PE758, by Jim Black, on behalf of the home safety committee of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council, is on home safety officers.The committee has completed its oral evidence-taking sessions on the petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Executive to place a statutory duty on local authorities to employ home safety officers and to provide the necessary funding for them. I seek committee members' views on the central objective of the petition—and any other views they have. I propose, if—ideally—there is a degree of consensus, to write a letter to the minister to convey the view of the committee. If members have different views, I will try to reflect the balance of opinion in the committee.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Home Safety Officers (PE758)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Bristow Muldoon Lab 3
- David McLetchie Con 1
- Michael McMahon Lab 1
- Mike Rumbles LD 1
- Dr Sylvia Jackson Lab 1
- Maureen Watt SNP 1
- Paul Martin Lab 1
- Fergus Ewing SNP 1
The record
11 contributionsI think that the petitioner has failed to make the case for imposing the duty that the home safety committee seeks. There was no consensus among local authorities that what the petition proposes is a desirable course of action and there appeared to be little support for it from the Scottish Executive. It was certainly not clear to me from the committee's examination of the evidence that the creation of the duty and the engagement of home safety officers on a statutory basis would improve safety in any home anywhere. There was no evidence to suggest that that particular structure was any more effective than the partnerships and other arrangements that are in place in local authority areas where there are no home safety officers. Given the lack of evidence, the petitioner has failed to make his case. We should disagree with the request in the petition and write to him accordingly.
I did not think that the issue was as black and white as David McLetchie has made it out to be. I heard the evidence that was given on the petition when it came to the Public Petitions Committee and thought that there was a compelling argument for considering the matter. The impression was given that a piecemeal process exists. There was clear evidence that home safety officers bring benefits, but it was also recognised that we cannot be too prescriptive.No convincing arguments have been made in support of 32 local authorities having X number of people doing home safety work. Indeed, the petition did not argue for that; rather, it called on the Scottish Executive to give direction to ensure that a piecemeal approach is not taken. We can ask the Scottish Executive to ensure that no such approach is taken. The finances that would have to be made available for designated home safety officers or for local authorities to share people who have home safety responsibilities would not be particularly burdensome for those authorities. It has been proven that money can be saved in the longer term by ensuring that people are safe in their homes. We should consider those savings.Other agencies can carry out home safety work—the fire and rescue services and social services can carry out safety checks, for example. However, the petition calls for a guarantee that such work will not be missed by chance—that is its essence. A clear distinction must be made between requiring something to be done and something being done because some people—although not others—think that it is a good idea. Fundamentally, the petitioner seeks clarity. There would be nothing wrong with the committee asking the Scottish Executive to consider the matter.
The home safety committee of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council has the best motives—it sees the proposal as the best way to deal with home safety in Scotland. However, in the light of the evidence that we have received, I agree with David McLetchie. I am not convinced that the proposal is the solution for all 32 councils.Michael McMahon talked about a piecemeal approach in Scotland, but local government has devolved responsibilities. As long as local authorities fulfil their duties, how they decide to address home safety is far more important than asking the Executive at the centre to tell them that a particular solution is the best solution and that that solution must be progressed. As Michael McMahon said, the petition suggests an approach that is too prescriptive.The petition system that has been used is good. Evidence was given to the Public Petitions Committee and the petition came to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which took evidence on it. However, I do not agree with the petitioner.
The issue is important—there is no doubt about that. I remember the lady who came to give evidence. She talked about being a home safety officer and the good work that is being done, but I firmly believe that the work can be done in an integrated way. In my area, for example, the fire service, in conjunction with council services and other services, offers advice on home safety. The council's size is undoubtedly important. Councils carry out such work in slightly different ways, depending on their size.For once, I agree with Mike Rumbles. The approach that has been suggested is too prescriptive. Home safety work can be delivered in various ways. As I said, however, the issue is undoubtedly important.
I agree that the issue is important and that the intentions behind petition PE758 are good, but we are being urged to place a statutory duty on all local authorities to employ home safety officers and to provide the necessary funding. I have difficulty with being prescriptive. Much of the problem for local authorities is that they face lots of legislation and sometimes inadequate funding; the proposed statutory duty would be just another burden. Although we do not have the hard evidence about which David McLetchie spoke, good work on home safety is going on in local authorities. I have the feeling that all that is needed is a co-ordinating role. We want everybody who works in the field to work together, not to lump responsibility on to just one person. The proposed duty might take away from the current integrated approach. Thankfully, we have seen a shift in the number of fires, as the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care mentioned. Fire officers have been going out to tell people about home safety and to help them reduce the incidence and likelihood of fires. On balance, I think that we should not be prescriptive in this area.
I commend the petitioners for raising an important matter. Home safety has not been covered anything like as much as it should have been. We can all speak from experience: home safety activity does not exist to the level that it should. In Glasgow Springburn, for example, there is a need to improve home safety activity. However, the employment of home safety officers is too simplistic an approach.The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 requires every authority to have in place an antisocial behaviour strategy. I would be more in favour of having a local action plan that refers to home safety, which might result in the employment of home safety officers. Such plans could be tied into community planning partnerships and other elements of local government to ensure that we do not take too simplistic an approach and councillors do not say, "Well, we've employed a couple of people, so that solves the problem of home safety." There is a need for home safety to be more integrated with the system. There has to be some form of voluntary regulation to integrate home safety so that the kind of activity that should happen does happen.My personal experience, from living in my constituency, is that I have not noticed many home safety visits taking place. I am sure that the same is true of other members. We have to talk about that, rather than make home safety something that turns up at a roadshow at the local gala day. We have to go much further. We need to talk about action plans rather than just about employing home safety officers.
The witnesses made a strong case and their enthusiasm for the task was quite infectious. They exemplified what local authorities can do to promote home safety. I notice that the local authorities that employ full-time home safety officers include a fair number, albeit a minority: Aberdeen, Argyll and Bute, Dundee, Edinburgh, Fife, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and the Western Isles. It is interesting that they do and others do not, although perhaps we do not have the complete picture.I was not persuaded that imposing a legal duty on all local authorities would necessarily contribute to the aims that we all support. That said, however, it is difficult to prove a negative. I guess that those who promote home safety measures day to day, and thereby prevent accidents in the home, would argue that we do not know about the accidents that, but for their good work, would have happened. As it is impossible to prove a negative, we do not know. We do know, however, that other measures are being taken.The minister passed on a helpful note from the Chief Fire Officers Association on the work that has been done, notably by Lothian and Borders fire and rescue service. It has contacted 121,000 homes, 29,000 homes have had fire safety checks and 29,000 homes have had smoke detectors fitted.A great deal of work is being done in my area in the Highlands. Individual firemen and firewomen are extremely motivated to take part in such work. I am sure that others throughout Scotland are up for it, too. I can vouch for the fact that they are playing a valuable role. The work that they do could not be replicated by anyone else. Trained fire service personnel, rather than people who work directly for local authorities, are the people to fulfil that role.I know from work in connection with osteoporosis that in some parts of Scotland, notably Glasgow, excellent falls prevention programmes have been implemented. They are a very effective form of action on home safety, because preventing a fall and a hip fracture often substantially increases the life expectancy of someone who, had he or she broken a hip, would have had seriously impaired mortality.Many things are being done. I hope that Michael Matheson's proposed bill on fire sprinklers has not been entirely forgotten, as it would seem to be an important possible measure.I am not persuaded that the proposal in the petition would in itself necessarily achieve the objectives involved. Nor am I persuaded about the number of personnel local authorities would require to employ to be able to say that they have implemented such a policy. Plainly, a great number of extra staff would be required in the larger local authorities. I imagine that that would come at a high financial cost. This is not a criticism of the petitioner, but I am not sure that we could support the measure without having a close look at how much it would cost. I am not sure that we ever got to that point—that is perhaps more a criticism of the minister than anything else.
We can take a number of themes from the contributions members have made. It is clear that everyone recognises that home safety is important and that we want all arms of government to contribute to informing and advising people to reduce the number of accidents in the home, both because of the benefit to individuals who would not suffer injury or death as a result of an accident and because of the wider benefits to society of fewer accidents in the home.We all recognise and welcome the work that has been done by the fire and rescue service, which Fergus Ewing mentioned. The information that we have is about Lothian and Borders fire and rescue service, but I assume that that is only an example and that similar work is going on throughout Scotland. I spoke recently to some firefighters in Livingston at an open day. They were very positive about the role that they now play in providing advice and installing smoke detectors.It is clear that the committee is not persuaded that we should put a statutory duty on local authorities to have a home safety officer. It might well be worth having more detailed research done in the future on the rate of home accidents in local authorities that have such an officer and those that do not. We could suggest that the minister tries to get more detailed information on the matter.It might be worth including in our letter to the minister Paul Martin's suggestion that we encourage local government to have a strategy to deal with accidents in the home and that perhaps the appropriate place for that to be considered would be the community planning process, given that in that process representatives of the council work with colleagues in the fire and rescue service, the police, other council departments and the health service. The process brings together all the people who are affected by accidents in the home and the people who can contribute towards giving people advice to reduce the number of accidents. If we produce a response that draws together all those main themes, will everyone be signed up to that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Okay, we have dealt with that matter. We will respond appropriately to the petitioner and to the minister.
In this meeting
Everything on 23 Jan 2007 →- Scottish Parliament Local Government and Transport Committee Tuesday 23 January 2007 Committee business · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 150
- Petitions Petitions · 50
- Petitions Petitions · 11
- Petitions Petitions · 12
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 12
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.