Scottish Executive Announcements
The first item of business this morning is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on motion S1M-905, in the name of Bill Aitken, on announcements made by the Scottish Executive, and amendments to that motion.
I take Parliament back to just over three years ago, when we entered the brave new world of new Labour politics. What has happened since then?
There are no Labour members in the chamber.
Labour members cannot even get up in time to attend a debate in which they are being strongly criticised.
I repeat—what happened after the advent of the Labour Government? The spin began, and has continued to the extent that we no longer know what Labour members believe in. They say that they are inclusive, that they provide joined-up government, that they empower people and that they are building a new democracy. From time to time we are forced to ask ourselves, "But what do they think about telling the truth?" Time after time in the Scottish Parliament, at Westminster and by means of press releases, situations have arisen that are—to be frank—disgraceful.
Funding announcements follow fairly tightly laid-down criteria. An announcement is trailed, made and then reannounced. An announcement is then made about an increase, in which the increased figure is the amount that was announced originally. At the end of the day, government, in its broadest sense, is losing credibility.
A number of outstanding examples of such announcements are worthy of mention, from fairly unimportant examples to very serious ones. The announcement of a "Transport Boost for North-East" was first made in a Scottish Office circular in March 1999, when £4 million was announced for a bus priority scheme and park-and-ride facilities in Aberdeen. However, on 28 October 1999, we learn that the north-east is to receive an extra £4 million. There is no doubt that Brian Adam would be keen to have an extra £4 million invested there, but that was the same £4 million that was announced in March 1999, which the Executive described as a "boost".
On 11 March 1999, a press release announced a
"£14 million public transport boost for the West of Scotland"—
from the public transport fund, which included
"£6 million to develop three quality bus corridors"—
in Glasgow. The same bus corridors manifest themselves on 28 October, in the Scottish Executive's circular 1086, when Glasgow was awarded an "extra" £6 million.
Then, with Henry McLeish's announcement of a total expenditure of £11 million, came the Scottish Office's boost for tourism. Thereafter, Alasdair Morrison had to admit that £5.75 million of the alleged new money had been allocated previously. That sort of thing is simply not on.
When Parliament sat in Glasgow, Fiona Hyslop quite properly raised the matter of housing expenditure and the alleged £12.5 million of public investment. That was the same £12.5 million of public investment that had been announced by the Scottish Office in a circular that was dated 25 February 1999. What is happening? I repeat—government, in the broadest sense, is losing credibility.
It is essential that the Executive stops patronising the Scots people by continually reannouncing old spending commitments. Both Labour and Liberal ministers continually make such reannouncements in attempts at spin when things are going badly, but we find that there is no story behind the spin.
As I recall, it was Goebbels who said that the bigger the lie, the more readily it is believed. The Executive has adapted and, indeed, improved upon the Goebbels principle—the more often it tells the truth, the closer that truth gets to being untrue. For many Scots, the Executive announcements make it seem as if the Executive is living in a perpetual groundhog day, in which ministers continually make reannouncements in an attempt to spin a story where none exists.
Does the member agree that Alastair Campbell learned the principle of "The more you repeat a lie, the more it is believed," at Sir Bernard Ingham's feet? Bernard Ingham repeatedly rubbished Cabinet ministers, calling them semi-detached, in preparation for their sacking a few months after appointment. This is a bit rich coming from Bill Aitken—it was the Conservative party that invented spin.
I am pleased that Mr Raffan has raised that issue, as I was about to come to it. Yesterday, Downing Street announced that Mr Campbell's activities will, in future, be restricted to dealing with the Government's record. That means that the spin-doctor incarnate is being imported to put out more lies and fiction about Government expenditure. That is what we are dealing with.
I refer Mr Raffan to my earlier remarks. What about the new politics and this new democracy? In recent months we have heard the reannouncement of accident and emergency funding and of Wendy Alexander's £12.5 million for Glasgow. We have heard the reannouncement of tourism funding. We must now ask whether ministers think that the average Scot has a head that zips up the back. The main problem is that their exaggerations, especially of health and housing spending, repeatedly raise hopes and expectations and those are not fulfilled. It is high time that that contemptible and thoroughly patronising tactic ceased.
Today we are asking the Executive to put in place a protocol for clarifying references to former spending commitments. The self-styled champions of freedom of information must come clean with the people of Scotland—they must state categorically when money is new spending and when it is just a reiteration of an earlier announcement. Time after time we see the tactic of the trail, the announcement, the reannouncement and the presentation of an increase—usually a marginal increase—as entirely new money. We have become used to all the new Labour buzz words—"additional funds", "additional resourcing", "funding boost", "extra", "award" and "injection of cash". The list is endless and the words are meaningless.
I say to the Minister for Parliament that what is at stake is not merely a political knockabout, but the integrity and credibility of government in its broadest sense. If people cannot accept at face value the announcements that are made by the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive, the whole political process will be brought into disrepute. Honesty and integrity—the ability to be up front with the people of Scotland—are absolutely vital, especially at a time when there is an increasing amount of cynicism about politics and politicians generally.
This new Labour spin simply will not wash. In future we must be honest with the people of Scotland. In our motion we ask for appropriate protocols to be put in place. Under such protocols, the Scotland Office and the Executive would be committed to indicating whether money was new or whether it had been announced previously.
