Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-29
Topic: Macroeconomics
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on clause 15 stand part and proposed new clause 20 in the name of the Labour party Let us turn to the way that the Smith commission has spoken about the assignation of a proportion of VAT. It said: "The receipts raised in Scotland by the first 10 percentage points of the standard rate…will be assigned…All other aspects of VAT will remain reserved." The Scottish Parliament Information Centre analysis for the Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee referred to it in its interim report on the draft Scotland Bill clauses. It said: "Draft clause 13 [now 15] would give effect to the Smith Commission recommendation that the Scottish Government be assigned receipts from the first ten percentage points of VAT. With the agreement of both governments it also proposes to go slightly further by notionally assigning 2.5 percentage points of the reduced rate of VAT as well…The amount of VAT receipts attributable to Scotland is to be the subject of an agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government." It did point out that there are no draft clauses in relation to the corresponding adjustment to the block grant. Hopefully, the Minister will confirm that that does not require legislation. In effect, the Scotland Bill proposes the assignation of half of VAT receipts to the Scottish Parliament. However, that will provide no actual control of VAT The Devolution (Further Powers) Committee had no particular concerns with the draft clauses, but it did want details of the assignment of VAT revenues and the share of any benefits to be produced—the mechanics of the assignment—before the Scottish Parliament could be expected to give its legislative consent. The committee said: "There is still significant uncertainty on how the assignment of a share of VAT revenues will be calculated and whether the Scottish Government will be able to reap the rewards of any economic stimulus that yields higher VAT revenues." It is also worth noting that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s analysis paper, which set out the differences between the draft clauses and the published Bill, noted that: "No further detail is provided on the assignment of VAT revenues, or the corresponding block grant adjustment." There are a number of technical issues for consideration notwithstanding the fact that there is no particular issue with the legislation as such The committee’s interim report considered the evidence on VAT assignment from a range of sources. It said that the bulk of the evidence received by the committee, while welcoming the principle, called for greater clarity in how the assignment of revenues would work. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland told the committee: "Clause 13 in the ‘Draft Scotland Clauses 2015’ regarding VAT delivers the mechanics of the assignment of VAT, but with the large caveat that it applies ‘where there is an agreement between the Treasury and Scottish Ministers’...The rules for agreeing this have not been provided and it may not be easy to identify ‘Scottish VAT’" I take on board what the Scottish Secretary said earlier about not giving a running commentary, but on that specific point—and I shall have more specific questions—at least I hope we can get clarity In oral evidence to the Scottish Parliament committee, Charlotte Barbour of ICAS elaborated: "The assignment of VAT offers more opportunity for discussions on how that might be calculated. It slots in with the difficulties with the fiscal framework"— we discussed those in the last debate— "and some of the no-detriment issues"—[Scottish Parliament, Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 5 February 2015; c. 4.] I mentioned those previously. The Scottish Trades Union Congress was broadly supportive of the assignment of VAT. Its deputy general secretary told the Committee that "I am quite a fan of assigned revenue", but he took the point that "it is not a power in the sense of being usable to promote particular behaviours" However, he said: "A degree of assigned revenue clearly rewards the Scottish Government for economic growth and, in our view, the closer we get to an amount of revenue that is derived from positive actions undertaken by the Scottish Government, the better."—[Scottish Parliament, Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, 15 January 2015; c. 13.] I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. We want responsibility, which rather prompts the question that given that there is no control over VAT, why assign only half of it? Why not assign it all? The Scottish Government could then quite rightly benefit, if there was a benefit, from the entire rise in VAT in Scotland rather than just half of it and could take responsibility if there was a shortfall, not just for half the shortfall. Speaking to the committee, John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, highlighted two issues for discussion with the UK Government, which are both important: "One is establishing the analytical base for how VAT should be apportioned and the other is the policy question of guaranteeing that if those estimates are exceeded, Scotland retains the benefit of that improved economic performance".—[Scottish Parliament, Official Report, Devolution (Further Powers) Committee 12 March 2015; c. 26.] The former Secretary of State for Scotland also commented on the issue of VAT in a letter to the Committee, in which he said that he could "confirm that VAT assignment will link the Scottish Government’s budget with economic activity in Scotland, providing incentives for growth. The amount of VAT to be assigned…will be based on an estimated share of the total VAT generated in the UK...The UK and Scottish Governments will need to agree a methodology" Will the Minister provide further details, not on the specific discussions with the Scottish Government but on the themes? What are the options for how VAT will be assigned? Will it, for example, be a consumption-based approach? How can we improve the robustness of the measure and the timescales, for example by improving the survey data? What will be the costs of implementation and how will they be met? Does there need to be a proxy measure over a transition period until the methodology is robust? Has any thought been given to indexation and comparable measures of growth? What has been said about governance and accountability, for example developing a separate strand to the memorandum of understanding with the HMRC on VAT to expand the role of the project board The question of the robustness of the survey data is vital. At present, VAT is estimated by the Scottish Government in the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report, based on a household survey of expenditure, therefore missing tourism spend entirely. That is corrected by a percentage share adjustment, meaning that the Scottish Government estimate what percentage of UK tourism happens in Scotland, but if the Scottish Government managed to increase tourism spend through other actions, such as reducing air passenger duty, that would not show up according to the current methodology. We therefore need to agree a new robust methodology and, perhaps, an interim measure until that methodology is in place As the Minister has said, VAT cannot be varied within a state and we understand and respect that. So let me repeat the question: why give only half rather than all, unless to camouflage the fact that the tax over which Scotland will have control will be such a small share of our tax base? Could the assignation of VAT revenue be designed simply to make that number seem a little bigger Let me turn to new clause 20, on the subject of VAT on Police Scotland and the fire service. We heard the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) describe the amendment, which proposes a review of the application of the VAT refund scheme for business in Scotland. It has been tabled with the intention, it would appear, of addressing the anomaly of the inability of the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to reclaim VAT. Although we agree that that is an inequitable position for both services, we do not necessarily believe that a review is the way to address it. Instead, the UK Government—as the hon. Gentleman said, where there is a will, there is a way—should simply amend the VAT status of the single police service and fire and rescue service in Scotland.