05/10/2011 Newsnight Scotland

it has to be in the speech. thank you both very much.

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, should the Scottish Parliament

except Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reforms? They are among the

government's flagship policies but Holyrood art suggesting throwing

some of them out. -- are suggesting. And the government here wants to

spend millions on preventing illness and crime. We visit

Liverpool, where they already have a prevention system in place. Does

it work? An outbreak of peace between the

SNP and Labour threatened to place Holyrood in an almost unprecedented

situation. Because the UK Government's welfare reforms

affects how the Scottish government operates, they have to be signed

off by the Scottish Parliament. But the two biggest parties today

agreed that the reforms should not be passed without the chance to

pick holes in it and perhaps even rejecting some reforms out right.

This is an issue on which we can't be silent. We have responsibility

to speak out for the vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our

society. The system is broken, rock -- we recognise that, but we have

to make sure it is reformed in a way that is fundamentally fair and

it does not simply pass responsibility elsewhere. I will

stand shoulder to shoulder with any group to challenge the UK

Government's welfare reform agenda but attacks but poorest members of

our society but equally I will challenge the SNP to meet their

responsibilities as well. Nicola Sturgeon started talking about the

SNP's aspirations independence. For a party that wants control over the

welfare state, they need to be organised when key aspects are

devolved to Scotland. That left smaller groups of Conservative and

Lib Dem MPs to defend the reforms. How can it be right that we ask to

be unemployed to move from benefit into work when they are losing more

than 95p for a free additional pound but they earned. The poor of

being taxed at a rate which far exceeds the wealthy. It is right

that we keep pressing for appropriate safeguards but claiming

to be in favour of reform but holding the feud that any cuts to

any benefits or any taking of any demands is automatically unfair is

no longer credible. Or what happens next? Can SNPs

throw at legislation that is reserved at Westminster or is this

a show of defiance before they sign on the dotted line? Jackie Baillie

and John Dickie are with me now. John Mason, the technicalities of

this, can the Scottish Parliament say, no, we don't want these

reforms? For technically we don't have a veto but we were told by

David Cameron... I mean technically, because there are aspects of these

reforms that impact on how the Scottish government operates. Does

that give the Scottish Parliament some leverage in these particular

areas? It means we are involved in these areas and we have to go back

to the UK Government and I'd ask for some changes -- either ask for

some changes or an answer, yes or no. At but we do not have a veto.

legislative consent motion, if that was not brought to the Scottish

Parliament, or if you and Labour voted against it, the British

government could just say, we value your opinions, get lost. It would

show that they did not value our opinions. Clearly we are going to

discuss the details of why this is a bad Bill but I don't think we

have been in quite this situation before. Jackie Baillie, when -- you

have been made in Parliament since 1989? So this is unprecedented, or

isn't it? No, this would be an unprecedented action. I think it

signifiers the strength of feeling in Parliament and what would happen

as a consequence, should Parliament motion, is that it sends an

extremely strong signal to the government in Westminster about the

strength of feeling in Scotland, but I hope it opens up the channels

of communication to some quite substantive amendments being made.

The context in which we are examining this Bill, of course the

system needs improving, but what we are witnessing are sweeping changes

that actually are an attack on the most vulnerable in our society.

Something like �2 billion will be stripped out of Scotland. What are

you suggesting? I am struck by this new found friends should. You are

suggesting that you and the SNP might get together and agree on

changes you might like and so to London, if you want us to pass this,

do this. Four I would expect a process of negotiation in any event

but I am very pleased that the SNP decided to support Labour's

decision today, although that was in some dispute in their group

meeting today. You are only going now. -- niggling. It is only right

and proper that we come together to do this. There is responsibility on

the SNP government because this welfare reform viewed devolves a

number of benefits for the Scottish government to deploy. They have

been light on detail as well. For a party of independence to believe in

control of the welfare state, they have not demonstrated how they will

deal with that. John Dickie, I know you disagree profoundly with some

of this legislation, but is there any practical steps you think that

these two could make to ameliorate the worst effects? Firstly, we are

delighted that they have used this opportunity to send an unequivocal

message to the UK Government that this Bill poses an unacceptable

risk to tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of families and

households across Scotland. The challenge now is to build on that

consensus, to use that as leverage to seek to influence and to end the

UK Government's proposals so that we will minimise the damage they

are likely to do... I am sorry to sound technical, but Jackie was

making the point that some benefits are devolved to Scotland through

this process. Given that they would then be administered through the

Scottish government or its agencies, you still don't have any power of

veto so you would have to if push came to shove simply administered

these benefits in the way that the British government wants. Is that

right? Ultimately, yes. But I am an optimist. You are basically right

in the facts of the case but in the next stage one of the committees at

Holyrood, I think the health and sports committee, is going to look

at this in much more detail. Then we will see if Labour had

amendments they think we should put through. We may agree on these or

not, but that then goes back to the UK Parliament. The other thing

We'll come back to you. Now, the notion of preventative spending

became a bit of a buzzword in last month's Scottish budget when the

Finance Secretary John Swinney unveiled what he labelled a

decisive shift in goverment spending. In particular, he

announced a �500 million boost targeting adult social care, early

years and re-offending. But what exactly is preventative spending,

and what does it mean? David Allison's been to Liverpool where

they have been taking this approach Even the rockers and the 1950s were

told by their granny so that prevention is better than cure. The

idea is that concentrated spending to stop things go wrong and the

first place six my letter. It can include buildings as well as more

obvious things such such as education. Liverpool has always

been remarkably similar to Glasgow. Glasgow shares many of the health,

social and economic issues of Liverpool. But the Glasgow

effective also means that the same problems has a worse effect north

of the border. In health, in Liverpool, as well as encouraging

hostile changes, they are finding that health can be improved by

spending in areas not necessarily connected to health. Smoking, or

wait management, alcohol, mental health promotion, all those kind of

things. They are part of the problem. It is a cultural, late

into other issues around a regeneration, education, housing.

They all have a part to play. Prevent overspending in education

will improve the public health. Spending on housing will improve at

the public health. Spending on transport will improve the public

health. People have attempted to measure how in reducing the cost of

public transport actually impacts on the public health.

You could say that 80-year-old Margaret is preventative spending

in action. Order people who injure themselves enough for often it

discharged from hospital and there have another accident and require

permanent residential care. Now, up to six weeks of residential care is

provided. This preventative spend and prevents long-term hospital

care. Delayed discharge money has been paid to their acute care. We

cannot find care for those people to go back home. So what we are

doing here, they come straight here once they are discharged, we then

start looking for a care package to get them back, again. It says money

as well. There pull has paid him no delayed a discharge fines, so that

is great. -- Liverpool. Liverpool is finding that preventative

spending need not involve long-term intervention to achieve a long-term

effect. In alcohol misuse, there is good evidence that brief

intervention early, that can have a real impact on things like hospital

admissions. Not far from the city centre, Toxteth allies in the

shadow of the city's Anglican cathedral. It still there's plenty

of signs of deprivation, but are making the set -- the case for

preventative spending in times of economic recession is not easy. It

can be difficult to present the case. We have had to manage it very

carefully. Changes always frightening and I think you have to

explain it to people very carefully. It is easier to persuade people to

invest in prevention and times of plenty and when you have going -- a

growing the resources. It is harder in times of austerity. Liverpool

still remembers that Toxteth riots, a clear of example of what happens

when things go wrong. Crime is also an area were preventative spending

can play a role. Problem youngsters can still end up him petty crime,

at a cost to them and a society. When the police and the rest of the

criminal-justice system gets involved, the cost rises

accordingly. Youngsters at the school are being helped it to avoid

getting into more serious trouble. Often they can be a simple and

showing them how to budget and avoid getting into financial

difficulty. When there is no money, it can lead to crime. Crime at

Leeds at a more serious crime, bad health, bad planning. We have seen

people who have not had the advantage of a financial planning

background end up victims as a result of that. You could say that

preventative spending is an idea which has been around for a fire,

but it is there a political buzz word in Scotland at a time of

unprecedented spending cuts. The Glasgow effect might not be present

in Liverpool, but we might be about to see the Liverpool effect in

John, do you broadly welcome this idea of prevention and a different

approach or do you see any dangers in it? It is something I had been

arguing for for a long time. Preventing child poverty and the

cost that comes from that, it can cost up to �1.5 billion. Far better

to invest a �1.5 billion in early education, childcare and supporting

families. There is real opportunities here for the Scottish

government to demonstrate his commitment to prevented of spending

by spending and investing in it are poorest households. Presumably, the

principle of the thing you welcome? Absolutely. At the heart of

Labour's manifesto was a preventative strategy at the heart

of child poverty. Similarly, for elderly people, being here at four

in their own home. It prevents and plant emergency admissions at

hospital. My one regret is that we all talk about prevention, but the

reality is that a lot of the government's funding framework is

that they are forcing local authorities do only deal with those

in crisis. The voluble preventative work that we all want to see is not

getting funding. -- a valuable. John Mason, the prevention spending

means of that the funds have to come from elsewhere. Yes, the

finance committee has been looking at this in great detail. There are

good examples of this in Nottingham. Keeping families together saves

money. That also means working with typical teenagers. It is very

difficult to judge whether this is having an effect other than

anecdotal. It has gone further than that already. There are good

examples in the United States, and in Nottingham, we have some

ourselves as well. We have to leave it there.

A quick look at tomorrow's front pages, most of which lead with

That is all we have time for tonight. I will be back again

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 46 seconds

Those winds will cost up to 50 mph or 60 mph. In parts of Northern

Ireland and western Scotland as By Friday, most of the shares will