DOCSLIB.ORG

Grant to Scottish Government and Scotland Office Funding Scottish Government

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grant to Scottish Government and Scotland Office Funding Scottish Government Departmental Spending Grant to Scottish Government and Scotland Office funding Scottish Government Day-to-day Spending (Resource DEL) Breakdown of increase to in-year budget, £m Trends Since the 2015 SR, the Scottish Government’s Resource DEL has been reduced to reflect the devolution of taxes (stamp duty, landfill tax and income tax). The reductions (known as “block grant adjustments”). The Scottish Government now determines its own policies and rates for devolved taxes, although in the case of income tax, the amounts collected under rates set by the Scottish Government is collected by HMRC and passed over to the Scottish Government separately Increase in budget: 8% 1 2 Scottish Govt represents 5% of total Resource DEL Long-term spending trends (£m, nominal) In-year changes The largest change in the Supplementary Estimates come from £724 million in HM Treasury funding. The majority of this (76%) comes from student loans ring-fence funding of £550 million. This figure also includes £11 million funding in respect of the Apprenticeship Levy, £42 million Block Grant Adjustment in respect of the fiscal framework (which is in turn determined by Barnett Consequentials) and £21 million for re-profiling of Business Rates. There is a £321 million increase as a result of Barnett Consequentials. This is mainly driven by Budget 2018 announcements feeding through the Barnett formula. Notably, however, this also includes £78 million for NHS pay awards and a number of Departmental Reserve Claims (DHSC, MOJ, DfT) that amount to around £135 million. On 4 March 2019 the Government announced a £1.6 billion ‘Stronger Towns Fund’ to boost growth and give communities a greater say in their future after Brexit. IFS analysis indicates that this is in fact not additional funding but a re-allocation of existing funding. As a result, it does not feature in the 1 Final budget at Supplementary Estimates 2018-19 Supplementary Estimate as a Barnett Consequential. 2 Initial budget as at Main Estimates 2018-19 Scottish Government Investment Spending (Capital DEL) Scottish Govt 6 % of total Capital DEL Breakdown of changes to in-year budget, £m Trends Since the 2015 Spending Review settlement, the capital budget has increased by 20% in real-terms, driven partially by additional funds for City Deals and overall increases from UK Government funding that has fed through into Barnett Consequentials. Funding is expected to continue to increase in the 2019-20 period, rising to £4.2 billion. Overall, there has been a real terms increase of 20% in the Scottish Government’s capital DEL budget since 2015-16 Increase in budget: 3% 1 2 Long-term spending trends (£m, nominal) In-year change Barnett Consequentials of £165 million are the biggest driver of capital changes in the Supplementary Estimate, which in itself iflargely driven by changes made in the Budget 2018 (resulting in a £90 million uplift for Scotland). Other funding of £35 million is most made up of additional City Deal funding (£15 million for Glasgow, £15 million for re-profiled Aberdeen City Deal expenditure and £3 million for Stirling). The capital increases were slightly offset by an £87 million re-profiling of capital transactions, due to financial transactions spending re-profiled from 2018-19 to 2020-21. 1 Initial budget as at Main Estimates 2018-19 (April 2018) 2 Final budget at Supplementary Estimates 2018-19 (Feb 2019) Scottish Government The Barnett Formula Change (rise or fall) in Resource DEL budget determined by UK government Extra funding available Population share to the governments of Share of change related to Share of change related to (compared to England or DEVOLVED FUNCTIONS Scotland, Wales and functions RESERVED TO England and Wales) Northern Ireland (e.g., health) UK GOVERNMENT (may also be a (e.g., defence) spending cut) Scotland’s population compared to England’s: 2010 Spending Review: 10.03% 2015 Spending Review: 9.85% This reduction in population share will mean slightly smaller increases and decreases in funding for Scotland from the Barnett Formula than would have resulted if These funds can be spent on the share had remained as before. ANY DEVOLVED FUNCTION Example: Extra Increase of £100m in 75% relates to NO CHANGE TO THE UK Departments’ functions which are 9.85% £7.388m BLOCK GRANT Resource DEL budget. devolved; 25% are UK (Scotland’s population to Scottish provided to Scotland, reserved functions. compared to England) government Wales and Northern Block grant adjustments: in addition block grant adjustments can be made: reductions where taxes are Ireland devolved or additions where welfare is devolved..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Code of Fundraising Practice
