Select Committee on Treasury Sixth Report


4  The allocation of spending between departments

Education

44. It is usual for the central focus of a Spending Review at the time of its announcement to be on allocations to particular departments. As we noted earlier, the Government has already pre-empted that announcement to some extent through early spending settlements.[99] In terms of quantity, the most important of these is the settlement for education which was announced in the 2007 Budget. Under this settlement, education spending will rise in real terms by 2.5% a year on average between 2007-08 and 2010-11.[100] Based on the Government's cautious assumptions about rates of economic growth for the purposes of public finance projections, total United Kingdom education spending over the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11 is forecast to grow fractionally below or around the growth rate of the economy.[101] Taking the period from 1997 to 2010-11 as a whole, spending on education is projected to have risen from 4.5% of GDP to 5.6% of GDP.[102]

45. Table 4 shows the United Kingdom education spending totals as a proportion of Total Managed Expenditure between 1996-97 and 2010-11.

Table 4: UK education spending as a proportion of Total Managed Expenditure, 1996-97 to 2010-11
Year
Proportion (%)
Year
Proportion (%)
1996-97
11.5
2004-05
12.7
1997-98
11.6
2005-06
12.8
1998-99
11.6
2006-07
12.9
1999-2000
11.9
2007-08
13.2
2000-01
12.2
2008-09(1)
13.2
2001-02
12.7
2009-10(1)
13.2
2002-03
12.5
2010-11(1)
13.4
2003-04
12.8

Sources: figures for UK education spending 1998-99 to 2006-07 taken from PESA 2007, Table 4.2, p 50; figure for UK education spending 2007-08 taken from PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21; figures for UK education spending 2008-09 to 2010-11 taken from Budget 2007, Table 6.4, p 158; figures for Total Managed Expenditure up to 2007-08 taken from PESA 2007, Table 4.2, p 50; figures for Total Managed Expenditure from 2008-09 to 2010-11 taken from Table 1 of this Report

Note: (1) based on approximation of Total Managed Expenditure contained in Table 1 of this Report

The forward projections for UK education spending rely on assumptions about some elements outside the Government's control—the levels of expenditure by local authorities and devolved administrations. Nevertheless, the figures in Table 4 suggest that the education spending settlement announced in the 2007 Budget will serve to consolidate the higher priority accorded to education since 1999-2000.

The Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs settlements

46. In the 2006 Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a Home Office spending settlement that would see that Department's budget remain constant in real terms over the years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Further information about the settlement was provided in July 2006. Savings were projected from benchmarking within the National Offender Management Service, from end-to-end case management of asylum claims, from the Criminal Justice System IT programme and from the Home Office efficiency programme.[103] In oral evidence in January 2007, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury implied that the Department-wide settlement gave the Home Secretary considerable freedom on the allocation of resources:

It is a matter for the Home Office how it allocates the priorities that it sets and the budget it takes forward … I am satisfied, and the Home Secretary is satisfied, that he can manage his department within the resources that have been provided for the Home Office.[104]

The Chief Secretary subsequently indicated that the Treasury would continue to discuss Home Office budgetary decisions, particularly those relating to large capital projects such as new prisons.[105]

47. The spending settlement for the Department for Constitutional Affairs was announced in the 2006 Pre-Budget Report, with its budget falling by an annual average of 3.5% in real terms over the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11.[106] About half of that Department's budget is spent on legal aid and that early settlement was dependent upon timely implementation of costed proposals for reform of legal aid procurement announced by Lord Carter in July 2006.[107] The Constitutional Affairs Committee has recently concluded that, while there is an urgent necessity to limit legal aid expenditure, the Government has introduced plans arising from the Carter Review "too quickly, in too rigid a way and with insufficient evidence".[108]

48. On 29 March 2007, the Prime Minister announced his intention to create a Ministry of Justice, moving the National Offender Management Service and lead responsibility for criminal law and sentencing policy from the Home Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The Cabinet Office's 17-page document describing the machinery of government changes made no reference to the implications of the changes for departmental budgets.[109] The Ministry of Justice came into being on 9 May 2007. When asked about resources for the new department on that day, the new Minister of State, the Rt. Hon. David Hanson MP, said:

