Scotland Bill

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Partly following the strictures of the hon. Member for Dundee East, I would say that I am loth, at this stage of the debate, to make strong recommendations to the House about which new clauses should be accepted and which should be withdrawn and so on. I simply want to provide the context and argue why the Barnett formula should not be addressed in the Bill. I appreciate that there is a wide range of views on this issue, and that there are strong feelings throughout the UK. I dare say that a number of those views will be expressed this evening—indeed, this debate provides an opportunity for it. At this stage, however, I just want to draw the House’s attention to some of the difficulties with trying to address the matter in the Bill. I shall turn to the substance of the debate in a moment, but that is what I am seeking to do at the moment.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to confirm that if my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) got the reorganisation of the formula that she seems to want, the parts of the UK that would lose the most—the ones that are most overfunded by her definition—would be London, where she is an MP, and Northern Ireland, which I know she has a close interest in. If we are going to debate the matter, let us debate the facts rather than the myths.

[Mr Gauke]

As I said, I appreciate that there are strong views on this issue, and that they will be expressed this evening. Little did I know, though, that such strong views would be expressed quite so quickly among hon. Members in such close proximity to each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He said that if there were to be a devolution of corporation tax and the ability to vary it, an appropriate change would be made to the level of the block grant. Does he mean that if corporation tax were reduced in Scotland by £1 billion, an equivalent £1 billion reduction would take place in the block grant? Is he talking about a like-for-like reduction?

[Stewart Hosie]

It has to be initially to get this kicked in. At that point, the Scottish Government are rightly responsible for their revenue raising and their tax spending within it. That is normal, grown up and quite appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

Not at this point.

New clause 9 would allow for the introduction of an additional devolved tax charged on the profits of companies, and would require such a proposal to be placed before both Houses of Parliament.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Stewart Hosie]

No, not on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

I am glad that the Minister agrees with my direction of travel. What I am saying is that the Scottish Government would have to take responsibility for the consequences of Scottish Government policy, as is right and proper.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

rose—

[Mr Reid]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point exactly. It is too crude to look at the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. In Scotland and in England we need to break that down further and look, as he says, at the different needs in the different parts of the kingdom. I will give a constituency example. My constituency, Milton Keynes South, is in the affluent south-east of England, yet I have very deprived wards in my constituency. Taking health spending as an example, what Milton Keynes is allocated as its formula share of health spending in England is capped because there is a transfer to other parts of England. I contend that that is not fair and it disregards some of the areas of need in my constituency, but it illustrates the problem that arises if the formula for analysing spending is too crude.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, spending per head in London is almost 50% higher than in the south-east region of England. No one disputes that there are parts of London where there is great need, but other parts which do not fall into that category still benefit from Government spending which is 40% higher than in his constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

Instead of giving us an ill-defined list of extra powers, it would be helpful if SNP Members and their colleagues in the Scottish Government could specify how they wish to use their existing powers to increase Scotland’s economic growth and productivity.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

No doubt there is a theoretical argument that cutting corporation tax for smaller or new businesses would encourage them to grow and expand, but can my hon. Friend explain how cutting the corporation tax paid by Royal Bank of Scotland by 50% would encourage it to bring more jobs into the Scottish economy? Would it not just add to its already large profits?

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. The Scottish Government are advocating a cut in taxes for banks but not for small businesses that do not pay corporation tax. Many employers in the private sector who employ many people do not pay corporation tax, but income tax. Substantially reducing corporation tax would lead to a large cut in public expenditure or increase the burden on income tax payers.

The Scottish Government already have a considerable number of economic levers. They have decided to cut funding to many Scottish colleges—for example, James Watt college in Greenock faces a cut of £5 million. They have cut regeneration funds in many of the most deprived areas, including a 71% cut in the Inverclyde regeneration fund. The test that the Scots will apply is not how many powers anybody has vis-à-vis someone else but how they use them for Scotland’s benefit. [Interruption.] SNP Members chunter on, but they do not have any intervention to make because these are decisions that they have made and they do not wish to take responsibility for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

I would like to speak to the amendments but also to refer to some sections of the Scottish Affairs Committee report. Like other hon. Members, I have attended many of these debates and I recognise that this is not the end of the process. We are just mid-way through it.

My first point follows on from my intervention on the Minister about making more information available. It is essential that we try to raise the tone in these debates rather than lower it. Our debates should be based on argument and figures rather than on the yah-boo politics that we see too often in the Chamber between Scottish Members on these issues.

Some Members may remember the “magic bullet” theory. Professors Hughes Hallett and Scott—all three of them—[Laughter]—suggested that simply devolving financial powers to Scotland would result in an automatic boost. That was seen as a panacea and a deal-breaker. Only after a substantial amount of debate did they reach a conclusion. The Select Committee report states:

“when questioned on the relationship between the devolution of fiscal powers and economic growth, Professor Hughes Hallett said that: ‘the empirical evidence is inconclusive on the question of whether it does or doesn’t lead to an increase in the growth rate systematically. Some studies say yes, and some studies say no’… Professor Scott stated clearly, however, that ‘the actual act of giving power does not in itself create a bonus’.”

The exchanges that resulted in that conclusion advanced the debate considerably, and I think that many other matters that we have discussed, such as corporation tax and excise tax, ought to be dealt with in the same degree of detail.

When our Committee produced its report, we said that we were conscious that the misuse of figures resulted in a sense of manufactured grievance which suited some participants in the debate. The way in which to defeat manufactured grievances is to produce accurate figures, and I think that the Government have been slow in producing the full details and slow in producing the facts.

One of the main issues identified by the Committee, which is relevant to some of the new clauses and amendments, is the key principle of transparency. Another is evolution. We need to recognise that the Scotland Bill, and the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, will constantly evolve. Most people in Scotland believe that an obsession with constitutional detail has diverted attention from real issues on which there is not nearly as much division as many suggest. On a number of issues there is substantial common ground between the nationalists, Labour and the Liberals—the Tories, of course, are beyond the pale—but that is often masked by the obsession with small difference.

At the last moment, points about such matters as excise duty have been produced like rabbits out of a hat. There may not be much division between us in terms of the objectives that we wish to achieve, but there may be much more when it comes to method, and more still when it comes to the interpretation of what are only partial statistics. The Committee stated:

“Progress should not be measured solely by the extent by which powers are sucked into Edinburgh and we will wish to look at how reserved responsibilities can be exercised closer to the people they serve.”

All bar one of its members agreed with the point that I made earlier about Edinburgh being a black hole into which powers are sucked. All who were not nationalists shared that perspective and that of the report. The issue of whether we are philosophically committed to devolution involves decentralisation beyond Edinburgh. Edinburgh is not an end in itself, except for people who happen to live there. The vast majority of people in Scotland want powers to be transferred closer to them, which does not necessarily involve Edinburgh. As people in many parts of Scotland will recognise—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davidson]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to finish my point, for the avoidance of doubt? Edinburgh as a centre of government is as distant from many people in Scotland as is Westminster—or, indeed, Brussels—as a centre of government. Having said that, I shall happily give way to an Edinburgh Member.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am glad that he made it clear that when he speaks of “Edinburgh” he actually means the Scottish Government and Parliament based in Edinburgh. Perhaps he should use that longer form in future, rather than give the impression that Edinburgh is benefiting from some largesse from the Scottish Government and Parliament, because we certainly are not.

[Mr Davidson]

If my hon. Friend is saying that the sucking of powers into Edinburgh has not benefited Edinburgh, things are even worse than I thought, and I will certainly take that into account in future.

The Committee dealt in detail with corporation tax, and we also welcomed the Scottish Parliament Committee’s points on the subject. Professor Muscatelli summarised the main reason why, on balance, we came down against the devolution of corporation tax, saying:

“tax competition was the main reason why our group recommended that corporation tax should not be devolved.”

He made the point that it was very likely that a reduction in corporation tax in one UK jurisdiction would result in the cannibalisation of tax from other parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Moore]

I have just set out the criteria against which we would assess any suggested further amendments. There is scope within the passage of the Bill to consider those points further.

On the hon. Gentleman’s fundamental point, my argument right from the start, which I believe has had a degree of cross-party consensus, is that it is important that we empower Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament with these new arrangements to enable them to get on with their jobs. The measures enhance Ministers’ economic powers and the accountability of the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that delaying those measures is in anybody’s interest. We do not know what the terms of any referendum will be or what type of independence will be offered.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Mine is a narrower point. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if amendments come forward from the Scottish Government that the UK Government accept and which go through the Lords, we will have proper time to discuss them in this House? We do not want three or four amendments coming here for one hour’s discussion during ping-pong. Can we get a guarantee of time to discuss any amendments that come forward? [Interruption.]

[Michael Moore]

My distinguished colleagues the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of House were just indicating—I was going to say “muttering”, but it would be inappropriate to suggest such a thing—in their typically generous fashion that adequate time would be made available should such amendments come forward. I look forward to holding them to that should it be necessary.

The Bill has been subject to detailed scrutiny in this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. That scrutiny will, of course, continue, but I am confident that the process in the House has reinforced the central purpose of the Bill: to strengthen the Scottish Parliament so that it serves the Scottish people better. I commend it to the House.

Amendment of the Law

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Hodgson]

Not at the moment.

John Campbell from Washington e-mailed me yesterday. He currently receives £30 a week in EMA to support his studies. He asked me what support he would now get. I cannot answer, because Ministers have not told us yet, despite repeated hints from the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). I share the disappointment that he will no doubt have felt yesterday. Students are making choices about their future now. How can they do so while this silence persists?

We heard that the Chancellor will lift the tax-free allowance by £630 in 2012. I am sure that those of my constituents who will be lucky enough still to have a job this time next year will be very grateful for the extra 92p a week they will get. Perhaps they could use it towards the increased prices of their weekly shopping and energy bills, or to offset their loss in tax credits or frozen child benefit. What this Chancellor gives with one hand, he takes away many more times over with the other.

I remember, as I am sure do my hon. Friends, the furore in 1999 when the Government of the day announced an increase in the state pension of 75p a week, which was widely decried as an insult, despite being part of a wider package of measures that included the introduction of the winter fuel allowance and free TV licences. I checked with the Library this morning and found that 75p in 1999 is equivalent to around £1.05 today, which is 14% higher than 92p. Using that reasoning, the Budget’s increase is an even bigger insult. The right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), who was shadow Minister for social security, asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) at the time whether he felt guilty about cutting taxes for business at the same time as making such a derisory offer. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Havant feels guilty today.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for highlighting the effect of the proposals on her constituents, but she is perhaps being a little unfair to the Government on pensions. After all, they are solving some of the problems by bringing forward proposals that will eventually mean that some people might not be able to retire until they are 80. Is that not the kind of measure they should have highlighted more yesterday, rather than the ones they chose to highlight?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Although we all acknowledge that we will have to work longer because we are living longer, I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would want still to be working when they are 80.

At the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference last week the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the 75p increase in 1999 as an indignity, so I wonder how he views the 92p increase announced yesterday. Family income is vital to our growth prospects, as squeezing household budgets means less consumer spending, which in turn means lost profits and jobs in the sectors that depend on it.

How will growth be encouraged in Sunderland and the north-east? We heard yesterday that 21 local enterprise zones will be created and that one of them will be in the north-east local enterprise partnership on Tyneside. Seeing as we have an LEP for the whole north-east, leaving aside Tees valley, which is being given its own LEP and enterprise zone, why can we not have an enterprise zone that covered a wider area or more areas within the north-east enterprise zone, such as Wearside, in which Sunderland sits, which has both the need and potential, which are two criteria?

I was interested to read today in my local paper, the Sunderland Echo, that the Chancellor may have made an error in announcing that the local enterprise zone was going to be in Tyneside, because the location of the zone has not yet been decided. The Energy Secretary spoke to the Echo on that point and said that there was going to be a zone in the north-east local enterprise partnership area, and that the north-east LEP would help to choose where it was. He may need to go back to school and re-take his English baccalaureate—perhaps he does not have one—in geography, however, because Tyneside and the north-east are two very different areas.

That aside, we all know that if the Government were serious about stimulating the private sector they would never have abolished One North East or slashed funding for regional development. The Chancellor said that he wanted his Government to be the greenest ever, and he told us that funding for the green investment bank would be increased, in turn increasing the amount that it could leverage from private sources. I will not complain about any measures to increase investment in the low-carbon sector, particularly when that investment is going to help companies to innovate and create jobs in the north-east, but the Government could and should be doing so much more. Germany and China are taking action right now to stimulate green growth, so surely it is in this country’s economic interests to do the same and attract businesses before they locate to the countries that are taking action.

