A step back from the brink – for good, as budget system reformed

Published on Wednesday 4 February 2009 21:02

After the crisis that threatened to paralyse Holyrood, MSPs are awake to the need to change the process by tracking spending commitments, writes David Maddox

MSPs yesterday breathed a sigh of relief and patted each other on the back over how consensual and responsible they all were for passing a budget almost unanimously.

It was a far cry from the fun and games of a week before, when Alex Salmond, the First Minister, was seen rushing around Holyrood trying to strike last-minute deals to get the budget through.

And now, it seems, out of the budgetary chaos could come significant changes to the way the process is handled at Holyrood.

The Scotsman has learned that a forthcoming report will offer unanimous, cross-party support to the establishment of a budget office in Holyrood, based on the model used in the United States Congress.

This will see a new beefed-up team of clerks appointed to track spending commitments and the money available in the Scottish budgets.

The Scotsman understands the office will be set up as a resource for all parties to see where spending can be changed. It will form the backbone of future negotiations.

This, allied to the news that Mr Swinney will now chair a cross-party group to shape next year's budget, signals the dawn of what could be a new era of consensus in budgetary negotiations. The set-up of this group was a concessions to the Liberal Democrats, although the Conservatives have claimed the credit for it, too.

And, in further evidence of the new approach (and another possible concession to the Liberal Democrats), the Council of Economic Advisers, which is made up of top businessmen and economists, including Nobel prize winners, may also take on a role monitoring and advising on the budget, if the CEA members are willing to accept the extra responsibility.

The collegiate nature of the proposals shows how far the parliament has travelled in just seven days.

Last Wednesday, the parliamentary spectacle drew criticism as the Greens, led by Patrick Harvie, refused to back the SNP plans during an intense period of brinkmanship in which promises came from John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, just five minutes before the crucial vote.

Given the Greens had put forward their proposals in October, critics claimed it was unwise not to have an agreement in place as the clock ticked down and Mr Swinney faced his own version of a Countdown-style budget conundrum.

By being cut out of negotiations, the Greens have been punished for their cheek, but complaints by their leader (co-convener in the party's politically correct parlance) that these games should not be played up to the last minute, stirred memories of an almost forgotten review of the budget process, started in November 2007 which has now led to the proposed changes.

In the early stages of the SNP's first budget negotiations in 2007, there was an attempt to wrest control of the budgetary process from the Scottish Government and hand it to the parliament's committees. The Liberal Democrats, who put forward the motion with the support of Labour, argued that a minority government should not be allowed to dictate what goes into the budget.

The SNP defeated the motion with the support of the Conservatives and the now spurned Greens, but did agree to a review of the process. This was taken up by the parliament's finance committee, which has dealt with it at a fairly leisurely place.

But, this week, with what can only be described as perfect timing, the finance committee sat down to discuss its draft report on the review. In it, as well as matters drawing consensus, lie details of many areas of disagreement.

According to private briefings given to The Scotsman, it is clear Labour and the Liberal Democrats still want the parliament and its committees to be given a much greater role in the budget process.

They argue that, instead of the finance secretary delaying matters and trying to make secret deals with some while at the same time marginalising others for political gain, the process should be based much more in the committee rooms of Holyrood.

At present, the committees have an overview role, but they wield little power to actually influence the budget and can merely make suggestions to the finance committee. Ultimately, recommendations of that body can be ignored by the finance secretary.

On the other side of the argument is the contention that budget rules should be consistent and the fact that neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats criticised the process when they were in coalition government for eight years. During this time, they could simply push through what they wanted.

So the SNP, whose Angus MSP Andrew Welsh has the casting vote on the committee as convener, are very reluctant to accept handing over so much responsibility to committees.

Another change to be suggested in the report is that MSPs should be permitted to put forward amendments during the third stage of the budget.

Currently, only the finance secretary can do that, and other parties are limited to "reasoned amendments" that only carry moral authority rather than the ability to alter any aspect of the budget.

But, this proposal looks like it will be rejected by the committee. The principle at stake is executive power and the fear is, while a parliamentary budget may be more democratic, if the government loses control over it there could be even more chaos than there was last week.

Anybody who witnessed the antics of last week may find that hard to believe.

One committee member was pretty clear what he thought of the whole issue when he spoke to The Scotsman. "Perhaps what we actually need is not a change in the process but a change in attitude," he said.