I hear Bill Aitken saying that it is important to be honest and up front. Will he apologise for the £150 million that was taken away from Glasgow as a result of local government reorganisation in 1996 and 1997? The member represents the people of Glasgow and an apology would be very acceptable.
I need make no apology for what the Government of Scotland prior to 1997 did for the people of Glasgow. A Government that invested £2 billion in Glasgow's housing and created an economic climate that generated considerable employment in the Glasgow area is obviously a successful Government. Apologies are due from the Executive, which consistently and persistently undermines the integrity of government and which fails to recognise that the people of Scotland are not daft. They realise what the Government is at. This nonsense must stop.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that considerable confusion has been caused by a number of recent Scottish Executive announcements, particularly funding announcements; believes that the way funding announcements are made by the Scottish Executive has done little to further open government; notes that the Executive has allowed the same resources to be announced as "new funding" on more than one occasion, thus damaging public scrutiny, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to institute a new protocol for all public and press announcements in order that these make clear whether funding announced is additional resources or whether it is part of a previous funding package and, if it is, when and through what statement the funding was previously announced.
If there is no truth in the suggestion that the Tory party in Scotland is lurching to the right, we will have to accept that Conservative members quote Mr Goebbels as a matter of course. That is a very strange way of behaving.
Reannouncements seem to be the Opposition theme of the moment. Perhaps they are a convenient cover for other embarrassments. I do not know which way to look when I talk about other embarrassments—
Behind you. [Laughter.]
It is an odd subject on which to use up parliamentary time. We in the Executive would have preferred to discuss the subjects that really matter to the people of Scotland—housing, health and jobs—rather than the political froth that we are debating this morning. Froth it might be, but it provides a welcome opportunity for the Executive to set the record straight. It is a wonderful chance—regardless of whether the Tories or others like it—to reiterate what the partnership Government is doing and to contrast our vigour and investment with the barren years of Conservative Governments.
The wording of their motion and Bill Aitken's opening speech suggest that the Conservatives have no idea what they are talking about. It is simply not enough to make unsubstantiated allegations and there is little indication that the Opposition has given serious thought to important issues. Those issues include the democratic need to keep people fully informed about what elected representatives are doing in their name and with their money and the fact that announcements have to address a wide range of different audiences that have different interests. There is also a need to avoid making announcements outside Parliament without keeping Parliament fully informed of them and a need not only to make initial announcements about proposals, but to report progress, which must be put in its proper context.
Communication is not just about news releases that are read by a few. It has been said that to govern is to inform. It is a duty of Government—if we are to have a genuinely participative democracy in Scotland—to use a wide range of communication methods to allow people to keep themselves informed about the issues that interest and concern them.
Does the minister agree that in order to have openness in the Parliament we must, when discussing budgets, distinguish between announcements of initial allocations and announcements of distribution of those initial allocations? Does he agree that, for the good of this Parliament and for the good of the Government and so that people understand what the Government is doing, he should ensure that his colleagues make it clear what are initial allocations and what are subsequent distributions?
That is an important point, and I will return to it later in my speech.
The Executive has been accused of announcing more than once money for health, for housing, for homelessness and for combating the menace of drugs. If, during the long years of Tory government, we could have persuaded the Tories to invest properly in those areas even once, perhaps Scotland would be in a better state today.
We make no apologies for explaining how we spend taxpayers' money. Yes, we announced more money for health, education and policing. Yes, we then announced how that money would be spent on more heart operations, classroom assistants and police on the beat. To the Tories, those might be reannouncements, but to hundreds of thousands of Scots they represent simply relief—relief from the barren years of Tory government during which such announcements were all too scarce. They represent relief that more operations are being carried out, relief that kids are being taught in smaller classes and relief that our streets are being made safer.
When we take another step to improve people's lives, we will mention it time and again. It is no wonder that the Tories do not like hearing our announcements. With every announcement that we make, we give greater opportunities to Scottish families—opportunities that they were denied for so long.
The minister mentioned smaller classes. I have examined class sizes in South Ayrshire and there is no difference there, other than a slight increase in class sizes since 1997. Can the minister justify his comments?
I can justify my comments simply. We have committed ourselves to reducing class sizes in the first three years of primary education. We have committed ourselves to an overall reduction in class sizes throughout Scotland. There is much empirical evidence to suggest that class sizes are decreasing. Mr Gallie has examined the situation in South Ayrshire, but I suggest that he re-examine it. Not only educationists, but parents will inform him that the situation in their children's classrooms has improved considerably.
It has been claimed that we repeat announcements for political advantage. Of course all political parties want to gain credit for their actions—that should be blindingly obvious even to those who have no experience in government and to those who have no chance of gaining government experience.
However, we recognise that it is our duty to explain the Government's policies, decisions and actions impartially. That is the guiding principle behind the Executive's information service. The processes and business of government involve the announcement of many facts and financial figures. It is the Executive's duty to try to present those in a clear and comprehensible way. Too often, the Opposition sees its duty as being to distort simple facts.
We have been criticised in a number of areas. In health, the Executive was accused by the Conservatives of recycling announcements in relation to the £1.8 billion of new money for the health service that resulted from the comprehensive spending review. That was new money, on top of the baselines that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. If only that level of investment could have been achieved under its cack-handed stewardship of the national health service.
