Budget Process (Finance Committee Inquiry)
We reach agenda item 2 about half an hour later than we had intended, so there goes any hope of a 12 o'clock finish.
We have already had a discussion about the Finance Committee inquiry into the budget process, and members have before them a paper on the matter. I invite Peter Peacock and Des McNulty to expand on the points that they have already made, and to say in particular what they think needs to be altered in the budget process. At that point, we will have an opportunity for comments. I remind members of the time, though, and urge them to keep their comments as concise as possible.
There is a suggestion from the minister that if we want level 3 data, we only have to ask for it. That satisfies me, and I hope that we can build that request into the procedure, so that it does not become an issue of contention.
My other point relates to stage 3 of the budget bill, and involves a point of principle for the whole budget process. Having been involved with two or three budget bills during my time as a minister with responsibility for finance, I believe that the system was designed around an assumption that there would be a majority Administration, and stage 3 is truncated because it was assumed that the Executive would have enough members to deliver all the votes. However, we are no longer in that position, as we have a minority Administration. Given the current nature of Scottish politics, there might be a minority Administration for quite a period of time—although it might not involve the same party—so I suggest that stage 3 should be more open, and that the Finance Committee ought to think about allowing amendments to be made at that stage, on the basis that the will of the majority of members in Parliament on particular points in the budget might be against that of the minority Administration. At the moment, that is not accommodated in the process, which strikes me as a democratic deficit. I do not think that the current situation was fully anticipated when the arrangements were designed.
I am not taking a hard position on this, but I think that the Finance Committee ought to examine the issue as part of its examination of potential changes to the system.
There is a slight possibility that we will end up changing our rules every time there is an election, in order to reflect the election outcome. Surely there must be a more consistent way to handle the situation, otherwise we will be in constant flux.
I would not advocate that. The arrangement that I am talking about would endure even if we once again had a majority Administration.
The first issue is transparency. This year marked a significant step backwards in terms of the data that we got, compared with those that were received under the previous arrangements that were agreed by the Finance Committee and the Government. There is an absolute requirement for level 3 data to be made available, and not just when committees ask for it. If the data are available to the Government, they should be made available more generally. John Swinney and Jim Mather, as members of the Opposition, and I, as convener of the Finance Committee, were keen on having baseline data to make it possible to reconcile systems as they change from year to year. For example, this year, significant changes in how local government finance was calculated made it difficult to reconcile the baseline issues and gave us difficulties in terms of our flooding inquiry.
The second issue is the resources that are available to committees and political parties to examine what is in the budget and what options might be proposed. As Peter Peacock said, the situation is more fluid now, and more members may come forward with budget alternatives than was the case in the past. Some might do so in combination with ministers; others might not. However, there needs to be an independent source of expert advice in the system. Whether that is an office of the budget or a resource within the Scottish Parliament information centre that allows budget alternatives to be considered, engaged with and proposed, it needs to be examined.
The third issue is process. There needs to be a longer timescale. This year was particularly unsatisfactory, but in general there needs to be a longer timescale, with more points of access for change. The present process, in which changes at stage 3 can be only technical and proposed only by ministers, is probably not democratic. It means that the budget effectively is set in December and cannot be changed before it is finally agreed in March.
I will avoid making the obvious comment, which is that the democratic problem seems to have appeared in your mind only since May last year.
I can demonstrate pretty clearly that nearly all the points that I have made have been raised by me and others in the Finance Committee over the past five or six years.
Regardless of when they come about, convener, the points are no less valid. The budget bill is the only bill that is not subject to amendment by the Parliament at stage 3.
That was by decision in 1999.
Yes, but we have had a review and we now have an opportunity to put forward our views. You may disagree with them, but that does not make them any less relevant or valid.
It is absurd that the Parliament cannot amend the budget bill at stage 3. If there is a majority in the Parliament against a particular amendment, it should not be left to one committee of nine members—and perhaps the vote of one member of that committee—to determine whether the budget is amended; it should be a matter for Parliament. We are all accountable for the budget, and we should all be able to amend it. The budget bill is the only bill in the Parliament that follows that system. We have a review in front of us, and we should suggest the change as a positive outcome for whoever is in the Government of the day.
Obviously, I am somewhat at a disadvantage, in that this year's budget was the first that I have been involved with—
That is an advantage.
Or an advantage, as Peter Peacock suggests.
I echo the convener's point that we must ensure that any procedures suit all circumstances, whether that is a majority or minority Administration. That must underpin whatever we recommend to the Finance Committee and, I hope, what the Finance Committee recommends in turn.
I understand what Des McNulty said about the timescale being too short this year. Again, I emphasise that this is the only budget process that I have experienced, but we have to remember that the timescale was somewhat curtailed through no fault of the Scottish Administration, because the comprehensive spending review at Westminster was delayed. Before we rush to make any suggestions on the back of this year's process, we should bear that in mind.
Peter Peacock's logic is slightly inverted. If I understood it correctly, he said that there is a democratic deficit when we have minority Government—which must ultimately negotiate acceptance of the budget to win the votes in Parliament—but that there was no democratic deficit when a majority could force through a vote regardless. It seems to me that we have a more democratic system with a minority Government, which is the exact opposite of his argument. A minority Government has to negotiate to get the votes—it cannot force anything through.
You could try a coalition.
We could, but we will let Mike Rumbles stay in opposition.
I do not accept the argument of a democratic deficit at all. To me, the opposite is the case at the moment—much more negotiation is necessary. A more convincing case for change has to be made.
Given that we are now running very late, I suggest that the issue be placed on the agenda for our meeting on 28 May. We do not have to come to any conclusion today. I will get the clerks to take a quick note of which members had their hands up—Mike Rumbles and Peter Peacock—and, when we come back to the issue on 28 May, they will be able to continue the discussion.
We will all put our hands up then.
Indeed, you may. We are badly pressured for time today, so this is an appropriate course of action.