Proceeding contribution from Lord Sassoon (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Scotland Bill.
Scotland Bill
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate as we draw towards the end of consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, whose analysis I very much agree with. It has been a fascinating debate that has taken almost an hour. Sadly, as it has continued, more and more voices have been raised making all sorts of correct arguments that this is not the time and place for it. Many voices in this House accept the starting point of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, which is that although his eponymous formula has stood the test of time, its time may nevertheless be coming. However, we are not at the point of having a ripe solution, and having a one-country answer within the vehicle of the Bill is not the way to address these proper concerns. I often find that noble Lords from all sides of the House are against me, but it is rare to find myself in substantial agreement with them. Let me start by reminding noble Lords of one or two things that we should be clear about. First, one of the things that the Bill will do is devolve some of the financial management of income tax to the Scottish Government. However, it will not fix the Barnett formula in stone for the future, and we need to be clear about that, for the avoidance of doubt. It is also worth dwelling on Calman for a moment. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean referred to the Calman report, but it is perhaps worth quoting at some length. Recommendation 3.4 states: "““The block grant, as the means of financing most associated with equity, should continue to make up the remainder of the Scottish Parliament's Budget but it should be justified by need. Until such times as a proper assessment of relative spending need across the UK is carried out, the Barnett formula should continue to be used as the basis for calculating the proportionately reduced block grant””." The Bill certainly does not therefore lock in the funding formula but, as a number of noble Lords, starting with my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart, have pointed out, this is very much an issue for the whole United Kingdom and should be dealt with at the appropriate time. Just before I come back to one or two more points on the broader issues, I should for completeness comment on the technical drafting of the amendments.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 736 c1525
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal proceedings Devolved matters Appeals Costs Crown lands and estates Devolution Airguns Certification Block grant Fees and charges Licensing Firearms EU law Income tax Electoral Commission EU accession Legislative competence Insolvency Health professions Legislation Economic policy Motor vehicles Referendums Public finance Scotland Regulation Tax allowances Scottish Parliament Taxation Speed limits Tax rates and bands Supreme Court Advocate General for Scotland High Court Scottish Government Legislative consent motions
- Legislation
- Scotland Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 16:34:00 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_822553
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_822553
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_822553