Meeting of the Parliament 07 October 2015
I am happy to do so but, in the time that I have been allocated, it will not be possible to do that justice. I am happy to engage with the cabinet secretary, but the problem that I have is that his communiqués are so bereft of detail that it is difficult to know what discussions are taking place.
I recall that the cabinet secretary made a vague commitment to set things out in the autumn. My central heating is now on and autumn has arrived, but we are no closer to getting the detailed information that would enable a dialogue to take place between the Opposition parties in this Parliament and the cabinet secretary.
I am curious to know whether the cabinet secretary agreed to the lack of transparency. Will he now publish information on the discussions that have taken place to date? When does he expect the discussions to conclude? He has tied the fiscal framework to the Scotland Bill and the legislative consent motion, so are we to expect it after the Scotland Bill has been passed? Will an LCM run alongside the Scotland Bill? It would be useful for the Parliament to understand what his timetable is.
The Finance Committee’s report makes a number of comments about transparency. It points to a need for much stronger and more transparent parliamentary scrutiny of intergovernmental relations, following the Smith agreement. In evidence to the committee, Professor McEwen observed that most
“intergovernmental exchange continues to take place below the radar”,
which
“raises questions about the capacity of the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament to give effective scrutiny”.
Similarly, the Royal Society of Edinburgh stated that, typically, intergovernmental relations in the UK
“have been ad hoc, informal and undertaken on an issue-by-issue basis with little opportunity for public scrutiny.”
The RSE supports the development, as I do, of a much stronger joint ministerial committee system, with clearer guidelines, more regular meetings, enhanced transparency and, indeed, publicity.
Professor McEwen argued that there needs to be a degree of transparency prior to meetings of the formal institutions, so that the Parliament has the opportunity to contribute its views in advance. Likewise, there needs to be a degree of transparency in the aftermath of meetings, to allow for parliamentary scrutiny of discussions. It is fairly clear that there is a need for transparency and better scrutiny, yet the UK and Scottish Governments appear to be making backroom deals, cutting out both Parliament and people, subverting the democratic process and placing further devolution in jeopardy. That is simply not good enough.
I appreciate that negotiations will be sensitive, but there is a precedent for the publication of minutes and agendas. Mr Swinney will remember that the two Governments previously agreed to provide the minutes of JEC meetings to the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Minutes were received for the JEC meetings of 27 September 2011 and 18 June 2012, and papers were supplied in advance of the September 2011 meeting on an exceptional basis. If that could be done then, why can it not be done now?
I turn to the Finance Committee’s deliberations on an independent arbiter. A number of witnesses agreed that there is a need to establish an arbiter—a genuinely independent body that is responsible for advising on the calculations that underpin the system and for adjudicating in the event of any disputes between the Governments that they cannot resolve between themselves. I find myself in the strange but happy position of agreeing with the former First Minister on this point. The cabinet secretary also agrees that there is a case for an independent arbiter. I welcome that.
I look forward to scrutinising the Scottish Fiscal Commission Bill, because Labour members do not believe that the proposals are ambitious enough or providing sufficient independence.