The Conservatives were inaccurate when they made that criticism—which was also unjustified—and when they issued their press release, they even got the year wrong. Since the CSR, there have been other increases in the health budget, most recently in the addition of extra resources that followed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's March budget. The Executive has kept Parliament and the public fully informed of those changes to the overall budget and—through a wide range of further announcements—has reported on allocations to priority areas and on how money will be distributed geographically. That is not reannouncing money.
We make no apology for any of that. People have a right to know what their money is being spent on and they want to know that in a number of ways. They want to know, for example, how much is being spent on health in a particular area and how much is being spent on accident and emergency services in their area. That is the kind of information that people demand. They have a right to receive it and we provide it as part of our democratic responsibility.
The Executive was criticised for reannouncing money that resulted from the United Kingdom budget consequentials. The Executive was accused of reannouncing the resources that came to Scotland as a result of the budget. The Minister for Finance announced those figures in a statement on 30 March, which made it clear that the allocation of those resources would be subject to further consideration. On 16 May, he answered a parliamentary question and explained:
"Further to my announcement in my statement to Parliament on 30 March, I can confirm that Cabinet have resolved the following allocations of resources, by programme."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 16 May 2000; Vol 6, p 148.]
The purpose of that was to ensure that Parliament was kept fully informed of the Executive's decisions about those resources. Far from concealing a previous announcement, we made specific reference to it. There was no confusion about figures—the Executive was merely ensuring that Parliament was treated properly. How loud would the outcry have been if we had done anything else? The Tories are often the first to shout if the Parliament is not given its proper place.
On the same day as Jack McConnell's answer to the parliamentary question, David Whitton, the chief adviser and spin-doctor to Donald Dewar, gave a press briefing in which no reference was made to that parliamentary answer. The press was not informed. That is the point that we are trying to make—the announcement was not fed to the press, but was fed quietly to Parliament.
I did not know that the member was so dependent on what he often refers to as Executive spin-doctors for his information. I thought that an important part of the job of the Opposition was to look at the answers to parliamentary questions and take that information in.
We were criticised about rough sleepers. On 1 June, the Minister for Communities was criticised when she announced the allocation of £13 million funding through the rough sleepers initiative. I stress that the announcement was about allocation, not availability, which was previously known. On that day, she also announced—
Will the minister give way?
No, I have taken a few interventions.
The minister also announced £12 million of new money for that initiative, which comprised £4 million for a health initiative, £6 million to deal with the problems of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and £2 million to deal with the problems of replacing Glasgow hostels. There are clear distinctions between availability, allocation and new money.
The real problem for the Tories is not reannouncements, but the fact that the governing partnership in Scotland is investing substantial sums to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. On coming to office in 1997, the new Government invested an additional £1 million to tackle the problem of rough sleeping. That was increased by £14 million in the comprehensive spending review, and the partnership Executive increased it by a further £6 million last year. A number of announcements have been made since October 1997 regarding rough sleepers, all of which show a determination to remove the tragedy of rough sleeping from our streets.
Perhaps that is what gives the Conservatives their biggest problem. Perhaps their real gripe is about the fact that those announcements contrast the work of the partnership Executive only too vividly with the dark days of the me-first attitude that was all too prevalent during the Tory years.
Let us contrast the Tories' record with that of the Government at Westminster and this partnership Executive. Since the previous UK budget, there have been announcements totalling £2.2 billion of new money for health, £87 million of new money for education, £16 million of new money for transport and £9 million of new money for additional policemen. I could cite more examples, but I am conscious that I might risk being accused of making more reannouncements. Restatement of that money is what enrages the Conservatives, because it illustrates the contrast between their performance and the performance of the Executive.
It would be too easy simply to portray this morning's business as a flavour-of-the-month debate. It is, in fact, a fear debate. The Tories fear our innovation, our vigour and our determination to tackle Scotland's problems. They are on the brink of the electoral precipice and they are terrified that the Executive's policies will push them over the edge.
We will not be deflected from our professional approach. We are committed to record levels of investment and public spending, and to creating a new Scotland where there is opportunity for all. If the best that the Tories can do is to challenge us for explaining that to the people of Scotland, we are winning the argument and they are losing it.
I move amendment S1M-905.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:
"notes that the provision of information by the Scottish Executive about its policies, spending plans and public services is an essential part of open, participative Government; agrees that such provision of information needs to be carried out in a modern, professional, pro-active and impartial manner so as to engage all interested citizens, and notes that the Scottish Executive will continue to pursue these aims."
I agree with Bill Aitken about the issue of misleading and deliberately repeating announcements, but the real problem for his party is that its announcements are all too clear. That can be seen from the front page of The Herald this morning, which says that one of the Tories' brightest candidates, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, has joined the SNP because of the right-wing, bovver-boy approach of the Tory party—which is confirmed in her letter of resignation.
Will Mr Russell give way?
No, I will not. One hears the term right-wing bovver boy from the Tory back benches quite often. It is usually used to describe Brian Monteith, but Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh was describing William Hague's attitude. I welcome Tasmina into the SNP and I hope that she will be sitting in the chamber with us before too long, and sitting in government.
Will Mr Russell give way?
No. Let me get into my speech.
Will Mr Russell give way?
I have much to say about Mr McAveety, but I want to get on with my speech.
My amendment to Mr Aitken's motion goes to the heart of the Executive's problem. The Scottish Parliament is founded on a number of key principles, which are laid out in the report of the consultative steering group and with which Mr McAveety and his colleagues are familiar. The introduction to that report was written by none other than Henry McLeish, when he was a minister of state and Scottish Office Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution. In those days, he was higher in the new Labour pecking order than he is today.
The principles in that report are worth repeating. Labour members might not like the principles, but I shall repeat them. The Scottish Parliament was meant to
"embody and reflect the"—
Will Mr Russell give way?
Let me get through the principles—I will then take Mr McAveety's intervention. I am sure that he has been up all night thinking of an intervention, and he will get his chance.
The Scottish Parliament was meant to
"embody and reflect the sharing of power between the people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Executive".
The key principles went on to say that
"the Scottish Executive should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Parliament and Executive should be accountable to the people of Scotland".
The report said that the Scottish Parliament must be accessible, open and responsive. In its operations, the Scottish Parliament
"should recognise the need to promote equal opportunities for all."
The CSG report went on to say that those principles were—and indeed are—the benchmark of the success of Scottish democracy. They are, as the CSG said,
"a symbol of what the Scottish people may reasonably expect from their elected representatives."
Measurement of the Executive and its conduct over the past year—even if we measure only how it announces its policies and its funding commitments—shows that it is obvious that the Executive is falling short of the CSG principles. The CSG said something else that the Executive finds difficult—it found in its investigations that there was a cynical disillusionment with politics. It said that Parliament should set "the highest standards" so that the Scottish people "will trust and respect" Scottish democracy and the Scottish Executive. How can the people of Scotland "trust and respect" government by illusion? Announcements are repeated as if they are new and resources are doubled, trebled and quadrupled. Ministers not only connive in such actions—they perform them.
In the course of researching for the debate, the SNP has—in a paper that we will publish—identified endless examples of double and treble counting. There is a paper trail of illusion that involves Sam Galbraith, Susan Deacon, Wendy Alexander, Jackie Baillie, Frank McAveety, Angus MacKay, Jack McConnell, Ross Finnie, Donald Dewar, Sarah Boyack and others. [Interruption.] I think that Mr Peacock wants to be included in the list. Let him be included in the list. All those ministers and more are involved in the exercise.
It appears that the only minister who is not involved is the one who has drawn the short straw in answering today's debate. [Interruption.] I am sorry—Mr Smith wants to be counted in. Mr Smith and Mr McCabe are not guilty. I know their jobs well—I shadow them. The problem is that neither Mr McCabe nor Mr Smith has the opportunity to be involved in the exercise, so they are not guilty only because they cannot find a way of doing what the other ministers do.
I will use an example. It is interesting that Mr McCabe used the same example in his speech, but I suspect that there is a touch of guilt involved—Mr McCabe knows where the bodies are buried. The example is this year's budget at Westminster. On 18 May, David Whitton gave a briefing to the press. He had round his neck—as Tricia Marwick noted—a red cord that was stamped "Labour", in case anybody found him and had to return him home. He told the Scottish press that the Cabinet had that day
"given final approval after an exhaustive and comprehensive new method of agreeing department shares of available money".
That announcement was old even when David Whitton made it. Allegedly, there had been a Sisyphean struggle within the Cabinet. Ministers had all been contending with each other. They had argued [Interruption.]—I am glad that Mr McNeil liked the word, I will write it down for him later. There had been a Sisyphean struggle within the Cabinet. At the end of that process, ministers divided the money up.
Mr Whitton then gave a list of figures. Health was to receive £173.3 million—well done, Susan Deacon. Education was to get £86.6 million—Sam Galbraith is still in there. Transport and the environment was to get £15.9 million—I think Sarah Boyack is in trouble. Justice was to get £8.9 million—Jim Wallace clearly does not have any clout on that matter.
That was the division of the money that was announced proudly on 18 May. The Executive, through its spokesman, presented that as a triumph for the new system of government, a triumph for individual ministers and a triumph for new Labour. What was the truth?
Does Mike Russell welcome the extra money?
Mr Rumbles does not know the truth. He has had the wool pulled over his eyes, like all the Liberals.
The truth is that the figures are identical—not roughly equivalent to, but identical—to those that were announced by John Reid two months earlier on budget day. Surprise, surprise—they are also identical to the figures in the annual expenditure report of the Scottish Executive that was published on 19 April.
There is another truth to be told. Those sums were trumpeted as massive increases as the McConnell gambit—exaggerate everything—came into play. The McConnell gambit presented those figures as massive, yet they did not even match the parsimony of the final Forsyth years.
Does Mike Russell welcome the massive increase in health spending and the new money for education? He should compare that with what happened under the Conservatives, who could not make such announcements during their years in power because they would not invest.
I remember when Jim Wallace was acting as Mike Rumbles's party leader and not acting as First Minister. At that time he described those increases as a joke and talked about the need for more public expenditure. Mike Rumbles has swallowed the spin.
I will conclude by making it clear that the figures that were announced were illusions. They were announced once, twice and three times. Susan Deacon even announced the figures on health spending a fourth time in the chamber. She called that an emergency statement, but Duncan Hamilton described it memorably as
"more of an accident than an emergency."—[Official Report, 22 March 2000; Vol 5, c 868.]
In reality, on every occasion on which the Government speaks, it breaks the CSG recommendations. Today we tell the Executive that it is falling very far short of the principles that it and the Parliament accepted. It must return to those principles and it must ensure that it speaks the truth to the people whom it represents. At the moment, it is not doing those things.
I move amendment S1M-905.2, to leave out from "a new protocol" to end and insert:
"and implement with immediate effect a policy for all Parliamentary, press and public announcements which is based upon the founding principles of this Parliament as defined by the Consultative Steering Group, that is to be accountable, accessible and open, and in particular to make absolutely clear in all such announcements whether policy innovations are new or repeated, whether funding announcements are allocations or distributions and from what budget in what year these sums will come."
After that piece of very light entertainment, I will follow Mr McCabe in striking a serious note in the debate, as is my wont. I do not want to anticipate the Finance Committee's report on stage 1 of the budget, which will be debated in the chamber in two weeks' time, but I will briefly reiterate a few of the points that I have made over the past few months. I am grateful to the Minister for Finance for the constructive session that we had with him in the Finance Committee on Tuesday.
As I have long said, we need a radical restructuring of "Investing in You". I am sometimes teased because I say that it should be along the lines of the Oregon budget book. We need more substantial detail and we need figures in real as well as cash terms. Moreover, we must clearly delineate underspends, so that we have a baseline and know exactly what the real increases are.
On drugs—an area in which I take particular interest—we need to know the total amount that is being spent on enforcement, treatment and prevention. It is difficult to find out such information, because drugs is a cross-cutting issue. If we do not have such robust information, how can the Parliament and the committees play their full part in suggesting where spending should be reallocated?
On the Conservative party, which, of course, is a favourite theme of mine, I have to concede that nobody could accuse the Scottish Tory party of not being open and transparent. Indeed, thanks to Mr Murray Tosh's lengthy epistle to The Scotsman, we all now know who hates whom in the Conservatives' current bitter civil war.
We hate Keith Raffan.
The one theme is that they all hate Mr Monteith, who usually sits at the back in a separate row. I will give the Conservatives a bit of friendly helpful advice: ditching Mr McLetchie and replacing him with Mr Tosh would be like going directly from the frying pan into the crematorium. I can safely say that everyone in the chamber—I will even speak for the SNP on this, if I may be so presumptuous—is eagerly looking forward to the Tory conference in Dundee, which is certainly more than the Tories are.
The Tory motion starts off somewhat unfortunately. It says that
"the Parliament agrees that considerable confusion has been caused by a number of recent Scottish Executive announcements".
Of course, one could delete "Scottish Executive" and replace it with "Tory party", because nobody can be more confused than the Tories are over their economic policy, on funding in particular. The Tories could get away with such a motion only if their economic policy were not in its current state of chaos and confusion.
Let us take the so-called tax guarantee, which is to reduce the share of national income absorbed by taxes during the lifetime of a Parliament. Mr Hague announced that that would be a guarantee. Then the shadow chancellor said that it was not a guarantee but an aspiration. Two days later, Mr Hague corrected Mr Portillo by saying that, no, it was a guarantee and he would have a word with Michael.
My understanding is that the economy of Scotland has been devolved to some degree. Is not Mr Raffan talking about national economic policies, which are irrelevant to the argument?
That is not a point of order.
I can imagine that even Mr Gallie occasionally gets embarrassed by the UK Tory party and their antics.
While Mr Portillo and Mr Hague were disagreeing about the fundamentals of their economic policy, Tory spokesmen continued to make spending announcements almost every day, which made a nonsense of the whole thing anyway. The Tories are in no position to talk about confusion in the Executive's funding announcements when their own economic policy is in such a state of chaos.
Will the member give way?
No, I do not want to embarrass the Tories any further. I am about to move on to the SNP.
I am not going to spend too much time on the SNP, because I am a charitable figure and the SNP has had a tough week. The SNP amendment calls for accountability, accessibility and openness. Let us remember those words—the very characteristics that we all associate with the SNP's handling of its party finances.
I congratulate the SNP on its new recruit, announced in The Herald today to try to distract us from the Blackford saga. I hope that she brings the party some badly needed financial experience. As a qualified solicitor, she should certainly help in the forthcoming lawsuit.
Will the member give way?
No.
Let us get real. How can the SNP attack the Scottish Executive over the way in which it runs its finances when the SNP cannot run its own? According to Mr Blackford, a distinguished banker, the SNP's overdraft is more than £400,000. The SNP cannot live within its means. If that is what it does to its own finances, what on earth would it do to Scotland's?
Mr Salmond is now on his third treasurer in 10 years. He has had almost as many treasurers as Elizabeth Taylor has had husbands. Whenever one of the SNP's treasurers calls for openness and accountability, Mr Salmond gets rid of them. The final rich irony is that Mr MacAskill has now been put in charge of the SNP's books. That is like putting an alcoholic in charge of the brewery. He is just the man to double the overdraft.
Let us look at the SNP's spending commitments since 1 September last year. I will have to refer to my notes to get the latest figure, as it goes up every day. Of the £2.4 billion committed since 1 September, Mr MacAskill is responsible for £1.076 billion—more than 40 per cent—for everything from building every road to nationalising Railtrack. He never consults poor Mr Wilson, the jelly chancellor, who has absolutely no input whatever into the spending commitments that his people make.
All that the Tories and SNP do is swap ideas about how to conduct their respective bitter civil wars and, occasionally, members. The motion should be about when we are going to get a decent Opposition in this place—neither of the two parties provide it and I am fed up with trying to provide it on my own.
It is with a due sense of balance and statesmanship that I rise to take part in what is an important debate. First, let me say to Mr McNeil that Sisyphean struggles refer to the myth of Sisyphus.
