News archive

Firstly, news that an an operator of three Lothian care homes is to take over 11 homes currently run by Southern Cross, which is being wound down due to financial difficulties.  Robert Kilgour, who built up Four Seasons Health Care before selling it, now runs three homes.  The owners of 11 Southern Cross homes, nine in Aberdeenshire, one in Edinburgh and one in Fife are forming a partnership with Mr Kilgour.  The handover is expected to take place within the next two months.

The full report from the BBC can be found here.

The second story concerns a care home in Hawick whose future may be in doubt.

A spokesman for the local Health Board said: “a study of NHS Borders’ services was being undertaken – the Health Board has a much higher proportion of beds than other regions of Scotland.”

One explanation for this, and one reason why this should continue, is the age demographics in places like the Borders.  Stories like this also show how much uncertainty surrounds the care home industry in Scotland just now.

The full story from the Southern Reporter can be found here.

Excellent report on the “cost of caring”, and how this can be reduced by preventitive measures, by Newsnight Scotland last night.  This was the first in a series of such programmes.  I am also looking at this issue in a series of articles: “Scotland’s care industry”.  The first two parts can be found in our “Publications” section above.

The programme outlined the many challenges we face.  The main issue being the increasing cost of caring for our ageing population.   That though is not the only issue.  Others include:  the quality of our health and social care services, standard of our care homes, who owns and runs these care homes, how we pay for these services and care homes, how do we divide the cost of these services between the individual and the state, how do we improve the health and well-being of our later years and do we need to restructure our health and care services.

There is also a question of perception.  This issue is not all all negative.  The fact that our population is living longer is a good thing.  As part of this debate the positive aspects of this issue need to be publicised.  This is also not just a question of money.

The programme is available on the BBC iPlayer.

The Herald reports today that various English airport authorities are not happy that Air Passenger Duty is likely to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

This reaction is not unexpected.  I suspect that each time a tax is devolved similar arguments will be made.   This debate is not unique to the UK.  The on-going battle of wills between Ireland and France and Germany over Ireland’s low corporation tax rate shows its European dimension.

The Herald also reports that one option being considered is to simply devolve the right to collect this tax but not vary it.   I suspect that is not a serious proposal as only devolving the right to collect a tax does not make the Scottish Parliament more fiscally accountable nor provide it with a new economic lever.   If this is a serious proposal then it shows how hard it is going to be devolve any new tax or fiscal power to the Scottish Parliament.  Air Passenger Duty is a minor tax and in theory is fairly easy to devolve.  Even the Calman Commission recommended that it be devolved.  Last week’s Crown Estate announcement provides further evidence of how reluctant HM Treasury are to give up any power at all.

The report from the Herald can be found here.

Fascinating article in The Sunday Times today.

The article claims that laying off public-sector staff cost at least £1bn last year.

Two examples:

In the last two years 37 HMRC officials have left with packages worth more than £200,000.

At the Land Registry, English and Welsh equivalent of the Registers of Scotland, more that 200 officials received packages worth over £100,000.  68 of these were worth over £200,000.

The £447,382 pay out for Bernadette Kenny, the HMRC official in charge of personal taxes when HMRC miscalculated the tax due by 6 million people, will I am sure receive a lot of publicity in the next few days.

Interesting report on HM Revenue & Customs by the National Audit Office.

HMRC has to reduce its running costs by £1.6 billion in the next four years.  That is a real challenge when you consider that it also has to increase tax revenues, improve customer service and achieve reductions in welfare payments.

This is likely to mean cutting staff numbers by a further 10,000 and reducing its number of offices still further.

In its report the NAO said HMRC had reported savings of about £1.4bn since 2005.

The NAO report can be found here.

A report on this by the BBC can be found here.

I have been asked the following question a couple of times recently:  Why should Scotland have 59 MPs and an increasingly powerful Parliament?  This is also an issue I raised, albeit briefly, when co-authoring the “Fiscal Powers” papers for Reform Scotland.

My personal view is, as greater powers are transferred to the Scottish Parliament the number of Scottish MPs should in turn fall.  I see this as a question of fairness.  Scotland cannot have it both ways, i.e. a Parliament with more powers but still retain the same number of MPs.

For the 2005 UK General election the number of Scottish MPs was reduced from 72 to 59.  This reduction brought the average Scottish electorate for an MP closer to the UK average.  The reduction being proposed presently, 59 to 52, is part of the plan to reduce the total number of MPs to 600 from the present 650.

Former PM John Major recently called for the Scottish Parliament to have resposibility for everything other than foreign policy, defence and some economic matters.  That proposal is often referred to as full fiscal autonomy.

Under this scenario I would argue that 24 MPs is sufficient for Scotland.   I would also suggest that these MPs should be elected in a different way.  I would make use of the “regional areas” presently used to elect List MSPs for the Scottish Parliament.  Three MPs could be elected for each region under the STV (single transferable vote) system.   STV is used in Scottish local elections.  That is also likely to ensure a better balance of MPs from Scotland and more closely reflect the votes cast.

