Modernising Government Fund
The main debate this morning is on motion S1M-3150, in the name of Andy Kerr, on the modernising government fund, and one amendment to that motion. I ask members who want to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
It is a great honour to speak in this fine chamber. I have often visited Aberdeen: as a young holidaymaker, with my parents; as a parent, with my kids; as convener of one of the Parliament's committees; and as a minister. It is always a great pleasure to come to Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
It is also a great honour to discuss the modernising government fund, which is a challenge fund. The Executive is closely tied to the philosophy of modernising public services. It is not a question of modernising services for the sake of it; it is about modernising services for the users who rely on them so much.
The fund works in a number of ways. First, it provides additional funds for which public sector bodies can compete to accelerate the progress of modernisation within their environments. Secondly, it represents a challenge to the public sector to redesign, to innovate, to change current working practices, to be innovative in the delivery of local services and, where appropriate, to take a risk, ensuring that the risk is underwritten by the Executive.
I want to focus on some of the areas in which the fund has delivered and on some of the projects that have allowed ordinary citizens to gain better access to our services. I want to ensure that we progress with the fund in a way that meets the needs of the Scottish people.
In relation to change in the fire service, does the minister have concerns about rumblings about industrial activity and a possible strike? Does he accept that it was under the last Labour Government that we had a fire service strike and will he ensure that we do not have a fire service strike in the immediate future?
The member did not take long to get us to Mordor. Those are matters for the local authorities, which are involved in discussions with the relevant trade union members. I am sure that the discussions will reach a satisfactory resolution.
The First Minister—then Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs—launched the modernising government fund in December 2000, and set out the purpose of the fund. The fund was designed around the delivery of front-line services, for example, the first-stop shops in North Lanarkshire, which I have visited. They handled more than 39,000 inquiries in the first quarter of 2002.
The fund has also been used to help health service and social work departments to work together to support our elderly community in an integrated way. The single shared assessment process ensures that people do not spend their time filling in forms or being asked questions. The fund has meant that we work as a unit, as happens in the case of Forth Valley NHS Board and Stirling Council, where the service is designed from the perspective of the elderly person, not from the perspective of the service. That is an important innovation and we seek to support it.
We are also developing contact—not call centres. With the modernising government fund, our aim is to allow people to contact their council through online transactions, by e-mail or by visiting local offices in person. We want to ensure that people can resolve the issue that their council needs to deal with at the first point of contact. We also want to encourage the use of a wider range of services within council areas. Encouraging people to use and to rely on more services will mean that we will have to ensure that we deliver the best for those users.
The one-stop shop in Almondvale shopping centre in West Lothian provides access, under one roof, to the Inland Revenue, the Department for Work and Pensions, further education colleges, health services and the council. It allows public services to focus on the needs of the community and provides people with access to services in an integrated manner.
It is great that we have a wide variety of new local government initiatives, but will the minister give us an idea of how much time, effort and cost has gone into the failed bids? Is not the challenge funding approach reaching the end of its useful life?
That is not the view of the participating local authorities. The challenge process allows the Executive to obtain an overview of what local authorities and their partners are looking for. Therefore, we can agglomerate the best of the projects and enable local authorities to work together. The Executive has done that with the present round of the challenge fund. We bring together several councils with similar objectives, similar ways of operating and similar standards to meet on a single-project basis. By funding such joint effort, we enable benefit to be gained on a much larger scale.
The Young Scot card is a good example of an idea that began with one or two authorities and that is progressing in the majority of our local authorities. That is an illustration of the value of ensuring that everybody takes up such good initiatives. What makes the card work at a local level, however, is not the technology or the Executive's focus, but the way in which young people can use it. For example, the card can be used as a proof of age and can allow access to leisure facilities and all the other services that young people require from local councils and community partners.
Another aspect of the modernising government fund is that it can also improve the Executive's work, such as the processing of the detailed forms that must be submitted by farmers who want to claim subsidy.
The minister has rightly placed a lot of emphasis on information and communications technology. Is he aware that many obstacles must be overcome to deliver an adequate service in our rural communities? What is he doing to ensure that that happens?
Our focus on rural communities is absolutely clear in a number of the initiatives that we have introduced. Those include the broadband strategy to enable local communities, on which we are focusing and in which we are investing heavily.
For instance, when I visited Islay, I took part in a videoconference with the community on Jura. I spoke to a person who suffers from multiple sclerosis. For a medical consultation, that MS sufferer would normally have had to travel by plane or go on a couple of ferries and a train and then stay overnight in Glasgow. Now, that member of the rural community of Jura can speak to his consultant down the line using modern videoconferencing technology. His consultation can now take 45 minutes instead of the two or three days that he might previously have spent travelling. That is an example of how the modernising government fund can have a real impact and shows the Executive's commitment to all parts of Scotland.
Managing change is what lies behind the modernising government fund. We might have all the technology in the world and all the techies and anoraks involved in the process—some of us like all that stuff—but at the end of the day, the aim is to change staff attitudes so that they are focused on delivering services in a new way. From my visits to meet front-line staff, I recognise that they can gain job enhancement from the process as well. Staff are enabled to solve people's problems in an efficient manner and to deal with the various issues that might be raised by the people who walk through the door in a one-stop shop. That is much more rewarding for the staff who are involved in public services. We want to support that.
Another great example of what can be achieved is the Dalmellington centre in East Ayrshire. At one end of that building is the police station and at the other a dentist's and a medical practice. In between those are located the housing and social work departments and the Benefits Agency. At the Benefits Agency office, folk from Dalmellington can go online and send forms electronically to the Department for Work and Pensions. That means that, instead of having to rely on local transport and make a bus journey, which would take time, they can interface directly through a television with staff at the local Department for Work and Pensions office. If forms need to be filled out, the forms can be scanned and sent. The person at the other end then signs the form, which is scanned and sent back. Again, that is a great initiative that allows people greater access to public services.
