Examination of Witnesses (Questions 820
- 839)
MONDAY 26 NOVEMBER 2007
MR STEWART
MAXWELL MSP, MR
JAMIE HAMILTON,
MR MIKE
PALMER AND
MR NEIL
LANGHORN
Q820 Mr Devine:
Stewart, I am surprised you never mentioned in your introduction
local income tax as a factor in closing the gap of inequality,
from your party's position. In my by-election one of the candidates
who apparently heavily supports local income tax stated that a
nurse and a fireman living together were rich and could afford
to pay the additional cost the local income tax could generate.
Do you agree with that?
Mr Maxwell: Clearly, I am not
aware of any such statement. I was not present, so I will not
comment on any alleged statements by people or otherwise in a
by-election some time ago, Jim. From our point of view, we think
the council tax is iniquitous and unfair. We think the council
tax hits those who are poor in our community, particularly older
people, and we firmly believe a taxation system based on ability
to pay is clearly a major step forward in terms of a fair taxation
system. If it is good and right to do that for income tax, to
have a system based on ability to pay, it seems entirely reasonable
to also have a local taxation system that is based on the ability
to pay so we absolutely believe that is a major plank within the
limited powers we have that we wish to take forward.
Q821 David Mundell:
The UK Government, Stewart, has told us that they work closely
with the Scottish Government on poverty reduction. What does that
mean in practice, and is that your interpretation?
Mr Maxwell: It is certainly our
aim to work closely with the UK Government in those areas where
it is both a reserved and devolved dimension. Clearly, it is our
intention to work in the interests of the people of Scotland and
that is what we will do. We and government ministers have had
meetings with their UK counterparts, for instance Fiona Hislop,
the Cabinet Secretary for Education, has met with Caroline Flint
in the DWP. There are ongoing meetings that take place at ministerial
level as well as meetings between officials in each of the departments,
so clearly that work is ongoing, but we also liaise closely with
departments in the UK Government. I will give a hypothetical example.
If we want to carry a programme that deals with devolved areas
but will have an impact on one of the departments in the UK Government,
we would liaise with them to make sure they were not caught unawares,
that the timing of that programme meant they were geared up and
ready, in case it made any changes to the number of applicants
they had for a particular programme. Effectively, we do work closely
and liaise with them to make sure that there are no unexpected
downsides to any campaigns that we are doing so, yes, that work
does carry on and it does go on in co-operation.
Q822 David Mundell:
Are you currently lobbying for any distinctive approach in Scotland
compared with how the UK Government might be approaching some
of these issues in other parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr Maxwell: We are always lobbying
for a distinctive Scottish approach and to make sure the Scottish
dimension is taken into account—it is not always unfortunately—so
we are making sure as best we can that the UK Government is aware
of the differences in Scotland, not just in terms of government
policy but also in terms of the legal system and the other impacts
which sometimes some legislation has. We are having meetings,
as I said, at ministerial level to talk about some of the issues,
particularly the recent Green Paper that the DWP launched. I think
there are issues there where we have opinions which may differ
from the UK Government's current stance in terms of lone parents
and the impact that some of the policies may have on them so we
have some issues, some concerns, and the Cabinet Secretary has
expressed those concerns directly to the UK minister.
Q823 David Mundell:
Perhaps your support team is in a better position to answer this
question maybe than yourself, but is there a perception there
has been any change in those working relationships since the change
in administration?
Mr Maxwell: I was not here before
so I cannot do a direct comparison. I do not know if it is appropriate
for officials to answer that question.
Q824 Mr Devine:
We used to let them speak!
Mr Maxwell: I am quite happy for
them to speak. All I would say is, clearly, there has been a change
in personnel, a change in the way that we view the relationship
between ourselves and the UK Government. How that has affected
the individual relationships between officials, I will let officials
answer.
Mr Palmer: From my point of view,
I would say that consistently we have had pretty close and intimate
relationships with our DWP colleagues. I would say perhaps that
the change which has taken place is that we are now keener from
our point of view, from our end, to be more proactive at an earlier
stage in the policy development cycle than perhaps we were previously.
One of the things, for example, that we have done is to propose
the establishment of an official level four-country forum on poverty
so that officials from across the four UK administrations, Northern
Ireland, the UK Government, Wales and Scotland, can meet on a
regular basis to look at various issues around policy development
for child poverty and really get under the skin of some of those
issues in a sleeves rolled up-type fashion and have some discussions
earlier on in the policy cycle than perhaps we had sometimes in
the past. I would say that relationships have always been cordial
between us.
Q825 Mr Davidson:
Following that, for example, the City Strategy covering Glasgow
in particular, which is an interest of mine, are you satisfied
that the observations you want to make about matters of fact,
so to speak, have been adequately taken on board? There will be
occasions when clearly different parties will have different policy
directions and I think we accept that is going to be different,
but there are going to be observations you are going to want to
make, such as if you want to do such and such you ought to be
aware of X, Y and Z. Are you happy that the observations you make
are, at least, being listened to, if not necessarily accepted,
because presumably people have the right to disagree with you?
The relationship therefore in those sorts of circumstances you
think is working well? Is that correct?
Mr Palmer: I should caveat my
response by saying that I do not have the policy lead for the
City Strategy work, so I am not at the front end of dealing with
the DWP on that particular area, although I know something about
it. From what I know about the work that is going on there with
our colleagues on the City Strategy and employability, I think
there are very, very good working relationships at an operational
local level. In the three cities where the City Strategies are
being taken forward in Scotland, certainly between the Jobcentre
Plus leads, the other leads in those areas and the Scottish Government
policy leads the relationships are good. I think there is a confidence
and an assurance among Scottish Government officials that when
they voice an issue or a concern, that is getting passed back
up the line. As you rightly said, that will not always result
in a flexing of the DWP's policy and one cannot necessarily expect
that to happen, but there does seem to be a fairly open channel
of communication. I guess the one thing I would say is what we
do sometimes detect—and I think the DWP would concede this
readily themselves—is a tension between the ethos of the
City Strategies, which is to create local partnerships that are
responsive to local circumstances that are quite flexible in that
way and can respond to local devolved partners, the tension between
that and some of the UK-wide standardised policy frameworks that
come out from the DWP. That is a difficult tension to fix. It
is not anybody's particular fault but that simply exists there
so, for example, around some of the contracting proposals that
are coming through from the DWP, there might be some tensions
between big block contracts that are looked at from the UK perspective
and some of the dynamics that are around the local City Strategies
which are very much about responding to the local partnerships.
Mr Davidson: One of the issues that I
think we have not quite resolved, either yourselves or ourselves,
is balancing a need for flexibility and so on in a local area
and avoiding the equivalent of postcode prescribing because if
you are giving flexibility to people to do things differently,
and they do things differently you then get people complaining,
"I can do X in such and such an area and but I can't do it
in the other". I am not quite sure that we have resolved
this and not quite sure if you are serious about devolving things
yourselves further you would be able to deal with that. Chairman,
I have been at a CPP meeting this morning where unanimously the
elected members and the community all wanted to do one thing and
the officials were telling us, "No, no, you cannot do that.
It is the rules. It is more than my job's worth". That is
a constant difficulty really, is it not?
Q826 Chairman:
The people of Scotland obviously expect that their elected representatives
in local government, the Scottish Executive and, of course, the
British Government work together in co-operation, harmony.
Mr Maxwell: I am not sure they
expect harmony, Chairman, to be absolutely honest, but co-operation
possibly.
Q827 Chairman:
Certainly, and to work together to tackle all the issues facing
Scotland, including poverty issues. You have stated yourselves
that this is the aim of the Scottish administration, to work together
in the interest of these Scottish people. How would you define
the Scottish Executive relationship with the British Government?
