Scotland has developed a number of radical policies in recent years, but has its financial scrutiny process been left behind? It could learn a lot from the system introduced in Wales
It won’t receive many headlines. In fact, it’s likely to go largely unnoticed by press and public alike. Yet it’s one of the most important Scottish Parliamentary reports of the year. It was issued this week by the Finance Committee and summarises its scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s proposals on how to spend £28bn of public money.
The report and the process are key planks, albeit largely unseen, in Scotland’s system of scrutiny and will be critical in allowing the legislative body to examine the government’s spending plans. This means that, despite the apathy of both public and media, we can be sure that searching questions have been asked on our behalf. We can be certain, for example, that the affordability of services has been tested and that government expenditure (our money) will deliver value for money. Or can we?
A closer look at the report (all 55 pages of it and much of it good) shows that a wide range of items were considered, mainly addressing whether the budget was consistent in delivering economic growth. A small section of the report is devoted to something called ‘active travel’, all £19m of it, even though it comprises only a fraction of Scotland’s public expenditure. Climate change and broadband (yes, broadband) also appear.
There is no conclusion from the committee, however, on the sustainability of Scotland’s public services. In fact, the word ‘affordability’ does not even appear in the report. Assessment of value for money from the budget is also noticeably missing from any of their conclusions.
Over the years, it seems that the committee has followed a largely similar approach without any external (or internal) challenge. Effective scrutiny is not an easy thing to achieve especially with public expenditure, where political judgement and the power of interest groups are compounded by strong lobbying for funding and service retention.
But is the tried and probably tested way still valid some 13 years after devolution? Or is it time for a new era of scrutiny, fit for purpose in an era where policy divergences from the rest of the UK are marked?
A look at the new radical approach to scrutiny taken by the Finance Committee of the National Assembly for Wales provides a model worthy of adoption by other legislative bodies, the Scottish Parliament included.
Welsh Finance Committee members, prior to the 2013/14 budget scrutiny, were trained in scrutiny for the first time. Their approach to evidence was then framed around four principles: affordability of services, value for money, prioritisation and the budget process.
Using these principles, themes to test witnesses including the Finance Minister were identified. With a clear sense of purpose, searching questions were set for witnesses. The result was a report with a clear set of conclusions and recommendations framed around the four principles. By any standard it was a success. The reflection from the Chair of the Finance Committee herself was that she and her committee members were challenged to think differently.
One comparison between the Scottish and Welsh finance committees is how the big issue of welfare reform was addressed. In Wales it was covered with a clear conclusion and also with a clear ongoing scrutiny mandate to monitor this important issue during the coming financial year and beyond. The Scottish Finance Committee also covered welfare reform in both evidence and in the report, although the conclusion in Scotland was less clear and with no obvious action to continue to scrutinise the matter.
Scotland may lead the way in selecting and adopting radical policy choices. But perhaps it should look to Wales to learn about how to radically scrutinise them.
Don Peebles is policy and technical manager at CIPFA in Scotland
