Scotland’s Fiscal Framework

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Wednesday 24th February 2016

(8 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

Yes, as is the other element of the Smith commission consideration of no detriment, which is taxpayer fairness—not just in Scotland, but across the UK.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The vow was very clear that Barnett would be retained. That has been done, and rightly so. The starting point for public spending in Scotland now is 115% of the UK average. Can the Secretary of State tell the House, in terms of his modelling, what that percentage per capita will be at the end of this Parliament?

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

As my hon. Friend asks for complex calculations, I will certainly be happy to write to him in that regard. Although I respect his strongly held views in relation to the Barnett formula, I have to say that the Government’s clear position is that the Barnett formula is being retained.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Wednesday 10th February 2016

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

It was established at the start of the discussions that until everything was agreed, nothing was agreed, but considerable progress has been made on all those issues. I was very pleased to learn from the First Minister’s letter that the Finance Secretary would be presenting revised proposals from the Scottish Government. That is what a negotiation involves: it involves both parties presenting revised proposals as the negotiation progresses, and that is exactly what the UK Government are committed to doing.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The starting point of the fiscal framework discussions is the Barnett formula, which means that Scotland’s public spending per capita is 15% higher than the United Kingdom average. Does the Secretary of State believe that that differential will be maintained in perpetuity?

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend’s views on the Barnett formula are well known. I do not agree with them, and nor do the Government. The Government’s position is that the formula will remain, even in the post-fiscal framework environment.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Monday 8th June 2015

(9 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

What I think it suggests is the requirement for responsibility. If the Scottish Government believe that benefits are not at the level they should be, they will be able to ask the Scottish taxpayer for the funds to increase them. That is what I would regard as responsibility within a Parliament.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

A few minutes ago, my right hon. Friend described the fiscal framework of the Barnett formula as long-lasting and fair. Surely that would be the case only if the Barnett formula were based on need rather than on a historic anomaly. It is a formula that results in my constituents getting £1,600 less per person per year than they would get if it were based on need, which one would think a progressive party would wish to be the case.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is a long-standing critic of the Barnett formula, and I acknowledge the point he makes. The Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats made it absolutely clear that their parties had no intention of changing the Barnett formula. That certainly remains the position on the Government side.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Wednesday 2nd July 2014

(10 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Secretary of State highlight the importance of the flotation of the aircraft carrier on Friday, which will be a very important moment not only for Scotland, but for our whole United Kingdom.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

5. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of Scottish independence on energy flows between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Wednesday 7th May 2014

(10 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

What I believe is that we do not take any lectures from Labour on energy issues. Gas bills more than doubled under Labour, electricity bills went up by 50%, the leader of the Labour party was responsible for £179 of additional levies on gas bills and fuel duty went up 12 times. I am proud of this Government’s record on energy and Scotland is doing well under it.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

4. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on the potential role of the Bank of England in the event of Scotland becoming an independent country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Wednesday 9th January 2013

(11 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The price of fuel at different petrol stations in different communities has been a matter of long-term concern, and that is why the OFT is conducting an inquiry into it. In my previous answer, I indicated that the results of that inquiry will be available in January, and they will make very interesting reading.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

3. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers in the Scottish Government on the continued use of sterling in an independent Scotland.

Referendum (Scotland)

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Monday 15th October 2012

(12 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The opportunity for Members in relation to the issue as a whole will be in the debate on the Order, and all hon. Members will have a vote on it. If the Electoral Commission’s proposals were to be rejected—and there has been no formal statement from the Scottish Government to that effect—the Scottish Government would have to be held to account for that by the people of Scotland, by politicians in this House and by the hon. Gentleman’s counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. I have faith in the people of Scotland. If they see the Scottish Government flagrantly rejecting proposals from the Electoral Commission, or any suggestion of trickery in the question, they will not look well on the perpetrators.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We seem to have used the piecemeal extension of the franchise as part of a negotiating process. What concerns me is that 16-year-olds will vote on the sovereignty of their country, but six months later they will be unable to vote in council elections. How can that be right or coherent?

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The Government do not support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and indeed our Conservative colleagues will argue against that proposal when it comes before the Scottish Parliament. It will be for the Scottish Government to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds voting in the referendum. That debate needs now to go to Scotland, to the people of Scotland and parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament, so that there can be a full and proper debate. I remain hopeful that the Scottish Parliament will fully scrutinise any such proposals and, if they are defective, reject them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Wednesday 18th April 2012

(12 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

3. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the funding formula for Scotland.

David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

The Government are aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the current system of devolution funding, whereby changes to the block grant are calculated according to the Barnett formula. Owing to the unprecedented deficit that we inherited, our immediate priority is to reduce the deficit, and we have no plans to change the present arrangements before the public finances have been stabilised.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Given that the Government have no plans to replace the current formula with a formula based on need, and given the requirement for clarity so that the people of Scotland know what proportion of the national debt they will inherit before they vote, does my hon. Friend agree that the Barnett multiplier would provide a good solution?

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I believe that we need to move on from the discussion of issues of process relating to the referendum, and engage in a substantive debate on the issues that would affect Scotland if it became independent. Having, it would appear, campaigned relentlessly for independence, the SNP now seems to want to delay the question and the issues for as long as possible.

Public Sector Pensions

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Thursday 8th December 2011

(13 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I do not accept that analysis. The hon. Gentleman might have got a laugh if he had thought that up himself rather than stealing it from the Twittersphere.

The Scottish Government’s proposals were a toxic cocktail topped up by suggestions to introduce later retirement ages, change accrual rates, apply changes to all members, not just new scheme members, and move to a defined contribution scheme, which places the risk of uncertainty over the value of the final pension on the member. All those proposals would mean a worse deal for public service employees than the coalition’s proposals.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---
David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

One last time.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am listening very carefully to the Minister’s comments on the interaction between the Scottish Government and himself. Does he agree that one of the interesting features of the motion is the last part, which appears to concede the point that the Barnett consequentials should be reviewed and that certain types of expenditure should be taken out of them? If that is a principle that the SNP wishes to adopt, we should consider the Barnett formula more generally and the whole settlement and block grant for Scotland.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because that is one issue on which there is an absolute divide between Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Plaid Cymru wants significant change to the Barnett formula and, as I understand it, the SNP does not. That is part of the inherent illogicality that is at the heart of their argument.

I am surprised that we hear nothing these days about independence, which is relevant. Perhaps that is because Plaid Cymru does not promote independence. I look forward to hearing SNP Members set out exactly how an independent Scotland would be able to fund not only existing pensions, but provide enhanced pensions, without consequences for pensioners in Scotland. I am sure that we will hear calls for the break-up of the United Kingdom.

I also look forward to hearing from Labour Members. I understand that Labour MSPs chose not to take part in the debate in the Scottish Parliament because they were working in their constituencies that day. I know that the Labour party has not been an effective Opposition in Holyrood, particularly since the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) left, but not to turn up at all is taking that to an extreme. I look forward to hearing their contributions today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Wednesday 22nd June 2011

(13 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
- Hansard - -

This issue was raised in discussions between my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the First Minister on 9 June. As announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State on 13 June, the Government are bringing forward to 2011 the power for Scottish Ministers to make prepayments, which will allow work on the Forth replacement crossing to begin.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that two major bridge schemes are about to take place in the UK: the Forth road bridge, to be funded by the Treasury and by the means that he has just given us, and the Mersey gateway in Cheshire, to be funded substantially by tolls. How can the Government justify that difference in the same country?

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

The justification is devolution; it is a decision of the Scottish Government to proceed with the Forth replacement crossing on the basis that there will be no tolls on it.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mundell and David Mowat
Thursday 27th January 2011

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mowat Portrait David Mowat
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What I propose is that the allocation be done on a needs basis that is fair to the constituents whom I represent as well as to hers.

David Mundell Portrait David Mundell
- Hansard - -

I very much respect what my hon. Friend says. He took part in a Westminster Hall debate on the issue, and I am sure the Chancellor and other colleagues are listening to him. We need to be clear, though, about whether he is arguing for a needs-based assessment across the whole UK. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) drew attention to the fact that there are significant differentials within England. The difference between the highest and lowest per capita public spending in England is £2,537, which is much greater than the difference between the Scottish and English average. We need to be clear about whether my hon. Friend and those who make the same argument want a change in spending within England, or just between the constituent parts of the UK.

David Mowat Portrait David Mowat
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The difference that we are really talking about today is the one between the constituent parts of the UK, but I have no difficulty with also applying that to the constituent parts of England. As I said, a needs-based formula is fair.

If my constituency of Warrington South, which has areas of great deprivation and some better-off areas, were in Scotland, the average constituent would receive £900 more. That is not fair—I get a considerable postbag about it. Today’s debate is not on the Barnett formula, but unless we address the matter at some point, it will become a tension in the Union from the other direction. We need to be cognisant of that, and we need to be careful.