BUDGET PROCESS 2010-11

Speech delivered on Thu 17th Dec 2009

Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): This is the third year of the SNP Government's administration, and there can be no doubt that the budget bears its stamp. It is no longer based on choices inherited from the previous Government or ministers, or hangovers from earlier decisions. The budget represents the SNP's choices, priorities and philosophy.

Major policy failures mark and mar the record of the SNP Government. Whether it is the dismal failure on teacher numbers and school buildings, the struggle to keep up the pledge on the 1,000 extra police officers, the broken manifesto promises on student debt, or the resources that have been wasted on the Scottish Futures Trust and the national blether, we and the Government know that those monumental failures are SNP failures of conception, delivery and promises made to the public at the last election.

Of course, the SNP says that it is all the fault of Westminster and the Labour Government cuts. I believe that the Prime Minister and the Labour Government bear a major responsibility for the financial crash, the inadequate regulation that contributed to it, and the inaction while house prices and debt soared to unsustainable levels. Liberal Democrats warned repeatedly about those things, but for all the parallel universe that is occupied by Stuart McMillan and his colleagues, we and others in the chamber recall Jim Mather going round the rubber-chicken circuit of the business community calling for lighter-touch regulation. He seems to have forgotten something about that.

Alex Salmond and John Swinney want to have it both ways. If they had formed an independent Government, they would currently be imposing the swingeing, painful and, dare I say, deflationary public spending cuts that we see in Ireland. There would be no question of their demanding, in outraged terms, that Westminster bring forward investment from next year. The SNP Government must try to take responsibility for the fact that it is a Government, because accountability goes with that position.

I want to talk, in particular, about the Glasgow airport rail link. I note the absence from this debate of the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change; it is not the first time that he has been absent from a debate on GARL. Since the debate on GARL a few weeks ago, it has become clear that, far from a reluctant John Swinney being forced to cut GARL from the programme, he in fact welcomed the cancellation of GARL.

James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab): Will the member take an intervention?

Robert Brown: May I make a bit of progress? I will come back to the member, if I may.

It is true, of course, that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson, was misguided enough to claim that Glasgow "luxuriates" in Government spending. However, it was John Swinney, rather than Stewart Stevenson, who made the decision on GARL and who refuses to discuss or reappraise the decision with anyone. He would not do so with me when I wrote to him asking him to look at alternative funding models, nor would he do so with Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport or the chamber of commerce, which pleaded with him to rethink the cancellation of that vital project. There is no lateral thinking, no imagination and no engagement. John Swinney, with his "Niet", has become the Nikita Khrushchev of the SNP Government.

James Kelly: Does Mr Brown support Iain Smith's move at the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee to reinstate GARL, or does he agree with Mr Purvis, who abstained when the issue was moved at the Finance Committee?

Robert Brown: Mr Kelly and Mr Whitton are well aware that, when those matters were discussed at the Finance Committee, the Liberal Democrats adopted a position-it is recorded in the Official Report-that was in support of GARL and critical of what had happened in that regard.

We must talk about the way forward on the issue. In that regard, I repeat my invitation to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to call a public or private round-table conference, under Chatham house rules or otherwise, to re-examine the future of GARL and associated issues, without preconditions. Let such a conference look at timescale and phasing, different funding models, such as that used for the Waverley line, and the potential for sharing.

Stuart McMillan rose-

Robert Brown: Let it examine the benefits of associating GARL with crossrail, or a reduced

crossrail, to circumvent and relieve the capacity problems at the two Glasgow stations and maximise the revenue stream from GARL.

Joe FitzPatrick: Will the member take an intervention?

Robert Brown: No. I will continue, if I may, because I have taken an intervention already.

Instead of a minority Government making an inexplicable, or at least unconvincing, decision on GARL, Parliament should and must achieve consensus on the matter and try to find a sustainable and better way forward. I return to the wise comments of the convener of the Finance Committee, who indicated at the beginning of the debate that there must be wider consensus on such matters looking forward to a budget for Scotland.

Let me turn to the justice budget. As members are aware, the Justice Committee is considering the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, one of the key proposals of which is to reduce the number of short-term prison sentences and replace them with effective community payback orders. The Government, to its credit, has provided worthwhile resources to improve and speed up the current community service orders. However, if the new policy is to work and command public confidence-though it is probably a matter more for future budgets than for the current one-it will require proper resources. It is regrettable that the 2010 budget appears to show a real-terms decrease of 3.2 per cent in the budget head for community justice spending and a decrease in the level of criminal justice social work grant. It is true that £6 million is promised to continue strengthening the community service system, but it is a peculiar way to budget to say in advance, before the budget has commenced, that that will have to be found from underspend in other areas. In fact, I have never before seen such a proposal in budgeting.

A wind of change is sweeping over many areas of our society, which has changed forever the privileges and standing of parliamentarians, bankers, public service broadcasters and many others. Jeremy Purvis talked about the issue of top public servants, who are not immune from that change; their roles, functions, accountability and salaries are increasingly under the same scrutiny as those of others.

The Government must reflect on all those matters and try to progress and adapt the budget so that it becomes a budget for Scotland that can command support across the chamber.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below: