What is detriment?

The draft legislation published in response to the report of the Smith Commission makes much of the concept of 'no detriment' - that the actions of one government should not harm another. However, explains CCC Director Michael Keating, that is considerably easier said than done. 

Both the Smith Commission and the new UK Government document Scotland in the United Kingdom emphasise the need for ‘no detriment’ in any new settlement. This essentially means that neither government should suffer from decisions taken elsewhere and has two aspects.

The first concerns the initial transfers of powers and adjustment of the block grant so that nobody loses out in the process. It is straightforward in principle but requires some very difficult calculations and predictions in practice.

The second is that in future neither government should suffer financially from policy decisions made by the other. A reverse variant is that each government should get the full benefit from its own policy decisions. While fair in principle, it is a minefield. Scotland in the United Kingdom spells out the implications of this in the field of welfare such as the effects of tax changes on welfare or ‘passporting’, where a devolved benefit may be linked to a reserved one. More difficult is what to do should Scottish employment polices cut unemployment and reduce demand for welfare, which would benefit the UK (which pays the main benefits) but not the Scottish budget. The paper mentions this one but does not resolve it. Another example arises in on-shore gas and oil licensing, which is now to be devolved. The Scottish Government might take a restrictive line on this (including on fracking), since it is the UK Government that would lose the potential revenues (these being reserved).

Detriment could be read more widely to cover tax competition. So if Scotland were to abolish Air Passenger Duty and divert traffic from Newcastle to Edinburgh airport, England might complain about the lost revenue. Wealthy residents could be lured across the border by different taxes on high incomes.

It has been suggested that, as long as the Barnett formula exists, decisions on student fees and NHS organization in England affect Scotland, a view shared by both unionists and the SNP and which bedevils the issue of English Votes for English Laws.

My colleague Robert Young of the University of Western Ontario tells me that this kind of detriment happens regularly in Canada. The federal government tightens sentencing rules and criminals spend longer in provincial jails.  Provinces cut infrastructure spending, and the federal government pays more in unemployment benefits. Changes in the shared income tax base are set by the federal government but affect provincial revenues.

Even more potentially wide-ranging is the underlying assumption that the overall level of public spending in Scotland should be broadly in line with that of the rest of the UK, including spending cuts. As the paper puts it, ‘Therefore the fiscal framework must require Scotland to contribute proportionally to fiscal consolidation at the pace set out by the UK Government across devolved and reserved areas.’ This appears to go beyond the requirement that any extra expenditure in Scotland be financed by Scottish revenues (which is already covered by the balanced budget requirement) and might be read in conjunction with the Conservative Party’s ambition to reduce public spending to around 35 per cent of GDP. In that case, it is not just the SNP but the Scottish Labour Party that might have concerns.

Determining what should count as detriment will remain politically contentious and technically complex.

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

Latest blogs

  • 22nd January 2019

    The UK is increasingly polarised by Brexit identities and they seem to have become stronger than party identities, a new academic report finds. Only one in 16 people did not have a Brexit identity, while more than one in five said they had no party identity. Sir John Curtice’s latest analysis of public opinion on a further referendum finds there has been no decisive shift in favour of another referendum. The report, Brexit and public opinion 2019, by The UK in a Changing Europe, provides an authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date guide to public opinion on each of the key issues around Brexit. CCC Fellow, Dr Coree Brown Swan contributed a chapter on "the SNP, Brexit and the politics of independence"

  • 22nd January 2019

    In the papers accompanying the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill published at the end of 2018, the UK Government says that it is “exploring opportunities to co-design the final proposals with the devolved administrations.” There are clear benefits in having strong co-operation and collaboration across the UK in the oversight of our environmental law and performance. Yet the challenge of finding a way forward in terms of working together is substantial since each part of the UK is in a different position at present. Given where things stand today, it may be better to accept that a good resolution is not possible immediately and to revisit the issue at a later stage - so long as there is a strong commitment to return and not allow interim arrangements to become fixed. Colin Reid, Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Dundee examines the issues.

  • 17th January 2019

    Richard Parry assesses a memorable day in UK parliamentary history as the Commons splits 432-202 on 15 January 2019 against the Government's recommended Brexit route. It was the most dramatic night at Westminster since the Labour government’s defeat on a confidence motion in 1979.

  • 17th January 2019

    What is the Irish government’s Brexit wish-list? The suggestion that Irish unity, as opposed to safeguarding political and economic stability, is the foremost concern of the Irish government is to misunderstand and misrepresent the motivations of this key Brexit stakeholder, writes Mary C. Murphy (University College Cork).

  • 17th January 2019

    Brexit is in trouble but not because of the Irish backstop, argues the CCC's Michael Keating.

Read More Posts