Advertisement

Limitations on Government Debt and Deficits in the United Kingdom

  • Tony ProsserEmail author
Chapter
  • 266 Downloads
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 20)

Abstract

Control of taxation and of public expenditure is in principle a central function of the UK Parliament. However, the practical powers of Parliament are limited, especially in relation to borrowing and the planning of public expenditure. In the case of borrowing, there is some degree of scrutiny through the EU processes, and the creation of the Office for Budget Responsibility has greatly increased transparency. As regards expenditure, internal controls administered by the UK Treasury, in particular now through the process of the Spending Review, are in practice much more important than advance Parliamentary scrutiny.

A striking characteristic of the UK is the near-total absence of substantive legal constraints on the ability of central government to run deficits or increase debt. These currently take the form of provisions in the Charter for Budget Responsibility, but are not legally enforceable and remain largely symbolic.

Although the UK has privatised almost all its public enterprises it also has a variety of forms of extended government. Classification as public or private is complex and is the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics; it may have a substantial effect on the size of public debt. The financial autonomy of local government is severely limited. Scotland, after voting to remain part of the UK in September 2014, is being given substantial further taxation and borrowing powers, and further powers are being given to Wales.

Keywords

Central Government Public Expenditure Network Rail Fiscal Responsibility Private Finance Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bailey, S. H., Cross on Principles of Local Government Law. 3rd ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn, R. and Kennon, A., Griffith and Ryle on Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures. 2nd ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Brazier, A. and Ram, V., The Fiscal Maze: Parliament, Government and Public Money. London: Hansard Society, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, N. H., and Dorf, M. C., ‘How to Choose the Least Unconstitutional Option: Lessons for the President (and Others) from the Debt Ceiling Standoff. Columbia Law Review 2012; 112:1175–1243.Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, N. H., and Dorf, M. C., ‘Nullifying the Debt Ceiling Once and for All: Why the President Should Embrace the Least Unconstitutional Option’. (2012) 112 Columbia Law Review Sidebar, 2012, 112: 237–49.Google Scholar
  6. CIPFA, The Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (2011 edition) (CIPFA, 2011).Google Scholar
  7. Daintith T. and Page, A., The Executive in the Constitution: Structure, Autonomy and Internal Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Darling, A., Back from the Brink: 1,000 Days at Number 11. London: Atlantic Books, 2011.Google Scholar
  9. Economic Affairs Committee, ‘Private finance projects and off-balance sheet debt’, HL 63, 2009–10.Google Scholar
  10. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Making Fair Financial Decisions: An Assessment of HM Treasury’s 2010 Spending Review Conducted Under Section 31 of the 2006 Equality Act Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2012.Google Scholar
  11. Erskine May, T, Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24th ed. London: LexisNexis, 2011.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission, Communication from the Commission, Reinforcing Economic Policy Coordination. COM(2010) 250 final, 12.5.2010.Google Scholar
  13. Gill, S., ‘New Constitutionalism, Democratisation and Global Political Economy’ in R. Wilkinson, ed., The Global Governance Reader London: Routledge, 2005 pp. 174–86.Google Scholar
  14. Harden, I and Lewis, N., The Noble Lie: The British Constitution and the Rule of Law. London: Hutchinson, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. Harden, I., White, F., and Hollingsworth, K., ‘Value for Money and Administrative Law’ Public Law. 1996:661–81.Google Scholar
  16. HM Government, Scotland Analysis: Financial Services and Banking (2013).Google Scholar
  17. HM Government, ‘Scotland in the United Kingdom: An Enduring Settlement’, (Cm 8990, 2015).Google Scholar
  18. HM Treasury, Stability and Investment for the Long Term: Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998, (Cm 3978, 1998).Google Scholar
  19. HM Treasury, Alignment (Clear Line of Sight) Project, (Cm 7567, 2009).Google Scholar
  20. HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010 (Cm 7942, 2010).Google Scholar
