| Allan Wilson:
I reassure members
in all parties that I do not believe that everything is perfect in the
lottery garden. There are parallels with, for example, the European structural
funds, as there are peaks and troughs that should be sorted out.
However, several
misplaced criticisms have been made. Tricia Marwick and Mike Russell referred
to transparency in the powers of the Parliament. Scottish Executive involvement
in setting policy directions is not on a grace-and-favour basis; it is
part of our constitutional settlement. The concordat between the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport and the Scottish Executive sets out that working
relationship and provides the flexibility that Tricia Marwick and Mike
Russell seek.
The powers to
specify initiatives that are to be funded by the new opportunities fund
have been split to allow the Scottish Executive to exercise them on devolved
matters. The concordat ensures that the Scottish Executive identifies priority
areas and funding. Decisions on the detail of individual programmes and
applications are a matter for the new opportunities fund. That is an important
distinction, because not all lotteries succeed. If a state lottery finds
itself open to the accusation that it replaces the money raised in direct
taxation, it is liable to fail.
Several of the
points that have been made disregard the current arrangements under which
the Scottish ministers can and do influence—I have done so myself—the policy
and funding directions given to the NOF. There is a Scottish member of
the NOF board and the NOF has a Scotland office in Glasgow. There are complete
devolved and delegated powers for Scotland on a number of the programmes—on
healthy living centres, for example. Powers are also delegated on the land
fund. The powers on the fresh futures fund are devolved to Scotland Forward
and Scottish Natural Heritage.
Cathy Jamieson
made a good point. There would be no sport in schools or the community
without the work of volunteers. The voluntary sports sector represents
a substantial proportion of Scotland's third sector. That represents the
opportunity that Cathy Jamieson mentioned. It is an opportunity for the
voluntary sector, which is welcomed by volunteers in communities, even
if not by the SCVO.
I repeat that
I am delighted that PE and sport in schools have been identified as a high
priority in the next round of NOF initiatives. Sport makes a substantial
contribution to many areas of Scottish life. We want to make Scotland a
genuinely sporting nation.
Sport and physical
activity play a key part in our attack on health problems. Participation
in sport can be an attractive alternative to anti-social activities and
criminal behaviour. It contributes to a modern inclusive society. Links
between sport and children's academic attainment and overall achievement
are increasingly being recognised. Sport helps to develop personal and
social skills, to raise self-esteem and to promote self-discipline, respect,
teamwork and a sense of fair play. All those skills are required in the
new economy.
I say to Donald
Gorrie that NOF investment complements existing programmes. It will not
replace Exchequer funding or funding through sportscotland's lottery funding,
including the active primary schools programme, the TOP programmes, the
sports facilities programme and the school sports co-ordinator scheme.
Those links will continue and will be expanded.
Although Scotland's
health record is getting better, we still have some way to go in improving
the population's health. However, the coronary heart disease task force
report propose specific strategies to deal with heart disease and strokes
and the Executive's new cancer strategy will be published early next month.
Those strategies include targets to reduce inequalities in health, which
is a priority embedded in the Executive's fight for social justice.
Mary Scanlon,
Linda Fabiani and other members raised the issue of additionality. The
UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the NOF are committed to the
principle of additionality. Above all else, we are making a significant
investment through our health spending, which is set to increase by more
than £400 million each year, from £5.9 billion this year to
more than £6.7 billion in 2003-04.
Michael Russell:
Will the minister give way?
Allan Wilson:
No. I have only a limited amount of time and I would like to continue.
I am sure that the member will agree that we have had a fair debate.
An additional
sum of £287 million was announced only this morning, and new opportunities
funding is additional to such record resources.
The same applies
to child care. Our child care strategy is vital to the provision of good-quality
pre-school education and child care for the benefit of children and working
parents. We should all welcome the new new opportunities initiative that
will access all programmes and ensure continued success with a particular
focus on supporting projects in areas of disadvantage.
David Davidson,
Robin Harper and other members raised the issue of sustainability, which
is reflected in the division between capital and revenue spending in the
new initiative.
Mary Scanlon:
Will the minister give way?
Allan Wilson:
Not at the minute.
I agree with
Robert Brown that the debate did not reflect the amendments, which are
inaccurate and misleading and should be opposed. David Mundell and other
Conservative members have said throughout that, when the Conservatives
set up the system, lottery funding was not meant to be distributed in the
way that it now is. I agree—we have changed it and there will be no return
to the Conservative methodology of lottery funding that benefited those
with the most at the expense of those with the least.
The new opportunities
fund programmes are popular with the people and we will prioritise spending
within them on health, education, sport and the environment and on combating
drug abuse. In doing so, we will match the people's priorities.
As pleased as
I was to see Mike Russell survive Mr Swinney's night of the long spoons,
I do not believe that he and the SNP will survive the people's judgment.
The people's priorities of health, education, sport, the environment and
combating drug abuse do not equate with the SNP's fixation on constitutional
navel-gazing.
Three weeks
ago, the people spoke, and the SNP would do well to listen. If it maintains
its current rate of electoral progress under Mr Swinney's leadership, it
will pass the Tories on its way down the popularity stakes. I ask Parliament
to support the motion and to reject the amendments.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