With regard to the financing of Department … we are in the middle of a Comprehensive Spending Review settlement. I can assure him that the resources from the Home Office and the DCA are there on the table for this year as planned. Obviously, that will be subject to negotiation. However, he can take the reassurance that the Government are committed to reducing crime, and one of the main methods of doing so will be the role of my Rt Hon and noble Friend the Secretary of State and my other colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. I very much hope that the CSR settlement will reflect that.[110]

49. The value of early spending settlements on a departmental basis for the Home Office and the Departmental for Constitutional Affairs may be diminished as a result of the subsequent decision to transfer some Home Office functions to a new Ministry of Justice. The original spending settlement for the Home Office with zero real terms growth may well have been posited in part on the potential for savings within the National Offender Management Service and the Criminal Justice System IT programme, matters which are no longer the responsibility of the Home Office. A recent Ministerial statement could be interpreted as implying that the financial settlements for the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs might now be re-opened. We recommend that the Government clarify its funding intentions with regard to the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice at an early stage and in advance of the final outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, stating clearly whether the new Departments will be bound by the combined totals agreed by the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs and providing a breakdown of the expenditure allocation between the Departments.

The other early settlements

50. The following Departments and bodies have agreed settlements for the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11 which see their budgets fall by an annual average of 5% in real terms over the period:

In addition, the Attorney General's Departments have agreed budgets that fall by 3.5% a year in real terms over the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review.[112]

51. The extent of these reductions illustrates the nature of the Government's ambitions for spending allocations for departments that are not seen as the highest priorities for increased expenditure. The capacity to deliver these reductions is likely to be closely linked to the efficiency programme for the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11 which we consider later in this Report.[113]

52. In contrast to the general tenor of these early settlements, at the time of the 2007 Budget but outside the formal framework of the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government announced a funding settlement for the new Statistics Board up to 2011-12. The Board's total budgetary limits will be £159 million in 2007-08, £216 million in 2008-09, £206 million in 2009-10, £303 million in 2010-11 and £321 million in 2011-12.[114] During the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review (up to 2010-11), funding for the new Statistics Board will increase by an average of 20.7% a year in real terms, but this increase does not necessarily reflect a longer term trend because of the substantial resource requirement associated with the 2011 Census.

Prospects for other departments

53. Of the other departments that have not reached a settlement, the prospects are probably clearest for the Department for International Development. The Government is committed to continuing to increase total United Kingdom official development assistance at the rate of growth achieved in 2007-08—13.9% in real terms—in order that total official development assistance would reach 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2013.[115] However, the total for United Kingdom official development assistance includes some expenditure outside the Department for International Development's Departmental Expenditure Limit, most notably debt relief. Accordingly, the Department for International Development's own budget within Departmental Expenditure Limits is not guaranteed to rise at the same rate as the overall rate of growth for United Kingdom official development assistance as a whole to which the Government is committed.[116] We recommend that the Government make clear the relationship between the budget of the Department for International Development and total official development assistance and that it provide a clear statement of its calculation of official development assistance and quarterly statements tracking its growth.

54. In order to provide further information about the prospects for remaining departments, Table 5 sets out an approximation of the elements of Total Managed Expenditure that are already "committed", either as a result of early settlements or arising from the longer term commitment to increase official development assistance as a proportion of Gross National Income to 0.7% by 2013. All departmental figures in this Table relate only to expenditure within Departmental Expenditure Limits, and take no account of likely components of expenditure by those departments within Annually Managed Expenditure.

Table 5: Approximation of Departmental Expenditure Limits for certain departments with early settlements and the Department for International Development, 2007-08 to 2010-11


2007-08(1)

£ million


2008-09

£ million


2009-10

£ million


2010-11

£ million
Average annual growth in real terms over CSR period (%)
Education and Skills
64,835
67,298(2)
70,622(2)
75,188(2)
2.3(2)
Home Office/Justice
18,499(3)
18,865(4)
19,239(4)
19,620(4)
-0.7(4)
Law Officers' Departments
724
718(5)
711(5)
705(5)
-3.5(5)
International Development
5,259
5,941
6,712
7,582
10.0
Work and Pensions
7,637
7,451
7,270
7,093
-5.0
Chancellor's Departments
5,113
5,049(6)
4,921(6)
4,903(6)
-4.0(6)
Cabinet Office
2,596
2,533
2,471
2,411
-5.0
Approximate total for "committed" Departmental Expenditure Limits
104,663
107,855
111,946
117,502
1.2

Notes: (1) All figures for 2007-08 taken from PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21; (2) figures for the Department for Education and Skills for 2008-09 onwards taken from Budget 2007, Table 6.3, p 157; the average annual growth in real terms differs from that implied in Budget 2007 because the growth rate is calculated from the higher baseline figure contained in PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21; (3) combined total for Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs; (4) assumes combined growth rate for Home Office and Ministry of Justice will be result of combination of initially stated average growth rates for Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs across CSR period; (5) assumes all Law Officer's Departments will be subject to annual average real terms growth rate of -3.5% set for the Attorney General's Departments; (6) assumes increases for Statistics Board as set out in the Financial Secretary to the Treasury's letter to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee of 21 March 2007 and that all remaining resources within the Chancellor's Departments will be subject to annual average real terms growth rate of -5% set for HM Revenue & Customs, HM Treasury, National Savings & Investments and the Government Actuary's Department, using 2007-08 baseline of £4,954 million (total in PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21 for Chancellor's Departments, minus £159 million attributed to statistics)

The figures in Table 5 are based on a number of working assumptions. The most important of these relates to the baselines for spending increases. With the exception of that for the Department for Education and Skills, early departmental settlements for the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review have been announced in terms of rates of real terms growth over the period up to 2010-11 rather than on the basis of actual figures. The calculations in Table 5 are based on the latest figures available on Departmental Expenditure Limits in 2007-08, but the actual baselines used for settlements may be somewhat different. Also, it is assumed that:

  • the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice together will be required to operate within a combined total equivalent to the limits initially set for the Home Office as previously constituted and the Department for Constitutional Affairs;[117] and
  • the budget of the Department for International Development will increase in real terms by 10.0% a year in each year covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review, a figure slightly below the overall expected rate of increase in United Kingdom official development assistance.[118]

Other assumptions are set out in notes to Table 5.

55. Tables 6 to 9 set out four possible scenarios for the increase in the budgets of the "uncommitted" Departments, which can be summarised as follows:

  • Scenario A (Table 6): Annually Managed Expenditure increases at 2.1% a year in real terms during the Comprehensive Spending Review period (matching the rate of growth in 2006-07) and the Department of Health budget increases broadly in line with that of the Department of Education and Skills;
  • Scenario B (Table 7): the Department of Health budget increases by 4.4% a year in real terms over that period, while Annually Managed Expenditure increases in line with the rate of growth in Scenario A;
  • Scenario C (Table 8): Annually Managed Expenditure increases by 1.6% per year in real terms across the period, while the budget of the Department of Health increases at an annual average of 3.4% in real terms across the period; and
  • Scenario D (Table 9): Annually Managed Expenditure increases at 2.6% a year in real terms across the period, while the Department of Health budget increases at the same rate as in Scenario C.

Table 6: Prospects for Departmental Expenditure Limits for "uncommitted" Departments, 2007-08 to 2010-11: Scenario A


2007-08

£ million


2008-09

£ million


2009-10

£ million


2010-11

£ million
Average annual growth in real terms over CSR period

(%)
Approximate Total Managed Expenditure(1)
587,000
615,000
644,000
675,000
2.0
Assumed Annually Managed Expenditure(2)
243,000
255,000
267,000
280,000
2.1
Assumed total Departmental Expenditure Limits(3)
344,000
360,000
377,000
395,000
2.0
Approximate total for "committed" Departmental Expenditure Limits(4)
104,700
107,900
111,900
117,500
1.2
Assumed DEL Reserve (and unallocated Special Reserve)
2,500
2,700
2,700
2,700
Assumed Health Departmental Expenditure Limit(5)
92,900
97,700
102,700
108,000
2.4
Assumed combined total Departmental Expenditure Limit for other "uncommitted" Departments(6)
143,900
151,700
159,700
166,800
2.3

Notes: (1) All figures in this row derived from Table 1 of this Report and rounded to the nearest £1 billion; (2) figure for 2007-08 in this row derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.1, p 11; all subsequent figures based on assumed growth rate of 2.1% in real terms in each year of the CSR period; all figures rounded to nearest £1 billion; (3) figure for 2007-08 derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.1, p 11; all subsequent figures derived from deduction of assumed total for AME in row above from assumed total for TME in row above that for AME; (4) all figures in this row derived from Table 5 of this Report; (5) Figure for 2007-08 derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21; all subsequent figures based on assumed growth rate of 2.4% in real terms in each year of the CSR period; (6) all figures derived from deduction of total of preceding three rows from assumed total Departmental Expenditure Limits

Table 7: Prospects for Departmental Expenditure Limits for "uncommitted" Departments, 2007-08 to 2010-11: Scenario B


2007-08

£ million


2008-09

£ million


2009-10

£ million


2010-11

£ million
Average annual growth in real terms over CSR period

(%)
Approximate Total Managed Expenditure(1)
587,000
615,000
644,000
675,000
2.0
Assumed Annually Managed Expenditure(2)
243,000
255,000
267,000
280,000
2.1
Assumed total Departmental Expenditure Limits(3)
344,000
360,000
377,000
395,000
2.0
Approximate total for "committed" Departmental Expenditure Limits(4)
104,700
107,900
111,900
117,500
1.2
Assumed DEL Reserve (and unallocated Special Reserve)
2,500
2,700
2,700
2,700
Assumed Health Departmental Expenditure Limit(5)
92,900
99,600
106,800
114,500
4.4
Assumed combined total Departmental Expenditure Limit for other "uncommitted" Departments(6)
143,900
149,800
155,600
160,300
1.0

Notes: (1) All figures in this row derived from Table 1 of this Report and rounded to the nearest £1 billion; (2) figure for 2007-08 in this row derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.1, p 11; all subsequent figures based on assumed growth rate of 2.1% in real terms in each year of the CSR period; all figures rounded to nearest £1 billion; (3) figure for 2007-08 derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.1, p 11; all subsequent figures derived from deduction of assumed total for AME in row above from assumed total for TME in row above that for AME; (4) all figures in this row derived from Table 5 of this Report; (5) Figure for 2007-08 derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21; all subsequent figures based on assumed growth rate of 4.4% in real terms in each year of the CSR period; (6) all figures derived from deduction of total of preceding three rows from assumed total Departmental Expenditure Limits

Table 8: Prospects for Departmental Expenditure Limits for "uncommitted" Departments, 2007-08 to 2010-11: Scenario C


2007-08

£ million


2008-09

£ million


2009-10

£ million


2010-11

£ million
Average annual growth in real terms over CSR period (%)
Approximate Total Managed Expenditure(1)
587,000
615,000
644,000
675,000
2.0
Assumed Annually Managed Expenditure(2)
243,000
254,000
265,000
277,000
1.6
Assumed total Departmental Expenditure Limits(3)
344,000
361,000
379,000
398,000
2.3
Approximate total for "committed" Departmental Expenditure Limits(4)
104,700
107,900
111,900
117,500
1.2
Assumed DEL Reserve (and unallocated Special Reserve)
2,500
2,700
2,700
2,700
Assumed Health Departmental Expenditure Limit(5)
92,900
98,700
104,800
111,200
3.4
Assumed combined total Departmental Expenditure Limit for other "uncommitted" Departments(5)
143,900
151,700
159,600
166,500
2.3

Notes: (1) All figures in this row derived from Table 1 of this Report and rounded to the nearest £1 billion; (2) figure for 2007-08 in this row derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.1, p 11; all subsequent figures based on assumed growth rate of 1.6% in real terms in each year of the CSR period; all figures rounded to nearest £1 billion; (3) figure for 2007-08 derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.1, p 11; all subsequent figures derived from deduction of assumed total for AME in row above from assumed total for TME in row above that for AME; (4) all figures in this row derived from Table 5 of this Report; (5) Figure for 2007-08 derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21; all subsequent figures based on assumed growth rate of 3.4% in real terms in each year of the CSR period; (6) all figures derived from deduction of total of preceding three rows from assumed total Departmental Expenditure Limits

