Official Report 213KB pdf
Home Safety Officers (PE758)
I welcome the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Lewis Macdonald. The minister is supported by David Stone, who is the senior medical officer; John Froggatt, who is the branch head of public health and substance misuse in the public health team; and Annette Stuart, who is the policy officer from the same team. I welcome the officials to the meeting.
Thank you, convener. I start by acknowledging that the committee might be surprised to find that a health minister is the first minister to address the committee on home safety, but Executive responsibility for it lies within the Health Department. As the convener said, the committee will hear from another minister whose department also has an interest in the petition. That reflects the policy significance of the issue across a number of Government departments and agencies.
I thank you for those remarks.
There is concern about postcode delivery of services. You said that, in some areas, specific responsibilities are given to officers in community safety partnerships, but that does not happen in all areas and you said that whether it does depends on the priorities that are set by each CSP. Surely we want to get away from that kind of postcode delivery of services.
I accept that there should be a common high standard of provision—that is indisputable—but we must respond to the proposition in the petition. Michael McMahon made a point about postcode delivery of services, but different areas face particular issues that should be given priority. Such issues can best be identified locally by local partners, who bring different things to the table. The Strathclyde fire and rescue service has done work on alcohol-related fires in the home, as I said, but in some parts of the country road traffic accidents are the most pressing cause of concern for local partners. It is right that decisions about setting priorities on accident prevention and ensuring the best deployment of local resources are made as locally as possible.
I am sure that there is no difference between the benefit that can be gained from employing a home safety officer in one part of Scotland and the benefit that can be gained from doing so in another part of the country. By ensuring that people were safe in their homes, we would reduce costs on the health service and local authority services and bring benefits throughout Scotland that would outweigh people's concerns that the will to do a particular thing had been imposed on a particular geographical area. The proposed approach would not prevent people in different parts of the country from focusing on issues that concerned them, such as road traffic accidents. Surely there is evidence from across Scotland that proper attention to home safety can reduce the burden on the national health service and social services in local authorities. That is what we should aim to achieve throughout Scotland.
I do not disagree with that—perhaps we are debating not the value of improved home safety but how best to deliver it. Our contention is that that is best done by addressing local priorities that are set at the behest of local agencies. By requiring local authorities to make particular provision for home safety, as opposed to other areas of work, we might prejudge discussions that take place locally.
In the interests of clarity, would not it be helpful to accept the petitioner's recommendation and impose on local authorities a statutory obligation to employ home safety officers? The public would then know who was responsible for home safety, which would bring massive advantages in tackling problems. The approach would also potentially bring huge benefits, as we heard in evidence from the petitioner, whose evidence to the Public Petitions Committee was so persuasive that the committee referred the matter to the Local Government and Transport Committee, so that we could inquire further into the issue.
I understand the argument about clarity, but I think that it is posited on the assumption that there is currently a lack of clarity. Again, I would be interested in the committee's findings as it proceeds with its work. The community safety partnership in each local authority area has a clear responsibility and the local authority is involved in its work, as are other agencies. If CSPs have been established to address and take forward the safety agenda, it is appropriate that they continue to have that lead responsibility.
I ask the question because I am aware that knowledge among the public, of which I am a member, is not always very high. That was shown starkly when I read recently that two thirds of the public could name three celebrity chefs, but only 3 per cent could name three members of the European Parliament. What percentage of the public do you think know what community safety partnerships are and do?
I would be speculating—as would Fergus Ewing—but I know that the Aberdeen Safer Community Trust in my area and the partnership work that it takes forward are well known in the community. It is for others to judge whether the same is true in their communities. The partnerships bring round the table the agencies that have hands-on responsibility for fire prevention, fire safety advice and the other areas of work that are being taken forward. As Michael McMahon said, a number of local authorities have a full-time officer with responsibility for home safety. Other authorities deliver on the matter through environmental health and some do so through trading standards.
Does the Executive have an estimate of the costs that would arise were the petitioner's plea, that local authorities employ home safety officers, to be implemented?
I cannot give you the costs today, but I am happy to write to the convener with our best estimate. It may be a question for George Lyon, given his overall responsibility for local authority funding, when he appears before the committee. I will certainly give him notice that you will ask that question. Part of the difficulty in arriving at an estimate is that the arrangements that exist in local authorities vary significantly. Therefore, judging what the additional costs in each case is not as straightforward as it would be were we starting with a blank sheet.
Perhaps it is not entirely fair to suggest that you are passing the buck to the minister responsible for local government, but are you really saying that you have no information about costs?
I am saying that I do not have the answer to the question that you asked. I am happy to ensure that either I or a colleague make the information available to you.
You said that costs are currently incurred by local authorities in performing home-safety functions. Can you share with the committee any information you have been given on the costs that are incurred by local authorities for the existing function and provision?
I ask John Froggatt to comment.
We do not have specific information on the costs to local authorities of current provision.
Have you asked them?
We have asked which authorities have community safety officers, but we have not asked for their individual costs.
You said that there is other provision and that services are delivered other than through employment of home safety officers, in that home safety is catered for in a range of ways by local authorities. Are you really saying that you have not bothered to ask local authorities what costs they incur in relation to the matters about which the minister informed us earlier, and that you have come to the committee without that information?
I am sure that the committee would want to ask those questions, if Mr Ewing thinks that it is critical to the argument.
I hope that the costs of the services that you say are being provided can be quantified. Plainly, in order to reach a decision any committee would want to have the clearest possible idea about current costs and proposed costs. I emphasise that it is the benefits of the measures that the petitioners stress would be paramount. Nonetheless, I am sure that they would agree that we should not neglect to pursue diligently the matter of costs under the existing system.
We are perhaps talking at cross-purposes—you asked what we estimated the costs would be of following through the petition but now you are asking about existing spend on delivering the current services. That is a slightly different question.
You mentioned the link between alcohol and deaths in the home due to fire and the current Government campaign on that. Do you have any information about the progress that has been made through the fire service's increased focus on providing information and advice to people about home-fire safety measures in particular? As well as changing behaviour, obvious ways of tackling the problem is through installation of more smoke alarms and provision of fire safety advice. Do you have any information about, for example, how many homes have been visited, how many people have received advice, and how many additional fire detectors have been installed?
All fire and rescue services in Scotland provide a home-fire risk assessment service, including visits to people's homes. That may include installation of 10-year-battery smoke alarms, which are clearly important in preventing fire.
Such statistics would be useful; they would address the question that was raised by Michael McMahon on whether there is consistency of service across the country, and the question about whether the fire service's increased emphasis on prevention and advice is reducing the risk of death from fire in people's homes.
Do you think that we expect too much of the public sector in community and home safety? Should we expect more from the private sector? For example, I am thinking about the appliances that can be purchased from do-it-yourself chains and whether more effective information could be provided. I am also thinking about packaging and about other items that are purchased by members of the public.
It is important that there is proper and effective regulation of matters relating to, for example, the packaging of home improvement tools and kit. We have recently introduced new guidance on bath water under building standards. A chief cause of accidents in the home is scalding, and we have become the first country in the United Kingdom to pass legislation that addresses that. Henceforth, all new and refurbished properties will be required to have a regulator fitted to the hot water system to govern the temperature. That is an example of a measure that can be taken to ensure that things that are put in homes, whether by those who build them or by the people who want to make improvements to their homes, meet appropriate standards. In the example that I gave, we toughened the standards because we recognised that there was a continuing problem.
I appreciate that we have worked with industry on that, and that it has been happy to comply. However, what happens if industry says that it does not want to work with the Executive to address home safety? Will there come a time when industry will need to be made to face up to the fact that the sale of appliances needs to be more effectively regulated to ensure that people do not use them in a manner that, in the long run, will have an impact on, for example, the health service?
It is striking that several local authorities work on home safety in conjunction with trading standards departments because they recognise that trading standards are important to home safety and that effective regulation is a key part of delivering the outcomes. Trading standards are set across the board and apply across the country, but enforcement is determined locally. Enforcement should always be carried out to ensure that home safety is not compromised.
As we have heard, some councils employ home safety officers whereas others, often in adjoining council areas, do not. We heard that when we took evidence from Dundee City Council and Angus Council in June. Does the minister have any evidence to suggest that people whose council has a home safety officer sleep more safely in their beds at night than do people who live in a locality where they are deprived of such a service?
As with Mr Ewing's question about public awareness of community safety partnerships, it would be difficult to give an evidence-based response to that question. Certainly, it would be fair to say that local authorities that have recognised home safety as a priority and have made that resource available will presumably ensure that they get value from that decision and make a difference with the appointment. However, the key issue is that it is for local authorities and their local partners together to determine what will make the most difference and have the most beneficial impact.
Given that the objective of the petition is to create the post of home safety officer in all local authorities in Scotland, does the minister agree that, before such a Scotland-wide duty was imposed on authorities, some evaluation would need to be carried out of the effectiveness of different approaches in tackling accidents in the home? Would it not be reasonable, therefore, to try to find evidence as to whether having a team that is led by a home safety officer is more effective than other approaches at raising public awareness and reducing the level of accidents?
I understand that point. Certainly, if I were a proponent of that kind of statutory duty, I would feel that my case would be greatly strengthened by being able to show evidence that having a home safety officer made such a difference. My view is that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is not to suggest that the problem does not exist but to say that progress is being made under the arrangements that are currently in place. I think that that is the right way to go forward. Simply placing a statutory duty on one partner to employ a full-time officer to address one aspect of the issue would not of itself guarantee a different outcome. The key issue is what difference to the outcome is achieved by different interventions, such as raising awareness and working with partner agencies to improve the position in people's homes.
Does the minister agree that the call for each local authority to employ a home safety officer proceeds on the basis of an unproven, and perhaps unprovable, assertion as to its efficacy in dealing with accidents in the home?
I certainly agree that I have seen no evidence that the appointment of an officer with that responsibility would of itself transform the situation in local areas.
You said that the number of fires in the home was decreasing, which is to be welcomed. However, given the worrying increase in the number of drink-drivers in the middle-age group, it seems that unless we continually reinforce such messages—whether about drink-driving or fire safety—any lapse in public awareness leads to an increase. We need to keep up public awareness of such issues all the time. If the Scottish Executive were to require councils to have home safety officers and set out a plan of action over a period of, say, four or five years, would that not demonstrate our commitment to keeping these issues in the public eye?
It would, but that would not be the best or only way to do that. If the power was taken and used, it would send a clear signal, but there are other approaches. I am more interested in ensuring that local partnerships are delivering joined-up strategies that address their priorities in an effective way. I take the point, however. Sometimes, sending a clear signal can be the right thing to do.
Are there any measures or criteria against which community safety partnerships are evaluated?
Yes. Community safety partnerships have to draw up a strategy and agree it. It is then reported to the Executive and, as I said earlier, there is a community safety co-ordinator for Scotland whose responsibility it is to address with the community safety partnership in question any issues that arise in the process.
Is there any measurement that can be used to determine whether one partnership is doing better than another? You said that if we compared home safety officers with community safety partnerships, we might opt for having a safety officer, but is there any measurement of how community safety partnerships are doing vis-à-vis one another?
Given his professional interest in injuries, David Stone may have something to suggest and may be able to say how he assesses the trends from a medical point of view.
The first thing with this kind of evaluation is to look for correlations between trends and arrangements at a local level or, for that matter, at national level. However, it is extremely difficult, methodologically, to draw conclusions from time trends. Using public health or epidemiological methodology, in an ideal world we would try to conduct an experiment comparable to a clinical trial for drugs: we would randomly allocate home safety officers—or community safety partnerships, for that matter—to some local authorities but not others. In the real world, we cannot do that, so we are left looking at time trends for the arrangements that have been put in place. We have tried to draw some sort of conclusions on cause and effect. It is extremely difficult to do that, especially when the numbers are small. We are fortunate that, in Scotland, the numbers have now come down to a fraction of what they were even 20 years ago. However, from a statistical point of view, that presents a problem, as it means that there is much more random, year-by-year variation. When we start looking at specific parts of a small country such as Scotland, the methodological problems are further increased. I do not know if that is a helpful response, but it is extremely difficult from an evaluation or research point of view to do the sort of work that has been suggested.
I might add that the community safety partnerships will report again in February as part of a regular process.
Before we continue, I should mention that I was wrong to say that we have George Lyon scheduled to come and give evidence on this issue. We do not, I believe. We might wish to pursue some of the areas on which the minister was not able to give us precise figures in correspondence. It will be up to committee members to consider whether we wish to take oral evidence from the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business. Initially, we might wish to pursue some answers in correspondence.
Why do you think that the petitioner brought the petition?
My answer to that very much reflects the last question from Maureen Watt. From the perspective of those who are fully engaged in this area, a clear signal can be sent to local authorities and everybody else that the issue should be given higher priority. My response to that would be the same as my response to Maureen Watt. I am sure that that is what lies behind and motivates the petition.
Is the issue only that people who are involved in the matter want to give it a higher priority, or are there gaps in the system?
I am interested to know whether the committee has found evidence of gaps, as I would be concerned about that. Certainly, no evidence has come to me to suggest that local authorities are failing in their responsibility to deliver the services and advice, with partners. However, if there is evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to know about that.
I am pursuing the issue because, with every petition, part of the reason why the petitioner raises it is that they feel genuinely that the issue is seriously important and they want to ensure that it is right up there. If you think that that is the only reason why the petitioner has brought the petition, you are not likely to want to change the current system. Am I interpreting you correctly?
From a Government perspective, one of the extremely helpful aspects about committee inquiries into such issues is that they will undoubtedly explore sources of evidence and cast fresh light on the evidence. We will pay close attention to whatever conclusions the committee comes to. I have described our starting position, which is that the current system delivers what we want it to do. On that basis, we would need to be persuaded that there is a case for significant change.
Basically, you are content that the system delivers what you want it to deliver.
Broadly speaking, yes. We can always do better, but we are going in the right direction.
That brings us to the end of our questions. I thank the minister for his evidence. I ask him to take on board some of the issues and to get back to us in writing on the questions on which he did not have all the relevant information. We will also pursue a couple of questions in correspondence with his colleague the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform or his deputy. In due course, we will consider whether that correspondence will suffice or whether we need direct evidence from one of those ministers.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation