters, information given at school assemblies and discussions within pupil council meetings and PSE class settings. Furthermore, as part of the statutory consultation process a number of parents, carers, children and young people had the opportunity to discuss issues with Education Scotland, who undertook their own form of engagement. A report was then produced by Education Scotland and shared with the council for consideration and response. The consultation attracted 6,315 responses, of which 84% did not agree with the proposal. 55% (3,480) of those responding were parents, 22% (1,368) were pupils and 15% (965) were members of the wider public/community. 92% of parents responding were not in favour of the proposal with only 8% in favour/undecided. By contrast, it is interesting to note that 33% of pupils supported the proposal, 11% were undecided and 56% were against it. Of the members of the public/community who responded, 89% were against the proposal, broadly in line with the views of the parents. The total participation data can be seen in the chart below: 183
Page 184
In addition to the online public consultation, the opinion from the public meetings mirrored the strength of adult view against the proposal. A council decision has yet to be taken on implementing the proposal. If approved, the proposal would not come into effect until August 2025, thereby allowing time for parents affected to make alternative arrangements. If approved, the council will take the involvement and participation of children and young people seriously and are committed to working with them, (and the wider secondary school community, including parents), to ensure that measures identified which could mitigate any adverse impacts within the local setting are co-designed with those that are directly affected by the policy change. 7. What evidence have you used to inform your assessment? (The evidence base may include demographic information, academic research, service monitoring/inspection reports, service evaluation reports, user surveys, etc. In particular, look at what existing evidence tells you about children and young people’s views and experiences of the relevant service(s); and/or what it tells you about children and young people’s views of the policy proposal. Identify any gaps in the evidence base, and set out how you will address these.) Evidenced of those potentially affected based on a distance policy change will be gathered from internal systems. Distance measurements and requested safe walking route assessments will identify those individual pupils affected. High level estimates suggest around 2,000 pupils may be impacted. If approved, planning for an August 2025 implementation date will allow time for all necessary work to be undertaken and parents advised in good time if their child is no longer entitled to free school transport so alternative arrangements can be considered. Evidence of opinion had been gathered and assessed through the public consultation online survey form, and also via the public meetings held to give parents, children and young people the chance to get more information and express their views. In addition, Education Scotland undertook their own form of engagement, and a report was then produced and shared with the council. Actions undertaken by schools to specifically promote pupil awareness and engagement in the consultation process included regular posts on Google Classroom, information in weekly pupil newsletters, information given at school assemblies and discussions within pupil council meetings and PSE class settings. Following consideration of evidence and a formal report presented to committee, a final decision will be made. To mitigate the concerns raised if the proposal is implemented, a number of options have been highlighted in section 4. By committing to working with schools, pupils and parents from each 184
Page 185
secondary school, we will strive to work to identify local issues e.g. surveying parents on how they intend getting their child to school, review of school travel plans, promotion of wider active travel such as under 22 bus pass scheme or walking bus initiatives, any park and stride potential, connecting parents interested in parent led transport. Also given 33% of young people were in favour of the proposal, consideration should also be given as to how they feel this could be implemented successfully. 8. How will the impact of the policy/measure be monitored? (As part of the normal decision-making process, the implementation of the policy/measure should be monitored. Please set out plans for measuring the impact of your policy/measure, including how it will support public bodies in Scotland to meet their duties to safeguard, support and promote the wellbeing of children in their area. Wellbeing is defined by eight wellbeing indicators: Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, and Included.) If approved, the proposal would bring the provision of free transport for children attending secondary school back into line with the council’s legal responsibility, and for which it receives grant funding. It is not anticipated there will be a negative impact on the overall wellbeing of children and young people as a result. However, we will seek to ensure that this is the case through careful preparation for supporting pupils who may be affected by the decision. In preparing for implementation in August 2025, need to ensure distance measurements and requested safe walking route assessments are undertaken. Families are then informed in good time if affected to ensure inclusive and respectful communication. All road safety issues identified should result in transport continuing to be provided in order to keep children safe. Work to be undertaken in partnership with schools, parents and pupils to take joint responsibility to review school travel plans, consider mitigating actions including the promotion of active travel options, and other alternative potential travel methods. Schools will monitor and support the attendance of pupils, (particularly those schools that are most affected by the decision) to ensure that the achievement of pupils is not compromised. A number of positive secondary benefits could potentially be derived, including: • Children and young people being more physically active as the result of increased active travel. • Children and young people taking more responsibility for their travel arrangements to get to school. • Increased respect for the environment and local efforts to reduce climate change and increase sustainability. • An increased understanding of personal safety factors related to independent travel that can be applied elsewhere in their lives. • More co-designed and collective local solutions that will increase inclusion in communities and across community groups. • An opportunity for children and young people to be included in the co-design of solutions, enhancing their involvement in decision making and their views heard and valued. 185
Page 186
9. How will you communicate to children and young people about the impact of the policy/measure on their rights? (Providing information to children and young people on how their rights will be impacted helps to ensure that policy making is transparent. Are you publishing a child friendly or accessible CRWIA?) As previously described in respect of the public consultation, children and young people also participated in more local school-based engagement with staff, pupil councils and Education Scotland. A council decision has yet to be taken on implementing the proposal. If approved, the proposal would not come into effect until August 2025, thereby allowing time for parents affected to make alternative arrangements. Communications would be relayed to parents and pupils throughout the planning and implementation period from HQ and/or schools directly, as appropriate. The council will take the involvement and participation of children and young people seriously and are committed to working with them, (and the wider secondary school community, including parents), to ensure that measures identified which could mitigate any adverse impacts within the local setting are co-designed with those that are directly affected by the policy change. This may include e.g. surveying parents on how they intend getting their child to school, reviewing the school travel plans, promotion of wider active travel initiatives, any park and stride potential or connecting parents interested in parent led transport. 10. Authorisation Policy lead Name, title, division (or equivalent) Lynn Sherry, Head of Education (Support Services and School Estate) Date 17/7/2024 186
