Ian Davidson
Main Page: Ian Davidson (Labour (Co-op) - Glasgow South West)Department Debates - View all Ian Davidson's debates with the HM Treasury
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I only wish I could have signed it off—such is my enthusiasm for the Command Paper. I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, however, and the point I made was that the Treasury signed off the Command Paper. We work happily as one Government, so I am pleased to be able to respond to the amendments—assuming I now have the chance to do so.
The Government’s proposals in the Bill facilitate the largest transfer of power from the United Kingdom to Scotland since the creation of the UK. By devolving stamp duty land tax and the power to set a Scottish rate of income tax, the Scottish Parliament will be able to raise approximately one third of its own budget, thereby significantly improving its financial accountability. Only last Thursday, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly to endorse the Bill—121 in favour, three against and one abstention. To devolve additional taxes now, as the hon. Member for Dundee East argues, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament would be thoroughly inappropriate. There has been a long consultative process that both the UK Government and the Scottish Government and Parliament have been through, so to include the devolution of additional taxes now, on a whim, would not be the right course of action.
As well as those general points, there are some specific reasons why these taxes should not be devolved now in the Bill. I shall deal with those in a little detail. First, on amendment 37 and new clause 8, the Calman commission did not recommend that fuel duty be devolved. It concluded that different fuel duty rates would make artificial opportunities for cross-border shopping, creating economic distortions. More significantly, however, it highlighted the EU energy products directive that sets a principle of one rate of fuel duty per member state. Devolving fuel duty to the Scottish Parliament would require the EU to grant the UK a derogation from this directive, and the Calman commission acknowledged that it would be unlikely to be granted. A contrast can be drawn with the rural fuel discount derogation that the Government are pursuing.
Amendment 58 and new clause 15 relate to quarrying and mining. Although the Calman commission recommended devolving the aggregates levy, a tax on quarrying and mining is much wider and has not been endorsed by the Scottish Parliament. Even if the scope of the amendment was narrowed to devolve only aggregates extracted from the land, as Calman recommended, I would not accept it at this point. The aggregates levy is currently under legal challenge in the EU courts, and it would be reckless to devolve it while the challenge remains. I will not devolve a tax to the Scottish Parliament where there is any risk that it could subsequently be deemed to be illegal. That would be a substantial risk for the Scottish Parliament, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin).
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister clarify how it is reckless? What is the element of risk involved were it to be transferred now to the Scottish Parliament?
Mr Gauke
The risk is this: should it be found subsequently that the aggregates levy, as currently constituted, is not legal, the loss of that revenue would be immediate and significant for the Scottish Government. The hon. Member for Dundee East referred to the special rates of aggregates levy in Northern Ireland, and asked why they could not therefore be applied in Scotland. I make the point, however, that the Northern Ireland credit scheme was suspended on 1 December owing to the legal challenges at the European courts.
The confirmation sought by the hon. Member for Glasgow North is set out in the Command Paper accompanying the Bill: once the aggregates levy has overcome the legal challenge, we will devolve it to Scotland. Clause 24 enables that to happen.
Mr Davidson
I am genuinely unclear about the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I fail to see how the Scottish Government lose if the action results in the aggregates levy being ruled illegal. They do not have an aggregates levy at the moment. If it is transferred to them and then abolished, they will not have it either. Not losing something that they do not have already is not a deficiency. Would any additional risk result from the transfer of the aggregates levy?
Mr Gauke
The point is that there would be a reduction in the block grant, because the revenues from the aggregates levy would be going to the Scottish Government. If it was subsequently found that the aggregates levy in its current form was not legal, either we would have to readjust the block grant or the Scottish Government would have to bear the shortfall.
I shall move on to amendment 57 and new clause 16. The Calman commission recommended the devolution of the UK’s air passenger duty, not a general power to tax air travel, which is what the amendment seeks. The UK Government are exploring changes to their aviation tax system, as stated in last year’s June Budget, and will look at devolution of this tax base in that future work. However, it is not appropriate to devolve aviation tax until these changes have been explored, with any major changes subject to consultation, and a decision on the future of UK aviation tax made. To do otherwise would mean that the Scottish Parliament would have to plan the future of their new tax without the context of the UK version. I would also like to answer the point about the process of a new tax. Clause 24(6) provides that any new tax would need to be approved by the Scottish Parliament, under section 80B of the Scotland Act 1998. That would clearly apply in these circumstances.
I turn to amendment 60 and new clause 17. The Calman commission recommended that corporation tax not be devolved. The Scottish Parliament has endorsed this, although it wants to stay engaged in any future discussions on corporation tax devolution. Both the Calman commission and the Scottish Parliament recognised very good reasons why not to devolve the tax. First, the Calman commission concluded that if comparable levels of public services were to be maintained, the scope for substantive reductions in the rate of corporation tax in Scotland was limited, unless the Scottish Government are able to increase revenues from other sources. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North said, under European law there will have to be a reduction in the block grant commensurate with the value of the reduction in the corporation tax rate.
Secondly, the commission also believed that the potential administrative impacts of such a move were significant. The creation of compliance costs to businesses operating on either side of the border, as well as the increased collection costs to the Government, would be undesirable in the present economic climate.
Stewart Hosie
No, I said that I welcomed the fiscal stimulus to the economy. Many of the efforts on financial intervention were absolutely necessary, and I supported them. Of course that had to be done. My criticism was not that action was taken during difficult periods, but that we went into the recession and the downturn with half a trillion pounds of debt. I am digressing, however—
Stewart Hosie
I am not giving way immediately, as I want to carry on developing my case on capital borrowing.
Any code has to take into consideration all the issues and be based on an established set of principles for long-term sustainability. That is incredibly important. The Bill, however, currently limits borrowing to loans, which prevents the use of bonds and other instruments. That is significantly more restrictive than the borrowing powers available to Scottish local authorities and to many Governments in other countries with comparable responsibility.
Mr Davidson
I want to clarify whether the hon. Gentleman has a specific figure in mind for borrowing. I understand his point about the criteria, but it would be immensely helpful if he gave us an indication, first, of the figure and, secondly, of whether the bonds and other means of borrowing money would be in addition to that amount or part of the total.
Stewart Hosie
I do not have a specific figure, and let me tell the hon. Gentleman why. If bonds are issued in such a way as to generate revenue, that revenue can be used in one sense to offset the level of the loans. That is why I am not being prescriptive about the amount. What I am saying is that the cumulative £2.2 billion is too low for the reasons that I have explained and that the code of practice would allow us to take into consideration all the sustainability and affordability issues and reach a figure that would be much more appropriate. I am not going to be prescriptive; it would be wrong for me to do that.
Mr Davidson
If the hon. Gentleman cannot give a figure, how can he say that £2.2 billion is too small? How does he arrive at that judgment when he is unable to use the same reasoning to identify what the figure might be?
Stewart Hosie
There are annual amounts and cumulative amounts. The annual amount at 10% of the capital departmental expenditure limit is very modest and the cumulative amount is less than the amount spent on capital in recent years. That strikes me as inappropriate when we are seeking to stimulate the economy and do all the things that the hon. Gentleman and I both want to see happen. As we can have revenue streams coming in to offset some of this, I do not want to put a limit on it, but the code of practice would do that. [Interruption.] I am not going to be drawn on that. I have explained why and I want to move on to bonds, which is another important issue.
Professor Gerald Holtham said in his evidence to the Committee that there is no macro-economic rationale to prevent the Scottish Government from having bond-issuing powers. I raised that on Second Reading, when I said:
“The borrowing powers in the Bill will limit the Scottish Government to certain types of borrowing. They will be able to use loans, rather than bonds or other instruments that would provide greater flexibility. Transport for London, which is a local authority in respect of its borrowing powers, is currently issuing commercial paper worth £7 billion for Crossrail and other projects. Birmingham city council issued paper to the tune of £250 million in 2006”.—[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 541.]
As I said at the time, it is strange that what should be a seriously enhanced power for the Scottish Parliament, as described in the Bill, does not even put it on a par with TfL or Birmingham city council in its ability to raise cash through commercial paper for important national infrastructure works.
Professor Iain McLean and others have noted that bond issues would have several benefits. First, they would provide the Scottish Government with greater flexibility in the financing of capital projects, and the ability to issue a range of instruments would allow projects to be financed by a mixed portfolio of borrowing both in terms of repayment periods and the interest and other terms of the borrowing instrument. Secondly, in certain circumstances, issuing instruments in the market may offer a better deal on rates and repayment terms than a loan from the Treasury or a commercial bank. Indeed, the Treasury recently announced in the spending review a 1% rise in the charge or cost on loans from the Public Works Loan Board, increasing the cost of local authority borrowing. Having an option to seek financing from the market would provide an alternative in the event of a punitive interest rate being imposed at some future point by the Treasury. Professor McLean said in his evidence that
“it should be for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish ministers—not the UK Parliament or UK ministers—to decide on the soundness of the capital projects to which they commit themselves, and to deal with revenue fluctuations.”
That is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). If we are serious about responsibility—I hope that we all are—the Scottish Government must be allowed to make the decisions. Those decisions should land squarely on the desks of Scottish Ministers, or those in whatever other body is responsible for raising capital.
Mr Gauke
We will, of course, look at what the Scottish Parliament has set out and we will engage with those suggestions on alternative ways of proceeding. None the less, given the difficulties that would arise if bonds were issued, particularly in the circumstances we face—there is a crisis in the public finances and it is essential that we meet our fiscal mandate and stick to our spending and deficit reduction plans—we need to take into account the uncertainty and additional cost that could be created at this point. However, there is a general point to be made about borrowing limits. Circumstances will change and the opportunity for greater flexibility in future is something we are willing to look at, but we believe we have the balance right at the moment.
Mr Davidson
Am I correct in assuming that the Minister is pretty strongly wedded to the set of proposals that he has introduced at this time, but that he and the Government are not necessarily wedded to them for all time? If devolution continues to evolve, that may well result in the relaxation of those rules, a review and a beneficial alteration of the figures.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman sets the position out well, and I do not disagree with him. The Bill essentially sets out a base for current and capital borrowing. It can be increased, and there is a mechanism in the Bill to do so. We would need to look at the circumstances in future to see whether we could increase flexibility in that area. We have to bear in mind the state of the public finances and the importance of maintaining credibility.
Mr Davidson
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. According to the votes, eight nationalists have been voting on all these things, and now they are down to seven. Has somebody been kidnapped? [Laughter.]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Now, then.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Maximum penalties which may be specified in subordinate legislation