HC Deb 08 May 2001 vol 368 cc7-8
4. Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

What discussions she has held with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the Barnett formula. [159292]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell)

I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Deputy Prime Minister, on a variety of matters.

Mr. Salmond

Does not the Secretary of State find it ironic that, at a time when she is accusing the Tory party of wanting to cut £8 billion of public spending, the Deputy Prime Minister is aiming to reduce spending in Scotland by £1,000 a head? Even London brokers say that Scotland's surplus of revenue over expenditure comes to £100 million a month. Should not the Scottish Parliament therefore have control over revenue, rather than being at the mercy of an anti-Scottish cabal in the Cabinet?

Did not the Deputy Prime Minister say that the Barnett formula was not set in stone, and forecast blood on the carpet? Why was No. 10 so anxious to say that right hon. Gentleman was not talking about the Barnett formula, if not because of the anxiety of Labour Members to keep the issue quiet until the election is safely over?

Mrs. Liddell

One thing that one can say with certainty is that the hon. Gentleman is never happier than when he is whingeing for Scotland. This Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula, and we have delivered £8.5 billion more in public expenditure for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman's party's plans for Scotland would mean a reduction of about £500 million in expenditure on health, £500 million less expenditure on local authorities and £500 million less for other services such as transport, housing and economic development. The health service in Scotland has benefited to the tune of more than £400 million. The SNP's plans for Scotland would have meant an increase in health expenditure of a puny £38 million. We would take the hon. Gentleman much more seriously—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I ask the right hon. Lady to sit down.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

If the right hon. Lady is right in her view of the firmness of the Government in respect of the Barnett formula, will she explain why, when I asked her Department in writing on 11 January about its intentions towards the formula, it took two and a half months to deliver the completely anodyne reply that the Government supported the retention of the formula? Why was there that delay if the Government were not considering scrapping it?

Mrs. Liddell

I was not in the Department on 11 January. We have discussed the matter twice at Question Time—perhaps on occasions when the hon. Gentleman was not here.

Mr. Grieve

As usual, the right hon. Lady is less than frank about the position. Why did it take so long to answer the question? Is not the reality that the Government knew very well on 11 January that they were considering scrapping the formula and were trying to put that forward in a way that might be presentable? Would the Government not be reneging on a key commitment that they made in the past by scrapping the formula, which would be part of the complete dissolution of this country that is being brought about, through the agency of the Deputy Prime Minister, as part of the regional policy?

Mrs. Liddell

I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman's colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind made it clear that he could not guarantee maintaining spending in Scotland; this was the man who said that the poll tax was a very good experiment for Scotland.

The Government have no plans to change the Barnett formula and have increased public expenditure in Scotland by £8.5 billion. The Conservative party would cut £24 million from every constituency in Scotland if they were elected.