Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 09 March 2011
09 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
“Report on preventative spending”
The debate has been interesting and, by and large, consensual. Like several members who have spoken, but not the majority, I do not serve on the Finance Committee, so I read the report with much interest but without having had the close involvement of the members who participated in its formulation.
I associate myself with the many kind and absolutely deserved remarks that have been made to the committee’s convener, Andrew Welsh. It has been a pleasure for all of us—and certainly for me in the past 12 years—to be in the Parliament with him.
An interesting feature that emerged from the report was the overwhelming evidence that was presented to the committee. The case for preventative spending on the basis of that information was undoubtedly compelling. I asked myself from time to time why, if the case was so compelling, we had not undertaken preventative spending uniformly before. There are several good reasons for that.
In reading the report, I found myself agreeing that the examples that it gave were compelling—there was no question about that. However, I wondered how groups or witnesses could assemble such information when those of us who have served on committees of the Parliament or who have been ministers, as I was in the previous Government, have often struggled to have such information to hand when we have tried to take the right decisions.
Many members have mentioned that preventative spending is not new, and indeed it is not. In my early days, I attended an economics class in which we discussed at length and in a rather obtuse way the concept of opportunity cost. When it is translated into modern language, the opportunity cost of doing or not doing something involves to an extent considering preventative spending. It is certainly not new, but it has not dominated the way in which we in the public service and in Parliament consider our spending choices.
A number of interesting points have been made in the debate. I accept the overwhelming evidence that my colleague Jeremy Purvis associated with the report but, more than that, the report begs questions about what we do in a policy framework and in a monitoring, recording and budgetary framework to try to ensure that preventative spending and its benefits are more regularly and systematically brought before Parliament in future.
Derek Brownlee made several interesting observations. We have all now got our heads round the critical issue of switching from an input to an outcome basis although, in the early days of the Parliament, we had not. However, although the majority of those of us in the Parliament now subscribe to that view, it remains a fact that far too many propositions are still posited on an input basis. We have not quite got the cultural break that would make us almost automatically deal with issues on an outcome basis.
There is a burden on all of us to ensure that that happens in our parties. A remarkable consensus has broken out, which has all sorts of people on the same page, although Jeremy Purvis, who has left to meet someone, was rather hurt that he was excluded from David Whitton’s opening remarks. I tried to console him, but I failed—he was unmoveable. That consensus has to last if we are serious about moving towards preventative spending.
Johann Lamont was right that there will constantly be choices in which our philosophical differences will emerge. Although such differences are healthy, if we want to make choices on an informed basis, we need consensus in order to consider how to present policies on a basis that is genuinely outcome driven.
That brings us back to the issue of what we do every year when we get the budget. I have never seen an outcome-driven budget. That is not a criticism of the current Government; it is down to the way in which we produce the information, which does not facilitate the kind of choices that all members have welcomed this afternoon. We need to be able to say to those who prepare such information, in a consensual way, that we need their help. Indeed, it may be constructive for Mr Brownlee and I, as members of the accounting profession, to say that if, as a matter of public policy, we can see positive benefits of preventative spending accrue in a range of areas, and if such benefits are going to be measured and be part of the budgetary process, we need assistance. I do not know whether the institute of which Mr Brownlee and I are members might wish to give some assistance, but it seems to me that the more people who are engaged in the process, the better.
Members mentioned various aspects of preventative spending that are working. However, my concern is not about the report or the consensus that has emerged on the need for preventative spending. My concern is that if preventative spending is to become part and parcel of the process of Scottish government, it needs an equal consensus to address the problems of control and monitoring, and the output measurement that is so critical to the future of such a project.
16:09
I associate myself with the many kind and absolutely deserved remarks that have been made to the committee’s convener, Andrew Welsh. It has been a pleasure for all of us—and certainly for me in the past 12 years—to be in the Parliament with him.
An interesting feature that emerged from the report was the overwhelming evidence that was presented to the committee. The case for preventative spending on the basis of that information was undoubtedly compelling. I asked myself from time to time why, if the case was so compelling, we had not undertaken preventative spending uniformly before. There are several good reasons for that.
In reading the report, I found myself agreeing that the examples that it gave were compelling—there was no question about that. However, I wondered how groups or witnesses could assemble such information when those of us who have served on committees of the Parliament or who have been ministers, as I was in the previous Government, have often struggled to have such information to hand when we have tried to take the right decisions.
Many members have mentioned that preventative spending is not new, and indeed it is not. In my early days, I attended an economics class in which we discussed at length and in a rather obtuse way the concept of opportunity cost. When it is translated into modern language, the opportunity cost of doing or not doing something involves to an extent considering preventative spending. It is certainly not new, but it has not dominated the way in which we in the public service and in Parliament consider our spending choices.
A number of interesting points have been made in the debate. I accept the overwhelming evidence that my colleague Jeremy Purvis associated with the report but, more than that, the report begs questions about what we do in a policy framework and in a monitoring, recording and budgetary framework to try to ensure that preventative spending and its benefits are more regularly and systematically brought before Parliament in future.
Derek Brownlee made several interesting observations. We have all now got our heads round the critical issue of switching from an input to an outcome basis although, in the early days of the Parliament, we had not. However, although the majority of those of us in the Parliament now subscribe to that view, it remains a fact that far too many propositions are still posited on an input basis. We have not quite got the cultural break that would make us almost automatically deal with issues on an outcome basis.
There is a burden on all of us to ensure that that happens in our parties. A remarkable consensus has broken out, which has all sorts of people on the same page, although Jeremy Purvis, who has left to meet someone, was rather hurt that he was excluded from David Whitton’s opening remarks. I tried to console him, but I failed—he was unmoveable. That consensus has to last if we are serious about moving towards preventative spending.
Johann Lamont was right that there will constantly be choices in which our philosophical differences will emerge. Although such differences are healthy, if we want to make choices on an informed basis, we need consensus in order to consider how to present policies on a basis that is genuinely outcome driven.
That brings us back to the issue of what we do every year when we get the budget. I have never seen an outcome-driven budget. That is not a criticism of the current Government; it is down to the way in which we produce the information, which does not facilitate the kind of choices that all members have welcomed this afternoon. We need to be able to say to those who prepare such information, in a consensual way, that we need their help. Indeed, it may be constructive for Mr Brownlee and I, as members of the accounting profession, to say that if, as a matter of public policy, we can see positive benefits of preventative spending accrue in a range of areas, and if such benefits are going to be measured and be part of the budgetary process, we need assistance. I do not know whether the institute of which Mr Brownlee and I are members might wish to give some assistance, but it seems to me that the more people who are engaged in the process, the better.
Members mentioned various aspects of preventative spending that are working. However, my concern is not about the report or the consensus that has emerged on the need for preventative spending. My concern is that if preventative spending is to become part and parcel of the process of Scottish government, it needs an equal consensus to address the problems of control and monitoring, and the output measurement that is so critical to the future of such a project.
16:09
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan)
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7994, in the name of Andrew Welsh, on the Finance Committee’s “Report on preventative spending”. I call A...
Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP)
SNP
This will be one of the last speeches that I will make as an MSP, and it is my final scheduled contribution as convener of the Parliament’s Finance Committee...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Lab
I know that the debate is supposed to be consensual, but will Andrew Welsh comment on the abolition of the health in pregnancy grant?
Andrew Welsh
SNP
Such questions are better posed elsewhere. I am relaying to Parliament a positive report, rather than the usual negativity that is produced in debates. I say...
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney)
SNP
Mr Welsh said that this was his last scheduled appearance in a parliamentary debate as convener of the Finance Committee. As finance secretary, I am always a...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
LD
I heartily endorse the cabinet secretary’s comments, but does he recognise that the committee found it difficult to establish what baseline information on ou...
John Swinney
SNP
Mr Purvis goes on to fascinating and complex ground in all of these areas. With Scotland performs, we have tried to identify a set of indicators that will pr...
David Whitton (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Lab
I am pleased to speak for Labour in support of the Finance Committee’s report. I associate myself with the remarks of the cabinet secretary on our convener, ...
Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland) (Con)
Con
I thank the committee clerks, and the witnesses who gave evidence to the inquiry. I also thank Andrew Welsh for his time as convener of the Finance Committee...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
LD
This is an important debate, which is why I am particularly sorry that I will have to leave before the end of it, as I have a meeting regarding my constituen...
Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
As a member of the Finance Committee, I, too, was very pleased to take evidence in the inquiry into preventative spend and to help to compile the report.Ther...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
I start by paying tribute to Andrew Welsh for chairing the Finance Committee in a model, non-partisan way for the past four years, and for the contribution t...
Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West) (SNP)
SNP
I associate myself with the words of tribute for our convener, Andrew Welsh. As Malcolm Chisholm said, Andrew has always convened the finance committee in an...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lab
I trust that I will not change the tone of the debate too much.I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As the first person to spea...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD)
LD
As a non-member of the Finance Committee, I thank Andrew Welsh for his contribution to the Parliament, and the committee for its very useful report.The commi...
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I congratulate the committee on its work on this report. I am not on the committee and have not been intimately involved in the process, but even a rudimenta...
Linda Fabiani
SNP
Not that many.
Jamie Hepburn
SNP
It seems plenty to me. I also gently point out that Mr Welsh had represented Angus for five years before I was born, although I am not sure whether he will t...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Lab
I do not often get excited by the work of the Finance Committee, important though it is. However, its report on preventative spending is excellent, and I com...
Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD)
LD
The debate has been interesting and, by and large, consensual. Like several members who have spoken, but not the majority, I do not serve on the Finance Comm...
Derek Brownlee
Con
Ross Finnie raised an important point about the outcome basis. Although there has been a shift in rhetoric in Parliament about moving towards an outcome basi...
Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lab
I place on record my thanks to Andrew Welsh for his contribution to the Parliament and its workings. I also thank the Finance Committee for its report.Having...
John Swinney
SNP
It is not often that I can follow Mr Kerr in a debate and agree heartily with many of the sentiments that he has expressed. I particularly agree with his sta...
Tom McCabe (Hamilton South) (Lab)
Lab
As others have done, I acknowledge Andrew Welsh’s service. I will not repeat all the plaudits. I simply say to him that he should be proud of his public serv...