аЯрЁБс>ўџ ўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџмЅhcр e€`! l ll l l l l € € € € € € Š € – 1” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” – – – – – – Ч X!A– l ” ” ” ” ” – ” l l ” ” ” ” ” ” l ” l ” ” ап'˜мЦ€ € l l l l ” ” ” ” The Editor, PESA   Dear Sir, This is our response to the Treasury proposals for the development of PESA, in the light of the recent consultation, on which you requested views before 31 August. You will recall that we were one of the respondents to the initial consultation.   Paras 2.2-2.3 "main areas for development": In our contribution to the consultation exercise we made it clear that there was a need for improvement in the accuracy of CRA. As you note in the opening to the current consultation document, PESA is"used by Parliamentary staff, research institutes, trades unions, HM Treasury officials and others who wish to have detailed analyses of public spending." It is therefore essential that like is presented in comparison with like as much as possible, and where this is not possible, that clear directions are given to the PESA reader as to differences. We found in our analyses of PESA data, not only that in some cases what was classified identifiable for Scotland was classified as not identifiable for the English regions, but also that, at a detailed level, items classified  as trade and industry in English regions were classified as employment for Scotland. Shortage of time prevented further detailed analyses by us of this nature. The data presented in PESA are treated as "fact" by the media and are incorporated in subsequent analyses by the Scottish Executive as if accurate. Thus prison data for England was allocated on a population basis to Scotland by the Scottish Executive in GERS, (a "National Statistics" publication), making expenditure per head in Scotland higher than it should it have been. There are, as we showed, several other examples. We believe improving accuracy in CRA in PESA is one of the most important areas for development and should be shown as such in paras 2.2 onwards of your exercise. The database changes that we suggest below would in themselves provide a strong impetus towards improving the accuracy of PESA data.   Paras 3.49-3.56: "Identifying More Expenditure". We were the respondents who originally raised this issue: and we find the Treasury response at best half-hearted. The figures in Table 8.2 indicate that the effects are sufficiently material to warrant a better response than the "we will try in due course to identify more Whitehall spending" approach being adopted. There are two things wrong in particular with this Treasury response:- a) a significant amount of "non-identifiable within England" expenditure is an inherent consequence of having a significant tier of Government with all-England responsibilities. b) the Treasury response confuses presentational issues in PESA with underlying database structure issues. It should be relatively easy to include in the PESA database codes for "non-identifiable in the UK", "non-identifiable within England and Wales", "non-Identifiable within England", and so-on. Presenting relevant analyses in PESA would be slightly more difficult: but by no means impossible. But the important thing is that, once the codes are in the database, relevant analyses can be produced easily and accurately as and when they are required.   paras 3.61-3.64 "Devolved spending comparisons" Again, this is an issue which we had raised: and the response is a half hearted "we may get around to producing some estimates on this". In fact, one of the arguments put forward against doing this, (in para 3.63), that "policies are increasingly diverging under devolution" is precisely a strong argument why proper comparisons, (not estimates) of expenditure on devolved services do need to be published. The answer, surely, again lies in a database structure issue: namely, in the need to grasp the nettle of making the required database changes which would align the PESA database with the database underlying the biennnial Treasury Funding Statement, by including the devolved/reserved status of each sub-programme of expenditure in the PESA database. This would not only enable accurate comparative figures to be produced of expenditure in England on those services devolved to Scotland, (or Wales, or Northern Ireland): but it would also enable accurate figures to be produced showing whether spending by Whitehall Departments was properly reflecting the border betwen their "England only" and "UK wide" responsibilities. This latter is a key area which needs to be properly illuminated if devolution is to work effectively. It is very disappointing that the Treasury response includes no discussion of the feasibility of aligning the PESA and TFS databases, by including the "devolved/reserved" coding of expenditure in the PESA database. If devolution had impinged seriously on the Whitehall consciousness, then it is scarcely credible that this would not be the first change that was made to PESA.   Need to Publish More Detailed Figures Underlying PESA. We were disappointed to see no reference to another important point highlighted in our original Fraser of Allander paper: namely, the benefits of making the PESA data available at a much more detailed level than the aggregates currently published in PESA. The analysis in our paper was only possible because we obtained detailed sub-programme level data from the PESA data under the Freedom of Information Act. We would have thought our paper amply demonstrated the benefits, both for data quality, and analysis, of making this level of data available as a standard, (probably as a computer file). Further, the availability of this detailed PESA data, and the ability to readily cross-relate to the TFS, (see preceding point), would go a long way towards preventing the kind of inaccuracies which we uncovered (see our Fraser of Allander papers) between what is recorded as "comparability percentages" in TFS and what Whitehall Departments think their functions are to the various parts of the UK.   Yours sincerely, Dr. J.R. Cuthbert   Mrs M. Cuthbert !‘ФЁœФФЄ‚.ЅЦAІЇЈ Љ Њ>М э F T t † P€ЪBўўўўўўќu^ К М э + r $ NP€ uPШЪчщњўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўK@ёџNormala c"A@ђџЁ"Default Paragraph FontџџџџBџ@1Times New Roman Symbol "Arial"€№аhŸЂЉfЃЂЉfX ƒ(№A The Editor,Margaret CuthbertMargaret Cuthbert ўџџџ§џџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFап'˜мЦ@WordDocumentџџџџ`!CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџjSummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџРўџџџўџџџ ўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вqўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0˜ЌИдрьќ $ L X dpx€ˆф The Editor,љ,Margaret CuthbertqЖNormalMargaret Cuthbert10.Microsoft Word for Windows 95@DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ Ьџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вqxфselfо(  The Editor, @тА{—мЦ@њН ˜мЦXўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0œ@HX` hp xфselfо(  The Editor,