We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We Asked

We sought your views on whether or not the proposed extension of the Power of Direction in Section 57 of the EPA 1990 is:

(A) Necessary to ensure full compliance with EU obligations and:

(B) Appropriate to prevent damage to human health and harm to the environment in circumstances where no other mechanism is available.

You Said

The consultation received 10 responses. 7 were from organisations and 3 from individuals.

There was agreement that the extension was necessary from 5 respondees.

Of the remaining 5 respondees, 4 provided comment on the format of the regulations whilst supporting the need for the extension.

The comments received centred around 3 main themes.

  • The lack of a right to appeal;
  • That extensive consultation with SEPA and waste operator take place before the power of direction was issued’ and
  • Account be given in the legislation to the changes to waste permits and licenses in the upcoming Integrated Authorisation Framework.

The remaining respondee commented on the general need for the extension.

No formal objection to the proposed extension was received.

We Did

We responded to the five respondees who made comment on (a) the format of the regulations and (b) the need for them and provided answers to their comments as follows:-

We explained that there is no appeal mechanism in respect of Ministerial powers of direction as the direction may only be used where immediate action is to prevent environmental harm or protect human health. A right of appeal would potentially delay action being taken, thus defeating the purpose of the provision.

We advised that consultation with SEPA would be standard practice, and we would consult with SEPA and the operator to explore whether agreement could be reached without having to use the power of direction, which we see as a last resort. We consider it would not be appropriate to add those steps to the legislation, as this could also potentially delay action being taken, thus defeating the purpose of the provision.

We confirmed that the drafting would work to include authorisations under the Integrated Authorisation Framework, once waste is included in that regime. Further, should that give rise to a need to make consequential amendments, powers are available to make those amendments.

We confirmed that notwithstanding existing EU obligations, Scottish Ministers consider it appropriate and necessary in the interests of protecting human health and the environment, to extend the current power of direction to all operators which accept, keep or dispose of waste.

 We have published those responses where consent has been given to publish.

As there were no formal objections, arrangements have been made to lay the draft regulations before the Scottish Parliament.

We Asked

On 03 October 2017, the Scottish Government confirmed its preferred policy position of no support for unconventional oil and gas (UOG) in Scotland, subject to the necessary statutory and other assessments. Any policy decision that has potential for significant environmental effects must be subject to a SEA prior to its finalisation. These requirements are set out in the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. A Strategic Environmental Assessment is a means of considering the likely significant impact of a public plan, programme or strategy on the environment.

As there is potential for significant environmental effects, either as a consequence of industrial activity or as a consequence of not permitting an unconventional oil and gas industry, a SEA was required before the policy is finalised. Similarly, as there is potential for business and regulatory impacts, either as a consequence of industrial activity or as a consequence of not permitting an unconventional oil and gas industry, a BRIA was required before the policy is finalised.

A partial BRIA was produced help to assess the likely costs, benefits and risks of the preferred policy position and views are invited on its contents. The final BRIA builds on the partial BRIA and the consultation analysis.

The responses received to the 2018 consultation on the SEA Environmental Report, partial BRIA, and preferred policy position statement have led the Scottish Government to form the view that it would be helpful to provide some further clarification on a number of points raised in response to the consultation documents, specifically regarding the preferred policy position and its objectives. We are also taking the opportunity to update our position on the reasonable alternatives to the preferred policy position which were considered as part of the SEA process.

Responses to the addendum will be considered in detail prior to any policy position being adopted. When providing views to this consultation, there is no need to restate views already covered in the 2018 consultation, or as part of the 2017 Talking “Fracking” public consultation, as these have been, and will continue to be, taken into account as the Scottish Government finalises its policy position on unconventional oil and gas.

You Said

Altogether, 98 responses were received to this consultation. These responses have been independently analysed.

We Did

The consultation ran for eight weeks, with responses accepted until 25 June 2019. Following the consultation closure, the responses were independently analysed. 

On 03 October 2019, the Scottish Government confirmed its final policy position of no support for unconventional oil and gas (UOG). The responses to this consultation, along with the 2017 Talking “Fracking” consultation and 2018 consultation on statutory and other assessments, were considered in detail by Ministers prior to the finalisation of this policy.

We Asked

We published the Scottish Government national online consultation on fireworks: Your experiences, your ideas, your views, at the beginning of February. In addition to the online consultation, 29 events were held across Scotland and a range of social media platforms were used to seek people's views.

We sought your views on:

  • the sale of fireworks to the general public.
  • how people use and enjoy fireworks.
  • the impact of fireworks on people, communities and animals.
  • ideas on what actions could be taken to ensure fireworks continue to be enjoyed safely and responsibly.

You Said

The consultation closed on 13 May, having received a total of 16,420 responses. Over 7,000 responses were received in the first 24 hours of the consultation launch.

The results of the consultation demonstrate strong support for a change in how fireworks are sold.

Key findings included: 

• 70% of respondents reported that they had been affected by fireworks used in an irresponsible or unsafe way.

• 94% of respondents thought there should be more controls over the sale of fireworks.

• 87% of respondents would welcome a ban on the sale of fireworks to the public in Scotland.

• 92% of respondents thought there should be more controls over how fireworks can be used in Scotland.

• 93% of respondents thought there should be more controls to make sure animals are not caused unnecessary suffering because of the use of fireworks.

Many respondents went on to make further comments, ranging from 10,940 comments from those who had been directly affected by the use of fireworks to 14,290 from those looking for more controls on sales of fireworks to the public. 

We Did

On 4 October 2019, we published:

The Scottish Government is committed to driving forward action to reduce the negative impact of firework use and to ensure that fireworks are used safely and appropriately.

Following further discussions with stakeholders on the consultation findings, the Minister for Community Safety will issue a statement and action plan later in October 2019.

We Asked

Should Changing Places Toilets (larger sanitary accommodation for people with more complex care needs) be provided in certain large new non-domestic buildings through the Scottish building standards system. 

You Said

We received a total of 1112 responses to the consultation.  Responses were received from 1040 individuals and 72 organisations.

You were overwhelmingly supportive of the requirement for Changing Places Toilets in large new non domestic buildings.  You provided many examples of the positive impact these facilities have of the lives of people with complex care needs, their family, friends and carers.  You offered a number of suggestions on further situations where these facilities could be provided.

We Did

We have published the responses to the consultation and an analysis report summarising your responses.   

In consideration of your responses, we have amended consultation proposals. We have now published the 2019 Non-domestic Technical Handbook which introduces a new clause under standard 3.12 (sanitary facilites). This sets out where a Changing Places Toilet should be provided as part of new buildings or new building work. This provision applies from 1 October 2019.

We Asked

We published the Scottish Government consultation ‘Equally Safe: A consultation on legislation to improve forensic medical services for victims of rape and sexual assault’ for 12 weeks, between 15 February and 8 May 2019.

We asked for views on introducing direct statutory functions on NHS boards to provide forensic medical services and healthcare support to all victims, including those who have chosen not to report the crime to police, or are undecided, but wish to undergo examination and access support (known as “self-referral”). 

We specifically asked for views on:

  • the taking and retention of samples;
  • the potential impacts of proposals including on island communities, equalities and socio-economically disadvantaged groups;
  • provision for children and young people; and
  • potential financial implications for NHS Scotland health boards and other bodies.

You Said

We received 53 responses from 18 individuals and 35 organisations. These included 17 third sector organisations with 10 representing specific groups and 7 focused on victim support. The responses also included 9 from health organisations (including seven health boards), 5 from organisations providing a justice perspective and 2 from local authorities. 

There was broad support for proposals.  Some of the key findings from the consultation include: 

  • 91% respondents agreed there should be a specific statutory duty for Health Boards to provide forensic medical services to victims of rape and sexual assault; 
  • 80% of respondents agreed special provisions should be included to reflect the needs of children and young people
  • the majority of respondents thought that self-referral should not be offered to those under the age of 16;
  • a majority of responses favoured adult victims of rape and sexual assault being offered the option to self-refer;  
  • a number of responses highlighted specific issues faced by vulnerable adults;
  • almost two thirds of respondents raised potential impacts, both positive and potential challenges, in relation to people in rural or island communities;
  • training and premises were identified as potential financial implications, as well as a potential need for further investment in advocacy services for victims of rape and sexual assault. 

Key themes included the value of a statutory duty, the importance of
self-referral routes and the positive impact of embedding trauma-informed care and adopting a health-focused approach to Forensic Medical Services for victims of rape and sexual assault, or child sexual abuse.  Views expressed on how a legislative framework should operate were consistent in the case of police and self-referral.    Respondents highlighted the importance of consent, clear information and communication -  including with regards the storage, transfer and deletion of data.  The importance of  ensuring consistency with existing guidelines victims’ needs was also identified

The Analysis Report also draws on discussions at a consultation workshop hosted by the Scottish Government on 26 March 2019. This invited representatives from Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), NHS Scotland and Rape Crisis Scotland to explore the development of a consistent national model for self-referral.  While there was broad support for proposals there was some divergence regarding a retention period for samples.

We Did

We have already published those responses where consent was given to do so alongside the consultation paper o the consultation hub: https://consult.gov.scot/equally-safe/equally-safe-improve-forensic-medical-services/consultation/published_select_respondent.

We commissioned independent analysis of the consultation responses from the Lines Between Ltd.  We published the analysis report of responses on the Scottish Government website on 29 August: http://www.gov.scot/ISBN/9781839600647

Subject to the will of Parliament, Scottish Government announced its intention to legislate in this area in the current parliamentary year in the Programme for Government 2019-20.  The Scottish Government will continue to engage with stakeholders to shape the legislation and reach consensus on areas of policy divergence. 

We Asked

Scottish Crown Estate rural assets include 37,000 hectares (around 91,000 acres) of land in rural Scotland. The vast majority is let for a variety of uses including farming, residential, commercial, sporting and mineral operations. Forestry assets on these estates are managed directly by us rather than being let.

It also includes salmon fishing rights on many Scottish rivers and the rights to naturally-occurring gold and silver across much of Scotland.

Crown Estate Scotland put forward a number of key considerations related to the overall long-term objectives of managing the rural assets and asked to hear your views on how we should actively manage these assets to drive inclusive sustainable development.

You Said

The consultation was open online from 15 February to 26 April 2019. In total 33 responses were submitted online, from 9 individuals and 24 organisations. The responses provided constructive answers and suggestions to the 30 questions asked in the consultation document. In addition, some verbal feedback was gathered at community events.

Respondents said they wanted to see a real difference between land managed on a purely commercial basis and land managed by Crown Estate Scotland. The responses supported a collaborative management approach, with Crown Estate Scotland improving access to information, increasing transparency in decision-making and conducting early and meaningful engagement with affected parties.

The responses strongly supported provision for biodiversity improvement throughout the rural assets and a desire to see Crown Estate Scotland take an ambitious approach to the natural environment to achieve this.

We Did

On this page, you can find the published non-confidential responses to the consultation. We will shortly publish an analysis of the consultation responses on our website and on this consultation summary page.

We will use your feedback to inform the content of the Rural Assets Strategy. Responses will also be used to develop the Crown Estate Scotland Corporate Plan 2020-2023, which will be consulted on in autumn 2019. We will publicise the opportunity to engage with us on our Corporate Plan development widely, but if you would like to be notified via email when this consultation opens please let us know by getting in touch with us at corporate@crownestatescotland.com.

We Asked

We asked for views on implementing recommendations from the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Action Group (HARSAG) to commence the Local Connection and Intentionality provisions in the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003.

Local connection

Local connection is defined in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 as a connection which a person has with an area because:

  • they are or were in the past normally resident in it, and this residence was of their own choice; or
  • they are employed in it; or
  • they have family associations; or
  • they have special circumstances.

Local authorities currently have the power under the Act to refer homeless households who do not have a local connection with them to another local authority where they do have such a connection. We invited views on our plans to commence the provision in the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 which allows Scottish Ministers to modify referrals relating to local connection and our intention to implement the proposal from HARSAG to suspend referrals in Scotland.

Intentionality

The Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 currently places a duty on local authorities to investigate whether a person applying to them for accommodation became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally. We asked for views on our intention to commence the provision in the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 to give local authorities discretion, rather than the current duty, to investigate intentionality.

We also invited views on HARSAG’s recommendation to narrow the definition of intentionality to focus on instances of applicants ‘deliberately manipulating’ the homelessness system.

You Said

We received 72 responses to the consultation from a range of individuals, local authorities, third sector organisations and others. 

Local connection

The highest level of support (46%) was for suspending local connection referrals across all local authorities in Scotland. 26% supported modifying local connection referrals in another way and 18% supported not commencing the provisions. A further 10% did not respond to this question.

Two key themes emerged in responses. The first, from those favouring suspension, was support for people experiencing homelessness to be able to choose where they wish to settle. This was seen as offering choice to people experiencing homelessness, removing unnecessary barriers to finding permanent accommodation and ensuring that homelessness services can be delivered at the point of need.

The second key theme, from those not favouring suspension, was concern over the potential increase to the numbers of referrals in areas that do not have the resources to meet needs.  Various different types of local authority were cited, including major cities such as Glasgow or Edinburgh, urban areas or rural and island and highland areas.

Intentionality

The highest level of support (50%) was for removing the duty and giving local authorities the discretion to assess households for intentionality.  33% supported not removing the duty and a further 17% did not respond to this question.

The main theme cited in support of removing the duty was that being labelled as intentionally homeless is often unfair and does not reflect the true picture of individuals’ circumstances. It was felt by many that the removal of the duty in favour of discretion would benefit vulnerable people in particular so that they can get the help and support they need.

For those in favour of not removing the duty, a number of potential issues were cited. These included: the potential for a lack of consistency of approach if the duty was reduced to a power, both at local authority level and between local authorities; concerns that people could manipulate the system; and the potential that individuals might no longer see the need to take personal responsibility to retain their accommodation (e.g. not paying rent).

We Did

It is our intention to commence the Local Connection and Intentionality provisions in the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 in November 2019, after further discussions with COSLA, local authorities and others around issues raised in the consultation. For Intentionality, the provisions would come into force immediately but for Local Connection a process would begin for the Scottish Government to consult on and issue a Ministerial Statement within 12 months of commencement on how these new powers are to be used. Subject to the outcome, this would be followed by a further Scottish Statutory Instrument laid in the Scottish Parliament to implement the changes.

We will carefully consider the views expressed on narrowing the definition of intentionality to focus on instances of applicants ‘deliberately manipulating’ the homelessness system.  As stated in the consultation paper, there are currently no provisions in the legislation for the definition to be changed but the responses to the consultation will be very helpful as we consider the options for taking this work forward.

We will monitor the impact of the changes on individuals experiencing homelessness, local authorities and third sector providers using evidence from current data collections, and we will publish this data regularly. We will also set out plans for further engagement and possible research to help more fully understand the impact of the changes.

We have published the responses that gave permission and an analysis of the consultation responses can be found here.

We Asked

Scotland’s climate is warming, the growing season is getting longer, and we are facing more extreme weather and rising sea levels. We need to safeguard our future by adapting to these changes. Programme for Government 2018 committed us to develop a new five-year Climate Change Adaptation Programme for Scotland.
 
We asked to hear your views on the new Programme: its vision, outcomes, sub-outcomes and the policies in place to deliver these, as well as how we should monitor progress.

You Said

We received 73 consultation responses from 58 organisations, including Sunnyside Primary School in Glasgow, and 15 individuals.
 
Respondents said they want to see the vision for the Programme convey a strong sense of urgency and ambition, in line with the climate emergency, and link to urgent mitigation action.
 
The responses strongly supported key features of the new Programme - linking to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and Scotland’s National Performance Framework; an outcome-based approach; the establishment of a National Forum for adaptation; the inclusion of behaviour change; the integration of monitoring and evaluation from the outset; and the content of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report.
 
Responses had many constructive suggestions on making the Programme as cross-cutting and effective as possible. Views on the seven high-level outcomes and the list of supporting policies were generally supportive with many suggestions for additional policies reflecting specific sectoral interests.

We Did

We have published non-confidential responses to the consultation and an analysis of the consultation responses (links below). We will build on the significant achievements of the past decade and we will use your feedback to develop the Programme for launch later in 2019.

We Asked

We asked for views on potential improvements to the statutory charity regulation framework in Scotland, in light of proposals put forward by the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) and the passage of time since the 2005 Act.

The proposals broadly focussed on improvements to charity law that would increase transparency and accountability in order to maintain public trust and confidence in charities and OSCR.

You Said

We received 307 responses to the consultation from a range of individuals, charitable organisations and others with an interest in charity law. 

The majority of respondents supported the proposals in the consultation, however the analysis report makes clear that more policy development work and stakeholder engagement is required before we could bring forward any legislative changes.

Further formal consultation is also required with the Information Commissioner’s Office, as a number of the proposals impact on data protection.

We Did

We have published the responses that gave permission and an analysis of the consultation responses.

We will fully consider all the points raised, including engaging with those who called for wider changes to the regulation. Collaborative work with the third sector and other key stakeholders will continue as we develop and refine the proposals.

We will also work with OSCR to establish a working group to address outstanding issues with The Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Removal from the Register and Dissolution) Regulations 2011.  We will look to bring forward amendment regulations in this session to preserve public trust in the SCIO model.

We Asked

Should the Police and Courts be given new powers to impose protective orders to remove suspected perpetrators from a home they share with a person at risk of domestic abuse without the need for that individual to apply to the court themselves.

We also sought views on whether the existing system of Exclusion Orders should be reformed.

You Said

The great majority of respondents who expressed a view supported providing the police with a power to impose emergency protective orders to remove a suspected perpetrator of domestic abuse from the household of a person at risk of domestic abuse.  There was almost unanimous agreement that the courts should have a power to impose a longer-term protective order.

We Did

The  First Minister announced on Tuesday 15 October that the Scottish Government will introduce legislation in this Parliament to introduce a new scheme of protective barring orders for people at risk of domestic abuse.  The views offered to this consultation will inform development of this legislation.

We Asked

We asked for views on two minor amendments to road works legislation. Firstly, we sought views on the proposal to revoke the Scottish Statutory Instrument,  “The “Scottish Road Works Register (Prescribed Fees) Regulations 2017” and replace it with a new Regulation to account for the running costs of £855,000 for the 2019/20 financial year. Secondly, we sought views on amending “The Road Works (Qualifications of Operative and Supervisors (Scotland) Regulations 2017”, by expanding the list of approved awarding bodies to include a fourth body, “Lantra” 

You Said

In total, nine responses to the consultation were received, from utility undertakers, roads authorities and one individual. Brief analysis of these responses is detailed below. Two additional responses were received after the closing date, and so do not feature in the analysis, but have been considered.

 

We Did

These responses have been fully considered. We will now amend/replace both Scottish Statutory Instruments as proposed.

We Asked

Does the Scottish Hate Crime legislation need changed to ensure it is fit for 21st Century Scotland and does it afford sufficient protection for those that need it. 

We also asked if additional statutory aggravations are required.

You Said

We received over one thousand responses to the consultation and around 400 people attended the consultation events. 

You commented on our proposals giving reasons for either supporting or not supporting individual prposals.

We Did

We are currently considering all consultation responses as we continue to develop our consolidated hate crime legislation to be put before Holyrood during the current parliamentary period.

We Asked

We asked for your opinion on proposals to permit motorsports events, such as stage rallies, hill climbs and trials of speed, on closed public roads in certain circumstances.  We sought your views on a proposed two stage regulatory process whereby an event organiser would be required to seek a motorsports permit from the relevant Motorsports Governing Body and then a Motorsports Order from the relevant Local Roads Authority.

You Said

We received a total of 3,788 responses to the public consultation.  There was clear support for the introduction of a two stage application process with 98% of respondents in support of that proposal.  There was also clear support (99%) for the proposals to give powers to Local Roads Authorities to close public roads for motorsports events in line with the powers they already have for other events.

We Did

We have published non-confidential responses to the consultation and an analysis of the consultation responses (link below).  Preparations are now underway for new regulations and the feedback received from this consultation will help shape that process.

The full analysis report can be found here.

We Asked

This consultation sought views on proposals to restrict the promotion and marketing of specific foods that are high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS). 

The primary aim of the policy is to reduce the public health harm associated with the excessive consumption of calories, fat, sugar and salt, and obesity related conditions. 

 

 

 

You Said

The consultation ran from 2 October 2018 to 9 January 2019.

We received 728 responses to the consultation: 632 from individuals and 94 from organisations. 

On the whole, there was support for the Scottish Government aim to reduce the public health harms associated with the excess consumption of calories, fat, sugar and salt, and obesity related conditions. 

We Did

We have published all non-confidential responses to the consultation and an analysis report of the consulation responses (link below). 

Following this consultation, the Scottish Government set out in Programme for Government 2019/20 that it would bring forward a Bill on Restricting Foods Promotions for introduction in next year’s legislative programme.

The Programme for Govrnment 2019/20 is available at at https://www.gov.scot/publications/protecting-scotlands-future-governments-programme-scotland-2019-20/pages/4/

 

 

We Asked

On 03 October 2017, the Scottish Government confirmed its preferred policy position of no support for unconventional oil and gas (UOG) in Scotland, subject to the necessary statutory and other assessments. Any policy decision that has potential for significant environmental effects must be subject to a SEA prior to its finalisation. These requirements are set out in the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. A Strategic Environmental Assessment is a means of considering the likely significant impact of a public plan, programme or strategy on the environment.

As there is potential for significant environmental effects, either as a consequence of industrial activity or as a consequence of not permitting an unconventional oil and gas industry, a SEA was required before the policy is finalised. Similarly, as there is potential for business and regulatory impacts, either as a consequence of industrial activity or as a consequence of not permitting an unconventional oil and gas industry, a BRIA was required before the policy is finalised.

A partial BRIA was produced help to assess the likely costs, benefits and risks of the preferred policy position and views are invited on its contents. The final BRIA builds on the partial BRIA and the consultation analysis.

You Said

Altogether, 2,577 responses were received to this consultation. These responses have been independently analysed.

We Did

The consultation ran for eight weeks, with responses accepted until 18 December 2018. Following the consultation closure, the responses were independently analysed. 

On 03 October 2019, the Scottish Government confirmed its final policy position of no support for unconventional oil and gas (UOG). The responses to this consultation, along with the 2017 Talking “Fracking” consultation and 2019 consultation on an addendum to the statutory assessments, were considered in detail by Ministers prior to the finalisation of this policy.

We Asked

If you agree with this amendment to increase the higher age limit for persons eligible for continuing care from twenty to twenty-one years of age, from 1 April 2019.  This is the final in the agreed annual roll out strategy to ensure the initial cohort of young people (born after 1 April 1999) remain eligible until the duty to provide continuing care extends from 16 to 21 years of age.

You Said

The public consultation received 26 responses from 4 individuals and 22 organisations including from COSLA, local authorities, the Care Inspectorate, the third sector and individuals. Respondents all agreed with the intention of the Draft Order.  We have published the responses with respect to the handling permissions provided to us.

We also invited any others comments on the draft Order and the Continuing Care provision more broadly. Where respondents have offered comment we summarised the key points raised and, where appropriate, offered a response to these concerns in the Consultation Analysis Report which can be accessed here: 

The Continuing Care (Scotland) Amendment Order 2019; Consultation Analysis Report

We Did

Of the responses received there was universal agreement that extending the upper age limit of eligibility to twenty-one is the expected and welcomed course of action. As a result, no adjustments were requested or made to the drafting of the Order.  The Draft Order was laid in the Scottish Parliament on 25 January 2019 for scrutiny.  If approved by parliament, this Order will come into force on 1 April 2019 meaning that eligible young people will be entitled to remain in Continuing Care up to age twenty-one. 