I told Andrew that.
According to Mike Russell, Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to push a boulder uphill all his life. I am sure that that is something that Mike can relate to in his personal life.
As has been pointed out, Mr McCabe, as the only not-guilty member of the Executive, has been asked to take part in this debate on the Executive's approach. I am surprised about that, because I thought that it was Mr McConnell's job to control the Executive's approach to public information. Mr McCabe's key comment today was that every political party wants to gain advantage from their actions. No one doubts or disputes that. However, the core of the argument is that the Government should not use the levers of state power for party political advantage.
Mike Russell outlined the approach to the budget and I do not need to repeat that in detail. The key point is that the Executive should not use people paid by the public fund to advance party political cases. John Reid's assistant appears consistently as a contact on Labour party press releases, despite the fact that he is paid out of the public purse. Likewise, Dave Whitton may be many things—he may be modern, professional, have his own ideas and be proactive, to use the words in Mr McCabe's amendment—but he is certainly not impartial. We need look no further than Liz Drummond, the former head of the information service. When Labour first came to power in 1997, she resigned almost immediately, along with most of the Government information service directors across the country. She said that, whereas the Government information service had abided by the old cliché that facts are cited but comment is free, she did not think that the Labour Administration would.
That is the key point. Professionals who dedicated their lives to and made a vocation of progressing public information on behalf of successive Governments do not regard Labour as impartial. They regard Labour as entirely partial—it abuses public resources for its own political ends.
I wonder whether Mr Wilson will remind us whether it was 24 or 26 times that the Conservatives changed the basis of the unemployment statistics? There was no protest about that from the information department or the statistics department, which at that time was regarded simply as a wing of government.
It was actually 31 times. The current Government—first Mr Dewar and now Mr Wallace—has consistently used those same statistics in order to argue that unemployment is the lowest that it has ever been. The Labour party has picked up the baton from the Tories. The claimant count has been cited on successive occasions at question time. I agree that that is something that should be addressed.
The point of today's discussion is whether the information service should get away with the act of continually recycling announcements. That is something that happens across all policy matters—health, education, drugs, law and order and transport. Wendy Alexander is involved in a Sisyphean struggle within the Cabinet to replace part of Sarah Boyack's brief as the minister responsible for recycling. That was exposed by Fiona Hyslop in Glasgow, to the Government's embarrassment. If people are to have faith in government, we must know exactly what is being done in our name. That is why I support Mike Russell's amendment and urge everyone else to do the same.
Let us wind this up fairly snappily.
I will be gentle—as always. I am pleased to take part in the debate. I am grateful to my colleague Mr Raffan for, as ever, introducing some humour, with a fair sprinkling of facts, into the proceedings.
I find the Conservative motion particularly annoying, if not distressing. I believed that the Tories would take this opportunity to debate some of the big issues that affect the people of Scotland. They might have wanted to discuss poverty—they caused most of it. They might have wanted to discuss homelessness—they caused most of that. They might have decided to discuss falling educational standards—again, they mostly caused that. However, that was not to be. They did not choose to discuss any of the major issues that face the people of Scotland; instead, they chose to focus on pedantic semantics about announcements made by Government ministers.
I wondered what the thrust and substance of the Tory debate would be—I am still wondering. However, as Tom McCabe said, policies do not come out of the air fully formed, as the Tories well know. In a democratic society, policies develop as different agencies are consulted and as circumstances change. In Scotland in particular, we hoped that our new Parliament would enable us to have a more open and pluralistic decision-making process.
Surely the Conservatives do not want us to stop informing the public about changing and developing policies. Does Bill Aitken really believe that we should stop communicating with those who gave us power, or exclude the groups and organisations that have something positive to contribute to our legislation?
It is entirely sensible to have several announcements as Government policy develops. Tom McCabe took us through what happened with the rough sleepers initiative. First, the Executive's continuing support for the project was announced in the partnership agreement; afterwards, we announced that we had identified extra resources and were calling in bids; and finally we announced which of those bids had been successful and how much money would be allocated. In time, ministers will visit those services, which have been paid for with public money. All those announcements referred to the same resources, yet at each stage the policy had been developed. It would be remiss, indeed negligent, for the Executive not to keep the public and the press informed about that.
The truth is that the Government inherited the Tories' declining spending plans but has turned them round into increased expenditure. This year's budget has delivered an extra £288 million for public services, in the context of a comprehensive spending review that has already delivered £1.8 billion for health and £1.3 billion for education. I will certainly not apologise for that and I do not think that any minister in the chamber should apologise for it. However, the Conservatives do not want to talk about that.
The main point of today's debate should be what the Tories would have reannounced if they had been in power. Would they have reannounced the poll tax, and the poverty and misery that it caused? Would they have reannounced the Black Wednesday fiasco, which caused businesses to plunge into decay? Would they have reannounced the scandal of 4 million people being unemployed and languishing in hopelessness and helplessness? That is the truth of what the Tories did to Scotland.
Since it came to power, the Executive, with the Scottish Parliament, has been turning round the misery that the Tories caused to the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland will not be fooled by the Tories' crocodile tears or by their pathetic words. They know the Tories' record, they know what the Tories are about and they know that we are delivering on the people's priorities.
I have a sense of déjà vu. Somehow I feel that I have been here before—but, then, reannouncements are the point of the debate.
Let me take members back to Glasgow, to illustrate the point. On the first day that we met in Glasgow, we realised that the £12.5 million of new money was not quite new money. On our last day in Glasgow, we had the announcement of the £12 million "boost"—I remind Mr McCabe that that is a quote from the press release. It is one thing to reannounce the same money for the same policy initiative, but when the Executive starts announcing the same money for different initiatives, it is straying into different territory. The purpose of the SNP amendment is to stop that practice.
When I asked the minister where that £12 million had come from, she said:
"The additional funding for the rough sleepers initiative that we are announcing today will be met from underspends that are carried forward from the previous financial year. The Minister for Finance will issue a more detailed statement. Those funds are drawn from prudent financial management across the whole of the Executive's budget".—[Official Report, 1 June 2000; Vol 6, c 1301.]
We do not know any more than that, because we have not had that more detailed statement, but we must have it. I want to know what that money is not being spent on. Is it teachers, nurses or policemen? Where has the money come from? I welcome the fact that the money will tackle homelessness, but I want to know where it comes from.
It is the duty of the Parliament to scrutinise Government. The money belongs not to the Executive, but to the people. This is not about largesse and making announcements about other people's money; we must ensure that we know where the money is coming from and where it is going.
The Minister for Communities and her team are the serial offenders.
She is away again; she is not in the chamber.
Yes, she is away.
For the Scottish community investment fund, £10 million was announced on 3 November. On 13 March, £10 million was announced, again for that same fund—but, of course, that was a loan.
On the domestic abuse fund—welcome as that is—£6 million was announced on 27 October, with only £3 million coming from the Executive and, on 28 March, £5 million was announced, with only £1.2 million coming from the Executive.
What about the warm deal? Well, here we go: £12 million—the Executive must have a thing about that figure; the announcements always seem to be about £12 million—was first announced on 20 October 1999 by Frank McAveety. That announcement was not the first, not the second, but the third press release on that amount in six months.
What about the rough sleepers initiative? In December 1998, Calum MacDonald announced £14 million. In September 1999, Wendy Alexander announced £6 million. In November, she added the two sums together to make £20 million and the Scottish Executive press release—"Alexander announces next round in fight against rough sleeping"—said:
"Wendy Alexander today outlined proposals for spending a further £20 million".
It is wrong to claim that such funding is "additional" and "further" to existing funding.
The problem concerns policy announcements as well as funding. The licensing of houses of multiple occupancy was first announced on 4 June 1998 by Calum MacDonald, again on 30 September 1999 by Wendy Alexander and yet again, with the identical press release, on 11 October 1999. It is interesting to find that, since the Tories lodged their motion for this debate, that press release has disappeared from the Executive website. The Executive must have realised the duplication.
Keith Raffan mentioned drugs. Mr MacKay announced £1 million for drug action teams in November and December 1999, and in January and February of this year. Such announcements lull people into a false sense of security by making them think that additional moneys are being invested in one of the Parliament's most serious policy issues.
The bottom line is trust in politicians. As Bill Aitken pointed out, the Executive is not just letting down the Labour party, the Government and the Parliament, but affecting people's faith in politicians. It must get its act together.
I am not sure that there is much that I need add after Keith Raffan's excellent speech. This is a relatively pointless debate on a concern that is more apparent than real.
We will not take any lessons from the Conservatives about the Executive's professional and comprehensive system for keeping the public and Parliament informed. The Executive believes in open government and is delivering on that.
Repetition is often necessary and appropriate for a variety of reasons. It provides context; shows changes from previously announced positions; keeps different audiences informed; and serves as a reminder. For example, it might be worth reminding people today that the Scottish Executive has abolished tuition fees. We have to keep reannouncing that because the SNP and the Conservatives do not believe it; we will continue to reannounce it because it is true.
We agree with the Opposition that announcements should clarify instead of confuse, but there is no evidence that the Executive's practice of keeping a wide range of audiences fully informed at all stages of policy development has caused confusion. The public really want to know not just how much money is being spent but what is being done with it. That is why we have committed ourselves to such a major exercise of public and parliamentary consultation about our spending plans. For the first time, people throughout Scotland and the Parliament have been given the opportunity to make their views known on our spending strategy. That has never happened before under any Government; it certainly never happened under Conservative Administrations, when Scotland simply received the block allocation without any advance information or consultation on how that money would be spent.
The Executive pays considerable attention to how it announces policy precisely to ensure that Scottish citizens are kept fully informed and given the opportunity to engage fully in the process of government. Mike Russell accuses us of not following the consultative steering group's principles of openness, accountability and accessibility. Then he waves a sheaf of papers that he claims to be a detailed report that will be published—presumably after the debate—without giving the Parliament a chance to challenge him on the veracity of the contents of those papers. That is not being open, accessible and accountable.
The papers contain the Executive's announcements.
Let the SNP publish its own finances, too.
Order.
Does the Deputy Minister for Parliament agree that one of the best ways of improving the openness of the Scottish system of government would be to allow MSPs much more direct access to Scottish Executive civil servants? Will he undertake to review the current code of access?
I have already appeared before the Procedures Committee on that very issue. MSPs have significant access to civil servants through public information lines, the Executive website—which contains all the statements that Mike Russell claims are reannouncements and therefore mislead the public—and the "Investing in You" document. A vast array of sources of information is available to MSPs and the general public about what the Executive is doing. Nothing is being hidden; we are committed to openness and accountability.
We had sparse examples from Bill Aitken and Mike Russell of what we are supposed to be doing. Mike claimed that we were breaching the principles of the CSG, but the example that he gave related to the budget consequentials, the process of dealing with which is an example of the Executive's completely fulfilling the CSG principles. We announced what the consequentials would be and what the decision-making process for allocation would be. Once the Executive had considered the amount of money available, it made the announcement in the form of an answer to a parliamentary question, which was available to every member of this Parliament. We are now going beyond that to announce the details of how the money will be spent in specific areas. No doubt the money that has been announced for the police will be referred to in the next debate this morning. That process demonstrates openness and accountability.
Has the minister not grasped that we are talking not about the fact that the Executive does not talk enough but about the fact that it constantly repeats itself? The minister has had an example of that from me, from Fiona Hyslop and from other members. Will he answer those points or simply deny their existence?
No member of any party has given me an example of a substantial problem in relation to reannouncements. We have been given a lot of smoke and puff about very little. We need to acknowledge that the Executive is committed to openness and that the information is available.
The charge of reannouncement has been levelled by the Opposition parties this morning, but it does not hold up. They have homed in on the fact that figures might appear in more than one announcement, but they have not thought about why that happens. A more detailed look at the evidence shows that a process aimed at giving full information on policy and spending decisions means that people must be kept informed of developments and changes.
The Executive is committed to open government. Our actions speak as loudly as our words. Provision of information in a modern, professional way is an integral part of that commitment. We are aware of the risk that people might suffer from information overload, which might lead to confusion—the Opposition parties certainly seem to be confused—but we are happy to listen to constructive criticism and positive ways in which we can improve the presentation of information to the public.
I am happy to support the amendment in the name of Tom McCabe.
The Executive has failed to grasp the point of this debate. We recognise that much more important issues face Scotland than this subject; that is why we allocated only an hour of our Opposition morning to it—we did not think that it would take too long to discredit the Executive.
The debate is about how the mechanics of government affect the people who have to live with the effects of the policies. Yesterday, I received a letter from a senior nurse in Edinburgh. She explained that she had heard many announcements from the Government, but had never seen any improvements. Her final comment was interesting. She said:
"Labour only cares about the headlines".
Therein lies the problem.
Like the boy who cried wolf, a Government can announce new money only a certain amount of times before the electorate stop believing it. Labour spin has remained just that. Things have not got better and the people in this country know that all too well. Phil Gallie made a concrete point. He said that the class sizes in South Ayrshire had not got smaller. The Executive replied that he was wrong and that the problem was only that its message was not getting through. That is a classic example of the fact that the Executive prefers the spin to the truth.
Keith Raffan has become rather like Roger Irrelevant from Viz. The subject of this debate is whether the Executive is correctly handling its announcements. However, all that he gave us was Westminster-centred points about William Hague's tax policies and internal party politics. He conveniently failed to mention the fact that a Liberal Democrat, Donald Gorrie, signed the SNP motion when it was lodged.
Will Ben Wallace take an intervention?
No, I am closing.
Andrew Wilson's point about Liz Drummond was pertinent. Right across the United Kingdom, Government information officers started to resign when new Labour came to power, as the Government was intent on manipulating information rather than passing it on.
I congratulate Iain Smith on—was it his maiden speech? I am not sure. The subject of tuition fees has become a bit like a B&Q advertisement—although Labour members do not like B&Q, because it is not up to their standard any more—which says, "Buy now, pay later." The nurses and the doctors in accident and emergency wards are probably quite confused over all the redevelopments that have been going on. After all the cash boosts, which have been reannounced five times since October 1998, many of them still say that nothing has improved.
In December 1998, Sam Galbraith, as Scottish Office health minister, announced money for modernising health centres. The Government obviously thought that we might have forgotten about that over Christmas, as the money was reannounced in February 1999. That became an annual event; the money has since been announced again. Under this Government, the additional money for health spending has had more relaunches than the space shuttle and the difference between the spin and the reannouncements adds up to nearly £190 million.
When Sam Galbraith decided to go off to become the Minister for Children and Education, he could not resist taking the habit with him. He announced £2 million for special educational needs in April 1999, which was reannounced in February. It is rife across the Executive.
His wife? [Laughter.]
Rife. I can give Karen Gillon elocution lessons later, if she wants.
Some might say that it is right to reannounce money. However, to coax press releases to give the impression that new money is being spent is at best misleading and at worst downright dishonest. The Government inserts the words "extra", "boost for" and "cash for" to give the impression that the money is new. Reannouncements have become the trait of an Executive that believes primarily in presentation. Members will recall that the NHS Direct 24-hour service line was announced more than 15 months ago. The truth is that that service does not exist and has never existed in Scotland, although it has been up and running in England and Wales for more than eight months. The Royal College of Nursing and the Scottish health councils have not even been consulted yet. That is the truth.
As the Executive promises so much, yet delivers so little, building its houses on sand, it should not be surprised when its emperor's new clothes start to wear away. I end with words that were written to a member of the Labour party.
"Labour is not believed to be real. We lack convictions, it is all spin and presentation. We just say things to please people, not because we believe them."
Those are not my words or those of the SNP. They are the words of Philip Gould, one of the arch Labour spinners and a designer of new Labour. It is the truth. New Labour is no different from the dome that it created: good on the outside, but nothing much on the inside. I support the Conservative motion.