Chief Economist Directorate
Office of the Chief Economic Adviser (OCEA) Division
E: xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxxx
Mr Paterson
Via email
___
Your ref:
Our ref: FOI/17/02044
5 October 2017
REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002 (FOISA)
Dear Mr Paterson
Thank you for your request dated 8 September 2017 under the Freedom of Information
(Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).
Your request
You asked for:
Please provide all communications with third parties (excluding other Scottish
Government agencies and private individuals) about the content of the Government
Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report (GERS) 2015/16 and 2016/17.
Response to your request
I enclose a copy of the information you requested in the Annexes. Note that, in accordance
with Section 38(1) of FOISA, some personal data such as names and email addresses have
been redacted from the correspondence.
Your right to request a review
If you are unhappy with this response to your FOI request, you may ask us to carry out an
internal review of the response, by writing to the Chief Economist, St Andrews House,
Regent Road, Edinburgh, EH1 3DG, or emailing
xxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxxx. Your review
request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made
within 40 working days from the date when you received this letter. We will complete the
review and tell you the result, within 20 working days from the date when we receive your
review request.
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
www.gov.scot
If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the
Scottish Information Commissioner. More detailed information on your appeal rights is
available on the Commissioner’s website at:
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/YourRights/Unhappywiththeresponse/AppealingtoCommi
ssioner.aspx. Your sincerely
Iain Pearce
Economic Statistics
Office of the Chief Economic Adviser
Scottish Government
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
www.gov.scot
Annex A – List of correspondence
The table below lists correspondence between the Scottish Government and third parties.
These are in the form of emails, but have been reproduced in Annex B below to make them
as accessible as possible.
Correspondence
Brief description
Number
1
Email correspondence with
Fraser of Allander Institute
2
Email correspondence with
Oxford University and HM Treasury
3
Email correspondence with
Scottish Parliament Information Centre
(SPICe)
4
Email correspondence with
HM Treasury
5
Email correspondence with
UK Statistics Authority
6
Email correspondence with
Oil and Gas Authority
St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
www.gov.scot
Annex B – Correspondence
1. Email correspondence with Fraser of Allander Institute
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 06 September 2017 11:31
To: Fraser of Allander Institute <<email address redacted>>
Subject: GERS tables 3.6 - 3.8
Hi <<name redacted>>,
The measure of depreciation used in GERS is capital consumption, which for various
technical reasons is different from depreciation that you’ll find in company accounts. It’s set
out separately in Table A.8.
Capital consumption/depreciation is reported as part of the accounting adjustment line in
current expenditure. So the individual function lines (health, education, etc.) will not include
depreciation, but total spend does.
Hope that makes sense!
<<name redacted>>
From: Fraser of Allander Institute <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 06 September 2017 11:26
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Subject: GERS tables 3.6 - 3.8
Hi <<name redacted>>/<<name redacted>>
Hope you can help with this (hopefully for you, easy) question. Do the expenditure figures in
Tables 3.6 – 3.8 include or exclude depreciation?
Thanks
<<name redacted>>
2. Email correspondence with Oxford University and HM Treasury
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 18 August 2017 15:01
To: Oxford University <<email address redacted>>
Cc: HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>; HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>; HM Treasury
<<email address redacted>>
Subject: Re: CRA and GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>,
Regarding devolved spending, there is no straightforward way to compare with the
equivalent in England. A measure which is sometimes used as a proxy is identifiable
spending excluding social protection spending, as (at the moment) almost all social
protection spending is reserved, and most identifiable spending is devolved. There are some
exceptions to this, however, with, e.g. research council spending, nuclear decommissioning
spending, or national lottery grants example of spending which is identifiable to Scotland in
the CRA, but is reserved; and public sector pensions is an example of some spending which
is in social protection but is devolved.
Hope that’s helpful,
<<name redacted>>
From: Oxford University <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 17 August 2017 16:43
To: HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>; HM
Treasury <<email address redacted>>
Subject: Re: CRA and GERS
Thanks <<name redacted>>, for such a quick and full reply.
Am I right iIt thinking sounds as though the numbers will converge but that the gap will be
(other things being equal) close to the PESA number?
I get the HRA stuff I think but freely admit I never got to the bottom of the accounting
adjustments
<<name redacted>> might be interested to know that I'm thinking of comparing devolved
expenditure with the same in England. It's by my reckoning over a quarter per head higher.
Various ways of doing that sum but say £1400 lead per head over England as in GERS
almost all of which is in devolved spend over devolved spend of roughly £6000 gives a lead
of 30%. Even with a lead of £200 on reserved spend - which implies implausibly a 5% lead
on social security - the devolved lead is 25%. )
But <<name redacted>> can tell me if I have that wrong
From: HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 17 August 2017 15:10
To: Oxford University <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>; HM
Treasury <<email address redacted>>
Subject: Re: CRA and GERS
Dear <<name redacted>>,
Thanks for your email. I am also copying in my colleague from the Scottish Government who
we work closely with (even if there are some difference in final products).
The CRA (HMT) and GERS (Scotland) are quite closely aligned because, broadly speaking,
they work off the same data sources. However, they do have some key differences around
timing and methodology. GERS is now published ahead of HMTs CRA using HMT data from
the previous year and other spending publications. Therefore, there will always be some
differences when the CRA follows later in the year. In addition, GERS uses a slightly
different methodology. I believe the statisticians in Scotland attribute non-ID (as you
mention) but also ‘accounting adjustments’ (that bridge the gap between HMTs ‘expenditure
on services’ aggregate and ‘total managed expenditure’). However, despite these core
differences, the figures would normally be closer. I believe there are two core reasons last
year for the differences you ask about below:
1. Total managed expenditure now includes the expenditure relating to Housing
Associations after a recent ONS reclassification. This is not yet collected by HMT and
therefore not included within the CRA for England, Scotland, Wales or NI. GERS
however, included an estimate relating to English Housing Associations in their UK figure
but nothing of this was apportioned to a Scotland figure. This is because at the time only
English Housing Associations had been re-classified as public sector by the ONS and
Scottish HA’s had yet to be re-classified. I believe this had a £7.9bn impact on the UK
figure plus some additional expenditure relating to debt interest. All devolved housing
associations have now been re-classified to the public sector so this year, this difference
is likely to decrease because GERS will include the impact of Scottish HA’s and be on a
comparable basis to the UK figure.
2. GERS did not include Scottish Housing Revenue account numbers in their 2016
exercise. This would have increased Scotland figures by £0.66bn. Statisticians are
planning to include this for the next GERS. HMT are also looking to improve the Network
Rail apportionments provided by DfT in the CRA. This is expected to reduce Scottish
expenditure slightly, offsetting some of the above. We don’t have figures from DfT on this
as yet though so can not confirm. Currently the GERS figure is around £0.4bn higher
than CRA. Again, both GERS and CRA contacts will be looking to work with DfT to agree
a methodology.
There were also other less significant differences. I would expect the figures to converge in
upcoming releases because the main issues highlighted above will be actioned. Hopefully
this makes sense but let me know if it isn’t clear enough.
<<name redacted>>
From: Oxford University <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 16 August 2017 14:59
To: HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>
Subject: Fwd: CRA and GERS
I wonder if in <<name redacted>> absence you might be able to help me out with this
question?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Oxford University <<email address redacted>>
Subject: CRA and GERS Date: 16 August 2017 at 14:50:04 BST
To: HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>
Dear <<name redacted>>
I am grateful to you and colleagues for passing me the relevant connections to have
fun with the CRA Database.
Once i have completed the working people in this be very happy to show it to you and
ask your comments on it.
But I wonder if you can help me out with a quick query. It arises because the press
have been asking me to comment on next week’s publication of the GERS numbers
for Scotland. it’s quite a simple one, and must surely have an obvious answer.
We all know that public spending in Scotland is higher proportionately than England.
The numbers are in the published tables. You will recognise this from table 9.2 of
PESA 2017, which has Identifiable spending in Scotland about £1500 head higher
than the UK average. It was about £1400 the year before.
England
8,440
8,484
8,563
8,716
8,816
Scotland
10,020 10,187 10,196 10,327 10,536
Wales
9,760
9,623
9,765
9,887
9,996
Northern Ireland
10,684 10,773 10,927 11,041 10,983
UK identifiable expenditure 8,700
8,747
8,824
8,971
9,076
But the Scottish government’s GERS publication last August said the gap in total
spending per capita was £1200. Obviously that includes non-identifiable spending,
but it shouldn’t differ per capita
Have you any idea what’s going on here?
<<name redacted>>
3. Email correspondence with Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe)
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 08 June 2017 14:54
To: SPICe <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: Question
Hi <<name redacted>>,
HS1 is the high speed link to the English channel from London. No expenditure associated
with this project is apportioned to Scotland in GERS.
HS2 refers to the planned construction of high speed lines from London to the North.
Scotland is allocated 2% of this expenditure in GERS. This is based on the HS2 business
case, which suggests that 2% of the benefits will occur travellers from Scotland. This is
available at the link below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/365065/S_A_1_Economic_case_
0.pdf
I hope this is helpful.
Kind regards,
<<name redacted>>
From: SPICe <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 08 June 2017 14:13
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Subject: Question
<<name redacted>>,
Hope this finds you well.
I’ve had an enquiry, which I was hoping you may be able to advise on. As I understand it,
work on this project has yet to or is just about to commence. The enquiry is as follows:
We have been contacted by a constituent who is looking for information on the
apportionment of expenditure on the HS1 and HS2 projects to Scotland within GERS. I’d be
glad of any information you can provide on this subject.
Any thoughts welcome.
Best
<<name redacted>>
4. Email correspondence with HM Treasury
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 21 September 2016 16:36
To: HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: Crossrail data in GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>,
The figures were taken from the OSCAR transparency releases. However, I also cross-
checked them against DfT’s annual report, which show a breakdown of their RDEL and
CDEL by project, and they did match (see
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/552876/dft-
annual-report-and-accounts-2015-to-2016-web-version.pdf table in Annexes on page 228
onwards)
Regards,
<<name redacted>>
From: HM Treasury <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 21 September 2016 16:26
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Subject: Crossrail data in GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>,
In your recent GERS publication table A.7 accounting adjustments shows a line for Crossrail.
I am just curious to know where you have sourced this from?
Table A.7: Expenditure Accounting Adjustment: UK
£ million
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Crossrail 517
1,205
1,123
1,082
829
We are considering including Crossrail expenditure within TES functional lines (eventually
leading to CRA splits) and are just comparing available data sources for this.
Regards
<<name redacted>>
5. Email correspondence with UK Statistics Authority
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 23 August 2016 11:45
To: UKSA <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
Great. Thanks <<name redacted>>.
<<name redacted>>
From: UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 23 August 2016 10:52
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address
redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
<<name redacted>>,
Thanks for this. It looks fine other than that I would delete the two words shaded in your
version below as our remit is not just about publications.
Regards
<<name redacted>>
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 19 August 2016 18:42
To: UKSA <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>,
Just following up from the last email, as I said, we’re hoping to include a bit more detail in the
full consultation response. Are you happy with the wording below. It essentially says the
same thing, but slightly more formally.
Thanks,
<<name redacted>>
Amongst other bodies, the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA), which is the independent body
responsible for monitoring and assessing statistical publications’ compliance with the Code
of Practice for Official Statistics,[1] was consulted on the change in timing of the GERS
[1]
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/monitoring-and-assessment/code-of-practice/
2015-16 publication. The UKSA has confirmed that the release of GERS in August 2016 is
consistent with the principles, practices, and protocols of the Code of Practice, namely:
Principle 1, Meeting user needs
Practice 4. Publish statistical reports according to a published timetable that takes
account of user needs
Protocol 2: Release practices
Practice 1. Release statistical reports as soon as they are judged ready, so that there
is no opportunity, or perception of opportunity, for the release to be withheld or
delayed.
Practice 5. Draw public attention to any change to a pre-announced release date and
explain fully the reasons for the change at the same time. The relevant statistical
Head of Profession has the final decision and should not be influenced by non-
statistical matters.
[1]
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/monitoring-and-assessment/code-of-practice/ From: UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 17 August 2016 15:58
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address
redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
Thanks <<name redacted>>. That looks fine to us in capturing the same material in easier
language.
Regards
<<name redacted>>
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 17 August 2016 15:20
To: UKSA <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
Thanks <<name redacted>>,
Happy to add it back in, but just conscious of creating a single sentence paragraph that runs
over five lines! How about
The UK Statistics Authority has confirmed that the release of GERS at this time is consistent with the
requirements of the Code of Practice to release statistical reports as soon as they are judged ready,
according to a published timetable that takes account of user needs, without being influenced by non-
statistical matters. This helps ensures that there is no opportunity, or perception of opportunity, for the
release to be withheld or delayed.
From: UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 17 August 2016 14:16
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address
redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>,
<<name redacted>> and I have just had a look at this. We think simplifying is fine, but
wonder if you can add back in the language about publication being in line with a published
timetable as that feels quite relevant in this case - it is not just that the data are ready now, it
is that you preannounced in advance of parliamentary recess dates being set that this is
when you would publish. A slightly rejigged version of the text that does this could be:
The UK Statistics Authority has confirmed that the release of GERS at this time is consistent with the
requirements of the Code of Practice to release statistical reports as soon as they are judged ready This
ensures so that there is no opportunity, or perception of opportunity, for the release to be withheld or
delayed and according to a published timetable at a time that takes account of user needs, without being
influenced by non-statistical matters.
How does that look?
<<name redacted>>
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 17 August 2016 11:55
To: UKSA <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>,
Thanks for getting back to me. I agree that it makes sense to focus on the change to timing,
so agree with your suggested approach.
However, given that it is going into the summary of the document, I’d like the text to be as
short and succinct as possible. I’ve rejigged the paragraph and cut it back a bit, but also
added in a reference to practice 5, protocol 2: not being influenced by non-statistical matters.
The UK Statistics Authority has confirmed that the release of GERS at this time is consistent with the
requirements of the Code of Practice to release statistical reports as soon as they are judged ready at a
time that takes account of user needs, without being influenced by non-statistical matters. This ensures that
there is no opportunity, or perception of opportunity, for the release to be withheld or delayed.
