Great Northern Partnership
Our final item of business this morning is the members' business debate on motion S1M-4020, in the name of Elaine Thomson, on the Great Northern Partnership and social inclusion partnerships.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament commends the work done by the Great Northern Partnership (GNP) in Aberdeen; notes that the GNP plays an important role in improving quality of life and extending opportunities for those living there, especially the community of Middlefield, and further commends social inclusion partnerships across Scotland for empowering local communities.
I am pleased to introduce the debate today, which is almost our last debate.
The Great Northern Partnership is one of 48 social inclusion partnerships that were formed to address social exclusion in Scotland. Social inclusion partnerships come in all shapes and sizes; some are based on geographical areas and some are thematic. The GNP is a geographic SIP and is unusual because it is in an archipelago that is made up of four islands that are all in the northern part of Aberdeen. The four areas comprise: Middlefield; Printfield; Alexander and Hayton; and Ferrier and Sandilands. However, all share the same problems of social exclusion and a combination of high unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, poor health and high rates of family breakdown. That combination of disadvantage not only causes deprivation but has an impact on the ability of communities to exercise their full citizenship rights and to participate fully in wider society.
Aberdeen is a city with almost the lowest unemployment rate in Scotland, and it has higher than average incomes. Compared to many areas of Scotland it also has better health. Therefore the situation of those communities that do not share that prosperity is made all the more difficult. In Middlefield, which is the largest of the areas and which is in my constituency, the health statistics are sharply different from those for the rest of the city. Those statistics put that area in the worst 10 per cent in Scotland.
Characteristics of the GNP areas are a high number of children and young people and a higher-than-average number of single parents. Some 53 per cent of children in Middlefield are living in households with benefit-dependent parents—that is double the percentage of families with children living on income support in the rest of Aberdeen.
However, over the past four years the GNP has begun to address many of those issues. It has very high levels of community involvement in each of the four areas that make up the partnership. The aims of the GNP are to work to improve the social, economic and physical environment of those areas and to bring together effectively all the different agencies and organisations that can help to change them. Crucial to everything is ensuring that those who live in the GNP areas are involved—that communities are consulted and listened to—so that people in those communities are empowered through participation and training to take on leadership roles. It is important to ensure that they play a central part in identifying priorities and developing strategies for the many different types of work that the GNP undertakes. The aim is to restore and promote people's sense of citizenship and pride in where they live.
A high proportion of community representatives are involved at all levels of the GNP. Sixteen out of 28 board members—55 per cent of the total membership—are community representatives, four from each area. All but one of the sub-groups of the GNP are chaired by community representatives. I acknowledge the immense amount of work that people from those communities have contributed to the GNP, and I acknowledge the work of others, including local councillors such as Councillor Gordon Graham, the current vice-chair of the GNP, who stood in as chair before the new chair, Dawn Galashin, was appointed.
When I asked what difference the GNP makes, Dawn said that it
"Makes it better for local folk to make decisions and the ability to challenge agencies providing services within the area. We also have the ability to make funding decisions at a local level".
There are many different areas in which the GNP and all the other agencies involved are beginning to make a difference—for example, in tackling drug misuse. The level of drug misuse is high throughout Aberdeen, but it is higher than average in the GNP areas. The GNP set up a people's jury to consider how the quality of life for individuals and families in communities that are affected by drugs can be improved, which led to a specific GNP drugs plan. The GNP is now a member of the Aberdeen drug action team, ensuring that projects and strategies reflect accurately the particular issues that GNP communities face. There are projects such as "Give Kids a Chance", a community referral scheme that aims to divert young people away from drug and alcohol misuse.
The GNP is also working with other organisations, such as Aberdeen Drugs Action, to provide an outreach service. This weekend, a group will travel to Preston to see an innovative needle-exchange programme.
The activities of the GNP reach out into many different areas, such as health and providing support for parents and young children. Middlefield is well known for possessing a "healthy hoose", which is staffed by nurse practitioners who provide advice and help on a range of issues, from healthy eating to encouraging breast feeding and providing better local access to general practitioners. That is complemented by other projects such as Healthy Roots, which aims to turn disused allotment land into community gardens. The project has recently got its lease and it will move on to a new phase.
Early intervention is seen as vital; the GNP works to reduce teenage pregnancies and cases of low-birth-weight babies. The "baby, think it over" project uses realistic baby models with microchips to bring home the reality of the responsibilities of early parenthood. Addressing the needs of children with special needs is also important, as is working to close the opportunity gap that exists for so many children.
The important new community schools work with many of the GNP projects. Some exist at primary level and others, at primary and secondary level, will be rebuilt or refurbished over the next few years.
