Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 09 March 2011
09 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
“Report on preventative spending”
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 to Elaine Smith that early interventions can significantly help to prevent or reduce the likelihood that children will develop social problems that might necessitate a future intervention by the state. Such an approach could save sizeable sums of money, as the number of interventions that public bodies must provide would be significantly reduced. That approach is of obvious and considerable appeal to the Finance Committee.
It would be a dereliction of duty if I did not echo the many voices who made it clear that early intervention is also the right thing to do from a moral and societal perspective. I mentioned that powerful and passionate views were expressed throughout our inquiry, so I will share some of them with the Parliament. As Dr Suzanne Zeedyk, a senior lecturer at the University of Dundee, put it:
“Children’s brains develop more quickly between birth ... and the age of three than they ever will again. So we need to get the money into services and get support to families because, after that age, those brains are in place. If we delay, all that happens is we continue to spend our money in ways that are, frankly, dumb.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 2 November 2010; c 2614.]
One charity, the WAVE Trust, pointed out that
“Study after study ... demonstrates that to invest money in prevention is simply the best economics and the best investment for national and local government.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 9 November 2010; c 2655.]
The committee acknowledged the work of the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in establishing and driving their long-term early years framework. However, some disquiet was expressed during our inquiry and at our chamber event that the framework is built on a relationship between central and local government that may place too much emphasis on local delivery. For example, although the Scottish Government claimed that
“the key to success ... is what happens at local level”,—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 30 November 2010; c 2832.]
we heard several voices calling for more concerted central direction if early years provision is to flourish and if outcomes are to improve.
We also asked the Scottish Government to consider whether its framework should be more focused on the zero-to-three age group, given the stark evidence that we heard about the importance of investing in the very earliest years.
The second area on which our report focused was preventative spending from a health and social care perspective. In simple terms, the debate is about the extent to which people can be supported in their own homes rather than in far more expensive institutional settings, such as care homes or hospitals. Much enthusiasm was expressed for such a switch, but witnesses were very honest about its challenges, including making the shift to investing in cheaper social care services by disinvesting in more expensive health services when there is no sign that demand for such services is abating.
COSLA discussed the need for a new approach that would involve disinvestment and reinvestment in individual public sector organisations, between public sector organisations and at Government level. Such a move might well require far better partnership working than we have sometimes witnessed in the public sector.
Our inquiry heard particularly blunt views about the likelihood of some organisations working together to realise the benefits of preventative spending. For example, Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan of the violence reduction unit considered that
“There is still a deal of territorialism between agencies, including the voluntary agencies, that is more corrosive and pernicious than that between the gangs in the east end of Glasgow”.—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 26 October 2010; c 2561-2.]
Aside from partnership working, we are well aware of other potential barriers to preventative spending; for example—and inevitably—the impact of budget cuts. If we politicians are honest, we must acknowledge that our focus is too often on the short or even immediate term. As we all know, that is especially the case at election time. Realising the full benefits of preventative spending will require concerted planning over a much longer timeframe. Otherwise, we run the risk of paying only lip service to it.
For the first time since devolution, a parliamentary committee has examined preventative spending in depth and across different spending areas. We heard remarkably strong evidence about the benefits of that approach. We must face up to that, so I call on everyone involved to work together and to acknowledge that preventative spending is not top of the political agenda. We must make the preventative approach irresistible to politicians at local and national levels.
The Finance Committee considers that the Parliament’s committees are ideally suited to driving that agenda forward on a continuing cross-party basis. The committee’s legacy paper recommends that scrutiny of preventative spending should be integral to the annual budget process and that appropriate guidance should be issued to subject committees to help them to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s progress. I hope and trust that the new committees that will be established after the forthcoming election will meet that challenge and ensure that real progress is made.
I thank my colleagues on the Finance Committee and I thank the clerks for their expertise and contributions. I hope that action will follow and that Parliament will let this unanimous report be a positive start to solving some deep-seated problems.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Finance Committee’s 1st Report, 2011 (Session 3): Report on preventative spending (SP Paper 555).
14:46
It would be a dereliction of duty if I did not echo the many voices who made it clear that early intervention is also the right thing to do from a moral and societal perspective. I mentioned that powerful and passionate views were expressed throughout our inquiry, so I will share some of them with the Parliament. As Dr Suzanne Zeedyk, a senior lecturer at the University of Dundee, put it:
“Children’s brains develop more quickly between birth ... and the age of three than they ever will again. So we need to get the money into services and get support to families because, after that age, those brains are in place. If we delay, all that happens is we continue to spend our money in ways that are, frankly, dumb.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 2 November 2010; c 2614.]
One charity, the WAVE Trust, pointed out that
“Study after study ... demonstrates that to invest money in prevention is simply the best economics and the best investment for national and local government.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 9 November 2010; c 2655.]
The committee acknowledged the work of the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in establishing and driving their long-term early years framework. However, some disquiet was expressed during our inquiry and at our chamber event that the framework is built on a relationship between central and local government that may place too much emphasis on local delivery. For example, although the Scottish Government claimed that
“the key to success ... is what happens at local level”,—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 30 November 2010; c 2832.]
we heard several voices calling for more concerted central direction if early years provision is to flourish and if outcomes are to improve.
We also asked the Scottish Government to consider whether its framework should be more focused on the zero-to-three age group, given the stark evidence that we heard about the importance of investing in the very earliest years.
The second area on which our report focused was preventative spending from a health and social care perspective. In simple terms, the debate is about the extent to which people can be supported in their own homes rather than in far more expensive institutional settings, such as care homes or hospitals. Much enthusiasm was expressed for such a switch, but witnesses were very honest about its challenges, including making the shift to investing in cheaper social care services by disinvesting in more expensive health services when there is no sign that demand for such services is abating.
COSLA discussed the need for a new approach that would involve disinvestment and reinvestment in individual public sector organisations, between public sector organisations and at Government level. Such a move might well require far better partnership working than we have sometimes witnessed in the public sector.
Our inquiry heard particularly blunt views about the likelihood of some organisations working together to realise the benefits of preventative spending. For example, Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan of the violence reduction unit considered that
“There is still a deal of territorialism between agencies, including the voluntary agencies, that is more corrosive and pernicious than that between the gangs in the east end of Glasgow”.—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 26 October 2010; c 2561-2.]
Aside from partnership working, we are well aware of other potential barriers to preventative spending; for example—and inevitably—the impact of budget cuts. If we politicians are honest, we must acknowledge that our focus is too often on the short or even immediate term. As we all know, that is especially the case at election time. Realising the full benefits of preventative spending will require concerted planning over a much longer timeframe. Otherwise, we run the risk of paying only lip service to it.
For the first time since devolution, a parliamentary committee has examined preventative spending in depth and across different spending areas. We heard remarkably strong evidence about the benefits of that approach. We must face up to that, so I call on everyone involved to work together and to acknowledge that preventative spending is not top of the political agenda. We must make the preventative approach irresistible to politicians at local and national levels.
The Finance Committee considers that the Parliament’s committees are ideally suited to driving that agenda forward on a continuing cross-party basis. The committee’s legacy paper recommends that scrutiny of preventative spending should be integral to the annual budget process and that appropriate guidance should be issued to subject committees to help them to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s progress. I hope and trust that the new committees that will be established after the forthcoming election will meet that challenge and ensure that real progress is made.
I thank my colleagues on the Finance Committee and I thank the clerks for their expertise and contributions. I hope that action will follow and that Parliament will let this unanimous report be a positive start to solving some deep-seated problems.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Finance Committee’s 1st Report, 2011 (Session 3): Report on preventative spending (SP Paper 555).
14:46
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...