§ 4. Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)When she last discussed the future of the Barnett formula with Treasury Ministers. [25073]
§ The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes)My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues. I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House for the third time that there are no Government plans to review the Barnett formula.
§ Mr. WintertonI ask my supplementary question as a totally committed Conservative and Unionist Member of the House. Does the Minister accept that the Barnett formula was introduced some two decades ago as a temporary measure, and that it currently produces levels of public expenditure per capita in Scotland far greater than in many areas of England, where there are equal problems of poverty and deprivation? For that reason, does he not believe that the current situation is unfair? Although he speaks as a Scottish Minister, does he not believe that there should be a review and reform of the Barnett formula, despite his initial response to my question?
§ Mr. FoulkesI have never doubted the hon. Gentleman's Unionist credentials. One of the reasons why I enjoy Scottish questions is that I hear English Tories such as the hon. Gentleman say that the Barnett formula is far too generous to Scotland. I am fed up of hearing the other point of view—the moaning minnies, the whingers of the Scottish National party, saying that the formula is unfair to Scotland. The truth is that the Barnett formula is stable, flexible and fair. If the English Tories think that it is too generous and the SNP thinks that it is too mean, I think that it is just about right.
§ Mr. David Stewart (Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber)Does my hon. Friend agree that the Barnett formula has brought tremendous benefits to Scotland? For example, in 1997 when the Government came to power, 141 the Scottish Office spent £15 billion. Today, the Scottish Executive spends almost £21 billion. Is not that the benefit of Scotland being within the United Kingdom?
§ Mr. FoulkesThere speaks the real voice of Scotland. It is the success of the United Kingdom Government's economic strategy and our policies that enable the Scottish Executive to have the extra money to spend. An extra £3.4 billion of new money has been spent in Scotland over the period of the current spending review, plus an extra £200 million in last year's Budget, and, as if that were not enough, an extra £86 million in the pre-Budget review. I wish that some of those who try to pretend that they represent Scotland would understand, appreciate and acknowledge that.
§ Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham)As health spending comes under the terms of the Barnett formula, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether Scotland Ministers have had discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions or the Scottish Executive since 12 October last year on the subject of attendance allowance for the elderly receiving free personal care in Scotland, what advice they have given, and whether they would be prepared to publish the correspondence?
§ Mr. FoulkesI am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for asking me that question. I can therefore announce to the House that the Executive have announced today, after dialogue with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Whitehall Departments, that they will meet the full cost of delivering free personal care from within Executive resources.
§ Mrs. LaitI am delighted that the Scottish Executive have resolved the dilemma that they had with Whitehall, but that does not negate my question about the discussions that Scotland Office Ministers have had. For the sake of clarity, can the Minister tell us whether he or the Secretary of State backed the transfer of funds from Whitehall to Scotland or supported the Scottish Executive?
§ Mr. FoulkesI had a number of discussions with Malcolm Chisholm during the consideration by the care development review. I made the views of Whitehall extremely clear on every occasion.