The system of territorial funding in the UK is descending into chaos

David Bell looks at how fiscal devolution will lead to greater asymmetry across the Celtic nations and confuse the Barnett Formula. This post originally appeared on Holyrood.com

The system of territorial funding in the UK is descending into chaos. If the coalition’s present plans for devolving financial powers are taken forward after the election, the number of people who will be able to understand how revenues are raised and funding allocated among the component parts of the UK will drop below the already tiny number who fully understand the Barnett Formula.

In Scotland, the Smith Commission proposals will cede almost complete control of income tax to Holyrood along with half of VAT revenue and Air Passenger Duty. It will also result in some welfare funding coming to Scotland.

In Wales, Stamp Duty Land Tax and Landfill tax will be devolved to the Assembly and there may be a referendum to see if the Welsh people wish for some control over income tax. David Cameron has also promised to set a “Barnett floor” for Wales in the post-election spending review.

This will effectively set a level below which funding per head in Wales cannot fall, preventing the Barnett formula from equalising per capita spending throughout the UK, an outcome which follows from its mathematics.

To complete the picture the bill to give the Northern Ireland Assembly power to set a “Northern Ireland rate of corporation tax” is currently making its way through the UK Parliament while local authorities in and around Manchester have been given control of £6bn NHS funding.

Not only will these changes lead to much greater asymmetry of fiscal powers across the Celtic nations, they also confuse the Barnett Formula, which the Smith Commission committed to maintain, and the principle of needs-based funding – allocating revenue support on the basis of some assessment of need.

The Barnett Formula may have reflected need back in 1979 when it was invented. Since then it has distributed rough justice, particularly at the expense of Wales.

It has been relatively easy to calculate and, as the single most important source of revenue to the Celtic nations, allowed the Treasury to keep a tight grip on overall levels of public spending.

But by giving Scotland control over some welfare spending, which is largely driven by the needs of the disabled and the elderly, and by conceding that the Barnett formula doesn’t reflect need in Wales so that a floor on per capita spending is necessary, the system of block grants is now a hybrid system with even less rationale than the Barnett formula.

Yet the Barnett Formula will still play a critical role in determining the overall spending power of the governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

The issue that has failed to attract the attention it deserves is how the formula will be adjusted in the light of all the changes in tax and spending powers.

Even in the case of Scotland after the implementation of the Smith proposals, the majority of the funding available to the Scottish Government will still be determined by the Barnett Formula. The Scottish Government will only be able to increase its spending if it raises more in taxes than it loses due to the way the Barnett Formula adjustment has currently been set.

The reduction in Scotland’s grant will increase at the rate that the equivalent tax base in the rest of the UK grows. Scotland will therefore have to grow its tax revenues faster than those in the rest of the UK, or raise its tax rates, if it wants to increase spending.

But the adjustment to the grant is inevitably going to be more complex if new taxes in Wales and Northern Ireland and new spending powers in Scotland are involved in the Treasury’s block grant calculations. Perhaps a less rushed timetable might have led to a more coherent outcome

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

David Bell's picture
post by David Bell
University of Stirling
23rd March 2015

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts