Author: Martin Wheatcroft

ICAEW chart of the week: Forecast deficit doubles in a week

20 March 2020: Emergency spending measures added to Spring Budget measures drives forecast deficit for 2020-21 to double in a week.

Forecast deficit pre-budget £40bn + Budget £15bn = OBR forecast £55bn - base rate £3bn + Covid I £12bn + Covid II £20bn = Latest forecast £84bn

20 March 2020.   Chart research by Martin Wheatcroft FCA, design by Sunday.   ©ICAEW 2020
Source: HM Treasury, ‘Spring Budget 2020’, and emergency announcements on 11 and 17 March 2020.

Three fiscal events within a period of a week is pretty much unprecedented. Two of these were on Wednesday 11 March when an expansionary Spring Budget was accompanied by a £12bn package of emergency measures. Less than a week later, the Chancellor announced a £20bn package of additional financial support, together with an initial £330bn in loans and guarantees to keep the economy operating.

As the #icaewchartoftheweek illustrates, this means that the forecast deficit for 2020-21 has more than doubled, from £40bn before the Budget to £84bn now.

It looks increasingly likely that the fiscal deficit in the coming year will exceed £100bn, potentially by a significant margin. Just a 2% drop in tax revenues would be enough to take the deficit over that level, even before the impact on welfare spending of job losses and income reductions, or the cost of writing down any loans or guarantees that are not repaid. Further financial support packages from the Chancellor over the weeks and months ahead are also likely.

Sit tight. This is going to be a bumpy ride for the public finances.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

The £4.4bn cost of preparing for Brexit

17 March 2020: the NAO has provided an analysis of the spending by government departments on preparing for Brexit, highlighting just how significant an exercise leaving the EU is for the government machine.

A recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) on the cost of EU Exit preparations analysed the £4.4bn spent by government departments in getting ready for Brexit between June 2016 and 31 January 2020.

The NAO is the independent audit body responsible for scrutinising public spending on behalf of Parliament. In its Brexit report, the NAO identified over 300 workstreams with £1.9bn spent on staff, £1.5bn on building new systems and procuring goods and services, £0.3bn on external advice, and £0.6bn in other costs.

Over half of the costs were incurred by three departments, with £871m, £803m, £748m spent respectively by DEFRA, the Home Office and HMRC. This included preparation for new international trade, immigration and customs processes, as well as implementing domestic regulation in areas currently regulated by the EU.

This spending is not the complete total. It does not include costs incurred, for example, of staff only partially working on Brexit or seconded for less than six months, nor local authority preparations not covered by central government funding. It also does not include the net contributions payable to the EU of £8bn during the transition period between 1 February 2020 and 31 December 2020 nor the net financial settlement payable to the EU after that of an estimated £23bn.

The NAO reported that some of the £1.8bn spent between 1 April and 31 October 2019 was spent on no-deal preparation, but that it is not possible to analyse how much of this was wasted (other than the £92m in losses incurred on terminating ferry and other contracts already identified by Whitehall as ‘fruitless payments’ or ‘constructive losses’). This is because many of the preparations will still be needed for when the UK leaves the Customs Union and Single Market at the end of the year.

Spending on advertising and communication amounted to £77m, including £49m spent on the Cabinet Office’s ‘Get ready for Brexit’ campaign, the subject of a critical NAO report in January 2020.

Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW commented: “The NAO has provided a very helpful analysis of the spending by government departments on preparing for Brexit. It highlights just how significant an exercise leaving the EU is for the government machine, with the need for more staff, new regulatory arrangements and new systems and processes across the public sector.

This effort is far from complete, with a huge amount of work still needed to prepare for leaving the EU Customs Union and Single Market in less than nine months’ time.”

The NAO report: ‘The cost of EU Exit preparations’ is publicly available.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Spring Budget 2020

13 March 2020: Forecast deficits increase with new spending announced in the Spring Budget, even before the impact of the coronavirus.

Forecast deficit before and after the Budget. 2020-21: £40bn to £55bn, 2021-22: £38bn to £67bn, 2022-23: £35bn to £61bn, 2023-24: £33bn to £60bn, 2024-25: £58bn.

