Examination of Witnesses (Questions 412
- 419)
WEDNESDAY 11 MARCH 2009
Ms Helen Bailey, Ms Helene Radcliffe, Mr Mark Parkinson
and Mr Jim Gallagher
Q412 Chairman:
Good afternoon and thank you for coming, and thank you for submitting
some documents to us which we have read with interest, but I have
to say with a certain disappointment which no doubt that will
emerge in the course of the afternoon. I am sure you have all
given evidence at these sessions before but I perhaps ought to
remind you that evidence sessions are broadcast live on the internet
and a full transcript is going to be taken. You will have an opportunity
to make small corrections to the transcript but you will not be
able to alter any of the sense of what you have said. I think
perhaps I ought to make it clear right at the outset to you that
you it is open to you supply the Committee with any additional
evidence if there is some additional evidence you feel you ought
to supply, and in return the Committee is in a position to ask
you to supply additional evidence if we do not think that we have
sufficient evidence. I wonder if you would be kind enough to introduce
yourselves and tell us what you all do and then we can perhaps
ask you questions.
Ms Bailey: Thank you very much for that introduction.
This is actually the first time certainly that I have given evidence
before a select committee so I am grateful for the advice you
have given, Chairman. We are very pleased to be here at the behest
of Treasury ministers. We represent Her Majesty's Treasury, which
is—and I think this is just worth saying in this context—a
UK-wide government department concerned with fiscal policy and
with public spending across the United Kingdom as well as with
the wider economic matters which have featured recently in the
public press. Our role is to answer questions on both the written
evidence we have already supplied to you, to which you have alluded,
and to attempt to deal with factual matters in relation to the
operation of the Formula and in relation to the Treasury's work
in that respect. Let me introduce my team. I have got on my right
Helene Radcliffe, who is the Team Leader of the devolved administrations
unit in the Treasury, and Mark Parkinson, who is an acknowledged
expert on the operation of the Barnett Formula. I am Helen Bailey
and I am a Director in the Public Services and Growth Directorate
at Her Majesty's Treasury, and we look very forward very much
to being able to assist you in any way we can this afternoon.
Mr Gallagher: I would like to introduce myself,
Chairman. My name is Jim Gallagher and I am the Director General
for Devolution in the Ministry of Justice and I work with Treasury
colleagues.
Q413 Chairman:
Thank you very much indeed. Perhaps I could ask the first question,
which I hope is relatively clear. Does the Treasury think that
the Barnett Formula treats all four parts of the UK fairly?
Ms Bailey: We think in the Treasury that the
advantages of the Barnett Formula are that it gives an absolute
increase in spending for every part of the United Kingdom which
is the same when a spending decision is made by the UK Government.
It has the merits of longevity, transparency and of familiarity.
Q414 Chairman:
That was not quite what I asked you actually, with respect. Do
you think it has the advantage of fairness?
Ms Bailey: In that it provides an absolute similar
amount of money to each devolved administration, that speaks to
its fairness. I think fairness is always a subjective issue and
I think as officials we would wish to leave that there. It is
perhaps worth saying that there is a dispute resolution mechanism
built into the Formula, which can be triggered and which would
take place in the form of a joint ministerial committee, and it
may be significant to point out that that has never yet been triggered.
Q415 Chairman:
I am sorry, I am trying to follow. Are you saying that you are
not prepared to tell us whether the Treasury thinks that it is
a fair formula, or are you saying that in your view it is a fair
formula because it is clear, relatively simple and has operated
for a long time?
Ms Bailey: I think we are saying, as you have
just said, that it has the advantages of being clear and very
well understood and it is fair in that it provides an absolute
comparable level of increase in funding to each of the devolved
administrations. Whether in any wider sense it was perceived to
be fair or not I think is a matter for committees like yourselves
to provide evidence to Government on.
Q416 Chairman:
Well, not entirely because the Treasury has done these fairness
exercises, has it not? You did one in the seventies and you did
one in the eighties.
Ms Bailey: Indeed.
Q417 Chairman:
You assessed the fairness, or otherwise, of the allocation of
resources.
Ms Bailey: The work which was undertaken would
inform the operation of the Formula in very different circumstances.
Since the publication of the Funding Statement in 1999 we have
kept the Formula under review at every Comprehensive Spending
Review but we have not undertaken a needs assessment since then.
Q418 Chairman:
You have not undertaken a needs assessment upon which there was
agreement, but are you telling us that the Treasury has not undertaken
any kinds of needs assessment between the four parts of the UK?
Surely not? It must have done.
Ms Bailey: The Treasury looks at the way in
which we apportion funding every time we do a Comprehensive Spending
Review, so we did in 2004 and we did in 2007. We have not undertaken
any wider full needs assessment.
Q419 Chairman:
When you look at the allocation of spending between the four parts
of the UK, does the fairness of the spending enter into the Treasury's
calculations at all?
Ms Bailey: I think I would have to press you
on what you meant by "fairness".
| 
