Royal Bank of Scotland (FSA Report)
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
I understand the frustration expressed in the hon. Gentleman’s question. We need to look carefully at the proposals in Lord Turner’s report and we will have the opportunity to legislate in the Financial Services Bill, if appropriate, but the hon. Gentleman would not want me to engage in a knee-jerk response to a report that was only published first thing this morning. I want to ensure that we have the right measures in place, whether through company law or regulation, to ensure that we have good-quality people running such organisations.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The report makes it clear that had the Basel III legislation been in place, the AMRO transaction could not have happened. Will the Minister confirm that it remains his intention to implement Basel III as soon as possible and ideally before 2019?
Mr Hoban
It is our commitment to implement Basel III. We want to ensure that it is implemented consistently across the whole of Europe in capital requirements directive IV and we are pushing for member states to have the freedom to go further and raise capital standards when they believe it is in their interests to do so. We want to see tougher regulation of banks and that requires better and more capital and better and more liquidity.
Autumn Statement
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
We are keen to make use of European funds where available, but there are issues of affordability with match funding. I can assure the hon. Lady, however, that if she contacts me with specific examples of European funding that she wants us to draw on, I will see whether it can be done.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The Chancellor will be aware that in the last year of the previous Government, the discrepancy in gross value added between London and the English regions reached 100%—the worst for two decades—so can he confirm that it remains at the forefront of his policy to fix this appalling situation?
Mr Osborne
Yes, absolutely. We must get the private sector in our regions growing. It is striking that, through all the years of the Labour Government—with the regional developments and their like—the disparity between the English regions actually grew. That is what happened under their regional policy. That was because they did not focus enough on getting the private sector growing. The Government can do that by supporting things such as the regional growth fund and through investment in transport infrastructure. I know that my hon. Friend has made a powerful case for improvements to Warrington town centre and traffic flow in the borough.
Jobs and Growth
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Mearns
Many of the businesses that I speak to in areas such as the Team Valley trading estate, which employs about 20,000 people in the private sector, complain about the pace and depth of the Government cuts. They are impacting on their order books because many of them provide for the public sector. Unemployment in the region now stands at 142,000, which means that 11.3% of the working population in the north-east are now unemployed. The only conclusion that we can draw from the rationale of the parties in government is that, for them, unemployment in the north-east is a price worth paying.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points about the north-east and the gap in gross value added per head between it and London and the south-east. However, does he accept that over the past two decades that gap reached its widest in the last year of the previous Government?
Ian Mearns
I was critical, in many respects, of the previous Government’s regional development policy, and I admit that I never understood the rationale for spending regional development money in the south-east when it would have been better spent in areas such as the north-east to rebalance the British economy. Having said that, however, I am not going to criticise my colleagues in the south-east—they have voters as well.
The regional growth fund, which stands at only £1.4 billion over three years, is being used to plug the gap left by the RDAs, which helped significantly in areas such as the north-east and collectively had a budget of £1.4 billion every year. In areas such as the north-east of England, the RDAs were vital. So much for the words of the Deputy Prime Minister last June, when he said that the regional growth fund would
“make a real difference to companies during difficult times.”
We have yet to see a single penny of the regional growth fund being spent in any company in the north-east of England. Oh, what it must be like to have responsibility for Government policy without having any real influence over it! The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said that he did not want to
“strangle business with red tape,”
but wanted “urgent action,” which was needed to
“rebuild and rebalance local economies…across the country.”
What we are actually seeing in response is the infliction of savage cuts that are sucking money, spending power and potential demand out of the economies of regions such as the north-east.
The north-east is part of England and part of the United Kingdom, but we are being treated disproportionately badly by this Government’s economic policies. If they ever get round to paying out money from the regional growth fund, we will frankly struggle to notice the impact because of the unemployment that already exists in the north-east after the deficit reduction strategy. The regional growth fund is taking on the appearance of a pathetic fig leaf that cannot hide the stark truth that the Government do not have a real growth strategy for Britain or a region such as the north-east of England. As we know, the local enterprise partnerships have no start-up funding, no core funding, no guaranteed access to the regional growth fund and no new legal powers. The case against the Government’s policy in the north has been eloquently set out by the Smith Institute of all people—hardly an organisation renowned for its left-leaning attitudes towards public policy—in its report “Rebalancing the economy: prospects for the North”.
The Government’s plan is simply not working, but is inflicting enormous damage on the economic capacity of the north. It is stifling and strangling our economy, not rebalancing it. Oblivious to the consequences of their actions, the Government press on blindly with plan A: deficit reduction. Tens of thousands of jobs destroyed, 1 million young people unemployed, the poorest and most vulnerable in our communities paying the most for the cuts—it is quite clear that we are not all in this together. Over the past 17 months the Government have been absolutely clear that deficit reduction has been their priority above all other considerations. Everything that has been said by the Chancellor and his supporters in the Chamber this afternoon adds to the one simple sentence: “It’s a price worth paying.” To those in the coalition Government, Tory and Lib Dem alike, I ask this. Unemployment of 2.5 million, with 1 million unemployed people under 25—is it a price worth paying? I do not think so.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a case for the higher taxation of banking bonuses and salaries. Does she think that high salaries in other professions such as the oil industry, financial services, insurance—
David Mowat
Indeed. Does she think that higher salaries in all those professions should be taxed more? If that is the case, the most logical option would be to have higher income tax.
Alison McGovern
As I said earlier, I think we all agree that inequality is a problem. We have tabled an amendment that deals with a specific problem. Do not we all agree that inequality in this country is a problem that needs to be tackled? I thought that that was politically pretty uncontroversial these days.
Alison McGovern
Many people wish to speak, so perhaps it would be better if I did not take any more interventions. I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman was not about to tell me that inequality is not a problem.
I want to outline what we could do with the extra income that could be generated if our amendment were accepted. I also want to build on the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). His analysis of the future jobs fund was thorough and it accords with my research on that subject. I pay tribute to him as one of the House’s experts on youth unemployment. His constituency is in the London borough of Newham, which has done extensive research into that issue and probably knows more than many places in this country about what can best be done to tackle it.
I want to make a further point. In January, I asked the Minister for Employment whether he could provide business planning projections of how much the Department for Work and Pensions expected to have to pay for 16 to 24-year-olds on jobseeker’s allowance for each year of this Parliament’s life. I was told that by the end of this Parliament the Department expected to pay jobseeker’s allowance to 279,000 16 to 24-year-olds. It thought that just under 280,000 young people would be on the dole. To check what had happened as a result of the Government’s economic policies coming into force, I asked that self same question in June, when the Minister for Employment was forced to tell me that his Department projected having to pay 303,000 such young people on the dole. The DWP has had to up by 24,000 its own forecast of the number of young people on the dole by the end of this Parliament. Nobody can say that this problem does not need to be dealt with. The Government know from their own DWP projections that this problem has to be dealt with—and it has got worse, not better, over the last six months.
I applaud the Government’s approach to apprenticeships and many other things, but the fact is that we had a programme and a set of policies that were working well for young people. The future jobs fund will be much debated and there is more research to come on the subject, yet the DWP’s own research provides evidence of how that particular scheme worked. The best way to get a job is to have a job; we demonstrated that basic fact through the future jobs fund.
David Mowat
I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s remarks on behalf of the Labour party. Can she make it clear for the House whether the Labour party supports a carbon floor? I thought that that was settled policy. If it does support a carbon floor, what is the particular aspect of the announcement that is causing such concern?
Kerry McCarthy
I am not sure where to start in responding to the hon. Gentleman. My opening line was that we support the idea of a carbon floor price in principle. Everything that I have said since has outlined why we have reservations about the way in which it is being implemented. I simply refer him to the speech that I am making.
I appreciate that there are difficulties in getting this policy implemented at an EU level. It would be easier if we could look at the EU emissions trading scheme in the round. Experts have said that measures on carbon pricing should first be considered at EU level, and that a UK-only solution is a second best option. Lord Turner, the Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, has said that, and it was echoed in the Institute for Public Policy Research report. The Government appear to have done nothing to explore the EU option. The coalition agreement says that the Government will
“make efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.”
However, it does not mention any intention to talk to our EU partners about a carbon price floor. Perhaps that is unsurprising, given the Government’s record on dealing with the EU. For example, the Government’s MEPs tabled no proposals to reduce the EU budget, whereas Labour MEPs tabled amendments that could have cut more than €1 billion of waste from EU spending.
Kerry McCarthy
That is an important point. Although there is concern about the carbon emissions of energy-intensive industries, in cases such as my hon. Friend has outlined they are actively working on measures to reduce carbon emissions. It is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and prevent that type of green investment.
The carbon price support rate will actually provide an effective subsidy to the nuclear industry, as the Economic Secretary has confirmed in a written answer. In fact, it will benefit nuclear power twice as much as the renewables sector, with an average value of £50 million a year for nuclear between 2013 and 2030, compared with just £25 million a year for renewables.
We support building new nuclear power stations as part of the UK’s energy mix, but the problem is that the Government explicitly promised voters that they would not grant nuclear power stations a public subsidy. In fact, there is meant to be cross-party agreement that we are against nuclear subsidies. The Conservative party said in its manifesto that it intended
“clearing the way for new nuclear power stations—provided they receive no public subsidy”.