I also have concerns about the much heralded renewable heat incentive. A business man with a small to medium-sized enterprise in my constituency wrote to me to make the point that, had the scheme started next month, it had the potential to provide a big boost to the solar thermal sector. As it is, it will not start until October next year, and at a much reduced level to that which was expected. So, in effect, and even with the premium payment, the whole industry is on hold for 18 months, because who would invest now when they could get an incentive to do so in the next 18 months? That does not help the renewable energy sector; it puts the industry in limbo, and it puts jobs and innovation at risk.

My constituents may be pleased that the Chancellor has taken some action on fuel duty, however—an issue that many of them have contacted me about in the past few weeks. Cutting the duty on fuel by a penny will have made for some good headlines, and we all know that he needs those, but he failed to tell my constituents watching yesterday that a 1p cut in duty will not make up for the 3p VAT increase that he introduced at the beginning of the year. Again, he gives with one hand and takes much more away with the other.

There is so much more that I wanted to raise, but I will do so another time. Like so many of this Tory-led Government’s policies, this Budget is for the few, not the many. The bottom line is that this so-called Budget for growth has caused the Office for Budget Responsibility to revise down growth predictions; it had failed before it was even printed. The Chancellor spoke for an hour yesterday, but he provided almost nothing from which my constituents could draw any comfort. So, on behalf of those constituents, in particular the young and the struggling families, I urge him and his ministerial colleagues to listen seriously to the concerns that hon. Members have raised today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was most impressed by the list of businesses that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) has recently opened or visited in his constituency. Things could not have been too bad under the Labour Government if there is such vibrant activity, could they?

That aside, given the limited time available I want to concentrate on just one of the issues that I would otherwise have covered: the Budget announcements on the green investment bank. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), is in the Chamber alongside Treasury Ministers.

I welcome the fact that the initial capitalisation of the green investment bank will be increased to £3 billion. However, I note that the increase in funding is to come from asset sales, and I would be interested to know how certain we can be that those proceeds will materialise as funding for the bank. As all hon. Members know, such funds can be diverted elsewhere if there are other urgent public finance needs, so I hope for a reassurance that that sum will materialise.

Although £3 billion is clearly better than £1 billion, it is still short of the sums that many say should make up the initial capitalisation of the bank. An Ernst and Young accountant said this morning that the bank should have been granted £4 billion to £6 billion, and I have heard that figure from other sources.

I and others are also concerned that the bank will not be allowed to borrow until 2015, and that it might not be able to borrow at all if the Government are unable to meet their debt reduction targets. The chief executive of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association today said that linking funding of the bank

“to progress on the deficit does not give investors the certainty they need”,

which is worrying.

However, it is not just that the bank will be unable to borrow until 2015. Today’s comments suggest that that reflects a decision on what kind of bank the GIB will be. One commentator said:

“The decision was a victory for the Treasury, which for months had been embroiled in a tussle with green enthusiasts within the government, including climate change secretary Chris Huhne, over the powers the bank should have. It was originally intended much like a private sector institution, funding investments by taking on loans and issuing financial products such as green ISAs and bonds. One by one, these powers were whittled away.”

I hope that that is just press speculation, and I would welcome any ministerial refutation of it. There is a view within the Government that it is not a problem if the green investment bank cannot borrow until 2015, because the projects that will be devolved will be large projects that will take time to get going. I am concerned, however, that if the bank cannot borrow until 2015, it will send the message that it is too closely linked to the Treasury and could have its funding turned on, turned off or even taken back by the Treasury, depending on the wider financial priorities of the Government. Again, I would welcome reassurance from the Government that that is not the case.

Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear my second point: I want to emphasise the case for the green investment bank headquarters to be established in Edinburgh. I say that not just because it serves the interests of my city—although obviously it does—but because I genuinely believe it is the best location in the UK for it to be based. I would argue strongly that its headquarters should not be in London—too much of the financial services industry is concentrated there anyway—and it would certainly be a mistake for it to be run out of the Treasury, as some have suggested. It needs to be outside and independent of the Government.

If the green investment bank is to add to what can be provided by existing financial institutions, and not just be a brass plaque that reads “Green Investment Bank” without doing much that is different from what happens now, it needs to be proactive and to work with the energy and renewables sector, in particular; to work with industry and academics; and to have a good close relationship with financial experts. In my view, Edinburgh has the best combination in the UK of these sectors and skills, and I believe that basing the green investment bank headquarters in Edinburgh would be good not just for Edinburgh and Scotland, but for the north of England and Northern Ireland, and would be a good sign for the renewables and low-carbon sector throughout the UK.

I hope that the Minister can give a decision on Edinburgh in her winding-up speech. However, if she feels that she cannot, as I suspect she might, I hope that the Government will still give serious consideration to the matter. I think the view is shared across political parties that locating the bank’s headquarters in Edinburgh would allow us to make the best of the skills and expertise in many areas.

Scotland Bill

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

If the commencement arrangements are left unchanged, many of the most important questions about the Bill will be left unanswered. They could then be answered only by HM Treasury when it decided to do so. In the view of the Scottish Government, the SNP and, I hope, Members on both sides of the House, the Scottish Parliament should not consent to what is effectively a blank cheque for the Treasury. Our amendments simply seek that the consent of the Scottish Parliament should be required before the commencement of the provisions. The amendments were not designed to be contentious, but they are vital and would give huge protection not just to the Scottish Government but to the Scottish Parliament by ensuring that the provisions that impact directly on fiscal tax and borrowing provision in Scotland must be agreed to by the whole Parliament and not just Scottish Ministers or UK Ministers before they are applied. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to raise a technical point that was stimulated in my mind by the comments of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). It is a fairly minor point, but the aim of the Committee is to bring out such points. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Caledonian sleeper situation in which someone got on a train late at night in Glasgow, Edinburgh or somewhere else in Scotland and found that they were in England after midnight. There could also be a situation in which someone got on a train before midnight in Glasgow or Edinburgh, expecting to be in England after midnight, but found, on looking out of the window, that they were in fact in a siding in Carstairs due to the vagaries of the weather—a situation that has perhaps faced some of us in the past.

Leaving that fairly limited example aside, it occurs to me that the issue the hon. Gentleman raises could have wider implications. Take the situation of someone who lives in Dumfriesshire or the borders, perhaps in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). That person may live in Scotland but be a night-shift worker in England—perhaps a delivery worker for a retailer or a regular night-shift worker in a factory. Such a person could be defined as being in England, rather than in Scotland, under one definition even though he clearly lived in Scotland—or vice versa. It probably would not be appropriate to amend the Bill specifically to cover this issue, but it should certainly be given some thought. Perhaps the Minister could consider it with a view to giving guidance to clarify how such a situation should be addressed. A large number of people would not be affected in that way, but more than a handful might, so it would be useful to get clarification on such points from the Minister now or later.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

This evening’s debate has centred around the complexities of this hugely complex legislation. I had not intended to speak, but I, too, was prompted by the contribution of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), which led me to think about my experience of running a small business with 12 to 14 staff, doing payroll on a weekly basis and the huge complexities of keeping up with changes in legislation and making sure that my staff were aware of such legislation. Hon. Members would not believe the number of staff I have employed over many years who did not understand what a tax code was, how they were taxed on their income and how national insurance was involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

Again, I should like to ask the Exchequer Secretary a couple of technical questions about the implementation of the clause. He has defined in proposed new section 80J(2) the people who will not be liable to pay the tax in question. Perhaps he could clarify for the record that that relates to people acting in their official capacity, and that if they happen to have property in Scotland on a personal basis, they will still be liable for the tax.

Will the Government undertake that they will not appoint the day on which the tax powers will come into effect until the Scottish Government confirm that they have satisfactory legislation in effect? I realise that the proposed implementation date is 2015, and perhaps the Exchequer Secretary could confirm that that is still the Government’s intention. It is important that people with an interest in property have an early indication of when they can expect the tax to be changed.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I, too, have a couple of questions, and I would be most grateful if the Exchequer Secretary could deal with them. Does he believe that the provisions of the clause mean that the tax will be applied at the same rate throughout Scotland, or will it be possible for different rates to apply to different parts of Scotland? At the moment, for example, there are times when stamp duty land tax is waived for certain areas that require special assistance. Could that still apply?

Will the Scottish Parliament have the ability to delegate the power in clause 28 to local authorities, for example, so that varied rates could be offered? I am aware that that would not normally be permissible, but the Exchequer Secretary will certainly remember the debate about the possibility of a local income tax in Scotland a couple of years ago. There was a suggestion that if the Scottish Parliament introduced such a tax, it would be ultra vires. That was never tested, because of course the legislation never went through. The suggestion was that a local income tax could give local authorities the power to levy income tax through the back door. Similarly, it could be suggested that they be given the power to vary stamp duty land tax if the Scottish Parliament allowed them to do so. I would very much appreciate some guidance on those points.

I do not want to skip ahead to clause 30, but the same question applies to tax on disposals to landfill—will there be a Scottish rate, or could it be varied? Perhaps the Minister could give me the same reply to deal with both clauses.

[Mr Gauke]

As far as the list contained in proposed section 80J is concerned, I can provide the reassurance that transactions will be non-taxable only when people are acting in their official capacity. There is not some perk being made available to particular people.

The switching-off of stamp duty land tax will be achieved by Treasury order. However, the UK Government will consult the Scottish Government in setting the switch-off date and will not disapply SDLT in Scotland until the Scottish Government have the necessary legislation and administrative arrangements in place for the devolved tax.

The Scottish Government will be able to delegate the SDLT power in question to local authorities, so the matter could be further localised.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I thank the Exchequer Secretary for his answer on that point, which I think will be received with some interest in Scotland. My other, perhaps more substantial, question was whether the Scottish Government could implement a variable rate of SDLT, or whatever equivalent they wished to introduce, in different parts of Scotland. For example, could they decide that in certain areas of high unemployment there would be no SDLT, or a lower rate? Would that be within their powers?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, that would be within the Scottish Government’s power. I hope that my points of clarification are helpful to the Committee, and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Disapplication of UK stamp duty land tax

Amendment proposed: 63, page 23, line 12, after ‘Treasury’, insert ‘by order’.—(Mr Gauke.)

[Mark Lazarowicz]

For the sake of clarity, the point that I raised about the Scottish Government’s ability—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry. I should have put the Question, because the amendment has already been debated in a previous group.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Schedule 4

Scottish tax on land transactions: consequential amendments

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Schedule 4, which is introduced by clause 29, makes consequential provisions in connection with the disapplication of stamp duty land tax in Scotland, and is in two parts. Part 1 provides for general amendments to stamp duty land tax legislation in consequence of stamp duty land tax ceasing to apply in Scotland, and part 2 provides for the Scottish Government to supply information to HMRC regarding Scottish land tax.

Amendment 33 makes changes to the stamp duty land tax first-time buyers relief to ensure that a person who has previously bought a property in Scotland cannot qualify for relief when he or she subsequently purchases a property in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Amendment 34 omits a further reference to Scottish land law terminology.

Amendments 35 and 36 omit provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2005 and the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, which is an Act of the Scottish Parliament relating to functions of the keeper of the registers of Scotland. Those relate to the registers of Scotland’s automated registration of title to land system, which includes facilities for returns and payment of stamp duty land tax.

Lastly, amendment 36 makes detailed modifications to the provisions in the Finance Act 2009 in relation to alternative finance investment bonds or sukuk. Those modifications reflect the fact that the stamp duty land tax relief will no longer apply to sukuk in relation to land in Scotland, although the provisions for capital gains and capital allowances will continue to apply. Those changes are essential to the proper operation of stamp duty land tax after the tax is disapplied in Scotland.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Amendments made: 34, page 35, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 10 (tenants’ obligations etc that do not count as chargeable consideration), in sub-paragraph (1)(a) omit “(in Scotland, the leased premises)”.’.

Amendment 35, page 36, line 9, at end insert—

‘Finance (No. 2) Act 2005

In section 47 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2005 (e-conveyancing) omit—

(a) subsection (1);

(b) subsection (6)(b).’.

Amendment 36, page 36, line 12, at end insert—

‘Finance Act 2009

(1) Schedule 61 to the Finance Act 2009 (alternative finance investment bonds) is amended as follows.

(2) Paragraph 1 (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) before the definition of “HMRC” insert—

““effective date”, for a transaction relating to land in Scotland, is the date which would be the effective date (under section 119 of FA 2003) if Part 4 of FA 2003 applied to land in Scotland;”;

(b) omit the definition of “qualifying interest”.

(4) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—

(1A) In this Schedule “qualifying interest”—

(a) in relation to land in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, means a major interest in land (within the meaning given by section 117 of FA 2003) except that it does not include a lease for a term of years of 21 years or less;

(b) in relation to land in Scotland, means—

(i) the interest of an owner of land, or

(ii) the tenant’s right over or interest in a property subject to a lease,

except that it does not include a lease for a period of 21 years or less.”

(5) Paragraph 5 (conditions for operation of relief) is amended as follows.

(6) In sub-paragraph (6) (Condition D)—

(a) after “Condition D” insert “(which applies in the case of land in England and Wales or Northern Ireland)”;

(b) omit paragraph (b).

(7) In sub-paragraph (7) (charge or security for purposes of Condition D)—

(a) omit “or security”;

(b) in paragraph (a) omit “, or a security ranking first granted over,”.

(8) In paragraph 6(1)(a) (relief from stamp duty land tax) for “the United Kingdom” substitute “England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

(9) In paragraph 7 (withdrawal of relief in certain circumstances)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) after “This paragraph applies if” insert “paragraph 6 applies but”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) after “This paragraph also applies if” insert “paragraph 6 applies but”.

(10) In paragraph 9 (discharge of charge when conditions for relief met) omit “or security”.

(11) In paragraph 11(2) (disapplication of CGT relief if charge not given) for “the United Kingdom” substitute “England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

(12) In paragraph 12(1)(b) (CGT relief on second transaction) for “the United Kingdom” substitute “England and Wales or Northern Ireland”.

(13) In paragraph 18(5) and (6) (discharge of charge if original land replaced)—

(a) for “the United Kingdom” substitute “England and Wales or Northern Ireland”;

(b) omit “or security”.

(14) In paragraph 19(1) (HMRC to notify Registrar of discharge)—

(a) omit “or security”;

(b) omit paragraph (b).

Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (asp 1)

In section 9(1) of the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 (Keeper of the Registers of Scotland: financial arrangements) omit “(other than payments of stamp duty land tax)”.’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30

Scottish tax on disposals to landfill

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I shall again raise the two points that I raised in relation to clause 29. Can the Scottish Government vary the tax rate applied to different parts of Scotland, and can they further devolve the power to local government to a greater or lesser extent if they so wish? I presume that the Scottish tax rate could be different from the rate that applies in England. If so, what measures can be taken to stop the flow of waste towards the part of the country that has the lower rate of landfill tax?

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 30 provides for the devolved tax on the disposal of waste to landfill sites in Scotland. One Calman commission recommendation on tax was to devolve landfill tax, which was endorsed by the Scottish Parliament when it voted its consent on 10 March.

The tax will be a devolved tax for the purposes of part 4A of the Scotland Act 1998, which is introduced by clause 24. That means that the Scottish Government and Parliament will have complete control over the design and administration of the Scottish landfill tax, allowing them to complement their wider waste policies and to legislate to introduce a devolved tax to replace the existing UK landfill tax in Scotland. I hope that answers the main questions asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

The revenue raised by the tax will remain in Scotland for use by the Scottish Government. Clause 30 provides as blank a canvas as possible for the Scottish Government to design their tax by simply providing the power to introduce a tax on material disposed of as waste to landfill sites in Scotland. It will come into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent, which will allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the devolved tax, and for the Scottish Government to make the necessary administrative arrangements. The clause, however, provides that the devolved tax cannot apply to disposals made before the date on which the existing UK landfill tax is disapplied in Scotland, as provided in clause 31.

To answer the question on landfill tax competition, the Government are fully devolving that matter. Those setting the structure and rates of landfill tax in Scotland will clearly want to take into account the factors that were raised, such is the nature of devolution in such areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Disapplication of UK landfill tax

Amendment made: 64, page 24, line 8, after ‘Treasury’, insert ‘by order’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 32

Borrowing by the Scottish Ministers

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

New clauses 1 and 2 relate to regional Members of the Scottish Parliament, who were introduced in an irksome move and have been with us for a long time—since the outset of the Scottish Parliament.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend describes the provisions for a system of proportional representation as irksome. How many representations have been received by Government or anybody else that call for a change to the voting system for the Scottish Parliament, apart from those of my hon. Friend and a few of our colleagues?

[Mr Donohoe]

Since I have been in a position to see this matter at first hand, I have received many representations over the years from constituents who have concerns about the system, as I am sure has my hon. Friend. As a result of my tabling the new clauses, a number of individuals have written to me to tell me that I was spot on in making this argument. Therefore, there have been a number of representations. Not many people have come to me and argued for the continuation of the crazy system that is in being. I will expand on that point later in my speech.

Never in the history of politics has a political party given so much power to its opponents as in the Scotland Act 1998. Since then, all sorts of people have come on to the scene, cherry-picked within the constituencies and caused mayhem. That is why I have tabled the new clauses. Obviously, we must look at this whole question. We must go back to the first election to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. In my constituency, there was the crazy situation in which not only was the person who came second under first past the post elected to the Scottish Parliament through the pool for constituency Members, but the people who came third and the fourth. As my constituents tell me, something is fundamentally wrong when such a system is allowed to continue. That is the crux of my argument this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

I am not sure that I want to wander down that road, because the hon. Lady is well aware that I am the joint chairman of the all-party group for the promotion of first past the post, and also the secretary of the relevant group in the Labour ranks. Indeed, last week I asked the Prime Minister a question about the matter and he agreed with me, which is a first. Members all know where I stand and where the campaign on first past the post is going.

Let us examine the situation as it stands. If I go to a health board meeting in Ayrshire, how many MSPs can turn up? Some 24 can turn up and be part of the debate. That is not a problem in itself, but some of those list Members represent areas outside Ayrshire. There is therefore immense conflict when decisions are taken about where health services for them and their constituents should be. I have seen that at first hand on at least a dozen occasions. As a consequence, I no longer go to those meetings. Instead, I sensibly insist on the health board meeting the MPs and constituency MSPs alone, instead of the nonsense of the cherry-picking that was and is going on among list Members north of the border.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend clearly has strong views. I must say that in the area that I represent, where there are Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, Labour and independent list MSPs, I do not have the problems that he seems to encounter. Is not the real difficulty with his proposal that it would lead to an end to the proportional system for the Scottish Parliament? Is that not what it is really about? Would it not be undemocratic and wrong if Labour, the SNP or any other party got a majority of seats with 30% of the vote?

[Mr Donohoe]

I am sure my hon. Friend has examined my two new clauses, which are self-supporting. It is correct that in the first instance I want to bring back coterminous boundaries for all MSPs, so that there is a semblance of an organisation that can be supported by all parties in this place and elsewhere. However, the second point that I want drive home is as important as the first. I do not believe that list Members should be allowed, under any circumstances, to pick up the funds that are currently available to them to represent—or not represent—what they perceive to be their constituents.

That brings me neatly to list MSPs themselves. On a substantial number of occasions, the list Member has cherry-picked, to the detriment of the possibility of inward investment by companies of some size into my constituency—I take exception to that more than anything. On the basis of what they perceived to be environmental issues, they have come in and destroyed any possibility of a company coming into my constituency. That is wrong, and there must be accountability, but the list Member is not accountable to constituents as I am to mine. That must be fundamentally wrong. No hon. Member can tell me whether the list Members have any accountability within the structures of their political parties. That is the problem. There is no accountability whatever for list Members—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) want to intervene?

Funding Formula

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allocating me this important debate. It is a particular pleasure to serve under you, Mr Dobbin.

I have wanted to make this speech for a considerable time. As a member of a governing party with a bold and reforming agenda across large parts of Government, I hope that that spirit of boldness will also be applied to this issue and that it will be allied to a keen sense of fairness and justice so that we do the right thing by every part of the United Kingdom.

I speak as a committed Unionist and I want every part of the United Kingdom to be treated absolutely fairly as far as central Government funding is concerned. However, the formula that currently allocates funding between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for large parts of public expenditure is broken. Even the man after whom it is named, Lord Barnett, wants to get rid of it and speaks against it. It really is time for us to look at it, as I shall try to show in my remarks.

The formula dates back to 1976. It was decided, across certain parts of Government spending, to allocate 85p in every pound to England, 10p in every pound to Scotland and 5p in every pound to Wales. That was done on the basis of population figures from the mid-1970s. Those figures have never been changed; all that has been changed over the years are the annual increments. We are therefore working on a population baseline from the mid-1970s that bears no relation to the significantly increased population in England or the increased population in Wales. At the same time, the population in Scotland has remained broadly static. In the excellent debate on the Barnett formula in the House of Lords, Lord Sewel, a Labour peer, referred to

“a series of fantasy populations”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2010; Vol. 718, c. 381.]

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important subject for debate, but his comments about the starting point for the Barnett formula give the impression that the 85%, 10% and 5% figures reflected the populations of the different parts of the UK at the time. Surely, that was not the case. Even at that stage, the formula reflected the different needs in the different parts of the UK by giving Scotland and Wales a slightly higher allocation per head. Population did not define the breakdown in different parts of the UK at the start.

[Andrew Selous]

The formula was fundamentally on a population basis. If the hon. Gentleman reads the excellent report by the House of Lords Committee on the Barnett formula, which came out in July 2009, he will see the significance of the population issue. I propose that we move to a needs-based formula, and that was the Committee’s unanimous, cross-party conclusion, which was supported by its Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Cross-Bench members. I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I absolutely want to reflect the higher need that is clearly evident in Wales and parts of Scotland so that we are totally fair. The evidence is that we are not doing that now. The situation has become unfair, and that is a danger to the Union.

Let us see what the man after whom the formula is named has said. Speaking of the formula’s creation in 1976, he said:

“I just wanted to get through every day without too much trouble.”

He also said:

“I do not consider it is successful. I do not think it is fair.”

He added:

“I thought it might last a year or two before a government would decide to change it. It never occurred to me for one moment that it would last this long”,

or more than 30 years. Those who pray in aid the Barnett formula should be well aware that its author thinks that it is time we moved on to something that is fairer and that is built on a needs basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is with me in wanting a needs-based formula. He is right that the evidence of the Holtham commission, and the evidence that the House of Lords took, suggests that Wales would benefit from such a formula and that if it is to be applied fairly there should be some reduction in what Scotland currently receives.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is up to the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Government to spend their money as they see fit. What is not fair and right is the allocation of money in a block grant on a bust formula from 1976, whose author no longer thinks that it is fair, when there is clearly in many cases such an imbalance between what the English and the Scottish can be offered. That is an entirely reasonable case.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Selous]

I will, but I want to finish my list—I have not got to the end of it yet—of what we do not get in England. It is really worth listing, because even the Library did not have a comprehensive list. I was adding to it as I went along.

Certain cancer drugs were available earlier in Scotland than in England—we are just catching up. Concessionary bus travel is more generous in Scotland. People can go on long-distance journeys there and take a companion, if they are disabled, which they could not do in England. I think that hon. Members who are fair and who consider the issue dispassionately and want to do the right thing by every part of the United Kingdom will agree that we cannot allow the situation to continue if we are committed Unionists.

[Andrew Selous]

I cannot remember who wanted to intervene earlier; I give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but it is an important debate. I welcome the tone in which he presents his case, even if I disagree with some of the conclusions. Would it not be better if he were to mention not only the areas where residents of Scotland and Wales appear to get a better deal, but those where, because of a choice made under devolution, spending is less? There is now a debate in Scotland and Wales about university funding and the effects of different tuition fee levels on university fee income. In some areas of health and transport, provision is less than in England. It is not right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said, just to cherry-pick the areas where Scotland and Wales seem to be doing well, without referring to choices that have resulted in different consequences, which can be easily pointed out as examples of relatively lower levels of service than in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I fully appreciate that point; I heard him say very clearly that Wales would benefit. My point is simply that I fear that in much of the debate on this subject there is a concern that English regions do not benefit where other parts of the UK, particularly the devolved regions, do. Traditionally English Members from both Houses have expressed that view, which underpins and unfortunately colours debate on this subject.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Is it not the case that moving to a needs-based formula would receive universal support, would be value-free and would not allow any political interference is an illusory hope, because even with a needs-based formula the question arises of how one assesses needs? For example, how much importance should be given to rural diversity and to the length of communications in Scotland? If a high priority were given to ferry links to the Shetland Isles and Western Isles, there would obviously be a high result there. When it comes to funding that depends on age, there are some parts of both Scotland and Wales where unfortunately, because of ill health, some people do not live to an older age, which would not be reflected in the formula. The idea that we can move to a value-free system with a needs-based formula is somewhat illusory. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I very much welcome this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing it. The issue has been possibly an obsession of my party for many years, and so I am glad to see other people sharing that obsession—or disability.

