Daithí McKay
North Antrim · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“Will the First Minister give us a more detailed update on the civic advisory panel? Would she also agree that, as we face what is, undoubtedly, a political and economic abyss, it is more important than ever that we hear from civic voices in society as well as political leadership?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I recognise much of the work that is ongoing. Given the recent reported and alleged race crime in the Minister's constituency involving several members of the police, will she give us an assurance that a proper and fully independent investigation will be carried out?”
“<BR /> <BR />In recent years, it has become harder and harder to secure your vote. In that context, it does not make sense that support to secure the vote is withdrawn from those on the ground when they need it more than ever. I am sure that most people picked up anecdotes when canvassing in the recent election.”
“We should move forward with confidence and take on more powers to ensure that we protect local services and workers. <BR /> <BR />Look at the list of offices to be impacted: Ballymena, Banbridge, Omagh, Derry, Newtownabbey and Newtownards. If all those were to close, it would leave a huge gap in rural constituencies.”
“I thank the proposers of the motion for bringing it to the House. I am moving the amendment on behalf of Sinn Féin. <BR /> <BR />I think that all 108 Members received a letter from NIPSA concerning the action that has been taken. The letter also highlights the lack of accountability regarding local politicians.”
“I did so along with other MLAs from all the parties locally, so we are unanimously opposed to the decision there. But, we are all 108 locally elected politicians who are powerless to do anything about this. That is why we should see these small — I have to say they are small — but significant functions being transferred to Belfast.”
The complete record
Every one of 737 lines we hold for Daithí McKay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 15.
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I speak in support of the motion, obviously. It is ridiculous that we find ourselves once again addressing an empty chair across the way. I see that Mr Robinson is the sole representative of the DUP today; perhaps he would like to sit in the Minister's chair, so that we can have some semblance of a real debate and a response from the other side of the House. This is getting beyond ridiculous.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response. Will he provide an update on his discussions with the university sector to explore ways of raising additional revenue without detrimentally affecting students?”
“That is what it is; it is about party politics. This is not about the health service. So, I ask the DUP, when they are resigning next week and the week after that to, perhaps, consider putting in a gatekeeper not only for finance but to look after people's health and those in our community who are suffering. <BR /> <BR />The former Minister Simon Hamilton is probably sitting in his office upstairs; he might even be watching this on screen. He should come down here and answer these questions. He disrespects the House; he disrespects patients who rely on him; and he disrespects the staff of the NHS.”
“I fully agree with the Member. We are stuck in limbo with regard to the health service. As a republican, I do not like direct rule, but I can tell you this: the public like to see local politicians make decisions regarding health; less so, they like to see direct rule Ministers make decisions regarding health; but, worse than both those scenarios, is an empty chair. <BR /> <BR />This may be some tactic from the DUP. The former Minister put out a press statement saying that the DUP will use the best tactics to get the right outcome. The health service is not a tactic or something to be used for political advantage, because that is what this is about. At the end of the day, the crisis in the health service is more important than the crisis in the DUP, the crisis over unionist voters and the crisis over the next election.”
“It is little wonder that the health service is in the state that it is. DUP Health Ministers who have gone before have been more focused on homophobic agendas than on people's health and well-being. They have had their wee pet projects that they have pursued and about which they have gone on the airwaves, week after week. The only thing that they should have been concerned about was people's health. So, we need to see more —”
“The number of patients who were first seen within 14 days following an urgent referral for suspected breast cancer has dropped by 12·2%. That means that 212 women were waiting too long for a referral for suspected breast cancer. The information pack also states that only 72% of patients begin treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral. That is a crisis in itself, never mind the totality of the figure. It also states that the number of people who wait more than nine weeks for a first outpatient appointment has soared from under 40,000 to 107,000. That is shameful, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This is a huge number of people: 373,000 people; 373,000 families. A lot of them are in pain; a lot of them are under stress; and a lot of them are enduring weeks and months of uncertainty after uncertainty.”
“It is absolutely shameful that there is no one here from the DUP to respond to any of these issues. <BR /> <BR />It is also important to remember that the gatekeeper who has been referred to has been left in the Executive to look after issues and to fend off the rogues and the renegades. The DUP needed to keep somebody in the Finance Department because it is so important, but the Health Department is also important. Why is there no gatekeeper to look out for the needs of those in A&E, the terminally ill or the 373,000 people on waiting lists? I argue that the Health Department is the one Department in which you do not leave a vacant seat at the head. <BR /> <BR />Kieran McCarthy has rightly commended the Assembly's Research and Information Service. We do not do that enough. There are some fantastic figures to assist Members.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion and the amendment. As I take up my place on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety this week, I really wish to join others in expressing concern that there is no one at the helm of our health service. At a time when the health service is clearly heading towards the rocks, the captain has jumped ship. I think that we are within our rights and that it is our duty to labour this point today, because nothing is more important than people's health. <BR /> <BR />My son was in hospital a couple of weeks ago. I thank the ambulance staff, nurses and consultants who all helped him. At that moment when you have a relative or friend in hospital, that is the number one priority in your life.”
“This model is called the Dalriada pathfinder. It is innovation in healthcare. It will lead to better outcomes in health, and it will lead to greater savings at a time when money is scarcer. This deserves your support.”
“I believe that it is because the report shows that, despite the outright opposition to the trust's proposal last year, the community listened and responded to the trust, taking into account the financial difficulties and issues that it faces. In June, Minister, you stated:”
“This could be a pilot for the rest of the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area and much farther afield across the North. <BR /> <BR />It is nearly a year on from the proposal to close, in effect, Dalriada Hospital, and I do not want the same thing to happen this year. I do not want any sudden announcements or anything that will send the community into a spin, as it did last year. That community has character, that community has resolve, and that community demonstrated how to stand up and give your community a voice. It gave an example of volunteerism the likes of which we have never seen in north Antrim. I commend those people again for that. <BR /> <BR />Why would we like an assurance?”
“Early results show significant improvements in well-being and substantial savings through reduced hospital admissions. Early figures include a reduction in all acute hospital costs of 41%; a reduction in all non-elective hospital costs of 61%; a reduction in inpatient hospital activity of 43%; a reduction in emergency department activity of 36%; and a reduction in total social care costs of 8%. <BR /> <BR />As the new Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council has already stated, the population currently served by Dalriada is perfectly suitable for a pilot of this new approach. It could be a hub for outreach, support and care services for the frail, elderly and the vulnerable in Ballycastle and its surrounding area, villages and hamlets.”
“I know that the Minister wants all of these things. I know, from his time as Finance Minister, that he was big on innovation, and I believe that this is a big opportunity for innovation and public-sector reform. Dr George O'Neill made comments along similar lines last week. He said that there needs to be leadership and innovation in the health service. The Minister has asked for that to be brought forward, and this is an example. <BR /> <BR />There is emerging evidence of new approaches to addressing the needs of elderly populations. One example was a pilot scheme in Newquay in Cornwall, which is being rolled out across seven locations in England, including Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, with up to 1,000 patients covered in each case.”
“The Dal currently has 20 intermediate beds, 12 MS respite beds and a range of clinics and outpatient services. The report takes a holistic approach to the Dal, and it was very frustrating last year when the trust focused on short-term savings without looking at the concept of value for money and at how rural-based services can save the taxpayer money by preventing things such as bed-blocking in acute hospitals; namely, Antrim Area Hospital, the Causeway and Altnagelvin. It is very frustrating, because the Dal works. It has a high demand for beds, and occupancy figures remain in excess of 90%. <BR /> <BR />A report by Colin Stutt Consulting and Seamus Carey demonstrates to the trust that there is opportunity: opportunity to innovate; opportunity to save money; and opportunity to improve the health of the community.”
“For Tony Stevens, who had only recently come into post at the trust, it was very much a baptism of fire. As I said, a lot has happened since then. Thankfully, the trust changed its position, and Philomena McKay was successful in her legal challenge, which saw the High Court overturn the non-admissions policy. At the time, the Assembly backed the reinstatement and continuation of services at Dalriada. I hope that that remains the case, because the motion was brought forward by my constituency colleague Mr Swann, and the House unanimously supported it. The House supports the Dalriada and the retention of services there, and we need to ensure that that remains the case. <BR /> <BR />In February of this year, the old Moyle Council commissioned a report on the future of Dalriada Hospital.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I rise in the knowledge that this is the first debate on the Dalriada Hospital since November of last year, and a lot has happened since then. It is important first to place on record our thanks and appreciation to the "Save the Dal" campaign, which in the end, or in the most recent financial year anyway, saved the Dal. I thank the campaign's committee, its volunteers, the social media activists, the tractor drivers who campaigned in rallies around the town and the public, who turned out in their hundreds at meetings in Bushmills, Ballycastle, Cushendall and elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />I will never forget the first meeting that we had in the Sheskburn in Ballycastle. There was no standing room, and we had to set up other rooms for members of the public.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Those displays are totally unacceptable, no matter what the bonfire is, what its location is or what its background is. Will he ensure that steps are taken to ensure that there is a significant reduction in such displays next year? Given the restrictions that he operates under, will he ensure that a strong message goes to the police that they need to take a tougher line on those bonfires?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he satisfied that the Department's stakeholder list is comprehensive? Is there provision for bona fide groups to be added to that list?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I see that the Dublin Government have announced that the Twenty-six Counties aim to take 5,000 refugees. Will the deputy First Minister be in contact with the Dublin Government and the Taoiseach to ensure that whatever can be done on a cross-border basis in regard to the refugee crisis will be done?”
“The Committee is therefore seeking this extension to provide sufficient time and space to consider whether the Bill strikes the necessary balance in meeting the needs of the legal profession and consumers, whilst providing efficient and effective arrangements into the future. I ask Members to support the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />Moreover, the proposed new arrangements will have a direct bearing on the consumer. During its preliminary scrutiny, the Committee noted that a power relationship can exist between lawyer and client. That is something we need to be careful to factor in when identifying and assessing the evidence. <BR /> <BR />I reiterate my previous comments that we must ensure that a balance is struck and that the new arrangements are proportionate, but also that they command the confidence of the public. As part of its scrutiny, the Committee will need to ensure that it has the full picture of the level and scale of complaints on the ground.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. As Members will be aware, the Bill arises from the policy recommendations made by the legal services review group chaired by Professor Sir George Bain in 2006. As I outlined at Second Stage, the Committee has been endeavouring to proactively gather evidence on the policy aims of the Bill and commissioned research into the approaches being taken in other applicable jurisdictions for the regulation of the legal profession and the handling of complaints. Given the significance of the Bill, it will be important that the detailed provisions are carefully scrutinised at Committee Stage, since the new regulations will impact solicitors and barristers in how complaints are handled, with the introduction of a Legal Services Oversight Commissioner.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Part of the problem here is that, in some respects, this is a pocket-money Parliament. The Member does make good points about the fact that we need further fiscal levers so that we can have more left/right arguments on the economy. <BR /> <BR />He makes a point about the living wage, but he does not commit to it. We are committed to the living wage; that is a clear economic policy that we have. He wants to reduce the amount being spent on welfare, but he will not commit to the living wage. The Tories have come out with proposals that will affect hard-working families, and the benefits that they need will be taken off them. How can he agree with that and not agree to a living wage?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I listened to his speech with interest, as I always do. Is it not the case that there needs to be honesty in this debate? The Member does sound, in many aspects, like a Conservative spokesperson. I have listened to Members on the opposite Benches on the issues of welfare and people seeking work. They are coming out with the exact same policies that the British Government come out with. Is it not time that Members across this House were honest and said that they actually support what the Tory Government are doing rather than making arguments for the Tory Government but not actually saying that they support them?”
