Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Rural Transport Fund comprises three elements: the Rural Community Transport Initiative (RCTI), the Rural Petrol Stations Grant Scheme (RPSGS) and the Rural Public Passenger Transport Grant Scheme (RPPTGS). Scottish Borders Council received no funding under RCTI or RPSGS, but received RPPTG of £0.158 million in 1999-2000, £0.167 million in 2000-2001, £0.193 million in 2001-02 and £0.212 million in 2002-03. Councils are free to spend these funds as they see fit. The following tables show Scottish Borders Council’s distribution of these funds in 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02. The Council has yet to provide data for 2002-03. We shall continue to pursue the Council and provide the missing information separately as soon as it is received.

Rural Public Passenger Transport Grant 1999-2000 Scottish Borders Council Expenditure

Route	Amount
Service 67: Kelso - Galashiels/Galashiels - St Boswells	£47,290
Service 30: St Boswells & Lauderdale to Edinburgh	£0
Service 73: Selkirk - Galashiels	£2,548
Service 102: Peebles - West Linton-Edinburgh	£25,052
Service 223: Yetholm - Kelso-Coldstream-Berwick	£4,383
Service 67: Kelso - Galashiels (evening service)	£6,566
Service 7:3 Selkirk-Galashiels (evening service)	£3,388
Service 92: Peebles - West Lothian	£2,804
Service 60: Berwick - Duns	£479
Services 23/67: Berwick - Kelso/Kelso - Galashiels	£12,676
Service 64: Kelso - Roxburgh - St Boswells	£2,816
Service 37: Chirnside - Ayton - Eyemouth	£12,865
Service 31: Selkirk - Edinburgh/Edinburgh - Newcastle	£24,850
Service 195: Galashiels - Carlisle	£12,000
Service 114: Jedburgh - Bonchester Bridge - Hawick	£2,901
Service 174: Ettrick-Selkirk	£2,109
Ettrick-Ettrickbridge (community bus route)	£1,202
Service 130: Moffat - Yarrow-Galashiels	£6,365
Kelso - Coldstream - Wooler - Newcastle	£2,881
Total	£173,175

 

Rural Public Passenger Transport Grant 2000-2001 Scottish Borders Council Expenditure

Route	Amount
Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels/Galashiels - St Boswells	£41,779
Service 30 St Boswells & Lauderdale to Edinburgh	£16,311
Service 73 Selkirk - Galashiels	£3,060
Service 102 Peebles - West Linton - Edinburgh	£33,378
Service 223 Yetholm - Kelso - Coldstream - Berwick	£4,548
Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels	£6,697
Service 73 Selkirk - Galashiels	£3,456
Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels	£4,841
Service 20 Kelso - Jedburgh - Hawick	£4,189
Service 37 Chirnside - Ayton - Eyemouth	£15,907
Service 31 Selkirk - Edinburgh/Edinburgh - Newcastle	£14,535
Service 195 Galashiels - Carlisle	£12,240
Service 61 Earlston - Galashiels	£2,555
Service 174 Ettrick - Selkirk	£5,565
Ettrick-Ettrickbridge (community bus route)	£1,065
Service 130 Moffat - Yarrow - Galashiels	£6,365
Kelso - Coldstream - Wooler - Newcastle	£2,938
Defecit brought forward from previous year	£15,175
Total	£194,604

Rural Public Passenger Transport Grant 2001-2002 Scottish Borders Council Expenditure

Route	Amount
Service 61 Earlston - Galashiels	£2,800
Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels	£6,878
Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels	£4,972
Service 73 Selkirk Galashiels (Sunday service)	£2,669
Service 73 Selkirk - Galashiels	£3,549
Service 195 Galashiels - Carlisle	£35,573
Service 102 Peebles - West Linton - Edinburgh	£64,797
Service 102 Peebles - West Linton	£13,200
Service 223 Yetholm - Kelso - Coldstream - Berwick (to 30/7/01)	£1,732
Service 20 Kelso - Jedburgh - Hawick	£1,588
Service 223 Yetholm - Kelso - Coldstream - Berwick (from 30/7/01)	£3,465
Service 37 Chirnside - Ayton - Eyemouth	£18,537
Service 31 Selkirk - Edinburgh/Edinburgh - Newcastle	£16,425
Service 67 Kelso - Galashiels/Galashiels - St Boswells	£11,375
Service 31 Selkirk - Edinburgh/Edinburgh - Newcastle	£6,532
Service 195 Galashiels - Carlisle	£7,911
Service 174 Ettrick - Selkirk	£12,979
Ettrick-Ettrickbridge (community bus service)	£1,003
Service 130 Moffat - Yarrow - Galashiels	£5,243
Kelso-Coldstream - Wooler - Newcastle	£2,938
Capital expenditure (Footway between Fountainhall and bus stops on A7)	£12,500
Defecit brought forward from previous year	£27,604
Total	£266,270

No. It would not be possibleto deliver good regulation aimed at improving the quality of care forvulnerable people if the organisation responsible for that regulation wassubject to a root-and-branch review every year.