I should like to focus briefly on the Barnett formula and on Wales, rather than on the English regions, because there are clear implications for the English regions, as I have already said. There are great differences between the funding for the regions within England, and the debate on that can be informed by looking at what has happened in Wales for many years. We have already heard that the Holtham report points out the requirement for Wales now to have a needs-based assessment. In fact, such assessments have been needed in Wales for many years, and they are already carried out in some English regions. The Barnett formula was developed in the ’70s and implemented in 1978—not in 1976, as has been said. It was based on historical spending and the size of the population—basically on the success of Ministers in extracting money from the Treasury pre-1978. It is a converging formula, and we have seen it in operation for many years. Between 1999 and 2007, public spending in England rose by 33%, and in Wales by 28%. That is the nature of convergence: public spending rose, but less quickly in Wales.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman’s point needs to be underlined, because although many people suggest that the Barnett formula gives an unfair bias towards Scotland and Wales, it is in fact designed to level their expenditure down to the English average. It is not in any sense a formula that protects Scotland and Wales.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but my point is that it is a converging formula, and that Wales is gradually losing out. Jumping forward to one of my later points, Holtham called for a floor to be established, and the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) referred to that before the election. We have consistently called for public sector funding in Wales to be based on needs, and our calls have been ignored and rejected. I do not know how many times I have heard the right hon. Member for Neath, and current Government Members, saying that the Barnett formula has served Wales well. Joel Barnett himself said, in a statement on 11 January 2009:

“I only meant the Barnett formula to last a year, not 30…One of the problems is that it was not based on need. It determined on the basis of population how much more or less funding Scotland should receive when cuts or increases in public spending were being made across the United Kingdom.”

I note, however, that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) used his appearance at the Wales Labour pre-election conference last year to call Barnett a needs-based formula. It is, of course, no such thing.

The report produced by Gerry Holtham has received the support of all the main political parties in Wales, and I am glad there is a measure of cross-party consensus this morning. The report calls for a floor to prevent further erosion of Welsh funding, for the reform of the formula to make it a needs-based one, and to at least stop, if not necessarily correct, the historical underspend on Welsh services. It then calls for differential taxation to be considered, to ensure that the Welsh Government take greater responsibility for their own spending. As I have noted many times in speeches in this place, the Welsh Government get a very large amount of money and are responsible for raising not a single penny piece of it, which is, I think, a fundamentally bad situation.

The underspend in Wales has been recently estimated at around £300 million—a significant sum—and there has been a knock-on effect on the private sector, as I am sure the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) knows. The public sector in Wales is so large and is such a significant purchaser of goods and services, that if it were to have more money there would be a knock-on effect on the private sector. Because the formula reflects an historical position rather than an assessment of need, it has put Wales in a fundamentally weak position. We are funded on the basis of proportional Government spending in England and Wales, or in Great Britain, depending on the circumstances. Spending in Wales has been largely subject to changes in Government priorities on an England, England and Wales or GB basis, so we follow those priorities. We now have a Government in Cardiff who cut the cake as they see fit, but of course the size of that cake always depends on other matters. Hospital parking and prescription charges have been referred to, so I will not pursue those issues given the time.

How to define need has been discussed somewhat. I point hon. Members to the Holtham commission’s report, which suggests six steps based on such considerations as the number of old and young people, rurality and so on. The point was made that that might be complex, but that does not mean that we should not do it. I point hon. Members to an interesting example: the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, which has replaced the Townsend index of poverty. The Welsh index is complicated, but it is very effective. It can be done.

The Government have been clouding the issue by considering Wales’s funding as something that can be postponed until the recession is over. It must be examined now, for good reasons of governance in Wales and to eliminate the reasonable feelings that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire mentioned. Will the Minister tell us when the Government intend to start considering the Holtham inquiry’s recommendations for Wales and, more broadly, for the rest of the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

As we have already heard, the Barnett formula is essentially based upon historical levels of spending, which means that the relatively high levels in Scotland and Wales reflect the decades of argument between Government Departments making the case for higher spending in those areas. It has not appeared from nowhere. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not only of having to assess needs, but of the impact of Government spending? For example, there is no doubt whatever that the presence of Government in London is a major boost to the London economy. That does not apply to the Barnett formula, but it means that London benefits from Government spending in a way that other parts of the UK—not just Scotland and Wales—do not.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely. Statistics are thrown around about public spending, its impact and who gets the most. It is not just about Government block grants, but about things such as welfare spending and the impact of locally raised funding, such as council tax, which is a separate issue. I think that people sometimes forget that.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire argued that either a separate body or the Office for Budget Responsibility should administer and oversee the introduction of a needs-based allocations system. I agree that, if we are to move towards something like that, now is not the time to introduce radical change overnight. This is a difficult time economically, and the Scotland Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, will have a major impact on the tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament. There are decisions to be made about whether it will take up those tax-raising powers and the impact that would have on its spending. The impact of the comprehensive spending review settlements on the devolved nations is also an issue.

I accept—I think that there is cross-party consensus on this—that we need to examine the case for moving towards a needs-based formula. Some of my colleagues have said that, but it has to be done carefully. I do not want to return to line-by-line negotiations with the devolved nations whenever there is a spending round. There has to be a formula of some sort. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said that a needs-based formula would be eminently contestable. It would be difficult to establish which needs should be taken into account and which needs should not.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I am not familiar with the policies held by every single Equitable Life policyholder. There are 1 million policyholders with 1.5 million policies, and 30 million policy transactions went through during the period concerned. That is why it is important that Towers Watson, which has provided actuarial advice to the Treasury, should look at the calculation of losses.

I suspect that my hon. Friend’s constituents may be part of one group for whom there is a great deal of sympathy. They are the so-called “trapped annuitants”—people who bought with-profits annuities policies. I have raised that topic with Towers Watson, to try to understand the losses that people in that category of policyholder have suffered, so we can understand the right approach in terms of compensation. Many people from that group believe that they have suffered quite significant losses, and we need to ensure whether that is the case. At the moment, I am trying to do some more work to establish that.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have spoken up for Equitable Life members represented on both sides of the Chamber. One of the issues that concerns everyone is speed—when people are going to get some money paid out. I do not expect him to give a specific day, week or month, but can he give some indication of when policyholders might expect to see payments beginning? I suggested in an intervention a few weeks ago that it might be well into 2011; what does he think would be a reasonable time scale?

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Speed is of the essence, and we want to make sure that payments start to be made as quickly as possible. There is quite a lot of work to be done before we get to that point; I will say a bit about that work later on.

PAYE Contributions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Again, I confirm that HMRC will consider the matter sympathetically and will have flexibility to spread payments over up to three years.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was a bit disappointed by the Minister being a little dismissive of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) when he suggested that it was now getting harder to get through to HMRC. My experience, and that of many MPs, is that when people try to get through to tax credits staff, they just get an answer machine saying that they should phone back another day. They cannot even leave a message.

The situation is getting worse, and although I do not want to blame the Minister for that, may I urge him to consider more than just additional call centres? He should also consider the possibility of providing not just a helpline but more support for bodies such as Citizens Advice and other information agencies. Does he agree that there is a danger of scam e-mails, with people trying to take advantage of those who will be in a difficult position, and that people will need somewhere reputable to get information and support so that others cannot try to get money out of their suffering?

[Mr Gauke]

I reiterate that additional resources will be provided for call centres—I believe there will be about 20% extra staff by the end of the month, with contingency for more if needed. HMRC is focusing on that. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about tackling fraudsters, and we can take back to our constituents the message that they should be wary, particularly of e-mails. HMRC will not e-mail people about this matter.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Huhne]

I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman is misreading the situation dramatically. We had three announcements; I have mentioned two of them already and I am going to expand on the green deal. It was an emergency Budget, and I would not have expected a substantial programme of reform on green taxes in an emergency Budget that was designed to take us out of the firing line. We have a clear coalition commitment, going forward, to a rise in revenue from green taxes as a proportion of total revenue. That is in the coalition agreement and I have absolutely no doubt that that is what we will see when the full Budget is brought forward in the normal way after the processes of consultation throughout Government.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Even if we accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the emergency Budget, there was a very carefully costed proposal on air passenger duty in the Lib Dem manifesto—at least my Liberal opponents said that it was carefully costed—which seems to have gone missing. Why has that proposal been replaced by some future discussion in some future commission? Why has it become something that only might happen, if it could, apparently, have added £3 billion a year to the Budget now, at a time when that money is clearly needed by the Government?

[Chris Huhne]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that there will be a consultation on that proposal in the autumn. I have no reason to believe that it will not be brought forward in the normal course of events with ordinary Government announcements. It is part of the coalition agreement and is widely welcomed. I believe that it was in both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat manifestos, but not everything can be announced on day one. The overwhelming priority for this Budget has been to ensure that we can sustain growth and jobs by removing ourselves from the substantial and real risk of contagion from the financial crisis in southern Europe. That has been the overwhelming priority.

[Chris Huhne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Obviously, he knows that we will go through the comprehensive spending review in the autumn, and the normal process is to make announcements when we have been through that, but I have no reason to doubt that the Government’s commitment to the support of infant wave, tidal stream and wind technologies will continue and I am confident that there will be announcements reflecting that priority, which is in the coalition agreement.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Chris Huhne]

I shall give way a bit more, but let me make a little progress. I have been making the argument that the need to replace our ageing energy infrastructure will give enormous impetus to growth in coming years. The other part of the argument has to be about looking at the centrepiece of the Bill that my Department will bring forward later in the year and at what we are proposing on the green deal. That, too, is an enormously significant package that will have genuine macro-economic consequences for the transformation of the economy and the creation of a whole new industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

rose—

[Chris Huhne]

Before I give way, let me make a couple of points about the economic significance of that approach. First, the potential increase in demand as a result of the creation of new industry will be absolutely enormous if we can get the Bill, the framework and the pay-as-you-save measures right. By way of indication, we would be talking, in practical terms, of 14 million homes that could be insulated with the support of the green deal. Purely arithmetically, if the average cost were £6,500, for example, we would be talking about a market worth literally tens of billions of pounds—£90 billion over a substantial period.

We are talking about creating a new industry that would be genuinely jobs-rich, as it would use skills already present in the construction sector and need unskilled labour as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Huhne]

The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that the two points that he makes are not as mutually contradictory as he suggests. There is a long history in this country of applying so-called “sin taxes” to alcohol and tobacco, and they have had the very desirable effect of helping to get people off smoking and of cutting their drinking. The success of those taxes is not perhaps as great as many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like, yet I am assured by the latest Red Book documents that the Treasury continues to raise a very substantial amount of money from both tobacco and drink excises.

The reality is that, while green taxes will change behaviour, the responsiveness of behaviour is such that revenue will continue to be raised for a very substantial period. I have to say that, in the present circumstances, that point is likely to commend itself to the Treasury, which always used to follow the motto of Colbert, the finance minister of Louis XIV, who said that the art of taxation lay in plucking the maximum number of feathers from the goose with the minimum amount of hissing. In that context, green taxes certainly are a very justifiable way to pluck the maximum number of feathers.

I shall give way once more, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and then I shall wind up and let the debate make progress.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to leave Louis XIV and return to future technologies, and I was interested in the response that he gave to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) about support for wave technologies. The right hon. Gentleman will probably know that two of the UK’s leading marine renewable energy businesses have their headquarters in my constituency. Can he assure me that support for marine renewables will be at the centre of his policies for every constituency in the UK, and not just those in the south-west of England? More specifically, will he tell us how the Government’s support for marine renewables will be affected by the Budget that we are discussing?

[Chris Huhne]

Quite properly, the hon. Gentleman wants me to anticipate announcements that will be made by the Government in the normal course of events. I understand that game, as I have played it myself on many occasions. At this stage, however, I can merely tell him that I visited Aberdeen recently for the All Energy conference, where I had interesting and fruitful talks with the marine energy specialists currently testing equipment off Orkney. I am deeply committed, as I believe the Government are, to making sure that what is a genuinely interesting source of potential future prosperity and jobs continues to get the support that it needs to get off the ground.

Obviously, we are in very tough times and have had to cut our cloth to fit our straitened circumstances, but I believe that marine energy offers real opportunities. We have made a number of proposals in that regard, and we will continue to support the sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Lazarowicz Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman might be better off directing that comment to the Deputy Prime Minister. I did not see it in the paper. We are conscious of the need to make sure that we can protect front-line services that people depend on. We have already debated pensions this morning, for example, and we are doing our best to protect money that supports the most vulnerable in our society.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability of the economy, promote growth and employment, reform the banking system and manage the public finances so that Britain lives within her means.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Whether the amount lost by tax avoidance or tax evasion is £100 billion or £40 billion a year, it is a lot of money which could go a long way to tackling the deficit. Will the Chancellor tell his ministerial colleagues sitting next to him to give a higher priority to tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance so as to make sure that those who are most able to pay the costs of the deficit do so, rather than those who are least able to pay?

[Mr Osborne]

Yes, we will.