  21. HM Treasury, Spending Round 2013 (Cm 8639, 2013).Google Scholar
  22. HM Treasury, Charter for Budget Responsibility (March 2014 update) (2014).Google Scholar
  23. HM Treasury, UK Debt and the Scotland Independence Referendum (2014).Google Scholar
  24. HM Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs, Tax Policy Making: A New Approach (2010).Google Scholar
  25. HM Treasury and Wales Office, Empowerment and Responsibility: Devolving Financial Powers to Wales (2013).Google Scholar
  26. House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula, ‘The Barnett Formula’, HL 139, 2008–09.Google Scholar
  27. Independent Budget Review Panel, Independent Budget Review 2010 (2010).Google Scholar
  28. Jaconelli, J., Tax Legislation, Forestalling and Economic Information. Public Law, [2013]:737–54.Google Scholar
  29. King, J. A., The Justiciability of Resource Allocation. Modern Law Review 2007;70(2):197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leigh, I., The Changing Nature of Local and Regional Democracy. In J. Jowell and D. Oliver (eds), The Changing Constitution, 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp. 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liaison Committee, ‘Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny’ HC 426, 2007–08, paras 27–8.Google Scholar
  32. Loughlin, M., Legality and Locality: The Role of Law in Central-Local Government Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  33. National Audit Office, ‘Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities’, HC 88, 212–13.Google Scholar
  34. Office for Budget Responsibility, Fiscal Sustainability Report 2012 (2012).Google Scholar
  35. Office for Budget Responsibility, Working Paper No. 7: Crisis and Consolidation in the Public Finances (2014).Google Scholar
  36. Office for National Statistics, Public Sector Interventions in the Financial Crisis (2009).Google Scholar
  37. Office for National Statistics, UK National Accounts sector and transaction classification: A summary of the classification process (2012).Google Scholar
  38. Office for National Statistics, Classification of Network Rail under European System of Accounts 2010 (2013).Google Scholar
  39. Office for National Statistics, 2013 Review of Public Sector Finance Statistics: Consultation Response (2014).Google Scholar
  40. Office for National Statistics, Statistical Bulletin: Public Sector Finances November 2014 (December 2014).Google Scholar
  41. Prosser, T. An Opportunity to Take a More Fundamental Look at the Role of Government in Society: The Spending Review as Regulation’ Public Law 2011;[2011]:596–610.Google Scholar
  42. Prosser, T. The Economic Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Public Accounts Committee. Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities, HC 1006, 2012–13.Google Scholar
  44. Public Accounts Committee. Procuring New Trains, HC 674, 2014–15.Google Scholar
  45. Public Administration Committee’ Strategic Thinking in Government: Without National Strategy, Can Viable Government Strategy Emerge? HC 1625, 2010–12.Google Scholar
  46. Scottish Government. Scottish Budget; Draft Budget 2013–14, (2012).Google Scholar
  47. Scottish Parliament Finance Committee. Report on the Review of the Budget Process, SP 315 (2009).Google Scholar
  48. Scottish Parliament Finance Committee. ‘Budget Strategy Phase’ SP 455 (2010).Google Scholar
  49. Scottish Parliament Finance Committee. ‘Strategic Budget Scrutiny’ SP 283 (2009).Google Scholar
  50. Scottish Parliament Finance Committee. ‘Report on Draft Budget 2013–14’, SP 231 (2012)Google Scholar
  51. Scottish Parliament Information Centre. Research Note RM 00/31: The Barnett Formula (2000).Google Scholar
  52. Scottish Parliament Information Centre. Financial Scrutiny Unit Briefing: Guide to the Scottish Budget – Subject Profile (2011).Google Scholar
  53. Smith Commission. Report of the Smith Commission for Further Devolution of Powers to the Scottish Parliament (2014).Google Scholar
  54. Treasury Select Committee. The New Fiscal Framework and the Comprehensive Spending Review. HC 360, 1997–98.Google Scholar
  55. Treasury Select Committee. National Statistics: The Classification of Network Rail. HC 154, 2002–03.Google Scholar
  56. Treasury Select Committee. The 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review: Prospects and Processes. HC 27, 2006–7.Google Scholar
  57. Treasury Select Committee. The 2006 Pre-Budget Report. HC 115, 2006–07.Google Scholar
  58. Treasury Select Committee. Spending Review 2010. HC 544, 2010–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Bristol Law SchoolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations