Who is in Charge?

For all the Scottish Parliament Committees this is a season of perplexity. It is later than usual for us to be reviewing the Scottish Government’s budget.

Only two of us in Parliament admit to being mathematicians – First Minister Jack McConnell and me. And I think there is only one accountant – my colleague Jim Mather.

So the scope for questions that focus on the budget’s numbers is more limited than it should be. And with each Minister having to appear in front of the relevant subject committees, that has to be disappointing. But there are other ways of analysing whether the budget makes sense.

In the Communities Committee this past week my focus was on accountability. Not whether the figures add up, but whether we know how the claimed benefits from all this expenditure will happen.

As an opposition we are regularly ‘on the case’ about National Health Service failings – among others. And just as regularly the Government will repeat their mantra that spending on the NHS has never been higher – record investments – highest priority.

And yet the regular feedback from patients is that little seems to be improving.

In local government it is much the same story.

Record grants from central government to councils and yet record rises in council taxes. With little evidence of the increased money reaching the front line.

I was listening to a carer’s tale the other day. More and more restrictions on access to money from Aberdeenshire Council. A very firm drive to restrict and delay access to the respite help that many carers need. And a dramatic rise in stress for them in consequence.

While the Government claims to “have provided record levels of funding to local government”. You get the picture.

Somewhere between Edinburgh and Peterhead there is a ‘black hole’ into which our money seems to be disappearing.

Now in the case of money for the councils we can see some of the problem. If the Government announces (say) a £20million initiative to help carers get respite care you would think that would mean £20million more for respite services.

But not necessarily. Governments these days will ‘ring fence’. They will say to councils, “Here is £500,000 which you must spend on respite care. You cannot spend it on anything else.”

If like most councils claim to be, you are under pressure from your local communities to spend more on something like roads, say, then you will gratefully accept the £500, 000 which must be spent on care. And say that’s great – that frees up £500,000 of “our own” money to spend on roads.

Only to make it less obvious, it may be that what the respite care budget in the council is used to buy may be changed. Or it will be raised a bit but by less than £500,000.

All of which means that firstly it is difficult for government to actually deliver half a million of improvement to respite care services delivered to our local council.

Now if you think like most politicians, there appears to be two possible answers to this problem. Either take the responsibility for respite care, or whatever, away from what central government sometimes describes with some irritation as ‘incompetent’ councils – actually they are all too competent at getting their own, rather than the government’s way. Or further restrict the ability of local councils to respond to local priorities by further removing choice as to how they may spend their money.

But in the Communities Committee questioning of the minister this year I took another approach, a businessman’s approach. I asked whose career would suffer if the Government failed deliver on its published objectives.

Initially the answer was that the Minister was ultimately responsible and would carry the can. Perfectly right and proper but ‘no banana’ if that failure failed to equip the next minister to deliver any more than the ‘failing’ one.

So I pursued my line by asking whether there was a civil servant whose career would falter.

And the lights went on in the Minister’s head. The answer turned out to be maybe.

Prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament there was of course a Scottish Government. But in practice this meant the civil service. Doing their best for us but without today’s detailed oversight.

Not every employee of the Scottish Executive has yet come to terms with this. They feel a job well done when they have sent the money to (say) councils. But have felt that delivering the benefit was someone else’s responsibility.

I suggested that one of staff should carry the can if the benefits of spending the money did not occur.

The Minister actually said that she would be taking my words back.

I think she actually feels in charge for the first time.

Winter comes

Over the last week I have been in sharing mood. Sharing a very heavy cold that is.

In consequence colleagues seem to be falling like nine-pins with the sore throat and splitting headache that I had last week.

But colds and flu are not the only cause of headaches for politicians.

My political party met for its annual conference in Inverness a week or so ago. We went there with a bit of a headache. A leadership challenge had focussed our attention on internal party matters.

A successful conference and a resounding vote of confidence in John Swinney were the outcome.

More important in the long term was the debate on the proposed European Constitution. Fishing, and the desire by EU bureaucrats to forever imprison fishing policy in that document, was a large issue in our discussions.

But we remained clear and focussed – we will have sustainable fishing only when we regain control over our fishing waters.

Each party in turn has its conference at this time of year. The Liberals started the month and New Labour have just completed theirs. The Tories come soon.

But unlike the SNP conference, the gulf between leadership and party activists seems to have widened as a result of the New Labour shindig by the sea. With decisions by the party at large being rejected by the Prime Minister, the real danger is that all politicians, in all parties, are diminished in the public’s eyes.

After all, if the Prime Minister cannot even listen to those who could have been thought to be his colleagues and supporters, what confidence can the wider public have that he would listen to their fears and concerns.

A winter cold has arrived early and is sweeping its way from the party conference towns of Southern England.

Social Behaviour

The Scottish Government, the Executive, is consulting as part of its plans to further address anti-social behaviour.

As a member of the Communities Committee in the Parliament, I joined another member on a visit to nearby Lossiemouth.

Our Committee expects to be the lead for the government’s Bill when it appears in a month’s time and our visit was to gather background information.

The first thing to strike me was how Lossiemouth’s issues and concerns seemed to mirror those I hear from our streets.

The Derby and Joan Club – many Joans and no Derby – were clear that most of their area’s problems derived from the misuse of alcohol. Far fewer were worried by the effects of drugs on their community – a huge problem for addicts they thought, but less for everyone else.

Moray Council has introduced street-drinking bans in a number of their towns – nearby Elgin is one – and Lossiemouth’s oldsters would like one too.

The youngsters who are trying to establish a community café told us that a decade ago there were five places where youngsters could go in and sit. Now there is just one.

So the Executive’s idea of providing a new power to allow police to move groups of youths did not go down well with them. They said, “Where are we to move to?”

But the reality in Lossie, as in our larger towns, seemed not to be lack of powers, but lack of police.

I trust that when we see the Bill, as a wide a section of our communities actually look at what is proposed and puts in their tuppence-worth. Otherwise we will get what the central belt thinks they need. And that could be at the expense of what people in our communities believe we need.

Welsh Talk

In the Westminster Parliament, my party works with Plaid Cymru – the Party of Wales – as the fourth party in that place. And this year it was my turn to travel to their conference with the SNP’s fraternal greetings.

Much is Wales in similar to Scotland. But in one certain respect it is very different.

While Fraserburgh and Peterhead are being equipped with broadband communications and a new support scheme has just been announced to support business broadband connections, we remain far behind Wales.

Their government, the Welsh Assembly Executive, has long since put aside £100 million to ‘wire’ Wales and ensure that they are not left behind in the modern world.

And for Plaid Cymru it makes a difference too.

They have an advanced computer system which can be accessed by all their members via the Internet.

That is the kind of step change Scotland’s political parties, but more importantly Scotland’s businesses and communities, will be denied until we start a serious catch up.

Well done Wales.