Holding the SNP Government to Account
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-788, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on holding the Scottish National Party Government to account.
This debate is a chance for the SNP to go "homeward" and "think again", in the words of the popular song, before it brings its budget to Parliament next week.
We were all told that in the first 100 days of an SNP Government we would witness consensus, competence and co-operation. Let me rehearse what Alex Salmond said to Parliament in May:
"the challenge for this Government is to share power with the Parliament".
He continued by saying that
"leading a minority Administration—certainly not one with a thumping majority—is perhaps an enormous advantage in leading that change towards consensus governance."—[Official Report, 23 May 2007; c 58, 59.]
I do not doubt the Scottish electorate's sympathy with those sentiments. Indeed, I am sure that the voters still hold that view, but does the SNP? As the summer turned to autumn, everything changed. The approach became another day, another excuse, and another broken promise or another fight. Now the SNP even fears proper debate.
Today, we invite the SNP to live up to what it promised in its first days in office—to do what you said you would do. Next week's budget will lay out plans to spend £17,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland over the next three years. Every pound of it is hard-earned taxpayers' cash. Despite that, the SNP is content to have less than three hours' parliamentary debate about its budget plans.
The election meant that there was no stage 1 to the budget process—no chance for the committees to offer their views to Parliament. We want to have that opportunity, but the SNP wants no more debate in Parliament until at least the middle of January, and then a couple of brief debates just before the financial year starts. What is the SNP so afraid of?
We get a sense of the SNP's discomfiture from the fact that no minister—not one—could be found to defend that lack of debating time on the airwaves this morning, while its attack dog, Alex Neil, took the position that it undermines Parliament to have a debate in Parliament. Who is he kidding? He then went on to complain that it undermines the committees to have a debate in Parliament. Who is he kidding? Finally, he said that civic Scotland does not want a parliamentary debate. I challenge him to find a big business, trade union or voluntary organisation that would not like the arguments to be heard in Parliament.
I wonder whether Wendy Alexander recognises the following quotation from the Labour Party's former Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform on the budget process of which she is now so critical. He said:
"The Scottish budget process is uniquely tailored to ensure that as many people as possible can contribute to the debate, which ensures that our budget is spent transparently and efficiently".—[Official Report, 26 January 2006; c 22818.]
That is the budget process that you enjoyed last year, but you seem to be against it now. What has changed, apart from the Government?
I will make it absolutely clear: stage 1 of the budget process provides the chance for Parliament to look forward and back, but the last time we had a stage 1 was in 2004. After three years, surely all members deserve the opportunity to debate the nation's spending priorities. Somehow, the SNP can find no parliamentary time for that, although we are hardly falling over legislation.
The people elected Parliament—all of it—to hold a minority Government to account. Our request is modest: we want five short debates between now and Christmas. That would be less than one hour's debating time for every £6 billion that the Government will spend over the next three years. Why is the SNP so scared of parliamentary debate? Is it afraid that its spending plans will expose its broken promises? Is it scared that its sums do not add up?
Why did Wendy Alexander insist that I go after her on "Good Morning Scotland" this morning and why did she refuse to debate with me on the programme?
That question comes from the party that refuses any parliamentary debate for 10 weeks. I suggest that you are more interested in having your spin doctors scuttle around the press gallery claiming, "We wis robbed." We have had weeks of them whispering to journalists, rallying the troops and claiming that a bad boy from Westminster did it and ran away. There has been endless spin but there will be a studious lack of debate in Parliament after next Wednesday. Why is that? The SNP fears the facts.
In next week's budget, Scottish spending will reach its highest level ever—Alex Salmond will have double the budget that Donald Dewar had available to him. All through the election campaign, we and the other Opposition parties said that the SNP's sums did not add up. We said that we did not know how the SNP would pay for its promises. We now know that it did not know, either.
Blaming London is simply a diversion. The real story is that the SNP is picking fights and avoiding scrutiny to cover the weakness of making undeliverable promises. No wonder it wants to avoid debate—we now face the prospect that the SNP could break every one of its flagship pledges. Who now believes the pledges to provide 1,000 extra police officers and to cut class sizes to 18? Who now believes that the promises to cancel student debt, provide a first-time buyers grant and impose a national council tax freeze will not all suffer the same fate?
Next week's budget will make or break the SNP's reputation. The SNP will have allocated all the money that it has from now until the next Scottish election. If it does not commit that money to fulfilling the promises that it made to the people of Scotland in May, after next week, it will not be able to escape the charge that it is the party of broken promises. However, a greater accusation will be levelled against the Government: not only will the SNP be seen to break all those flagship promises, but it will be seen that the SNP always knew that it would not deliver on them. SNP members will not like to be reminded of that, but we know that they consciously set out to buy off the electorate in May with promises they knew they could not keep. It was a gamble on a liberal sprinkling of fairy dust to seduce the voters. The breach of faith is not only in the fact that the SNP is breaking its flagship promises but in the fact that it always knew it would. It is an act of cynicism for which the SNP should be held to account promise by promise, department by department, minister by minister.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am concerned that Wendy Alexander is not speaking to the motion in hand. Can you please advise on that?
That is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the person who is speaking.
A few weeks ago, our First Minister told an interviewer, "Government is easy"; this week, he will have to eat those words. The SNP promised a new politics but has returned to its comfort zone of grudge, grievance, bluster, blame and one excuse after another. It has used the excuse of the spending review for not addressing 60 issues its Government should have tackled.
When we finally got the spending review, the First Minister resorted to attacking the characters of both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, but the people of Scotland will not be fooled by those tactics. We have seen every cabinet secretary—not one of whom is present for this debate—follow suit. The public see Kenny MacAskill categorically denying that he ever meant that there would be 1,000 extra policemen. The public see Fiona Hyslop flip-flopping on cuts to class sizes and they see Nicola Sturgeon squirming about grants for first-time buyers. They see Richard Lochhead failing to speed up payments to support Scottish farmers. [Interruption.]
Order.
I recall providing £30 million when we were in government.
If the public have any residual doubts, they should consider local government. The SNP's manifesto made 10 pledges that local government would have to implement. There are only four full working days before the budget, but local government does not know which of those 10 promises the SNP still wants it to keep. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth should stop stalling. Which promises do you expect local government to keep, or have you dropped them all in a last-ditch attempt to force a council tax freeze?
The SNP is not only backtracking on its own commitments; it is ignoring things that are critical to the future of Scotland. It is not matching the school building programme, it has not committed to increase modern apprenticeships, there are no skills academies, there are no extra nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds and town centre renewal has been shelved. We have had backtracking, blustering and blame, but no debate. The public will come to the inescapable conclusion that the SNP cynically overpromised and is now systematically underdelivering. The last thing that it wants to do is talk about that any time soon.
Back in May, the First Minister said:
"the challenge for this Government is to share power with the Parliament".—[Official Report, 23 May 2007; c 58.]
Today, I challenge the Government to live up to those words of a few months ago. The voice of the people demands to be heard, and it is the people's money that the Government will spend. You will spend £17,000 for every man, woman and child in this country, and you cannot bring yourselves to debate it. Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise the budget in the way that the people of Scotland expect, not in the way that suits the SNP. It is time the SNP went home and thought again.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the critical importance of the forthcoming three-year spending review to meeting the hopes and aspirations of the people of Scotland; welcomes the detailed scrutiny of the SNP Government's spending plans by parliamentary committees as a central part of the budget process; believes that there should be the widest possible debate about the spending priorities for the next three years, and therefore resolves to set aside chamber time for individual debates on the budget priorities for each Cabinet Secretary's portfolio: Finance and Sustainable Growth, Health and Wellbeing, Education and Lifelong Learning, Justice and Rural Affairs and the Environment not later than the conclusion of Stage 2 of the budget process.
I remind members that the second person singular—that is, the word "you"—should be used only by me.
Labour's motion talks of "Holding the SNP Government to Account". My proposition is simple: we should instead consider how Parliament holds the Government—whatever party forms it, and regardless of whether it is a coalition, majority or minority Administration—to account. We should not change the rules merely because we have changed Government. We should not change the rules merely because Labour is in opposition.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way in time.
Those of us who want to enhance Parliament's standing will not play fast and loose with its procedures for party-political advantage. That applies to the budget and the procedures that are in place to enable us to scrutinise it.
Will the member give way?
Let me make progress.
Will the member take an intervention?
There are two reasons why we do not support Labour's motion. First, in seeking to add the debates that are mentioned in the motion, Labour seeks, in effect, to amend the budget process without consultation or consideration and to do so outwith the procedures that are in place to handle such amendments. If the debates were not there to influence the budget process, what would be the point of adding them?
Will the member take an intervention?
I think the member has made it clear that he is not doing so.
If the debates are to influence the budget process, should they not be part of it? If such debates would be valuable, should not they form part of every budget process? Is Labour arguing today that such debates should be part of the budget process only when Labour and the Liberal Democrats are not in government? [Interruption.]
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
Order.
Are you going to take an intervention?
Order.
The second reason why we do not support Labour's motion is that, if what is being sought is greater scrutiny, we do not consider that the proposal in the motion is the best way of delivering that. I support greater scrutiny of the budget, which can be achieved by MSPs of all parties participating in the current budget process.
Does Mr Brownlee agree with what he said in the Finance Committee's meeting on Tuesday 11 September? He said:
"I am not particularly happy for us to signal that we should not scrutinise spending as widely as possible … we need to send a clear message that, particularly in a spending review year, Parliament can and will scrutinise any and all expenditure areas across portfolios."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 11 September 2007; c 10.]
Indeed I do agree. We do that through the current process, which Tavish Scott described in 2003 as
"a demonstrable improvement in scrutiny."—[Official Report, 17 December 2003; c 4345.]
We will scrutinise expenditure by doing what we have done in the past eight years—questioning ministers in committee, lodging parliamentary questions, and seeking the views of experts on budget areas who are unable to participate in debates in the chamber. I do not argue—and my amendment does not argue—that the budget process cannot change or that it is perfect. I argue merely that, if we are to change it, we should do so having carried out a thorough and detailed review of the implications, rather than by passing a motion that the Labour Party dreamed up a week before the parliamentary budget process commences.
I mentioned some changes that might improve the process in an article for The Scotsman in June this year, which so many Labour and Liberal Democrat members obviously chose not to read. I said then and I say again today that we will not support proposals to amend the budget process in isolation, but only as part of a balanced package of reform that strengthens parliamentary scrutiny and which has been properly consulted on and debated. My amendment sets out the appropriate way to initiate such reform.
Against that reasonably stated background, what is the difference between this year and future years? Why is it so important to change the process in future years but not in this key year of the comprehensive spending review?
The key difference is that we should not change the process six days before it starts. That is a reasonable suggestion.
The budget process has been lauded by many members. Earlier this year, the then Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform would have had us believe that our budget process is so good that people from all over the world were flying to Edinburgh to congratulate him on it—as he put it, the process is
"the subject of comment and praise in other places."—[Official Report, 14 February 2007; c 32029.]
He is not alone. Elaine Murray described the Scottish budget process as "far superior" to that of Westminster—[Interruption.] I can tell the former minister that he will not be in a Government for a long time. Tavish Scott said that Scotland has
"one of the most open and transparent budget processes."—[Official Report, 24 June 2004; c 9534.]
His point has been echoed by Peter Peacock, who described the process as being
"more open and transparent than any other of which I am aware."—[Official Report, 19 December 2002; c 16536.]
Wendy Alexander talks of enhancing scrutiny. In effect, she says that unless we support Labour's motion today, we will not have sufficient scrutiny. Three years ago, before I entered Parliament, members were warned to consider the budget process in the light of the looming spending review and a tightening of the budget. Members were told:
"The year after an election is the one when politicians sometimes seek to rise above the political fray … We are fast approaching a spending review, which it is anticipated will be tighter than for many years … So today, instead of focusing on the specific measures in the budget … I will focus on the budgetary process".—[Official Report, 29 January 2004; c 5400.]
The speaker was Wendy Alexander. In that debate, she had nothing to say about increasing the number of debates on the budget in the chamber or even in committees. Instead, she talked about trend data.
Last year, Wendy Alexander returned to the subject of the budget process in her role as the new convener of the Finance Committee. She focused—rightly, in my view—on how the roles of committees in the budget process could be enhanced. Once again, however, there was no mention of additional plenary debates. However, let me be fair to her—she is not alone in not having suggested previously that we should have such debates.
Given that there will be no stage 1—the stage at which Parliament debates priorities—why have the Tories decided in the past 48 hours that they favour less scrutiny of a minority Government's budget than of a majority Government's budget? So much for sticking up for the hard-pressed taxpayer. There will be no stage 1.
I assure Wendy Alexander that it is not the Conservative party that has changed its view on the appropriateness of the budget process. [Interruption.]
Order.
I said that Wendy Alexander was not alone in having failed to suggest that we should have such additional debates. I have taken the opportunity of reading every budget debate since devolution. It is the nearest that we get to the collected works of Des McNulty—and it is as near as it should remain. [Interruption.]
Order. The member has a right to be heard.
There have been many changes in the budget process over that time, and others have been debated. However, at no time in any of the debates have members advocated what Wendy Alexander advocates today, whether in a spending review year or not. However, we are expected to believe today that what is proposed is a sensible way of improving the scrutiny process. Anyone who still believes that Labour's proposal is about enhancing scrutiny of the budget in a spending review year, rather than being about trying to obtain party-political advantage, need only remember that the reason why the spending review has not been scrutinised so far is that it was delayed by Gordon Brown in 2006 to enable it to occur when he was Prime Minister—without a second thought for the consequences on the Scottish budget or its process.
Did Labour propose additional debates for the spending review year when it thought that the review would occur when it was the Government in Scotland? Did Labour put forward to the Procedures Committee proposals for such a change knowing that with a coalition majority they would have been passed? Did Labour even mention such a change? It did not.
In the interests of openness and transparency, will Derek Brownlee confirm whether a deal has been done with the SNP that means that the Conservatives have changed their view?
We know which parties in this Parliament make deals—it is still evident today, six months after they were kicked out of office. We have done no deal and will do no deal. We will do what we said before the election, which is to consider everything issue by issue. I am not surprised that Mike Rumbles has difficulty with the concept that a party should do after the election what it said it would do before it.
Let me take members back to the points that Wendy Alexander made about the need for budget debates. If Labour thinks that we should cover the issues in chamber debates, it can use its Opposition business time—such as today. Today could have been used to set out the base on which the comprehensive spending review has taken place, to challenge the detail of the SNP budget, and to challenge the SNP comments on the adequacy of the spending allocation from Westminster. We could have moved on next week to questioning the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth.
The member makes a perfectly valid point that we could have used our debate this morning to examine the comprehensive spending review. Does he accept that, instead of that, we chose to use the debate this morning to try to ensure that members have five opportunities to discuss exactly that topic and how it affects Scotland? Why can he not support that?
Mr Brownlee, you have one minute.
Those are five opportunities that would not have occurred if Labour had still been in government. If Labour wants to have such short debates, it has Opposition time in which to have them. It could do what the Conservatives have been doing for eight years: questioning in committee, lodging parliamentary questions, taking evidence from outsiders and challenging the budget day by day. That is what Parliament should do.
If we believe that we should change the budget process, we should do so in a measured way.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
The member is in his last minute.
My amendment rejects calls to make fundamental changes to the process less than one week before it begins. Parliament has the opportunity today to take forward reform in a considered fashion.
Shameful.
I say to Jackie Baillie only that if anyone is to hang their head in shame, it should be her and members on the Labour benches for failing in Government to do what they now say we should all do. It is time Parliament rose to the game of scrutinising the budget. If the Labour Party is not up to the job, that is not my fault.
I move amendment S3M-788.1, to leave out from "there should be" to end and insert:
"an effective budget scrutiny process is critical in ensuring that public services are delivered in a way which provides optimal value for money; believes that the process should be sufficiently robust to cope with majority and minority government; believes that there is scope to review the operation of the current procedures as laid down in the Standing Orders and the agreement between the Finance Committee and the Scottish Government; believes that the appropriate vehicle for such a review would be the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, in consultation with the other committees of the Parliament, particularly the Finance Committee, and requests that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee undertakes a review of the budget process for future years."
What a Tory sell-out that was: the Government amendment, moved by the deputy minister for finance, in the most pathetic fashion.
The Liberal Democrats will hold the SNP budget proposals to account, even if others have sold out on that. We will judge the Government on how it has worked with Parliament to build support for its proposals—it has obviously done that a lot with the Conservatives. We will test whether the SNP has kept its promises to the people of Scotland and whether its sums add up on its key pledges and proposed efficiency savings. We will assess whether its budget gives sufficient priority to the real challenges facing Scotland.
Liberal Democrats want an informed and transparent debate. We want that debate on the budget this month, next month and throughout this year's budget process. There must be "effective budget scrutiny", a process that is "sufficiently robust" in which there is "scope to review" the current procedures. Those are the words in the Tory amendment today, but neither the Tories nor the nationalists want effective and transparent scrutiny of the budget because they have stitched together a grubby back-alley deal. Those parties oppose having five subject debates on the budget in the chamber in addition to full committee scrutiny. The Tories say that they are not needed, and the SNP agrees.
There is no Government amendment today.
Will the member take an intervention?
The deputy minister for finance can certainly explain why there is no Government amendment if he wants to.
I simply wonder whether the Liberal Democrat, or indeed Labour, members on the Finance Committee had ever put forward that proposal for us to consider as part of the budget process.
Some of us made proposals last summer. Derek Brownlee says that he made proposals as well, but I have not noticed him taking any to the Procedures Committee or to any other committee in the past four months.
Liberal Democrats spent eight years being attacked by the Tories and the SNP for being in a coalition with a clear document of policy—it was transparent, accountable and easily scrutinised. But today, 24 hours after the Tories agreed that there should be parliamentary budget debates, they are backing the nationalists to block such scrutiny. They are voting together—a budget stitch-up. We know now that the Tories will vote for the budget come what may.
What we have today is confirmation of what many of us have believed to be in place since May: a marriage in waiting between Alex and Annabel. The ring is in Mr Salmond's suit pocket, and Annabel is halfway down the aisle. They had their lovers' tiff last week—for appearances' sake.
Tory back benchers are shifting, or rising, uncomfortably in their pews, longing to shout, "Object", but they are very hesitant over there. Now, with a sweet message from Colombo, all is well. The ceremony is back on, and the Tory page boy Derek Brownlee is pushed out today to lead the singing.
Today is the last day on which there is any pretence that the once mighty Conservative and Unionist Party has a shred of principle left. It has sold out.
Given the content of the member's speech so far, I wonder whether he would like to remind us just for how many years he served as a minister in a Labour Government.
Not one day.
Perhaps looking back to his ministerial career, the member can remind members on how many occasions in stage 1 budget debates we undertook exactly the debates that we are seeking to introduce.
That happened on all the occasions that it happened during the spending review periods. It happened on those occasions but it is not happening this time.
It did not need to be this way. The Tories said that they would voice the views of the people. They had stunts with megaphones, and they used to say minority government was good for Scotland, but they never meant it. They have fallen hook, line and sinker for Alex's charm. Oh, the fools.
The Tories budget red lines last weekend were well trailed—with the SNP. We do not need red lines from the Tories; they should take 100 lines: "I will stop helping the nationalists achieve independence."
Alex Salmond spent much of May, a little of June but none of September, October and November acknowledging that we are all minorities in Parliament. He was obliged to the Liberal Democrats for our leadership on renewables, he welcomed Labour's thoughts on skills, and he drooled over Miss Goldie's war on drugs. As usual with Mr Salmond, it was all spin and bluster. A minority Government it was not. There was a deal not just with the Greens but under the counter, behind the altar and over candlelit dinners at Bute house: a deal with the Tories is now in place.
The Liberal Democrats will properly scrutinise the proposals that the minority Government publishes next week, even if others have sold out.
We have consistently argued that, on class sizes, student debt, transport and the council tax freeze, the SNP's sums do not add up. The SNP lacks financial wriggle room because it promised to fund its election commitments from efficiency savings. Before the May election, and with great fanfare, the SNP had deep discussions with civil servants. It said that it would fund its £4.4 billion of spending with £4.3 billion of efficiency savings, so there could be no excuses, no spin, no bluster and no war of words with London. However, that was not to be.
Parliament needs to scrutinise the SNP targets. We can be sure that next week's budget will contain no target on new police on the beat, nor one on class sizes. Alex Salmond would never have allowed himself to be thumped at successive question times if John Swinney were about to appear, galloping over the hill on his white charger, pulling the proverbial rabbit out of the hat. That would, in truth, be a demanding feat of equestrianism even for a man of Mr Swinney's talents. The budget will say little on those broken promises, but the Liberal Democrats will say a lot. No matter how the SNP might try to downplay next Wednesday's budget by making a pre-budget statement on the Commonwealth games, we will hold them to account.
I do not doubt that Mr Swinney wants to freeze council tax, nor do I doubt that Ms Hyslop wants to cut class sizes—I believe that they are sincere in their objectives. However, even with pre-election access to civil servants, their sums did not add up in May and they do not add up now. That is why the SNP will break the promises that it made to the electorate. This week, local government told the Lib Dems that the SNP must find at least £100 million to fund its council tax policy and £275 million to cut class sizes.
The budget will also be about whether the SNP takes away resources from tackling Scotland's long-term challenges: to make Scotland the renewable energy powerhouse of Europe; to make sustained capital and resource investment in Scotland's further and higher education; and, as the impact of climate change hits, to develop better and more sustainable public transport. Starting from this week, we want Parliament—in its committees and in the chamber—to ensure that the minority Government's proposals are fully scrutinised. It is a scandal and a disgrace that the Tories want the opposite.
I move amendment S3M-788.2, to insert at end:
"further recognises that no one party has a majority in the Parliament and, therefore, requires that the Scottish Government commits to enhancing the existing arrangements to provide early access to the civil service to support the Finance Committee and opposition parties wishing to pursue recommendations for amendments to the budget to ensure that they are fully aware of the consequences of any change proposed to the budget."
Let me start by making it abundantly clear that the Government opposes the irresponsible proposals in the Labour motion. Labour's proposals would fundamentally breach the Parliament's founding principles. Parliament is being asked to make major changes to the budget process without consultation, without proper consideration and at the last minute. Labour's proposals are ill thought out and half-baked and represent the worst of posture politics. We accept that, after eight years of the Parliament, there is a case for reviewing the budget process, and we will support the responsible position that has been adopted in the Conservative amendment.