Very good, good, reasonable or poor?
Mr Maxwell: I think we have a
good working relationship. I think at both ministerial and official
level people are focused on the issues. Clearly we have a difference
of opinion in terms of party political preferences, but there
is a determination to try and work together on many of these issues,
so I genuinely think there is a good relationship. There are differences
of opinion about some of the policies that the UK Government may
wish to pursue about who should control many of these powers,
because many of the powers in this area, in particular, are still
reserved and, clearly, we wish to see the devolvement of powers,
for example, over tax and benefits to the Scottish Parliament.
We believe that if we had those powers here, we could do so much
more than we can do at the moment. I do not think that will come
as a surprise to you or any members of your Committee but, putting
that aside for one moment, we work as closely as we can with the
UK Government because there is a determination to try and tackle
child poverty and poverty in general. That is something which
both of us surely can work together on.
Q828 Mr Devine:
Mike, this may be an unfair question. We were both dealing with
the Department of Health in a previous life. Is the relationship
easier where you are now than what it was in Department of Health
south of the border? Or is it comparable?
Mr Palmer: I would say the relationship
is pretty much the same.
Q829 Mr Devine:
I can remember a war zone!
Mr Palmer: As the Minister said,
although we would always expect to work in full co-operation and
very closely, we would not always expect to work in total harmony.
As when I worked in the health arena, we sometimes had our issues
and debates and we voiced our opinions to the health department
in England, so we do sometimes with the DWP. What I would say
is that the DWP do listen, they respond to us and we work things
through. I think what is absolutely key about this particular
policy arena is that there is a very unified objective, which
is the eradication of child poverty, and in a way in health it
was not quite so clear because you could go in a number of different
directions on health, whereas in terms of child poverty everybody
is absolutely committed and agreed on the goal we are trying to
reach. That helps in a way.
Q830 Mr Davidson:
Following up that point about all being agreed and the common
goal, one of the issues that the National Audit Office have been
asked on a number of occasions by the Committee of Public Accounts
to look at is a comparison of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
with what is happening in different parts of England and so on
and so forth to make sure we are picking up best practices. You
mentioned that you were reviewing what had been done by the previous
regime. Were there any examples of particularly good practice
that you think ought to be picked up by ourselves for possibly
rolling out across the UK, or whether or not there was anything
you think did not work at all where it is different? We have asked
the National Audit Office to look, for example, at education for
us and see whether or not your results are improving better than
the UK's as a whole or vice versa and different ages and so on.
I think that would be helpful. Are there any things you could
particularly draw attention to where you have done very well and
others where you would re-cast them in the light of what happens
elsewhere?
Mr Maxwell: That is particularly
a very difficult question to answer, I think. I suppose if you
look at the facts of the progress in terms of the targets that
were set for Closing The Opportunity Gap, the ones effectively
that looked to be on track were targets on worklessness, health
inequalities and improving rural service. If you want to try and
establish why those particular ones were doing so well, obviously
there has been some good work there and it is clear that a difference
is being made. Other ones, such as working with young people who
are not in education, employment or training, the NEET group,
particularly looked after children, clearly there is virtually
no progress whatsoever in that area, so whatever was being tried
with the previous administration, for whatever reason, was not
having the impact that was desired when that project started.
Q831 Mr Davidson:
Do you know whether or not other places did better or less well
than that? If nobody anywhere made any progress, then that tells
you what you were trying was not any worse, but if other people
were going backwards and you stayed the same, then you have comparatively
done better. I was wondering whether or not you had compared your
experience here with, say, Northern Ireland, Wales or parts of
England?
Mr Maxwell: I cannot tell you
specifically on those ones. One of the projects that I certainly
visited during the summer was a project, which I do not think
you have down south, the Working for Families Fund which has made
quite a considerable impact on individuals' lives. Approximately
20,000 people have gone through that programme, of which 15,000
have had very positive outcomes in terms of moving towards work
or gaining employment. These are exceptionally good figures from
the Working for Families Fund. I know that people from England,
Wales and elsewhere in the UK have begun to take an interest in
those particular projects, so perhaps that is a good example.