The coalition agreement stated that the Conservative party was
“committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations…provided that they receive no public subsidy.”
The Prime Minister himself said in the House in March:
“What we should not be doing is having unfair subsidies.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 950.]
Then there are Liberal Democrat Members, who were elected on a manifesto that opposed nuclear power entirely. At their party conference last year, a resolution was passed stating that
“any changes in the carbon price”
should not
“result in windfall benefits to the operators of existing nuclear power stations”.
When we delve deeper, it turns out that this is not the only nuclear subsidy by stealth that the Government are trying to sneak past the House. When I say “subsidy by stealth”, I am of course borrowing a phrase from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. Writing about the Government’s wider package of electricity market reforms, he has warned that they
“must not impose a one-size-fits-all reform on all low-carbon generation in order to avoid singling out nuclear for support.”
He said that the Government’s proposed design for feed-in tariffs
“seems to be more about concealing the fact that it is providing financial support for nuclear power than it is about coming up with the best approach.”
Even if the Government do support public subsidy for new nuclear build, they need to explain why they want to subsidise existing nuclear stations—and, for that matter, existing renewable power stations. Calling the carbon price support rate a green tax surely implies that it is intended to provide an incentive for future green behaviour. However, the Economic Secretary said to the Public Bill Committee:
“We are clear that ensuring that a tax is structured to drive positive environmental behaviour is one thing; ensuring that that can happen on the ground, and that people can change their decisions of the future is another.”––[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 242.]
A public subsidy for existing power stations, whether renewable or nuclear, is not behaviour-changing.
We should remind ourselves exactly where the subsidy comes from. The Economic Secretary may argue that it is not a public subsidy per se, because it does not involve taxing and spending. In fact it has a much more direct impact on every electricity bill payer, whether they are working families or manufacturing firms, and it is still a public subsidy in every sense. The hon. Member for South Suffolk says that the Government
“needs to be upfront about its financial support for nuclear energy”,
and I agree with him. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
The Government are using money taken from people and from energy-intensive industries to subsidise nuclear power stations, which they explicitly promised voters they would not do. They are also using that money to subsidise existing power stations, which makes no sense. We have tabled the amendment to give them an opportunity to explain why they have done that. If they are still sticking to their policy that there should not be a subsidy, I want to know how they will put that right.
Caroline Lucas
I will not give way again, because I want to talk about amendment 12, which I have tabled.
I agree that an effective carbon price mechanism has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity power, mainly by increasing the carbon liability attached to energy use and thereby making energy efficiency measures and renewables more attractive. It also embodies the “polluter pays” principle, which, of course, I also support. I fear, however, that the proposed carbon floor price will not ensure that investment in energy generation is directed towards low-carbon technologies.
I hold that view for a number of reasons, including the fact that market-based solutions to direct investment in low-carbon generation have proved pretty weak in the past. For example, the EU emissions trading regime has so far failed to maintain the cost of pollution allowances at high enough levels to make any significant difference in reducing emissions. It is also true that, because the floor price will be subject to annual votes in Finance Bill debates such as this, it will fail to provide the price stability that is needed to boost certainty and security for investors in low-carbon energy sources. Furthermore, it can be difficult to judge the level at which a carbon floor price should be set to give appropriate incentives to the various technologies that the Government wish to support.
It is clear from those inherent weaknesses that a carbon floor price will maximise its potential to support a low-carbon economy only if any additional revenues that it raises are ring-fenced for use in support of that transition. That must include, in particular, energy efficiency measures for the fuel-poor. Many Members have raised that subject this evening. The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that an additional 30,000 to 60,000 households could be pushed into fuel poverty in 2013 as a result of the carbon floor price because it will push up the cost of electricity.
It is therefore crucial for flanking measures to be introduced alongside a carbon floor price, including measures that will properly support and protect those in fuel poverty. They should include proper capitalisation of the green investment bank, support for the implementation of the green deal—for instance, ensuring that the “eco” element is increased considerably, given that it is the part directed at the fuel-poor—and, indeed, assisting in the development of innovative renewable energy technologies. Failure to ring-fence the revenue of the carbon floor price would mean missing a real opportunity to focus efforts on the technologies that will most quickly cut emissions from power generation.
Many other Members have reinforced the idea that the carbon floor price must not deliver windfall profits to the well-established nuclear industry, which has already been heavily publicly supported for many years. The Government’s own figures show that existing nuclear generators stand to gain £50 million a year from it until 2030. It is vital for the Government to clarify whether such a windfall constitutes the kind of subsidy for nuclear power that they have repeatedly said they will not provide. It looks very much like a subsidy to me, and it looks very much like a subsidy to the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), who has said that the Government should be upfront about the fact that it is a subsidy. He has also said that
“it would be deeply irresponsible to skew the whole process of electricity market reform simply to save face.”
I hope that Ministers will benefit from his expertise, and will recognise that rigging the electricity markets simply to try to provide more support for nuclear generation is entirely wrong.
David Mowat
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case against the nuclear industry, but a few moments ago she made a case against high electricity prices and their impact on the poorest in our society. Electricity costs in France are between a third and a quarter less than those in this country owing to decades of cheap nuclear power, which has a beneficial impact on both heavy industry and consumers.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with the tenor of his intervention. The truth is that the price people pay for nuclear power does not represent its true cost in terms of liabilities, decommissioning and clearing up after an accident. People in Japan are not paying the true cost of clearing up after Fukushima. That £250 billion was not included in people’s energy costs. Nuclear subsidies are incredibly untransparent, but, essentially, people are paying a great deal more for nuclear power. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need electricity prices that people can afford, but the answer is to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which will become far more competitive and far cheaper than nuclear power very soon if we give them the support they require.
If the Government recognise that this is a subsidy, they should claw it back through a windfall tax. I tabled a new clause that would have allowed them to do exactly that, but, sadly, it was not selected for debate.
David Mowat
It may be true that renewables will become more cost-effective over time, but there is an long way to go: a factor of about four in the case of solar power.
Caroline Lucas
I entirely disagree. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been at a meeting with representatives of the solar industry that took place a few days ago in Portcullis House. We were shown presentations by Ernst and Young and others which demonstrated that if a small amount is invested now, solar energy will be able to compete with all fossil fuels and with nuclear power in four or five years.
Although an improved carbon floor price mechanism could help to deliver a less carbon-intensive energy sector, it is important for the Government not to see it as a “silver bullet” solution. Other stronger levers, such as a well managed—I underline “well managed”—feed-in tariff regime and a strong emissions performance standard must also be part of the overall picture. Sadly, however, the Government are falling short in those respects as well. I should like them to devote at least as much effort to stepping up their work at EU level to ensure that the next phase of the EU emissions trading scheme is much more effective than the current phase. The recent collapse in the cost of EU carbon allowances under the scheme is clear evidence of their over-allocation, and the shortcomings of the scheme are becoming increasingly obvious.
I should also like the Government to work with European partners to ensure that, as a minimum, allowances are in line with the policy of cutting EU emissions by between 80% and 95% by 2050, as agreed by member states; that allowances cannot be banked from the second phase of the EU ETS into the third phase; and that a reserve price is set on the auction of permits into the market. Any permits that the market does not want to buy at the reserve price or more should be retired from the scheme.
I urge the Government to undertake to produce the report for which the amendment calls, and to take the opportunity to show how the benefits of a carbon floor price can be maximised and any unintended consequences eliminated. If the carbon floor price is to be effective, we need a tax on the windfall profits of the nuclear industry, along with flanking measures to ensure that those in fuel poverty do not suffer as a result of this policy.
Private Finance Initiative
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that, privately, you might be interested Mrs Main, but thank you for keeping me in order.
What you—[Hon. Members: “One!”]—or rather not you, Mrs Main, but an LEA wanting to build a school, would need would be to have the entire specification for the school for the subsequent 25 years up front. That is clearly impossible, and the banks make their money by charging enormous arrangement fees and ongoing charges as schools change their requirements. That is how the money continues to come in from those projects.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The point that I believe is at issue is procurement failure. To take the example of the hockey pitch, if it is built 2 feet too short, that is a procurement failure. It is not necessarily a specification issue—there are such words as “fit for purpose”. The real issue with all the stuff we are talking about is that the public sector is incapable of procuring projects of such complexity. That is what happens, and that is why so much money is made in change requests. It is not principally to do with financing.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and many of the problems arising from PFI have happened because the private sector saw the public sector coming. There have been all sorts of issues with poor public procurement, and where two PCTs in neighbouring counties have both commissioned a hospital, one has not learned the lessons of the other. Everyone comes at the thing afresh, and they all have the same problems and run into the same weaknesses. Nevertheless, there is an inherent lack of flexibility built into the projects, which cannot be overcome. It is therefore incredibly important to consider that the PFI on its own, even if it were the cheapest option, and even though it does not at the moment have an impact on our national debt picture, has an inherent weakness in its structure.
The other massive weakness in the structure, which has been exacerbated since the financial crisis, is the cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire said, the reality now, with Government gilts at about 3% to 4% long term, is that direct Government procurement would be much cheaper than a bank trying to fund a project itself over five to 25 years and make a profit, where the net cost to the taxpayer ends up at 8% or 9%. There is an enormous difference between the costs of direct procurement and PFI procurement. That is exacerbated by the financial crisis, and makes things almost unaffordable. We must begin to look at alternatives.
I want to float an idea that I have been trying to put to Ministers—and will be doing in the near future. That is the possibility that the green investment bank could provide some necessary competition to the PFI market. As I said earlier, there is a serious lack of competition. The Treasury Committee heard from PFI providers that often they bid only for perhaps one in three deals. Since there are only six or seven major PFI providers, that means there are probably only two, or at most three, serious bidders for any deal; that suggests an enormous lack of competition.
However, we are now thinking about the green investment bank—a brand new idea for this country, whose time has come. That bank will be looking to fund many of the low-carbon, high-tech and potentially economic infrastructure projects of the future, such as offshore wind farms—I shall not talk about railways, but others might; hon. Members will appreciate my personal sensitivity there. Offshore wind farms, roads and all the rest require long-term financing. That is a big challenge, and the green investment bank could address it.
Anne Marie Morris
I agree. My argument is that that is part of the problem, rather than the totality of the problem. My second request is that we find a way of delivering transparency and better management of the contracts. One hospital was charged £333 to change a light bulb. I dare say that that changes the hospital’s decision about whether it will change many light bulbs. One school was charged £300 just to install an electrical socket. How many times will the school install a socket on that basis? One Army official was charged £103 for a 1-inch Land Rover screw that actually cost just over £2. That is not the right way of doing things.
David Mowat
The three examples that my hon. Friend has cited are powerful, but they represent procurement failures by the public sector procurement people involved and structural failures in the nature of the contract, because the contract did not have to specify, for example, exactly how light bulbs would be maintained. We have examples of multiple procurement failures. PFI is being used as a proxy for that. Those procurement failures can happen with any technique or contract.
Anne Marie Morris
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is why the issue is far more complicated than a rebate.
The risk is overestimated. Projects are not monitored, partly because there is no transparency. As has been said, the size of the debt has been hidden because it is off balance sheet. If we looked at the real national debt figure, then rather than £910 billion, we would probably be looking at £1.12 trillion.
I can perhaps best illustrate the distortion in the way in which public services are used by explaining what is happening in my constituency. There is a wonderful new build hospital in Newton Abbot. It was the winner of the 2007 HealthInvestor PFI deal of the year award. But what has happened? In that hospital, we are finding considerable underuse of facilities. Beds and consulting rooms are not being used as they might be. Why? The reason, as I understand it from individuals who have come to me to raise this concern, is that it is just too expensive to use those facilities rather than the cheaper facilities in neighbouring hospitals. I am pleased to say that the primary care trust has taken the matter up and is considering how better use of the facilities at Newton Abbot hospital can be made. However, it is an example of how behaviour can be changed.
The challenge, therefore, is not only to get the cost down. Reference has been made to what the Government are already doing. I am pleased that we have a PFI hit squad, which has already taken £4 billion out of the project list. I am minded to look very favourably on the concept of a rebate, but as I said, a rebate will not be enough. There are two aspects to trying to sort out the financial mess. One is the issue of maintenance. Clearly, there are ways of reducing maintenance costs under the contracts, and whatever saving comes out of any renegotiation needs to be shared with the taxpayer and the local community. The second aspect is the payback rates. We have heard many examples of the payback rates in this context being well above the payback rates for similar risks in the market. Those two issues need to be considered.
To return to where I started, one issue that we need to consider is the impact on what happens in other parts of Government. We need to consider our health care reforms, because many of the PFI contracts are currently held by the primary care trusts. Those PCTs will cease to exist in the not-too-distant future. As and when we see their demise, what will happen to those contracts? Is that an opportunity or a threat? That is a serious issue, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will need to consider in conjunction with the Treasury. We have heard about the examples of schools and the challenges for some of negotiating academy status because of existing PFI contracts. To conclude, this is a complex issue. It is not something that the Treasury can deal with alone. Some joined-up thinking needs to be applied to it across a number of Departments.
Neil Carmichael
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I do not like any mistakes; I do not like small ones, but I especially dislike big ones. We need a system that allows fewer of both, but particularly large ones.
David Mowat
It is about accountability and procurement. Much of what has been said this afternoon is about procurement failures rather than the failure of the PFI technique. I do not agree that people cannot be held to account for big procurement errors. Many organisations succeed in holding others to account, but the Government do not. I would be interested to know whether people in any of the procuring organisations involved in these awful contracts have been held to account—how many jobs have been lost and how many promotions have been missed—but my guess is not many on either count.
Neil Carmichael
I think that you are absolutely right if you agree with me that we need more accountability in the procurement and specification systems.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak under one’s chairmanship, Mrs Main. [Laughter.] I also add my name to the chorus of congratulations for my near neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who has not only secured this debate but worked so hard on the thorny issue of the PFI. His work includes his PFI rebate campaign, which I have enthusiastically signed up to. He has also managed to secure a Treasury Committee investigation into the future of PFI. It is good to see that four members of the Select Committee have come along this afternoon.
The PFI does not directly affect my constituency—there is only a magistrates court there under a PFI contract. However, it indirectly affects my constituents because they are served by the Worcestershire Royal hospital. Famously, Kidderminster hospital was downscaled to help pay for it. When my constituents hear that we have overspent on those contracts to the tune of half a billion pounds, they will be rightly even more furious than they were when the Government wound down Kidderminster hospital.
The PFI is something that we all love to hate. It has come to signify the inability of the public sector to write proper contracts and it is a symbol of trying to hide capital investments on the country’s balance sheet. However, is that a fair summary of what is a reasonably legitimate way of financing part of the supply side of the economy? I have certainly argued in the past that the public sector will always negotiate bad contracts for the simple reason that there is an asymmetry in negotiating skills. I am certainly not here to criticise the knowledge of public sector employees in terms of how to go about writing a contract. However, when it comes to a contract between the public sector and the private sector, we have, on one side of the table, a well-read and well-intentioned civil servant who is doing his best and possibly looking forward to his retirement, while on the other side we have a hardened businessman who is motivated by profit and return on equity and quite probably incentivised by direct equity in his business and a bonus for concessions won. A civil servant will certainly be very well educated in negotiating, but the hardened PFI negotiator from the private sector will have the concept of return on equity, risk evaluation and profitability etched into his DNA. There is no doubt that there is plenty of money to be made out of PFI for the astute negotiator.
Dexter Whitfield, director of the European services strategy unit, in his submission to the recent Treasury Committee investigation, highlighted the profitability of PFI equity sales—that is where a PFI contract is sold and the profit made is in addition to the profit that is gained on an ongoing basis. He pointed out that although there is little readily available information on PFI sales, the ESSU database holds 63 transactions covering 154 PFI projects, and he has looked at how much they have made. Average equity profit has been 50.6% on the 63 transactions. What is interesting is how they fare by sector. Health has been given a profit of 66%, housing 80% and leisure 86%. However, the truly eye-watering winner by miles goes to the defence sector, which has been giving PFI providers a whopping 134% profit on their equity sales. The Treasury Committee inquiry was lucky enough to have a representative from the PFI industry, one of the directors of Balfour Beatty, and he was surprisingly evasive in his reply to my questions, implying that that profit may have included the annual premium returns and therefore was not a fair judgment. But my interpretation is that PFI providers that have sold their investments have already made an annual return on the projects—that is perfectly reasonable, given the way that the projects are structured—but that the sale profit is in addition to that annual return.
What does that mean in terms of the contracts that have been negotiated? It seems that the valuation of risk, which is a key part of a contract, has been miscalculated in favour of the provider and it is that premium, in favour of the provider, that gives the opportunity for the sizeable equity sale profit. Indeed, the fact that there is someone out there to buy the equity stake with their own measure of risk and expectation of return means that there is still more to be made by the subsequent buyer, implying even further mispricing of risk.
That is the point. PFI projects do two things: first, they provide a so-called off-balance sheet way of financing a vital piece of investment; and secondly, they devolve the risk element of any project to the private sector. But the private sector will evaluate that risk and charge for it, and the evidence put forward by Mr Whitfield suggests that the PFI provider is making a great deal of that opportunity.
David Mowat
I have been listening very closely this afternoon to the points that have been made about the super-profits, the 180% margins and all the rest of it. I have also tried to hear the names of the companies that are making those profits and the only two that I have heard are Balfour Beatty and Bovis. My understanding is that neither of those organisations has a particularly high return on capital employed. So I am a little bit mystified as to where the money is going and I genuinely would like somebody to help me with that point.
Mark Garnier
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—what a perfect opportunity for me to do so. These are the profits of equity sales by the companies concerned: 41% for Carillion; 59.1% for John Laing; 53.9% for Interserve; 78% for Lend Lease Corporation, so well done to that company; 42.9% for Costain Group; 20% for Serco Group, which was perhaps not the best investment for someone’s money; 71% for Balfour Beatty; and 59% for Kajima Partnership.
Mark Garnier
Those are the equity sale profits. So those companies are PFI providers who have then sold their contracts, and those figures are the profits they have made. Just to be fair, the figure was 56.3% for Kier Group. Those are pretty sizeable returns.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) for shortening his speech to let me in—I hope it was worth it. Along with other hon. Members, I commend the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for his important initiative.
It seems to me that the PFI is a procurement technique that has been used over the past decade or so—perhaps for longer. Like any technique, it can be used wisely or poorly. There are certain instances, when a project has certain characteristics, when it is probably a good technique to use—for example, when there is a significant construction phase that is difficult. The private sector is able to do that, and we want to transfer the risk. I heard about the Edinburgh tram system on the radio this morning. That system is an appalling failure, and I do not think that it is a PFI project. PFI is a technique that also works when trying to minimise life-cycle costs, because there are some advantages in looking at the overall operability of a scheme as well as its construction.
The technique works best when the procurement contract is written in such a way that, over its period, it properly aligns the profits of the contractor with the interests of the client, and that is where contracts have gone wrong so frequently. It is a technique that also works best when the market is reasonably deep, so that value for money is achievable, and some of the points about how weak the market is are right. The PFI technique also works when there is reasonable certainty as to the nature of the contract that is needed, which is to say that multiple changes will not be made over a 20 or 30-year period. Again, one issue is that, in certain instances, we have been locked into hospital contracts, which, as health care changes come through, we are unable to alter.
Those reasons are why the PFI technique may be valid. There are instances, however, where we should not use PFI, and the overall reason why it has been a bad thing is that it has the characteristic of off-balance-sheet finance. It is a way of constructing a load of activity and projects without putting it on the public debt. I am sorry to say that—without being too political—the previous Government built many schools and hospitals in that way, and, frankly, those schools and hospitals will be paid for over a long time. That is a poor thing.
PFI also does not work if there are asymmetric negotiating skills, and we have heard much about that this afternoon. Unfortunately, that is the case in the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) gave about the contractor’s interest and expertise. All that is true. It strikes me that the issue is also one of accountability. In an earlier intervention, I made the point that I see no accountability in public sector procurement, which is disappointing.
The consequence of all that is that we get the multiple messes that have been mentioned. I was interested in the example that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) of a hospital that is under pressure because work has had to be transferred to a PFI hospital, because exactly the same thing is happening to Warrington hospital due to a large PFI hospital being built just up the road and needing patients to satisfy the contract. That is an example of terrible failure.
I am delighted that the review of contracts is going on, but I want to raise several points that I do not fully understand. We have to be careful about opening up contracts that have been entered into in good faith, and we must be careful about bandying about profit figures. In my previous life, I had some contracts where I made a lot of profit, and I had some where I made so much loss that it could not be counted. It is only reasonable that all such activity is looked at in the round, so we must be careful. Regarding the list of organisations that was read out earlier, I reiterate that, as far as I am aware, none of those companies is making excessive profits in terms of return on capital employed or share price. We need to think through what is happening between the extraordinary profits that everyone is talking about and the fact that those publicly quoted organisations do not seem to making them.
It is worth trying to get some of the money back in the same way that the Cabinet Office has been doing for large consultancy and IT projects. However, what carrot are we giving to such people, who in many instances entered into contracts in good faith? From their point of view, they have carried out the contracts to the best of their ability. In the case of the Cabinet Office initiative, the bribe being used is the threat of not getting further contracts unless they play this game. That is a valid thing, and the directors, who have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, can go back to their boards and say that they have a choice to make: they can either knock some money off or do no more work for the Government. That is their choice. In our discussions in this area, we must enable ourselves to create that choice for such organisations. I am not sure that characterising them all as money-grabbing private sector rogues is necessarily the way forward. I have heard a bit of that this afternoon.
I shall sit down now but, before I do, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on initiating the debate. The issue is very important and could have significant impacts on all our communities.
Scotland Bill
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
Yes, that is the case, but we must consider the consequences of that borrowing for the UK’s debt position. That is the level that we believe is right.
As I set out in Committee, the £2.2 billion represents a floor, not a ceiling. The Bill provides for the limit to be increased to more than £2.2 billion with the approval of the House, but not for it to be reduced to less than £2.2 billion.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
A few moments ago, the Minister mentioned the pre-payment amount for the Forth road bridge. Did the Treasury consider a toll on that bridge, in much the same way as a toll was considered for the Mersey Gateway bridge next to my constituency? If not, is that not asymmetric governance?
Mr Gauke
The decision on whether to put a toll on the Forth road bridge will be one for the Scottish Government. The Treasury has therefore not considered that proposal. Perhaps my hon. Friend should ask Scottish National party Members what consideration was given to such a toll. I suspect that the answer will be, “Not a lot.” The expression on the face of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) is probably confirmation that no consideration was given to my hon. Friend’s suggestion. Asymmetry is inherent in such devolved matters.
The UK Parliament has an interest in ensuring that Scottish Ministers can borrow efficiently and sustainably, because although interest paid on any loans will be funded from within the Scottish budget, it will be included in the UK fiscal aggregates.
Mr Gauke
The Government understand the concerns expressed about the devolved funding arrangements, but we have also made it clear that the priority now must be to reduce the deficit, and any change to the current system and Barnett formula must await the stabilisation of the public finances. The Bill does not rule out or rule in reform of the formula in the future, but we do not believe that now is the right time. A change in the Barnett formula is not the purpose of the Bill, and it would not be appropriate to legislate for it here. As I said, I look forward to this debate, as right hon. and hon. Members will clearly take the opportunity presented by the Bill to express their views on this particular point.
David Mowat
I understand that the Exchequer Secretary does not want to spend too long now talking about the Barnett formula, so I will be quick. He said that we are too busy sorting out the deficit to address the Barnett formula, which I think is a fair and reasonable point. That is why many of us think that we should put in place a process to ensure that by 2015, when, as I understand it, the structural deficit will be eliminated, we can put in place a fair and transparent policy.
Mr Gauke
I understand the views expressed by my hon. Friend. There are a number of changes and developments in this area, not least the powers in the Bill. I agree with him that this will continue to be a live issue, but at this stage I am not in a position to make any promises to him. However, I am sure that this issue will continue to be debated, and strong views will be expressed. I can understand the points he makes, but this is not the time for a legislative solution.
Amendment 23, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, is consequential on new clause 8 and would delay the financial provisions in part 3 of the Bill coming into force until two months after the House passes a resolution approving the Chancellor’s proposals for a new funding formula. It would then automatically bring part 3 into force two months after such a resolution. I set out why I did not consider it appropriate to debate at this time a new funding formula for Scotland when I discussed new clause 8. The Government are clear that this is a UK-wide administrative procedure and therefore has no place in the Bill. The Government’s priority is to stabilise the public finances and reduce the deficit before making any changes to the Barnett formula, as I have said.
Even were we able to accept new clause 8, the manner of commencement set out would be problematic because it would create technical problems by potentially bringing in consequential amendments relating to the Scottish variable rate before that itself had been repealed. I am sure that that is not what the right hon. Gentleman intends. The new clause would have other consequences, however. It would mean that clause 32, on borrowing provisions, could not be brought into force until an agreement had been reached on a new funding formula for Scotland. As I have set out, the changes introduced by the Bill are not contingent on a new funding formula being agreed to replace the Barnett formula, so I do not see the need to wait to introduce the borrowing clauses until such a new formula has been agreed.
Amendments 25 and 37, and new clauses 9 and 19, relate to corporation tax and alcohol duties. These amendments propose to increase the power in the Bill to provide for an Order in Council specifying corporation tax and alcohol duties as devolved duties. The Scottish Government have publicly requested that six additional powers be included in the Bill, including powers over corporation tax and alcohol duties. I understand that the First Minister has met colleagues in the Government to highlight those requests. In those meetings, the First Minister agreed to provide detailed written analysis of the benefits to both Scotland and the UK of devolving those powers. No such papers have yet been provided. We await them with interest, because we have yet to hear the case made in detail.
As hon. Members will recall, the Government are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Calman commission, which considered the merits of devolution for a wide range of taxes and decided that neither corporation tax nor alcohol duties were suitable candidates for devolution. Calman concluded that the potential administrative impact of devolving either tax would be significant. The creation of compliance costs for businesses operating on either side of the border, as well as the increased collection costs for the Government, would be undesirable, especially in the present economic climate. The risks of tax avoidance and arbitrage could also be increased, with additional costs to the Government and the UK Exchequer. These arguments apply to both corporation tax and alcohol duties.
Calman also noted that if comparable levels of public services were to be maintained, the scope for substantive reductions in the rate of corporation tax in Scotland would be limited, unless the Scottish Government were willing significantly to increase revenues from other sources, such as income tax. The figures involved could be significant. For instance, if we take the Scottish Government’s estimate of the corporation tax base, published in their “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” report, and apply the methodologies developed for the Government’s paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy, the cost of reducing Scottish corporation tax to 12.5%—the current rate in the Republic of Ireland—would be just over £2 billion. However, the Scottish economy is very different, not least in the presence of many large multinationals, particularly from the financial sector, whose current activity is unlikely to be adequately covered in the gross value added estimate, but whose profits are additionally likely to be attributable to Scotland with regard to corporation tax.
