Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 09 March 2011
09 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
“Report on preventative spending”
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 basis, that has not been matched by a shift in everyone’s point of view on how we deal with it. Too often, we still equate spending more with getting more. In fact, as Margaret Smith pointed out, it is not always the case that if we spend more, we get more.
Ross Finnie’s observation about the budget process is possibly the key point. If we do not want the report simply to gather dust on a shelf somewhere, we have to ensure that it is implemented. All the budget processes that I have observed, under the current Government and its predecessor, have been largely focused on incremental change. That is not surprising and is not confined to politics—it happens in most areas of budget setting. Often, it is the simplest way of doing things, as there is a certain clarity to it, but sometimes it prevents the more fundamental questions from being asked, such as whether we are using resources most effectively and are focusing on the outcomes that we want to achieve, rather than simply on what was done previously. As we get beyond the election and head into a spending review by whoever forms the Scottish Government, we will have the ideal opportunity to take a more strategic perspective for the rest of the spending review period and to think about whether we need to move away from a more incremental approach to one that is more outcome based.
I do not wish to add more items to the list of requirements for budget documents, which is easy to do. However, when Parliament gets a draft budget, it is given a draft set of spending plans and an indication of what those will deliver. The Government of the day will always put the best spin on that, which is entirely understandable, but the process falls down when it comes to giving members a depth of understanding about how money could be shifted around and the impacts, both positive and negative, that that could have. It is a difficult challenge to deliver that degree of context to the budget process without burdening everyone with screeds of information and giving the civil service a lot of extra work to do. However, if we do not somehow get there, it is difficult to see how we will get beyond more debates in which everyone is consensual and agrees that it is the right place in which to end up, but we do not make progress towards it. The single biggest question that I have about the report is how we turn its aims, on which there seems to be a significant degree of consensus, into practice.
Some members have raised the issue of how evidence based policy is. It is probably fair to say that, although we would like all policy decisions to be evidence based, that is simply not the case. That is true of all Governments.
Linda Fabiani said that one of the biggest risks was that we simply would not start, because the timeframe is so long. To some extent, I agree with her on that. Ross Finnie’s remarks demonstrated the same point.
I am tempted to say that this is one of the rare occasions on which I agree with Elaine Smith—on two issues. Often I, too, do not find the work of the Finance Committee exciting; she can join my club in relation to that. The second, more substantive issue that she raised was breastfeeding, a cause that she has championed for some time. As someone who is in the same position as Jamie Hepburn—although I will not cast aspersions on his colleagues for their age, as he did—and as a relatively new father, I find it confusing that there are many issues that simply do not cross someone’s mind until they become a parent. I do not know whether that is a particularly male perspective. The quality of education and the factors that affect the cultural decisions that impact on the uptake of breastfeeding are not well considered, certainly not among males. The issue would never have been discussed during my time in schooling. We need to cross some cultural barriers if we are to change practice. Some of the interventions that Elaine Smith described will be effective, but there is also a cultural barrier. Often, cultural barriers are the most difficult ones to overturn.
The difficulties in service redesign on which Margaret Smith touched are also real. There is a lot of pressure on spending. Every part of the public sector is under pressure, and it is always easier to make savings in the short term than in the longer term. It takes courage to take difficult political decisions that will not yield benefits in the short term—indeed, which will often be criticised in the short term—but which will bear fruit in the long term. Perhaps the real test of political leadership is the ability of politicians to put aside short-term political interest and do that. It may be asking too much to call for that credibly at this stage in the political cycle, so close to an election. However, I hope that whoever is part of the Parliament after May—Ross Finnie gave me some interesting ideas as to what I might do, in relation to the accountancy profession, if I am not—will give serious consideration, as part of the spending review and beyond, to how issues of preventative spending can be mainstreamed more into debate and scrutiny in all committees, for all policy initiatives, so that we can get away from well-meaning debates and into policies changing and action being delivered. If that comes out of today’s debate, it will have been well worth it.
16:15
Ross Finnie’s observation about the budget process is possibly the key point. If we do not want the report simply to gather dust on a shelf somewhere, we have to ensure that it is implemented. All the budget processes that I have observed, under the current Government and its predecessor, have been largely focused on incremental change. That is not surprising and is not confined to politics—it happens in most areas of budget setting. Often, it is the simplest way of doing things, as there is a certain clarity to it, but sometimes it prevents the more fundamental questions from being asked, such as whether we are using resources most effectively and are focusing on the outcomes that we want to achieve, rather than simply on what was done previously. As we get beyond the election and head into a spending review by whoever forms the Scottish Government, we will have the ideal opportunity to take a more strategic perspective for the rest of the spending review period and to think about whether we need to move away from a more incremental approach to one that is more outcome based.
I do not wish to add more items to the list of requirements for budget documents, which is easy to do. However, when Parliament gets a draft budget, it is given a draft set of spending plans and an indication of what those will deliver. The Government of the day will always put the best spin on that, which is entirely understandable, but the process falls down when it comes to giving members a depth of understanding about how money could be shifted around and the impacts, both positive and negative, that that could have. It is a difficult challenge to deliver that degree of context to the budget process without burdening everyone with screeds of information and giving the civil service a lot of extra work to do. However, if we do not somehow get there, it is difficult to see how we will get beyond more debates in which everyone is consensual and agrees that it is the right place in which to end up, but we do not make progress towards it. The single biggest question that I have about the report is how we turn its aims, on which there seems to be a significant degree of consensus, into practice.
Some members have raised the issue of how evidence based policy is. It is probably fair to say that, although we would like all policy decisions to be evidence based, that is simply not the case. That is true of all Governments.
Linda Fabiani said that one of the biggest risks was that we simply would not start, because the timeframe is so long. To some extent, I agree with her on that. Ross Finnie’s remarks demonstrated the same point.
I am tempted to say that this is one of the rare occasions on which I agree with Elaine Smith—on two issues. Often I, too, do not find the work of the Finance Committee exciting; she can join my club in relation to that. The second, more substantive issue that she raised was breastfeeding, a cause that she has championed for some time. As someone who is in the same position as Jamie Hepburn—although I will not cast aspersions on his colleagues for their age, as he did—and as a relatively new father, I find it confusing that there are many issues that simply do not cross someone’s mind until they become a parent. I do not know whether that is a particularly male perspective. The quality of education and the factors that affect the cultural decisions that impact on the uptake of breastfeeding are not well considered, certainly not among males. The issue would never have been discussed during my time in schooling. We need to cross some cultural barriers if we are to change practice. Some of the interventions that Elaine Smith described will be effective, but there is also a cultural barrier. Often, cultural barriers are the most difficult ones to overturn.
The difficulties in service redesign on which Margaret Smith touched are also real. There is a lot of pressure on spending. Every part of the public sector is under pressure, and it is always easier to make savings in the short term than in the longer term. It takes courage to take difficult political decisions that will not yield benefits in the short term—indeed, which will often be criticised in the short term—but which will bear fruit in the long term. Perhaps the real test of political leadership is the ability of politicians to put aside short-term political interest and do that. It may be asking too much to call for that credibly at this stage in the political cycle, so close to an election. However, I hope that whoever is part of the Parliament after May—Ross Finnie gave me some interesting ideas as to what I might do, in relation to the accountancy profession, if I am not—will give serious consideration, as part of the spending review and beyond, to how issues of preventative spending can be mainstreamed more into debate and scrutiny in all committees, for all policy initiatives, so that we can get away from well-meaning debates and into policies changing and action being delivered. If that comes out of today’s debate, it will have been well worth it.
16:15
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...