I do not know whether or not Mike has any others.
Mr Palmer: Yes, I think that is
an excellent example. That is something that we would like to
disseminate as far as possible. We have been down to Birmingham,
Wales and so on and spoken about it and the DWP, I know, are interested
in it as a programme. The other example that I would pick out,
I guess, is work that we have done around one of our targets on
Closing The Opportunity Gap which is around pre-employment programmes
for entry level jobs into the NHS. Jim might know something about
these health service academies where we have NHS boards that are
running programmes for people who have been particularly hard
to reach in terms of getting them into the labour market and then
looking upon the NHS as one of the biggest employers in Scotland
and saying, "We can actually do something as a major employer
to help employability here by bringing people into entry level
jobs". As the Minister said, once you have got them into
the NHS, they are into a good career structure, so they are getting
into a job that is going to give them quality help.
Q832 Mr Davidson:
Are you happy for the mechanisms that exist for good practice,
which you have identified, to be disseminated elsewhere within
the UK and vice versa? I do not know whether or not people have
drawn to your attention things that have worked, say, in Birmingham,
Manchester, Wales or Northern Ireland, and you have then looked
at those and said, "This is a possibility"?
Mr Palmer: Yes, we have had those
mechanisms. Some of it has been fairly loose in terms of conferences
and so on that we will attend and then pick up on things that
have been going on, but some of it has been more structured. For
example, through the British-Irish Council, Scotland joint leads
on the social inclusion strand of that. We are actually looking
in the British-Irish Council at the moment at child poverty. I
jointly chair the official level group of the British-Irish Council
on that strand. Each time we meet, which is about three or four
times a year, we look at various things that are going on across
not only the UK administrations, but also Southern Ireland and
the smaller islands in the British isles, so that structure has
existed. As I said, what we are doing now is setting up a tighter
four-country structure which—this is not to denigrate the
British-Irish Council at all—has a more focused view on
those four countries which are all committed and signed up to
the eradication of the child poverty target and will be able to
say, as a forum across the UK, "What are the joint contributions
that we can make to that target?"
Q833 David Mundell:
A final question in terms of the relationships. In our previous
evidence session with COSLA I think there was agreement that it
was effectively a tripartite approach of the local government,
the Scottish Government, the UK Government, but one of the things
that was identified, I think, in that session was the diminishing
relationship between Scottish local government and the UK Government.
I presume that is something you would support in terms of re-building
that relationship so in terms of UK Government initiatives, Scottish
local government can play a full part in shaping those.
Mr Maxwell: I think Scottish local
government has to play a full part in these initiatives because,
clearly, for the most part it is the delivery mechanism for many
of the programmes and projects that we fund or the UK Government
funds so the tripartite-type of arrangement that you intimated,
I think, is crucial in terms of the role that local government
has to have in that relationship. Certainly since May we have
tried to build up a very strong relationship with COSLA and individual
local authorities, because we certainly take the view that local
government has to be an equal and strong partner with the Scottish
Government in terms of delivering not only our national priorities
but also delivering locally for people in their own communities.
I think there is a partnership which perhaps can be strengthened
over the next few years because, without effective local government,
many of the things we all want to do would have some difficulty
in actually being achieved if local government was not fully signed
up to some of the things we are trying to do.
Q834 David Mundell:
One of the issues which has been promoted is a more localised
approach—and by that I do not mean necessarily Scottish,
I mean more localised within Scotland or different parts of the
United Kingdom—to benefits and administration of benefits
and tax credits, in particular. Is that something that you would
support?
Mr Maxwell: I think I would have
to have some more detail on that before I would commit ourselves
to any particular programme. Clearly, we think that taxation and
benefits should be organised at a Scottish level. How the administration
of that within local authorities took place, I think that would
be a matter for discussion and debate, but without any detail
on that, to be honest, David, I am not sure I could say at this
stage.
Q835 David Mundell:
I think the point was being made that Scotland or the UK as a
whole is not the right "spatial level", which was the
expression being used, on which to administer these things most
effectively.
Mr Maxwell: I think it would depend
on the programmes we are talking about. To be honest, I do not
think I could give you an answer which said yes or no because,
frankly, it would depend on the administration and programmes
individually we are talking about. I think it would vary from
programme to programme or from area to area. In terms of the principle
should things be delivered locally where they can be delivered
locally, yes, they should, but it would not necessarily apply
one size fits all across the board. Clearly, even in terms of
local authorities they vary in size enormously, some of them can
carry out some of the work very easily, some of them maybe would
have some difficulty or it would take some time for them to gear
up to deliver some of these sorts of things. There is not a straight
yes or no answer.
Q836 Mr Davidson:
The targets for reducing child poverty were met in Scotland over
the last period but not in the UK as a whole. Do you have any
explanations for that? Is there anything you think that we could
draw from that which would be helpful to us?
Mr Maxwell: I think many of the
children who were taken out of poverty over the last few years
are those children whose families have been just below the borderline
effectively and many have moved from just below to just above,
there has been a marginal increase in their conditions. I have
to say most of that has been down to changes in the tax and benefits
system at the UK level. I am not aware of why that should have
necessarily impacted more in Scotland than the rest of the UK.
Beyond that, though, clearly there has been cross-party unity
in terms of tackling child poverty over the last eight and a half
years. A lot of effort has gone into routes back into employment
too in Scotland, we talked about the Working for Families Fund
which recently I think has had a very positive impact. There has
been substantial resource put into child poverty. I cannot tell
you exactly what the comparisons would be.
Q837 Mr Davidson:
There is a lot of shared ground in this and there is no reason
to have a row just for the sake of it but, given in this geographical
area things have done better comparatively, I was just wondering
whether you or one of your officials had done an analysis of why
that was.
Mr Langhorn: We did do some analysis
of this following the 2004-05 figures when it was showing that
we had reached the target. Part of it is essentially that Scotland
started from a worse figure, it was worse than the UK average,
and we have essentially caught up with the UK average, which has
meant there has been a proportionally greater decrease. Part of
that, as the Minister said, was that essentially there were more
families—because we started from a higher base—eligible
for the tax and benefits changes which came in at a UK level and
that would certainly explain a large chunk of why Scotland did
better. What also appears to be the case is that Scotland has
been more successful at getting parents into work and, in particular,
getting the second earner, or the sole earner in a household in
terms of lone parent households, into employment because the stats
are better for Scotland for that. As to why we have been more
successful at getting people into work, I think it is partly a
case of both our efforts, the efforts of Jobcentre Plus have combined
well with things like Working for Families and other Scottish
Executive support programmes around employability. Essentially,
it is partly a case of where we started from, we started from
a worse position, therefore more families were eligible, but we
have also been better at getting people into work.
Q838 Mr Davidson:
Could I be clear, though, you are saying to us that the tax and
benefits changes that the Government introduced disproportionately
benefited Scotland because we were already worse off? Is that
comparing Scotland with the whole of England?
Mr Langhorn: That is true.
Q839 Mr Davidson:
Given a lot of these difficulties are predominantly, say, West
Central Scotland issues, how would that compare with, say, the
equivalent Liverpool or Manchester? I want to be clear whether
or not we are comparing like with like.
Mr Langhorn: It works if you compare
both Scotland with the UK average, and Scotland with individual
other regions of the UK. Wales and Northern Ireland would have
been in the same position that they started from or a worse place
than the UK regional average and now Scotland is about the UK
regional average, it is about the same as the average English
region.
|
