Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

Are we getting it right?

Sep 27

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood | 1 Comment

The Scottish Parliament debated the new Children and Young People Bill this week, but Labour MSP Ken Macintosh asks, are we Getting It Right For Every Child?

Ken Parliament Office - CopyDoes your child need a “named person” in order to promote, support or safeguard their wellbeing? The Scottish Government is proposing just such a move, appointing a named person for every person under 18 in Scotland.

We debated the subject in Parliament this week and the Minister argued that such a person, typically a health visitor or a teacher, would help all families access services, information and support. Most of the children’s organisations such as Barnardo’s back such a move saying that taking a universal approach to providing children with a point of contact is in keeping with the GIRFEC principles, child protection based on Getting It Right For Every Child.

Now, I do not have a knee jerk opposition to state intervention, but I find myself questioning the need and the practicality of this measure. I am certainly not going to lay claim to being a perfect parent, but is this really the best use of tax payers’ money and teachers’ time? My main worry is that despite the best of intentions the whole exercise could end up diverting scarce resources away from the children most in need.

There are few people across Scotland who fail to recognise the need to protect and help our most vulnerable children. The national news is filled too often by stories of neglect and abuse and the all too horrific consequences with children dying at the hands of their own parents. At the same time, it is difficult to see how appointing a named person to look after for example each of my six children, will do anything to improve child protection or to prevent such deaths occurring again. I simply fail to follow the argument that by giving a health visitor or a teacher responsibility for let’s say 30 well brought up children, or even dare I say, not particularly well brought up children, that will help them recognise the one that needs support and intervention. The danger is that time spent filling in forms for 30 children who will never need any intervention is time that could be better spent on those children in desperate need of help. Resources diverted to children who are thriving, loved and nurtured are resources not spent on the neglected and vulnerable.

As far as I am aware, teachers already have a professional duty and an ethical and legal obligation to pick up on kids who are turning up late for school, badly fed, poorly dressed or otherwise showing signs of lack of care. The same duty applies even more clearly to health visitors. How does seeking assurance from those same teachers that the vast majority of children in their care do not need help in any way assist them in identifying those in danger of slipping through the net? Is there not an obvious risk of creating an administratively cumbersome and bureaucratically complex system but with no additional practical benefit? Will there be a file for every child? Who will keep that file? What happens when staff move on as they often do? At the very least we need to clarify what this additional duty as a named person will mean.

Now I would put my concerns to one side if I thought the named person approach would save one life or pick up on one example of child cruelty or neglect that would otherwise go undetected or unrecognised. But if we look at all the recent cases of child abuse, as far as I can recall every subsequent inquiry concluded that where the state failed to intervene early enough it was not because no-one knew about the risk, it was because of the failure to share information. One of the main recommendations as a result has been to identify a lead professional in those cases where risk has been identified and public agencies have to work together. If every child is to have a named person, is there not a distinct possibility that we will create masses of information telling us nothing more than most children are fine, whilst potentially confusing lines of responsibility between the named person and the lead professional?

The children’s charities have argued that the measures are in line with the GIRFEC principles, but as I recall, GIRFEC was originally based on a report called “It’s everyone’s job to make sure I’m alright”, not ‘It’s one named person’s job to make sure I’m alright’.

If we are to go down the named person route, the solution surely must lie in the role, function and the resources we give to health visitors as child health and welfare is already their raison d’etre. What worries me here is that in recent years, Scottish Government practice has run counter to this very policy. Health visitors used to visit every mother and child regularly, but making contact with lots of healthy mums and toddlers was regarded as a waste of scarce resources and so a more targeted approach was taken. This has left us with genuine problems; that of mothers with post natal depression going undetected and of some children seeing no one virtually from leaving hospital until compulsory school age. I believe health visitors will be expected to make contact with families at 27-30 months as part of a new toddler development visit which is a good thing, but again apparently without any additional funding. I was at least reassured to hear that strong concerns were raised at the Parliament’s Finance Committee about placing new duties on various health and educational professionals with insufficient additional funding to help them carry out those duties.

