Misplaced Pages

Barnett formula

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

The Barnett formula is a mechanism used by the Treasury in the United Kingdom to automatically adjust the amounts of public expenditure allocated to Northern Ireland , Scotland and Wales to reflect changes in spending levels allocated to public services in England , Scotland and Wales , as appropriate. The formula applies to a large proportion, but not the whole, of the devolved governments' budgets − in 2013–14 it applied to about 85% of the Scottish Parliament's total budget.

#66933

43-545: The formula is named after Joel Barnett , who devised it in 1978 while Chief Secretary to the Treasury , as a short-term solution to resolve minor Cabinet disputes in the runup to the 1979 devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales . The Barnett formula is said to have "no legal standing or democratic justification", and, being merely a convention, could be changed at will by the Treasury. Barnett himself later called

86-492: A 1% budget reduction for the Scottish Government. Opponents of that view claim that these are not cutbacks, merely lower growth, and that spending convergence between the home nations is not a policy objective of the current UK Government or Scottish Government. Also, in reality this erosion has happened extremely slowly − as shown in the table above, Scotland's reduction in identifiable spend per head from 121.5% of

129-629: A 2014 pledge to continue using it a "terrible mistake". In 2009, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded that "the Barnett Formula should no longer be used to determine annual increases in the block grant for the United Kingdom's devolved administrations... A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced." During

172-494: A UK level for borrowing almost entirely incurred for the devolved nations. In 2007, the UK Government decided that there would be no Barnett consequentials in relation to the more than £7bn of public spending allocated to deliver the 2012 London Olympic Games, despite the fact that a substantial proportion of this spending was to be used to fund regeneration and transport infrastructure in the east London area. The lack of

215-720: A reversal in funding with the Scottish parliament paying the UK government a grant to cover the Scottish share of reserved issue spending. This option was rejected by the UK parliament. Joel Barnett Joel Barnett, Baron Barnett , PC (14 October 1923 – 1 November 2014) was a Labour Party politician. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the late 1970s, he devised the Barnett Formula that allocates public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Barnett

258-657: A statutory basis for the formula concerns Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh citizens. The devolution legislation states only that the Secretary of State for each country will make a grant of such monies as Parliament makes available. This is seen as relying too heavily on the good will of the Westminster Parliament, and infringing the independence of the devolved executives. A needs-based solution has been suggested as being more fair, especially considering areas of England are not taken into account or compared to

301-825: A year, but the Audit Commission (for England and Wales) concluded in a 1993 report that "needs assessment can never be perfect or fair." Since devolution , once levels of funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been determined by central government in a spending review using the Barnett formula, the UK Parliament votes the necessary provision to the Secretaries of State for Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland as part of their central government departments' Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL). The secretaries of state then make payments to

344-577: Is shared with Scottish universities, despite Scottish students studying at those universities not having to contribute any extra fees. In contrast, if the Scottish Parliament were to use its tax-adjusting powers, the additional (or reduced) revenue would not be considered in any calculations by the Barnett formula of the block grant for Scotland. Another criticism is despite at times England's fiscal balance almost being in balance between tax and spending, it's still liable for debts incurred at

387-569: The 2014 Scottish independence referendum , the Barnett formula came to widespread attention given Scotland's higher levels of public expenditure. Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Analogous arrangements apply to categories of expense which are only controlled by some of

430-816: The European Union Committee , the Economic Affairs Committee and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. He was appointed vice-chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC by Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1986 and held the post until 1993, during which period he partook in the private meeting when Chairman Marmaduke Hussey told Director-General Alasdair Milne he would have to leave

473-449: The 2011 Autumn Statement allocated additional funds to aid supply-side reform in the economy aimed at encouraging investment and export growth, noting that where expenditure was undertaken in England, "the devolved administrations [would] receive Barnett consequestials to invest in their key infrastructure priorities". The ultimate predecessor of the formula was the 1888 Goschen formula , introduced by George Goschen when Chancellor of

SECTION 10

#1732772906067

516-597: The BBC. He died on 1 November 2014, aged 91. Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) is a programme of HM Treasury in the United Kingdom . It serves two purposes: 1) providing information on government spending plans and outturn and 2) presenting statistical analyses of public expenditure . PESA presents spending against two Treasury-defined frameworks. 1) Budgeting; This framework deals with spending within central government departmental budgets, which

559-574: The Barnett formula, there are also significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England, in 2012/13 ranging from £7,638 in the South East (87% of the UK average), to £9,435 in London (107%). As noted below, no account is made of the amounts raised by taxation in each of the home nations , nor the relevant fiscal need (based on factors such as sparsity of population, cost of travel, unemployment rates, health, age distribution of

602-614: The Barnett formula. In one example, the top-up tuition fees introduced in England are counted as additional English public expenditure (as the extra income is spent by the universities) and, therefore, an equivalent amount from the Consolidated Fund , paid for by UK-wide taxation, has been transferred to the Scottish Government . It was argued that this meant that only the English paid tuition fees, yet this money

645-632: The Chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee from 1979 to 1983. He published a memoir Inside the Treasury in 1982, describing his experience as chief secretary. Barnett's Commons seat having been abolished by boundary changes, he was created a life peer as Baron Barnett , of Heywood and Royton in Greater Manchester on 30 September 1983. He served on select committees in the House of Lords including

688-564: The Commission proposed a floor to the Barnett formula to limit any further squeeze in the Welsh case. This proposal was eventually accepted and the Act of 2017 instituted a floor whch ensured Welsh expenditure per head would not fall below 115 per cent of the English level. At the present time no such floor exists for the other devolved administrations although it has now become a matter of debate in

731-469: The Department of Health, the comparability factor for Scotland and Wales was 99.7%. Therefore, if £1 billion was to be added to planned health expenditure in England, then the extra amount added to the Scottish block, compared to the year before, would be £1bn x 10.34% x 99.7% = £103 million, and the amount added to the Welsh block would be £1bn x 5.93% x 99.7% = £59.1 million. For areas of funding where

774-590: The Exchequer, as part of the proposals for Irish Home Rule . This allocated 80% of funding to England and Wales, 11% to Scotland and 9% to Ireland; hence the Scottish share was 13.75% of the English/Welsh amount. By 1970, in preparation for devolution, changes in the relative populations were examined. By then the relative populations were 85% in England and 10% in Scotland, meaning that the new Barnett formula set changes to Scottish expenditure at 10/85th of

817-406: The UK average to 115.5% took nearly 30 years. In 2009, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded that, "A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced." The Scottish Liberal Democrats commissioned Lord Steel of Aikwood to investigate what options existed for changing

860-412: The allocations with a regression formula and applied this to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Ireland was found to be funded roughly appropriately, perhaps a percent or two above the consistent level but Scotland was receiving disproportionate expenditures - some 125 percent of English expenditure per head, whereas if treated as an English region it would receive 108 per cent. Barnett was to eventually view

903-506: The case of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action highlighted problems with the current system, key of which have been the potential to make corporation tax more attractive for investment, and that the formula favours Scotland much more strongly than it does Wales or Northern Ireland. The Scottish National Party pointed to what has been termed the Barnett squeeze . They point out that rather than protecting

SECTION 20

#1732772906067

946-500: The change in England (or 11.76%), 2% lower than the change that was being received under Goschen. The population percentages have been recalculated annually since 1999, and the Scottish share of changes was in 2002 set at 10.23% of the English amount. The original calculation was based on incorrect population estimates, and no attempt was made to adjust the baseline for these errors though changes in expenditure are based on more current population numbers. Political unwillingness to manage

989-566: The corresponding central government department funding covers England and Wales, such as the Home Office and legal departments, the formula for funding to Scotland and Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England and Wales in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations: For areas of funding where the corresponding central government department funding covers England, Wales and Scotland, such as Work and Pensions,

1032-711: The devolved administrations from the DEL as block grants , which means that they can be spent by the devolved legislatures on any devolved responsibility however they see fit. In 2011–12, the Scotland Office Total DEL outturn was £27.567bn, and from this the block grant to the Scottish Parliament was £26.985bn. The Wales Office Total DEL outturn was £14.625bn, and the Northern Ireland Office Total DEL outturn

1075-419: The devolved governments. The formula is not applied to all public expenditure, but is the default option if no other decisions are made. Expenditure is allocated en bloc , not by service, allowing each devolved administration to allocate these funds as it believes appropriate. For areas of funding where the corresponding central government department funding covers England only, for example education and health,

1118-484: The earlier report of the Independent Commission on Funding and Finance for Wales, was reserved for bilateral negotiation between the two governments, The original formula has the effect when public expenditure is growing of very gradually reducing the relative share of countries with higher spending per head than England. Since at the time of its report Wales received less than equivalent English regions,

1161-516: The favourable spending position of Scotland, the Barnett formula steadily erodes that advantage: As it gives equal cash increases (per head), and Scotland's per head spending is higher than England's, Scotland's increases will be smaller as a percentage of their total budget than England's. For example, if a 4% increase is needed to cover inflation, the same cash increase which provides a 4% increase for England may translate into an increase of only 3% of Scotland's budget – after inflation, that would mean

1204-440: The formula for funding to Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England, Wales and Scotland in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations: When additional public expenditure is planned in England, the corresponding additions which are made to the devolved administrations' funding allocations are referred to as "Barnett consequentials". For example,

1247-539: The formula for funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the increases in public spending in England in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations: For example, in 2000, the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh populations were taken to be 3.69%, 10.34% and 5.93% (respectively) of the population of the United Kingdom (comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). For programmes in