Page 187
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) Subject: Glasgow City Region City Deal – Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project - Full Business Case 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to: - [purpose] set out the Full Business Case (FBC) for the Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project element of the Hamilton Community Growth Area City Deal project; and advise Committee on the next steps in progressing the project. [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) that the Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project Full Business Case be approved; and (2) that grant funding be sought in accordance with the City Deal Grant Distribution Process outlined in the Assurance Framework in relation to the delivery of the project with the precise arrangements to be agreed by the City Deal Chief Executive’s Group (CEG) and City Deal Cabinet. [1r 3. Background 3.1. The Council is one of eight local authorities who, with the UK and Scottish Governments, are signatories to the £1.13 billion Glasgow City Region City Deal. 3.2. The City Deal is made up of 20 key infrastructure projects that are intended to drive economic and inclusive growth across the Glasgow City Region area. 3.3. Community Growth Areas (CGAs) are one of four South Lanarkshire projects among the list of twenty. Hamilton CGA is one of four CGAs, the others being in Newton, Larkhall and East Kilbride. 3.4. The Hamilton CGA comprises several individual education and transport infrastructure projects which will be delivered over a timeframe of up to 11 years earlier than predicted which will in turn ‘create’ capacity to accommodate the increase in population from housebuilding of up to 1800 residential units. The Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project incorporates works at five road junctions and is the fourth project to be brought forward to Full Business Case stage at Hamilton CGA, the previous projects being Woodhead Primary School Extension, Highstonehall Road Improvements and Strathaven Road - Woodfoot Road Transport Corridor Improvements. 9 187
Page 188
3.5. Governance arrangements for the City Deal initiative are defined within the associated Assurance Framework. This sets out requirements for the development of Business Cases for individual projects. The first level of business case was the Strategic Business Case, and this was approved by the Executive Committee on 26 August 2015. The second level business case, the Hamilton CGA Outline Business Case, was approved by the Executive Committee on the 14 August 2018. 3.6. Full Business Cases for each project requires to be formally approved via • The City Region Member Authority Committee process • The City Region Director of Regional Economic Growth has delegated powers to approve this FBC. The City Deal Chief Executive’s Group will note its approval at the first available meeting following the summer recess in early September. City Deal approvals are conditional on receiving this Committee approval. 4. Current Proposal 4.1. A Full Business Case (FBC) has now been produced for the Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project element of the Hamilton CGA project. As a result of impacts generated by the new homes being built on the site a number of improvements require to be implemented to address the increase in traffic movements in the local road network. 4.2. This FBC covers five road junction improvements. • Two junctions located on Wellhall Road at Woodfoot Road and Hillhouse Road will see one of the existing two roundabouts increased and widening provide to improve capacity. • The existing Woodfoot Road / Highstonehall Road junction will be upgraded to provide a right turn storage • Both junctions at Gateside Street / Johnstone Drive and Strathaven Road / Mill Road will be upgraded to provide traffic signal control along with pedestrian crossing facilities. 4.3 . The physical outputs from the project are: • 5 existing road junctions upgraded. • 10,191sq. m of new carriageway created or improved via widening works. • Improved LED street lighting installed (25 columns with LED Lights). • 3,179sqm of existing footway improved/created. • 3 existing pedestrian crossing points upgraded / improved • 3 new pedestrian crossing points created to improve pedestrian safety. 4.4 . This FBC continues to make the case for the City Deal funding for Hamilton CGA project in terms of: • Strategic Fit • Commercial Case • Economic Case • Financial Case • Management Case The Executive Summary of the FBC is contained in Appendix 1 188
Page 189
4.5. The production of the FBC is the final City Deal approval milestone for this element of the Hamilton CGA project and provides details of the delivery and construction of the road junctions works. 4.6. The project cost is £4.22million comprising £3.63m City Deal funding (86% share) and £0.59m SLC funding (14% share). 4.7. The approval of this FBC will release funds to meet all these costs. The road construction contract is expected to commence on site in September 2024 with works completed in July 2025. 5. Employee Implications 5.1. There are no direct employee implications from this project as existing resources across Community and Enterprise Resources are currently tasked with the management and delivery of this City Deal project. 6. Financial Implications 6.1. The project budget for the Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project is £4.22 million. Project costs incorporate all construction related costs and community benefit monitoring. 6.2. The City Deal funding element of the total project cost is 86% of the project cost (£3.63 million) with the Council contributing the 14% balance (£0.59 million). 7. Other Implications 7.1. Risk - The City Deal Cabinet has a Risk Management Strategy applied across all City Deal projects. The purpose of this Risk Management Strategy is to provide a systematic and effective method by which risks can be consistently managed. It adopts a best practice approach, describes the specific risk management techniques and standards to be applied and the responsibilities for achieving effective risk management. 7.2. The Council is required to apply this City Deal Risk Management Strategy across each of its City Deal projects to ensure consistency across all City Deal projects. This will be a key tool in mitigating project risks and thereby limiting our financial risk associated with the Council’s 14% share of City Deal project costs. A robust monitoring system has also been put in place to ensure that ‘early warnings’ are provided, and appropriate action taken. 7.3. Sustainability – The statutory processes associated with the approval of the Hamilton CGA have considered the following sustainability agenda items and are subject to monitoring and review as detailed proposals for each phase of the development progress:- • consider active travel and sustainable transport links • encourage the use of sustainable and recycled materials in construction • support habitat connectivity • consider the lifecycle of the development • support sustainable water resource management • support sustainable waste management • encourage energy efficiency through the orientation and design of buildings • choice of materials and the use of low and zero carbon generating technologies. 189
Page 190