I have asked Angiolina Foster, Chief Executive of Communities Scotland, to respond. Her response is asfollows:

As set out in section 7 of the Pathfinder Inspection Report, the Executive’s concern in relation to thisissue is primarily about the weaknesses in management information availablefrom the local authority. This meant that the local authority was not able toprovide reliable information to Communities Scotland Inspectors showing whatoutcomes were being achieved for homeless people applying to the council forhousing. These weaknesses also meant the local authority could not clearly demonstratewhether it was achieving its own quota for allocations to homeless people.

I have asked Angiolina Foster, Chief Executive of Communities Scotland, to respond. Her response is asfollows:

Scottish ministers actingthrough Communities Scotland have requested that East Lothian Council producean improvement plan, setting out how it will respond to the findings of the pathfinderinspection report. The plan is due to be submitted on 17 March 2004, eight weeksafter the publication of the inspection report.

Communities Scotlandwill then agree arrangements with the local authority for monitoring theimplementation of the plan to ensure that the necessary improvements in theservices for homeless people and those threatened with homelessness areachieved. Performance in this area will be reassessed within two years and a fullre-inspection of the local authority will be carried out within five years.

I have asked Angiolina Foster, Chief Executive of Communities Scotland, to respond. Her response is asfollows:

Scottish ministers, actingthrough Communities Scotland, have requested that East Lothian Council producean improvement plan, setting out how it will respond to the findings of the pathfinderinspection report. The plan is due to be submitted on 17 March 2004, eight weeksafter the publication of the inspection report.

Communities Scotlandwill then agree arrangements with the local authority for monitoring theimplementation of the plan to ensure that the necessary improvements in theservices for homeless people and those threatened with homelessness areachieved. Performance in this area will be reassessed within two years and afull re-inspection of the local authority will be carried out within fiveyears.

The Care Commission’s complaintsprocedure allows complainants to confirm whether they accept the CareCommission’s provisional conclusions and if not, to express any concerns to theCommission. The Commission will address these concerns before issuing a finaldecision. If they remain dissatisfied complainants can then seek a review ofthat decision. The Care Commission’s head of policy and development or the directorof operations will either review the decision or ask the Care Commission ReviewCommittee to do so.

If the complaint isultimately not upheld either wholly or partly by the Care Commission thecomplainant has recourse to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, who caninvestigate any action taken by or on behalf of the Commission in the exerciseof its administrative functions.

Operation of the CareCommission’s complaints procedure is a matter for the Commission. The currentcomplaints procedure has the consent of Scottish Ministers as required by theRegulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001.

I have asked Angiolina Foster, Chief Executive of Communities Scotland to respond. Her response is asfollows:

Communities Scotland,acting on behalf of Scottish Ministers, in terms of Part 3 of the Housing (Scotland)Act 2001, has powers to require a local authority to submit a plan setting outhow it will deal with the matters of concern raised in an Inspection Report.Once this plan has been agreed, the local authority is required to implementit. If Communities Scotland considers that the plan is not being satisfactorilyimplemented, it also has the power to appoint a special manager to ensure thatthe necessary action is taken to deal with the issues raised in the InspectionReport.

I have asked Ms Angiolina Foster, Chief Executive of Communities Scotland to respond. Her response is asfollows:

The Executive’s concernsregarding this matter are set out in paragraph 7.3 of the Pathfinder InspectionReport on East Lothian Council. This states that “The Council places a limit onthe number of vacant properties that can be offered to homeless households inpriority need, either in its own housing or through nominations to RSLs. Thisis resulting in many homeless households spending relatively long periods oftime in temporary accommodation while awaiting permanent housing.”

In terms of section 20 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (as amended), a local authority has anobligation to give reasonable preference to homeless persons as well as othergroups in the allocation of its housing. There is no legislative provision thatprevents the local authority from limiting the allocation of vacant houses inits ownership in respect of certain categories of applicant.

The local authority has astatutory duty under section 31 of the 1987 Act to secure permanentaccommodation for homeless people in priority need. The concern raised in thePathfinder Inspection Report does not directly relate to the local authority’sfulfilment of the duty under section 31 but to the length of time many homelesspeople are waiting before the duty is fulfilled.

The Scottish Executive intend to undertake a survey towards the end of 2004 to establish howeffective the provisions of the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, whichcommenced on 22 October last year, have been. This will incorporate a sectionon the number of fixed penalties issued and any cases which have been referredto the procurator fiscal for consideration.