Hopefully this is ok? We will probably include the expanded version with references to the
particular clauses and protocols in our consultation response, where we will have the space
to go into more detail.
Kind regards,
<<name redacted>>
From: UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 17 August 2016 11:00
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address
redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>,
Thanks for the reminder. I have discussed here and our suggestion is to be a bit more
specific about what you have consulted on and where we have confirmed code compliance,
so the wording of the paragraph below might become:
The UK Statistics Authority was consulted on changes to the timing of this year’s publication, and has
confirmed that GERS continues to be managed objectively, in the public interest, and free from political
interference. the release of GERS at this time is consistent with the Code of Practice - in particular the
clauses in principle 1 and protocol 2 that require 'Publish statistical reports according to a published
timetable that takes account of user needs' and 'Release statistical reports as soon as they are judged
ready, so that there is no opportunity, or perception of opportunity, for the release to be withheld or
delayed'.
How does that look to you?
Regards
<<name redacted>>
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 17 August 2016 09:58
To: UKSA <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>,
Sorry to hassle you about this. Just checking whether you will be able to get to us today on
the wording?
Regards,
<<name redacted>>
From: UKSA <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 11 August 2016 15:21
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address
redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: UKSA and GERS
<<name redacted>>,
Many thanks for this. We will respond on the suggestion next week - in advance of your
deadline.
Best regards
<<name redacted>>
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 11 August 2016 11:43
To: UKSA <<email address redacted>>; Office of National Statistics <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Subject: UKSA and GERS
Hi <<name redacted>>, <<name redacted>>,
<<name redacted>> met with <<name redacted>> earlier in the week, and discussed some
of the coverage that there has been of the decision to bring forward GERS to August,
particularly that which suggested that the decision was made for some political purpose.
<<name redacted>> mentioned that <<name redacted>> had suggested we could include
some language in GERS from the UKSA, reaffirming the UKSA view that GERS is
independently produced. I’ve attached a draft of some text that could be included in the
summary. Could you have a look at it and confirm whether the UKSA would be happy with
this, or suggest an alternative?
We’re getting quite close to the publisher’s deadline, so if we were able to get something
sorted by
Wednesday 17th that would be great.
Happy to discuss,
Thanks,
<<name redacted>>
6. Email correspondence with Oil and Gas Authority
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 28 August 2017 08:11
To: Oil and Gas Authority <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: Query about Table 2.1 in GERS 2016-17
<<name redacted>>,
The ONS supplied us with CPSB directly. And you are right, of course that the licence fees
series contains royalties as well.
As to the revisions, in previous years we included Emissions Trading Scheme revenues with
North Sea revenues, but this is no longer the case.
Regards
<<name redacted>>
From: Oil and Gas Authority <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 25 August 2017 17:27
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Cc: HMRC <<email address redacted>>; Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>; Oil and Gas
Authority <<email address redacted>>
Subject: RE: Query about Table 2.1 in GERS 2016-17
<<name redacted>>
Thanks you for your very speedy response.
I can’t find the ONS series CPSB. Did you get it direct from ONS or is it lurking somewhere
online?
I note that the change for total CT applied only from 2000 onwards, so I am surprised to see
revisions to your North Sea CT series all the way back to 1998/99.
I also note that your “Licence Fees” series actually shows licence fees plus royalty (see
attached).
All the best,
<<name redacted>>
From: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 25 August 2017 9:41 AM
To: Oil and Gas Authority <<email address redacted>>
Cc: Oil and Gas Authority <<email address redacted>>; HMRC <<email address redacted>>; Scottish
Government <<email address redacted>>;
Subject: RE: Query about Table 2.1 in GERS 2016-17
Hi <<name redacted>>,
In previous years GERS used the HMRC data for North Sea corporation tax, but this year we
used data directly from ONS (cdid CPSB), which is based on the accruals method. (This
change is also reflected in onshore corporation tax.)
This article from the ONS
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articl
es/improvementstoaccrualsmethodologyforcorporationtaxbankcorporationtaxsurchargeandth
ebanklevy/2017
explains the changes to corporation tax in general (this is also mentioned briefly in the GERS
methodology document).
Regards
<<name redacted>>,
From: Oil and Gas Authority <<email address redacted>>
Sent: 24 August 2017 19:30
To: Scottish Government <<email address redacted>>
Cc: HMRC <<email address redacted>>; Oil and Gas Authority <<email address redacted>>
Subject: Query about Table 2.1 in GERS 2016-17
Why do the “North Sea corporation tax” figures in Table 2.1 of the spreadsheet linked to from
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS not align to the “offshore” CT
figures published by HMRC a
t https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmrc-tax-and-nics-
receipts-for-the-uk? <<name redacted>>