The disparity in opportunity between areas cannot be overemphasised. The rate of pupils moving on to higher and further education varies from just over 10 per cent in some areas to over 90 per cent in others. That makes the presence of the University of Aberdeen and of communities and children working to encourage higher rates of participation all the more important. Also in Middlefield is the learning house, run by Scottish Enterprise, which is complemented by learning projects elsewhere. It provides access to learning for families, and is building the confidence of people who have often had negative experiences of school.
I could mention many other aspects of the work of the GNP. However, the role of the great northern partnership and other SIPs is vital in promoting social inclusion. I am delighted that it will share in the £60 million that the Scottish Executive has committed to social inclusion partnerships this year. That will involve communities, ensure that all the different agencies in the public and voluntary sector work together in a holistic and cohesive way, improve life and widen opportunity in Scotland's less advantaged communities. I commend the contribution that the GNP has made and continues to make.
I lodged an amendment to the motion and I am delighted that, in her speech, Elaine Thomson referred to the role of the community representatives within the GNP.
I am also delighted that she talked about the healthy roots project. As the former councillor for Middlefield, I had considerable involvement in setting up the project, during Middlefield's previous existence as a priority partnership area. I was the author of the scheme to turn a disused allotment area into what I hope will become a successful community business. Sometimes such projects take time to gestate and it has taken almost eight years for the project to get to the point that it has reached. Nevertheless, it is a welcome development.
I commend the work that the community representatives of the GNP have done. They undertake a huge amount of work for the areas that they represent. I know most of the people in Middlefield, having worked with them for quite some time. I pay tribute to Paula Mann, Paul Calder, Helen Holland and Ernest Chapman, who are the community representatives, and to Councillor Kevin Stewart—they all champion the Middlefield area. Their counterparts in Fersands, Printfield and Alexander/Hayton in Tillydrone also do sterling work for their communities.
However, their work is handicapped by the policies of the Executive. Some members might be disappointed by my saying that, particularly as this is to be the last debate in this parliamentary session. However, my experience of the SIPs and their predecessor organisations is that they are used as cash cows by councils and other agencies. Before the GNP starts work each year, it has to pay 2.5 per cent of its grant—a little more than £20,000—to Aberdeen City Council in support charges. Furthermore, this year it will have to spend in excess of £200,000 out of a total grant of less than £900,000 to pay for its support team. The moneys for the support team and the council payments, which swallow up almost a quarter of the grant, are not being used to deliver any services to the communities, and the worst is yet to come.
Earlier, I talked about the GNP being used as a cash cow. I would be happy if the money were being used to enhance services in Middlefield, Printfield, Fersands and Alexander/Hayton, but it is often the case that the GNP subsidises city-wide services, which should be funded from the mainstream budgets of the council or other agencies. I am happy to give some examples of that.
The safe and sound project aims to improve the quality of life of disadvantaged children. The project is provided with £20,000 from the council, sure start Scotland and Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust, and £6,000 from the GNP. Representatives of the GNP assure me that, although it provides 23 per cent of the money, the GNP areas do not get 23 per cent of the services. Other areas that do not pay for those services get the bulk of the support from that money.
The children's services training and assessment centre receives about £140,000 from various sources and almost £28,000 from the GNP. As part of the Scotland-wide work of the Aberlour Child Care Trust, its aims are to provide opportunities for training and qualifications in working with children and families. Although that is admirable work, the funding for other areas of the city comes from mainstream funding, whereas the funding for the GNP work comes from the GNP's budget. Why is that?
The GNP is set to give £5,000 to the business support group, for which other funding will come from mainstream sources. The GNP is set to hand over £30,000 for early intervention schemes in education. In reality, that money should come from mainstream funding. I could give a whole series of examples.
SIPs are supposed to enhance services in socially excluded communities. Elaine Thomson highlighted exactly why the GNP is needed in Middlefield in her constituency. However, the money is being used to support services across the board within the city. Many of the activities that the GNP's resources are being used to supplement should receive mainstream funding.
Please move to a close.
I am just about to do so, Presiding Officer.
Rather than duplicate the administrative functions of other public and voluntary sector agencies, we could better empower communities such as Middlefield, Alexander/Hayton, Fersands and Printfield, and their representatives, by direct funding of local voluntary organisations.
I welcome the motion and I congratulate Elaine Thomson on securing a debate on SIPs as the first session of our Scottish Parliament draws to a close. It is difficult to imagine a more important topic for discussion as we close the first, historic, four-year session.
Communities throughout Scotland have been inspired by the opportunities that SIPs have afforded them to influence and develop services. They have been amazed that, when given the opportunity, ordinary people can make real and substantial changes within their communities.
Solid examples of the work that has been done by the north Hamilton and Blantyre social inclusion partnership are emerging. I recently attended the opening of an information technology centre in Burnbank and a changing places community conference that highlighted the various initiatives undertaken by the SIP. When one witnesses at first hand the enthusiasm and the genuine achievements of that local partnership, it is impossible to doubt the contribution that it has made to my local community.
In recent weeks, the Scottish National Party has delivered a slap in the face to all those people who have worked so hard to establish the priorities of their communities and to make addressing them a reality. Only a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the willingness and enthusiasm that exists in deprived areas can lead to the production of the kind of policy nonsense that the SNP has produced in the past few weeks.
Alex Neil has spoken about social inclusion partnerships being stuffed with people in suits. The reality is that the partnerships are full of enthusiastic local people who know the shortcomings of their communities but are determined to grab the opportunities available to deal with those shortcomings.
We should be clear about what divides responsible politicians from the nationalists. We believe in social inclusion; they believe in slogans. We believe in independent communities; they believe only in independence. Social inclusion partnerships have empowered some of the most deprived communities across Scotland. People are grateful for that opportunity. I hope that that opportunity continues to be afforded to them over the next session of the Scottish Parliament.
What a joy it is to follow Tom McCabe's positive contribution. However, it is a pleasure to speak in today's debate. The first members' business debate in the Parliament was on the fish processing industry, which is an Aberdeen issue, and the last members' business debate is also on an Aberdeen issue. It is a pity that no Tories, Liberals or members of parties other than Labour and the SNP have turned up for the debate.
One reason why many of us are in the SNP is because we know that Scotland is a rich country, yet it has so much deprivation. That is the case in Aberdeen. It is a cruel irony that Europe's oil and gas capital has substantial pockets of deprivation. Clearly, it is a ridiculous situation that Aberdeen should have pockets of deprivation that are surrounded by such wealth.
One of the difficulties is that Aberdeen's wealth masks the deprivation that organisations such as the GNP try to tackle with the help of the many people who assist them. It is probably harder to be on a low income in Aberdeen than just about anywhere else in Scotland because people have to live alongside some of the wealthiest areas in the whole of Scotland. The price of property in Aberdeen is way beyond the means of many people in the GNP areas.
We need to reduce the obstacles that prevent organisations such as the GNP from getting more public funding and Government assistance. One such obstacle is the way in which the Scottish Executive's public funding formulas do not recognise Aberdeen's deprivation, which is masked by the average wealth statistics for the area. There must be a further disaggregation of the statistics that the Scottish Executive uses in allocating public funding so that such areas of deprivation are identified. Aberdeen currently loses out on a lot of public funding because of the formulas that are used.
I was given some examples of that when I met representatives of the GNP a few months ago. The GNP cannot apply for the Executive's better neighbourhood funding because Aberdeen's level of deprivation is not recognised. The GNP was able to apply for only a tiny amount of the cash that sportscotland made available for sport and social inclusion because the formulas do not recognise Aberdeen's deprivation. The deprivation is hidden by the area's relative wealth, which comes from the oil and gas industry. I was also told about the pots of cash from Communities Scotland, for which the GNP cannot apply because Aberdeen does not qualify.
I mention those Government funding formulas, but I am not pleading a special case. There are genuine concerns about the impact of those formulas on our ability to tackle deprivation in north-east Scotland and Aberdeen. A few months ago, Margaret Curran announced that a slice of lottery funding would be put aside for deprived areas because many areas of Scotland were losing out on their fair share. Lo and behold, there was not one penny for north-east Scotland and Aberdeen. Once again, the formulas that were used did not recognise the deprivation that exists in Aberdeen.
As Elaine Thomson mentioned in her speech and as Brian Adam has explained, Aberdeen has a desperate need for that cash. Organisations such as the GNP must be allowed to apply for it.
The member seems to be making an argument for refining social inclusion partnership funding, yet the SNP's policy is to abolish such partnerships. Which is the SNP's policy?
Brian Adam has outlined the SNP's position. My point is that organisations such as the GNP cannot even get access to the funding that is currently available for tackling deprivation. The successors to social inclusion partnerships will have the same problem unless we change the fundamental issues that prevent deprivation in Aberdeen from being tackled.
Elaine Thomson also mentioned the drugs problem in the GNP areas. There is a massive drugs problem in Aberdeen, yet we get the second lowest level of funding in the whole of Scotland because of the perceived wealth of the area. Today's press tells of people who have committed crimes so that they can go to jail and get treatment for drug abuse because they cannot get it by any other means. It all comes back to the same issue of the funding formulas denying cash to the projects that are trying to tackle deprivation and deal with massive social problems in areas of Aberdeen.
It is important that we have some clear measurement of the success or otherwise of the initiatives that are trying to tackle deprivation in Scotland. Where exactly are we after four years of the new Parliament? Do we know if we have moved forward or if Aberdeen is relatively better or worse off under the Executive's policies? I argue that we have not moved forward under the first four years of the Scottish Parliament.
I also argue that we have to get real powers so that the Parliament can make a real difference in tackling deprivation in Aberdeen and elsewhere and that we need a change of Government because we have had four years of wasted opportunities to tackle deprivation. Scotland has not moved forward. We know that the overall statistics show that poverty is increasing. We have to have a change in the Government and we need more powers for the Parliament so that we can change Aberdeen and elsewhere for the better.
I am happy to congratulate Elaine Thomson on securing the debate. I think that I replied to the first members' business debate in the Parliament so it is probably appropriate that, as a back bencher, I speak in the final members' business debate of the session.
Elaine Thomson's motion should be supported. It makes two key points. It recognises the good work that has been done in Aberdeen by the GNP and it acknowledges the importance of SIPs throughout Scotland. Tom McCabe made the important point that SIPs are doing good work. Without SIPs, who would be focusing on and pulling together some of our most disadvantaged communities in Scotland? SIPs are a vital way of helping local communities advocate for themselves the kind of changes and support that they want from local facilities.
I recognise the concept of a strong and economically powerful city with pockets of severe deprivation and social exclusion. The purpose of SIPs is to try to give those communities a voice so that they are not isolated and left apart in a sea of affluence.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will when I get into my discussion.
Many communities in my constituency in Edinburgh, which is one of the most prosperous cities in the United Kingdom, experience such social exclusion.
SIPs give local people the chance to shape their communities themselves and to engage with local institutions of the state, whether council departments, the police or health organisations. Abolishing SIPs would take away that power of advocacy and the opportunity for social empowerment.
We probably agree on the analysis of the source of the problem but we disagree about the solution. Will Sarah Boyack comment on the proportion of the funding made available through SIPs that is used up in duplicating administration? Is that the best way of empowering communities? Does she not agree that the best way is to encourage existing local organisations rather than to set up new ones?
I think Brian Adam misunderstands the purpose of SIPs and the way in which they operate. I have yet to be lobbied on that issue, although voluntary organisations and charitable groups are speedy in beating a path to my door when they think they do not have enough money. The key issue is that SIPs add to local communities and give them a voice.
Elaine Thomson has talked about an area-based SIP, but I want to highlight the work of the Edinburgh youth social inclusion partnership, which is a thematic partnership. It cuts across some of our most disadvantaged communities and ensures that the voices of young people are heard by those who make policy and decide on local services. As a local MSP, I am keen to support the work of that SIP.
Part of that work is ensuring that there is a dialogue between young people and the people who provide facilities. I have recently been at discussions on leisure facilities and transport. It can be quite challenging to be approached, as I have been, by young people who have a list of ideas about areas in which they want local services to improve. It is our job as politicians to see how we can improve the facilities that those young people depend on. Although that can be challenging, it is part of the overall approach to delivery of social justice throughout Scotland.
SIPs do not duplicate local services—they change them. They challenge local service providers and act as an advocate for local people and, particularly in my patch, for young people who would otherwise be totally excluded.
It is easy to label young people as troublemakers who create problems. However, we need to do a real job of work by examining the problems that they experience. They are vulnerable; in my area, they are often not allowed to use local sports facilities or cafes—indeed, they cannot afford to use them—because a very small number create problems. As a result, they are all labelled as troublemakers or as people who create hassle. That is not the case, and it is important that our local youth SIP challenges such views. Although young people are seen as threatening, they are the biggest group of victims of crime. Their voices must be heard by policy-makers, but that would not happen if it were not for the local youth SIP, which pulls together or changes the work that the police, social work and local communities carry out.
That is not duplication; instead it is an essential part of the armoury with which we can tackle social exclusion, give the most vulnerable and socially excluded people in our society a proper voice and ensure that local services do not ignore their needs. That is why I support Elaine Thomson's motion and the work of the youth SIP in my constituency. I want to see more rather than less of that kind of work. The SNP is making a big mistake with its commitment to abolish SIPs.
One of the number of points that Brian Adam got wrong in his speech was his claim that this is the last debate. I understand that there will be a further debate later this afternoon.
Modesty prevents me from commenting on that.
I begin by pointing out that this is the final members' business debate. I know that the Presiding Officer and Tom McCabe were very much involved in setting up the system of members' business debates right at the start of the Parliament. The debates have been a very considerable success. They have promoted a series of worthy causes; indeed, speaking for myself, I am very pleased by our progress in getting speedy justice for asbestos sufferers. Duncan McNeil and I have promoted their cause in various members' business debates.
Members have raised issues on behalf of interests in their communities or on behalf of people who had cases that needed to be highlighted. In many cases, the debates have drawn further responses from the Executive. As a result, they have proved to be an important vehicle for getting issues discussed and action brought forward. They are an adornment to this Parliament that we can be proud of.
I congratulate Elaine Thomson on securing this debate and on highlighting both the work of the GNP and the SIP programme itself. Evaluations clearly show that the GNP has progressed well, is operating strategically and has an excellent record of community involvement. Indeed, for the reasons that Elaine Thomson pointed out, it can claim to be community-led in many ways.
I shall address some of Richard Lochhead's points later, but when we consider how we can assist deprived communities, we should take a genuinely consultative approach to the matter. The Scottish Executive or local government should look for bottom-up solutions that suit a local community's particular circumstances, rather than adopt top-down policies for a city such as Aberdeen. People in a local area experience its problems at first hand, but are also in a good position to assess the area's relative advantages or any different opportunities that it might present. The great virtue of the SIP system is that it allows local people to influence what goes on and how resources are spent in their community to suit their best interests.
I readily acknowledge that that is the intention. In as much as success has been achieved, the SIP programme has been a success. However, will the minister deal with the amount of SIPs' money that is spent not on services or duplicating services, but on duplicating administration? I made a point about that. What is the capacity of councils and other bodies to use that money beyond the areas covered by a SIP?
I will deal later with that issue, which is important in considering the transition that lies ahead as SIPs move towards community planning.
It is important to highlight some of the GNP's successes. In identifying the strategic priorities of health, early years, youth, education and community learning, and employment and enterprise, not only did the partnership identify the key priorities but it adopted a strategic approach to improving services in the local community with the aim of achieving significant change.
Elaine Thomson and Brian Adam mentioned several projects that have achieved such change. The youth advice and information project provides young people with advice, information and a referral service. The young film-makers initiative, which involved 156 participants during 2001-02, has engaged with young people. Projects such as the Fersands and Fountain mini family centre and the St Machar parents support project bring communities and agencies together to address early-years initiatives in the context of social inclusion. The healthy roots initiative involves local groups and voluntary and public sector agencies working together to transform a large unused site in the middle of Middlefield. It brings together worthwhile activities, such as growing healthy food, improving the environment for wildlife and promoting recycling.
SIPs must be about more than individual projects. The projects must work together toward the aim of improving the quality of life in their areas. A strong argument can be made that SIPs must not become islands in a city such as Aberdeen. Links with the way in which the city is governed must be closer. Linking SIPs into the community planning partnerships in the city, and saying that the city's government and all the agencies that are involved in governing and delivering services in the city must take on board how SIPs operate, are positive steps.
Will the minister give way?
I will finish my point.
Technically, the minister is in his last minute.
We are progressing links so that the experience and skills that have been gained through the way in which the SIP has worked can be shared. We want to develop better engagement between the SIP, Aberdeen City Council, Grampian NHS Board and other agencies that provide services.
Richard Lochhead has repeatedly focused on funding formulas not only in relation to SIPs, but in relation to a variety of issues. Honesty is required. Funding formulas deliver outcomes. Does Richard Lochhead argue that money should be taken from one area and delivered to another area? If so, he should say where that money should be taken from and give the criteria for delivering it to another area.
In Aberdeen, we have done the opposite of what Richard Lochhead says we have done. We have identified areas of disadvantage and put in resources. Through the GNP, we have sought to deliver significant improvements in those more deprived communities. We are achieving that and significant progress has been made.
SIPs perform a valuable role throughout Scotland. Last Saturday morning, I attended a SIP event in my area that brought people together to consider the range of activities that voluntary agencies have provided in Clydebank. I know of many people who have SIPS in their area and who have had similar experiences.
SIPS are a way of bringing people together and of identifying what can be taken forward and what can be delivered. There are abundant examples of the good work that SIPS have done not only in Aberdeen but elsewhere in Scotland. SIPS are worth protecting and developing. We are moving forward to a point at which SIPS become a critical element in community planning and what we have learned up to now in the SIPs can be progressed in that context.
I close the last members' business debate of this Parliament.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—