I appreciate that the intention may be simply to formalise the role of health visitors or teachers who already have contact with our children and who provide a welcome service, but the fact is that this Bill proposes giving these named persons legal duties. Yes there are some desperately inadequate parents in our world but that should not blind us to the fact that the vast majority love and care for their children. I hope discussion and debate around the Bill will provide clarity on this matter but I fully understand why many families will be downright offended by the notion of someone assuming any kind of alternative parenting role, of setting themselves up in loco parentis or potentially judging parents in some way. The evidence does not suggest that the state makes a better parent than most families whatever our faults.

There are already many dedicated health and education staff who sensitively inquire after the children in their care and who expend most energy on those in greatest need. Our focus should be on how to make it easier for them to carry out those duties. There will be others unfortunately, whose response will not be to show increased concern for the children in their care, but to cover their own backs by making sure every child allocated to them has a form filled in proving that they fulfilled their legal duties. In other words, at one extreme this Bill could be a charter for interfering busybodies and at the other, for risk averse jobsworths.

I have no doubt that this is not the intention of the Bill and I sincerely hope that my fears are entirely misplaced. It is my understanding that the GIRFEC pilots have been viewed as successful and that the Education Committee is taking evidence on these very matters over the next few weeks and months. I want the Children’s Bill to improve the lives of all young people in Scotland and like most parents, I want to feel confident we have a system that identifies potential problems early and intervenes effectively. I do not think we should reject this approach until we hear the evidence but we should also be seriously questioning whether a named person would indeed be getting it right for every child.

Love Voltaire us apart, again

Sep 19

Posted by Dom in Culture, Economy, Education, Holyrood | Comments off

One of the questions regularly raised in discussions of independence is what would happen to Scotland’s globally prestigous universities.

Senior figures at my own place of work, the University of Edinburgh, have voiced concerns about the impact of being cut off from UK government research funding. More publicly Louise Richardson, the American-inspired principal of St Andrews has attacked elements of Scottish higher education policy as unsustainable and believes that universalism and universities do not go together.

What many people do not know is that, although higher education is devolved to Holyrood, the research funding which keeps many universities topped up and allows them to employ some world class academics is still allocated from Westminster. In the early days of the Cameron government there were attempts to politicise university research through directed funding of some of the main research councils, Arts and Humanities, Economics and Social Science, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences,  Medicine, Natural Environment and Science and Technology. Thankfully, a great many academics resisted such efforts and despite the crisis of tuition fees the structures of research funding are still relatively intact.

Now given that Scotland’s universities are already regulated and funded at an undergraduate level by Holyrood, the research funding pool is the one remaining structural link to Westminster. People such as Louise Richardson buy into the idea that severing this link would be a disaster for Scotland’s universities, and the forensic and nuanced Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm pointed out the benefit of large research pools in this week’s independence preview debate in the chamber.

This is not something the Yes campaign can just ignore, and being a Scottish university is not a virtue in itself without the funds to back up the country’s claims to be at the top table of world education. You would hope that the future of higher education in Scotland, which is crucial to the country in terms of both its economy and its ability to meet its aspirations as a highly developed state, receives a significant amount of attention in the Scottish Government’s forthcoming white paper. In Scotland being the education minister also involves safeguarding and developing crucial national institutions for the benefit of all.

Nothing, however, is impossible, and there are various options for Scotland’s universities to take after independence.

The first would be to propose a joint research pool with Englash, Welsh, Irish and Northern Irish universities that would better allow specialisms to flourish and facilitate cross border academia. There is already a limited cooperation agreement between the UK and Ireland on pooling of research resources, whilst a great deal of higher-end science research now happens within the context of European funding organisations and research networks anyway.