When I visited Argyll and Bute, I saw the Young Scot dialogue project, which is designed by young people who have worked to ensure that we deliver joined-up services for young people. I am sure that many members followed the recent successful launch of the Young Scot project, through which we have opened up a whole new dimension of public services to those involved in those areas.
You have one minute.
Just last week I visited Orkney, where the council has bought the East Kirk, which is a disused church that will be developed into a facility to provide a much more focused access point for public services. That sort of thing addresses some of Richard Lochhead's concerns about the Executive's support for rural communities. That one-stop shop facility will be used not only by the local council and health board, but by local voluntary sector organisations, which must currently spend a lot of money that they can ill afford on travel in those areas. Like the public sector bodies, those voluntary sector organisations will be able to use videoconferencing and other modern technologies and thus play a greater role in their communities.
Money has been given for the Aberdeen futures strategy. Arguably, that strategy has set a benchmark for consultation with the community on the delivery of public services. Again, that project has been strongly supported by the Executive. Aberdeen has also used a single smart card to support many initiatives. Its work on smart cards is at the leading edge in Europe and in the United Kingdom. The one card is able to support classroom registration and remove the perceived stigma of free school meals. The card is also used as a voluntary proof of age, a library card, a leisure card and a concessionary travel card. It also offers reward points for healthy eating. However, although technology can deliver many things for us, the important thing is not the technology itself, but the services that can be provided.
In our further round of announcements, we focused on working in a collegial way at a local level to involve all the community planning partners. Our focus was on the service that is provided to the public, not on the service deliverers. We have focused on public services, unlike those who seek to undermine them. We want to ensure that the front line comes first, that those on the front line can deliver high-quality services, and that people receive high-quality services. That is the essence of the modernising government fund. I seek members' support for the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Scottish Executive's commitment to modern, high quality, efficient and responsive public services and supports its approach, through the Modernising Government Fund, to help deliver the changes which will integrate government, exploit the benefits of information and communications technology and put citizens at the centre of public service delivery in a 21st Century Scotland.
I advise members that the Presiding Officers have the benefit of an on-screen digital clock. We will try to signal to members when they have a minute left, so that they are assisted in timing their speeches.
I call Tricia Marwick to speak to and move amendment S1M-3150.1. She has seven minutes.
The hospitality that has been shown and the effort that has been made by so many organisations have made it a pleasure for the Parliament to be in Aberdeen this week. In time for reflection, reference was made to "The Lord of the Rings", but this fine chamber reminded Mike Russell and me more of Hogwarts school. Perhaps we are former pupils.
I will not start on a discordant note. The SNP welcomes the Executive's stated commitment to e-government, which is an aspiration that I am sure is shared by all parties in the chamber. I recently travelled to Estonia, not for the Eurovision song contest—
Why not?
Why not indeed. No, we went as part of the parliamentary delegation. We were struck by the similarities between the Estonian Parliament and our own Scots Parliament in the commitment to providing services and to ensuring that parliamentary proceedings are online for those who want to see them.
In the words of the Executive, the modernising government fund is
"designed to support innovative projects by the wider public sector which will improve the delivery of public services, promote partnership, deliver savings and contribute to the progress of the 21st century government agenda in Scotland."
Scottish local government has many examples of good practice. Clackmannanshire Council's website, ClacksWeb, is first class. The fact that it came top in a survey of local authority websites shows that the wee county is indeed leading the way. Angus Council, which received £0.5 million from MGF money, aims to achieve multi-agency service delivery through new broadband technologies and through a one-stop shop that will cover a range of services. After consulting widely, Falkirk Council is now involved in a joint purchasing bid with Stirling Council and Clackmannanshire Council. Good practice exists throughout Scotland.
However, delivering first-class public services requires more than e-communication and a commitment to ensuring that people can get access to information, important though those might be. The purpose of the SNP amendment is to draw attention to the fact that the debate should be about how those public services are delivered. Delivering first-class public services means investing in those who deliver the service. That means investing in our councils and health boards to ensure that we have the right people to deliver the services.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has claimed that there is a shortfall in local government funding of about £1.5 billion. I know that the Executive disputes that figure, but one of my frustrations is that those who deliver the service and those who provide the money argue about the extent or existence of the shortfall. The Parliament should concentrate on how those services are delivered.
Tricia Marwick has made a point about resources. Does she accept that local authorities are involved in the spending review process? The Executive has built in the local authorities as an integral part of that process. Ministers meet their counterparts in local government and I meet local government representatives regularly to discuss the spending review process.
Frankly, we expect ministers to do that.
Jack McConnell defined public services thus:
"In the modern world, public services are hard to define. The easy definition is that which is owned or directly run by public or democratically elected organisations".—[Official Report, 23 February 2000; Vol 5, c 7.]
That seems a fair definition. However, the delivery of public services in Scotland is not good enough and people are being denied the level of services that they need. The level of cleaning in our hospitals is appalling and the incidence of hospital acquired infection is increasing. Home help services in councils such as Fife Council have been cut.
The delivery of first-class public services is the real challenge for the Parliament and the Executive. It is a challenge that the Executive has so far failed. The fact that people can access council or national health service websites is not much use when the services are not available and waiting lists are increasing or when someone who is waiting for a home help finds that the hours of the service have been cut.
I welcome the debate, modest though it may be, but public services and their delivery require much more than the Executive motion suggests. A commitment to the delivery of public services must go way beyond the motion. The debate starts our programme in Aberdeen, but the Executive has missed the opportunity of holding a debate on public services that goes wider than simply saying that we are signed up for e-government. Good practice exists, but much more needs to be done. I commend the councils that have introduced innovative projects.
Will Tricia Marwick give way?
No—she is in her last minute.
I ask the Executive to support the amendment, which is modest. If the Executive is truly committed to public services, it should support it.
I move amendment S1M-3150.1, to insert at end:
", but recognises that the delivery of first class public services also requires support to the staff working in that sector, adequate funding from central government and a commitment to ensure that the services remain in the public sector."
As a north-east Conservative MSP, I am very pleased to be here this morning, but I am a bit puzzled about the contents of the debate.
Will the member give way?
Not at this time. We will discuss what the money could have been spent on another day.
I am puzzled about why we are having this debate. Perhaps I am being naive but, as someone who was a councillor before coming to the Parliament, I have always assumed that people and the services that they receive were at the centre of everything that we did. The idea is not new.
In Andy Kerr's motion, he talks about
"commitment to modern, high quality, efficient and responsive public services".
Is that not what everyone commits to in their manifesto? Nothing in the Executive's motion is new. However, we cannot necessarily
"support its approach, through the Modernising Government Fund, to help deliver the changes".
Although we are great fans of e-government—and no one more so than my colleague David Mundell—the debate is not really about that. The idea that we have to create a fund to get agencies to deliver for the people is strange. I thought that doing that was within the remit of all public service agencies. The minister thinks that a small amount of money—and it is a small amount—can be spread across the councils and the other agencies, but I am not sure that, if he allocated a few more shillings to each of their budgets, they would not do the work required anyway.
My biggest concern is that, because of challenge funding, the minister is seeking to control from the centre, which is the very thing that many organisations do not wish to happen. They wish to be left to get on with it.
Mr Davidson may say that, but COSLA and all local authorities support what we are doing. We want to aggregate best practice. Why have 32 different smart cards? Why have 32 different property databases for Scotland? Why have 32 different ways for people in social work to work with people in health? We want to reach the highest standards by sharing best practice. Mr Davidson's approach would not deliver that.
Nonsense. Having a central statistical unit, accessible to everyone, is long overdue. I thought that that was part of what the Scottish Parliament was trying to do. All information should be available to everyone.
I will give Mr Kerr an example of where he should look for ideas. Here in Grampian, we have an organisation called G-DOCS—Grampian doctors on call services—which is an out-of-hours medical service. The people in G-DOCS are soon to be linked with NHS 24—also started in this city—but they cannot access patient medical records out of normal surgery hours unless a general practitioner has indicated that somebody may be at risk and has logged the records in advance. We must consider how joined-up information services should be going. The minister is looking puzzled and is talking to his colleague, but such matters are important in this part of the country. In Grampian, even the G-DOCS operatives often worry that they cannot get access to information.
On agencies working together, here in the north-east we have long had an organisation called the north-east development group, whose members come from the two councils, the chamber of commerce and the local enterprise company. The people who make up the group have worked together for a long time, without any of the pushing and shoving that is happening now. The group is now involved with NESTRANS—the north-east Scotland transport partnership—which is trying to develop the integrated public transport system that we so desperately need in the north-east. I hope that the minister accepts that we should be focusing on issues such as that, bearing in mind the fact that local agencies, and not people at the centre, often know best. Local agencies should be given opportunities that they can take advantage of.
I have no argument against the public having access to information. When I was a councillor, I would have thought it wonderful if I had had laptop communication to all the villages that I represented. However, access is not available to all parts of rural Scotland. Broadband does not go everywhere and, as Stewart Stevenson said last night when we spoke with members of the Federation of Small Businesses, even satellite communications cannot be used in parts of the north-east because of problems with planning permission.
Do the people have the skills for information and communications technology? Should we take away the human touch from some public services and simply tell people to hit a touch-screen? Many of the old, the fragile and the frail, and many who just do not know the technology, are at a loss. They need an interface with a human being.
Resourcing the individuals who deliver the services is fine—give them the tools to do the job. However, do not pretend that simply putting members of the public in front of a touch-screen is the solution. The solution is to have good local services that are well organised and accessible locally, through a system that has been designed by local people who were elected or given the responsibility to do that. Central control is terrible.
Does the member agree that the Post Office is a major public service? If so, why has the Royal Mail not been mentioned as part of all this joined-up stuff, when thousands of jobs are threatened, whereas the Benefits Agency, which also has an undevolved function, has been mentioned?
I read the SNP amendment as saying that the only good services are nationalised ones or ones in the public sector. Scotland is moving forwards because of partnerships—partnerships involving the independent sector, the voluntary sector and the public agencies. We need that mix, which works here in the north-east. I have already said that it works extremely well in Grampian.
I would like to see a change in the nationalists. I would like to know that they understand that we cannot fund everything from the public pot and that we have to have some wealth creation. Many people in the independent and voluntary sectors have skills and talents and are available to deliver services in co-operation with the rest. I therefore reject the SNP's position.
I ask the minister to tell us exactly how he will set Scotland's public agencies free and not keep them locked into challenge funding, which even Malcolm Chisholm disagrees with, as he said during a committee meeting the other week.
I say on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that we are very pleased to be in Aberdeen this week. I congratulate everyone who has been involved in planning for this week. The facilities in this chamber and elsewhere are excellent, as are the programmes of events throughout the week in Aberdeen. This will be an excellent advertisement to show people in the north-east how much the Scottish Parliament is doing for Scottish people in the north-east as well as elsewhere.
It is appropriate that the first debate here in Aberdeen is about modernising government. If modernising government is about anything, it is about bringing government closer to the people whom we serve. It must be about the principle that we provide the right service at the right place at the right time—that is what the Parliament is here to ensure. We must focus on improving the direct services that we provide to the public, rather than just on the efficiencies in the public services that modernising government can provide.
There are many excellent examples of what can be done through e-government and the modernising government agenda, but much more needs to be done. The public should be able to find information online on what services are available and how to apply for them. They should also be able to make applications online—they should not need to go to a public office. There should be access points to enable people to access services where it is convenient for them, whether that is a local post office, school or even their own home. We must provide access to the public where it suits the public, rather than where it suits the public service. Part of the problem for many people who live in rural areas is that they must travel vast distances to access services through the nearest council office or central provider of a service. By using effective modernising government and e-government techniques, we can reduce the need to travel, which is also good for our sustainability agenda and should be welcomed.
The increased use of e-access holds particular advantages for rural communities, such as those of North-East Fife. However, not all public bodies have got round to grasping the advantages of the modern information age. For example, Fife Council's website is way behind what it could be—it is getting better, but that is about all that I can say for it. One cannot use the website to access detailed information about public services, find out how to apply for services, make applications or even find out where the nearest local office is. If I visit the Fife Council website seeking information about my nearest local office, it tells me to ring a telephone number—that is a bizarre approach for a web-based system in which information should be easy to access.
One of the most frustrating things for those of us who use internet services a great deal is the number of times that we have to put in the same information to get access to services. That is frustrating for people who are trying to access council and other public services—time and again they have to fill in forms giving the same information in order to access slightly different services. One of the advantages of e-government and having a smart-card technology that would be consistent across Scotland is that it might cut out much of the unnecessary duplication. We must reduce the amount of unnecessary form filling and bureaucracy.
However, we must guard against councils and other public bodies gathering information for the sake of it. Information that is gathered to enable someone to access a service must be relevant to that service. Equally important, public bodies should be able to access information on the smart card only if it is relevant to a service. Those important points are recognised in "Information Age Government in Scotland: A common framework", which was published recently by Andy Kerr. Collecting too much information could be a barrier, as people might be concerned that that information would be distributed to others.
Modernising government is also important in relation to the freedom of information regime. We are moving to a regime where the presumption is that information will be made available. Therefore, we should ensure that throughout public services we can access electronically all the information that would be available to us had we made an application under FOI. That should be the aim of all public services. I hope that the Scottish Executive will ensure that that is one of its aims in developing its electronic services.
We move to the open debate. I ask members to make speeches of no longer than four minutes.
As the member for Aberdeen North, I welcome the Scottish Parliament to Aberdeen, which is both the energy capital of Europe and a beautiful city, where citizens enjoy a high quality of life. I am proud to say that I belong to Aberdeen, which is at the cutting edge of modernising government.
I welcome the Minister for Finance and Local Government's decision to allocate an extra £16 million for seven key public sector partnership projects. I know that the minister recently visited Aberdeen to examine the progress that is being made in delivering 21st century government. I am sure that he was suitably impressed by the number of innovative projects that are being developed by Aberdeen City Council and other public sector partners. I look forward to more funding being made available to the council under the second round of modernising government funding, which will allow it to deliver better services.
The aim of the modernising government fund is to support innovative projects that provide new forms of service delivery, to make better use of information technology and to create a more people-centred service. Here in Aberdeen, all citizens will soon have the Accord card, which uses smart-card technology. The card is now in use in some Aberdeen secondary schools and will be in use in every Aberdeen secondary school from the start of the new term. Cashless catering—which will remove some of the stigma that is associated with free school meals—is one of the card's advantages. The card will make it easier to roll out healthy eating initiatives. It also provides Young Scot membership, library membership and will act as an e-purse.
The Accord card has the person's photograph on it, so that it can be used as identification and to prevent fraud. From October, all senior citizens in the city will receive Accord cards. Not only will they be able to use the card to access concessions in the city's 44 leisure centres, 16 libraries and five arts and culture venues, but—if all goes to plan—the card will be used for all bus travel, which will be free at off-peak times.
There are many other initiatives in Aberdeen's modernising government strategy, including the introduction of a customer care centre and improvements to the local authority's telephone call handling system and the website. The customer care centre has opened only recently, but is already starting to deliver better and more seamless services to citizens. It will enhance communication between citizens and council departments. That will help to ensure that complaints inquiries are dealt with more quickly and effectively. Aberdeen City Council's website has become very popular. It allows visitors to access a wealth of information including news, weather forecasts, polls, jobs, entertainment guides and many other things. I mention in particular the new faults reporting service, which John Prescott, among others, has examined with interest.
I am delighted by the progress, innovation and creativity that is being shown by Aberdeen City Council. If the council works towards and achieves the goal of open and accountable government, working in partnership and delivering on its commitments while listening to the citizens of the granite city, we will have moved closer to the realisation of 21st century government.
This debate is quite extraordinary. The application of technology, which Tom Wolfe has described as humanity's new nervous system, is an exciting subject. However, new Labour manages to make it exceedingly dull and uninteresting. New Labour talks about it all the time, because it has so little else to talk about—it is reduced to trumpeting comparatively minor changes that it is making badly.
New Labour members do not like criticism, but they are going to get it. Even the Tories managed to something in respect of modernising government. They did not do a great deal, but they started to do something. The Tories started down that path because any Government in the 21st century would have had to do the sort of things that have been listed in today's briefings. Those things are necessary simply to confront the world as it is; to start trumpeting such action as achievements—
What is he going to say about us?
I tell Mr Kerr that we must analyse what new Labour is doing. The only point of analysis that we can use is comparison with what is happening in other countries. The reality is that new Labour is doing not very much, not very well—the real work is being done by the people on the ground who are committed and enthusiastic about new technology. Mr Davidson was almost right about that.
Those committed and enthusiastic people find that the endless competition for small amounts of funding is counterproductive—it wastes time and resources. They also find the vast amount of bureaucracy that they must deal with in order to get money and micromanagement of money through ring fencing to be extremely counterproductive. All those things must change.
Allow me to ask a question, Presiding Officer: what would be the true hallmarks of a modernised Government? That is a point that Mr Kerr wanted to make and that new Labour always wants to make. I will suggest four hallmarks in addition to the obvious one, which is that its leader would not process with a ceremonial purse. Other things would happen in an open and accessible Government. First, it would not be crony driven. As we have seen once again in the past week, the reality is that the only way to get ahead in Scottish public life is to have a Labour party membership card.
Secondly, a modernised Government would prove itself to be worthy of trust. In time for reflection today, we heard that trust is difficult to hold because it can slip through the fingers. If there is a Government that has allowed the people's trust to slip through its fingers during its term of office, it is the new Labour Government. Nobody thought it could be worse than the Tories, but its reputation is at rock bottom.
Thirdly, a modernised Government would deliver high-quality services without a song and dance such as we have heard today. It is all talk and very little action.
Finally, a modernised Government would have real ambition. Its real ambition would be an independent nation, working hard within the world, having something to talk about—[Interruption.] The Labour members do not like the truth. An independent nation would have something to talk about and boast about and would make sure that the people of Scotland got good government, not the pathetic government about which Andy Kerr talked.
I am pleased to welcome today's debate and the accompanying announcements in a written answer that was published on Friday. It is important to ensure that the Scottish Executive and local government exploit the benefits of information and communications technology. Those benefits are important for linking people in remote communities to essential services. It is important that rural communities have access that is as good as urban communities'. Much valuable work is being done to achieve that.
I understand that Scottish Borders Council will benefit from the £16 million that has been allocated, and from the £14 million funding that is under further discussion. However, I have a specific question about Scottish Borders Council's Young Scot card application. It seems that discussions are continuing and I hope that the council might still be able to qualify for the scheme despite the fact that the deadline has passed. The minister might be able to comment on that in his summing up—I will be grateful for any advice that he can give.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Although I am intrigued to hear Euan Robson's speech, is it common practice for a junior minister to speak as a Liberal Democrat during a debate about a matter that is not his subject?
There is nothing in standing orders about that. It is a matter of choice and of which members press their request-to-speak buttons.
Mr Robson, the acoustics of the chamber might require a bit more voice projection than we are used to in Edinburgh.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The document that was published in 1999—"21st Century Government"—had four aims. One was to put the citizen at the centre of government. That is essential, particularly in rural communities where access to services can be difficult given geographical distances, as has been mentioned. I commend the work of the Post Office on developing its "Your Guide" scheme. That scheme can deliver such benefits. There are post offices in many rural communities and it is important that that facility is given due consideration.
I finish with a cautionary tale. When talking to constituents, I am beginning to be concerned that there might be two tiers of citizen developing—those who are e-literate and those who are not. I do not want people to be disadvantaged because they do not have access. We are beginning to tackle the problems of obtaining access but we must also ensure that skills training is developed that will enable all citizens to access information other than that which is provided locally.
Will the member give way?
The member has finished.
I also thank the city of Aberdeen for hosting the Parliament. I am glad to see so many people in the public gallery and in the chamber. The attractions of hearing me speak on modernising government seem to be greater than I had imagined. I do not want to disappoint but I will keep my remarks brief.
I have a few examples to give of modernising government in practice. I believe that the debate is important and that it is central to our agenda and belief in public services. There is an argument—a hangover from the Thatcherite 1980s—that implies that only market forces can be used to improve the delivery of services. It is an argument that translates the relationship between the provider and the user to that of buyer and seller. It is not so much a simple argument as one that is simplistic and shallow, and it fails to catch the complexity of relationships and motivations behind the provision of public services.
It is not enough merely to present the argument against that type of Thatcherite approach; we must demonstrate that we can deliver and that public services can respond and adapt to the needs and wishes of the public, whether they are tenants, residents, patients or taxpayers. We have to put in place the mechanisms that allow and encourage accountability and that help us to focus on users' needs rather than on the provider. That is what underpins the modernising government approach and that is why it is important that that approach works.
I have an example from East Renfrewshire Council because it—and I—would like to believe that it is in the vanguard of modernising government. That council's flagship programme is the customer first project which is, in effect, a service and telephone contact centre that provides a first point of contact for the public. If a person has a query about council tax or litter—or, as the scheme is rolled out, on housing and education—they can speak to someone who will address their concern, rather than be fobbed off round the switchboard, as might have been the case in the past.
Council officers are now in post whose job it is to focus on handling the public's inquiries, rather than their seeing that as a distraction from their proper job. It is a system that is backed up with technology and which is based on sound IT systems. However, the technology exists only to make the system efficient; the people are the most important part of the service. We are all aware of peopleless telephone systems that seem to exist to cause frustration and to test our powers of endurance—the ones that ask callers to press 1 for sales, 2 for services, 3 for advertising, then take callers through four different levels before they finally press the wrong button and have to start again. My favourite is the so-called voice recognition system for cinemas, which has the caller sitting shouting "Yes, yes" into the phone like a lunatic, but still ending up with tickets for the wrong show.
The technology exists to back the provider up and to allow public services to respond to the people that really matter—the public. To use East Renfrewshire Council as an example, that ethos is present throughout the council, from cabinet or executive-style government—which is more efficient, responsive and accountable to the public—to a partnership approach to service delivery. That council does not believe that it has the monopoly on the provision of services. It is willing to work in partnership with other organisations, such as Cosgrove Care or Help the Aged, in order to deliver care packages to members of the community. The council sees itself as working in co-operation with those organisations. It does not seek to supplant them.
On services for older people, for example, East Renfrewshire Council worked in conjunction with Argyll and Clyde NHS Board to refocus attention on delivery. It decided not to have rigid demarcation between district nurses and social workers, but to have them work together to provide services to local older people.
I will end on health boards, which are a prime example of arrangements that need the modernisation agenda. Despite moves to appoint elected representatives to health boards, they are not accountable to local people. Anyone who is aware of the difficulties that we are having with the acute services review in Glasgow will know that the health board has failed to respond to the public in that review. We must address that situation.
The lesson of modernising government is not to focus on modernising but to focus on good government.
I will pick up where Kenny Macintosh left off. The debate is about modernising government. He is correct to say that the content of the Executive motion concentrates on the modernising aspect, but the SNP's amendment is about government and the delivery of services. The challenge for government is to bring those two aspects together.
Today's debate is about access to information because it is about the new e-government agenda. However, it must be about delivery of services. What is the point of being able to access information about services online if the services do not exist? I will concentrate on who delivers, how they deliver and who pays. Euan Robson, who has left the chamber, pointed to the fact that post offices—I see that he is here; sorry, Euan—have traditionally been the point of access for much information. Post offices are under threat. We must value the role that post offices have played in communities.
In his opening remarks, the Minister for Finance and Public Services referred to the one-stop shop in the Almondvale centre in West Lothian, which provides an excellent service by bringing different services together. However, our problem in West Lothian is what happens to pensioners who live in villages on the outskirts of West Lothian and who traditionally use the post office to get information about their benefits. How are they meant to get to the one-stop shop at the Almondvale centre?
Let us not have two tiers of access to information. Let us ensure that we allow people to access information where they want to. That means that we must make sure that post offices survive the threats that they face. We must also make sure that one-stop shops are funded properly. I have a question about the one-stop shop at the Almondvale centre: how much of its funding comes from the housing budget? I ask because much of the information that is provided is about the housing department. That is an interesting question that ministers might wish to ask West Lothian Council.
On who pays, the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing for the debate states that £25 million was drawn down in modernising government fund bids to deliver e-governance and the access to information that we want from the modernising government agenda. Where is that funding coming from? I will give members a good answer. Part of what we want to do is to ensure that we deliver public services. In a debate in January, I asked Peter Peacock about council tax benefits. One of the reasons why we want one-stop shops is to ensure that people can access council tax benefits and housing benefits. The ministers will know—because they are responsible for finance—that paragraph 5.3 of "Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly" states that if the council tax benefit bill in England and Wales rises faster than that in Scotland, as is currently happening, there should be an adjustment. I asked Mr Peacock in January whether we were benefiting from that and he said that we were. This year alone, we should get back £20 million because of the adjustments to the consolidated fund as a result of the benefits bill in England and Wales rising faster than it is here.
In March, I asked the same question of the Minister for Finance and Public Services. I asked by how much we were benefiting and what adjustments had been made. He said that no adjustments had been made. Only this morning, I received another answer. I asked who was right: is it Mr Peacock, who said that we are benefiting, or is it the Minister for Finance and Public Services, who said that we are not benefiting? Who is telling the truth? Andy Kerr said that Mr Peacock's "statement was not inaccurate". If it is "not inaccurate", how much money have we got back, because council tax benefit in England and Wales is rising faster than it is in Scotland? I ask the ministers to answer that question this morning. I invite Mr Peacock in his winding-up to say which minister is giving the correct information, because the answer that I received this morning makes it clear that we in Scotland are missing out.
If ministers want the pensioners in West Lothian to be able to access their benefits through the one-stop shop, they should make sure that the Parliament has the budget to enable that to happen. Ministers should go to Westminster and say, "We are due that £20 million." They should put the money into the modernising government fund. That would be a result, which cannot be said of this debate on a motion that disnae add up to much.
We come now to closing speeches. I call Donald Gorrie for the Liberal Democrats. You have three minutes.
I speak about information technology as a non-technical person, but I recognise that it does a lot of good. I have kind people working with me who do understand IT and who cope with the problems.
Knowledge is power. We want to extend knowledge throughout the country—town and countryside—so that people know what is going on locally and nationally and can comment on it sensibly. We do not want them to get their information only from inevitably truncated versions in the newspapers and on television and radio. The greatest service that we can pay to democracy is to give people the power. They can then criticise us on the basis of knowledge and not misapprehension.
We may not like what people say. Democracy is all about losing votes, of which I have a great deal of experience. That does not necessarily mean that one is wrong, but one has to accept the result. We will have to persuade the public better that we are on the right lines with what we propose. The public will be able to comment on and criticise us from a position of knowledge. That is greatly to be welcomed. Although I do not understand anything about IT, it is a good thing, and I totally support the motion.
I will try to address the motion; I will not wave my Harry Potter magic wand and change the subject of the debate. Although this is only a short debate, once again I am tempted to question why we are spending parliamentary time discussing an issue that is of limited direct public interest, and about which there is little or no dispute in the Parliament. No doubt it fills the Executive's time without exposing ministers to debate or criticism. Although modernising government is a laudable aim and the projects involved are usually worthy, I have a few issues to raise with the minister.
First, why does it take a dedicated unit, a project group and the involvement of the private finance unit to run the modernising government fund? After all, the Executive is only assessing project bids and awarding resources to the best. I am sure that one organisation could do that, but it is typical of the Executive's big-government, bureaucratic approach that it takes three organisations. Perhaps the minister will assure us when he sums up that he will cut that red tape down to size.
The modernising government fund is achieving only what the better public agencies should be working towards in any case—as highlighted by my colleague David Davidson—especially in light of the Executive's insistence on community planning and best value. I ask the minister to justify why a separate bidding fund is needed. Could the money not be allocated locally, especially for hard-pressed councils? They could then decide, based on their electorates' wishes, whether to invest in new technology or to concentrate on the core services that they already undertake. That is local democracy and accountability. It would also allow for variations across Scotland. After all, what are considered to be modern public services in the Highlands may be different from such services in Edinburgh.
I ask the minister to ponder those issues, and to let us know when he responds to the debate how he can improve local autonomy and cut red tape.
I call Kenneth Gibson to close for the SNP. You have five minutes.
What happened to the Liberals? Oh, that was Donald Gorrie.
I am pleased to be in Aberdeen. I drove up here last night, and drove along Union Street. I look forward to the day when it is called Independence Street. Who knows, perhaps there will be a Tricia Marwick Boulevard, a Gil Paterson Avenue and maybe even a teeny-weeny Mike Russell Close, hidden somewhere in the back streets of Aberdeen.
I was going to say that this was an interesting debate, but I would be lying, because for most people it has not been enlightening or interesting. However, I will try to sum up some of the comments that have been made.
Challenge funding was mentioned. In all seriousness, I think that the minister has to address that funding, because challenge funding impacts particularly hard on small local authorities. When local authorities submit bids for money, smaller local authorities have to put in the same amount of effort as do larger local authorities, but they are not able to get as much money, because they are smaller authorities. They are probably also less likely to be awarded such funding. Local authorities are concerned that a lot of money is spent on preparing challenge funding bids, when it could be better spent on other things.
Richard Lochhead raised the issue of linkage with rural areas. There is widespread concern across the chamber about rural Scotland and whether it is being adequately served. It is clear from members' comments that more effort has to be made to ensure that rural Scotland is fully connected.
Tricia Marwick talked about the commitment to IT of other countries, such as Estonia. It is good to see that the small, emergent nations of Europe are leading the way in that important area of government. The Executive should look to such countries.
Can we not also celebrate Scotland's success? We lead Europe on smart-card technology, which many members talked about. We lead Europe in some fields and we should try to celebrate that now and again.
As my distinguished colleague Dr Winnie Ewing has just said, how can Scotland lead when it is not at the top table?
David Davidson said that our amendment was about nationalisation. It is nothing to do with that and it is clear that he has misread the issue. Mike Russell's speech was interesting, as at least it stimulated members. He talked about the Executive shaking off its insularity and about the fact that we should look outwith Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I will not, because I have only another couple of minutes and because Helen Eadie never takes interventions.
Euan Robson talked about post offices. His speech was quiet but significant. Ken Macintosh made it clear that he has been living in a cave for the past five years, because he talked about criticising the Thatcherite approach, which is the approach that the Labour Government has taken. If he does not know that, he should consider the privatisation of air traffic control and of the railways and the Executive's obsession with private finance initiatives. I am astonished that Ken Macintosh does not know that the Executive is Thatcherite.
However, at least Ken Macintosh appeared to speak to our amendment; I look forward to him voting for it. He talked about East Renfrewshire Council, which has strong links with SNP-controlled Clackmannanshire Council. Given Ken Macintosh's speech, perhaps it will not be too long before he sits with SNP members.
An important aspect of electronic Scotland on which the Executive must focus is electronic patient records. If medical professionals and pharmacists could access electronic records more easily, that would go a long way towards delivering more effective patient outcomes in the health service. I hope that the deputy minister will talk about that.
Information websites are important, but no one would say that they are a substitute for service delivery. More focus must be placed on best practice. The deputy minister should describe the savings and efficiency improvements that have been made and which are quantifiable and can be explained in qualitative terms in relation to the Executive's strategy.
The SNP's amendment expresses concerns about funding. Has Kenny Gibson noticed the press reports of doctors' concerns about the use of national lottery money in the health service? Would the SNP consider using national lottery money for the services that we are debating?
The SNP believes that the taxpayer should pay for Government services. We should not depend on lottery money for basic services.
The SNP would put up tax by 10p in the pound.
No, minister, it would not be 10p.
Donald Gorrie said that knowledge was power and talked about strengthening democracy. His speech was short but telling. Keith Harding referred to subsidiarity. That is like the pot calling the kettle black, as everyone knows that the Tories started the undermining of local democracy. It is unfortunate that the Labour party has extended that with its control freakery in relation to local authorities.
Fiona Hyslop talked about letting people access services and ensuring that services are delivered more effectively and efficiently on the front line. All SNP members support that. Public services must be delivered by a highly paid, highly motivated, well-trained and skilled work force. That is what the SNP supports and what our amendment is about.
Kenny Gibson said that the debate was not enlightening or instructive—I disagree. It was enlightening and instructive, particularly for the people of Aberdeen, who now realise that the SNP whinges in Edinburgh and whinges in Aberdeen. It whines in Edinburgh and whines in Aberdeen. It girns in Edinburgh and girns in Aberdeen. It greets in Edinburgh and greets in Aberdeen. The SNP brings whingeing, whining, girning and greeting to the debate.
Brian Adam started with a whinge, which David Davidson and Kenny Gibson supported, about the fact that the modernising government fund is a challenge fund. However, the modernising government fund has changed from being a challenge fund to being a consortium fund. Malcolm Chisholm has made it clear that the Executive is trying to move away from challenge funds and that is what is happening. Local authorities have welcomed that approach and are acting in consortia to draw down the funding, rather than in competition with one another.
No matter what the minister says, the fund still involves a bid to the centre, whether or not an authority holds hands with someone. If a bid does not meet central Government's demands, it is unsuccessful.
The point is that the fund is meeting local demands from local people and local councils acting together. The Executive supports their actions to modernise. Far from being a challenge fund, the modernising government fund is much more of a consortium fund.
Richard Lochhead whined as usual—it was instructive to hear that here—about the lack of development of broadband in rural areas. The Executive has made an historic commitment to expanding broadband in the areas where doing so is most difficult—the Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland. The Executive has made huge progress and a major commitment to that progress, so that people have access to the services to which Euan Robson and others drew attention. The lessons that we learn from that will be applied to the rest of rural Scotland as we roll out broadband to ensure that people have access.
Peter Peacock has recycled the speech that he usually gives when he winds up—he just attacks the Opposition. Perhaps he might like to answer the question that I posed to his boss, who did not answer it. How much money is wasted when local authorities make bids that fail? If the Executive does not wish to call the money challenge funding and wants to give it a new name, that does not make much difference. Many local authorities make a great effort to bid for that money and are unsuccessful. How much time and money is wasted?
It is necessary to make the point only once.
The approach that we are taking means that councils do not lose; they all win. That is the purpose of taking a consortium approach.
Mike Russell gave the speech that he would have given no matter what the debate was about. He prepared his speech well in advance of knowing the business. The legacy that Mike Russell would leave for Scotland is a £4 billion deficit in our economy. How would public services, which we are concerned about, be funded with such a structural deficit? The SNP has offered nothing to the debate and has nothing to offer.
Iain Smith, Kenny Macintosh and others captured the essence of the debate. As Iain Smith said, the intention is to put the customer first and to provide convenience for the consumers of public services. Kenny Macintosh was right to talk about East Renfrewshire Council, which is a modernising council that leads the way with its customer first service, whose purpose is to answer most people's inquiries at the first time of contact. That is a move away from the traditional office hours that have been used in the public sector for many years and towards 24/7 opening of public services. That widens access.
Multichannel delivery does not go to a single point in the way that Fiona Hyslop described for West Lothian. It allows people to choose how they access public services, whether in person, by telephoning—the choice of most people—by faxing, by e-mailing or by accessing a website. Increasingly, websites contain more than information. They allow people to conduct transactions with the public sector. In that context, a more self-service system is being adopted for the public sector. We are trying to create a single door of access, even though it is through a multichannel approach.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
I will finish my point.
The public sector is learning how to join up public services in the back office, to provide the public with a single front door of access to public services. We cannot expect the public to understand the intricacies of our bureaucracies and to navigate those systems. We must solve that for them and give them access through a single entry point.
Will the minister join me in commending the excellent work that has been done in rural areas such as Lochaber, where the Executive, through Highlands and Islands Enterprise, has supported the Lochaber communications network? That has involved the establishment of IT centres in remote areas. The network now wants to establish community malls to make one-stop shops for many services in remote communities that had no access to services before. That is a good idea.
Maureen Macmillan makes a good point. Last week, I was in Kinlochleven, where such a new community centre exists. It had funding from the Executive and others and from the European Union. It is in a fragile and what some might consider remote community and provides learning resources to give people access to learning and information in a way that was not possible before. All of that and a significant amount of the change that is taking place in the public sector are being brought about by the modernising government fund.
Andy Kerr announced on Friday that the fund will be increased by £30 million and that that funding will be spent on a range of new projects. We are consolidating the lessons that we have learned from the past and are rolling out programmes as a result. The fund includes an immediate release of £16 million for projects that are to be fast tracked. Euan Robson asked about the ability of Scottish Borders Council to participate in one of those fast-track projects. If Scottish Borders Council makes its intentions about the smart-card project known, we will ensure that it is welcomed into the consortium and that it receives the benefits of the cash that flows from that initiative.
The efforts that will result from the modernising government fund will improve data sharing. That improvement is required to sort out the front-office arrangements that will enable the public to interact with government. We need to provide single standards for data transfer between public authorities. The Young Scot card, which others have referred to as the smart card, will be rolled out so that every young person has access to it. We want the kind of services that Elaine Thomson rightly said are becoming available in Aberdeen—a city that is leading the field in this regard.
We are trying to sort out customer relationship systems so that we can manage better the systems and our interactions with people.
The minister has just used the term "smart card" and his colleague Andy Kerr used the term twice. Is "smart card" not a trade name? Could the Executive not sign up to a more secure card or has it signed up already to the smart card?
As we have a couple of minutes in hand, I can compensate the minister for the interventions that he has taken.
We always thought that Phil Gallie was a smart card himself. He raises issues to do with the technical aspects of the smart card, but it will provide security and a range of discrete pieces of information on a single card. People can use the card without information being exchanged between organisations. The card can provide access to private and public services, concessionary fares, library card membership, school meals and so forth. The card is an important development of which we should be proud. As Andy Kerr indicated, we lead the rest of Europe in the way that we are driving such services forward. Aberdeen City Council, in particular, is leading the way forward.
We are also making progress on areas such as joint assessments, which are important in health and social work. Those assessments allow social work and health services to undertake single assessments in respect of care for the elderly and in the case of young people who face challenging and difficult lives. The assessments are back-room functions, but they will open up better services for people in the front line. Funding should be provided for such services.
The purpose of the modernising government fund is to relate government more closely to the citizens. It aims to give citizens the public services that they need and want and to allow them to access those services when they need and want them. There is much that we can do to improve public services. We know that some of Scotland's public services are excellent—our objective is to ensure that that excellent practice spreads out more quickly throughout the public sector so that all Scotland's people can benefit from it.
I commend the motion to the Parliament.
That concludes the debate on the modernising government fund. For the benefit of the gallery, I should explain that the vote on the debate will be taken at decision time later in the day.
Before I suspend this meeting of the Parliament, I remind members that they need to be in their seats by 11.25 am at the latest for Her Majesty the Queen's address.
Meeting suspended until 12:01.
On resuming—