    Code of Fundraising Practice What is the Code of Fundraising Practice? The Code of Fundraising Practice outlines the standards expected of all charitable fundraising organisations across the UK. The standards were originally developed by the fundraising community through the work of the Institute of Fundraising (IoF) and Public Fundraising Association (PFRA). The Fundraising Regulator recognises the important contribution made by the Institute of Fundraising in developing the Code of Fundraising Practice. In 2015, a Review of Fundraising Regulation chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington recommended that responsibility for the Code be transferred to a new Fundraising Regulator to safeguard the independence of fundraising regulation. The Code was transferred to the Fundraising Regulator at its launch on 7th July 2016. Decisions on changes to the Code are made by the Fundraising Regulator’s Standards Committee in consultation with the fundraising community. The conduct of fundraising organisations MUST* be legal and MUST be open, honest and respectful. We have used “MUST*” and “MUST NOT*” where there is a legal requirement and “MUST” and “MUST NOT”(no asterisk) where there is no legal requirement but the Fundraising Regulator is treating the issue as a professional standard to be met by fundraising organisations. How are complaints about fundraising handled? Any complaints about a charity’s fundraising should be made to the Fundraising Regulator. The Fundraising Regulator acts as an independent public complaints system for the self-regulatory scheme, offering a system of redress for the public. The Fundraising Regulator also sets the professional standards for face to face and door to door fundraising (the street and door to door rulebooks).
    [Show full text]
  • The Fiscal Framework 07 November 2016 16/88 Anouk Berthier
    The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Parliament Infor mation C entre l ogos. Financial Scrutiny Unit Briefing The Fiscal Framework 07 November 2016 16/88 Anouk Berthier This briefing explains the agreement between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government on the Scottish government's fiscal framework. This includes how the block grant will be calculated, what new borrowing powers will be available to the Scottish Government and the arrangements for independent fiscal scrutiny. The briefing also discusses the block grant adjustment for 2016-17 set out in the Draft Budget 2016-17. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 3 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................................ 4 THE SCOTLAND ACT 2016 .................................................................................................................................... 4 A “REVISED” FISCAL AND FUNDING FRAMEWORK FOR SCOTLAND .............................................................. 5 FISCAL GOVERNANCE IN SCOTLAND BEFORE AND AFTER THE FISCAL FRAMEWORK............................... 6 START DATES FOR THE POWERS ........................................................................................................................... 9 BLOCK GRANT AND ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Proposed Cost-Based Block Grant
    A Proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model for Wyoming School Finance Submitted by Management Analysis & Planning Associates, L.L.C. Submitted to Joint Appropriations Committee of the Wyoming Legislature James W. Guthrie Gerald C. Hayward James R. Smith Richard Rothstein Ronald W. Bennett Julia E. Koppich Ellis Bowman Lynn DeLapp Barbara Brandes Sandra Clark April 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i List of Figures ii Acknowledgments iii Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction 8 II. What the Court Decreed and How The Legislature Responded 14 III. The Model's Purposes 17 IV. Caveats: What This Report Does Not Cover 21 V. The Report's Analytic Procedures 22 VI. Structure of Wyoming's Current Education System 26 VII. Wyoming's Present School Finance Arrangements 31 VIII. A Strategy for Inferring "Costs" from Spending 36 IX. Model Components and Their Imputed Costs 40 X. Legislative Discretion 63 XI. Implementation Considerations 73 XII. Accounting and Information Collection Implications 75 XIII. Simulations 78 Appendix 81 LIST OF FIGURES Figure One: School District Size and Enrollment Distribution 27 Figure Two: Elementary School Size and Enrollment Distribution 28 Figure Three: Middle School Size and Enrollment Distribution 29 Figure Four: High School Size and Enrollment Distribution 30 Figure Five: Comparison of Current Wyoming Foundation Plan and Proposed Proposed Cost Based Block Grant 34 Figure Six: Proposed Grade Grouping and Enrollment Size Prototypes 41 Figure Seven: Cost Based Block Grant Model Costs Components 43 Figure Eight: Calculating Classroom Teacher Total Compensation Package 44 Figure Nine: Computation of Teacher Salary Adjustments for Units and Steps 45 Figure Ten: Teacher Salaries in States Neighboring Wyoming (1995-96) 46 Figure Eleven: Personnel Costs (Annual Salary and Fringe Benefits) Per FTE Position 47 Figure Twelve: Supply, Material and Equipment Costs 47 Figure Thirteen: School District Operations Costs 49 Acknowledgments This report is submitted to the Wyoming Legislature by Management Analysis & Planning Associates, L.L.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring Medicaid Through a Swap: an Alternative to a Block Grant
    Restructuring Medicaid through aT Swap:ITLE An Alternative to a Block Grant Authors John Holahan Date April 2011 Medicaid will clearly contribute to the ongoing Introduction federal deficit problem. The United States is now engaged in a major In response to the deficit problem, Congressman policy debate about the future of entitlement Paul Ryan has proposed that Medicaid be turned programs, including the Medicaid program. There into a block grant with fixed allocations of federal is a widespread belief that these programs are funds to states. The block grant would be based contributing to growing federal debt and without on current expenditures in 2012 and grow at the some reform will continue to do so for a long time. rate of the consumer price index plus population. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid This is about 3.0 percentage points each year Services studies (CMS actuaries) and the below the expected rate of increase in Medicaid Congressional Budget Office (CBO) project spending. A block grant would clearly save money Medicaid spending to continue growing faster than at the federal level but would shift a large share of the economy. CMS actuaries project Medicaid the cost of Medicaid programs to states. States spending to increase by about 7 percent per year have generally controlled spending per enrollee at from 2010 to 2019, with the exception of an rates that are favorable in comparison to other 18 percent growth in 2014, when the Medicaid payers. Most Medicaid spending growth has been expansion component of the Affordable Care Act 1 due to enrollment growth, particularly during the (ACA) is implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • IMPLEMENTING the CHILD CARE and DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REAUTHORIZATION: a GUIDE for STATES National Women’S Law Center & CLASP
    EXPANDING THEPOSSIBILITIES EXPANDING Implementing the Child Care and Development Block Grant Reauthorization: A Guide for States Hannah Matthews, Karen Schulman, Julie Vogtman, Christine Johnson-Staub, and Helen Blank THE CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY (CLASP) advocates for public policies that reduce poverty, improve the lives of poor people, and create ladders to economic security for all, regardless of race, gender, or geography. CLASP targets large-scale opportunities to reform federal and state programs, funding, and service systems and then works on the ground for effective implementation. CLASP’s research, analysis, and advocacy foster new ideas, position governments, and advocate to better serve low-income people. THE NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER (NWLC) is a non-profit organization working to expand the possibilities for women and their families by removing barriers based on gender, opening opportunities, and helping women and their families lead economically secure, healthy, and fulfilled lives—with a special focus on the needs of low-income women and their families. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This guide would not have been possible without the generous support of the Alliance for Early Success and the Foundation for Child Development. We are also grateful to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Early Childhood Funders’ Collaborative, Ford Foundation, George Gund Foundation, Heising-Simons Foundation, Irving Harris Foundation, JPB Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Moriah Fund, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and an anonymous donor for their support of the child care and early education work at CLASP and NWLC. Karen Schulman is Senior Policy Analyst at the National Women’s Law Center; Hannah Matthews is Director of Child Care and Early Education at CLASP; Julie Vogtman is Senior Counsel & Director of Income Support Policy at the National Women’s Law Center; Christine Johnson-Staub is Senior Policy Analyst at CLASP; and Helen Blank is Director of Child Care and Early Learning at the National Women’s Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Wales's Fiscal Future
    101 Wales’s Fiscal Future Eurfyl ap Gwilym In this paper I give a high-level description of how the revenue of government in Wales, and in particular the Welsh Government, is raised, the pattern of public spending, and sources of taxation. I then go on to anticipate the fiscal changes that could well take place in Wales in the coming years. Constitutional developments Fiscal developments in Wales, and by this is meant developments in taxation and public spending, cannot be divorced from the wider context of constitutional changes. Such developments are by their nature slow but, as will be seen, measured against the wider sweep of Welsh history, the last sixty years have witnessed rapid and accelerating change. In 1951, David Maxwell Fyffe was appointed as the first United Kingdom government minister with responsibility for Wales. In 1964, James Griffiths, the veteran MP for Llanelli, become the first Secretary of State for Wales with a seat in the United Kingdom cabinet. Initially, the responsibilities of the Secretary of State were very limited but over time, as so often happen in such cases, additional responsibilities were devolved. However, while the Welsh Office was responsible for spending on decentralized programmes, the Secretary of State had no powers over taxation or borrowing. The funds allocated by the United Kingdom government to pay for decentralized public services were the result of negotiations between the Treasury and the Welsh Office. Thus the arrangements were similar to that for other United Kingdom departments of state where every year departmental ministers would negotiate their budgets with the Treasury, which had responsibility for the overall macroeconomic framework.