Provisional HMRC analysis has indicated that losing payments from large Scottish-domiciled groups could add £600 million to the direct costs. Such tax cuts would have to be funded, either by significantly reduced levels of public spending in Scotland or by tax rises in other areas. It is worth noting that these are initial estimates, and are likely significantly to underestimate the scope for profit shifting to Scotland. The model uses similar assumptions to those applied to the costing for Northern Ireland. However, given the geographic proximity of England and Scotland, the integrated infrastructure, the large number of big GB-owned groups with a substantive presence on both sides of the border, and the relatively large and complex nature of the Scottish economy, there are likely to be greater opportunities for groups to shift profits there than may be the case for Northern Ireland.
In addition, corporation tax is a very volatile tax, and would create much more revenue risk for the Scottish budget. For instance, corporate tax receipts fell by 16% from 2008-09 to 2009-10, while income tax receipts fell by 5%. Such a large volatile income stream would place great risk on the Scottish budget. Income tax, which is more predictable and less volatile, is a much more suitable candidate for devolution. The commission based its decision on the strong evidence that it received from the independent expert group and the alcohol retailing and production sector. The evidence identified increased compliance costs and significant scope for tax avoidance, given the mobility of goods such as beer, wine, cider and spirits.
Stewart Hosie
I have already given way five or six times and I want to make progress. There will be plenty of opportunities for hon. Members to intervene later.
There is a very strong case for additional powers. Evidence shows that corporation tax can be a key element in a country’s overall economic strategy and it has the potential to promote economic growth by enhancing international competitiveness and encouraging innovation and investment. As the Minister said, we have long argued for devolution of corporation tax as a powerful means of addressing the economic challenges facing the Scottish economy. We believe that a centralised and uniform corporation tax structure disadvantages nations such as Scotland to the benefit of London and the south-east of England. To say that is not to be anti-London or anti-south-east; it is just to say that when businesses reach a certain size, they tend, other things being equal, to be attracted to the largest conurbations. In the UK, that of course means London.
The evidence base for devolving corporation tax powers to Scotland is pretty clear. Over the last 30 years, as I said at the beginning, Scotland’s economy has grown more slowly relative to both the UK and the average of other small EU countries. One reason for that relatively weaker economic performance has been the relatively smaller corporate sector in Scotland relative to other parts of the UK. Business birth rates are lower, the business base is smaller and Scottish companies typically engage in less research and development.
As I said, there is also evidence that Scottish headquarters drift south of the border once businesses have reached a certain size. Effective use of corporation tax could serve as a powerful tool to address those trends by improving competitiveness and encouraging investment and expansion. Evidence shows that, at the margin, corporation tax rates can be an important factor in international firms’ decisions about foreign direct investment, which is one of the key objectives of the Scottish Government and Scottish Development International.
At the same time, a number of key sectors in the Scottish economy face tough competition from abroad. Companies abroad receive attractive tax breaks as part of allowances in relation to corporate taxation. The computer games industry, for example, has received a very attractive proposition from Dublin, and receives tax breaks in Montreal that have been denied by our Government despite forceful representations to the Minister by members of all parties. Improvements in those areas will help to boost productivity and, ultimately, the competitiveness of the Scottish economy, which will benefit not just Scotland but the United Kingdom as a whole.
The devolution of corporation tax powers is not solely about making possible the creation of a more competitive environment within the Scottish economy; it also about increasing and promoting accountability. A greater devolution of economic policy levers and tax revenues means that the Scottish Government will have the levers that they need to increase sustainable economic growth, and an opportunity to reinvest the proceeds of that growth—higher long-run tax revenues—in Scotland’s public sector. Having control over corporation tax would also mean that the Scottish Government would bear the risk on the economic levers. We believe that positive reform must be about balancing the revenue and expenditure implications of policy choices, and about giving policy makers the levers to promote economic growth.
Stewart Hosie
The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep for the last 14 minutes, because that is precisely the question that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) asked. I am surprised that he did not hear or understand my answer to her question, which was that the corporation tax yield would fill the gap caused by the reduction in block grant.
David Mowat
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful point a few moments ago, if I heard him aright. He said that, unlike the United Kingdom, which has a significant deficit, Scotland had experienced a surplus over the last few years. Can he tell us how, in reaching that conclusion, he accounted for the bail-out of Royal Bank of Scotland?
Stewart Hosie
I have two answers to that question. The first is that in the 40 years before the crisis, Scotland experienced a surplus on average. The second relates directly to the hon. Gentleman's question. I am fed up with the argument that runs “Scottish banks bad, English banks good.” There seems to be a failure of basic understanding. Northern Rock took £20 billion, as did the Lloyds banking group. No one seems to speak about Northern Rock. Bradford & Bingley required £37 billion. RBS required £45 billion, but a large chunk of that related to the asset protection scheme. It was not a question of Scottish banks’ being bad and needing to be bailed out while all other banks were fine.
I do not want to drift too far from the new clause, but the Office for Budget Responsibility made it clear in its assessment earlier this year that the net impact of the financial crisis measures would be a surplus of £3.5 billion for the taxpayer. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to know what the out-turn figure is likely to be.
Amendment 25 provides for powers to charge a tax charged on the profits of companies—
Iain Stewart
The Barnett formula has not been in operation for the duration of the Union and only since 1978, so it is a comparatively new beast.
Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in the debate on the Pensions Bill where one of the arguments against the changes the Government are proposing is that the time scale to allow people to adjust their behaviour should not be less than 10 years. A similar approach should be taken to funding; there should be a process of evolution, not revolution. If we rush too hastily into the argument on the basis of misinformation, we risk splitting the Union asunder.
David Mowat
My hon. Friend is right. If a change is made to the block grant, as it must be at some point soon, there will be a long transition period, which may be as long as 10 years, but that is no reason not to do a review, put the matter on a needs basis and start that 10-year period. A transition of 10 years is reasonable.
Iain Stewart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have a suggestion to make about how we can move forward. In this country we have never had a territorially based system of taxation or spending. From taxation receipts we do not know in detail which part of the United Kingdom contributes what in taxes. There are many estimates and forecasts, but there is little hard evidence.
David Mowat
I want to make a few points about the excellent speech made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on new clause 8, but before I do so I shall nail a couple of red herrings.
People have talked about priorities. It is absolutely right that the Scottish Government have the ability to set free prescriptions if that is their priority. It is absolutely right that there can be free tuition and almost free social care. Those priorities should be set in Scotland and it is the Scottish Government’s right to do that. The difficulty arises if they have a different baseline of spending. Nothing I have heard this evening convinces me or my constituents that there is no problem in that regard.
In the course of their remarks a number of Members said that we need more facts on these matters. Who can argue with that? Everyone is in favour of facts. In my previous career, however, when I heard people call for facts, it was often a delaying mechanism. There have been many reviews of the block grant formula over the past two or three years, most recently a superb piece of work by the House of Lords Select Committee in 2008, whose recommendation was unequivocal; similarly, Holtham. The Calman commission made the point that it was not a proxy for need. Most persuasively, Lord Barnett is clear that the formula was never intended to be used as it has been over the past 30 years. He, I believe, will table an amendment to that effect when the Bill goes forward.
I am not making the case for Scotland or Northern Ireland having less money or Wales having more. I am making case for the consideration to be based on need, and I will go wherever that takes us. “Based on need” means that we take into account relative population changes. One of the problems with Barnett is that over the past 30 years it has not properly reflected the fact that in both Wales and England population has increased more rapidly than in Scotland. Similarly, a needs-based formula would look at indices such as how many old people there are in a community, how many very young and how many disabled, as well as unemployment levels and indices of poverty. It is not rocket science. I do not mind what the answer is, but I will answer the question: what is likely to be the result of a needs-based formula?
The most coherent piece of work that has been done on this, notwithstanding the book by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), was by Professor David Bell of Stirling university. In evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee, his estimate was that the current allocation that Scotland receives is roughly 120% of that which is due in England and it should be closer to 105% or 107%. A difference of that order implies a yearly difference of £4.5 billion or, over the lifetime of this Parliament, a difference of £22 billion. I do not know if that is right, but Professor David Bell did a lot of work on that, as did the Holtham committee and others in respect of the House of Lords Select Committee.
The question might arise why we need to fix the problem now. There are a number of reasons—not just the fact that the Bill would be a convenient place to do it, although that is true, and not just because of the resentment that is felt in England and Wales. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead used an important word—“sourness”, which debases all of us and it is not the right answer to those of us who are Unionists. If we are not careful, we will be building up a bank of sympathy for devolution or separation in England.
The Bill for the first time equates Scottish levels of income tax to the level of the grant. I am concerned that unless we make the necessary reform to the block grant, it will become almost impossible to do in future. If the figure of £4.5 billion put forward by Professor Bell of Stirling university were correct, that would imply that Scottish basic rate of income tax would have to rise by about 11p in the pound to make up for that shortfall. But that is not the reason that we need to act; there is a moral reason.