Everyone knows that the current procedures are not a creation of the Government and are not a recent innovation. They reflect the recommendations of the consultative steering group and are intended to provide a proper opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the budget by using the expertise of the committees. The CSG reached its conclusions following a thorough process of independent consideration and discussion. The recommendations came from the independent financial issues advisory group, which was made up of distinguished members from industry, the voluntary sector, local authorities, the civil service and the media. FIAG was a serious and responsible group of people if ever there was one—in stark contrast to the members on the Labour benches.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will not take any interventions at this stage.
Yes, the CSG recommendations were refined through the experience of the first parliamentary session. The current arrangements are now embodied in the agreement between the Finance Committee and the Government. That agreement was also the result of reflection, proper consideration and consultation, and it reflects the experience and consensus that emerged from practice.
Did not the CSG recommend that the budget process should have a stage 1, in which the entire Parliament could debate the budget priorities? Yes or no?
Had we not had delay after delay from the Labour Government in London on the comprehensive spending review, perhaps we could have had a proper process.
Even Tom McCabe recognised the strength of the current system. In a previous debate, the then Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform said:
"We have one of the most open budget scrutiny processes of any Parliament".—[Official Report, 26 January 2006; c 22819.]
It is always interesting to look back at the findings of the Parliament's committees. The legacy paper that the previous Finance Committee produced in March 2007 suggested that changes to the budget process should be made through formal channels—in other words, only after proper consideration and consultation. The committee made no recommendation on holding plenary debates in the way that Labour has now suggested. By the way, the convener of that committee was none other than Ms Alexander.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Labour is today guilty of the worst kind of opportunism and hypocrisy. It does not really care about the reputation of Parliament. All that it cares about is political advantage for the Labour Party—nothing more and nothing less.
Will the minister take an intervention?
We are aware, of course, that other changes to the budget process have been suggested since the election. For example, it was widely reported in June that Tavish Scott believed that the budget process should be reviewed. In The Herald of 13 June, referring to the budget process, he said:
"I want to see the Procedures Committee take forward this proposal to ensure that the parliament can effectively hold to account the decisions of ministers on how they plan to spend the taxpayer's money."
We agree with Tavish Scott that the proper route for full consideration of changes to the budget process is through the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Is it not strange that, to date, Tavish Scott has never made the slightest approach to that committee, either in writing or even in an informal discussion with the committee's convener? The truth is that, in June, he had still not recovered from a bad election result for the Liberals, so he gave a quick and cheap soundbite. He never had the slightest inclination of taking any constructive steps to follow through on his comments. Tavish Scott has his chance today to follow through with action on his mighty and fine words. Will he vote for the Conservative amendment or will he sell out on his own words?
Let me take the chance to comment on the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
I think that the minister heard you, but he is not taking an intervention.
I cannot see how the civil service could possibly provide the support that is suggested in the Liberal Democrat amendment. The civil service code states:
"Civil servants are accountable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to Parliament."
Civil servants could not be accountable to Opposition politicians even if they were instructed by ministers to support them. Clearly, that would put civil servants in an impossible position. It is clear that civil servants could not properly provide support to the Finance Committee in the way that is described in the Liberal Democrat amendment.
If Mr Crawford had described my amendment fairly, I would agree with him, but he exaggerated our request. The amendment—which he should read, instead of reading the exaggerations that his special advisers have written for him—simply highlights the importance of committees and Opposition parties being able to provide costed assessments of their proposed alternatives. That is not too much to ask.
The amendment calls on the Government
"to provide early access to the civil service".
I have read the amendment.
Minister, you have one minute.
Clearly, civil servants could not properly provide the support to the Finance Committee that the amendment seeks.
Will the minister give way?
He is in his last minute.
The role of the committees is to scrutinise the Government's proposals; the role of the civil service is to formulate policy and to provide advice to the Government. As I have said, civil servants are accountable to ministers. In any case, committees have their own clerking staff and the resources of the Parliament. There would be a clear conflict of interest if civil servants, whose role is to advise ministers, were asked to advise the Finance Committee.
As I have said, the Government recognises that all procedures need to be reviewed from time to time to ensure that they are up to date and remain fit for purpose, which is why we will support the Conservative amendment. It is also why I will look closely at how the Liberals vote at decision time. Tavish Scott asked for the Procedures Committee to examine the process. We will see how much his words really mean.
We now come to open debate. I strongly recommend that the number of sedentary interventions be reduced from now on. Speeches should be of six minutes.
This has been quite a robust debate. It might not be too cynical to say that a deal has been made. People out there watching this morning's Punch and Judy show will not be too impressed. Given the political composition of the Parliament, what is proposed in the motion is fair and reasonable. [Laughter.] See? Punch and Judy again.
The notion of having five subject debates on the budget priorities for each cabinet secretary's portfolio is perfectly sensible and is hardly revolutionary. It would be a valuable supplement to the budget process and would complement and enhance the necessary detailed scrutiny that the Parliament's committees will carry out. In short, it would allow members to discuss in plenary session the strategic thrust of the Government's budget—nothing wrong with that. It would not interfere with the committees' interrogation of the detailed proposals that will be contained in Mr Swinney's—that is to say, the Government's—budget, which is a good thing. What fair-minded minister or Tory backbencher could object to that?
Will the member take an intervention?
Be quiet please, Ms Cunningham—you will get your chance.
We know that the SNP minority Government will have double the budget that was available to Donald Dewar in 1999. Even if we accept the SNP's criticisms of the budget baseline, it still has 99 per cent of the budget it expected to receive. The Parliament is quite entitled to discuss, in as thorough a fashion as possible, the SNP's spending priorities when they are at last revealed by Mr Swinney on 14 November.
Questions that have been asked of various Government ministers over the past six months, only to be met with, "We must wait for the outcome of the comprehensive spending review," will at long last require to be answered. Labour will support the minority Government's spending priorities when they are demonstrated to be properly costed and are for practicable measures that build upon the work of the two previous Labour-led Executives to push forward an agenda that I and most other people believe is important—an agenda that has at its core the creation of a more socially just, more economically balanced, safer and more inclusive society.
In that vein, I will focus on education. As a former classroom teacher of 20 years' experience, I know from first hand how central education is to the proper development of our young people's talents and abilities, and to the wider aim of a more prosperous, egalitarian Scotland. A debate on education and lifelong learning would allow members a chance to question ministers on matters on which the SNP has until now—except for chanting the mantra, "Wait for the CSR"—been uncharacteristically silent. It is not so uncharacteristically silent now—perhaps it is to cover its embarrassment—but I say to Bruce Crawford that bluster will not do it.
In its May manifesto, the SNP made a number of extravagant promises on the education spend. Perhaps the most breathtaking was the pledge to end student debt. Will the promise be kept and, if so, how? The SNP was told by Labour that it would cost £1.7 billion to clear current student debt and that a further £3 billion would be required to introduce grants. During the election campaign, the nationalists loudly claimed that Labour was wrong, but, since 1 May, the SNP has been uncharacteristically—indeed, deafeningly—silent.
I hope that a subject debate would release the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, from her vow of silence on the issue and that we would finally obtain an unambiguous answer from the Government. I believe, as does my party, that if promises are made and targets are set, they should be costed and capable of being delivered. The previous, Labour-led Executive promised to cut class sizes in English and mathematics for secondary 1 and secondary 2 by September of this year, but that target was met with derision and ridicule by the nationalists. Such derision and ridicule was undeserved, because that target—promised to the people of Scotland—was met. Our new Government's assurances on delivering class sizes of 18 in primary 1 to 3 by May 2011 also deserve the closest possible scrutiny. We are entitled to ask, "How realistic, rational and deliverable is that undertaking?" After 14 November, we will be entitled to answers.
Given time, I would like to have referred to the promise of 1,000 new police officers by May 2011. I say to Mr MacAskill that the promise was for new, extra, additional police officers, not equivalent, retained and redeployed police officers. I fear that that particular promise has not been properly costed or thought out. It is one reason—but not the only reason—why a subject debate on the justice portfolio is not only desirable but necessary, as are all the debates that are proposed in the sensible and rational motion.
The budget process can be viewed as technical and esoteric because it is technical and esoteric. However, at the heart of any budget lies a Government's priorities. Not only do Government spending priorities drive our economy, they help to shape our society. A Government must be held to account on its budget. The proposal in the motion would assist us in doing just that, which is why we should support it. That is what the people out there expect of the Parliament—rational debate.
If Bill Butler wants rational debate, he needs to speak to his front bench about lodging rational motions. I do not see the point of lodging a motion if the lead speaker does not even address its subject matter. Perhaps Wendy Alexander realised when she read the motion that it was complete rubbish, because she spent 13 minutes—she did not take her full 15 minutes—avoiding its subject matter. Bill Butler managed to avoid it for most of his speech as well.
Jackie Baillie might have been a bit more honest with her motion if she had titled it, "How to make it as difficult as possible for the SNP Government to govern." That is what this is actually about. I can see it now: Jackie Baillie and her pals huddled over a Chinese meal in the west end of Glasgow, trying to come up with some spiffing wheezes to create maximum aggravation for cabinet secretaries. I do not blame them; it is what Oppositions do, and Labour is in opposition. It is tough, guys—we know, we did it for long enough—but let us not pretend that the motion is seriously about holding anybody to account. It is nothing but a panic response to try to stop the Government governing as effectively as it has been.
Here is the truth. Labour had eight years in Government, including when Tom McCabe—remind me, he was the finance minister, was he not?—said:
"We have one of the most open budget scrutiny processes of any Parliament".
In the same debate, he said:
"The Scottish budget process is uniquely tailored to ensure that as many people as possible can contribute to the debate".—[Official Report, 26 January 2006; c 22819, 22818.]
The previous Finance Committee's legacy paper is worth quoting at length. At point 40, suggestions were made about improving budget scrutiny. The committee suggested
"that its successor committee approach the new Presiding Officer to engage in a dialogue initially with the Conveners' Group to look at the issues raised in this paper and to think about appropriate solutions."
I am on the Conveners Group, and none of that has been raised. It is interesting that it has been brought to the chamber the week before we have the debate on the comprehensive spending review. What has changed over the past wee while? Oh yes, of course, Labour lost. Well, boo hoo to you.
Somebody needs to remind the Lib Dems of that as well, particularly when they start demanding that civil servants be freed from their duty to support and promote the views of ministers. Why not just tear up the entire process of government while we are at it? Tavish Scott spent much of his speech wittering on about grubby little deals. Grubby little deals? The Lib Dems are past masters at grubby little deals. It is pretty much a case of pots calling kettles black.
We had eight long years during which there was no indication that the budget process procedure that is being suggested today would be a better method. Why? Because, of course, it is not; nor is it intended to be a better method. Furthermore, since May, no proper suggestions have been put to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
If the Opposition is so keen on its changes, we might have expected it to take them forward through the normal processes of the Parliament. Is that not what we do if we want to change how things are done in the Parliament? That is what the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is for. If it was so desperately important to examine parliamentary procedures, why was no approach made to that committee? That none was made gives the game away.
The motion is student debating society stuff and the tactic is to make more and more demands on the time and energy of ministers. What is the master plan here? Is it to tie up ministers so severely that they do not have time to do the governing bit? They would no doubt be attacked for that, too. Frankly, where is recognition of the committees' role in any of this? It is not even mentioned.
Can Roseanna Cunningham give us a starting point against which the budget can be compared? In the previous session, Parliament had the transparent partnership agreement. Where is the comparable document for this session? We certainly cannot start with the SNP manifesto as a comparison document for the budget.
Where is the document from the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party in respect of the motion? It does not exist.
As the convener of a parliamentary committee—the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee—I want to speak about the committees. Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, came before our committee on 27 June to talk about his part in achieving the Government's priorities. He came before us again on 19 September to talk about foot-and-mouth disease. He will be back before us on 5 December in the context of our budget scrutiny. As always, other members are welcome to come to our meetings. If they cared enough, they would ask to come along. Three other MSPs did join us on 19 September. Interestingly, no one from the Labour Party came to that meeting, and nobody else showed up on 27 June.
The key point is that the parliamentary committees are just as important as parliamentary business in the chamber. Maybe Wendy Alexander does not believe that. Maybe she does not think that the committees would afford her the same grandstanding opportunities. That is what the motion and the debate are really all about—grandstanding. Well, Labour has had its fun this morning. Can we now get on with the serious business of governing? All I can say about today's effort is, "Nice try, but no cigar."
I am becoming increasingly concerned about SNP members' paranoia. However, I am not surprised by the Tories' and the SNP's complicity. I am sure that David Cameron has reminded them of the importance of supporting the SNP Government in Scotland.
We have had a number of policy debates since we returned from the summer recess. There have been ministerial statements on cultural policy, the restructuring of the enterprise network, planning and housing—well, maybe not. There have been debates on the skills strategy and on early years. In all cases, ministers could not tell Parliament how policy intentions would be backed up financially, because that was dependent on the spending review.
Will the member give way?
No, I must make progress.
Only yesterday, Linda Fabiani said under questioning:
"I will not discuss funding until members have heard Mr Swinney's budget statement next week."—[Official Report, 7 November 2007; c 3083.]
We have also had dozens of written and oral answers to questions to the Executive that have remained incomplete, pending decisions that are to be announced in the spending review. There have been questions on the freezing of council tax, the savings that are to be made by restructuring the enterprise network, funding for initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour, support for carers and class-size reductions.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I will take an intervention from Mr Russell when he informs me about a ministerial engagement in my constituency—please sit down.
Oh!
We have also had questions on flood prevention, future funding for Scottish universities, personal care for the elderly, and funding for housing and community regeneration. We have had questions on the Howat review recommendations and on how many of them will be accepted. We have had many other questions, but we have not been given answers to them, pending the spending review.
Nobody is arguing that the fact that the spending review and the Scottish budget have had to be announced later than normal is the fault of this Administration or, indeed, of the previous Administration. I say to Mr Brownlee that I stand by my comments and those of my colleague Tom McCabe that the current budget process is exemplary. However, this time we have lost a component that we would normally have in a spending review year.
The member is not giving way.
Normally, in a spending review year, the Parliament would have undertaken stage 1 of the budget process by this point. That would involve publication of the annual evaluation report in March, which would be considered by the Finance Committee and the subject committees between April and the summer recess. The Executive—or the Government, as it now is—would have submitted a provisional expenditure plan, assessed its progress towards its priorities and submitted views on the future priorities for the coming spending review. Parliament, through its committees, would have had the opportunity to consider ministers' spending priorities and progress across the current spending review, and would have been able to make recommendations for the future spending review.
As my colleague Wendy Alexander pointed out, that process has not happened since 2004, because we changed the procedure in years when there was no spending review. The stage 1 process has not been possible this year for several reasons: the delays in the United Kingdom Government's comprehensive spending review, the Scottish parliamentary elections and the change in Government. Consequently, we are asking for some additional debate—that is all. However, according to the people in the SNP, one would think that we were asking for some gross violation of parliamentary procedure that would bring democracy in Scotland crashing down. All we are asking for is a few little debates about areas of policy—that is all.
I make no criticisms of ministers; in fact, I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's effort to preserve time for the Finance Committee and the subject committees to consider the budget. The proposal for additional debates in Parliament is no disrespect to any of the committees. If I may speak on behalf of Labour colleagues, I assure ministers that we all intend to be extremely rigorous in our respective areas of budget scrutiny. However, the proposed parliamentary debates would fulfil a different function.
Guidance from the Finance Committee to subject committees will be published once the budget documents are published next week. Committees do not have to accept the Finance Committee's recommendations, but we have already agreed to recommend that committees select a particular area of their subject portfolio, examine how it contributes to the Government's spending priorities and put forward any alternative proposals that they want to make.
In the absence of stage 1 of the budget process, our proposed parliamentary debates would provide all interested MSPs with the opportunity to scrutinise how the Government selected its priorities within each portfolio and how they contribute to its overall priorities.
Much has been said about the tightness of the settlement in the comprehensive spending review. I do not agree that the baseline budget has been increased by only 0.5 per cent or, indeed, that Scotland has been treated any differently from other UK departments. I believe that the real increase is more than three times what the Government claims, but we will have that argument at another time. However, we all knew that the increases would be less than they were in previous spending reviews. We all knew that long before our election manifestos were published. Indeed, there were references to the tightness of the settlement in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-budget statement in 2006, so we all knew what was coming.
The SNP made promises in order to achieve power. Now that it is in power, the Parliament is entitled to scrutinise how, and if, the SNP Government is delivering what it promised. If it intends to deliver, the Government should have no fear of our proposed debates.
Elaine Murray is the deputy convener of the Finance Committee, which had a meeting with John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, at the beginning of September. At that meeting, the cabinet secretary outlined his timetable and the process and procedures for the consideration of the forthcoming budget. At no time did the deputy convener or any other committee member—Labour or Liberal—raise any objections; indeed, they endorsed the cabinet secretary's proposals. Therefore, how can they come to the chamber now trying to undermine what they agreed to at the beginning of September?
Is the SNP Government frightened of debate? What is the difficulty with having parliamentary debates on detailed subject matter, as the motion proposes? How would that interfere with the budget process?
I have to laugh at the likes of Robert Brown, who was a minister in the previous Executive, which suppressed the Howat report for months. He and his colleagues now want a debate, but they would not have a debate on Howat and would not even publish the report. Now, they call for an open-ended debate on the Government's spending priorities. When we invited them to publish the Howat report, they refused to do so until after the election. Every Labour and Liberal member in the chamber endorsed that policy. They have a cheek preaching openness and transparency when what they did with the Howat report was reminiscent of the practices of the Kremlin in Moscow.
I will not engage in hyperbole, but Labour and Liberal members are telling us that they want a debate on the responsibilities of every cabinet secretary, and that that was always intended. I have been a member of the Scottish Parliament since 1999—which is regrettable for some—and remember the first two comprehensive spending reviews. I remember that Donald's Cabinet had nine members, Henry's Cabinet had 10 members and Jack's Cabinet had 11 members, but I do not remember Labour and Liberal ministers proposing nine, 10 or 11 debates on each Cabinet member's responsibilities. What is good for the Lib-Lab goose is good enough for the SNP gander.
Will the member give way?
I will in a wee minute. Poor Jackie.
You should use full names, please, Mr Neil.
Jackie has fouled up again. The rumour is that Wendy is sending her to read the caterpillar book to find out whether she can improve her performance. She talks about consensus, but she did not even talk to the Tories about the draft of her motion—or did she? Did she try to stitch up a grubby deal? I sit next to the Greens in the Parliament so that they can keep an eye on me, and I can tell members that Jackie was parading on the floor last night trying to do a grubby deal with the Greens. It seems that the only deals that are not allowed are deals that do not involve the Labour Party. Word is that the Labour Party will need to move to new headquarters because of its financial crisis. Why does it not call its new headquarters "Tammany hall"?
Labour has the cheek to complain about the timetable, but that timetable resulted from Gordon Brown's refusal to have a comprehensive spending review while Tony Blair was Prime Minister, as they did not talk to each other.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last minute, Jackie. I suspect that, in your job, you might be too.
There was a delay in the comprehensive spending review for the same reason that we did not have an election—so that Gordon could be Prime Minister and could tell all of us about his vision. We are still waiting for that. The only vision that I have seen is the vision of stuffing the Scottish Government and not giving us the money to which we are entitled for the Scottish people. Is it not ironic that we are having this debate on the day that oil reached $100 a barrel?
I remind members that they must refer to other members by their full names, even in the pursuit of humour.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for the member to mislead Parliament in the pursuit of humour? It was him I was looking for last night in order to do a deal.
The member knows full well that that is not a point of order.
Today's debate is about the process by which the Parliament scrutinises the Government's budget, holds ministers accountable for their spending decisions, and ultimately decides whether to approve those decisions when it considers the budget bill. In essence, the Labour motion seeks to add an additional level of scrutiny to the existing process in the chamber by requiring the Government to timetable a series of five short debates, as Wendy Alexander said.
On the face of it, the proposition that there should be an enhanced degree of scrutiny is perfectly reasonable and deserves serious consideration. However, the difficulty for the Labour Party, as members have pointed out, is that the proposition would have been equally valid in any of the eight years in which Labour and the Liberal Democrats made up the Scottish Executive, including the years in which there was a comprehensive spending review. Accordingly, one must ask what has changed, apart from the blindingly obvious fact that those parties are now on the Opposition benches. The answer that Labour will give to that question is that we now have a minority Government and that procedures and processes that were previously lauded to the skies when Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers were running the show are somehow inadequate for the purpose when there is a minority Administration. My colleague Derek Brownlee regaled us with some of the fulsome praise that Labour lavished on the existing processes when it was in office. One cannot help but feel that Labour becomes alive to the possible inadequacies of the system only when the boot is on the other foot.
Before the summer recess, the Government introduced a series of themed debates on the programme for government and the approach to government. Indeed, it said that its approach was new and novel. I seem to recall that the Conservatives welcomed that approach. Why did the member not refer those themed debates at that stage to the Procedures Committee?
The Government and the Parliamentary Bureau are entitled to propose parliamentary business that is suitable to the circumstances of the time. A change in the Parliament's rules or procedures is not required to have a series of themed debates. Indeed, I recall debates on many themes when Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in government.
Eloquent though Wendy Alexander is, I am not, on balance, convinced by her argument that there should be one set of rules when there is a minority Government and another set of rules when there is a majority coalition, and that grafting on a series of additional parliamentary debates as an ad hoc measure without considering the process as a whole is a course of action that we should adopt.
In an article in The Scotsman in June, my colleague Derek Brownlee outlined the Conservative approach to the budget scrutiny process. He said that, although we do not rule out any particular change to the process, we would not support any one proposal in isolation. He said that we would support proposals only as part of a balanced package of reform that has been properly consulted on and debated.
The member justified his position with respect to past practice. I have two questions. Does he acknowledge that this is the first-ever time that we will have had a spending review without there having been prior consideration of proposals by the entire Parliament? Does he regard five debates as interfering with procedure in any way?
We know why we will not have a stage 1 debate—because of delays for which the Labour Government in Westminster is responsible. We will, of course, have a debate, as agreed, following the budget statement next week in the Parliament.
The article that Mr Brownlee wrote in the summer was in the context of a proposal that was mooted by Tavish Scott and which Professor Arthur Midwinter, Ms Alexander's new guru, supported: that, under our standing orders, the right to move amendments to the budget should not be limited to Scottish ministers alone. The same comment that Mr Brownlee made applies equally to the current Labour proposal.
In that context, we might also consider the further proposal in the Liberal Democrat amendment, which seeks to enlist the support of civil servants for Opposition parties in the scrutiny process. I see significant problems in that proposal for the civil service. It would require the civil service to be a servant of two masters: the Government and the Parliament. It must have been difficult enough for our civil servants to meet the demands of two masters in the form of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in the previous Executive, but at least Labour and the Liberal Democrats were on the same side—at least nominally, as it turned out that they were only temporarily on the same side. In fairness, however, the idea could be refined for the further benefit of parliamentary scrutiny. Should members, for example, have our own budget office as an adjunct to the Scottish Parliament information centre that is staffed by experts on public finance, who could provide detailed advice to individual members and parties on the Government's spending plans and the cost of alternatives? That might be better than the present system, whereby parliamentary committees end up engaging budget advisers on a freelance, ad hoc basis.
The budget that the SNP Government will present next week will receive, at the very least, the same level of scrutiny and examination as the eight previous budgets that the previous Executive submitted to the Parliament. Indeed, it should receive a much higher level of scrutiny and examination for the simple reason that there are far more Opposition members in the Parliament and on its committees to conduct that forensic examination of the budget figures. If Labour does not think that it is up to that job, we most certainly are.
I always take as my guiding light the principle that if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. I submit that that is a good maxim for all lawmakers and parliamentarians. We should not rush to judgment but should carefully consider all the options before we act. That is the essence of our amendment, which I invite members to support.
A recent survey has confirmed what most of us knew before the election: that the vast majority of the Scottish electorate do not want Scotland to become independent. The sooner SNP members wake up and smell the coffee on that issue, the better, because they are spending a lot of time posturing on independence, which is helping no one.
The SNP's assertion that independence would allow us to have a much better economy is fatally flawed, as it does not consider the wider social or economic consequences of such a change, which include the setting-up of embassies in many countries around the world, the loss of UK defence-related jobs in Scotland—including those at Rosyth naval base in my constituency of Dunfermline West—[Interruption.]
Order. Will you address the motion, please?
Yes. As many of my English friends and family have told me, there is concern that some people's fervent nationalism will incite even greater anti-English racism in Scotland. [Interruption.] My SNP colleagues may jeer and deny that such behaviour goes on, but a recent example that it does was relayed to me—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When will the member address the motion? Nothing that the member has said—
Sit down. I am dealing with the matter.
Mr Tolson, you must address the subject matter of the motion and the amendments.
As was the case last week, I would have got to the subject matter of the debate much more quickly if I had been allowed to continue and had not been interrupted by such interventions.
Will the member get on to it, then?
SNP members are not giving me the chance to do so, but I will certainly do my best.
Such anti-English behaviour does go on.
I will move on from the Government's disappointing past actions to its future actions and, in particular, next week's budget statement. For many people in Scotland, one of their biggest disappointments will be that, although they voted SNP in May's elections on the basis of the promises that that party made on class sizes, police numbers and major health improvements, for example, the SNP has been told by all the Opposition parties—and, I am sure, by many officials—that the country simply cannot afford to fund the scale of improvements that it promised before the election. It simply cannot pull a financial rabbit out of a hat or make £1 into £1.50.
Despite recent pressure from Nicol Stephen and many others members, the SNP minority Government has not been willing to confirm many of the commitments that it placed before the electorate in May. The issue is not so much whether the SNP will break its promises—it already seems clear that it will—but more which promises it will break and whom it will let down. Will it let down the elderly because of lack of funding in the care sector? Will it let down our kids in overcrowded classes? No, it will let down all of Scotland because a promise, once broken, is not forgotten. Even if the SNP manages to hold on to its fragile lead for four years, the people of Scotland will not forget that its promises are not worth the paper that they are written on—especially if that paper says,
"Alex Salmond for First Minister".
The people of Scotland will hold the SNP to account on 5 May 2011.
I am not saying that everything that the SNP Government has done is wrong—well, not quite everything. The Liberal Democrats have supported it on bridge tolls, graduate endowments and early years education. Subject to detailed discussion, we may also support the Government in the future, on issues such as the right to buy and local income tax. We will look fairly and impartially at all the proposals that the Government makes and will decide on a case-by-case basis whether they merit our support.
However, it seems to me and to many other members that, thus far, the Government has been highly selective in the issues that it has put before the Parliament for debate. It has constantly courted support from other quarters in the Parliament on issues on which it thinks that it can get such support. Moreover, because of the arithmetic of a minority Government, it has deliberately not put any bills, contentious or otherwise, before the Parliament for full and open public debate.
We will do that next week.
That is a bit late, given that the SNP has been in power for six months.
It is difficult to believe that the Government can continue to run and hide in that way for four years of minority government, but that seems to be its game plan. The end result can only be great disappointment for the people of Scotland.
In summary, the SNP misled the people of Scotland on the ballot papers, it has the slenderest of majorities—it has just one seat more than Labour—and it is about to break the biggest list of promises since George Bush and Tony Blair said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A fine mess that got Britain into, and now the SNP's broken promises will get Scotland into another fine mess.
SNP and Conservative speakers—it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between them—have tried to suggest that there is no difference between this year's budget process and previous budget processes, but there is a significant difference. Whether we like it or not, and whether we want to make political arguments about it or not, the delays in the comprehensive spending review and in our knowing how much we have to spend necessitate the adoption of an approach that is different from the one that was employed previously. Elaine Murray spelled out in great detail why the situation is different this time round.
Another issue is the fact that, this time, we do not have what we could describe as a detailed programme for government to scrutinise, so we do not know how much we have to scrutinise. The Scottish Conservatives talk about re-examining the process next year, but by that time the budget will have been set, the decisions will have been made and it will be too late to have any great influence on the process.
Six days before the budget, the Labour Party tells us that there is a problem with this year's budget process. Why has it made no proposals to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to change that process?
There are two different issues. The procedures could be examined and I am sure that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will do that, but members have a responsibility to deal with the reality that confronts them. As many speakers have said, we are about to enter a budgetary process without having had a stage 1 debate and without a detailed programme for government—we must look at a list of promises that, frankly, are not worth the paper on which they were written.
Jeremy Purvis was right to make the point that it was good enough for the Parliament to have a series of themed, portfolio-based debates before the summer recess. It was all right for the Parliament to have such debates when there were no decisions to be made and when there was no detail available, but now we are told that having such debates when there are decisions to be made and when the figures and the budgets are available would somehow be an affront to parliamentary democracy and undermine the Parliament's procedures. There is not only flawed logic but complete dishonesty in that position. An attempt is being made to avoid any detailed scrutiny of decision making.
The biggest difference between this year's budget process and that of previous years is the fact that the present Administration was elected on a specific set of promises, which now need to be examined in detail and costed. We all knew before the election that those promises could not be met or delivered on. Given that the SNP had access to the civil servants just as the other parties did, it would have been advised that those promises could not be met. We all knew the budgetary parameters within which our proposals had to be worked out, so the SNP must have known that it could not sustain its extravagant promises.
All those promises persuaded many people to vote in the present Administration but, even so, it is still only a minority Administration. It has only one representative more than the Labour Party and it received very few votes more. Those promises were significant enough to change the result of the election. That is why we need to know exactly what has been going on and why the Parliament and its committees have a duty to look into the details.
However, there is something more substantial than all that, and the Parliament will have to confront it. This has not just been the usual broken promises that politicians sometimes offer. This time round, we have to examine whether the SNP knowingly and wilfully told the electorate something that it knew not to be true, and we have to examine whether the SNP has knowingly misled the Parliament with details and statements that were not true. In some of their comments since the election, ministers have wilfully and deliberately misled Parliament. I will come back to that in a minute.
You have only one minute left.
The SNP said that there would be 1,000 extra police, but now, in an answer to a parliamentary question, Kenny MacAskill has said that there are no targets.
The SNP also misled us all on class sizes. It is using the freedom of information legislation to hide the fact that officials held meetings with the universities following which ministers were advised that the targets could not be met during this session of Parliament. Despite the SNP's attempts to hide, the information will come out. Following those meetings, on 5 September, after I had asked whether his promise on class sizes in primaries 1, 2 and 3 would be delivered during this session of Parliament, Alex Salmond said that he could confirm that it would, which was why he had made early announcements to that effect.
If the SNP believes that it is on solid ground, let it release the information. I believe that the SNP has been misleading the Parliament.
I say to Mr Henry that it is as plain as a pikestaff that, when a party has the slimmest of majorities, it will not be in a position to deliver all its manifesto pledges and will have to seek consensus among the various parties in the chamber.
I am astonished at how much we have achieved in 100 days, especially when we compare it to how little was achieved in the previous eight years.
I have only just got started.
There is a whiff in the chamber today. Is it of self-righteousness, political opportunism, hypocrisy or plain raw sabotage? I think that it is a cocktail of all four, stirred up with the raw grief of political bereavement. I say to Labour members that they should get used to it—they lost. That is what is at the back of all this.
Let us picture this. The Scottish public vote and no party gains an overall majority. A deal is done, Tavish Scott—a deal, a marriage of convenience. The Lib-Lab pact is born. Eight years pass. Budgets come and budgets go, and subject committees scrutinise and then report to the Finance Committee on a very short timescale.
Eight long and weary years pass, but the processes remain the same, as everyone is saying. Events at Westminster, beyond the control of this chamber, delay the SNP in coming forward with its planning for budgets. It is no fault of this Government that that has happened.
But now let us picture this. After the 2007 election, Labour has a majority of one over the SNP, but it does not form a coalition. Pinch me, but I do not think that, in such a case, we would be having all this posturing. I do not think that we would have a motion from that Labour Government like the motion that we have before us this morning. And if the Liberals had again gone into a coalition—although, thank goodness, not with us—would we be having this debate? Of course not.
As many members have asked, why, if the process is so flawed, did the previous Executive not approach the Procedures Committee in eight years? The coalition had a majority, so it could have changed the rules for the scrutiny of the budget.
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me remind the chamber that we are all minorities in here. Let us park the political posturing.
An intervention? Go on!
Begging does not become the member.
Let us consider committee scrutiny. The Health and Sport Committee will be taking evidence on one budget line—on alcohol and drugs—from a range of witnesses such as alcohol and drug action teams, health boards and local authorities. We will have a budget adviser. That is the proper way to help a committee to scrutinise a budget. Together with the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Justice Committee, we are planning a joint meeting at which three Cabinet ministers will be before us. We will consider drug and alcohol budget lines, we will consider how the money is spent and we will try to ensure that money is not put into silos. We will consider how we can remedy this dreadful scourge affecting individuals and communities. The approach will be innovative. We will be taking the Government at its word and saying, "Okay. You say that you are cross-fertilising and are discussing issues across boundaries, so come before three committees and let us take evidence so that we can report to the Finance Committee." The idea came from the Finance Committee itself, which is well aware that the scatter-gun approach to considering the budget—the approach that we have been trapped in for eight long and weary years—did no service to the Parliament or to the Finance Committee.
We agree that the scrutiny of the budget is not satisfactory; it never has been. However, Labour's suggestions for change are just opportunism. If Labour members feel that the scrutiny of the budget should be better, they should seek changes through the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Those changes should be binding on all Governments, now and in future. The changes should not be just for the coming weeks.
Let us have more light and less heat. If Labour members want to sharpen the focus and to shine a light into dark corners of the budget, they should leave it to the committees. The balance of power in the committees is not with the Government but with the other parties.
I give members on the Labour benches this advice: they lost the election, and they have to acknowledge that they have no divine right in this chamber or in our council chambers. They should acknowledge that before they lose all dignity and waste the Parliament's time.
To the Liberal Democrats I say this: please stop sulking with that torn face.
According to today's Herald, Alex Salmond does not think that the electorate reads election manifestos. Maybe not, but voters expect those in Government to live up to the main promises that they have made. In its manifesto, the SNP made very strong commitments to tackling climate change. Announcing a higher target is easy, but without any detail from ministers about the progress necessary to achieve even the UK target reductions—which SNP ministers said were inadequate—such an announcement is simply hot air.
Delivering the kinds of reductions in carbon emissions that are needed is the real challenge. Very significant changes will be required. Whether they involve charging regimes to provide disincentives, or shifts in infrastructure investment priorities to limit or reduce carbon use, or shifts in regulations affecting building standards and planning policies to require greater energy efficiency in new and existing buildings, the policy changes in energy, transport, housing and planning—changes across the whole portfolio of government, affecting every business, every household and every consumer in Scotland—are certain to be controversial. So far, in six months, this Government has in practical terms achieved nothing.
Under devolution, the Scottish ministers are answerable to this chamber, not only for ensuring that Scotland delivers its share of the UK reduction but for delivering their own manifesto commitment, which was an 80 per cent reduction. That means a reduction slightly in excess of 3 per cent per year between now and 2011. Delivery of the measures required to mitigate the effects of climate change requires hard political choices, which this Government has repeatedly ducked. Climate change legislation will play only a small part. It cannot be a fig leaf for ministers to hide behind. The real impact will need to come from changes in policy priorities and patterns of spend that the Government will announce next week.
If the Government is serious about climate change and meeting its short-term and longer-term targets for reducing carbon use, the budget proposals will have to contain detailed indications of how its policy and spending package will contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of more than 3 per cent a year between now and 2011, and to provide us with an assurance that the target will be met. When our carbon footprint is calculated, the carbon savings from mitigating measures are estimated and aggregated, to see what impact climate change policies are having. However, very little that the Government has done so far can be seen as providing additional carbon savings. The 9,000 additional tonnes of carbon that are estimated to result from additional traffic on the Forth road bridge are just one instance of Government policies having a negative impact.
Will the member give way?
No; I will let the arts minister sit down.
We have been asked to accept a spending statement in one afternoon, with scrutiny then being passed to parliamentary committees. I am probably the last person in the chamber to underestimate the importance of the scrutiny role of committees. As convener of the Finance Committee, I scrutinised ministers rather more vigorously than some of them found comfortable. However, let us be clear about the basis on which the committees' role operates. The basis of committee scrutiny is to ask whether the policy objectives and targets that have been set out are reflected in the allocations and management of budgets. The scrutiny review that the Parliament agreed in 2005 reflected the central importance of the spending review cycle in setting spending plans, which at that time were biennial, and recommended extended detailed scrutiny in spending review years. The practical effect of the current position is that that process of extended scrutiny will not take place, because the time to achieve it is not available.
The Labour motion proposes clearly that there should be a process that will allow scrutiny to take place in detail and in principle. There is an in-principle level of political scrutiny that is best carried out in the chamber.
Will the member give way?
I will give way to the minister for "Newsnight".
What representations did the member and his colleagues make to number 10 about bringing forward the comprehensive spending review?
I am interested in the good governance of Scotland, not in whether blame lies elsewhere. We have a job to do in the chamber—to scrutinise and to hold the Scottish Government to account. We require that to be done in detail in the committees and in political terms here in the chamber. I return to the issue of climate change. Put bluntly, if ministers do not come forward with a plausible plan for reducing emissions by more than 3 per cent per year for the next three or four years, or if their proposals in transport, housing and energy do not demonstrate that mechanisms have been identified and budgeted for that will deliver those reductions, or if the proposals that are flagged up have not been assessed for their carbon impact, nothing that ministers have said or propose to do will achieve the objective that they have set. That process of scrutiny needs to take place in the chamber as well as in the committees.
Over the next few weeks, we should have debates on climate change and all the other issues that we have identified, so that we may hold ministers to account. That is what the people of Scotland expect from us.
I would have liked to begin by expressing the hope that the members who are here today have come with an open mind on the merits, practicalities and consequences of today's motion. Sadly, the speeches that Labour and Liberal members have made suggest otherwise. I say to Labour and Liberal members that the Government will take no lessons from the previous Executive, which presided over Scotland for eight years and delivered nothing but failure, which is why they lost the election. Perhaps they should take heed of that and learn from it.
I see that Jackie Baillie is talking to her partners in crime, the Lib Dems; perhaps she is asking them to drop their amendment. Surprisingly, I agree whole-heartedly with the ringing endorsement of the Parliament's committees that is contained in Jackie Baillie's motion, which recognises the important role that they play in scrutinising the budget and, hence, the spending priorities of the Government—regardless of who is in government.
I may be making assumptions, but I believe that each member is aware of the procedure for the Parliament's budget process. However, in case some members have forgotten, I will take the opportunity to remind them of it. The 2005 agreement between the then Scottish Executive and the Finance Committee states:
"Once the Scottish Ministers have submitted their expenditure proposals, the Finance Committee will, in consultation with other committees of the Parliament, produce a report. This will comment on the Scottish Ministers' proposals and may include an alternative set of proposals."
I assumed that all members know that. To clarify the matter further, each committee is charged with debating, evaluating and making recommendations on the budget priorities for each cabinet secretary's portfolio, as they apply to that committee's remit. I see that procedure as robust and practical.
The member will be aware that the legislative process for the budget, which allows only the Government to amend the budget, is quite separate from debates on spending priorities that can be held in the chamber. Is the member saying that it is inappropriate between now and the conclusion of the budget process for the Parliament to have an opportunity to debate the spending priorities for health or education?
We have that opportunity. I thought that every member realised how the budget process works. It is pretty sad that members of the previous Executive never gave others the opportunity that they are now seeking. The Lib Dems are asking for money for civil servants to help them to scrutinise the budget. When they were in government, they did not give that to anyone else. Wendy Alexander is asking for more money for Opposition leaders. Labour and Liberal Democrat members cannot have it both ways.
I will not give way, as I need to finish. If the member allows me to continue, he will find that what I have said is true.
In committee, members are able to call on expert witnesses, to call ministers to account—as has been mentioned, one minister has already appeared three times before a committee—and to spend many hours on deliberation before making recommendations to the Finance Committee. Plainly, it is impossible to achieve that in a parliamentary debate. Practically, it would be impossible to duplicate the work that the committees do. For that reason, the motion is not desirable. The Labour motion that is before us has not been scrutinised and is ill thought out.
In its legacy paper, the Finance Committee recommended that we implement with due care and attention the many recommendations in the Howat report, which has been mentioned. That is the correct course of action. Acting in the best interests of Scotland is also the best course of action. Two weeks ago, the Finance Committee questioned the authors of the Howat report, to seek their expert opinion. That could not be done in a parliamentary debate, which is why the committees are so important.
Elaine Murray mentioned other issues in her speech on the motion, but at the committee meeting in question she concluded that the Finance Committee
"should ask ministers for their road map over the next three years for reaching the position at which the budget review group's recommendations on changing the culture have been reached."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 23 October 2007; c 79.]
She said nothing about having this debate or about debating the budget with ministers in the Parliament. Elaine Murray and others who have spoken today should look to themselves—we are talking about the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament.
Indeed.
Perhaps Labour members should have thought of that before lodging such a ridiculous so-called motion, which makes no sense whatever.
Will the member give way?
No, I want to continue.
As we know, the changes to the budget process that are recommended in the Finance Committee's legacy paper were proposed through the proper channels, which is right. Any other method that is used to bring about changes is disrespectful to the Scottish Parliament and to the people who have elected its members. It also sets a dangerous precedent, as it undermines everything that we have all worked so hard to make successful in the Parliament. If a member of the Parliament wishes to change the budget process, they must approach the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. If a member of the Parliament wishes to propose chamber business, they must approach the Parliamentary Bureau. [Interruption.] I see that certain members are doing another grubby deal—they cannot do it out in the open, but must do it in secret in closes and in corridors. [Interruption.] Jackie Baillie can shout from a sedentary position, but the truth of the matter is that they are making another deal out in the corridor.
Sadly, today's motion seeks to circumvent the proper parliamentary procedures. I hope that today we will all stand up for the integrity of the Parliament, as that is the issue. The Labour motion is not about integrity—in fact, it would bring the Parliament down. Labour members should be ashamed of themselves.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the debate, Presiding Officer. We have heard many excited words about something that I would have thought was very simple. More debate and more accountability in the chamber are not a bad thing—they are a good thing, and they are what people expect of us. Committee conveners—who have now left the chamber—have expressed what I presume are personal views that Labour's proposals would be detrimental to the work of the Parliament's committees. My view is that that would not be the case; our proposals would complement committee work.
The reaction from the SNP this morning is depressing, but not surprising for a party that, in government, has studiously avoided parliamentary accountability. SNP members are in denial that they are in government, and they have tried to avoid that accountability week in, week out. That is understandable—their manifesto was one of promises and bribes that do not bear scrutiny.
There have been press briefings outside the Parliament about new policy initiatives, and vanity debates, rather than real ones. The SNP prefers backroom deals with other parties, which exclude members, including members of the Government party. Are there any SNP back benchers here who can tell me what their ministers and whips have been discussing with the Greens and the Tories? Such discussions exclude not just the Parliament as a whole, but SNP back benchers, who meekly accept a situation that demeans their position as parliamentarians.
There are cross-cutting departments. For example, four cabinet secretaries and three ministers have some responsibility for drugs policy, yet not one of those cabinet secretaries or ministers is actually accountable for drugs policy.
How far we have travelled since the early days of this session, when we heard from the First Minister a recognition that we are all minorities in the Parliament and warm words describing a new politics. That was commendable, but is now forgotten. It was commendable in being consistent with the founding principles of the Parliament: access, participation, accountability and power sharing. The Parliament encourages all members to play a part in applying those principles through the full range of their work. This debate is entirely consistent with those founding principles—with the sharing of power between the people of Scotland, the legislators and the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament; the Scottish Parliament should be accountable, open and responsive. It should develop procedures that make possible a participative approach to the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation.
We are faced, however, with a Government that indulges in so much trickery and sleight of hand that it should be led by Paul Daniels. Against that background, debates such as this, now and in future, are not only permissible and correct but essential.
It is a wee bit sad that the respect that members showed one another and the Parliament last night, when the parties sat here together, debated and reached a joint conclusion about justice for the victims of pleural plaques and other asbestos-related illnesses, has gone out of the window with the motion before us. All debates in the chamber should be treated with seriousness and respect. However, the mischief-making agenda behind the Labour motion makes it difficult to believe that that party—I am in fact talking about Labour and the Lib Dems—is treating the Parliament with due deference.