8. Equality Impact Arrangements and Consultation Arrangements 8.1. This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a significant change to an existing policy, function or strategy, and, therefore, no impact assessment is required. Consultation has taken place with relevant Resources within the Council and the CGA developers. In addition consultation was undertaken with the wider community through the CGA planning process. David Booth Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) 17 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Ambitions/Vision/Values/Objectives Promote economic growth and tackle disadvantage Improve the availability, quality and access of housing Improve the road network, influence improvements in public transport and encourage active travel Work with communities and partners Previous References • Executive Committee, 26 August 2015 – City Deal – South Lanarkshire Council, Community Growth Areas, Strategic Business Case, • Executive Committee, 14 August 2018 – City Deal – South Lanarkshire Council Community Growth Areas, Hamilton Community Growth Area, Outline Business Case List of Background Papers City Deal, Hamilton Community Growth Area – Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project, Full Business Case (FBC 4,5 & 6) Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Iain Ross, Economic Development Manager E-mail: iain.ross@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 190
Page 191
Appendix 1 - Hamilton Road Junctions Improvement Project - Full Business Case Executive Summary This Full Business Case 4/5/6 (FBC4/5/6) is for £4.22m City Deal funding – £3.63m City Deal (86%) and £0.59m SLC (14%) – to enable reconfiguration / improvements at three junctions at the Hamilton Community Growth Area (CGA), accounting for Elements 4, 5 & 6 of the Hamilton CGA project proposal. This FBC continues to build the case from the Strategic Business Case (SBC) which secured approval for £60.3m across South Lanarkshire’s four CGAs and from the Outline Business Case (OBC) which secured approval for £21.002m City Deal funding to develop the Hamilton CGA project, comprising off-site education, community and transport infrastructure. The Strategic Case As presented in the OBC, there is a need for investment in offsite road infrastructure (and education/ community facilities) to allow the development of up to 1,800 new homes at Hamilton CGA that has commenced construction with over 850 houses built to date. The strategic aim of the Hamilton CGA Road Junctions Improvement project element is: “To deliver key elements of the off-site road infrastructure in a manner that enables delivery of the residential development 11 years earlier than planned with associated economic and social benefits.” The project delivers upgrades at three existing junctions creating increased capacity at these junctions through reconfiguration / widening of carriageways, creation of additional road space, creation of new footways and additional pedestrian road safety features. This road network improvement at the CGA will assist in achieving enough transport network capacity to accommodate the scale of development proposed i.e. 1,800 homes. The planned outputs from the Hamilton CGA Road Junctions Improvement project (see also Appendix 2 plans) are: • 5 existing road junctions upgraded. • 10,191sq. m of new carriageway created or improved via widening works / resurfacing works. • Improved LED street lighting installed (25 columns with LED Lights). • 3,179sq,m of existing footway improved/created. • 3 existing pedestrian crossing points upgraded / improved and • 3 new pedestrian crossing points created to improve pedestrian safety. SLC will have ongoing responsibility for the management and maintenance of the improved junction, as defined in the financial appraisal, the revenue operating costs have been estimated and are acknowledged by SLC. In advance of the CGA development receiving planning consent it was necessary to carry out a transport assessment to consider the implications of developing up to 1,800 new homes at Hamilton CGA. This included a review of the existing road network capacity, the additional traffic generation created and increased use of public transport by up to 6,345 new residents. As reported in the OBC (and evidenced in the development profiles at Appendix 3), the counterfactual arrangement is that the CGA development will be less attractive to purchasers and it 191
Page 192
will take until 2041 to complete 1,800 homes as opposed to 1,800 houses by 2031 with the preferred intervention. The Economic Case The economic case presents and tests a series of alternative options – including the counterfactual or ‘do nothing’ options, before a preferred solution that meets the identified needs and delivers Value for Money for the public sector. The only viable options at FBC stage for the Hamilton CGA Road Junctions Improvements were around the design and timing of the project proposal. Through analysis of need and physical solutions, the delivery of off-site road network enhancements at these key junctions on the main approaches into Hamilton town centre was identified as the best option to achieve the project objectives. The Commercial Case Delivery of additional capacity in the road network is identified as a critical requirement in delivering the full CGA over 12 years by meeting the needs of the key partners – new and existing local residents (by releasing capacity), SLC and City Deal partners (by delivering additional economic value) and housebuilders/ house purchasers (by creating a more attractive development proposition). City Deal funding has been identified as the only viable source for delivery of the critical off-site enabling infrastructure works for Hamilton CGA (schools/ roads/community) needed to bring forward the development earlier than planned. The commercial arrangement for delivery of this FBC 4/5/6 is via appointment of a contractor, through a competitive tender. This FBC is scheduled to commence on site in July 2024 to ensure continued progress by developers in delivering the CGA project to the desired timescales. The Financial Case The estimated total City Deal cost of the Hamilton CGA project, submitted at OBC, was £21.002 m (split 86% CD / 14% SLC) with potential additional leveraged investment of £3.1m from SLC, £17.5m from Developers’ S75 obligations, and £242m housebuilding and associated on-site infrastructure costs. Phasing of the full CGA project expenditure is presented in Appendix 6. Following a competitively tendered procurement exercise, the cost of delivering the Hamilton CGA Road Junctions Improvement project is estimated at £4.22m, accounting for 20% of the total approved Hamilton CGA City Deal allocation. It is the intention to award the contract for the project in Aug/Sept 2024 with works commencing on site in Oct / Nov 2024 – SLC has committed to carrying the financial risk of any project cost overrun beyond the City Deal funding request for this project i.e. £4.22m of City Deal funds. SLC will take on the additional maintenance responsibilities at the new improved junctions, upgraded carriageway etc. in perpetuity, following completion of the works. These costs will be funded from existing Council revenue and capital budgets, as the need arises. SLC has ultimate responsibility for cost over-runs beyond the level of financial budget/ approval for the CGAs – an allowance of 25% was made for Optimism Bias within the cost profile for the whole CGA investment programme. The contract for this FBC4/5/6 will be awarded on a fixed price basis and Optimism Bias for this element has therefore been reduced to zero. Any VAT applicable has been treated as recoverable. The Management Case The management and delivery of Hamilton CGA Road Junctions Improvement project will be contained within the remit of SLC’s CGA Programme. Hamilton CGA will be managed by SLC in accordance with the standards required by the City Deal governing principles. Project roles have been assigned to Senior Responsible Officer, Project Sponsor, Project Manager and an internal Project Team. Roads, Transportation and Fleet Services will lead the delivery of the project with 192
Page 193