“I will just say on behalf of the Committee that we look forward to receiving a formal response to the report after the Department has reflected further. I urge it to reflect further more. I therefore commend the report to the House and ask for its support for the Committee's motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, it is evident that the current intergovernmental decision-making and dispute resolution arrangements are inequitable, ineffective and outmoded. The research and evidence has highlighted the potential for controversy around the relationship between the Barnett formula and political power. This focuses on the level of central Treasury control and influence over devolved funding and policy decisions. <BR /> <BR />Some might argue that that is the correct and proper role of any state treasury. However, that view misses the point. It ignores the elephant in the room — the level of devolution to date and the potential for wider constitutional reform, which has gained momentum following recent political events. <BR /> <BR />I am conscious, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, of the clock running out on me.”
“I believe that that advice is all the more compelling given the external pressures for change, which we have discussed, and the external pressures that will be before us in the next five years in further devolution within these islands and other significant political changes. <BR /> <BR />As a result of the work of the Committee and today's debate, we know what needs to be done. Without diminishing the challenge of the work involved, it is now time for a local initiative by DFP and the Executive to examine convergence and to establish a needs-assessment methodology that is appropriate for our local context. That would give us a clearer picture of present and future funding requirements. It would also serve to inform our position in any future negotiations.”
“In opening the debate, I quite deliberately pointed to the general trend of convergence and to the fact that it will depend on the particular mix of influencing factors that exist at any point in time. <BR /> <BR />With regard to action versus inaction, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy was quite forthright in its advice. It countered the argument that we should not be raising issues because of the perception that we do well out of Barnett by stating:”
“<BR /> <BR />Yes, we have benefited from the policy of protecting spending on health and education in England. That may or may not continue to be the policy of the Westminster Government. The more significant point, however, is that we have neither influence nor control over such policy decisions for England, yet they have massive implications for our Barnett consequentials. Therefore, we must not use the current policy of protection for health and education in England as an excuse for not acting strategically. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, we must not find an excuse for inaction in the possibility that further convergence might be offset by further austerity. In my view, that would be short-sighted.”
“The Department can look at the areas of consensus, and there is no good reason why we cannot get to work on implementing some of the report immediately. <BR /> <BR />I believe that an immediate output from the Committee's review and from this debate is that we now have a strong and balanced analysis of the pros and cons of the Barnett formula. We also have a clearer picture of the risks that need to be mitigated and of the issues that need to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />I would underline this point that I made in my introductory remarks and which has been reiterated during the debate: the experts are telling us that we may no longer rely on the Barnett formula as a safe haven. We need to keep our options open and to take a long-headed view as to what may be round the corner.”
“She also agreed with the Calman commission regarding the fair measure of need but that we need to be careful about being lead into something a lot more complex than Barnett. As I said, I welcome the fact that she is willing to look at these recommendations in further detail. <BR /> <BR />The Committee's view is that we do not want this to be another report that simply sits on the shelf. I think that the Committee has done quite well in bringing this report together and having cross-party consensus, and that, regardless of your views on the Barnett formula, the pros and cons — and there are clearly those who fall on either side of the argument in the Committee and in the Assembly — there are areas such as transparency, data and arguments about Barnett consequentials on which there is consensus.”
“I would remind the Member that I am speaking as Chair of the Committee. As a party, we would be willing to look at any proposals. If proposals relate to the devolution of further fiscal powers — and if it is about powers and levers that can help us to balance our Budget better and to benefit the lives of those whom we represent — we would be interested in looking at them. <BR /> <BR />The Minister welcomed the debate and agreed that it was important to look at the Barnett formula and its operation but also made the point that there is a risk in reopening Barnett that could lead to less funding and not more. She went over a number of the recommendations in the report on the needs assessment and said that there was previous work by the Department in 2001-02.”
“Part of the experience of compiling the report was that it was refreshing to get a range of views, some quite similar to our own, on the experience with the Treasury and the relationship between the Treasury and other jurisdictions.”
“John McCallister echoed points made by Mr I McCrea and others. He was mindful of the generosity of Barnett in the past and that we have been well served by it. He referred to past Barnett consequentials. I suppose that he put forward the Pandora's box argument: that you need to be careful about what you are opening up with the Barnett formula and tinkering with the system that is in place. He did make a point with which I agreed regarding the Scots and Welsh in that they are much further ahead in the debate on fiscal powers in areas like income tax; and that there is a lot that the Committee and the Assembly can learn from other jurisdictions in these islands.”
“Adrian McQuillan argued that the simplicity of Barnett was one of the pros: you know where you are with the Barnett formula. His argument was that you should leave well enough alone; and that was echoed by a number of Members. <BR /> <BR />Máirtín Ó Muilleoir made the point again that we need correct figures and data, because we cannot trust these figures otherwise. He also said that convergence will not be a good situation for us; so it is important that we plan for that situation if it happens or not and regardless of how far down the road it will be. He made the important point that the machinery cannot be left solely to the Treasury as regards this matter. <BR /> <BR />Ian McCrea also argued that Barnett is the best model, and he challenged others to come forward with alternatives.”
“<BR /> <BR />Judith Cochrane argued that we need to be careful about having a system that incentivises failure and that a needs-based assessment might not be favourable in our local circumstances, but she recognised that additional devolution and English votes for English laws will have an impact on public finances.”
“He, too, echoed the point made by other Members, which is that the process lacks transparency and accountability. We need to have that transparency and accountability when dealing with Treasury. The Committee heard that from a number of officials and Scottish Finance Committee members when it went to Edinburgh. Mr Cree thanked the officials, as did most of the other Committee members, for their sterling work on the report. I would like to echo that and thank them for their work with the Scottish officials and the very worthwhile connections that we built with our Scottish counterparts, which we should follow up on with the Scottish Assembly and the Welsh Assembly.”
“Dominic Bradley made the point that the IFS has the Barnett consequential data, yet devolved Administrations, including the Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, seem to be denied that same information. That, in a sense, is quite disrespectful of our autonomy as devolved institutions, and I certainly feel that, in our interests and those of the people whom we represent, that should be challenged. Mr Bradley argued that data should be freely available and that the Minister should work with her Welsh and Scottish counterparts. Of course, he referred to the black arts of the Barnett calculations. <BR /> <BR />Leslie Cree argued that increased devolution could impact on the benefits of Barnett, which, he argues, we have had up to this point.”
“He also made an important point about the Barnett consequentials, referring to the high-speed rail link, HS2, and the fact that, sometimes, we do not do as well as we could from Barnett consequentials, and that was especially true of the Olympics. <BR /> <BR />The Deputy Chair, Dominic Bradley, highlighted some disadvantages and argued that Barnett does not take into account the needs of regions. Of course, lack of transparency was a point that a number of Members raised. Máirtín Ó Muilleoir made the point that it is very hard to operate or trust data if you do not have transparency and have only an incomplete set of figures in front of you.”
“Thirdly, the key issues that the Committee has identified for action will need to be addressed whether or not the Barnett formula is retained. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the key themes in contributions by Members, and we heard how the Barnett formula has a range of strengths and weaknesses. That was often at the centre of the debate at Committee. Paul Girvan made the point that it was a very worthwhile exercise and said that we need to ensure that we get a fair crack of the whip. He posed a fair question about how you define need. There will be numerous definitions of need. Obviously, Treasury may have a different definition from that of the respective Assemblies and devolved institutions.”
“We welcome that when it happens. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the Minister's response and am pleased that she has agreed to go away and look carefully at the detail of the recommendations. I might not agree with her analysis of the Committee recommendations, but I feel that we urgently need to look at them and give them priority, along with all of the other economic priorities that she and the Executive have. <BR /> <BR />Three key facts need to be highlighted in summing up the debate. First, we cannot be certain how or whether the Barnett formula will continue to operate, given the potential for wider constitutional reform and further fiscal devolution. Secondly, we cannot be certain whether we are being underfunded, overfunded or adequately funded, because we have not completed a local needs assessment.”
“Thanks for the demotion, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. <BR /> <BR />This has been a useful debate on the Committee’s report, and I thank Members and the Minister for their worthwhile contributions. Historically, I tend to listen to ministerial responses to Finance Committee inquiry reports with an equal measure of hope and trepidation. Hope, because I am mindful of the conscientious and constructive way in which the Committee approaches its work, and trepidation, because I have, in the past, experienced the typical DFP signature response, which tends to be unduly sceptical and defensive, attempting to create the impression that there is no need for concern, everything is in hand, and there is little room for improvement. Sometimes, of course, the Department moves quietly to the Committee’s ground at a later stage.”
“I look forward to the contributions from Members and the Minister and commend the report to the House.”
“Related to that point, the Committee heard various suggestions for improvements to the arrangements for making decisions and resolving associated disputes. Those are outlined in the Committee’s report and discussed in detail in the source evidence. Members may wish to pick up on some of the suggestions during the debate. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has not been prescriptive on the solutions covered. Instead, it is calling on the Minister to engage with her counterparts in Scotland and Wales, with a view to presenting jointly agreed proposals to the Government in Westminster. <BR /> <BR />More generally, the Committee is calling on the Department and the wider Executive to act now and develop a well-thought-out position on funding arrangements, with a view to influencing the shape of things to come.”
“In his evidence, Professor Trench highlighted the failure of the existing dispute resolution arrangements when they were invoked by the devolved Governments over the issue of the 2012 London Olympics. He stated:”
“The obvious question arising from that is this: how can that be acceptable to any devolved Government or Administration? <BR /> <BR />Also related to transparency is the fact that the Committee heard about some of the more notorious examples of arbitrary decision-making by Treasury on what does or does not attract Barnett consequentials. They included the initial decisions that infrastructure spending on the 2012 London Olympics, Crossrail and Kew Gardens would not attract consequentials, as they were classified as an activity in England benefiting all the jurisdictions. In evidence, Professor Holtham described one of those examples more colourfully than I could. He stated:”
“However, Committee members, during their visit to Edinburgh, noted an interesting point that the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee had picked up on in recent evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). The IFS pointed out that after it "pestered the Treasury", it managed to get hold of the spreadsheets that are used for the more detailed Barnett calculations and which are unpublished. The IFS could not see any reason why that information could not be published by Treasury with each spending review or Budget statement. <BR /> <BR />Closer to home, it was clear from the Department’s previous evidence to the Committee that DFP officials have been unfairly disadvantaged in their negotiations with Treasury on the devolution of corporation tax. It was noted that Treasury had not shared all the detail of its calculations.”
“They include the proposal for English votes for English laws, more often referred to as "EVEL"; the potential for devolution within England; and the tie between the Barnett formula and policy decisions in England. It is clear that those issues could further complicate things and lead to disputes, which could act as a further impetus for more thoroughgoing reform. <BR /> <BR />The other two areas that the Committee identified as needing to be addressed relate to the clear lack of transparency and accountability in Treasury’s decision-making and the dearth of reliable, independent public finance data. It is clear that there are widely held concerns about the data underpinning the Barnett decisions and a general recognition that greater transparency and openness are required. I will not rehearse the evidence from the expert witnesses.”
“<BR /> <BR />The first issue is the implications of the further devolution of fiscal powers. That could lead to a diminished funding allocation through the formula and increasingly notional deductions from the block grant. There is the big question of what principles will be used for block grant adjustments and whether they will apply across the devolved jurisdictions. The Committee has queried, for example, whether the no detriment principle from the Smith Commission in Scotland will also apply here in calculating the cost of applying a reduced corporation tax rate. If so, that could reduce the hit on our block grant quite substantially. I refer Members to paragraphs 40 and 41 of the report. <BR /> <BR />The Committee’s review also examined other topical issues that could have implications for devolution funding arrangements.”
“The Committee also examined the different considerations in needs assessment. The key point is that it has the potential to be controversial in the approach taken and in the definitions and data used. As such, the Committee calls for the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive to do their homework on those complex issues. That will be important by way of contingency planning for circumstances in which we need to promote or respond to proposals for change. <BR /> <BR />It is reasonably foreseeable that external pressure for change will arise from the increased fiscal devolution and wider constitutional reform across the water. The Committee noted several issues that may lead to increased complexity and contention, ultimately influencing the future of the Barnett formula and devolution funding generally.”