Public Service Reform
The next item of business is a statement by Tom McCabe on public service reform.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Before the minister starts his important statement, I understand that a document was supposed to be available for parliamentarians to view today. I have checked at the back of the chamber, but the document is not there. The statement is about to begin, but we have not seen that document. That does not augur well for a minister who says that he is trying to run the public services.
The minister may be able to roll up that issue in his statement and cast some light on it. The matter is not for me, but for him.
I will deal with Bruce Crawford's point straight away before I come to the body of the statement. I was in a parliamentary lift at about 12.45, accompanied by a gentleman with a trolley that was loaded with copies of that document. The covering pieces of paper said that the document was for the Scottish Parliament information centre, that it related to a ministerial statement and was embargoed until the minister stood up. I assure Bruce Crawford that every arrangement was made to ensure that the documents were transported properly and on time.
The purpose of today's statement is to explain how we will take the next steps towards world-class public services. Public services are central to the well-being of the people of Scotland; they are a lifeline in times of need and a platform on which we can build better lives for ourselves—at some time or another, we all depend on them. Effective public services drive our economy and bind our communities. They should be a statement about the kind of society that we want to be. Our ambition is to create public services in Scotland that are exemplars and that can sustain and inspire our citizens. We do not apologise for seeking the continuous improvement that is necessary to achieve that, because we know that the cost of failing to act now will be met by future generations.
I also know that such ambitions are shared in the Parliament and throughout the public services in Scotland. Reform is required to remove barriers that hinder our ability to deliver effective and efficient public services, but it is also essential to encourage the innovation and excellence that will enable our public services to respond to the changing world in which we live. Just a few weeks ago, the First Minister outlined our Government's futures project and gave us a clear reminder of the pace at which the world is changing through technological, environmental, demographic and social changes. We are in a world of new challenges, but also of new opportunities and a world in which, rightly, the needs and expectations of service users are changing.
If we are to meet rising expectations and cope with the substantial changes that our society will face—whether they are economic or demographic—we must sweep away the obstacles to more cohesive service delivery, no matter what form they take. Many of those challenges and opportunities are faced by other countries throughout the world. I want us to be at the forefront of rising to the challenge, to place Scotland and its citizens in the strongest possible position for the future.
That is why, today, I am publishing a discussion document, "Transforming Public Services: the next phase of reform", which will be followed by a series of dialogue events throughout Scotland. The document sets out what we have achieved so far and raises questions about how we might build on those reforms and drive forward transformational change. I hope that it will provide a helpful basis for discussion among those who use and deliver public services in Scotland. I see this as nothing less than an historic opportunity for communities and those with a stake in their success to help shape the delivery of services that best suit their circumstances. The discussions will focus on generating radical and practical innovations and will further develop, move on and widen the scope of public services. We will take a bottom-up approach to transforming our public services for future generations.
The document covers all public services—local government, health, justice, emergency services, further education, enterprise and more. However, it is not just about the public sector. Reform will include the private and voluntary sectors where they are involved with the delivery of public services.
I make it clear in the document that our approach to the dialogue will be guided by the five principles that the First Minister set out earlier this year. The first is user focus and personalisation, which means putting people at the centre of the design and delivery of public services, enabling them easily to access efficient and effective services, whether they are attending a doctor's appointment, paying their council tax, meeting the social worker or getting access to the police. We also want to ensure that service users have a real influence over how and where services are designed and delivered.
The second principle is quality and innovation. We want Scotland to be a hothouse of innovation, providing quality and effective services that maximise 21st century opportunities.
The third principle is efficiency and productivity. We will seek new ways to continue to maximise every pound of public money.
The fourth principle is joining up. If we are to organise services around the user, we need to work more closely together. We need to tackle demarcation at every level and remove statutory and cultural obstacles to joint working.
The final principle is accountability. The money that we spend and the services that we provide belong to the people of Scotland. There must be clear and transparent lines of accountability from service delivery to service user.
We will move forward on the basis of those five principles. We will do so in a way that enhances and builds on the progress made in the delivering for health programme; the efficient government initiative; the teachers agreement for the 21st century; the wide-ranging justice reforms; the integration of our tourism networks; the major review of cultural provision; and the 21st century social work review and much more.
All that will continue. We want the discussion and dialogue to provide further support and enable the sharing of good practice. From the dialogue, I am confident that we will see substantial changes in how local government organises itself.
Our agenda is much more ambitious than a crude reorganisation. The mistakes of the past were predicated on a vendetta against local government. The successes of the future will be predicated on a comprehensive and objective examination of how all those who serve the public can work smarter together.
It is important to stress that we have engaged in this process not to address a failure in Scottish public services—far from it—but to ensure that their undoubted successes are built on for future generations. We will not drive forward this dialogue with the people of Scotland by prescribing the solutions in advance. Sadly, some have already done so and it will be for them to try to justify their pursuit of a cheap headline.
We will harness the enthusiasm, energy and commitment of thousands of public servants who have been held back for too long. The dialogue that follows the publication of the document will be open and wide ranging and will enable voices throughout the Scottish public services to be heard. Many thousands of committed public servants strive daily to show initiative and strong leadership. We will create the conditions that will make it easier for them to do so.
Many thousands of service users are frustrated by their inability further to influence the shape of Scottish public services. We intend to provide that opportunity. We have no doubt that the document will tap into the enthusiasm for change that already exists. Just a year ago, many said that innovative projects such as the Glasgow pathfinder project could never come to pass. Many would have said that the type of exciting work in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, or the developments in Stirling and Clackmannanshire on integrated services would never happen. Today, the dynamism of committed public servants and politicians has proved them wrong. Where innovation and lateral thinking raise their head, we are determined to help.
Last week, I announced a review of regulation and scrutiny arrangements to reduce unnecessary burdens and remove barriers to improvement and change. Tomorrow, I will publish the results of our lean project research, which will enable the Scottish public sector to improve performance by taking what is best and relevant from the private sector. As a result of the document and the dialogue process, we will provide further momentum to those and other changes.
That is exactly what devolution should be about. It should enable us to do what is best for Scotland and not to be afraid to think radically. Banning smoking in public places is a good example of Scotland thinking big and of devolution delivering a life-changing policy. Let us embrace the chance to build on the reforms to our health service, courts and education system and reforms elsewhere and truly drive a public services reform agenda that is right for the people and right for the future of Scotland.
I commend the document to members.
The minister will now take questions on issues that have been raised in his statement. I will allow around 20 minutes for questions.
I thank the minister for his statement and for the advance copy of it that he made available to me. I have repeatedly called for the simplification and democratisation of the government of Scotland and for radical change to the quango state, and I welcome the statement as far as it goes. However, having listened to the minister and skimmed through the document, I am left with questions. Why could not the document have been published 12 months ago? Why has the process been dragged out as long as it has?
At a time when Scotland has 32 local authorities, 15 health boards, six police boards, six fire boards, 23 other local authority bodies, 23 national health service bodies, 20 local enterprise bodies, 17 executive agencies and 26 non-departmental public bodies, does the minister not accept that to simplify the government of Scotland and make it easier and more efficient to deliver public services, swifter action and more decisive leadership are required, rather than the more-talk approach that he proposes? Does he accept that the Government that he has supported since 1999 has created seven more non-departmental public bodies, seven more executive agencies, seven regional transport partnerships and eight community justice authorities and that it has expanded the quango state so that it now controls more than 20 per cent of Scottish public spending? Does he accept that employment in that quango state has increased by 40 per cent since the Government came to power? Does he accept that the growing size of the quango state is the responsibility of the Administration? I also ask Mr Kerr that question. Does the minister accept that today's announcement is an admission that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have made government in Scotland more complex and have wasted taxpayers' money that could have been invested in our public services and that the Government, far from delivering the promised bonfire of the quangos, has delivered a bonanza for the quango state?
I enjoyed Mr Swinney's prepared statement. [Interruption.]
Order.
On a point of accuracy, I point out to Mr Swinney that there are 14 health boards, that the Executive has eliminated health trusts and that it has made significant progress with health boards. I also have a point of information for members. When I stood up to speak, there were 129 copies of the document at the back of the chamber.
Oh!