    [Show full text]
  • First Annual Report on the Implementation And
    SECOND ANNUAL REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF PART 3 (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SCOTLAND ACT 2012 Second Annual Report on the Implementation and Operation of Part 3 (Financial Provisions) of the Scotland Act 2012 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 33(1)(b) of the Scotland Act 2012 Presented to the Scottish Parliament pursuant to Section 33(1)(c) of the Scotland Act 2012 May 2014 SG/2014/53 © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ or email [email protected]. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications and on our website at www.gov.uk/scotland-office Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474102773 Web ISBN 9781474102780 Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2641447 05/14 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum CONTENTS Chapter Page Foreword 6 1. Introduction 8 2. Scotland Act 2012 Implementation Programme 10 3. Scottish rate of income tax 13 4. Scottish tax on land transactions 17 5. Scottish tax on disposals to landfill 19 6. Borrowing powers 21 7. Power to devolve further existing taxes and create new devolved taxes 23 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Scotland's Finances: Key Facts and Figures
    Scotland’s Finances Key facts and figures for 2019-20 Competent, financially prudent Scottish Government Our financial system in 2019-20 THIS PART OF THE GUIDE SETS OUT KEY INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM STANDS IN 2019-20. THE NEXT PART SETS OUT HOW IT IS CHANGING. DEVOLVED FINANCES SCOTTISH BUDGET l The Scottish Government is accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the people in Scotland for its use of public money. IN 2019-20 IS l Scottish Ministers decide spending plans that have to be approved by Holyrood. l Since 2009-10, the Scottish Government has produced its accounts on the basis of international accounting standards. £42.6 BILLION l The Scottish Government’s latest l For financial year 2017-18 the BARNETT FORMULA published accounts are for Scottish Government, its Executive 2017-18 and they were given a Agencies and the Crown Office clean bill of health by Audit and Procurator Fiscal Service Scotland. This was the 13th made 98.2% of all payments consecutive year they received an within 10 days. unqualified opinion. The 2018-19 l For all taxes set, raised or accounts will be published in assigned in Scotland, WESTMINSTER DECIDES HOW MUCH IT WILL SPEND IN September 2019. the block grant is reduced. ENGLAND ON PUBLIC SERVICES. HOLYROOD IS AUTOMATICALLY ALLOCATED A POPULATION SHARE OF CHANGES IN SPENDING TAXES SET IN SCOTLAND IN 2019-20: ON PUBLIC SERVICES DEVOLVED TO SCOTLAND. SCOTTISH NON-DOMESTIC MONEY IN THE MONEY OUT INCOME TAX RATES BLOCK GRANT, SCOTTISH SPENDING ON PRIORITIES EU FUNDS, CONSOLIDATED INCLUDING SCHOOLS,
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Fundraising Practice Effective October 2019 About the Fundraising Regulator
    Code of Fundraising Practice Effective October 2019 About the Fundraising Regulator We are the independent regulator of all fundraising carried out by or on behalf of charitable, philanthropic and benevolent organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We also regulate fundraising in Scotland carried out by charities registered in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Our role includes maintaining and developing the UK-wide Code of Fundraising Practice and investigating complaints from members of the public about fundraising practice if these cannot be resolved by the charities themselves. Effective October 2019 Contents Introduction 7 Part 1: 10 Standards which apply to all fundraising 1. Behaviour when fundraising 11 1.1. General behaviour 11 1.2. Asking for support 11 1.3. Informing donors and treating people fairly 11 2. Responsibilities of charitable institutions and those who govern them 13 2.1. General duties 14 2.2. Risk assessment 15 2.3. Accepting, refusing and returning donations 16 2.4. Complaints and concerns about fundraising 17 2.5. Paying fundraisers 18 2.6. Solicitation statements for paid employees, officers and trustees of charitable institutions and connected companies 19 2.7. Using funds 20 2.8. Accounting and reporting 22 3. Processing personal data (information) 23 3.1. General requirements for personal data 24 3.2. Storing and maintaining personal data 25 3.3. Sharing and selling personal data 27 3.4. Case studies 28 3.5. Direct marketing 28 3.6. Requests from people to access their personal data 32 4. Processing donations 33 4.1. Cash 33 4.2. Tills 34 4.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Block Grants: Perspectives and Controversies