 Links:

 The Continuing Care (Scotland) Amendment Order 2019; Consultation Analysis Report

Published Responses:

View submitted responses where consent has been given to publish them.

We Asked

We asked for views on the inclusion of Narrow Trenching as a technique to the Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Roads in Scotland, and held a public consultation which was open for 12 weeks from 18 October 2018.

You Said

In total 49 responses to the consultation were received: 26 Roads Authorities responses, 8 responses from Statutory Undertakers, 7 Responses from Contractors/Service providers, 4 responses from Private Individuals,  2 responses from Industry Groups and 2 responses from Trunk Road Operating Companies.

We Did

All responses have been fully considered. The SROR will be amended to include 'narrow trenching' as a technique in 2019.

We Asked

We asked for views on a draft of Scotland’s Forestry Strategy 2019-2029: its vision, objectives and priorities, as well as the ways in which we could monitor progress.

You Said

We received a total of 442 responses to the public consultation. 102 (23%) of these were from organisations, with the remaining 340 (77%) submitted by individuals. 216 of the responses from individuals (49% of the total number of responses) were identical and generated as part of a campaign led by Woodland Trust Scotland.

There was general support for the draft Strategy and its content. However, there were also numerous, yet often conflicting requests for changes to be made to the detail, structure and presentation of the document.

We Did

We have published non-confidential responses to the consultation and an independent analysis of the consultation responses (links below). Alongside the final Strategy, a report outlining our approach to consultation and explaining how consultation responses informed the final content and structure of the Strategy is available at: https://www.gov.scot/policies/forestry/forestry-strategy/

We Asked

This consultation set out the rationale for making it a requirement for all members of Boards of Health Bodies to be members of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (PVG) Scheme. 

We asked you whether you thought the policy should apply to all Board members (both executive and non-executive) and across all Health Bodies.

The consultation ran between 31 August and 23 November 2018.

You Said

We received a total of 34 responses from a range of different organisations and individuals.  85% of the responses offered full support of the policy – that all members of Boards of all Health Bodies should be required to be members of the PVG Scheme. 

The Commissioner for Ethical standards in Public Life in Scotland did not give a view on the policy but noted that he would be supportive of the policy as long as it was implemented in a way that remained consistent with the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland.

NHS Health Scotland responded that as the organisation will soon cease to exist they did not think the policy should be applied to their Board members.

3 other respondents indicated that they didn’t think that it was necessary to implement this policy for all members, only those who have unsupervised contact with vulnerable groups.

We Did

We are now working with Disclosure Scotland to make changes to the relevant legislation which will mean that members of Boards of all Health Bodies will be required to be members of the PVG Scheme.

We are also developing new learning packages for Board Members to raise awareness about the PVG Scheme.

We Asked

We asked for views on proposals to modernise the criminal offence of child cruelty, set out in section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, including whether emotional and psychological harm should be included within the scope of the offence.

 

We also asked for views on whether the definition of a ‘position of trust’ in section 42-45 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 should be extended to cover other positions in which a person is in a position of power, responsibility or influence over a child.

You Said

We received 220 responses to the consultation from a mixture of individuals, public sector and third sector organisations.

 

The majority of respondents were largely supportive of our proposals to modernise section 12, with 93% agreeing that the offence would benefit from reform and 95% agreeing children should have clear legislative protection from emotional harm. However, respondents also raised a number of potential issues with the proposals, suggesting further engagement with stakeholders on the complexities highlighted in responses would be of value.

 

On the abuse of trust offence, a large number of respondents came back with suggestions for how the offence could be strengthened to cover all adults who may have particular power, influence or control over a child.

We Did

We have published the responses that gave permission and an analysis of the consultation responses.

 

We are carefully considering responses to inform next steps in this complex and sensitive area of the law. We plan to undertake further engagement with the third sector and other key stakeholders as we develop and refine the proposals.