Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-72)
RT HON
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
MP, DAVID CAIRNS
MP AND DR
JIM WILDGOOSE
4 JULY 2006
Q60 Ms Clark: There has been a change
in the stated objectives of the Scotland Office since last year's
Annual Report and I just wondered why that had come about.
Mr Alexander: My understanding
of the evidence which was given by my predecessor at this Committee
last year is that ventilated some of these issues. The changes
for the 2006-07 Scotland Office are designed to focus more directly
on the objectives in the three areas of the Scotland Office work:
Scotland's interest in reserved matters; UK Government parliamentary
activities in relation to the constitution under the Scotland
Act; the proper handling of financial matters. In the previous
set of objectives these three distinct elements were conflated
slightly, for example finance and statutory functions were brought
together. Again, I would not wish to leave the Committee with
the impression that there was a fundamental political difference
between the objectives in the preceding year and this year. As
I understand it, it was a reflection of the consideration that
my predecessor gave to the observations of this Committee as to
how to give a clearer and more concise expression of the objectives
which were the underlying purpose of the Scotland Office.
Dr Wildgoose: I cannot add much
to that. That was very much the focus. There was some brief discussion
of this at the last session. The other thing to say is that if
you look at the previous set of objectives some of them really
look like functions rather than actual objectives as such as to
what we were trying to achieve. If you look at the third one,
for example, it was really couched as a function to advise UK
departments rather than specifically to look after Scottish interests.
The recasting of the objectives was really to set them in the
context of what it is we are trying to achieve in these three
areas.
Q61 Ms Clark: One of the previous
objectives was to maintain the stability of the devolution settlement
and that has been taken out. Can anything be read into that?
Mr Alexander: No, basically. That
is a short answer but I shall elucidate on it slightly. Again,
this specific question was brought up in last year's session,
in particular the wording of the previous objective one, which
incorporated that particular phrase. The changes for 2006-07 are
designed to focus more directly on our work and in that sense
do not suggest any change whatsoever in the focus of the Scotland
Office.
Q62 Ms Clark: One of the other changes
has been the introduction of a new objective to handle financial
matters timeously and with propriety. Is there any particular
reason why that has been something which now needs to be incorporated?
Is it a reflection of any problems previously in this area?
Mr Alexander: No.
Q63 Mr Davidson: May I ask on a point
arising from that about the operation of the Office? Within a
few days of taking over in your previous post you had killed off
the European Constitution. You have not managed anything equivalent
here. Do you think that you and David have been sufficiently New
Labour purely in terms of promoting radical change in the Scotland
Office? I am thinking in particular about the draft Scotland Order
on the River Tweed. Not only could the Minister not give us a
list of the tributaries of the river, he was really only reinforcing
feudalism along the Tweed valley and I should have thought that
was something on which New Labour ministers would want to introduce
radical changes. Is this an opportunity missed?
Mr Alexander: I am afraid that
my designation and appointment as Minister of the Month is now
but a distant memory; neither in my responsibilities as Secretary
of State for Transport nor Secretary of State for Scotland have
I managed such a gilded honour in the last month. In terms of
the specifics, I know that David is familiar with the Order and
indeed the 200 tributaries, as I understand it, which flow into
the River Tweed.
Q64 Mr Davidson: Name them.
Mr Alexander: Given the request
of the Chairman for short answers I feel it would be disrespectful
to the Chairman to name all 200 of the tributaries, but if there
is anything you would like to ask . . .
Q65 Mr Davidson: Give me five of
them then.
Mr Alexander: We can certainly
write with all 200 if you like.
David Cairns: I did give an undertaking
to write with all 200. Just on the point, I appreciate the spirit
in which Mr Davidson has made his remarks, but the River Tweed
Commission, thanks to the Order we put through, will now be composed
not just of people who happen to own a chunk of the land, which
was the previous regime, but will not be composed of a majority
of members who are appointed by local authorities along the clear
line of democratic accountability in the way which the River Tweed
is going to operate which was not there before. I think that is
a very welcome progress of democratic and New Labour reform which
you voted against.
Q66 Mr Davidson: Five of the tributaries?
David Cairns: I shall be writing
to the Committee.[4]
It would be invidious of me to pick out five. People living on
the banks of the other 195 would be offended.
Q67 Gordon Banks: May I take you back
to the linked question of the variation in staff? There has been
an increase in costs to £3.9 million over £3.3 million
at present. What is the basic cause of that increase? Can you
give me some comment in relation to the downward movement of the
work between 2004-05 and 2005-06?
Mr Alexander: You bring the perspective
and experience of a private sector businessman to these figures.
Let me say in terms of the upward lift that the reason is actually
terminological. We need extensive renovation work to the roof
of Dover House; it is no more conspiratorial or difficult than
that. Following a recent report from English Heritage we are required
to carry out this work amounting to an estimated £1.2 million.
This is required under our lease from the Crown Estate Commissioners.