The other option is that Scotland, in line with the aspirations of some SNP and Green thinkers to seek membership of the Nordic Council, should attach itself to the Nordforsk research pool which coordinates funding and specialisation across Northern Europe from Iceland to the Baltic states and Western Russia. This would move Scotland away from what Scandinavians term the Anglo Saxon educational tradition and integrate the country more closely with its Nordic neighbours. This might seem a horrific idea to the Ivy League obsessives in the country’s top universities but would apparently be more in line with the collective mood in Scotland generally.

The third option is that Scotland goes all out in developing itself as the go-to country for education by mixing high levels of access and participation for its own citizens with state backed research. It could aggressively pursue international funding and utilise the advantage of having several top class universities within a few hours of one another to create a world-leading research cluster across a range of disciplines. When Voltaire fell over himself to praise the Scottish intellectual climate he did so in a world without research councils and American exchange students. Ideas, and not oil or Scotland the brand, could be what comes to define the first century of a reconstituted state.

The last of these three scenarios is probably the most fanciful, but it is also the most enticing. Given the increasing dysfunctionality of universities in England independence might give Scotland the chance to develop a distinctive educational paradigm which could become a national cause celebre to dwarf flogging golf hats and whisky to wealthy tourists.

Separatism Voltaire us apart

The Westminster Party – what’s their record?

Sep 19

Posted by James in Constitution, History, Holyrood, Parties, Westminster | 7 Comments

4159787227_1513c4f155Scotland’s vote in a year’s time is too important to be decided by who looks likely to win the UK General Election the year after. This isn’t about party politics, it’s about the broad sweep of history, and it’s about the institutions we vote for and which then rule over us.

Anarchists are fond of the phrase “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the Government always get in”, which is what makes the referendum such a rare and fascinating thing. For the first and probably last time in my life I’ll have a vote on whether I want the Westminster government as a whole in my life or not. So let’s put party to one side, or rather, let’s take a look at Westminster’s record as if it were a single political party, the good and bad.

The Westminster Party, for want of a better name, has been in power all my life. In fact they have (for the purposes of this argument) ruled without a break since the mid-19th century. So let’s go back a bit, rather than just looking at the last five or ten years: perhaps the last 40-50 years? What have they delivered over that period? I’ll do my best to be fair and pick a few areas to consider.

Democratic reform: Progress here has been limited at best, with the highlights being the Scottish Parliament itself and the other devolved assemblies. On the minus side the Westminster Party has defended its own interests over the decades by retaining an electoral system that’s non-proportional, outdated, and frankly favours the party’s own self-interest. The only time they’ve offered us a choice on replacing it, the alternative on offer was the smallest tweak possible, still non-proportional, and not something any of the party’s factions has ever even supported. Despite the cautious removal of some of the hereditaries from the House of Lords, we are still ruled in broadly the same way we were back in the 1860s. Oh, and the Westminster Party looks unlikely ever to offer us the option of an elected head of state. Compare to the Holyrood Party – the only level of democracy they could reform under the Scotland Act was local government, so they acted, and we now have a properly fair electoral system for our Councillors. The flaws in the Westminster Party’s record this area shouldn’t be regarded as something just of interest to wonks, either – it’s the foundation for all the policy issues below.

The economy: There’s no nice way to say this. Boom and bust, plus inequality: those are the Westminster Party’s trademarks. The booms have been unsustainable and delivered most of the benefits to the already better-off, to the city, and to London and the south-east, while the busts have been at the expense of the poorest, of manufacturing, and of the North of England in particular. It’s almost as if the Westminster Party’s policies over the last forty years have been designed to deliver instability and ever-widening inequality. Key public services have been handed over to the City, too, and so public money goes to support the lifestyles those who own the companies, rather than the services we use.

Health: If you go back a bit further than 50 years, you’d see perhaps the Westminster Party’s most shining achievement in this or any other area: the NHS. However, over the last 20 years, despite the massive popularity of a publicly-owned and publicly-run health service, the Westminster Party has chipped away at it, brought in private competition, charged for built new hospitals through dire PFI contracts, and weakened it perhaps permanently. They still charge for prescriptions and eye tests, for goodness sake. Fortunately, Scotland has missed the worst of this: the Holyrood Party, in power here since the start of devolution, has protected the NHS in Scotland from the worst excesses of this marketisation.

