The untold budget story
Posted on January 21, 2010
As happens every year, many column inches have been filled with talk of budget negotiations. John Swinney is once again entertaining visitors from all sides of the Chamber up in the ministerial towers.
We’ve been as clear as ever about our position – we’ve already won £10m of support for marine renewables, but we also need to see meaningful action to cut CO2 emissions and fuel poverty if we’re to vote for the budget. Other parties have their own red lines, and the debate will continue for the next fortnight.
But one worrying concession looks likely to be offered, at least in part – the Tory demand for online publication of every detail of public spending above £25000.
To many people, this will sound fine. Transparency. Accountability. All in the good tradition of Freedom of Information, right? Wrong.
If this demand is accepted in the terms suggested, the result will be to turn the Scottish Government into nothing less than the research arm of the Taxpayers’ Alliance. You know, that group which speaks only for tax cutters, and which seems to have an ideological hostility to any and all public services.
We can all see the headlines, surely. Day in and day out we’ll see story after story turning any element of public spending into a matter of shame. I’m sure you can even pick the targets too – single parents, sex education, asylum seekers, young offenders, and pretty much anyone who fails the conventional standards of your journalistic moral guardian of choice.
In the months to come, when a probable Tory government in London will be wielding the axe with glee, this policy could be a disaster in Scotland.
Recent updates
Latest tweets
It’s an interesting and slightly worrying angle on things, but to me it is still more transparency, more accountability and all in the good tradition of Freedom of Information.
If you don’t believe in transparency for things that make you look bad, you don’t really believe in transparency.
Comment by Sean Anderson — January 21, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
Freedom of Information legislation is still in place of course, and looks set to be extended. It’s a hugely important tool both for individuals who want information about decisions which affect them personally, and for investigative journalism.
The difference with this proposal is that it will simply dump huge amounts of information onto the web which nobody was actually looking for. The result will be that nobody finds out anything they actually wanted or needed to know, but that right wing campaigners against any aspect of the public sector will have material to sift through. Every public health leaflet, every training course, every salary will be turned into ammunition for the pro-cuts agenda.
Proper transparency and scrutiny are important – and they’re already in place through FOI. This scheme will add nothing, and risks damaging every part of the public sector.
Comment by Patrick — January 22, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
The best way to confuse opponents is with too much information
Comment by Kenny Duffus — January 23, 2010 @ 2:23 am
@Patrick
I think the fact that the Tory^H^H^Haxpayers’ Alliance would be interested in this information shows that it’s of interest to someone and should be published. Whether or not you agree with their political aims, data to people that want it is what transparency is all about.
I can’t help but supplant the situation to one in which we might be more readily inclined to want the information published: a corporation saying “we *could* put this information on-line… but all this mundane data about how much waste we’re dumping into the rivers is of interest to no one and will only serve to score cheap political points about our environmental record and damage this important and productive company.”
If there’s no one interested in the data then (if it’s of negligible cost to do so) it’s no bother to anyone if it goes on-line. If it’s of interest to someone, then it should go on-line for the sake of transparency.
Comment by Sean Anderson — January 24, 2010 @ 3:15 am
Hi Sean,
Not convinced that the comparison with the private sector holds. Yes, Government and Parliament decide what level of regulation is necessary for industry, and this is done (at least nominally) in the public interest.
But the public sector is also highly regulated – often more so than companies are – and a whole set of machinery exists to scrutinise Government spending. The auditor general, Audit Scotland, the Public Service Ombudsman, the Freedom of Information Act and indeed Parliament itself with its Finance Committee – they all exist for this purpose. And they all publish their findings.
Adding this extra layer, which will involve a great deal of additional bureaucracy, will ultimately only serve one very narrow political agenda, and it’s one which is obsessed with cutting public services.
Comment by Patrick — January 24, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
I have to agree with you Pat. In my time in government I worked in central government finance, so have a fair idea of the level of scrutiny that ALL public sector expenditure goes through.
If these plans were carried out this would simply mean that you would get bland, insipid statements of expenditure published that do not add any value whatsoever to the public interest. It would also keep at least a dozen people in work scrutinising every description of each transaction above £25k (note I said description of what it was spent on, NOT what it was actually spent on, or whether it delivered good value for the public purse!) in order that it passes a rather Daily Mirror-esque “public palatability” test.
FoI legislation provides anyone with the right to have this information already.
Comment by Michael — January 25, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
Hi Pats,
Yup, I think it’s amazing the Tories are proposing this. Do they not claim they are going to make pubic services more efficient? This would, surely, mean one extra person being employed for every, say, 50 members of staff. Unless they are willing to increase taxes to pay for this, they will have to cut public services even more. For public service efficiency, surely it’s much better to only collect the data people actually want?
It almost makes me think the Tories want to make public services less efficient, so that they can then complain that they are inefficient, and so cut them.
Great piece, and work.
Adam
Comment by Adam Ramsay — January 26, 2010 @ 12:58 am
Are the Greens trying for more funding for a home insulation scheme again this year? The idea really has merit and the SNP should be pushed to include it in the budget.
Comment by Liam — January 27, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
Fair enough. The bureaucracy involved is a good reason to deny the scheme, and the Taxpayers’ Alliance may explain *why* the Tories are in favour of the scheme.
Still, political parties and newspapers (even the Tories and the Daily Fail) being interested in the publication of it is an argument for, not against, publication. So I still believe reasons in your original post for opposing the scheme are were not particularly good ones.
Anyway, that’s a rule-proving exception on this blog. Thanks for responding!
Comment by Sean Anderson — January 28, 2010 @ 4:44 pm