Table 9: Prospects for Departmental Expenditure Limits for "uncommitted" Departments, 2007-08 to 2010-11: Scenario D


2007-08

£ million


2008-09

£ million


2009-10

£ million


2010-11

£ million
Average annual growth in real terms over CSR period (%)
Approximate Total Managed Expenditure(1)
587,000
615,000
644,000
675,000
2.0
Assumed Annually Managed Expenditure(2)
243,000
256,000
270,000
284,000
2.6
Assumed total Departmental Expenditure Limits(3)
344,000
359,000
374,000
391,000
1.7
Approximate total for "committed" Departmental Expenditure Limits(4)
104,700
107,900
111,900
117,500
1.2
Assumed DEL Reserve (and unallocated Special Reserve)
2,500
2,700
2,700
2,700
Assumed Health Departmental Expenditure Limit(5)
92,900
98,700
104,800
111,300
3.4
Assumed combined total Departmental Expenditure Limit for other "uncommitted" Departments(6)
143,900
149,700
154,600
159,500
0.8

Notes: (1) All figures in this row derived from Table 1 of this report and rounded to the nearest £1 billion; (2) figure for 2007-08 in this row derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.1, p 11; all subsequent figures based on assumed growth rate of 2.6% in real terms in each year of the CSR period; all figures rounded to nearest £1 billion; (3) figure for 2007-08 derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.1, p 11; all subsequent figures derived from deduction of assumed total for AME in row above from assumed total for TME in row above that for AME; (4) all figures in this row derived from Table 5 of this Report; (5) Figure for 2007-08 derived from PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21; all subsequent figures based on assumed growth rate of 3.4% in real terms in each year of the CSR period; (6) all figures derived from deduction of total of preceding three rows from assumed total Departmental Expenditure Limits

56. The Department of Health budget is treated separately in these scenarios because it is by far the largest single budget subject to multi-year Departmental Expenditure Limits and because it has seen very significant rates of increase in recent years. High rates of growth in health spending since 2002 arose in part from the analysis in the Wanless Review, and the rate of growth of 4.4% a year in real terms included in Scenario B has been chosen because it is a level of growth in spending envisaged in certain circumstances in the Wanless Review.[119] When asked whether health spending increases during the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review were likely to match the levels of between 4.2% and 5.1% real terms annual growth posited by Wanless, the Chief Secretary replied:

No, I do not think that necessarily will be the case. What we have done as a result of the additional funding of the last few years, is get ourselves into a position where, broadly, by next year, spending on health will be roughly in line with the European average, which was the intention when the programme started. We will set out in the Summer what the appropriate level for health funding in the CSR years is going to be … I think the period ahead will be one of consolidation where the rate of growth of spending will be less … The last couple of spending review periods across public services has been a period of catching up on past under-investment. We have done that now and the next period is going to be rather different in character.[120]

57. These Scenarios, and Scenarios C and D in particular, demonstrate the significant impact the forecast rate of growth of Annually Managed Expenditure—comprised of components such as social security and tax credits expenditure, locally-financed expenditure and government debt interest payments—will have on the prospects for settlements for "uncommitted" Departments. If the growth of Annually Managed Expenditure in real terms were planned to be held at an average rate of growth of 1.6% a year over the period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review, it might be possible to combine a Department of Health settlement with a 3.4% annual average increase in real terms with an overall budget for other "uncommitted" Departments taken together rising in real terms by 2.3% a year across that period. However, if Annually Managed Expenditure were to be planned to rise at 2.6% a year in real terms in that period and the Department of Health settlement were the same, Scenario D suggests that the remaining budget available for other "uncommitted" Departments would rise by an average of only 0.8% a year in real terms up to 2010-11. As we have noted above, the rate of growth of Annually Managed Expenditure has not fallen below 2.1% a year in real terms since 2001-02, and, in recent years, outturns for Annually Managed Expenditure have been in excess of initial forecasts,[121] notwithstanding the Government's commitment to base forecasts of Annually Managed Expenditure on "cautious estimates".[122]

Conclusions

58. Table 10 sets out the growth rates in spending settlements within Departmental Expenditure Limits by department in the 2004 Spending Review and, where known, in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. Departments are shown in ascending order according to the generosity of their 2004 Spending Review settlements.

