Hansard

During the past few years under a minority Government, we have learned of many examples from previous parliamentary sessions of the roles and responsibilities of the Parliament and the Government becoming conflated, because in practice the Government of the day commanded a majority in the Parliament. Of course, there is an important distinction between the role of the Executive and the role of the Parliament. That is not a constitutional nicety but the foundation of the authority on which the Scottish Government sits and the foundation of how the Scottish Parliament operates.

The issue that we debate today is perhaps the most glaring example of ministers’ ability to take decisions over which the Parliament might properly think that it should have oversight, although it has become apparent that in practice there is no parliamentary oversight.

The Scottish Government is a minority Government. When it was formed, many people expected it to fall quickly. It could have fallen at any point, and could still fall relatively easily. Ministers should not lightly take decisions that have far-reaching consequences, because they might not remain ministers even during the current parliamentary session.

When we consider the background to the powers on the standard variable rate, it is interesting to consider the rules that apply to the Parliament. It is clear—and I do not dispute—that nothing in the standing orders of the Parliament, the Scotland Act 1998 or any of our written procedures requires the Government to tell us about the decision that it took in 2007. However, that is odd, because there are detailed rules in standing orders about tax-varying resolutions. For example, only a member of the Scottish Government may lodge a tax-varying resolution, which must be approved by the Parliament, and if it is the foundation of a budget bill and is voted down, the budget falls.

A written agreement in 2005 between the Scottish Government and the Finance Committee, which clearly has the locus on the SVR, covers the budget process but is silent on the SVR. We had a review of the budget process earlier in this session of the Parliament, and the issue never arose. Why? Because no one ever thought that the decision that the Scottish Government took could be taken. It was never a prospect. It is perhaps unfortunate that we did not think about that, but it is regrettable that the Scottish Government did not tell us what was happening.

Patrick Harvie, who rather spoiled his speech towards the end when he laid into the UK Government, made a valid distinction about the power to exercise the SVR in practice. I accept that the provisions in the Scotland Act 1998 have not changed, but the referendum was on the power and, in practice if not in law, surely that power must be retained by the Parliament unless the Scottish people determine otherwise. There is a clear distinction between the legislation and the power, just as there is a clear distinction between the political decision on whether to exercise the power and its availability.

The thing that troubles me most about the issue is why the Parliament was not told at the beginning of the session about the cabinet secretary’s decision. I still do not understand that; perhaps the cabinet secretary will explain it better when he concludes. If the cabinet secretary had come to Parliament to explain the position, and if the Parliament had had the opportunity to debate the issue and take a view on whether the payments should be made or HMRC was acting unreasonably, the current mess would not have arisen. We would have had our say and taken a view, and the Government would have kept Parliament informed.

I am struck by the timeline—although I must say that I do not know whether this is a partial timeline. The First Minister’s letter of last week refers to the establishment of the system and payment of £12 million in 2000. The letter from HMRC dated 27 April 2007, which has been released today, refers to a project board that met “last month”, which is March 2007. That indicates that certain decisions needed to be taken in 2007. The First Minister’s letter talks about decisions in 2007 and states that in 2008 HMRC sought further money. The timeline then goes to July 2010, when, the First Minister says, the Government was asked for £7 million, and it finally ends on 20 August 2010, when, the First Minister says, the Scottish Government offered talks about which it has heard nothing.

I would like clarity from the cabinet secretary. Given that we now have from the First Minister details of what happened in 2000 and 2010, and we have one letter and a briefing note for ministers from the permanent secretary from April 2007, is the cabinet secretary prepared to release all of the correspondence and project board minutes in the timeline? Until we see the full timeline and every piece of correspondence, we cannot be sure that we are not being given simply a partial story. Given the Parliament’s lack of faith in the Government’s decision, the clarity and transparency that would be provided by publishing the information in full would be helpful.

I say to Christine Grahame in passing that the Calman commission was established by a vote of the Parliament. She may not like that fact, but it was the will of this Parliament that the Calman commission should exist.

I end simply on one point. Other members have called for an apology, and the cabinet secretary can consider whether he wants to give one more fully than he did in his opening speech. Much more important to me than an apology is that we get some answers. We need to get to the bottom of the issue, some clarity on who took decisions and when, and the full publication of all the correspondence in the public domain, so that we and the public can draw conclusions.

15:43