13 March 2020.   Chart research by Martin Wheatcroft FCA, design by Sunday.   ©ICAEW 2020
Source: HM Treasury, ‘Spring Budget 2020’.   2020-21 excludes £12bn additional funding in response to the coronavirus.

The sheer scale of the Spring Budget 2020 spending announcements are difficult to comprehend, but the #icaewchartoftheweek makes an attempt by illustrating their effect on the fiscal deficit compared with the previous forecast.

The budgeted deficit in the coming financial year is expected to increase by £15bn to £55bn, even before taking account of the emergency £12bn to respond to the coronavirus that was decided after the forecasts were finalised. The deficit is also expected to be much greater than the previous forecast in each of the subsequent years, albeit there was no previous official forecast for 2024-25.

The increase in the deficit in 2020-21 of £15bn reflects higher spending of £19bn less £1bn in higher taxes and £3bn in other forecast revisions. The spending increases in the subsequent four years are even greater, with an extra £46bn on average a year before taking account of £7bn a year in higher taxes, £8bn a year from the indirect boost to the economy that the incremental spending and investment should provide, as well as an average of £3bn a year in other forecast revisions.

The big uncertainty is how much the UK and global economies will be affected by the coronavirus pandemic in addition to the existing economic headwinds and changes in the trading relationships with other countries in the EU and elsewhere in 2021. These risks could potentially reduce tax revenues significantly, leading to even greater fiscal deficits than those presented by the Chancellor on Wednesday.

For more on Budget 2020 visit ICAEW’s dedicated Budget Hub. For the latest news and advice for accountants on the Covid-19 outbreak visit ICAEW’s Coronavirus hub.

Spring Budget 2020: Hey big spender, spend a little infrastructure with me

12 March 2020: Rishi Sunak’s first Budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer provided a sharp change in direction for the public finances – something that will please and surprise many, according to ICAEW’s Public Sector team.

Spring Budget 2020 combined a short-term fiscal stimulus to fight the coronavirus with higher spending on public services and new infrastructure investment to increase borrowing significantly. Fortunately, ultra-low interest rates will keep financing costs down on the more than £330bn in borrowing planned to finance these plans (not including short-term fiscal stimulus measures), with public sector net debt expected to exceed £2.0tn by 2025.

This Budget is particularly important as it sets the spending envelope for the three-year Spending Review expected to be published later this year. With a higher base for spending following the Spending Round 2019 announced by the previous Chancellor in October, this signals an end to the austerity policies of recent administrations. 

Key headlines for 2020-21:

  • Fiscal deficit up from £40bn to £55bn (2.4% of GDP), before coronavirus measures.
  • No significant tax changes beyond corporation tax remaining at 19%.
  • £14bn extra current spending and £5bn extra investment before coronavirus measures.
  • £12bn in tax and spending measures to respond to the coronavirus.
  • Gross financing requirement of £162bn, including £98bn to cover debt repayments.
  • No reflection of uncertain adverse economic effect of the coronavirus on tax revenues.

Key headlines for the four subsequent years to 2024-25:

  • Fiscal deficit of £62bn (2.5% of GDP) on average over the subsequent four years.
  • Tax policy measures to generate an additional £7bn per year.
  • Extra current spending of £27bn a year and extra investment of £19bn a year.
  • Gross financing requirement of £595bn (£149bn a year) including £315bn to cover repayments.
  • Significant economic uncertainty with coronavirus, global economic conditions and changes in UK trading relationships with the EU and other countries.

The existing plans already incorporated a significant ramp-up in infrastructure and other investment spending with public sector net investment forecast to increase from 2.2% of GDP in 2019-20 to 3.0% by 2022-23. The challenge for the Government will be to deliver and ‘get things done’, especially as capital investment by government departments is expected to increase by 25% in 2020-21 and by a further 35% over the subsequent four years. Will there be sufficient construction capacity and project management expertise to deliver such a rapid expansion and still deliver value for money for taxpayers?

The Budget also contained some important developments in the framework for the public finances, with a specific commitment to review the investment criteria in the Government’s ‘Green Book’ to ensure regions outside London and the South East benefit from the additional infrastructure spend proposed in the Budget. The focus on looking at the effect on investments on the public balance sheet was also welcome with new approaches planned for how to appraise public spending.

