Examination of Witnesses (Questions 500
- 507)
WEDNESDAY 11 MARCH 2009
Ms Helen Bailey, Ms Helene Radcliffe, Mr Mark Parkinson
and Mr Jim Gallagher
Q500 Lord Rowe-Beddoe:
But the Treasury would actually have to give the ideas as to what
we should be doing?
Ms Bailey: Indeed, and there would be a considerable
dialogue, I have no doubt, between officials, ministers and advisers,
and there would be a dialogue with the devolved administrations.
None of that has taken place, which is why I cannot answer your
question in any more detail.
Q501 Chairman:
I do not want to come back to where we started from, but could
I just say that you did that exercise in the seventies. Why was
it possible to do it in 1978 or 1979 but not possible to do it
now?
Mr Parkinson: That is a benchmark. That study
took about two years, just to give you an idea.
Q502 Chairman:
Perhaps you ought to have a different way of asking?
Mr Parkinson: That was a particular study using
a particular methodology, as Helen said. It is by no means obvious
that we would use the same methodology again.
Q503 Lord Rooker:
Even if it is being requested by the ministers? In the 1970s Joel
Barnett did not even know about this going on and he was the Chief
Secretary of the Treasury, so it was done without the minister
asking for it to be done.
Ms Bailey: I have seen his evidence and I understand
the point you are making. I do not know whether any other minister
or ministers were involved in that decision, so I will not comment
further, but an exercise of that sort -
Lord Rooker: I am sorry, it was a cheap
question. I apologise for that.
Chairman: No, it was not cheap, I think
it was rather expensive!
Q504 Lord Lang of Monkton:
Were other government departments involved in the assessment?
Ms Bailey: Yes.
Q505 Lord Lang of Monkton:
And they all agreed on the outcome?
Mr Parkinson: No, they did not reach an agreed
outcome.
Q506 Lord Lang of Monkton:
So you reached no conclusion?
Mr Parkinson: No.
Ms Bailey: No.
Q507 Chairman:
Thank you very much. Two things, if I may. One is, you will have
gathered there is a fair degree of unease, uncertainty and indeed
disappointment at the views that are expressed, the ones you have
given us today. So be it. There is a difference between us. There
are various detailed questions on the figures which I do not think
I am really qualified to put to you, but which Mr Trench, who
is our special advisor, is qualified to put to you. I wonder whether
you would be kind enough to talk to him about it? Secondly, it
may well be that when we have had a good look at the transcript
we may think that perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee
if you were to come back and put your heads in the lion's den
yet again, but on behalf of us all I think I can say thank you
very much indeed. You have exposed certain problems and indeed
expressed a clear attitude on the part of the Treasury, and for
that we are grateful.
Ms Bailey: Can I thank you, Chairman, for those
kind words. We would be more than delighted to talk to Mr Trench
or any of your other advisers and take them through the detailed
figures. We would be very happy to do that. I think I would just
like to clarify some of what you call the difference between us.
The Treasury's view, insofar as it has one, is set out in the
statement of its funding policy and clearly the views of the Treasury
are largely the views of our ministers, so we can help insofar
as the practical operation at official level and we will happily
do so and come back, as you so graciously put it, into the lion's
den on any occasion you would wish in order to be able to do that.
I apologise to you for the fact that we cannot go further than
that brief.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
| 