Education: You could almost say the primary policy of the Westminster Party here has been change for its own sake (another feature of their NHS policy): endless reorganisations, often without a clear purpose in mind. Having said that, the 1990s saw a period of significant investment at the primary and secondary level, which is to be commended. Unfortunately, at the same time the principle that higher education should be based on ability rather than bank balances was first threatened. Now the English university sector is effectively unaffordable for those who aren’t from wealthy backgrounds or prepared to get deep in debt, a principle which the Holyrood Party also ended in 2007.

Defence: This should really be billed as Interference. Or perhaps Profligacy. Defence is the only part of public spending that never gets challenged by the Westminster Party, who have also been committed to nuclear weapons for as long as nuclear weapons have existed. They never saw a military boondoggle they didn’t want to waste money on, and there’s hardly an American-led war (notable exception: Vietnam) they didn’t support or even actively take part in. Some of those interventions (e.g. Sierra Leone) have gone better than others (two recent disasters hardly need to be named), but the record here is pretty brutal, to say the least.

The environment: Despite an unexpectedly early expression of interest in the late 1980s, it’s been all coal and new motorways and business as usual. The Westminster Party leadership knows it needs to talk as if it cares about the environment, and set some meaningless targets to miss (a flaw it shares with the Holyrood Party, to be fair), but they have achieved literally nothing substantial that might protect the environment either here in the UK or internationally.

Overall, the Westminster Party’s failures of policy and governance could hardly be more clear. This what we’ve had to put up with over the last 150 years, but if Scotland votes No, it’s also what we’ll face for the next 150 years. I regret the fact that the rest of the UK isn’t being offered an opportunity to vote the whole lot of them out out, especially my friends in England who (outside London) don’t have the benefit of devolution.

But that can’t be helped. We have a chance in Scotland to push a domino over next year. Perhaps others will fall after it.

pic credit

The People’s Land

Sep 18

Posted by James in Economy, Energy, Holyrood | Comments off

George IIIAs a socialist, I believe in the power of collective action, both through the state and through individuals and communities acting in concert. I believe society would benefit from more public assets being acquired and then used intelligently for the public good, to redistribute wealth and support sustainability and innovation. These may not be fashionable ideas at Westminster, but the Common Weal project from the Jimmy Reid Foundation seems to have gained a fair amount of traction in Scotland.

So here’s a modest proposal for a new institution in that vein. Perhaps we could call it The People’s Land.

Ministers could begin buying up land of various sorts across the country and bringing it together to be managed better, operated on a commercial basis but with an eye on the long term rather than a fast buck for shareholders, maintaining the value and environmental integrity of the assets. We could start with neglected rural estates that could be run for the benefit of the local community, the environment and the taxpayer rather than absentee landlords. This wouldn’t be a substitute for land reform and direct community ownership – but it could be a good fit for other communities alongside the pioneering work being done in places like Eigg and Knoydart.

And forestry – it’d be great to have a publicly owned forestry management body that wasn’t as obsessed with sitka spruces as the Forestry Commission is (although they’re getting better). The Forestry Commission also costs taxpayers £60m a year (2012 accounts, pdf, p38), even though they’re managing very valuable assets for us. This new body would be instructed to do the opposite, to contribute profits to public funds while also meeting stringent standards of community and environmental stewardship, like an ultra-modern cross between a social enterprise and a publicly-owned company – one that’s a help rather than hindrance. The kind of innovation the smart parts of the left and right should be able to support.

The land in question wouldn’t all need to be at the picturesque end of rural Scotland either. This People’s Land approach could just as successfully be used with ex-mining land, and ways could be found to turn around places that suffered when the mines closed. We need to start supporting local businesses and communities in these areas again. After all, neither the market nor the state has done much for the people who bore the brunt of Thatcherite deindustrialisation.

Maybe we could even start taking on land in our cities. Residential urban land is incredibly valuable, so it’ll cost a bit to get started, but right now those benefits accrue year after year to private owners. One day we’ll hopefully have a fair land value tax, but as an interim measure perhaps an initial investment in The People’s Land could even include money to buy a little of Scotland’s prime retail real estate. This may sound impossibly radical and idealistic, but with the will, it could be done.

The substantial sums this kind of urban asset would then bring in, year after year, could then be used to help protect public services (or keep taxes down, depending on your political perspective – there’s something even for Tories in this radical socialism lark). Just like the rural properties I’m proposing, this urban land could then also be managed with the local community too, with a ruthless focus on the social, environmental and economic opportunities.  It should operate at arm’s length to avoid becoming a puppet of successive governments, but should be scrutinised by and accountable to elected representatives.

But let’s be even more ambitious. Scotland has the best natural assets in Europe for offshore renewables, and it could be in all our environmental and economic interests to have those developments managed sensibly, in a way that coordinates activity and ensures a substantial return to the taxpayer (and the utility bill payer) by charging developers for use of the seabed. In fact, it’s hard to see how else we’ll get the booming indigenous marine renewables sector everyone says they support.

And what’s the alternative for developing our marine environment responsibly? Right now, twenty-five of Scotland’s thirty-two local authorities have a bit of coastline to manage. Just look at the map – even tiny Clackmannanshire has a bit of the Forth coast. Clearly they should still have a role to play locally, but how much better to have one body working with them, a hub of expertise, a central marine development body that’s kept separate from the regulating and planning functions of government to avoid conflicts of interest. Why should those twenty-five authorities all have to have every kind of expert required to protect the public interest and secure the benefits of offshore renewables? That’s a recipe for duplication and waste, and vastly different regimes for developers to have to get their heads round. This marine body could be a separate institution, but the values we’d want from it (community involvement, true sustainability, long-term planning, economic efficiency & commercial acumen) are the same we’d be expecting from The People’s Land. So why not roll it all up together?

The good news is we don’t have to set up The People’s Land. It already exists, and we already own it. It’s just got an unfortunate name: The Crown Estate. It does most of those things already. Through it, we own 37,000ha of rural estates from Glenlivet to Whitehill in Midlothian, 5,000ha of forestry, around half the foreshore, the seabed out to 12 nautical miles, and even some of George Street and Fort Kinnaird retail park in Edinburgh.

Each year, all its profits go to the UK exchequer. Last year, the Crown Estate put £250 million into the public coffers this way. Over the past ten years the total profit to us, the taxpayers, was £2.1 billion: a tidy wee sum for Ministers to spend on our behalf.

Disastrously for its reputation, though, it has a name which makes it sound like the Royals run it. They used to, but that ended in 1760 when George III (pictured above) handed his assets over to the state in perpetuity in exchange for being given Civil List payments. For 252 years the Royal involvement was purely nominal, until some utter idiot called George Osborne decided that annual payments from Government to our bloated monarchy (i.e. the Sovereign Grant, the successor to the Civil list etc) would be set at 15% of the Crown Estate’s profits.

Plenty of left radicals oppose the Crown Estate altogether, but it seems like a misunderstanding to do so. Even prior to Osborne’s changes, I wouldn’t say it’s perfect. In particular, there’s definitely room for more local democratic involvement in their activities, and like any other public body, they haven’t always made the right decisions. The stuff about maintaining the value and environmental integrity of the assets they manage isn’t formalised in law, and it should be, although in practice that’s already part of the thinking.

But overall, it’s a first-class seed for one of the most radical and progressive institutions we could ever devise. An independent Scotland shouldn’t scrap the Crown Estate: instead we should retain our share, boost community involvement (especially around ports and harbours), and break the link with the monarchy forever. Oh, and rename it to avoid confusion.

Pic from here.

Disclosure: when I worked for a private PR consultancy the Crown Estate were one of their (and my) clients. 

The political paradigm of the commune: recovering the humanity in policy

Sep 13

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood | 1 Comment

Another guest post today from April Cumming, vice-chair of the Scottish Fabians, who previously wrote for us on the opportunities for Labour to be more radical on transport. Thanks April!

eiggEarlier this year, on a gloriously sunny day in Holyrood, Judith Robertson, the head of Oxfam Scotland, addressed a packed room at The Scottish Futures Forum. I listened to her wise words as I watched the crows swooping and soaring over the craggy peaks of Arthur’s Seat, riding the swell of warm spring air as the hill stood watch over the city. I am often struck by how such simple pleasures as the humble appreciation of natural beauty can make our day a little less mediocre. As I turned to continue watching the presentation, I was struck by how Judith’s words resonated with my thoughts. She was speaking about how the Humankind Index, Oxfam’s measurement of what we really value in Scottish society, provides a basis for moving forward with policy in a country where the political paradigm is shifting. She was discussing the ethereal concept of happiness.

The focus on looking at value beyond a simple measurement of GDP has become an increasingly prevalent element of left-wing thinking, and I was enthused to hear that Oxfam will soon launch a new tool to make the Humankind Index of measurement a practical way to assess the equalities impacts of policy. The new ‘Oxfam Humankind Index Policy assessment tool’ will look at recently published Government policy in order to measure the impact of policies on the real wealth of Scotland – the things that really matter to citizens. I like to think of this as the ‘wealth of humankind’; the accumulative benefit that does not focus on profit margins but instead measures worth on the basis of the real physical and mental benefits to the community and on the ability of members to support, be supported, and to contribute.

A number of experiences throughout my life and also more recently in my time at Holyrood have reinforced my firm belief that we must, as a nation and as global citizens, urgently reassess how we measure success in society. This is what the Humankind Index attempts to do and their findings chime not only with more radical thinkers like Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett but also with Nobel Prize-winning economists like Joseph Stieglitz. While we do need a basic level of income to provide the essentials of life, the index demonstrates through their large sample that, after these basics are achieved, what makes us most ‘happy’ is not our accumulated list of possessions but instead the quality of human relationships around us and our connection to our environment, both internal and external. Nothing is more detrimental to our quality of life than loneliness. We do not wish for a ‘brave new world’ where individuals spend their time alone, staring at various forms of screens, in isolated boxes for all of their days. And yet the policy decisions of western powers over previous tens of decades have led in exactly that direction.

My decision to write this piece came after a small group of close friends and I visited the island of Eigg in the Inner Hebrides. What we found there was a community of equals, resolute in their determination to achieve self-sufficiency and a cohesive sense of ‘oneness’ in a changing world. This was not about denying progress or trying to recapture some ethereal myth of crofting life. This was no Brigadoon in the mist. Here we found a modern commune with a pervasive sense of positivity and direction unlike any I have experienced before. The individuals I spoke to in our travels in no way wished to cling to tattered threads of tartan, the remnants of past grievance and the hallmark of the politics of grudge that has become so characteristic of discussions around land ownership on Scotland. They had accomplished change through the buyout, through determination and working with a shared vision to create something that was workable and sustainable. In doing so they have achieved an island that, while still facing many challenges, has recovered something of the commune; a reaffirmation of the value of human relationships and the self-determination to direct change in a manner that benefits all. The challenge is to ensure that this equilibrium is maintained.

As the Community Empowerment and Renewal Bill comes forward for consideration this year we must look to examples of best practice and embrace the need to be radical in our thinking. A cohesive community is not one where the gross output of the individual is the only hallmark of success. The ability to work with and influence our external environment so that the local economy is more responsive to the needs of the locality is essential. While brownfield sites lay vacant, while children do not have space to grow vegetables, while the elderly remain alone in sedentary boxes, while access to community halls remains insufficient, while our civic spaces take second place in the priorities of successive local councils and while our central policy fails to reflect the real human value in our society, we shall remain in a state of great mass disillusionment. The time to embrace a new paradigm is now. Listen to Oxfam, they know what they’re talking about.