I would also argue that it is time to abolish the Scotland Office.  It is not just the fact that public spending is under so much pressure just now but that its time has past.   It is an organisation who appears to have lost its way and serves little purpose.  It also makes sense that the Scottish Government deals directly with the UK Government and/or individual UK Governmental departments.

This is also an issue that needs to be looked at throughout the UK and by that I do not just mean Wales and Northern Ireland.  The UK Parliament also needs to consider how it deals with “English” only business.

The landlord registration scheme had its origins in the Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act 2004 which required registration of all private landlords.  As a result of which, private landlords have been required to register with their local authority since the end of April 2006.

The stated intention of the requirement is to ensure that all private landlords meet minimum standards and to remove the worst landlords from the sector.

The Scottish Government has commissioned and published an Evaluation of the Impact and Operation of Landlord Registration in Scotland.

The research (carried out by DTZ) includes the following findings:

• The registration scheme has had some impact in meeting its goals of raising management standards in the private rented sector with private sector landlords now more aware of their there obligations.
• Registration has not succeeded in  removing  the ‘worst’ landlords from the sector
• Local authorities have adopted a ‘light touch’ approach to implementing the scheme with advice and information being the main focus in encouraging landlords to join.
• Not all local authorities have landlord and tenant awareness strategies in place and not all local authorities have established performance and monitoring systems.
• Overall the view was that there are few sanctions available when landlords do not comply.
• Whilst there is evidence of effective administration and sound management within local authorities, a simpler and more effective administration system would enable greater levels of investigation and enforcement activity.

The following recommendations were also included:

• The Scottish Government should be explicit about the purpose of the landlord registration and this should be communicated clearly to local authorities, landlords, private sector tenants and the general public.
• Local authorities should develop landlord and tenant awareness raising strategies where not already in place and should develop more systematic performance and monitoring systems.
• Local authorities should carry out random sample checks on landlords to check that information on application forms is accurate.
• The landlord registration scheme should be more formally constituted with clear levels of responsibility demarcated for both the Scottish Government and local authorities.
• Local authority guidance should be updated and clarified.

The report is available from the Scottish Government here.

Appeal case concerning Brightcrew’s application for a premises licence in respect of an adult entertainment venue known as “Spearmint Rhino” on Drury Street in Glasgow.

The City of Glasgow Licensing Board (the Board) refused Brightcrew’s application on the basis that the Board considered the granting of the licence would be contrary to two of the licensing objectives contained in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005[1]. Specifically, it was considered contrary to ‘preventing crime and disorder’ and ‘protecting and improving public health’[2].

In coming to this conclusion the Board referred to several alleged breaches of its “Code of Practice relative to the provision of dance entertainment in licensed premises”.  The Code of Practice had no statutory basis but the Board would generally expect compliance with it and would take breaches of it into account when considering the suitability of premises for the sale of alcohol.

Conduct by Brightcrew which was identified by a licensing officer as being in breach of the code included:

1. a member of staff being unaware of the location of the risk assessment for the premises;
2. the issuing of advertising flyers which failed to depict the dancers suitably clothed;
3. a drinks promotion which had conflicted with the  Board’s policy on “happy hours” (which was withdrawn after the licensing officer’s views were expressed to the local manager)
4. two dancers removing their bikini bottoms and exposing their genital area[3]; and
5. several dancers making “considerable contact” with patrons.

Brightcrew argued[4] that, in taking the view that any breach of its Code of Practice could lead to deprivation of the licence to sell alcohol, despite the lack of any objective effect of the breach on the licensing objectives relating to the sale of alcohol, the Board had made a material error of law.

An Extra Division of the Inner House allowed the appeal. The essential function of the 2005 Act is that of the licensing of the sale of alcohol.  Since the licensing with which the Act is concerned is the licensing of the sale of alcohol, inconsistency with a licencing objective means inconsistency flowing from the permitting of the sale of alcohol on the premises. Whilst the objectives contained in the Act were desirable in a general sense, that did not empower a licensing board to insist on matters which, while perhaps unquestionably desirable in that sense, are nevertheless not linked to the sale of alcohol.

In other words, the Board was not entitled to refuse to grant a licence on the basis of breaches of its Code of Practice where the provisions breached did not relate to the sale of alcohol.

A full report of the decision is available from Scottish Courts here.

The scenes shown in the BBC Panorama programme were truly shocking.   To date 12 people have been arrested in connection with the inquiry being conducted by the police.

The Panorama programme was contacted by whistleblower Terry Bryan who alerted the BBC with his concerns about some staff.  Mr Bryan, a senior nurse, acted after his concerns were not followed up by the home’s management or the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The CQC published its report yesterday on its inspection of services provided at Winterbourne View.  A independently-led serious case review has already been announced by the CQC.

A number of concerns have already been raised both regarding the report published yesterday and the larger question of whether the CQC is the right body to conduct a review of the care system in England.

One point on the report published yesterday by the CQC.  The CQC defence in this matter seems to be that Castlebeck, the owners of Winterbourne View – now closed, misled them.  That is simply not good enough.

The report and a press release from the CQC can be found here.

An article from the Guardian dated 7 June can be found here.

A report from BBC news on yesterday’s report can be found here.