Speech Supplimentry Budget Debate

Supplementary Budget Debate 10 July 2018

I just wanted to make three very brief points in this debate. Firstly, the first supplementary budget shows very small change from the original budget. If it showed substantial changes, we’d probably have a problem on our hands, and it would be very strange indeed if there was large blocks of money moving around. So, I think that’s what we’ve got to expect from the first supplementary budget.303

But whilst the changes are not substantial, I think it’s really good practice that the finance Secretary comes before the Finance Committee for scrutiny and we have a debate on it in this Chamber. I think that really is important that we carry on doing that rather than allowing, as the rules do, a letter from the Cabinet Secretary and a letter back from the Finance Committee. I’ve never been a great believer in sending letters between two parties is the best way of having a conversation, and things can get lost in translation. So, I’m really pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has continued the openness and transparency and willingness to engage, as his predecessor did, with the Finance Committee. 304

I think that's really good practice, but at some stage in the future, we will have a different finance Secretary and the Standing Orders allow the exchange to be conveyed solely by letter. I hope this practice, which the previous Cabinet Secretary brought in and the current Cabinet Secretary now follows, of producing a supplementary budget and appearing before the Finance Committee, is carried out by all future finance Secretaries, and then we have a Plenary debate on it, even if the Plenary debate consists mainly of people, or only of people, who are on the Finance Committee in the first place. But I think it’s important that we get a Plenary debate on it and that we do engage in that level of scrutiny.305

Secondly, transaction capital, which appears to be a Treasury method of keeping borrowing off the Government debt, does create huge difficulties. I welcome the fact that the Treasury has agreed to the Welsh Government’s request to carry forward £90 million unspent financial transaction funding provided in the UK autumn budget, in addition to Welsh reserve arrangements. This means that no funds have been returned to the Westminster Treasury. If we are giving signs of success for any Cabinet Secretary for finance, not sending any money back to the Westminster Treasury must be one of those things that you give as a ‘plus’ if you’re marking them, because sending money back to Westminster is the last thing we want to do.306

I quote the finance Secretary, who said to the Finance Committee,307

‘The restrictions on the use of financial transaction capital do make it an unwieldy instrument.’308

Following the ONS classification of housing associations and the subsequent need for legislation to get housing associations designated as not public sector organisations, it meant that, for a short time, transaction capital could not be used to support housing associations building homes.309

I welcome the first tranche of money that is being used to provide support for credit unions in Wales. I think there are very many of us, across parties, who are very supportive of credit unions, who provide for many people an opportunity to borrow at a level that they couldn't anywhere else, where they cannot get money out of the high street banks, but there's no shortage of doorstep lenders prepared to lend them money at obscene interest rates. So, it's a small amount of money, which would be very useful to individual credit unions in the transition they're having to make in the rules that are newly being applied to them, and in terms of capital-to-loans ratios. It's probably the difference in some cases between them being able to carry on trading or not, but it really is important that we do support these credit unions, because for too many people it's a choice between a credit union or a doorstep lender.310

The other problem with transaction capital is that it is not understood by the public that the money cannot be spent on schools and hospitals. You've got this money, why aren't you spending it on our key priorities—roads, schools and hospitals?311

Finally, an issue that does not directly affect the Welsh Government budget but affects total Government borrowing is the student loan fund. Student loans form part of the annually managed expenditure, which has increased by £22.5 million—£19.1 million revenue and £3.4 million capital. The Cabinet Secretary clarified that HM Treasury supplies the funding for the student loan book in Wales and that work is being undertaken at a UK level regarding the classification of student loans. We are less exposed in Wales, because we have a different student support system, which is more generous in terms of the grants we give, rather than the loans that have to be repaid. But, to me, the student loans book is like a giant Ponzi-type scheme—it keeps on increasing. You're lending money to people who will almost certainly never pay all of it back, and most will default. The basic tax rate for former students with loans is 8 per cent than the rest of the population. If we added 8 per cent to income tax for everybody else, there'd be uproar, but adding it for people who are graduates seems to be allowed. When will the Westminster Government realise the student loan scheme does not work and is not financially able to continue without building up bigger and bigger debt? It doesn't work. We need to have a new system of funding students