Enterprise and Sustainable Development Services providing City Deal related matters back-up. The works will be adopted by SLC on completion. This joint approach ensures alignment against other SLC CGA and Roads projects across the transport network. The key milestone dates for the Hamilton CGA Road Junctions Improvement Project are: • Project design– complete; • Statutory consents in place / not required– complete; • Invitation to Tender – February 2024 – complete; • Tender returns – April 2024 – complete; • Assessment and scoring of tender returns – May 2024 – complete; • Award of tender to preferred bidder – Aug 2024 – dependent on approval of this FBC4/5/6; • Site start for contractor – Sept 2024 – preferred bidder provisionally informed; • Main site works complete – July 2025 – dependent on contract management and site/ project conditions – contractor has provided indicative 43-week work programme; • Defects liability period – 12 months – contractor maintains responsibility for 12- month period after hand-over of the project to SLC. SLC Enterprise & Sustainable Development Services will have responsibility for the long-term monitoring and evaluation of the project benefits, including community benefits, in line with the Monitoring & Evaluation Plan, using in-house resource and supplemented by external specialist consultants as required. The economic impact model developed to appraise the gross and net benefits of the alternative options, allows for the activities to be measured and performance tracked against the forecast profile. The key objectives and critical success factors (as defined in the Strategic Case) have ensured that the development of the Hamilton CGA is embedded in a holistic approach to sustainability – environmental, economic, social and community – and the financial appraisal confirms that the project is financially sustainable, recognising the need for future (planned) investment by the private sector to deliver the new houses. In summary the City Deal Hamilton CGA investment generates the following results as per the OBC with this project (FBC4/5/6) contributing 20% of the results: • Deliver up to 1,800 new homes – based on total site capacity and final development mix This FBC – 360 homes • Deliver road improvements/ construction. This FBC – 5 traffic junction improvements • Generate 7,200 construction annual jobs (net direct Scottish level impacts). This FBC 1,440 construction annual jobs • Generate 230 permanent FTE jobs. This FBC – 46 permanent FTE jobs • £4.4m annual GVA (net Scottish direct level impacts). This FBC – 0.880m annual GVA • Generate £514m net direct GVA, discounted over 23 years (Scottish level net impact). This FBC - £102.8m net direct GVA 193
Page 194
194
Page 195
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Housing and Technical Resources) Subject: Land and Property Transfers and Disposals 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- advise the Committee of the actions required in respect of land and property transactions [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- (1) that the land and property, as detailed in Appendix A, be declared surplus to Council requirements. 3. Background 3.1. Details of land and property, which are potentially suitable for disposal or redevelopment are circulated to all Resources and Community Partners to establish if they are suitable for alternative operational use. 3.2. Transactions where there is a requirement to declare land surplus to enable negotiations for minor or adjoining sales to progress are detailed in Appendix A. 3.3. These transactions are only included in the report after successful consultation with the Holding Resource(s) and Planning. 4. Minor Disposals 4.1. The schedule shown within Appendix A identifies proposed transactions where the holding Resource and Planning have agreed to the release of minor areas of land for disposal. 4.2. The Committee is asked to approve the recommendation that these areas of land are declared surplus to the Council requirements in order that the Estates Section can conclude negotiations for their disposal. 5. Employee Implications 5.1. There are no employee implications arising from this report. 6. Financial Implications 6.1. The minor disposals will generate capital receipts for the General Services and Housing Revenue Accounts respectively. 10 195
Page 196
7. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 7.1. This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy which impacts on the natural environment, climate change or sustainability. 8. Other Implications 8.1. There is a low risk that the capital receipts anticipated, as a result of declaring properties surplus, may not be realised if, for reasons outwith the Council’s control, the purchasers choose not to proceed with the transactions. However, the procedures and consultations described in Sections 3 of this report have been implemented to minimise this risk. 9. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 9.1. This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to an existing policy, function or strategy and, therefore, no impact assessment is required. 9.2 Consultation was undertaken with Planning, Roads, Community, and Housing Services. Stephen Gibson Executive Director (Housing and Technical Resources) 5 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent Previous References None List of Background Papers Plans of the land and property referred to in this report Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Joanne Forbes, Head of Property Services Ext: 4073 (Tel: 01698 454073) E-mail: joanne.forbes@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 196
Page 197
APPENDIX A DECLARE SURPLUS Area Description Holding Account Proposal Value Banding 285 sq m Derrickbank, Earnock Gardens, Hamilton Community and Enterprise Garden Ground 4 473 sq m Hurlawcrook Farm, Hurlawcrook Road, East Kilbride Community and Enterprise (Roads) Garden Ground/ Encroachment 4 717 sq m Hurlawcrook Farm, Hurlawcrook Road, East Kilbride Community and Enterprise Garden Ground/ Encroachment 4 20 sq m 28 Forth Court, East Kilbride Community and Enterprise Garden Ground 4 66 sq m 21 Couthally Terrace, Carnwath Housing Garden Ground 4 8 sq m 29 Glen Devon East Kilbride Housing Garden Ground/ Extension 4 Value Bands 1 – over £1 million 2 – £500,000 to £999,999 3 – £100,000 to £499,999 4 – less than £100,000 197
Page 198
198
Page 199
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Consumer Duty: Consumer Scotland Act 2020 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- [purpose] inform the Executive Committee of the consumer duty established under the Consumer Scotland Act 2020 (the Act), highlighting its key provisions, implications, and the role of elected members in ensuring the Council meets the requirements of this new duty [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) that the contents of the paper are noted; and (2) that the proposal to move to an Integrated Impact Assessment, as detailed in section 5.3, be agreed. 1recs] 3. Background 3.1. The Consumer Scotland Act 2020 established Consumer Scotland, a new public body which represents and advocates for consumer interests in Scotland. It also introduced the consumer duty, which requires “relevant public authorities” to consider the impact of their policies and practices on consumers. This duty came into force on 1 April 2024 and guidance in draft form (the guidance) has been issued by Consumer Scotland which public authorities must have regard to in meeting this new duty. 3.2. Relevant public authorities include local authorities and integration authorities. 3.3. As an elected member, there is a role in ensuring that strategic decisions taken by the Council are informed by appropriate consideration of this new duty. This report provides a summary of the key aspects of the duty and how the Council will ensure this duty is met. 4. Key Aspects and Requirements of the Consumer Duty 4.1. The Act introduces four main requirements on relevant public authorities. I. Duty to Consider Consumer Interests: o Relevant public authorities are required to have regard to the impact of their strategic decisions on consumers in Scotland and, as such, consider how those decisions will affect consumers. Users of services provided by public authorities, both individuals and small businesses, are included within the definition of consumers, and future and potential consumers are also included. 11 199
Page 200
o Members will require to make strategic decisions as part of their role - examples of strategic decisions are set out in the guidance and include decisions such as those concerning the preparation of a corporate or strategic plan, agreeing an annual budget and investment/disinvestment decisions but this is not an exhaustive list. II. Reducing Harm to Consumers: o Relevant public authorities are required to have regard to the desirability of reducing harm to consumers in Scotland. o There is no statutory definition of “harm”, but public authorities are encouraged to adopt a broad definition, which will cover a wide range of potential negative outcomes for consumers. o The guidance strongly encourages consideration of the potential impact on vulnerable consumers, who may be at a particular disadvantage from a proposed strategic decision. III. Consumer Scotland Guidance: o Consumer Scotland has produced a suite of resources, including the draft guidance issued at the end of March 2024. Relevant public authorities must have regard to this guidance. IV. Duty to Publish: o The Act requires relevant public authorities to publish information about the steps which they have taken to meet the consumer duty no later than 12 months after the end of period to which it relates. It is up to individual authorities to decide on the most appropriate way to meet this requirement, but an approach suggested in the guidance includes a statement in an annual report, which is likely to be the approach that will be adopted by the Council. 5. Consumer Scotland Guidance and Impact Assessment Approach 5.1. The guidance is clear that the approach to meeting this new duty will be for each public authority to decide based on its own context and priorities. However, in line with the guidance from Consumer Scotland it is proposed that the Council will adopt an outcomes-based impact assessment approach. The impact assessment approach comprises five stages and is based on a framework of the seven internationally recognised consumer principles. The principles are: - access; choice; safety; information; fairness; representation, and redress. 200
Page 201
5.2. Service areas will require to complete this impact assessment in respect of the consumer duty in a similar way as they currently do in respect of equalities duties and the Fairer Scotland Duty. As with these other assessments, this cannot be approached as a tick box exercise, and must be considered at an early stage in the development of a strategic proposal, and then kept under review. Where applicable Members will see reference in Committee reports to where the assessment has been done and where it can be accessed. 5.3. It is proposed that an integrated impact assessment approach is adopted within the Council, as there are a number of existing impact assessments that public authorities are subject to in Scotland. Officers are currently reviewing the Council’s approach to these various impact assessments and will report back to members in the Autumn in relation to this. Until then, where required, services will conduct a stand-alone impact assessment for the consumer duty as outlined above. 6. Summary 6.1. There is a requirement now in legislation for us to consider where there is an impact of strategic decisions on consumers . All Resources have been advised to ensure their staff have suitable awareness of the new consumer duty, and how it might impact upon the delivery of their services and any proposals for future changes in how services are delivered. 6.2. Members will be able to consider, where appropriate, an impact assessment in relation to this new duty ( along side any other impact assessments that are required to be completed). Committee reports will advise if an assessment has been carried out. 6.3. There is no requirement to give undue weight to the consumer duty, and it must be taken into account alongside other relevant factors, including the Council’s financial position and its other legal/regulatory obligations. Consumer Scotland believe that the duty will not only improve outcomes for consumers but also provide value for public authorities such as the Council, and improve the services they provide. 6.4. Links to the resources produced by Consumer Scotland, including the guidance and suggested templates can be found on their website: The consumer duty | Consumer Scotland. 6.5. To help support the application of the consumer duty Legal Services will make training available for elected members. 7. Employee Implications 7.1 There are no employee implications as a result of the information contained in this report. 8. Financial Implications 8.1 There are no financial implications as a result of the information contained in this report. 201
Page 202
9. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 9.1 There are no climate change, sustainability or environmental implications associated with this report. 10. Other Implications 10.1 There are no other implications associated with this report. 11. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 11.1 This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to an existing policy, function or strategy and, therefore, no impact assessment is required. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 16 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, effective, efficient, and transparent List of Background Papers The consumer duty | Consumer Scotland Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Iain Strachan, Head of Administration and Legal Services E-mail: iain.strachan@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 202
Page 203
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Executive Director (Education Resources) Subject: Religious Representation on the Education Resources Committee 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- [purpose] provide an update on religious representation on the Education Resources Committee [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) that Reverend Jillian Storrie be confirmed as the nominated religious representative from the Church of Scotland. 1recs] 3. Background 3.1. A local authority, when establishing an Education Resources Committee, is required to invite representatives from Church organisations to act as religious representatives on the Education Resources Committee. 4 Religious Representatives 4.1. In terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, an education authority is required to appoint:- a representative from the Church of Scotland a representative of the Roman Catholic Church a third religious representative having regard to:- representation from the churches referred to above the comparative strength within their area of all the churches and denominational bodies having duly constituted charges or other regularly appointed places of worship there 4.2. Following the local government elections in May 2022, the Committee, at its meeting on 29 June 2022, confirmed the appointments of Mrs Gillian Coulter and Mr John Mulligan as the religious representatives from the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church respectively on the Education Resources Committee. As previously reported to Committee, it had not been possible to appoint a third religious representative and it had been agreed to continue with 2 religious representatives. 12 203
Page 204
4.3. Recently, both Mrs Coulter and Mr Mulligan have indicated that they would be stepping down from their position on the Education Resources Committee and replacement nominations had been sought. The Church of Scotland has nominated Reverend Jillian Storrie and the Roman Catholic Church nomination is still awaited. 5. Employee Implications 5.1. There are no employee implications as a result of the information contained in this report. 6. Financial Implications 6.1. There are no financial implications as a result of the information contained in this report. 7. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 7.1. There are no climate change, sustainability or environmental implications associated with this report. 8. Other Implications 8.1. There are no other implications associated with this report. 9. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 9.1. This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to an existing policy, function or strategy and, therefore, no impact assessment is required. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Carole McKenzie Executive Director (Education Resources) 16 July 2024 Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, effective, efficient, and transparent Previous References Executive Committee – 29 June 2022 Executive Committee - 11 October 2023 List of Background Papers None Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Tracy Slater, Administration Adviser Tel: 07385 370089 E-mail: tracy.slater@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 204
Page 205
Report Agenda Item Report to: Executive Committee Date of Meeting: 7 August 2024 Report by: Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) Subject: Employee Wellbeing Support 1. Purpose of Report 1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- provide the Committee with an update on the Council policies, initiatives, schemes and resources to support employee wellbeing 2. Recommendation(s) 2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- (1) that the contents of the report be noted. 3. Background 3.1. Employee absence information is reported as part of the Council’s workforce monitoring arrangements. As detailed in the yearly summary from April 2023 to March 2024, reported at Executive Committee on 26 June 2024, psychological and musculoskeletal absences are the main reasons for employee absence. At that meeting, further information was requested around psychological absences and the work being carried out in that area to support staff. This paper will provide further detail on the supports in place for employees. 3.2. The annual summary for total days lost to psychological conditions reported as part of the 26 June committee paper as detailed at section 3.1, was 72,326 days, which related to 1903 employees across the Council, this was an increase of 1,868 days from the previous year, and this made up 36% of the percentage of days lost that year. 3.3. The Council is actively promoting the services that are available for employees to access for support. Promotional activity has also focused on work areas that traditionally would not have previously discussed mental health concerns. The Council is also aware of feedback from employees who are living in difficult times in terms of stress, financial worries, being affected by the cost of living, difficult family situations, bereavements and demanding lives and that this is contributing to an increase in absence. 13 205
Page 206
3.4. During the year there were a number of referrals to access support , including supports around psychological absence. These are detailed in the table below, which also shows referrals in 2022/23 : Employee Wellbeing Support Referrals April 2023 – March 2024 April 2022 – March 2023 Medical Referrals 1,493 1,489 Physiotherapy Referrals 1,998 1,927 Employee Support Officer Referrals 1,903 1,813 Cognitive Behavioural Referrals 31 16 Counselling Referrals* 719 600 *These referrals will include management and self-referrals as employees can access the service while they are at work and may include those employees who are absent due to psychological absences. 3.5. Of the 1,903 employee referrals to the Employee Support Officer, 87% of these referrals were related to personal reasons. 3.6. Of the counselling referrals made, the breakdown of referrals by cause was: 3.7. This shows that 49.93% of the counselling referrals were for personal reasons and 17.52% were for bereavement reasons. Work stress referrals accounted for 19.47% of referrals. There has been a slight decrease from last year in personal reasons from 398 to 359 employees and a more significant increase in bereavement from 58 to 126 employees. All absences recorded as psychological absences are automatically referred to Employee Support and discussions take place with both managers and employees immediately on referral. Data and trends in relation to referrals is assessed in terms of type of work, teams, services that may be affected and the reasons that this may have arisen. Stress Risk Assessments are carried out as required and these too are assessed as part of the normal managing absence processes. Monthly meetings and regular communication takes place between managers and personnel in relation to absence and this is also discussed at the monthly maximising attendance meetings with Trade Unions. Employee Support referrals are reported to Resource and Executive Committee Meetings, the Equal Opportunities Forum and the Employee Issues Forum. 3.8. The Council has access to resources and services for employees and managers to support those who are absent due to physical and mental health reasons or are supporting colleagues to improve their mental health and wellbeing. Section 4 provides the details of these supports. 3.9. Supporting employee mental health and wellbeing is a key action in all Resource and Council workforce plans. Work Stress Addiction Personal Anxiety/ Depression Bereavement Total 140 0 359 94 126 719 Breakdown of counselling referral reasons, April 2023 - March 2024 206
Page 207
4. Support and Resources Available – Psychological Absence 4.1. All employees are made aware of supports available to them to help them maintain their attendance at work or help them return to work successfully. Managers play a key role in ensuring employees are aware of the range of options available to them when they need assistance. 4.2. Managers and trade union representatives, as per the Council policy, work in partnership to support health improvement initiatives within the Council and to encourage employees to adopt a healthier lifestyle. 4.3. As mentioned at 3.7, all employees who are recorded as having a psychological absence are automatically contacted by the employee support officer to identify any early interventions that may provide support at the start of an absence. The employee support officer will ask the employee the reason for the absence (work or personal) and signpost to any support that may provide assistance, 4.4. Managers also have the opportunity to support employees. Further detail of employee supports provided as part of the Councils Employee Assistance programme is detailed in section 6 of the report. 5. Employee Assistance Programme 5.1. The Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) offers practical and emotional support for all council employees. Whether the issues are personal or work related there may be assistance within the EAP which could help. The EAP can also assist managers in supporting their employees with difficult or sensitive issues. The EAP consists of the following supports: • Employee Counselling • Early Intervention • Occupational Health Support • Health Surveillance • Physiotherapy • Financial Support • Workplace Mediation Full detail of supports available via the Employee Assistance Programme can be found on the intranet, through Personnel Services, the Employee Support Team and through line managers. Each of these supports are covered at sections 5.2 to 5.10. 5.2. One of the supports provided as part of the program includes access to support provided by PAM Assist, whom the council contract with to support elements of our programme. PAM assist in supporting employees with both personal or work-related problems that can affect their home life, work life and general wellbeing, the services available are: • In the moment support via counsellors • Legal, tax and medical information • Bereavement support • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) • Telephone or video counselling. 5.3. In addition, immediate family members can access the helpline for in the moment support/signposting. Family members are defined as an employee’s partner/spouse and children aged 16-24 in full time education and residing at the same household address. 207
Page 208
5.4. All council supports can be accessed by calling the telephone numbers provided as well as by using the employee support app (PAM Assist app), which has been developed and promoted to give access to employees on their phone, directly to information about services. This app can be downloaded by employees. PAM assist has also developed and shared a flyer to provide information to employees, this is attached at Appendix 1. 5.5. The PAM assist app, is part of the service provided by PAM Assist on behalf of the Council, and is available to all employees and managers and provides access to easy to use tools and resources which include: • Mind Matters – Mindfulness hub • Your unique PAM Assist score - Health assessment • Move Medicine – Virtual gym and guided workouts • Stepping Stones – Goal setting tool • Self-guided interactive courses • A range of additional expert resources Each month there are specific wellbeing topics, delivered by webinar, from PAM Wellbeing. 5.6. Early Intervention The purpose of the early intervention approach through the Council’s Employee Support Team is to proactively help employees access support as quickly as possible. This is achieved through managers using a Brief Intervention approach which allows the manager to confidently discuss potential issues with employees and deal with these issues at an early stage. This discussion may lead to the manager sign posting an employee to the EAP. In addition, employees reporting absent due to a psychological absence e.g. stress, anxiety, depression, an automatic referral will be made to the Employee Support team. The process for referral can be made from the appropriate Personnel section/or directly by the manager. The Employee Support team can provide practical help and advice relevant to the cause of stress and in many instances will act as a facilitator for a return to work. 5.7. Occupational Health Support The Occupational Health Team consists of an Occupational Health Adviser and Occupational Nurse. The nurse provides health checks, confidential advice, including addiction concerns and health surveillance. The Occupational Health Adviser can assess employees and give advice on reasonable adjustments and/or interventions such as counselling, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and physiotherapy. 5.8. Health Surveillance checks are carried out by the Occupational Health Nurse. Managers are aware of requirements for health surveillance in their area of responsibility and where necessary liaise with Occupational Health Nurse to arrange for the appropriate checks to be carried out, for example, annual assessment for night workers, hearing, driver health checks and fitness assessments. 5.9. Physiotherapy Physiotherapy is available for all Council employees whether or not they are at work. It is the line manager’s responsibility to ensure that physiotherapy is accessed for any employee reporting a musculoskeletal condition. Early referral to this service can prevent further deterioration of the employee’s condition, facilitate an early return to work or prevent an absence from occurring in the first place. 208
Page 209
5.10. Financial Advice and Workplace Mediation Money Matters can offer benefits and debt advice to employees, either by telephone or by appointment with an adviser. Workplace mediation is an informal process that compliments the council’s procedure for dealing with workplace issues. It is used to help improve working relationships between individuals, perhaps where there has been a misunderstanding or a disagreement leading to a breakdown in working relationships. 6. Support for Managers 6.1. Managers are provided with training to support employees with mental health. This is through induction, a range of training activities where mental health support and information is included, management and leadership development training. Personnel support is provided to managers through attendance at Resource Management Teams and case conferences are held between managers and personnel services to ensure correct supports are offered to employees. 6.2. Brief Intervention Training: This type of training is available to help managers approach employees where they believe there is a concern, e.g. stress, addiction etc. in a sensitive way and enable a discussion to take place. This approach has been adopted within other management training programmes e.g. Management Development Programme and Maximising Attendance. However, this is also a stand-alone training programme which managers may benefit from. More information can be accessed through the Learning and Development section. 7. Employee Wellbeing Supports, Initiatives and Schemes 7.1. The Council champions a number of initiatives to promote positive mental health. The link to the annual wellbeing calendar is provided below. This summarises the annual events and initiatives that take place during the year to support employees and promote events taking place. . Calendar of events | myWorks (southlanarkshire.gov.uk) 8. Supporting Policies 8.1. Policies that directly support mental health and wellbeing are detailed below and more information on these can be found on the Intranet or by contacting Personnel. • Managing Stress at Work Policy • Maximising Attendance Policy • Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy • Health and Safety Policy • Carers Passport 8.2. More detailed information on these policies is provided in Appendix 2. 8.3. Employee wellbeing is integrated in many of the formal policies in place within the Council and a full list of these polices are attached in Appendix 3. 209
Page 210
9. Next Steps 9.1. The Council continues to monitor reasons for absences as part of Maximising Attendance reporting. In addition, the Council is linked to national developments, areas of good practice and benchmarking exercises through Society of Personnel and Development (SPDS), Association of Directors Education in Scotland – Personnel meeting (ADES) the Improvement Service and by keeping abreast of practice in other Local Authorities and Partner Organisations. These contacts allow us to share best practice with others in relation to wellbeing supports, absence levels, new initiatives and any national developments. As new practices and developments arise, they will be explored and incorporated into existing arrangements to support employee health and wellbeing. 10. Employee Implications 10.1. Employees wellbeing is essential to enable the Council to continue to deliver high quality services and this is reflected in the supports and policies available in the Council and the workforce plans developed to meet service needs. 11. Financial Implications 11.1. There are no financial implications from the implementation of the current absence processes and employee wellbeing supports, all current costs are accommodated within existing budgets. 12. Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications 12.1. There are no Climate Change, Sustainability and Environmental Implications arising from the information presented in this report. 13. Other Implications 13.1. There are no implications for sustainability or risk in terms of the information contained within this report. 14. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 14.1. This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to an existing policy, function or strategy and therefore no impact assessment is required 14.2. Consultation and discussion takes place with Trade Unions through the through Joint Consultative Forum (JCF), the Joint Trades Union Council (JTUC), the Resource Joint Consultative Committees (JCC ) and the Corporate Maximising Attendance Group. Discussions take place on cases on a one to one bases, through the groups for policy changes, feedback is also obtained and there are monthly maximising attendance meetings with the Trade Unions as well as local resource meetings. Jackie Taylor Executive Director (Finance and Corporate Resources) 17 July 2024 210
Page 211
Link(s) to Council Values/Priorities/Outcomes Accountable, effective, efficient and transparent Fair, open and sustainable Ambitious, self-aware and improving Excellent employer Focused on people and their needs Working with and respecting others Previous References None List of Background Papers Annual, quarterly and monthly workforce monitoring reports, as reported to the Corporate Management Team, Resource Committees and Execuitve Committee. Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:- Eileen McPake, HR Business Manager Ext: 4668 (Tel: 01698 454668) E-mail: elileen.mcpake@southlanarkshire.gov.uk 211
Page 212
Appendix 1 Employee Counselling 1. PAM Assist ⬧ PAM Assist are available to employees who would like some emotional or pracitcal support for issues that are impacting on their wellbeing. For exmaple: stress (personal or work), anxiety, family matters, relationship problems, debt and addiction. ⬧ PAM Assist can also offer suport and adice for life management issues, for example, debt management or even coping with positive life changes such as getting married. 2. Contacting PAM Assist You can call them directly, confidentialy and free on 0800 882 4102 ⬧ They are available 24 hours/7 days per week should you, at any time, just want to talk to someone or if you need structured advice. ⬧ A trained counsellor will answer your call ⬧ The service offered by PAM Assist is a short term support; this means you may be offered up to 6 counselling sessions or 4 CBT sessions. If you are concerned about your wellbeing and need long term counselling support it is important you speak to your GP as soon as possible. 3. PAM Assist Website ⬧ Employees also have access to the PAM Assist Website. This website gives access to information on a variety of health and wellbeing areas such as stress management, A-Z medical conditions, mental health support and online counselling. To access the website go to: www.pamassist.co.uk ⬧ Other ways employees may access PAM Assist The Employee Support Team (EST): employees may be directed to PAM Assist if they have contacted the EST for advice. The EST will also discuss the service with you, if you are absent due to a psychological reason or it has been recommended by the Occupational Health Adviser during an employee medical appointment. ⬧ Employee Medical Appointment: the Occupational Health Adviser may give employees information to access counselling support via PAM Assist, if appropriate. ⬧ Wellbeing Referral: This type of referral may be required if, for example, an employee is being suported by the Occupational Nurse (ON) formally through the Addiction Policy. This would mean the ON would make the referral on beahlf of the employee and would receive information to confirm the counselling sessions are being attended. 212
Page 213
4. The PAM Assist flyer is attached for information 213
Page 214
Appendix 2 Polices that directly support Mental Health and Wellbeing 1. Managing Stress at Work Policy The Council’s Stress at Work Policy aims to reduce or eliminate stress at work. Managers have responsibilities as part of this policy. These responsibilities outline the role managers play in reducing stress at work and the processes that support this. Managers will be able to • assess the risk of stress to their employees • take steps to eliminate or reduce the risks • recognise the symptoms of stress • be aware of the supports available to employees and offer support as appropriate The policy on managing stress at work is also part of the Council’s health and safety arrangements. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provide employers with advice and assistance in complying with health and safety legislation. 2. Maximising Attendance Policy This Policy has been developed in consultation with recognised trade unions, in accordance with the principles of partnership working. The objective of this policy is to deliver quality cost-effective services by maximising attendance and motivating employee attendance. This policy is intended to demonstrate a proactive view by: • demonstrating an ongoing concern for employee’s health, safety and well-being • taking a preventative stance and tackling issues before they become problems identifying and addressing the root causes of absence, rather than simply monitoring or `policing’ • ensuring employees work in a supportive environment and are treated in a fair and consistent manner There is more detailed information in section 4 of this report on how absences are managed. 3. Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy South Lanarkshire Council is committed to promoting awareness and understanding of mental health and wellbeing to employees. This is done by: • providing guidance for managers to enable them to support employees who experience poor mental health. • providing guidance for employees to empower them to support themselves in managing their mental health and/or to seek appropriate assistance when necessary. • ensuring employees who disclose that they are having problems with their mental health do not experience stigma, discrimination or harassment. • promoting access to mental health and wellbeing supports. 214
Page 215
The aim of this policy is to create an awareness and understanding of mental health and wellbeing. It is also aimed at ensuring managers and employees have guidance and support, not only in times of crisis, but also as part of an early intervention approach. In achieving this aim the Council will: • provide employees and managers with a clear understanding of what mental health is and highlight that everyone has mental health. • provide confidential access to support and assistance for employees who are experiencing problems related to their mental health and wellbeing at the earliest opportunity. • empower employees to build personal resilience through access to, for example, the Employee Assistance Programme. • adopt a positive approach to mental health and wellbeing promotion and awareness, including tackling any stigma attached to poor mental health. • encourage a workplace culture where employees are able to talk openly about their mental health. • promote wellbeing information through various initiatives such as healthy working lives. 4. Health and Safety Policy One of the key aims of the Council’s Health and Safety Policy is to contribute to a positive health and safety culture. Managers are aware through training and discussions as part of supporting absences of the importance of employee’s safety and health and wellbeing. 5. Carers Passport A Carer’s Passport provides the opportunity for an employee and their line manager to discuss the employee’s caring responsibilities. The employee can explain in their own words their circumstances and discuss with the manager what support/ adjustments could help them manage their caring responsibilities alongside work. The manager may also suggest other supports that would be of benefit to the employee. A completed Carer’s Passport will hold a record of the discussion and any agreements made to support and assist the employee. It is seen as a ‘live’ document that can be reviewed and updated should the carer’s circumstances change. Change could be due to the nature of the caring responsibilities, the employee changing jobs and/ or a change of line manager. A review date can also be agreed to ensure the support arrangements in place made are still helpful. The decision to have a Carer’s Passport is entirely voluntary by the employee and it will be at the employee’s discretion if this is something they would like to take forward. 215
Page 216
Appendix 3 South Lanarkshire Council Policy and Employee Wellbeing Supports ⬧ Addiction Policy ⬧ Breastfeeding Mothers Policy ⬧ Career Break Policy ⬧ Carers Passport ⬧ Dignity at Work Policy ⬧ Domestic Abuse Policy ⬧ Dying to Work Charter ⬧ Enhanced Leave Policy ⬧ Flexible Working Policy ⬧ Health and Safety Policy ⬧ Ill Health Retirement Guidance ⬧ Managing Stress at Work Policy ⬧ Maximising Attendance Policy ⬧ Mental Health and Wellbeing Policy (includes Guidance for Managers, and Employees) ⬧ Menopause Policy (includes Guidance for Managers, and Information for employees) ⬧ Maternity, Adoption, Paternity Leave, Additional Paternity Leave, Shared Paternity Leave and Pay Policy ⬧ Managing Bereavement in the Workplace ⬧ Managing Stress at Work Policy ⬧ Scheme of Special Leave ⬧ Supporting Carers in the Workplace – employee guidance ⬧ Supporting Carers in the Workplace – managers guidance ⬧ Workplace Mediation Policy ⬧ Workplace Mediation Leaflet South Lanarkshire Council Employee Supports and Schemes ⬧ Cycle to Work Scheme ⬧ Employee Counselling (PAM Assist) ⬧ Early Intervention (Employee Support Officer) ⬧ Employee Benefits Discount Scheme ⬧ Financial Advice Options ⬧ Health Promotion Information ⬧ Monthly Meditations ⬧ Occupational Health ⬧ PAM Assist Wellbeing App ⬧ Physiotherapy ⬧ Wellbeing Calendar ⬧ Winter Wellbeing Events ⬧ Winter Flu Vaccinations (for eligible employees) 216
Page 217
South Lanarkshire Wellbeing Initiatives ⬧ Mind Your Head Campaign 2023/24: A mental health campaign, raising awareness of mental health, supports and trauma informed practice. Initial targeted group, front line employees at Business Units. ⬧ First Council to launch a Menopause Policy, on World Menopause Day 18 October 2018. Further work to progress Menopause awareness included: - Training and information sessions (2019) - Learn on Line Module developed: Introduction to Menopause - Webinars – as part of the Winter Wellbeing Events (above) - SLC are Committed to being a Menopause Friendly Employer (and are aiming to be accredited by the end of 2024) ⬧ SLC are Carers Positive Employer (at Engaged level) (referenced on our guidance for managers and employees above) ⬧ Ask, Tell, Save a Life (in house) training started in January 2024, with sessions every month. A targeted approach is being taken to ensure those area in most need of this training are given a priority. 217
Page 218
218