Hansard

I very much welcome the opportunity to participate in this stage 3 debate on the Scottish Fiscal Commission Bill. At the outset, I thank my colleagues on the Finance Committee, the clerks and all those who gave evidence, and I also acknowledge the role of the Tory chancellor, George Osborne, who apparently convinced the cabinet secretary to make the Fiscal Commission more robust.

It was in January 2015 that Scottish Labour set out our plans for a Scottish office for budget responsibility—a truly independent body with teeth that would ensure greater transparency and scrutiny of Scotland’s public finances. Its importance cannot be overstated given the substantial new taxation and welfare powers that are coming. No longer will we just be spending money that someone else has given us; we will now be responsible for raising some of it, too. As a result, being honest and open with the Scottish people about what the economic future holds and placing forecasting in the hands of experts free of political manipulation are absolutely the right things for us to do. Of course, that applies to all Governments, of whatever political colour.

Let us look at the context. During stage 1, I noted that, for the first time in a decade, the price of oil was below $30 a barrel. Gross domestic product figures have clearly been affected in a negative way. Growth in Scotland—onshore and offshore—is not good, and Scotland is certainly not performing as well as the rest of the UK.

Just yesterday, the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures were published. I understand from James Kelly that they were published not once, not twice but three times because the figures that were provided by the Scottish Government were incorrect. I am sure that the cabinet secretary regrets that, but he will also acknowledge that that does not fill people with confidence. GERS, which is the Scottish Government’s balance sheet, tells us that there is a staggering £15 billion gap in our public finances. That is more than the funding for the entirety of the national health service.

When Labour called for a Scottish office for budget responsibility, the existing Fiscal Commission had a limited role—the fact that it had no forecasting responsibility and that its members were appointed by the cabinet secretary, serving as advisers at the same time as providing scrutiny, did not provide reassurance about the independence of the body. I am pleased that that has changed. The Fiscal Commission is now to be on a statutory footing and responsible for the official forecast and for assessing expenditure and income across the Scottish Government’s responsibilities, with better governance arrangements than we had before.

I confess that I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary has rejected my amendment on scrutiny of fiscal rules and the sustainability of public finances. I regret that he and his party have turned their face against ensuring that the Fiscal Commission is truly robust. Having those responsibilities is the normal stuff of fiscal institutions across the world but, hey, it is not to be that way in Scotland—yet it is, or was, something that SNP members of the Finance Committee agreed with. I was delighted to see Kenny Gibson and Mark McDonald make their way to the chamber for a couple of seconds to vote against my amendment, which concerned something that they believed in for more than two years but, of course, they have left again. I do not know why that is. Maybe it is to hide their embarrassment.

The Finance Committee produced a much-welcomed report on the need for a robust fiscal institution. That was followed by an equally thoughtful and robust stage 1 report. In both reports, only one member dissented from the idea that the Fiscal Commission should produce the official forecasts. As I said earlier, that was John Mason. I respect his consistency on that issue, even if I disagree with him. However, I regret his subsequent lack of consistency on other areas of the committee’s thinking.

What genuinely disappoints me is that other members and the convener changed their minds at the 11th hour, just before stage 2. Lo and behold, days later—before the fiscal framework was announced—they changed their minds again: official forecasting was now to be the responsibility of the Fiscal Commission. When it comes to the Fiscal Commission scrutinising fiscal rules or considering fiscal sustainability, they all agreed, but now they have changed their minds. The cabinet secretary had clearly marched his SNP members up to the top of the hill and promptly abandoned them there.

The cabinet secretary says that he did not influence those members and that he did not tell them about the fiscal framework negotiations. I ask people to think about it. Those members of the committee held a strongly expressed view consistently for two years and then, remarkably, they changed their minds at the 11th hour. I do not know what happened. It is a matter for individual members to determine how they protect their own credibility as politicians, but I care about the credibility of the committee. The flip-flopping was embarrassing. It did no credit to the committee or the Parliament, and I hope that we can all reflect on that.

Scotland is on the verge of gaining substantial new powers. With those new powers come new responsibilities. We need openness and transparency in the stewardship of the nation’s finances, and the Scottish Fiscal Commission will be a welcome addition to that process.

We support the bill at stage 3.