Table 10: Average annual growth rates in real terms of spending within Departmental Expenditure Limits in 2004 Spending Review, and in early settlements for 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review
Department Average annual growth rate in SR 2004 in real terms from 2004-05 baseline (%) Average annual growth rate in CSR 2007 in real terms from 2007-08 baseline (%)
Work and Pensions
-2.8
-5
Northern Ireland Office
-2.7
Chancellor's Departments
1.1
-4.0(1)
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
1.2
Cabinet Office
1.2
-5
Defence
1.4
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
1.4
Department for Constitutional Affairs
1.5
-3.5
Culture, Media and Sport
2.3
Local Government
2.6
Home Office
2.7
0.0
Law Officers' Departments
2.9
-3.5(2)
Trade and Industry
3.0
Northern Ireland Executive
3.1
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
3.3
Scotland
3.5
Transport
4.5
Wales
4.5
Education and Skills
5.7
2.7
Health
6.9
International Development
9.2

Sources: SR 2004, Table A.4, p 185; HC (2006-07) 389-I, para 80

Notes: (1) assumes increases for Statistics Board as set out in the Financial Secretary to the Treasury's letter to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee of 21 March 2007 and that all remaining resources within the Chancellor's Departments will be subject to annual average real terms growth rate of -5% set for HM Revenue & Customs, HM Treasury, National Savings & Investments and the Government Actuary's Department, using 2007-08 baseline of £4,954 million (total in PESA 2007, Table 1.12, p 21 for Chancellor's Departments, minus £159 million attributed to statistics): (2) settlement announced is for the Attorney General's Departments

This Table highlights two points. With the exception of the Department for Education and Skills, the early settlements have tended to be reached by departments which fared less well in the last Spending Review and so may have entered the current process with lower expectations. This suggests that many of the most challenging settlements lie ahead. Furthermore, all departments that have so far agreed settlements have done so at levels significantly below the rates of growth provided for in the 2004 Spending Review settlements.

59. The level of the resources available to be allocated to most of the departments that have not reached early settlements depends on three key variables: first, the rate of increase in health spending; second, the prospective rate of increase of Annually Managed Expenditure; and, third, the number of additional larger departments that agree settlements with real terms reductions in spending.


99  
See paragraphs 11-12. Back

100   Budget 2007, Table 6.3 and para 6.73, p 157 Back

101   HC (2006-07) 389-I, para 81 Back

102   Ibid Back

103   Releasing the resources, paras 5.34-5.50, pp 52-55 Back

104   Qq 97, 112 Back

105   Qq 113-122 Back

106   Pre-Budget Report 2006, Box 6.3, p 143 Back

107   Qq 83-84; Releasing the resources, para 3.17, p 25 Back

108   Constitutional Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2006-07, Implications of the Carter Review of Legal Aid, HC 223-I, p 4 Back

109   Cabinet Office, Machinery of Government: Security and Counter-Terrorism, and the Criminal Justice System, March 2007 Back

110   HC Deb, 9 May 2007, col 181 Back

111   Budget 2006, Box 6.3, p 136; Pre-Budget Report 2006, Box 6.3, p 143; Budget 2007, para 6.25, p 147 Back

112   Budget 2007, para 6.25, p 147 Back

113   See paragraphs 60-87. Back

114   Letter from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, 21 March 2007 Back

115   SR 2004, para 15.1, p 135. The rate of growth in 2007-08 is our own calculation based on SR 2004, Table 15.2, p 139 and the latest GDP deflator. Back

116   Departmental for International Development, Development on the Record: DFID Annual Report 2007, May 2007, HC (2006-07) 514, Table A.1, p 232 Back

117   See paragraphs 46-49. Back

118   See paragraph 53. Back

119   IFS Green Budget, p 144 Back

120   Qq 55, 56 Back

121   See paragraphs 23-25. Back

122   CSR 1998, Annex B, 117 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 25 June 2007