Getting it Right for Every Child (Programme Board Abolition)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it has abolished the getting it right for every child programme board. (S4T-01189)
In order to develop our getting it right for every child policy, the Scottish Government established a programme board and a strategic implementation group. The board’s role was to help shape the policy in relation to the drafting of the duties in part 4 and 5 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 and it met 14 times from February to September 2014. The national implementation support group has responsibility for oversight of implementation and continues to meet. We recently refreshed its membership to take us into the significant phase of the implementation of the new statutory duties.
As the minister said, the programme board was set up to oversee the implementation of GIRFEC and, according to the Scottish Government website, it
“drove improvements in outcomes for children and young people in Scotland by embedding the GIRFEC approach across relevant services.”
At the weekend, the Scottish Government made it clear to the press that
“a decision was made at ministerial level to wind up the GIRFEC Programme Board after May 2014.”
Does the minister think that it was acceptable for ministers to take such a decision without having any recourse to the Scottish Parliament, which had responsibility for scrutinising and approving the GIRFEC legislation?
As I said, the programme board was established to take us through the legislative phase of getting it right for every child. After the 2014 act was passed, I took the decision to look at options for maintaining strategic engagement and driving forward the implementation of GIRFEC. The programme board’s job was done. We had got through the legislative phase, and I took the strategic decision to focus on implementation. The national implementation support group is there to provide that strategic engagement and to drive forward the implementation of GIRFEC. There was consensus on that decision at the last meeting of the programme board in September 2014, and it was recognised that we needed to have the right people on the group to drive forward the implementation of GIRFEC. While the board wound down, there was continued emphasis on implementation, and that was done through the national implementation support group.
I am grateful to the minister for that further clarification, but I want to press her on the point about when and how the Parliament was informed about a decision on a programme board that the Parliament was responsible for setting up. Despite the fact that the minister has said that consultation took place with the programme board members, the Parliament does not appear to have been informed of a decision in which it had a very legitimate interest.
I reiterate that we had gone through the legislative phase and, to maintain the strategic engagement with the sector, agencies and other people, I decided to focus on implementation. That is why the national implementation support group continued. It had sat under the programme board, but it continued so that we could drive forward the GIRFEC agenda.
I can make sure that the member is furnished with all the details of the meetings, if he so wishes, so that he has the clarity that he seeks. I am determined to get the implementation of the legislation, which is important, right, which is why the focus of our attention changed from the legislative phase that the programme board was charged with to implementation. We decided that we did not need both organisations, and we decided to maintain our focus on implementation, which is the role of the NISG.
On implementation, I am looking at the minutes from the programme board meeting in May 2014. Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham of Police Scotland
“raised issues surrounding ensuring high-risk children remained a focus.”
The minister will recall that, even among those of us who were prepared to accept the case for named persons, one of the key concerns was that attention and resources should not be diverted away from those who have genuine welfare issues in order to address wider concerns in relation to wellbeing issues. What reassurances have been given to Police Scotland and other members of the programme and implementation boards that there has not been a redirection of focus away from those high-risk children?
The whole thrust of getting it right for every child, as we have learned from the Highland model, is that it allows us to focus and to be more strategic with our resources, and to make sure that we are getting it right for children who show that level of need and require additional support. There is no retracting from our focus on trying to do things better for a group of vulnerable children. That is part of the whole GIRFEC approach. It is about getting it right for every child every time. The GIRFEC approach, with the named person behind it, is about doing just that and using our resources in an effective, strategic way. The Highland model shows that that works.
As I said, at the last meeting of the programme board in September 2014, there was consensus among the board members about winding down the board. I thanked everybody there for their input and efforts to get us through the legislative phase, but it was clear that we needed to turn our attention to the effective implementation of an important policy that is designed to ensure that our children get the best outcomes, which they deserve.
I will make the minutes of the meetings available on the Government’s website. I will also ensure that we give members any reassurances that they want if they want to get in touch with me or write to me. If they want a further briefing, we will ensure that that happens. However, there is no hiding from the fact that GIRFEC is an important plank of Government policy. We had a programme board that helpfully got us through the legislative phase. It is correct that our attention is on getting it absolutely right for children. That requires adequate implementation, and that is why our focus turned towards implementation via the national implementation support group. Police Scotland and others who have contributed to our work through the programme board are involved in that.
I am happy to share any information if the member so wishes, but the thrust of our efforts towards implementation is correct.
Is there not a case for getting it right for the public? The minutes that were published were very clear in telling us exactly what was going on. Now that that board is no longer in existence, we are not in a position to know what is going on. Is it not time that the Scottish Government published all the information and advice that it is being given about the implementation of GIRFEC and named persons?
I understand that the member does not share my views on the GIRFEC approach, but I am absolutely committed to that policy. I know that it is the right thing to do for our children, to make sure that we have much more co-ordinated and coherent approaches to helping them. If there is any information that the member requires, we will look into those queries.
I have made clear that the programme board was there to fulfil a function, which was to steer us through the legislative phase. Implementation is where our focus is now, and we will make sure that we are driving that forward for the benefit of children. I understand that the member does not share the aspirations that we set out through GIRFEC, but it is the right approach to take.
We are doing our best for children, making sure that we get it right for every child every time. We are using our partners across the health authorities, local authorities, police, social work, the Care Inspectorate and many different third sector organisations, working collaboratively in partnership to do our very best for children. If the member has any bones to pick with that, she can get in touch with me and I will let her see any information that she wishes to see.
I know that our approach is right. We have focused on the legislation; we are focusing now on implementation. I am content that we are doing all that we can in an open and transparent manner.
Common Agricultural Policy (December Emergency Payment)
To ask the Scottish Government how many farmers will not receive the 70 per cent common agricultural policy emergency payment in December. (S4T-01182)
The first tranche of direct payments will be paid to about a quarter of claimants and should start arriving in bank accounts before the end of the year. The majority of farmers should receive their initial payment in January, with all first instalments being paid by the end of March. The balance of those payments is due to be settled in April. Our decision to deliver payments in two instalments is, of course, similar to the situation in 2005 when the previous reforms were introduced.
The cabinet secretary will be aware, I am sure, of the anger and dismay among the farming community about the delays in those vital payments. In February, the cabinet secretary told the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union Scotland that everything was on track for payments to be made in early December. That has not been delivered.
The issue is entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government. The cabinet secretary cannot blame Brussels and he cannot blame Westminster. The buck stops with him and his department. Will he now make a proper apology to Scottish farmers, who have been badly let down?
I say to Murdo Fraser that the vast majority of the farmers to whom I have spoken understand the situation—given that we took the decision jointly with the industry over what the policy should be in Scotland. The agreement that I had with the industry was that if the policy outcome was right, the policies should be implemented, with the additional complexity that that would bring—with Scottish decisions over and above the complexity that we already have from Europe—even if we had to make payments later than in the payment window last year under the old system.
I also gently remind Murdo Fraser that at least £500 million-worth of support to underpin agriculture will be issued in the next few months. If his Conservative Party had had its way, there would be no payments going to farmers in Scotland over the next few months because the Conservative Party’s policy is to get rid of pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy. That is what it argued for during the negotiations in Brussels. Murdo Fraser displays sheer hypocrisy with his anger today—there would be no support for agriculture if his party was in charge.
We understand the challenge of cash flow for many farming businesses, which is why we are working flat out to maximise the number of farmers who can receive the first payments, and for them to receive as much as possible in the first payments. We have said that we will pay a minimum of 70 per cent in the first instalment, with the second part being settled in April.
Given where England was in 2005 when it changed from historically based payments to area payments, and that we in Scotland are implementing not only the reforms that England had to go through in 2005 but the second set of reforms, I think that what we are doing is reasonable under challenging and difficult circumstances. Many farmers to whom I have spoken understand that, even if Murdo Fraser does not.
You can tell that the cabinet secretary is in trouble when he starts blustering in the fashion that we have heard over the last few minutes.
The National Farmers Union Scotland asked the cabinet secretary to commit to paying 90 per cent of CAP payments by mid-January, but in the course of his answer the cabinet secretary has made it pretty clear that he is not prepared to do that. Will he ask for parliamentary time to make a full statement to Parliament, so that he can explain in full the reasons for his decisions, and allow proper questioning?
I have said to the industry and to members that I will make a statement to Parliament in December, before we issue to farmers the letters that will give the estimated value of their payments. I have also said that we will continue to make every effort to increase the level of the first payment; I have said that it will be a minimum of 70 per cent, and that if we can go above that we will do so.
However, we cannot give the full payment or a higher level at the moment, given the information that we have, because we cannot finalise the value of entitlements until we know the total number of eligible hectares for basic payments and for the greening element in each of the three payment regions that we decided to have. The situation is a bit more complex in Scotland, because we agreed with the industry that we would have three levels of payment, depending on the type of land. We also introduced voluntary coupled support schemes to support the sheep and beef sectors. Those schemes were initially opposed by the United Kingdom Conservative Government, until we persuaded the UK Government that in Scotland we have to deliver such schemes, and it really had to listen to us.
Against that backdrop, we will continue to work flat out, because we acknowledge the cash-flow problems that farmers and crofters face and so that £500 million in support will make its way to those important businesses over the next few months.
I hope that the cabinet secretary accepts what crofters said to me last night, which is that the crucial issue is not just timing but the payment that people will get.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that when the Government held its roadshow in Shetland, the officials who were present made it crystal clear to crofters that reseeded and improved croft land would receive the higher payment level—in other words, the payment for permanent grassland, rather than the payment for rough grazing? Some 523 areas of Shetland croft land will now receive the lower payment, and crofters are wondering what the assurance that they received earlier this year was about. Will the cabinet secretary enlighten me and Parliament in that regard?
We are talking about very radical reform of Europe’s common agricultural policy, and I accept that lessons will have to be learned. This is the first year of implementation of the new policy; we will be able to revisit the matter of payment regions if there is a case for doing so.
The move from the historical basis for payments to area-based payments will help many of the western parts of Scotland and, I hope, many island communities, by bringing additional payments to upland and hill farms, in particular.
As we go through this period of very radical change in European agricultural policy, there is no doubt that the industry, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and Parliament will reflect on the first year of implementation. Such reflection is going on in every other part of the UK and Europe.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that the NFUS acknowledges, in its in-house magazine, that complexity was always going to increase the risk of payments coming later? The NFUS acknowledges that the complexity stems from meeting the European Commission’s new rules, from the limited Scottish budget and from the NFUS’s own demands for a three-region model, phased transition and coupled support.
Will the cabinet secretary say to what extent both factors that are outwith the Scottish Government’s control and the Government’s willingness to listen to the NFUS have contributed to the delay in full payments being made?
I also note that the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association said:
“As stakeholders we have known all along that there would be challenges for Scottish Government with regard to payment timings, as was the case when the Single Farm Payment was introduced in 2005. The payment schedule that has now been indicated ... will now remove the uncertainties”.
On the reason for the complexities of the new common agricultural policy, it is extremely difficult to fit European decisions to Scottish circumstances. We have uplands and lowlands, sheep and cattle and islands and mainland, and we have areas that experience severe weather problems and climatic conditions and other areas that do not. That is why we sat down with the industry and stakeholders to consider how we could mould the European policy to Scottish circumstances, and that is why we agreed with the industry that even if the price was to delay payments by a month or two—or whatever the timescale—we would have three different payment regions, unlike other parts of the UK, and we would implement greening support and voluntary coupled support schemes for sheep and cattle, while going through the big, radical reform of moving from historic to area-based payments.
Given all those ingredients, I think that we can understand why there are complexities and challenges. The key point is that we are getting there, and that £500 million in support that would not be there if others had had their way will be delivered to Scottish agriculture and food production.
Can the cabinet secretary tell us—given that he has spent £180 million on his computer system—what proportion of the 21,000 single application forms have been successfully processed, how many farms have still to be inspected, and when individual farmers will know which category of payment they will be in so that they can budget accordingly, given the financial crisis that is affecting many of them?
Sarah Boyack is right in that we have—from memory about 1,300—farms to inspect. Officials are working flat out on that and are making good headway through the inspections, which we have to carry out before we make payments to the farms concerned.
On the £178 million business case for implementing the new common agricultural policy in Scotland, that money is not just for the information technology system and it will be spent over several years. It equates to 4 per cent of the CAP payments over the next six years, and it is hoped that the system will last a lot longer than six years. We have to invest that resource, as has happened in other parts of the UK and Europe, to deliver within the complexities of the common agricultural policy.
As Sarah Boyack said, we have to go through all the applications so that we can get the degree of accuracy that allows us to make the payments. Because it is an area payment scheme, if we did not know all the entitlements, we would have to revisit applications and get refunds from many farmers who had already received their payments. That is why the wise and sensible thing to do is to pay out in two instalments, as happened in 2005, with a minimum of 70 per cent in the first payment and the balance being settled in April. That is the background.
Will the cabinet secretary accept that the inadequacy of the IT system—which has, so far, cost £10,000 per application—caused the process to be extended by a month, and that it is that extension that has led to the delay in the rest of the process. But for that, payments could have been made on time in December, as has become the norm.
I fully accept that things have not gone well with the IT system, compared with what they could have been. That is a situation that is facing all Governments; we all have lessons to learn in relation to IT projects. We gave a month’s extension because of the complexities of the new system and to give people in the sector more time to submit their application forms. The root of that issue, too, is the complexity of the new policy. If the policy had been simpler, the IT would have been easier. It was not simpler. It is a complex policy, so IT issues arose.
I think that I read somewhere that the Conservative Government south of the border has, in effect, dumped its IT system and is using paper for the transition, and it is not even having to go through what we in Scotland are going through—compared with what it did in 2005—as well as this reform.
We have to get the payments out. The IT system is now working and we are working our way through the applications. The key thing is to get the £500 million of support out to Scottish farming businesses. We agreed with the industry that that will take a few weeks longer because of the complexities. As long as we get the policy right, that is what matters, and that is what we have done.
Let us not forget that farmers have in recent years been fortunate in receiving their payments in December rather than later in the payment window, which goes up to the following June, and let us not forget that we are where we are because of the more complex policy that has been requested by farmers and crofters.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the economic impact of delayed payments will be modest, as has been confirmed by the banks, and that most farms should have little difficulty in securing bridging funding if necessary?
Angus MacDonald is right in that the legislative payment window that we have—which we have not mentioned and which some people have conveniently put aside—is 1 December to the end of June. We have had in past years under the old system a good record of getting payments out as early as possible in the payment window. Clearly, people are comparing our timetable for the new CAP with the fantastic success that we had in paying out at the beginning of the payment window under the former policy.
On the economic impacts, I have met the banks and they are comforted by the fact that they know that £500 million-worth of support will be making its way into the sector in the coming months. They urge any farmer who has problems to contact their bank as early as possible. I hope that all members who represent rural and farming communities will take that advice back to their constituencies. The banks will work with their clients, which should give us all comfort.
Previous
Time for Reflection