1290-524: The formula that he devised as unfair. In The Scotsman in January 2004 he wrote, "It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn't create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding." According to Scotland on Sunday , moving to a needs-based allocation of government finances would cost Scotland around £2.5 billion

1333-612: The funding arrangement can be found in HM Treasury's Statement of Funding Policy . Estimates of government spend by region are given in HM Treasury's annual publication Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA). These estimates of the spend per person have consistently shown highest levels of spending in Northern Ireland, followed by Scotland, then Wales, and finally England. For example: The persistence of per capita public expenditure being lower in England than

Barnett formula - Misplaced Pages Continue

1376-426: The other regions continues to attract calls for the formula to be renegotiated. As these variations were not ever a consciously decided policy of the Treasury or Parliament, this inequality has been cited as a reason for reform. Moreover, the erosion of these differences over time has been very slow and uneven. The change in Scottish identifiable expenditure as a percentage of English expenditure from 2001/02 to 2012/13

1419-518: The population, road lengths, recorded crimes, and numbers of sub-standard dwellings) in each area. The Barnett formula never claimed to address these issues and was a basic calculation on the basis of proportions of the population. A needs assessment study was undertaken by the Treasury in 1979 in preparation for planned devolution, to assess the relative needs just with respect to the policy areas which were to be devolved (i.e. excluding non-devolved government spending such as social security). This study

1462-619: The present arrangement. The report of the Steel commission was published on 6 March 2006 and called for greater fiscal powers for the Scottish Government, similar to the Common Purse Agreement that exists for the Manx Government . The Scottish National Party proposed Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland which would have given the Scottish parliament full control of Scottish taxation, the result of which would have been

1505-586: The strange and unexpected form of immortality that was accorded to him by "having his own formula". Following the Scotland Act 1998 and devolution, he argued that the Formula was unfair to England and should be abandoned or revised. He reiterated this view in 2014 shortly before the Scottish independence referendum , calling the Formula unsustainable and saying it had become an embarrassment. Barnett held

1548-406: The task of making the changes necessary to rebalance existing expenditure meant that the Barnett formula was applied only to changes. Nevertheless, the expectation was that as inflation led to repeated application of the formula, average expenditure per head on devolved services in Scotland would over the years fall nearer and nearer to the English figure (the so-called "Barnett squeeze"). Details of

1591-560: The three devolved nations of the UK. In Northern Ireland, there has been no review of the mechanisms involved in regard to devolving of fiscal power and responsibilities – unlike Wales with the Commission on Devolution in Wales , Scotland with the Scotland Act 2012 , and England with the Heseltine Growth Review . The Silk Commission in Wales was expressly excluded from considering the Barnett Formula, which, following

1634-471: The total need and spend, including non-devolved services. A needs assessment was carried out by the Independent Commission n Funding and Finance for Wales (2010), established by the Welsh government. It used the allocation formula employed by the UK government for English regions and applied them to Wales, determining that Wales was then receiving some 3 per cent less spending per head than it would receive if treated as an English region. The Commission modelled

1677-467: Was 121.3% to 119.0%. Previous estimates that these differences would disappear in 30 years now appear unlikely. The average UK total identifiable expenditure on services is approximately £8,788. Instant abolition of the Barnett formula, and adjustment of the four countries' spend to this average would result in a large decrease for each person in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but an increase of about 3% per person for England. Although not subject to

1720-543: Was a member of the Public Accounts Committee from January 1966. Barnett served as Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 1974 to 1979, gaining a seat in the cabinet from 1977 onwards, and was Denis Healey 's right-hand man in the Callaghan Government . During this time he oversaw the devising of what is known as the Barnett Formula by which public spending is apportioned between England, Scotland , Wales , and Northern Ireland . He subsequently joked about

1763-546: Was born in Manchester , the son of Jewish tailor Louis and wife Ettie, and was educated at Badkindt Hebrew School and Manchester Central High School. He worked as an accountant. He was elected a councillor on Prestwich Borough Council 1956-1959 and was treasurer of Manchester Fabian Society . Barnett stood in Runcorn in 1959 without success. He was elected member of parliament for Heywood and Royton in 1964 . He

Barnett formula - Misplaced Pages Continue

1806-465: Was updated in 1993. Both studies found the highest need for devolved services in Northern Ireland, followed by Scotland, then Wales, and finally England. In 1979, Northern Ireland and Scotland received more to spend on services which would have been devolved than the needs assessment suggested they should, and Wales less. By 1993, all three countries had increased the gap between the needs assessment and actual spend. However, this does not necessarily reflect

1849-454: Was £10.465bn. The Barnett formula only applies to the devolved administrations' expenditure classified within DEL, which for Scotland is about 85% of the Scottish Parliament's total budget. Other sources of income for the devolved administrations include: The Barnett formula is widely recognised as being controversial but there is no consensus on how to change it. Taxation and charges applied in only one nation or region controversially affect

#66933