Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 4:37 pm on 14 October 2020.
Thank you very much, acting Presiding Officer. I was surprised to hear both Nick Ramsay and Mark Reckless refer to my advocacy of a legislative process. My own notes here read that I came to this from the point of view of having no preconceived ideas and no principled approach to start with but to listen to the evidence. Perhaps I listened a little more, how shall I say it, actively than I'd thought myself.
In many ways, I enjoyed the investigation, I enjoyed the report, I enjoyed the debate and the conversations that we had as a committee between ourselves and our witnesses. And, in many ways, I felt that this report and this debate goes to the heart of our role as a legislature and as a Parliament. It is right and proper, of course, that the Government has a right to its business and its budget. The Government enjoys the confidence of the Parliament and it has a right to its business, and that includes its budget. But we also have a right as parliamentarians to scrutinise that budget and to scrutinise and challenge the spending and taxation decisions of Ministers. I recognise the force of the point that Mark Reckless made about the range of those powers, but I would say very, very clearly that, if a Government wishes to tax me, whether it's a penny or a pound, I would anticipate and expect my elected representatives to challenge that Minister and to challenge that Government as to what that funding is necessary for and how it is expended. And I would certainly anticipate any Parliament fulfilling that role.
But, really, this debate goes to the heart of the two imperatives: the right of Government to its business and the right of the legislature to its scrutiny. I did become convinced, during the conversations and during the inquiry, that we have not got that balance in the right place today. In many ways, the way in which we debate and discuss our budget remains a hangover, if you like, from the old days of administrative devolution and the old days of a body corporate. It does not reflect today's reality of a parliamentary democracy, and this is probably the final element, if you like, of that particular jigsaw that we need to put in place.
I did read the Minister's response and I recognised what was being said—'we have no principled objection but perhaps not yet'—and I get that, I understand that, but if not now, when? I do believe that we can't constantly have these debates without coming to a conclusion and to ensure that we are able to move forward. I share with Mark Reckless the concerns about the Westminster process, and I agree with him that they are not adequate, that we should not seek to replicate those here, but I do believe that we've got something to learn from our Scottish friends, and I do believe that there are other international examples where we can also learn those lessons. I do believe that a legislative process provides both the scrutiny for the Senedd, but also the necessary stretch for Ministers. And I believe that we do need to test Ministers in a way that is more profound than we're doing at the moment, and I believe that the legislative process provides for that sufficient test and that scrutiny that doesn't exist at present.
But I'll conclude, acting Presiding Officer, with this: there is a need to reform our systems, but I recognise that, within our systems, we are—[Inaudible.]—within a UK system that is itself broken. The way in which decisions are taken by the Treasury, the way in which decisions are taken by the Westminster system, mean that we are constantly running and chasing decisions taken elsewhere, and that needs to stop and that needs reform. I hope that the Minister, in responding to this debate today, is able to look hard at our processes here within our own democracy, but that she also able to have a more profound conversation about the wider financial structures of the United Kingdom, because they equally need reform. And I hope that we will be able to form some sort of agreement between this place and the Government—if not today, then over the coming months—and that those Members who are elected next May will be able to take that forward and complete this much-needed reform.