I meet my constituents, have seminars and talk about the fact that we have lost Building Schools for the Future money in Warrington. We have lost the education maintenance allowance in Warrington and England. We could pay for an awful lot of things with some of the £4.5 billion. Of course, as many have said, there would have to be transitional arrangements, but that is not a reason for not starting. I think that it would be over 10 years or more.
I am genuinely mystified by the stance of Government Front Benchers on the matter. I have read carefully the replies that Ministers have given when asked about this, and they seem to come back to two basic points. The first, which is often made, is that the formula is expedient. It is true that it is easy to do—my understanding is that the whole thing is done by one guy in the Treasury—but that does not seem a great reason to continue with it. The second is that we are too busy fixing the deficit to make the change and that it must wait. As I said in an intervention, I am prepared to accept that reason, but my understanding is that we are on target to fix the structural deficit by 2015, which is before most of the Bill’s financial provisions will take effect, so I see no reason why we do not start to set up the commission that would have to look at a needs-based formula for Wales, England and Scotland. The formula must be fair, transparent and moral.
One final point I wish to make is that I do not support the amendment in so far as it puts a limit of plus or minus 5% on the amount, which I think is wrong. The point is that it should be needs-based. I would be quite happy if a consequence of the needs-based analysis was that Scotland ended up, as I think it would, with more than 105%. I do not support the amendment for the technical reason I have explained, but its basic thrust is right and it is very important that the House addresses this.
Mark Lazarowicz
I want to make a few points on the question of whether corporation tax should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, as the SNP proposes. Given the time, I will make my comments as briefly as possible.
There is a respectable intellectual argument that cutting business taxes has a beneficial effect on some businesses and encouraging growth, but we cannot assume that that will automatically be the case. What is important is the effect that a cut in corporation tax would inevitably have on tax revenues. SNP Members were asked time and again in the debate how they could cut corporation tax while protecting public spending, and time and again they did not answer. If their theories are right, businesses might grow in time, but they cannot claim that there will be immediate growth that will make up for a loss in corporation tax. That is not because there is a lack of entrepreneurial spirit among the Scottish people. We must accept that any taxation policy cannot just be a general theory that applies in any circumstance. We have to look at the actual situation in a particular location and at a particular time.
The fact is that the biggest beneficiaries of a reduction in corporation tax in Scotland would be the big banks and power companies, not small and medium-sized businesses. Why on earth would cutting bank taxation encourage the banks to invest more in the Scottish economy and promote jobs? There are many other ways to encourage business growth in Scotland, and at the moment the Scottish Government have those powers. The Bill will give them more such powers, which is what should be done, rather than cutting corporation tax for beneficiaries, which we cannot assume will benefit the Scottish economy and Scottish business.
Another point is that if the Scottish Government were to go ahead with a corporation tax reduction, as they suggest, how can we assume that there would be no response from the UK Government? If the Scottish Government’s policies were to lead to a substantial transfer of businesses from England to Scotland, there would of course be a response at UK level, and at the end of the day that would lead to an overall driving down of the UK Government’s tax base. That in turn would inevitably lead to cuts in public services and public spending, and the SNP has to recognise that if it is to address the issue seriously.
I am not opposed to looking again at taxation and to considering all options, but I do not want us to go ahead with proposals that could have consequences that we cannot reverse. If the SNP is to pursue that line, it has to give us more information about the consequences of its policies. If it does not do so, it will be rightly criticised for coming forward with ideas that are all talk and no reality.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman raises a very specific issue—the cumulative impact of the environmental policies of both the previous Government and this one on some very energy-intensive industries such as the one that he represents in Stoke—which is worth consideration. We are examining it, and it is a challenge for the whole House to ensure that we get the right balance between absolutely meeting our carbon reduction requirements, to which we have all signed up as Members of this Parliament, and ensuring that we can do so in a way that enables Britain to continue to have a competitive energy-intensive industry.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
12. What his policy is on the operation of the Barnett formula in relation to relative need.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
As the coalition programme for Government states, the Government
“recognise the concerns expressed…on the system of devolution funding.”
The Government’s priority, however, must be to reduce the enormous budget deficit and therefore any change to the system of funding for the devolved Administrations must await the stabilisation of the public finances.
David Mowat
I thank the Chief Secretary for that reply. He will be aware, however, that the Holtham commission, the House of Lords Select Committee and the noble Lord Barnett are all of the view that the Barnett formula is in need of urgent review and should be replaced by a mechanism based on need. I understand that the priority must be to tackle the deficit, but can we not at least start the process in the course of this Parliament of putting in place a fairer allocation mechanism based on need?
Danny Alexander
No, I am afraid I cannot make that commitment. As I said earlier, our priority is to reduce the deficit. We have the Scotland Bill to take forward here, and in relation to Wales we have a process that is following on from the referendum and we have the Holtham commission to look at specific issues. I think that is the right set of priorities for the moment.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Goodman
I entirely accept your guidance, Mr Hoyle.
There is obviously a supply chain for the oil and gas sector. Equally obviously, if we damage the financial viability of the oil and gas companies, there will be an impact further down the supply chain. It is worrying that the industry is predicting that 40,000 jobs will be lost. Those are 40,000 jobs that we can ill afford to lose at this time. This is absolutely typical of the measures being taken by the Government that, across the board, are not being thought through. The statement by Statoil that it is going to put on hold a $10 billion investment is very worrying.
We also need to pay attention to the fact that the North sea province is different. It is not only a mature province—we all understand what that means—but it is in a very competitive arena. The Government do not appear to understand what being in a competitive arena means, or that those companies have a choice about where they invest.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
At the current price of $120 a barrel, the average return on capital employed for a medium-sized field is roughly 40%. Do Labour Members think it right that oil companies should be making 40%?
Helen Goodman
I do not have the precise figure at the back of my mind and I am not going to pluck out of the air a particular number, which would be to behave as foolishly as Ministers. It is obviously necessary to look at the returns across similar fields in other countries and to consult the industry on the implications. I am sure that that will not have satisfied the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that it is my view.
David Mowat
The point about petrol prices has often been raised. The hon. Lady has mentioned both Centrica and Statoil. Does she believe that these are major petrol suppliers in the UK?
Helen Goodman
No, Centrica is a gas company. Oil companies, even if they do not have petrol companies within them in the UK, are selling their oil and gas to people who are delivering in the retail market. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman understood that if something is being done with prices and taxes in one part of the market, it could have an impact on the prices charged in another part of the market. That was my point.
Let me deal now with the drafting of the Bill. Will the Minister explain why the $75 a barrel limit is not specifically mentioned in clause 7? As already mentioned, if we are to make any sense of what is going on here, we will need to look at clauses 61 through to 64 and at schedule 15 alongside clause 7. I would like to pay tribute to Rob Marris, the former Member for Wolverhampton, South West who always enjoined us to read the explanatory notes. The explanatory notes on clause 61, which deals with decommissioning, are particularly interesting. Has the Treasury or Revenue done any analysis of the impact on the environment of the changes to the rate of decommissioning relief?
The amendments in the group are also interesting. As I have said, the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members are clearly aimed at improving stability, predictability and transparency. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) are designed to review and understand the situation better. The most interesting amendment before us, however, is amendment 11, tabled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is designed to insert the following provision into clause 7:
“But if the basis of apportionment in subsection (4)(b) would work unjustly or unreasonably in the company’s case, the company may elect for its profits to be apportioned on another basis that is just and reasonable and specified in the election.”
This is the most extraordinary amendment that I have seen in six years as a Member of Parliament. It seems that every company can say to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, “The impact on another company might be ABC, but in our case it would be XYZ.” Every company will be allowed to negotiate not simply the interpretation of the tax code, but its own tax code.
Scotland Bill
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann McKechin
Indeed, and the fact that we now have converts to the cause shows what a difference the passage of time makes. As I said earlier, I am pleased that even the SNP has agreed to the LCM motion.
Our present approach is consistent with the approach that the Labour party has always taken to constitutional reform, which is to seek political consensus before introducing legislation in the House of Commons. The reason we have such a degree of consensus this evening is that we have spent a good deal of time examining details of the legislation. I congratulate the Holyrood Committee, which has done an excellent and thorough job in examining many of the issues in great detail. We all benefit from its work and from last week’s debate in the Scottish Parliament, which showed that the Scottish Parliament and its Committees are more than capable of doing a thorough job in scrutinising legislation.
I should be interested to know whether the Government agree that the retrospective application of an order could adversely affect the budget of the Scottish Parliament. For example, if the Budget is set in March and the Treasury lays an order in October to apply a relief clause retrospectively, that could have grave implications for the Scottish Government’s budget. That is another reason why I seek some reassurance about the Government’s intentions for the use of this clause.
How do the Government propose to deal with avoidance of the Scottish tax rate? Unlike other jurisdictions that have devolved taxes, and where there are different forms of collection and reporting, many people self-assess or are in pay-as-you-earn schemes, and they are not currently specifically called on to declare their residence to the tax authorities in the way required by the Bill. The Bill’s provisions only apply to income; they do not apply to dividends or to interest on savings, and we would want appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that people do not end up transferring income into another route, to try to avoid the income tax provisions made by the Scottish Parliament.
What provisions have the Government put in place for the self-employed? Will, as anticipated, the self-assessment tax return have to be altered, with additional questions on residency for example, particularly for those who work in a different part of the UK? I realise there are specific measures dealing with Members of Parliament and we are automatically included, but it has been pointed out that Scottish judges serving at the Supreme Court are not covered by the Bill’s provisions. Similarly, other senior Government officials travel from different parts of the country for their work. It is important that they are aware of what may be expected of them in terms of self-assessment claims.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Many of the hon. Lady’s comments imply that she is unhappy with residency being the method for working out where people pay tax, but it seems to me that there is no alternative. Is her position that she would like everybody to fill out a tax return?
Ann McKechin
No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to burden the taxpayer unnecessarily with additional questions and pieces of paper and that I think the residency basis is the simplest way to deal with this issue. The problem is that we have a floating definition of a UK resident taxpayer, and from that we are trying to define in very exact terms a Scottish resident taxpayer. That is the point at which there could be challenges, and sometimes mischief in that people might try to change their declaration of where they believe they are resident.
This situation is unlikely to arise for the vast majority of taxpayers in Scotland; most of them will be faced with a very simple exercise. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out, in other jurisdictions with devolved income tax there are ways in which people have to declare where their residence is that we currently do not have in the UK. I want the Minister to say whether the Government are aware of any potential problems, and what measures they intend to put in place to avoid them, so that the maximum level of tax that is due is collected and returned to the Scottish Government, and so that administration is kept to a minimum. All hon. Members will be concerned about the cost to the Exchequer, and also about the costs to individual businesses. That is why I am asking these questions, but I agree that residency is the easiest way to define who should be liable to tax.
I also appreciate that a decision has been taken not to include interest on dividends and on savings. People will comment that that perhaps creates a degree of unfairness because some individuals get the majority of their income from those sources, but I acknowledge that there are complex and expensive practical difficulties in applying a residency test for those types of revenue, and that ultimately the benefit may not be great. We therefore understand why the Government have phrased the clauses in this way, but the devil is in the detail of defining exactly what they will mean in practice.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Lady makes a valid point and that is why I prefaced my remarks with the phrase, “What needs to be communicated more effectively is how the Scottish Government can prioritise their funding.” By that, I meant that checks and balances are involved and that that needs to be communicated nationwide. A greater understanding of that needs to be gained.
David Mowat
My hon. Friend’s answer to that intervention was very generous. It is right that the Scottish Parliament should make decisions about priorities in Scotland—about free tuition, prescriptions and whatever else—but the question that remains and needs to be answered is whether the baseline of the block grant, as it is set up, is fair on Scotland, England and Wales.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
Let me turn now to the proposals in the Bill. It is only right that I should explain why complete financial independence would not, in my view, be beneficial for the Scottish or wider UK economy. Members of the Scottish National party might say that the Bill’s financial provisions do not go far enough but devolving full economic responsibility while retaining various regulatory and other competences would create a two-tier system that would serve to weaken our economy. Devotees of the two-tier system argue, I believe, on the basis of a fiction, if not a fantasy, that such a fragmented system could exist without disastrous consequences. The Calman commission and the Scottish Parliament’s report on the Bill both rule out financial independence on the grounds that it would create havoc for taxpayers and break up the Union.
In its final report, the Calman commission gave its reasons why income tax should not be fully devolved, including that it would not, in the commission’s view,
“be consistent with the social Union”.
We can add a further reason. There are certain areas of government that a responsible country will retain at a national level, such as defence and national security. They should remain UK-wide in the interests of the shared public good, and fragmenting them would be both inefficient and dangerous for national security. The same basic principles apply to immigration and trade. Unco-ordinated approaches in those areas could lead to potentially disastrous consequences so it is important that we act responsibly and in the whole country’s interest.
Such protections can be afforded only under a single economic framework and any moves to meddle in that area unnecessarily will create more damage than good. It is therefore refreshing that the Scottish Parliament recognises the merits of the Bill’s provisions and, rather than running before attempting to crawl, its report on the Bill does not go so far as to recommend full financial responsibility.
The Bill is about improving the devolution settlement and promoting economic growth. The income tax proposals in the Bill retain the reservation of overall fiscal management within the UK Government, which will ensure that the needs of Scotland are supported alongside a UK-wide strategy of promoting growth and economic stability. I welcome the Scottish Parliament’s Committee’s report on the Bill, which states in paragraphs 36 and 39, with reference to fiscal decentralisation:
“The evidential base was, in our view, remarkably weak, and the claims made did not stand up to challenge or scrutiny…the overwhelming balance of expert economic opinion in Scotland and internationally was that the existing evidence base supports neither any clear link between fiscal decentralisation and an economy’s long-run rate of growth, nor…a precise numerical link between fiscal decentralisation and an increase in GDP.”
It goes on:
“The Scotland Bill is about good government. It is intended to improve how Scotland is governed and align decisions on spending and taxation more closely so that the Scottish Parliament will be more accountable and, in the long run, take better decisions. Better decisions will, in the longer term, mean improvements to many aspects of Scottish public life.”
In true political fashion, I have a favourite section of the Scottish Parliament’s Committee’s report, which was mentioned earlier. In paragraphs 43 and 44, the report states:
“Full Financial Responsibility was the Scottish Government’s alternative to the plans in the Scotland Bill. The Committee did not examine this in detail, as there was no detail to examine. We received no costings for these plans, no material explaining the practical implications for taxpayers, employers, Scotland’s financial sector or collection plans. However, we were able to come to several obvious conclusions. Firstly, as was made clear in evidence to us, fiscal systems serve constitutional ends. Full Financial Responsibility is no exception. The constitutional aim it serves, however, is not the preservation of the UK. Secondly, it is plain that under fiscal responsibility, Scotland would run a substantial deficit…Finally, it is clear that no thought has been given to the effect of these plans on the economy of the UK, to which Scotland will inevitably remain linked…The Committee is clear that the evidence shows that full financial responsibility or autonomy is not a serious alternative to the fully worked out plans in the Scotland Bill.”
Funding Formula
David Mowat Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Selous
I am naturally quite an impatient person, and I want to get things done when I see something that I think is not right. However, we are in difficult times financially, and it will be incredibly difficult to move from one formula to another in these challenging times.
A sensible time scale would be for the Government to start doing the work now, setting out how we are to allocate money fairly between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a needs basis. Once we agreed on it, there would need to be a transitional period. We cannot get away from that, because we have to do such things fairly and in a way that does not cause undue difficulties in any part of the United Kingdom.
I would be a happy person at the end of this debate if I had a sense that the Government would move toward setting up a system that allotted funding on a needs basis, and that they would agree to create some sort of body to do that, and consider a transitional period. The beauty of that is that by then we would have got through these difficult financial times, and more money would be available as we started to implement such a system. It would also make the transition easier for the parts of the United Kingdom that did not benefit.
Andrew Selous
I shall give way for the last time; I have been generous in giving way, but I need to move on in order to let others speak.
David Mowat
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. What he says about the time scale is important, particularly vis-à-vis Scotland. Next week the Scotland Bill is coming before the House. In my opinion, it will enshrine the current level of the Barnett settlement for ever, as it will link the Barnett amount that Scotland receives directly to the level of income tax paid in Scotland. As a consequence, future reforms will be difficult. I am not sure that time is on our side.
Andrew Selous
I hear what my hon. Friend says. He refers in part to the Calman commission and the fact that the block grant in Scotland will be reduced to 65% and that Scotland is to raise 35% of its income through tax-raising powers given under the Bill. What I am talking about will still apply, however, as 65% of Scotland’s public spending will be allocated. Everything mentioned in this debate is relevant, although we can argue about the time scale. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. I have outlined a possible way to proceed.
I touch again on the different needs that the House of Lords Committee found. They are four: we should move to an assessment method that takes account of the age and structure of the population, as a significant number of older people require extra spending; we need to consider low incomes; we should take account of ill health and disability; and we should consider economic weakness. All of us would probably have some sympathy with those four indicators. There would be value in setting up an independent commission, as it would allow people to make representations, and extra factors could be taken into account to deal with the particular situation in Wales or Scotland. Indeed, it has been done successfully in Scotland.
The House of Lords debated the Barnett formula report on 11 March 2010. Lord Moser, a former head Government statistician who was appointed by a previous Labour Government, said:
“We emphasised repeatedly that, especially in the hands of an independent body, backed by thorough and on-going research, this was an eminently practical task. It is just not true to say that it is difficult or too time-consuming or too complex—that is not so.”
He was talking about the task of setting up a new needs-based commission.
Baroness Hollis, a distinguished Labour peer, spoke of the differences in funding for personal care:
“What could be more unfair…than an elderly, frail person in East Anglia receiving perhaps only two-thirds, in public expenditure terms, of what an equally elderly, frail person in Scotland receives, even though the person in East Anglia is poorer, because we are hanging on to an unfair population basis of estimating subsidy?”
Lord Newby, a Liberal Democrat from Scotland, said:
“In terms of gaining public acceptance for a conclusion which will inevitably mean funds being taken away from Scotland, it is interesting to note that within the Lib Dems we had quite a spirited discussion with our colleagues in Scotland when we first proposed this, as you can imagine. In the end, the argument that fairness is the only long-term sustainable basis for allocating expenditure won the day, as I am sure it will in future as this case is made more widely.”
I note that Lord Davies of Oldham, then a Labour Treasury Minister, wound up the debate by saying of the report’s authors:
“They have created a framework within which the disadvantages of the Barnett formula are such that a reforming Government would need to look at them.”
That brings me back to my opening remarks. I am proud to be part of a reforming Government, and I hope that we will not be dilatory in this matter.
Baroness Noakes, then our shadow Treasury Minister, said in response to the debate:
“In principle, this is something which my party supports. We also support the transparency advocated by my noble friend Lord Trimble.”
She also spoke of
“an inevitable conclusion that change is necessary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2010; Vol. 718, c. 371-404.]
I thank all Members who wish to contribute to the debate, and I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say in response.
Owen Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend—that is essentially what I was trying to say a moment ago. An arm’s-length independent organisation, which Holtham considered—whether it is the Office for Budget Responsibility or whether it is some other body—is an excellent idea that we should take account of.
David Mowat
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has said that it is not easy to conduct a needs-based analysis, but that does not mean that it should not be tried. He has raised the issue of sparsity in Scotland and the fact that many people live in the Western Isles, Orkney and such places, which makes a difference. There is a precedent for such an analysis, which was carried out by the Scottish NHS and which is referred to in the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett formula. The cost was about 15% extra for that component of the population. However, the point is that that component of the population is very small and the overall impact is less than 1.5%. So it is right that that factor is taken into account, but it is not material to what we are discussing.
Owen Smith
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) has made—that it will be very difficult to introduce a needs-based formula—is valid. The aspects of a needs-based formula that ought to be taken into consideration and the weighting that ought to be placed on those aspects individually will not be incontestable. So it is easy to bracket them under “deprivation and sparsity”, or “deprivation” and some other criterion. Within that, there will be all sorts of eminently contestable notions related to the number of children in a country, the number of older people who are dependent, sparsity and all sorts of other aspects, which will be eminently contestable.
The simple point that I was trying to make is that even if we shift to a wholly independent—or ostensibly independent—and wholly needs-based formula, we will still see divergences and differences between the relative spending priorities and the relative quantum spent on individual aspects of public services across different parts of the country. That will still fuel a sense of resentment in certain quarters, when parts of the country are perceived as doing better than others. I therefore caution that we would not all be happy with a needs-based formula and I suggest that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire—
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
This has been an important debate, focusing more on Wales than on Scotland. There is a disparity in Wales—the figure of £300 million has been mentioned—but it is dwarfed by the Holtham estimate of the disparity in Scotland, which is £4.5 billion. Many English Members of Parliament, particularly those from the north, are being forced to go back to their constituencies and defend an austere budgetary environment. It is tough to do so when £4 billion a year over and above the needs-based amount is being sent to Scotland.
I have two quick points to make; I will finish by 10.40. We use the term “needs-based” a lot. The real issue is not need; it is population movement. We could continue to use the Barnett formula of 1976 if we adjusted it for the population changes that have occurred since then. It would be a simple arithmetical adjustment. It is true that a needs-based analysis could be complex, but that change is not required. We need only to adjust the formula for relative population movement, and it would eradicate two thirds of the current imbalances.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman is coming to the point that I wished to make. It is a converging formula, so there are issues other than population change to be considered.
David Mowat
It is not wholly a converging formula; I do not agree. For example, if the baseline population is not adjusted in arithmetical terms, it means that if the population of Scotland fell to one, that person would get all the money. We do not change it for population, which is indefensible. As I said, I regret the fact that there are no Members from Scotland here, unless I am misinformed.
David Mowat
What defence of the situation is made in Scotland? I have heard two defences. We have heard the sparsity defence; I have also heard the defence in terms of oil revenues. It is argued that somehow, the £4.5 billion Barnett imbalance roughly compensates Scotland for the additional oil revenue that it has had to give up to the Union or whatever. That is a poor argument.
David Mowat
I will finish my point. Other affluent areas of the United Kingdom are liable for relatively higher levels of income tax, and we do not necessarily expect those areas to have better services.
Finally—I would like the Minister to address this point in her closing remarks—I am concerned that the Scotland Bill, as it is currently configured, will institutionalise the Barnett formula for ever by creating a link between income tax levels in Scotland and current levels of Barnett settlement. In other words, that extra £4 billion will be linked for ever to income tax levels in Scotland. What that means in broad terms is that in order for the Scottish income tax base to make up the £4 billion that Scotland receives over and above a needs basis, additional Scottish income tax of between 12p and 15p in the pound would be required. That will never happen.
For the same reason, it will be difficult to review the formula significantly after the link to income tax has been created. If that is the case, we seem to be stuck with the imbalance, which means that every constituent of mine—my constituency of Warrington, in the north of England, is not overly affluent—receives some £5,000 less over the lifetime of a Parliament than his equivalent in Scotland, which would not be the case if the funding were needs-based. That is not to say that England and Scotland should be the same. Holtham did not say that. The figure that Holtham used and that currently exists is 120% of the English settlement in Scotland, but 107% would probably be a fairer figure. That is not the same, but it is a lot closer than it is now. I am concerned that if the Scotland Bill passes unamended, we will institutionalise the matter for ever, which, frankly, will be bad for the Union.
Justine Greening
I shall make two points about the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First, Wales is well funded. Secondly, let us consider how the Government have approached the spending review. It turns out that, because of how the formula works, the decisions we took to protect the NHS budget and the education budget in cash terms and in terms of schools has meant that the Welsh Assembly Government have probably received a more generous settlement out of Barnett than they would have if the previous Administration had stayed in office.
On the points raised today, clearly there have been a number of inquiries and reports on the Barnett formula and the devolution settlement. One such review is the Calman report on Scotland. As we have heard, the Scotland Bill is passing through Parliament and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) is right to say that the legislation will devolve some of the financial management of income tax to the Scottish Government. However, I can assure him that it will not fix the Barnett formula in stone for the future. A further aspect to the Barnett formula is the Holtham commission, the findings of which illustrate the point I made at the start of my speech. The Holtham commission considered how a needs-based formula would work for Wales and said that such a formula would mean Wales got more, which would put more funding pressures on settlements for other areas. That shows that there are no easy answers to the debate.
David Mowat
On the point I raised about the Scotland Bill, it does not explicitly say that the Barnett formula can never be changed in future. The point I was making is that, once we link a baseline Barnett assessment to the level of Scottish income tax, it becomes extremely difficult to change. The £4 billion additional money that Scotland gets through Barnett is equivalent to 12p to 15p of income tax. In theory, the Scottish Government could reduce their income tax levels by 12p and go down to a needs-based analysis and it would be hard for us subsequently to change that.
Justine Greening
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. However, in many respects, the point of devolution is to allow more local decision making to take place across the different devolved Administrations.
Just to finish off the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), clearly there will be a referendum in Wales on whether primary legislative powers should be held by the Welsh Assembly Government. We will wait to see the outcome of that referendum before deciding how to take forward some of the points of the Holtham report.
On some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire about transparency, the chapter and verse of the funding formula is in the current statement of funding policy. I admit that it is not the most riveting read in the world, but it does explain clearly how the various settlements are reached. The funding approach is agreed in consultation with the devolved Administrations of the rest of the United Kingdom.
On my hon. Friend’s suggestion about the needs-based formula, I can absolutely understand why people and hon. Members think that such an approach would be better. A needs-based formula allocates local government spending across English local authorities, but many hon. Members and different communities consider it to have flaws. That illustrates how there are no easy ways in which we can reform local government funding, whether in relation to local government across English local authorities or in relation to devolved Administrations. The common ground we have in the points made is that any changes should absolutely be approached with real caution over a period of time.
Of course, the Treasury has clear control over the process, as it deals with public spending issues. However, there are avenues through which disputes can be remitted to the Joint Ministerial Committee. Therefore, the Treasury is not always judge and jury. There is absolutely a process through which disputes can be resolved if the Treasury cannot do so. On the involvement of the Office for Budget Responsibility, that organisation is a forecasting rather than a policy-making body. My hon. Friend is right to point out that other countries, such as Australia, have a different approach, but they come with pros and cons. Yes, that authority may be independent, but there is no Minister such as me to stand in Parliament, listen to the issues and respond to them democratically and with some sense of accountability; Australia does not have that in the same way. There are still problems with how that authority operates and questions about whether it allocates funding fairly. Such an approach is not without its challenges.
In conclusion, although we do not plan to change the Barnett formula, we will continue to consider all aspects of public spending, how they operate and how effective they are. As I said, the points made today were highly relevant and interesting, and I have no doubt that the debate will continue over the coming years.