Dover House is of course a Grade 1 listed building and the lease
is on a full repayment basis, hence we are responsible for all
the repairs and maintenance including the impending roof repairs.
Dr Wildgoose: The earlier downward
shift follows from the earlier discussion about complement versus
outturn with the personnel changes that we had. We hope in future,
with the changes in budgeting, that we shall not have that kind
of movement from one year to the next with the new arrangements
we have planned.
Q68 Gordon Banks: So a lot more stability
once the roof is fixed.
Dr Wildgoose: Yes, more or less.
There will be scaffolding up for three months from August over
Dover House. You will see that as a feature.
Chairman: The Barnett Formula and per
capita public spending. I believe there was Tory support for the
formula.
Q69 Mr Walker: I just have a quick
question, bearing in mind that the Minister needs to leave in
about 30 seconds. I notice on public expenditure per head that
the Eastern region, of which my constituency of Broxbourne is
part, was £5,864 but in Scotland for 2005-06 it was £8,265.
Can the Secretary of State explain to my constituents how a difference
of £2,401 or 45% is justifiable in public expenditure per
head between the Eastern region and Scotland?
Mr Alexander: The first point
I would make is that the Barnett Formula, which I believe underlies
the question, has delivered stable and transparent settlements
not just under this Labour administration but under previous Conservative
administrations for almost 30 years. The Barnett Formula gives
the same overall increases for devolved programmes per head of
population in all four parts of the United Kingdom including England.
It is however the case that in terms of the percentage increase
in identifiable spending, as a consequence of how the Barnett
Formula works, there will have been a higher percentage increase
in identifiable expenditure in the Eastern region in recent years
due to the general uplift in public expenditure than has been
the case in Scotland. All changes to government spending are obviously
decided during the spending reviews and details are then published
in the spending review documentation. The substantive point rests
that in terms of the general uplift in public expenditure we have
seen in recent years across the United Kingdom the effect has
been to see a higher percentage uplift within the region he identifies
as part of England than has been the case in Scotland, given that
prior to the establishment of the Barnett Formula more than 30
years ago there was a disparity in terms of—
Q70 Mr Walker: I am sorry but that
was not my question. My question was: how can you justify a difference
in expenditure per head of £2,401 between my constituent
in Broxbourne and your constituent in your Scottish seat? I just
want the answer to that. How can you justify that difference of
£2,401? It is a lot of money.
Mr Alexander: Because there is
a settled basis on which decisions are made across the United
Kingdom in terms of public expenditure. The Barnett Formula is
the formula by which changes are allocated on a pound for pound
basis. The existence of the Barnett Formula has not been a subject
of contention between our parties for a number of years. It is
now the fact that the Conservative Party has chosen to make this
an issue. The relative expenditure in Scotland reflects the service
provision established in Scotland over a number of years and the
Government have no plans to change the Barnett Formula.
Q71 David Mundell: Just so it is
on the record, the Rt Hon Member for Witney has made it very clear
that the Conservative Party has no plans to review the Barnett
Formula. In that context, can the Secretary of State tell me his
view on whether he thinks the continuation of the Barnett Formula
would be sustainable if the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in
Scotland has his way and the tartan tax powers are used to reduce
income tax in Scotland? Do you think in that context politically
that the Barnett Formula would be sustainable?
Mr Alexander: I have been invited
to imagine certain bizarre scenarios in the course of the last
hour and a half but a Liberal Democrat Party able to dictate the
full gamut of fiscal policies on the basis of having triumphed
in the Scottish Parliament elections is one fantasy too many even
for me at this late hour. The substantive point remains however.
I welcome the commitment which has been reiterated today by the
honourable gentleman in relation to his party's commitment to
the Barnett Formula. It might be a view that he would like to
share with his near neighbour on the Committee. I am sure that
will make for an interesting discussion but I have nothing further
to add to the points I have made in relation to the Barnett Formula
already.
Q72 Chairman: Secretary of State,
Minister and Dr Wildgoose, thank you for your attendance today
and for answering our questions. Before I declare the session
closed, do you wish to say anything in conclusion, perhaps on
areas not covered already during the questioning?
Mr Alexander: No, I should simply
place on record the fact, as Dr Wildgoose emphasised, that if
there are specific technical questions, in particular in relation
to the accounts at the back of the report, we shall endeavour
to answer the Committee's questions in written correspondence.
Chairman: Thank you very much Secretary
of State.
4 Note by Witness: The Order reinforces the
status quo which has existed since 1970 with regard to
representatives of local authorities on the Council. Since the
Tweed Fisheries Act 1969 there has been a majority of Commissioners
on the River Tweed Council appointed by Local Authorities. What
the Scotland Act (River Tweed) Order 2006 will do is change the
status of proprietors of rights to fishing on the River. Until
this Order, they were all Commissioners, but only those who were
elected by their peers became Councillors. All owners will now
be classed as Proprietors, and only those elected by their peers
will become Commissioners. The majority on the Commission will
continue to be those appointed by the relevant local authorities. Back
| 
