COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL
ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
|
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
|
|
of the
|
EVIDENCE OF:
|
JOHN SWINNEY, MSP
|
&
|
FIONA HYSLOP, MSP
|
|
held at
|
|
The Scottish Parliament
|
|
on
|
|
Thursday, 13th February 2003
|
|
THURSDAY 13th FEBRUARY 2003
|
| THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming. It is
a pleasure for us to have you appearing in front of us.
Could I perhaps just explain briefly what it is we are
trying to do. As you know, the great difference between
the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is that you
have got Primary Legislation and the Welsh Assembly does
not and we are charged as a Commission to look at the
powers of the Welsh Assembly and the way in which its
been operating and then to see whether we should recommend
additional powers and if so what powers. Now it did seem
to us very much one of the things we should do in detail
is come and look at the operation of the Scottish Parliament
as far as they operate and how does it work - that is
really why we are up here. Can I ask you Sir, a simple
question: has it worked? |
| MR SWINNEY: First of all, before I begin I welcome this
opportunity to meet with the Commission and to express
some of our views about how it has worked and as you probably
see from Question Time, I am from opposition party. My
colleague who is with me is my parliamentary business
manager. Fiona Hyslop effectively deals with the Parliamentary
machinery directly on our behalf as the principal opposition
party and as a member of the Parliament bureau that decides
on the business programme of the Parliament and so Fiona
will be very close to a lot of the issues that you raise
in terms of the core issue about the level of competence
and the ability to make Primary Legislation, I think the
Parliament has been very successful in creating good and
new legislation. I think a lot of that comes from the
fact that the decisions that were taken in principle about
the construction of our Committee system primarily. A
decision was taken at the outset that the Subject Committees
that scrutinise activities of departments and Ministers
would also be the Committees that undertook the legislative
level of scrutiny of any Bills that came within that area
of policy. I think that was one of the wisest decisions
that were taken because effectively what you create within
those Committees on a week to week basis is a critical
mass of knowledge in that area of policy, so that when
a legislative measure comes in you have a body of individuals
who really quite well versed with that area of policy.
Contrasting that with some of my experience, albeit briefly
as a Westminster MP before I came here, we were talking
in the Chamber, on a subject such as agriculture which
I was very au fait with and the next day I could be in
Parliamentary Committee looking at you know very detailed
piece of environmental legislation about which I would
really not be much of an expert. The fact that the Subject
Committees are the same ones that does legislation is
a very wise move. The second fact is the process by which
we go through the legislation, the Committees I think
are absorbed in early consultation on the legislation
provision. That has now brought forward a lot of consultation
which leads to Stage one: report to assess the acceptability
of the Bill, and I think to be fair to the Government
there are quite a number of examples where the Government
has brought forward a legislative measure for a Bill,
put it for early consultation, there have been objections
in a key part of the Bill and the Government walked away
from this petition and the Bill so in that sense the Parliament
system I think appreciate quite effectively at that Stage
when you look at it in more detail, bring it into more
detailed scrutiny, it sometimes become a bit more rigid
in the way that the process operates and that can be constrained.
But as a whole, I think the Parliament having legislative
powers has been successful and the Committee processes
contribute enormously to that exercise. I think the one
thing I would put a note of caution about the arrangement
of the Parliament and the way in which it operates as
in relation to some aspects when you look at the schedule
5 of the Scotland Act, quite definitely defines these
are reserved issues. There are an arbitrary list of issues
that come up and which could be cut in any number of different
ways and they don’t neatly differentiate what is
absolutely the reserved issue and what is a devolved issue,
increasingly and on to many occasions for our liking the
Government tended to bring forward a measure which is
called the Sewel motion which basically gives a measure
whereby the Scottish Government delegates this Law making
responsibility to the House of Commons and the House of
Lords to resolve and to write pieces of legislation and
that provision was introduced into the House of Lords
by a statement by Lord Sewel who was the Minister at the
time and whose name is attached to the convention. It
was said this would be used on a very minor number of
occasions. I can’t remember off the top of my head
but it is over 40 occasions we have passed a Sewel motion
to delegate responsibility and we feel that represents
a seepage of legislation competence from the Scottish
Parliament and something of which we have many concerns. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Can I ask about the
Committees and we will come on to the rest of it later?
The thing that strikes me and having heard quite a lot
about your Committees in the last couple of days is the
extent to which this co-operation across the parties within
the working of the Committee itself, I mean, it’s
nothing like a Standing Committee in the House of Commons,
where you have your Government majority and your opposition,
clearly they are more interested in the politics of the
thing and other issues. My impression is that that does
not happen here. |
| MR SWINNEY: I think there are a number of ways in which
the party differences surface within Committees although
they tend, I would agree with your central point that
they are less frequent than you will find in the Standing
Committee, the Planning Committee or even the Selected
Committee in the House of Commons and I think you will
find when it comes to report writing for example, at a
Stage one process when you are looking at the general
principles of a Bill, there will be I think members are
pretty well able to look at the Bill dispassionately and
obviously all of us bring our political attitudes and
our general political context to the provision but I think
you will, beyond that, I think people are then able to
see some of the wider issues that are covered by the Bill.
If you look for example yesterday where for example we
were looking at the Protection of Children Bill at a Stage
3 process in the Parliamentary Chamber on the last part
of the Bill, there were verbal amendments which arose
out of suggestions made by some of my party colleagues
in Stage Two in the Bill and as a result of that in the
final Stage of the Bill we did not oppose any of the amendments
that the Government brought forward, a number of them
were our suggestions at Stage Two and in the Stage two
process, we may have brought forward what I suspect you
would call probing amendments and the Government will
have accepted that there was a reasonable point being
made. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, did you do that at Stage Two or
pre-legislation? |
| MR SWINNEY: It would probably have been both, I think
the issue would have been raised, I think it had not have
been in the Bill as introduced by the Government, we would
put forward probing amendments in Stage Two. One of the
weaknesses of this place in terms of supporting opposition
members and it is by no means a criticism of Parliament
Clerks who do their level best. I don’t think the
drafting support is all that it could be and that is not
a question of quality, it is more the quantity about drafting
support being available to members of Committees as opposed
to Ministers who… |
| THE CHAIRMAN: It is much better here than it is in Westminster? |
| MR SWINNEY: I think I would, I’m not sure I would
accept with my experience of the House of Commons albeit
was the Parliamentary draft like the Finance Bill I tended
to find Clerking resources are quite freely available
but certainly a bit of concern amongst my colleagues but
I stress it’s not a question of quality or commitment. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: I am interested to hear you say, because
the impression we have been given was that in fact it
was now so to speak a dedicated group of Lawyers and support
service who in fact look after the opposition… |
| MS HYSLOP: That’s a very good point. We have a
non executive Bill unit who can and have provided a very
good quality of draft. My experience is our problem is
the sheer volume of demands which can put limits on that.
Currently we are looking at whether we need to prioritise
and rationalise non executive Bills because quite simply
the resources and time in the Chamber is limited but also
the resources available from that unit can’t match
the demands that are there. Obviously others had a different
perspective to give you. I think generally experience
in drafting in connection with Westminster or Scotland
you know takes many years and some level of experience
to get what is required. I think we are still in that
position so a lot of it needs to be sourced in some fashion
and I don’t think we are adequately resourced for
drafting on the non executive Bill side of things or indeed
in drafting amendments for members of the opposition and
others in Stage two. That is a whole of a lot of demands,
it is a critical area, the Clerks cope extremely well. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Have you got a good library or not? |
| MR SWINNEY: We have, I suppose it’s like all these
things today with the Scottish Parliament because it is
so new it is a virtual library internet based and very
technology based and you know although we do have a relationship
with the national library of Scotland which as a former
student of this city I used that facility enormously in
my research it is a fantastic national archive. I think
you also have experience of the House of Commons library.
I do get the impression the Scottish Parliament information
centre I think tries to encourage members to perhaps make
the extra mile themselves whereas the House of Commons
library I found was involved the smallest of efforts by
members and the maximum amount of effort by library staff
which was a great privilege. |
| MS MCALLISTER: Can I ask a question if I may, part of
our deliberations is to work out what kind of alternative
model of devolution might suit our case and the Scottish
example is often presented to us and I just wonder if
we need to be critical about the position in Scotland
and the structure in Scotland and I wonder whether you
could offer us some kind of overview of whether you think
the main weakness and current settlement lie and what
particularly as a party here why this was not your choice
of devolution, can you suggest what alternative structures
you might be looking at? |
| MR SWINNEY: I think if you, that question is to the
knub of I think some of what you will undoubtedly have
picked up, you read the Scottish newspapers while you
are here, a sense of disappointment about the Scottish
Parliament. I think there are three sources of the disappointment,
one is we have terrible difficulties with the building
project down at the bottom of the Royal Mile which I will
not labour. I just register that point; it’s sort
of very poor effect on the public attitude towards the
Parliament. Secondly I think the Parliament has carried
the can for you know what I would have said as poor delivery
of improvement to the public services by the Executive
and thirdly, I think that Parliament has not lived up
to the expectations of the people about what it would
be able to do and I think that largely relates and certainly
in my view to the powers and the influence of the Parliament.
If you stop someone in the street and say, "what do you
think the Scottish Parliament can do for you?", a large
proportion of the population would talk about Parliament
transforming their economic opportunity whether it is
about their own circumstances, whether they are living
in poverty or trying to improve the economic requirements
of Scotland and in all those areas the Parliament is virtually
powerless and that’s because of the division of powers
between devolved and reserved issues you know if, for
example we want to say as the Government have said, we
have the ambition to eradicate poverty. What the Parliament
can do here is take some measures to improve the quality
of public services, to improve the health service, the
quality of our housing stock but they cannot play around
with the benefit system, they can’t tackle the problem
that I encounter of carers for example who are you know
hammered by being so close to the benefit levels that
really without any assistance, does that help to root
out that system of environment and benefits policies that
I think are the real weakness with the Parliament, so
I think the core that where the Parliament is limited
is in what it can do to change economic functions. |
| MR ROWLANDS: Obviously you wouldn’t involve benefits? |
| MR SWINNEY: Obviously I am in the SMP. |
| MR ROWLANDS: But in practical specific terms? |
| MR SWINNEY: I think the ability to vary the tax and
benefit system is an integral part in the Parliament being
able to deliver on the expectations of the public and
I think that is the gap that we are currently dealing
with but the public don’t see the Parliament being
able to change their prospects and I think the Parliament
would be able to, should be able to and needs to be able
to vary the tax and benefit system to give people better
prospects. |
| MS MCALLISTER: John, if you could just sort of maybe
elaborate what other areas you think are critical from
your point of view and secondly, if you could address
the fundamental question, the physical question I mean
generally clearly the Executive can’t charge to use
the tax varying device during this session at least and
I just wonder what the SNP views on that in the future
and whether you agree there needs to be some additional
fiscal timing or not? |
| MR SWINNEY: We start from the point of view that a national
party police the same range of powers, and currently as
we take a decision in the House of Commons that whatever
measures was bringing power to Scotland we would never
stand in its way if a measure came forward to give the
Parliament a type of tax or benefits powers that is referred
to, we would obviously welcome that and support that.
So if there were an extension of the powers to the Parliament
we would positively welcome it. When it come to the issues
of funding let me give you a great example of the limitation
of… We are funded by the Barnet formula, which everybody
thinks is the greatest source of largesse ever given to
Parliament. What is the Barnet formula? It gives Scotland
a proportionate share in increase in public expenditure
in England and Wales and indeed the fact that we, you
know, have a higher base line level of public expenditure
historically, the Barnet formula kicks in we are not sustained
with public expenditure, the gap is narrowing all the
time between capital expenditure in England and Wales
versus capital expenditure in Scotland. How that matters
is that take the water industry, for example, if the water
industry was effectively taken out of the general public
expenditure in England and Wales because there is not
an increase in expenditure or water south of the border
and we don’t see that flowing through into the Scottish
system so effectively public expenditure on water comes
under water services comes under strain in Scotland. We
have a particular system for managing the water industry;
the funding mechanism has been changed and has not been
kept up. The Government says taking the issue of top up
fees south of the border if the Government says you know
we will fund, I don’t know, the balance was 20% of
higher education, would be funded by a top up fees, that
is obviously off the balance sheet, that is a contribution
that is out with the calculations for the Barnet formula,
so while universities south of the border will be getting
that money, the top up fees has become out of date in
the process. So I think over time we will continue to
get more and more strain in the spotlight of the Barnet
formula which I think will intensify the arguments of
Scottish Parliament having the ability to effectively
operate a system of fiscal autonomy which has predicated
on the Scottish Parliament deciding the tax and other
levels of income where in Scotland and paying to the Westminster
Government a sum of money to reflect public services body
provided in Scotland by Westminster Government and our
share of those services turns the funding formula very
much on its head. |
| MS SUGAR: Do you now what the current fiscal deficit
is, have you some figures? |
| MR SWINNEY: I could have been spent the last ten years
of my life jousting with this argument. The Government
annually publishes a document called Government expenditure
and revenue in Scotland. It’s meant to create information
on a dispassionate nature of the fiscal position of Scotland
with a number of issues, the calculation of income tax
levels on the calculations of the share of oil revenues,
or the calculation of Scotland contribution to UK expenditures.
We would fundamentally challenge the view that the Government
brings forward and revenue in Scotland will show you its
last estimate that when you take oil into account, Scotland
would have a fiscal deficit apparently of about one and
a half Billion pounds and fundamentally challenge that
as a figure and I never accept that politically, some
of the assumptions it’s based on are not as dispassionate
as the Government makes out to be. When this question
was asked of the Government over a longer period of time,
I think the question was answered probably in about March
1997 by the chief secretary of the Treasury, what was
Scotland’s financial contribution to the UK and over
a longer period of time and in 1979 to 1997 the chief
secretary of the Treasury said Scotland had actually contributed
27 Billion pounds more to the UK than it had received
in return, you won’t be surprised to hear the figure
I used mercilessly in the campaign. |
| MR ROWLANDS: I appreciate that in the fiscal deficit
has been the subject of considerable debate, I presume
on the identifiable expenditure per head of the country
is generally speaking accepted? |
| MR SWINNEY: Yes, it is basically, it’s when you
get into again unidentifiable expenditure. |
| MR ROWLANDS: On those figures, John, if we take England
to be the 100, Welsh English figures from 92 to 2001,
119 now 117, Scotland, England figures is 123 running
fairly constantly over the last ten years per head you
are 105 to our 100 so I mean you may be dismissive of
Barnet but "Barnett" has been in comparative terms someone
like Wales, a generous arrangements. |
| MR SWINNEY: Well it’s not Barnet that’s been
generous, it has been the historical level of the expenditure. |
| MR ROWLANDS: Yes, on what it was based and has not taken
into account the change in GDP, your GDP to England has
narrowed somewhat and it has already some kind of that
is why you claim the deficit but the Wales, England one
has grown, if there was a reorganisation of Barnet, wouldn’t
you, wouldn’t there be…. |
| MR SWINNEY: The Barnet formula is there and I accept
it is there, my preference isn’t to retain the Barnet
formula. My preference is to have the financial responsibility
exercised by the Scottish Parliament. I think we are severely
restricted in our ability to exercise financial responsibility
because we have no incentives for example in this Parliament
to focus on how we generate wealth in Scotland because
we don’t actually create that wealth, we have no
discretion. We cannot say for example, that we want to
make Scotland a more competitive location through the
use of more competition through the business taxation,
for example, A, we don’t have the powers and B. don’t
have fruits of taking that decision, so what you will
find with Barnet every time it’s effected by an annual
reassessment because of Scottish population changes relative
to the English population that is declining. Secondly,
the changes that come out of factors like the water industry
going off the balance sheet in England and university
top up fees south of the border which is public expenditure
you will begin to see that narrowing every time and I
am not surprised to hear you saying that there is a constancy
in that gap… |
| MR ROWLANDS: Relatively speaking, yes. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Two questions, the way the
business Committee works through the usual channels and
how (inaudible) private secretary by comparison we have
been told and we have read here that business Committee
and the usual channels practice their black arts with
much more finesse and much more regard to the minor parties
and it is a much more subtle and open affair. |
| MS HYSLOP: Can I answer that? Obviously in Scotland
we have proportional representation similar to the Welsh
Assembly given all parties are minority parties, one of
my concerns is obviously block votes, I can cast my vote
for the SNP if it ever comes to that. Very rarely are
there votes, in the two years I’ve been business
manager - three to four votes, I think though there is
more co-operation across the parties. We still meet in
private as does the bureau itself but the business managers
still have one to one dialogue. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Do you actually do it one
to one or all four of you? |
| MS HYSLOP: We have a pre-meeting before the bureau meeting. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: It’s always the bi-laterals,
the Government talks to Labour, Labour talks to the Conservatives
then they go away then they have to go back to the Liberals. |
| MS HYSLOP: The two largest parties may try and come
to arrangements first but generally there is a commonness
approach to business to make sure that the Parliament
time is used properly and we think that what will happen
this week is a good example where the Government wanted
to cancel the debate on fishing crisis and it is a very
important issue and my party and the Conservatives did
not want that to happen. This is one of the few occasions
a vote did happen but by and large there is good co-operation
and I think it’s important, particularly in the legislation
to make sure there is enough time for debates etc., and
some of the more sensitive issues you can resolve and
I think it is about working with the Government. I think
the Scottish model, if you can call it that, is there
or there about, it is very much about more co-operation
and dialogue and in the new politics. One thing I would
say to your Committee - I sit on the Procedures Committee
in Parliament and we are conducting a review which is
about to be finalised, how Parliament has lived up to
its principles as set out by the Consultative Steering
Group. Your Commission may find it interesting and we
also have the Modernisation Committee of the House of
Commons coming up on a regular basis and are due to have
Robin Cook. I think the way the bureau works, for all
its criticisms it is far better than the Westminster model. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: It’s really about a
change and your advice, and I mean you are already thinking
about the kind of changes you would like to make here,
and presumably you are thinking about 2007 but we are
in a sense like the convention in Scotland before you
were set up and that is after the event. It is very peculiar
but what would your advice be to this Commission given
you know our terms of reference. What would your words
of wisdom be to us as to the ways we should go? |
| MR SWINNEY: Can I say one thing about what Fiona said
about the House of Commons? I agree with all she has said
but there are times where I think and this is simply about
politics, where I think the Government sometimes still
uses its Parliament majority and this majority within
the bureau in as an annoying way as the usual channels
use their influence, so you know although there is a great
deal more co-operation, there are still a number of occasions
where you know the type of thing I would like but think
unreasonable. What I would employ if I was First Minister
would be apparent but is not apparent in the way in which
some decisions get arrived at so there are irritating
moments in the way the usual channels still operate here. |
| SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Can I just interject, in
the Commons the system is set up because the Irish Nationals
MPs in the late 17th Century failed it and
that is why the old freedoms and so on were abolished
very slowly so there is a moral. |
| MR SWINNEY: Yes, I think one of the things that a couple
of weeks ago was quite interesting that the Government
brought forward a measure in a manner in the local Government
Bill where they tried to bring a change to the 1947 Fire
Service Act and not the issues that John Prescott was
raising a couple of weeks ago but Fire Service changes
in Stage Three with no consultation the Government brought
in this change to the Fire Service Act and just a quick
Parliamentary vehicle knowing without a doubt they had
a Parliament majority for that change but they lost the
vote because Parliament was so offended the way in which
this had been introduced at the last minute without any
consultation and because the proportion of the Liberal
Democrats and some Labour members refused to support the
Government and with the Conservatives and ourselves and
the minority parties voting together the Government went
down. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: You have given up at times? |
| MR SWINNEY: Well I think where we are constrained by
that is that the Parliament is really very structured
in its debating time and because the Government has a
Parliament majority they can ultimately structure time
and the agenda and debating space entirely to suit themselves
and our ability to try to use the time in that respect
is very limited. Actually again I think if we were trying
to cause havoc, we probably would have lost the vote in
the bureau, already, so for example, say the bureau would
have said the debate will finish by five o’clock,
for example, it is then up to the Presiding Officers to
structure and balance the debating and you know within
that very tight framework and you have very little manoeuvre
to use time. I think whereas there is an issue one of
my Committees, the Health Committee currently sit monthly
and there is something in excess of hundreds of amendments
coming forward from it. Now I think there has been a reasonable
amount of debating space given to that within the Committee
but hundreds, I mean close to a thousand amendments and
if you are doing it you are irritated by the time you
have available, you have a party in Committee too bogged
down in a piece of legislation but once it comes into
the Parliamentary floor there’s nothing you can do.
We have lost the debate. The one limitation of all that
the amount of legislation coming forward in the last few
weeks the Land Reform Bill in which we spent a day and
a half on Stage three process in the Parliamentary Chamber
if the Government even with that amount of time there
was still issues only getting a very modest amount of
debate space and that was the arrangement we arrived at
and the deal we done with the Government on time but still
gets you into the situation where you don’t think
the issues are perhaps well debated as they would… |
| MS HYSLOP: Neither the Government nor the opposition
uses the time factor to win votes, very very rarely. Because
decision time is at five o’clock it is difficult
to hijack things using timings. |
| MR PRICE: If one listens to the kind of comments you
are making, one can see the distinction between dissatisfaction
with the extent of powers in the original Scotland Act
but a sense of general satisfaction with the structures
put in place for the exercises of that power, is that
fair a summing up of your position and to what extent
would you like to see changes in the structures for the
exercises of power what would those changes be? |
| MR SWINNEY: I think others should make some more detailed
comments. Procedures Committee, I think what you have
said is pretty fair assessment of where we have reached.
I think there is a problem with public expectations. I
think it is because the Parliament cannot do as much as
the people though the Parliament would be able to do but
in terms of how the Parliament is able to go about its
business I think it is pretty well structured to do that,
but if I was to make some personal observations about
the things I would like I think it is impossible for somebody
to develop a kind of argument in a four minutes speech
in the general debates, it is not a problem that I have
suffered from because being Deputy Leader of my party
from day one and Leader for the last two and a half years,
I get endless amount of time to pontificate from the front
bench, but I do feel some sympathy for my colleagues.
Very simply for example, a debate held about three weeks
ago, for example, you know I spoke 20 minutes at a time
and having sat through the House of Commons front bench
speeches for about 45 minutes to an hour, I think 20 minutes
is probably about the right margin because some of the
front bench speeches I think just seem endless, so 20
to 25 minutes is a kind of reasonable period in my view
but to ask people not on the front bench to develop a
line of argument in 10 minutes and to have the ability…
I mean one of the great strengths of front bench experience
is that you are dealing with intervention. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: I don’t have much sympathy with that
point of view in the House of Lords. A timed debate quite
often you get five minutes time or six minutes, I have
to tell you I agree with matters but it is much more difficult
to make a five minute speech but you do get a crisper
debate. |
| MR SWINNEY: In theory you do get a crisp speech because
I have gone through a lot of crisp four minute speeches
in my time, but the thing, that is a limitation, it is
really not practical if making a four minute speech it
is not practical to accept more than one intervention
if at all and in that I think that neuters the quality
of debate because that is where the spark comes in a debate,
if somebody throws you an intervention which is either
difficult to handle or a great opportunity and some great
moments of debate come from that and I think from a personal
level that is one thing I would change. I think you have
probably observed Question Time this afternoon both the
subject question time and the First Ministers Question
Time, the subject at Question Time is absolutely random
in terms of issues that can come up because the questions
are you know coming from the Roads Minister to the Education
Minister to the Agriculture Minister to the Social Justice
Minister. You can’t drill into an issue and get,
you can’t have, I think probably the benefit from
maybe having a 20-minute Question Time where it’s
all a bit more, you get the bit between your teeth. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: How long before… |
| MS HYSLOP: Seven days and Monday to Thursday for First
Ministers questions which allows contemporary points if
there is anything to reflect on and obviously not having
legislative powers that is something you would be looking
at. It may sound a strange remark just because you can
legislate doesn’t necessarily mean you should and
too much legislation is a criticism of the first four
years, obviously the Scottish Law Commission had a stack
of legislative proposals waiting on the shelf, waiting
for time to go in but if there was a criticism of our
first period, there has been too much legislation. It’s
bogged down Committees so they have not been able to develop
their own policy thinking. Only a small number of committees
have initiated Bills and I think there is also a danger
that because the government looks first for legislative
solutions rather than policy solutions. The other point
would be if doing that we are also spending a lot of time
and one of the concerns I have is there is so much estimated
legislation going through and statutory instruments it’s
perhaps we don’t spend time and attention on that
and indeed from my limited knowledge of Wales, I think
it spends probably more time on statutory instruments
compared to Scotland but it does not necessarily mean
the issues are any less or more, it’s just a distinct
different way of monitoring. Once legislation is passed,
one thing we are concerned about is the implementation
of that, where it needs revised fairly rapidly in order
to make sure that legislation is not just about passing
Law, it is about monitoring it and maintaining it. But
that may seem a strange position to take but just because
you can legislate does not mean you have to go overboard
in doing it. One criticism of the CSG is that they never
thought we would be looking at 40 pieces of legislation
in the Scottish Parliament in the first term. |
| MS SUGAR: Can I ask about the setting of the budget
and the procedures for the annual settlement of the budget
and whether you are satisfied with those or whether you
would like to see an improvement? |
| MR SWINNEY: Certainly from my experience I spent the
first year or so in Parliament on Finance Committees and
was very much creating legislation. I think the process
works reasonably effectively and the key thing to it is
to again Subject Committees are able to look in a reasonable
amount of detail at the Government proposals for public
expenditure. I think if I was to criticise the process
I would say that Ministers probably need to come to Committees
a bit better prepared to understand what determines what
our spend money goes on. In my experience some of the
most interesting conversations came in budget scrutiny
where really trying to work out where the Government was
going and the Minister was not exactly equipped to give
you that answer and so, I think at executive level the
Executive could do that investing a bit more time and
energy into the understanding how spending public money
and be able to defend that within Committee. I think the
formality and the obligation of the budget process I think
is a very healthy thing because it does put the control
of public expenditure very much into the spotlight but
the key aspect of that and the key part of that process
is where Ministers have been questioned on Committee and
I think that process could be strengthened. I think we’ve
got to be careful, what we say our strengths of the budget
process are and I would not say it was the ability of
Parliament to change the Executive budget because it is
a bit of a take it or leave it kind of thing and it’s,
the budget process is more an opportunity to delve into
more detail how the Government is spending the tax payers
money rather than trying to change the Government priorities
and that I think is pretty much impossible. An example
from one of my colleagues brought forward a proposal to
change the Government approach to capital expenditure
to allow for a fund to be created to compensate Hepatitis
C people who have been contaminated in blood transfusions,
a one off effort to change the budget to create a fund
and it was a well thought out proposals, well scrutinised
by the Finance Committee but it was not going anywhere
and it was very much take it or leave it approach to the
budget. |
| THE CHAIRMAN: Well thank you very much indeed, I think
that has been extremely helpful we have had an interesting
and entertaining day. |
|
Adjourned.
|
|
|