Since day one of the SNP Government, Labour members have found it difficult to be constructive in their opposition. With a few honourable exceptions, they have sat with faces like a bulldog chewing a lemon-flavoured wasp and have exhibited signs of collective social Tourette's at every ministerial announcement. That has culminated in an obvious attempt to unsettle confidence in the Government as we approach the budget statement next week.
Following Ms Alexander's futile attacks on the First Minister week after week, Labour and the Lib Dems have made a spurious attempt today to suggest that, six months into office, we have broken every election manifesto pledge that was made in the run-up to the historic victory of 3 May.
That is—
Sit back and listen to what I have to say next, thank you, Ms Baillie.
Only six months into the session, with three and a half years to go, our party has the opportunity to make the difference for Scotland that members of the previous Administration failed to make over eight years. I hope their mammies have got a lot of spit in their hankies to wipe the egg aff their faces at the end of the parliamentary session.
There is a lot of highfalutin talk in Labour's motion of "aspirations", "scrutiny", resolutions to "set aside chamber time" and so on. In reality, it displays a lack of confidence in our much-admired committee system, and a desire to swamp this place with grandstanding puerility by Labour spokespeople.
And Liberals.
And the Lib Dems—I have just been corrected, and my colleague is absolutely right. This time last year, Tom McCabe, the last Labour Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, stated that the Executive was committed to working with the Finance Committee. That was last year, and the process was right for Labour when it was in control. Now it is this year, the SNP is in charge and Labour, on the evidence of the motion, is out of control.
Even though the member was not a member of the Parliament in the previous two sessions, he will be aware that the SNP did not seek to amend previous budgets. If the SNP had sought to do so, through the Finance Committee, there was an informal agreement that access to civil servants would be provided for the clarification of figures and so on. That is what our amendment proposes. The system was never tested—it was never required. Our proposal is that that should be the process. What would be the objection, if the Finance Committee wished to lodge amendments to the budget bill?
It is up to the ministers to achieve that. Jeremy Purvis said that the approach was informal. His party was in the Executive for eight years, it should have formalised it.
The point is that it was never used.
It was not me that was using it.
It was his party.
That was last year, when his party was in control; now, it is out of control again.
People might believe that democracy is a fine idea as long as they are in charge. The truth is that, in its passion to attack the content of the SNP's budget next week, Labour is suffering from premature political ejaculation. What is left for next week now? What is left for budget day? Will Tavish Scott and the Lib Dem poodles still yap ineffectually? Will Wendy Alexander and her Labour attack dogs still be barking?
I can tell them that the SNP Government will deliver our full programme over the full four years of this session. That programme will be delivered for the benefit of the people of Scotland, and the shabby display of hiding in corners by Labour and the Lib Dems will be blown away as the SNP shows what can be done with this Parliament for the Scottish people.
We move now to the winding-up speeches. I call Robert Brown, who has six minutes.
I am slightly puzzled to be called at this stage, given that the Government party, which is without an amendment, has not yet been called. It might be that the SNP is ceding to the Conservatives to lead for them.
The issue is whether, in the lead-up to the budget, the SNP Government will allow debate in the chamber on issues such as its health and education priorities. Such debate does not change the budget process; it informs it. We ask only for debate, and the synthetic agitation from the SNP benches during this debate has been designed to muddy that central point. Is the SNP Government running scared of debate? What is the matter with its ministers? Are they a bunch of fearties on those issues? Today is the day to compare the rhetoric with the reality of the third session of the Scottish Parliament. In closing for the Liberal Democrats tonight, as the long, dark nights draw in, I want to set the context for the debate.
The preparation and scrutiny of the budget is complex. Much of the Scottish Government's spending is effected by local authorities, health boards or other bodies, rather than directly. It is therefore sometimes difficult to follow the money and to establish that it achieved the purpose for which it was allocated. Over the years, the Parliament has refined its procedures and tools. The committees of the Parliament are now more expert and, as Des McNulty said, the Finance Committee has sharpened its claws. We learn from the Auditor General for Scotland's reports, from our advisers and from our own experience. As has been said, in that context the Opposition parties and the committees have in the past had the support of civil servants in costing proposals. I therefore think that the rhetoric from Bruce Crawford and others is overblown.
Over the past eight years, we have been able to take as starting points the two partnership agreements. They defined the Scottish Government's objectives and priorities and were published, available and transparent. In 2007, we have only the SNP manifesto, and we have seen in relation to police numbers, class sizes, student debt, transport projects and school buildings that it is, to put it mildly, an imperfect instrument by which to test the Government. In those circumstances, the budget and the comprehensive spending review assume even greater importance than usual. All over Scotland, people are left in a state of uncertainty about their future. Bruce Crawford last night hosted a reception for a number of voluntary groups. I am sure that he picked up, as I did, anxiety among a number of them about the future. Every council service and every local voluntary sector project in Scotland is on tenterhooks and will be under stress for months until both this Parliament and the councils decide the way forward—the proposed council tax freeze adds another layer of complexity.
That is the background against which the Parliament approaches its public duty of challenging and scrutinising the budget. If the SNP rhetoric were to be believed, there should be an opportunity to make this a genuinely parliamentary budget—created by consensus and informed by incisive debate in this democratic chamber and in the committees—that provides assurance to the public and to civic Scotland that the policy priorities have been properly tested and the money has been well spent. That means transparency, openness and honesty on the part of ministers.
Tavish Scott demanded, after the election, that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee should consider changes to the budget scrutiny process. Can Robert Brown advise us what has changed since then? Is it simply the case that the Lib Dem-Labour Opposition coalition has seen the chance of a transient headline, and in taking that chance, has shown contempt for the Parliament's committee system?
The point has been made during the debate that we are not against the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee examining the procedures. The issue is that this year's is the crucial debate: it will set the tone for this session of Parliament. I therefore ask the SNP directly: is the Government prepared to be open and transparent, to seek consensus, to look for the best and to expose its calculations to full and detailed scrutiny, or is it a minority Government with a majority ego, shifty with the figures and truculent when it comes to the rights of this Parliament?
I ask the Tories to look me in the eye and say that there has been no deal with the SNP over the budget. That is the important point.
I will move on to the political challenges. For the SNP Government, the challenge is primarily to show that it is competent to govern. It has had its honeymoon and no one grudges it that. The SNP Government is a bit like Gretna, which shot up the leagues, but in the premier league the lack of top-rank ideas is apparent and the support and backing for its product is at its lowest level for years. In the budget process, the Government can choose either to show courage and statesmanship or instead to demonstrate the lower political skills and flirt outrageously with Annabel Goldie in a political alliance so undesirable that it is formally forbidden by the SNP's constitution—it is the love that dare not speak its name.
Will the member give way?
No. There must be more than a few stalwarts on the SNP benches who will pause this evening before voting to support a Tory amendment, behind which their front-bench leaders take shelter.
I will finish with the Conservatives—the other party in the amorous tryst that we see acted out weekly at First Minister's question time. The Conservatives are right to say that we need a proper re-examination of the budget procedures, but is it not passing strange that they want it in later years when the pattern is set and the vital decisions have been taken, rather than this year when it counts? The Conservative party claims to be the proud defender of the union, but it makes deals with the separatist SNP behind closed doors, in the bowels of the Parliament.
The chamber today has to make a decision of major importance, which will mark the character of the third session of Parliament. It is a junction point that is familiar to many Parliaments in many countries at many times. Control of the finances and of the budget is, throughout the world, the ultimate litmus test of a democratic legislature. The question of grant or refusal of supply is the big one.
The Parliament can either set in place procedures under which we are satisfied—in the chamber and in our committees—that across the board the budget serves the best interests of Scotland and our people, or it can surrender the pass to the ministers of a minority Government, which has no policy or programmatic mandate from this Parliament and a challengeable track record on a dubious IOU of a manifesto, the figures in which have repeatedly been demonstrated not to add up. It is a momentous challenge. I urge those Conservatives who have shifted uneasily in their seats throughout the debate and have now vanished, and the Greens, who are steadily losing any pretensions to the moral high ground in the Parliament, to stand up for the Parliament and for Scotland in the vote this afternoon.
Aye, right.
Robert Brown opened his speech by questioning the order in which the final speeches are being made. I will not do that, because I know the procedures in the Parliament and how the order is decided. Sadly, I cannot say that the Liberal party's lack of understanding of the procedures is the reason why it has behaved in the way that it has today, but I will say more about that.
First, I want to talk about the Labour Party and what it proposes in its motion. It is a disappointment that, once again, the rump of the Scottish Labour Party has come to the Parliament and demonstrated that it neither understands nor can cope with the notion of opposition.
Will the member give way?
The tradition in this Parliament is that if a member mentions someone in their speech, they give them a chance to reply—so I give way to the rump of the Scottish Labour Party.
I advise the member that the Presiding Officers care about the language that is employed in the chamber.
I ask the member, who is evidently confused—along with his colleague Mr Brownlee—whether he is aware that David McLetchie contributed to the Labour motion that is before us? Could he perhaps tell me what rule or standing order has been changed? Does he agree that no motion that is contrary to the standing orders would be accepted by the Presiding Officer? Why are the Tories rejecting the opportunity for debate on the budget priorities? Perhaps the answer lies in the price that the Tories extracted from the SNP for denying the Parliament the right to debate.
I remind Mr Johnstone to be very careful with his language—I was not happy about your last comment.
I apologise for any implication that the combination of words I chose to use may have given. I apologise most profusely.
I brush aside the intervention, because the assumption that some deal has been done between the Conservative party and the Scottish National Party minority Government is a complete misunderstanding of the position that we present.
Let me address, in the short time that is available to me, some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. It is extremely important that we address the issue, which a number of members have raised, of what a Government is expected to do to implement its manifesto commitments. The Conservative party will work hard to ensure that as many of our manifesto commitments as possible appear in decisions that are made by the Parliament and implemented by the Government over the next four years. Complaints that the SNP minority Government is not successfully implementing its manifesto ring hollow to someone like me, who has watched the Scottish Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats stand on their manifestos at successive elections. The moment that their members were elected, they went into a huddle in a smoke-filled room to negotiate a partnership for government, which often completely denied the policies on which they had stood. Those parties should look at their history and see what hypocrisy that might reveal.
I want to talk about our position in relation to the scrutiny of previous budgets. In the early days of the Parliament, the problem was that the Labour-Lib Dem Government changed the figures that it published and the way in which it published them every year. It was, therefore, almost impossible for a committee to scrutinise budgets properly. It is important that we do not change procedures lightly. This year, however, something slightly different is going on. Gordon Brown's late publication of the comprehensive spending review has made the situation difficult, but there is no reason to suggest that that process—or that failure—should change the way in which we rely on committees to scrutinise the budget process in the Parliament.
Will the member give way?
No.
The Labour Party's action in lodging the motion demonstrates a complete failure to understand the importance of the procedures in the Parliament. Worse still, it is an attempt to grandstand today on this motion, and then to grandstand again on the five other motions that it is proposed we debate. Let the committees do their job.
On that point—
No, I need to move on quickly.