    Block Grants: Perspectives and Controversies Updated February 21, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R40486 Block Grants: Perspectives and Controversies Summary Block grants provide state and local governments funding to assist them in addressing broad purposes, such as community development, social services, public health, or law enforcement, and generally provide them more control over the use of the funds than categorical grants. Block grant advocates argue that block grants increase government efficiency and program effectiveness by redistributing power and accountability through decentralization and partial devolution of decisionmaking authority from the federal government to state and local governments. Advocates also view them as a means to reduce the federal deficit. For example, the Trump Administration’s FY2020 budget request recommended that Medicaid be set “on a sound fiscal path ... by putting States on equal footing with the Federal Government to implement comprehensive Medicaid financing reform through a per capita cap or block grant.... [the proposal would] empower States to design State-based solutions that prioritize Medicaid dollars for the most vulnerable and support innovation.” The Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget request added that “Medicaid reform would restore balance, flexibility, integrity, and accountability to the State-Federal partnership.” Block grant critics argue that block grants can undermine the achievement of national objectives and can be used as a “backdoor” means to reduce government spending on domestic issues. For example, opponents of converting Medicaid into a block grant argue that “block granting Medicaid is simply code for deep, arbitrary cuts in support to the most vulnerable seniors, individuals with disabilities, and low-income children.” Block grant critics also argue that block grants’ decentralized nature makes it difficult to measure their performance and to hold state and local government officials accountable for their decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Funding in Education
    Published on Eurydice (https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice) Funding for education at all levels in Wales is provided by the Welsh Government [1], which determines overall spending priorities. The Welsh Government has four main sources of funding: funds which are allocated to it by the UK Government money raised in Wales through taxation and other charges borrowing (e.g. by local authorities (LAs) [2] and other public bodies to finance their capital spending) money received from the European Union up to the end of UK’s EU membership UK Government funding for all three devolved administrations [3] (DAs) (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) is determined as part of the regular Spending Review, and in accordance with the policies set out in the Statement of Funding Policy (2020). [4] Funds are allocated as a block grant and each devolved administration is free to determine how this grant is allocated in its own budget. Since the late 1970s, annual changes in the block grant have been determined by the ‘Barnett Formula [5]’. The UK Government provides other grants outside the block grant. These are for less predictable demand-driven spending. Changes in these grants are not determined by the Barnett Formula, but are negotiated by the UK and Welsh Governments. The block grant is paid to the UK Government’s Secretary of State for Wales, who retains the funding needed to run the Wales Office [6] and transfers the balance to the Welsh Government. This forms the Welsh Consolidated Fund and the Welsh Budget sets out how this Fund will be spent.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Policy & Procedure Manual
    WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM Community Services Program Guidance Manual November 2019 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 4 1.1: CSBG Overview 4 1.2: WY Dept. of Health, Public Health Division, Community Services Program 4 1.3: Grantees and Sub-grantees 5 1.4: Purpose 6 1.5: Application for Funds 7 Chapter 2: Funding 7 2.1: Funding 7 2.2: Discretionary Funding 8 2.3: Limitations on the Use of Funds 8 2.4: Purchase and Distribution of Funds 8 2.5: Depletion of Funding 9 2.6: Termination and Reduction of Funding 10 2.7: Expenditure Reports 10 Chapter 3: Administration 11 3.1: Non-Discrimination Clause 11 3.2: CSBG Act 11 3.3: Documentation and Record Keeping Processes 11 3.4: Confidentiality of Client Information 12 3.5: Suspension and Debarment 12 3.6: Conflict of Interest 12 3.7: Title VI and HIPAA Compliance 12 Chapter 4: Reporting 12 4.1: Performance Management 12 4.2: Organizational Standards 13 4.3: Results Oriented Management and Accountability 14 4.4: National Performance Indicators 14 4.5: Community Needs Assessment Planning Implementation 15 4.6: Community Action Plan 15 4.7: Annual Report 16 Chapter 5: Program Eligibility 17 5.1: Application for Services and Eligibility 17 5.2: Method of Eligibility Determination 18 5.3: Financial Eligibility 18 5.4: Verification of Income 18 5.5: Verification for Zero Income Households 19 5.6: Eligibility Period 19 5.7: Changes in Circumstance 20 5.8: Case Closure 20 Chapter 6: Grievance and Appeals 20 6.1: Grievances 20 6.2: Fair Hearing Process 20 6.3: Appeals
    [Show full text]