It would be useful to address Mr Swinney's points. The questions that he should have asked are why the Executive is bothering with the dialogue process and why it is going to bother talking to the people of Scotland. The Scottish National Party has already decided what the solutions are. Anyone who reads the national press will know what Mr Swinney's thoughts are on the number of police boards and health boards that there should be and on what should happen to certain local economic development companies. The SNP has pre-decided such things. It would have none of this nonsense about engaging professionals or talking to the general public in Scotland. The SNP has never been in government, but thinks that it knows best. The real questions that Mr Swinney is trying to ask are exactly the reason why he will never be in government. We should deal with the real questions and examine what needs to be done with Scottish public services.
I thank the minister for sending me an advance copy of his statement. I would have thought that now was the time for action, not conversation. Over seven years of devolution, we have seen millions more pounds poured into our public services, but no improvement in outcomes. Waiting times and lists are up on 1999, crimes and offences are up on 1999 and many school pupils do not meet the Government's own standards for reading, writing and maths. I know that Mr McCabe is a man of few words, but his statement, entitled "Public Service Reform", is truly remarkable for the absence of any mention of substantive reform. Will the minister therefore consider, as a first step, removing centrally imposed targets in our public services and freeing them up to set their own priorities—priorities that will better reflect the needs of local people and that really will represent bottom-up politics?
I hope that the dialogue process gets off to a better start than the last two questions from the Opposition parties have done. It is okay for Annabel Goldie just to repeat the same mantra about waiting times, but here in Scotland we are experiencing the best waiting time performance that we have ever had in our national health service. If she is concerned about waiting times, she should tell that to the people who are afflicted by Scotland's three major killers—stroke, coronary heart disease and cancer—because the performance in all those areas is better than it has ever been. The whole purpose of "Transforming Public Services: the next phase of reform" and of the examination of how Scottish public services work is to ensure that services get better and that the people who depend on those services get much more comprehensive services and have an ability to influence the methods of delivery more than they have been able to in the past.
The Conservatives need to get away from the rhetoric that they are determined to engage in and to get involved in the real discussion—a discussion that will make a difference to people's lives and will inspire and invigorate the committed professionals who work in our public services. That is what will make a difference for Scotland and for future generations, and that is what will allow us to compete in an ever-changing world.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I thank the minister for his statement, for the publication of the discussion document and particularly for the announcement of the dialogue events that will take place throughout the country. If those events produce solutions that do not necessarily say that big is beautiful, but the reverse—that small is beautiful—will the minister listen to the dialogue in which he engaged with the people of Scotland? We must be interested in local accountability and accountable to local people. If the solution that local people suggest is that small is beautiful, I hope that the minister will listen to their views. Does he accept that that should be the case?
We are committed to listening to all views that are expressed in various parts of Scotland, but there are different ways of approaching some of the concerns that are expressed. For instance, let us consider what is going on in Stirling and Clackmannanshire, where people are examining how they can change delivery at the front line and what they can do with the integrated management of services. I hope that that project comes to successful fruition, but it indicates how we can deliver much more comprehensive and better public services to people without interfering with their ability to refer to democratically elected representatives. That is the key. The exercise is not about lines on a map; it is about the kinds of services that are delivered. When someone approaches a counter in the public services, whatever service they require, they are less interested in how we organise to deliver that service than in the speed and quality of the service and in how it can make a positive impact on their life. That is the determinant that we will use in the Scottish Executive as we assess the many views that will be expressed to us in the months to come.
Does the minister agree that, in order to reform public services and to deliver effective public services, it is vital that there is effective leadership right through Scotland's public services? Has he considered the report on that subject produced by Audit Scotland earlier this year, and reported on by the Audit Committee, which showed that, although post-devolution Scotland could and should have been ahead of the game in driving forward leadership development in the public sector, particularly on a cross-sectoral, collaborative basis, progress has in fact been minimal? What will he do to create a step change in that area so that we really see the kind of dynamic, innovative leaders who can do the job that he has set out today?
I welcome that relevant question. I have seen that report and am on record as saying that we have to redefine the professional accountability of those who serve us at senior level in the public sector. In the past we have perhaps made the mistake of thinking that paying people substantial amounts of money will automatically deliver the drive, leadership and innovation required to produce world-class services and leadership. Of course, that is not the case. Part of what we are doing—and will do throughout the process—is examining how we can improve professional accountability and the mechanisms that will allow committed professionals to show the leadership that will undoubtedly improve circumstances for those people who need, depend on and receive services in Scotland. It is a critical part of the work on which we are about to embark. That is a good question and it will be raised and addressed as we engage in this conversation throughout Scotland.
My question is less about leaders, or chiefs, and more about workers, or Indians. I have not had the opportunity to read the statement because I cannot speed-read.
Has the minister seriously considered the fact that we have 32 local authorities in Scotland, which means 32 chief executives, directors of education departments, directors of social work departments and directors of leisure and recreation departments? Is it not time that we merged local authorities to release funds to provide decent wages and conditions for the workers on the ground who deliver the essential services instead of maintaining those empires for the chiefs who are on wages of more than £100,000 per year?
Again, Mr Sheridan makes a pertinent point. I am on record as saying that we need at least to examine whether a country of 5 million people requires the number of chief executives, finance directors or other professionals that we have. Are there other ways in which we can bring services together? That will be an important part of this dialogue process.
The document says explicitly that the point of public service reform is to improve the quality and quantity of public services in Scotland, now and for the future. If we do that, it means that those who deliver those services on the front line will be in a much better position to reap the rewards that undoubtedly come from serving in the public sector. It will also clearly create the conditions to enable us to reward them better financially. That is part and parcel of this reform. We need to consume enough human capital to make sure that the public services in Scotland are the best that they can be, but we need to consume no more human capital than that.
Mr Sheridan referred to some of the local authority professions, so let us talk about finance, for example. What is the fastest growing sector of the economy in Scotland? It is the financial services sector. We cannot afford to dispense with any of that human capital. Because of the macroeconomic management that we have had from the Labour Government in Westminster and the sensible decisions taken by this coalition Executive, we are fortunate to live in a country that has the second highest rate of employment of all 25 of the countries in the European Union. We cannot therefore afford to dispense with any of our human capital, although we can certainly use it better than we do at the moment, and that will be part and parcel of the search for better outcomes as we engage in this process.
In his statement, the minister said that the Executive would seek new ways to continue to maximise every pound of public money.
Will the minister confirm that in November 2004, he launched a document about efficient government called "Building a Better Scotland"? Will he also confirm that in March this year—16 months later—on receiving a report on public sector procurement, he said:
"Urgent action is also required to ensure we use improved procurement practices to help deliver the efficiency savings we expect"?
I applaud the minister for making that statement and I could not agree with it more. However, is it not also true to say that the reality is that the minister's actions simply do not live up to his rhetoric? The minister will also recall saying in March:
"We will, of course, have to study the report in detail and establish the views of public bodies in Scotland."
That is hardly taking urgent action.
Does the minister accept that it is now almost 20 months since the launch of his efficient government agenda and still no substantial progress has been made? There was a headline in The Herald today that said that the public sector should sort itself out, but is the reality of the situation not that the Government should sort itself out? Seven years is long enough.
If Mr Crawford had taken just seven minutes to read some of the most recent publications on efficient government, he would not have bothered to waste the Parliament's time with those remarks.
We set the target of making savings of £1.5 billion by April 2008. Halfway through 2006, £1.25 billion of savings have been achieved, which I think represents significant progress. We have made that progress in the procurement of goods and services in our health service and in the procurement of information technology equipment by the Scottish Executive and the wider public sector. Does Mr Crawford not read any of that material? Is the Scottish National Party too interested in making cheap headlines in our press? Rather than concentrating on the facts, is Mr Crawford just making another attempt at a soundbite? Is the SNP just not accepting that it will only ever be able to snap from the sidelines? Because the members of the SNP will never get anywhere near being in a position to take the hard and responsible decisions that are required in government, they indulge themselves by making comments such as Mr Crawford's.
I welcome the minister's commitment to consult, which is extremely important. On page 37 of "Transforming Public Services: the next phase of reform", mention is made of leaders of the public, private and voluntary sectors being invited to take part in discussions. I am concerned about the Executive speaking only to gatekeepers; it is vital that communities, trade unions and other stakeholders are involved in the dialogue. I would be grateful if the minister could give a timescale for the process.
All the subsets that Cathy Peattie mentioned are important. I assure her that we have kept the trade unions closely in touch with the process and that they appreciate the effort that we have made to do that. I further assure her that the dialogue in which we will engage over the coming months will involve not only the people who provide services, but the people who use them. That is crucial. As I said in my statement, there is frustration about people's ability to influence the shape and the delivery of public services in Scotland. We want to address that in a meaningful way.
Does the minister agree that finance is at the heart of the transformation of public services? What steps will he take to improve council tax collection rates, which currently average 93 per cent? The shortfall in collection results in higher council tax, which impinges on the lives of senior citizens and others who are on fixed incomes.
Many things will affect the progress of public service reform. Finance will always be important to the delivery of public services, as will culture and the ability of people to exercise leadership, which has been mentioned several times. It will also be necessary to create the structures and the ethos that allow innovation and enthusiasm to be released. All those factors will be important, in addition to finance.
I am sure that the member will be pleased to hear that figures that will be put in the public domain in the near future will show that we are making considerable progress on the collection of council tax in Scotland. The figures have improved; although we have some way to go, we are moving in the right direction. My first engagement as Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform was to speak to the leaders of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. On that occasion, I strongly emphasised the need to improve our council tax collection rates. They have responded to that call and I am confident that they will continue to do so. I assure Mr Swinburne that we will be vigilant in our assessment of the progress that is made.
When the minister talked about engaging in reform that will put people at the centre of the design and delivery of public services, did he mean that citizens will be empowered and given real choice and control in relation to public services or will we continue to have the Government-knows-best approach that has been adopted over the past seven years?
Our approach will certainly involve allowing people to have a greater say and finding the proper mechanisms that enable them to believe that they can influence both the shape and the delivery of services. In pursuing such an approach, we will be continuing in the direction in which we have been travelling since the day devolution began.
I saw a press release from the Conservatives this morning. It was quite revealing. Perhaps the most recent example of our putting the user at the centre is the change to parental involvement in schools. Those changes were passed in the Parliament by 92 votes to 17. The measures were supported by the Scottish School Board Association, the Scottish Parent Teachers Council, local authorities, the Scottish Consumer Council, teachers and head teachers. They are exactly the kinds of measures that a broad range of important bodies in society say are the right thing to do. Yet the Conservatives criticise those measures at the same time as they come here to ask us whether we will put the user at the centre of service delivery.
I, too, share my colleagues' appreciation of the discussion document. I welcome the fact that people across Scotland will be able to participate in developing the vision that the minister has laid out.
I am particularly interested in the part of the document that deals with the voluntary sector. In the week before Civicus meets in Glasgow—when voluntary sector organisations from around the world will gather together—what message can those of us who will participate take from the minister?
My message would be that the voluntary sector plays a critical role in holding together many services that are delivered here in Scotland. They are partners who, in the past, have perhaps not been as valued as they could have been. We need to ensure that they are treated on an equal basis by statutory agencies that may control budgets that are released to the voluntary sector in order to deliver services.
The voluntary sector should know that the future holds a more important role for it. Its contribution to society will be better recognised. The Executive is determined to convince the voluntary sector that we willingly acknowledge the critical role that it plays in our society.
The Liberal Democrats support the drive for efficiency in the public sector through joint working and the sharing of common services. However, I hope that the minister will agree that delivering efficiencies will not necessarily require centralisation, with wholesale amalgamations of the political structures of councils and public bodies.
Mistakes have been made in the past. Previous ministers—thankfully not in this Executive—handed down tablets of stone about the right formula for the organisation of local government and other services. A Government must sometimes take final decisions, but—without avoiding that requirement—I would like us to preclude those decisions by involving people as much as possible and offering them the opportunity to offer local solutions. That would reverse the mistakes of the past, when solutions were handed down and people were just expected to get on with things.
We want to encourage as much involvement as possible. We will do that, but we will not avoid taking necessary decisions. We want to take those decisions in partnership with people in Scotland. We will work as hard as we can to ensure that that is how decisions are taken.
Meeting closed at 15:28.