The Liberal Democrats have come out blustering as usual. Tavish Scott's approach of attacking the Conservatives at every opportunity is an indication that the Liberal Democrats are afraid of the Conservatives in electoral terms. They have seen what is happening in national elections and opinion polls. We must remind them that they have done the deals in the past, and any attempt to accuse anyone else in the Parliament of doing deals behind anybody's back is a complete misrepresentation. The Liberal Democrats' amendment, which suggests that we have open access to civil servants, is perhaps worthy of consideration, but it is a complete misrepresentation of their position—they were only too happy to hide behind the procedures when they were ministers in government.
Tavish Scott, let us remember, was the Deputy Minister for Finance in a previous Scottish Government.
Will the member give way on that point?
No, I will not.
It is important that we also remember who denied the rest of the Parliament access to the Howat report in the build-up to the last election. If a Government can take that decision, and then, when in opposition, complain about lack of openness and scrutiny, we need to look at our own hearts and our own integrity in the long term.
Will Mr Johnstone give way on that point?
No, I am just coming to a close.
The member can take the intervention if he wishes.
Let me rephrase that—I do not wish to take an intervention from Tavish Scott.
I reinforce the Conservatives' position—we believe that it is important for us to consider the ways in which we scrutinise the budget in the Parliament. It is important that we ensure that the budget is properly scrutinised this year and in future years. However, the changes are designed to accommodate an uneasy Opposition and to facilitate its need to justify itself—and that is not a reason for changing the procedure.
I support the amendment in the name of Derek Brownlee, and I hope that members of the Parliament will have the good sense to support it at decision time.
I hope to give some advice, to offer an apology and to make an accusation.
My advice is for members of the Labour Party, including Frank McAveety. My colleagues and I are experts at losing elections. We have spent our entire political lives losing elections, so we know how to lose them. In those circumstances, I must tell Labour members the right way to do it, because they are exhibiting the wrong way. After losing an election, the right thing to do is to reassess, regroup and rethink. The wrong thing to do is to get a sour look on one's face, to start whingeing, to pretend that it has not happened—and, finally, to insult the voters, because that is what we have heard this morning. That is not the right way to lose an election.
I would have more sympathy with Labour members if I thought that the motion really was about scrutiny. However, every speech that we have heard from Labour members has been about politics, not about process. It has been about Labour members' anger that the SNP manifesto was popular and Labour's was not, and the fact that we in the SNP are delivering and Labour never did. It is about not process or scrutiny, but sour grapes, and the people of Scotland should know that.
I apologise to Elaine Murray if, in some forgetful way, I have done something to offend her; I noticed that she was offended when I tried to intervene. I make my apology, and I will set it right. People become forgetful as they get older; I was struck by that during Elaine Murray's speech, because she appeared to have forgotten that she was deputy convener of the Finance Committee when the agreement was made with the Executive with regard to the budget process. That is important, because there is an agreement in place, and the attempt to alter it six days before the budget announcement is bizarre.
I move to my accusation. Wendy Alexander asked a question—in fact, she asked it repeatedly: why is there no stage 1 process at this stage? When Des McNulty, her predecessor as convener of the Finance Committee, rose, I thought that he might have given the answer. However, in the words of Ayr academy's motto, which I remember my friend Alex Neil talking about, there was much prospice—a lot of looking forward, but no looking backward. The reason that there is no stage 1 process is contained in "The Budgeting Process Agreement between the Scottish Executive and the Finance Committee", which is still in force. Mr McNulty convened the committee at that time, and he was succeeded by Wendy Alexander. Paragraph 7 of that document states:
"The Finance Committee and the Executive have therefore agreed a biennial cycle, with a full three stage process in Spending Review (even numbered) years, and a more limited process in non Spending Review and election … years".
The answer to the question is in that document, and if Wendy Alexander did not know that the document existed, she should have done. I offer her some further advice—if she is going to ask rhetorical questions, she should ensure that the answers will not undermine her case.
The debate should, in reality, have been about process. Despite Mr McCabe's view about the perfection of the budget process, it is probably not perfect. In those circumstances, it is right to review the process through the mechanisms of the Parliament, and primarily through the work of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. As Wendy Alexander recommended in her legacy paper as convener of the Finance Committee, other mechanisms could also be used—for example, involving the Conveners Group. That process should take place in the proper way and not in an improper way.
Members should have learned the lessons of having things imposed upon them at the last minute. Such impositions turn out to be disastrous, and the Labour Party has been responsible for two of the most disastrous—let me remind members about them. The first took place in June 1999, when the then Labour Minister for Finance, Jack McConnell, sprang on members a system of expenses and allowances without going through process and without getting agreement from members across the chamber. That system remains to haunt us to this day—indeed, it is being reviewed again.
Secondly, there was the Parliament building. Once again, Labour imposed a disaster on Parliament and on members, which damaged our reputation for years. If Labour wants to review the budget process, and has a genuine commitment to change, it will find willing support in discussing how that change should come about.
Will the minister give way?
No, I am sorry.
The proper way to undertake that process is to allow the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, or another committee of the Parliament, to look at the budget process and come back with recommendations. I would be more convinced by that idea if I did not think that it was being suggested not because of a great commitment in principle to scrutiny, but due to—as I said at the beginning—sour grapes.
The Parliament is too important to be treated in that way. Its members should—in the words of my friend Robert Brown—speak for Scotland. The voice of Scotland should be heard clearly, consistently and in a way that the people of Scotland will understand. If all that we hear is the sour whingeing of a party that has lost an election, that does no credit to Scotland, to members in the chamber, and to the things that this Government is determined to achieve—and will achieve.
This morning's debate is about the nationalist Government living up to its rhetoric. In the first days of this session of Parliament, much was made of the recognition that we are a Parliament of minorities. There was much rhetoric about recognising that no single party had a majority, and what that would mean for our deliberations. The First Minister was clear on that. On his first day in post, he made a solemn pledge:
"My pledge to the Parliament today is that any Scottish Government that is led by me will respect and include the Parliament in the governance of Scotland over the next four years. … We will appeal for support across the chamber policy by policy."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 36.]
Later in May, he said:
"Good ideas—well researched and well argued—will be welcomed and considered."—[Official Report, 23 May 2007; c 58.]
Fair enough. As Mr Purvis and Mr Henry have pointed out, the Parliament then spent several weeks debating the Government's priorities. Ideas were suggested from all sides of the chamber—ideas on skills, justice, energy and the renewal of our towns. However, in those weeks, one idea grew on all sides of the chamber: the idea that it was all a charade and that the Government had not the slightest interest in being prepared to listen and learn. What the Government was interested in was avoiding the chamber's scrutiny by any tactic to hand.
Even the present Government could not avoid for ever facing real votes on real debates. It had, eventually, to produce a programme for government—a legislative programme—and submit it for the scrutiny of the chamber. It did that for the grand total of less than one and a half hours. Members will recall that, the following day, the Government found rather more time for a debate in which it congratulated itself on finding additional funding for the Crichton campus.
We all know the importance of the spending review that Mr Swinney will present next week. It will set the direction of health, education, housing and transport for the next three years. It will affect every aspect of public policy so much that, for the past six months, the nationalist Government has been unable to tell us anything of what it will do. On no fewer than 60 occasions in the chamber, ministers have refused to answer questions until the comprehensive spending review is announced—questions on care of the elderly, higher education funding, support for carers, mental health provision and student support. The list goes on and on.
There is a great deal to hear and a great deal to debate. Our premise is simple: a statement followed by technical questions and a short debate next Wednesday afternoon does not allow enough time for Parliament to scrutinise the budget properly. Of course, the Parliament's committees will scrutinise departmental budgets in great detail, as Christine Grahame eloquently described. We have no intention of compromising that process. Those who have argued against our motion today on the basis that it seeks to change committee procedures have missed the point entirely. It does not do that.
The point is that the SNP is seeking to bring us a budget that is greater than the sum of its parts. To prevent that, the budget process normally features a stage 1 debate on strategic spending priorities. We want to scrutinise Mr Swinney's budget line by line, but we also want to see a budget that, as a whole, drives economic growth, builds social justice and addresses the challenge of climate change. Those are big, strategic challenges that must be met by the shape and thrust of the budget in its entirety. It is good sense and good democratic practice that the Government's budget be judged as a whole against those yardsticks by the entire Parliament. It is simply nonsense to suggest, as Mr McLetchie did, that the chamber can debate any topic that it wants except the budget.
The member says that it is important to debate the budget as a whole. Why, then, is the proposition that the Labour Party has brought to the chamber not for a debate on the budget as a whole, but for a series of five mini one-hour debates? That would hardly be a strategic overview.
The proposition is to take time to consider how each departmental budget drives the strategic priorities of the Government and what we think those strategic priorities should be.
The SNP's position puts me in mind of something that Clement Attlee said:
"Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking."
Clement Attlee was being ironic, but the Government is being serious. As for Mr Neil's claim that parliamentary debates undermine democracy, what kind of Orwellian doublespeak is that? The next thing we know, the SNP will be rewriting its manifesto to pretend that it did not make the promises that it made. No—it has done that already.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I need to move on.
The SNP Government loves to talk about its strategic vision and aspiration for Scotland. It loves to talk about it on TV and in newspaper interviews, and the First Minister loved going to America to talk about it there. Why will the SNP not talk about its strategic vision in this chamber for more than an hour and a half? Roseanna Cunningham gave the game away when she said that bringing the budget here would make life too difficult for ministers. Christine Grahame said that that would be "sabotage". It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the SNP is afraid that it will be found wanting.
If the five mini debates were to be introduced into the process, would they be part of the budget process or simply an addition to the information that we can all draw on? If they were part of the budget process, they could be voted on and the Government could lose its budget. Is that correct or incorrect?
I disagree with the final part of that intervention. We are asking for additional, high-level scrutiny of the strategic priorities of the budget as a whole.
Whatever the SNP is afraid of has sent it running off for help, and it has found help where it always does—in the age-old tartan Tory alliance. The Tories' position this morning is St Augustine's position, is it not? "Lord, give me chastity and continence, but not yet." Their amendment says, "Give me proper scrutiny of the budget, but not this year." It says, "Give me a spine as a proper Opposition, but not yet."
I am sorry, but Mr Brownlee would not take my intervention. He must sit down.
Perhaps the Tories, too, do not want to consider the big questions about the budget—how it drives economic growth and social justice, and how it addresses climate change. After all, the last time that the Tories had control of an economic strategy, they delivered two recessions and black Wednesday. The last time that they pursued their version of social justice, we had 3 million people on the dole and society was so divided that there were riots in the streets. Or perhaps the Cameron effect has arrived, not in any rise in poll ratings but in the Tories' craven willingness to be the nationalists' fellow travellers—the useful idiots of separation—for whatever short-term political gain they can find. Whatever the reason, they are letting the Government off the hook this morning, and that is to their shame.
Next week, a budget that will shape the spending of almost £90 billion will come before the Parliament. It will determine how our economy grows, how just our society is and how sustainable our future will be. We ask simply that a Government that boasts of its vision and transparency bring that budget to the chamber and defend it. It is not too late. The Government has until 5 o'clock to find its bottle and do that. The Tories have until 5 o'clock to find their spine. What are they afraid of?
As we have finished the debate early, I suspend the meeting until 11:40.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—