One surprise in the Budget announcement was that the OBR did not revise the economic forecasts down as much as had been expected. This was partly because of the economic benefits of higher public spending and investment, but also reflected an improved outlook for productivity. The benefit of this for the Chancellor was that he was able to announce additional current spending on public services, while still remaining within the fiscal rules set out in the Conservative party manifesto.

Unfortunately, the scale of the impact of the coronavirus on the economy is still unclear and so the forecasts for tax revenues may need to be revised downwards, potentially significantly, in the Autumn Budget later this year.

Commenting on Spring Budget 2020, Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector, at ICAEW said: “The Chancellor has announced a major loosening of the taps on spending and investment in his first Budget, with a combination of a short-term fiscal stimulus to fight the coronavirus, higher spending on public services, and a major programme of new infrastructure investment.

Those wondering where all the funding for this planned spending will come from may be surprised to discover that the Chancellor has not followed the custom of post-general election tax rises, but instead has decided to take advantage of ultra-low interest rates to borrow more than £330bn over the next five years. Public sector net debt is expected to exceed £2.0tn by 2025, although the Government hopes that this will then be falling as a ratio to the size of the economy.

Nevertheless, it is a Budget that many will be pleased with, even if a little surprising coming from the traditional champions of small government.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Raising taxes is hard to do

6 March 2020: How can the Chancellor raise taxes in the forthcoming Spring Budget?

Tax receipts 2019-20 £751bn. Top six taxes £615bn (82%): income tax £196bn. VAT £155bn, NI £143bn, corporation tax £54bn, council tax £36bn, business rates £31bn.

Traditionally, the first Budget after an election raises taxes and this would be a logical step given plans to increase public spending and investment in infrastructure. But which taxes could the Chancellor increase?

As the #icaewchartoftheweek illustrates, the top six taxes generate over 80% of tax receipts. But the Conservative manifesto rules out increases in the headline rates of income tax, national insurance and VAT, while increasing the corporation tax rate would be difficult given the planned cut from 19% to 17% has already been suspended. Most local authorities are already planning to increase council taxes as much as they can while increasing business rates would be really difficult.

We await the Budget to see what the Chancellor decides to do. Some money could be generated from increasing or introducing smaller taxes but for larger sums, the main place to look would be from reforming tax reliefs and exemptions, such as the rumoured abolition of Entrepreneurs’ Relief. However, it would be a brave Chancellor that decided to go after larger sums, for example by extending the scope of VAT.

Of course, the Chancellor might decide to cut taxes instead, hoping to boost a sluggish economy and so generate greater sums through higher levels of growth. Either way, borrowing is likely to increase – fortunately at extremely low interest rates.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

A tax system with 1,190 tax reliefs is difficult to hold accountable

2 March 2020: A recent report by the National Audit Office (NAO) highlighted that there were 1,190 tax reliefs as of October 2019, confirming just how complicated the British tax system is.

The NAO is the independent audit body responsible for scrutinising public spending on behalf of parliament. In a report on how HM Treasury and HMRC manage tax expenditures (tax reliefs that are used to pursue social or economic objectives), the NAO focused on the 362 tax reliefs that fall into this category. HMRC has reported that 111 of these reliefs had a combined annual cost of £155bn in 2018-19.
 
The NAO was critical of both HM Treasury and HMRC in how they monitor tax expenditures, following on from previous criticism by the Public Accounts Committee in 2018 that HMRC did not know whether a large number of tax reliefs were delivering value for money.
 
The report highlights how some tax reliefs significantly exceeded their original cost estimates, with HMRC not fully investigating large changes in costs. While HMRC has started to assess tax reliefs, only 15 formal evaluations have been completed since 2015, representing just 7% of the total value. In particular, HMRC has only evaluated five of the 23 tax expenditures estimated to individually cost in excess of £1bn a year.
 
A major issue highlighted by the report is a lack of sufficient assessments of whether the behavioural changes or other benefits intended by changes to the tax system are being achieved. Guidance from the IMF states that tax expenditures require the same amount of government oversight as public spending and this is not currently the case in the UK.
 
Poorly designed tax reliefs can skew behaviour in ways that were not originally intended or create opportunities for exploitation or abuse. One example is intangibles relief, which was meant to support innovation. Instead it created multiple opportunities for tax avoidance where taxes were reduced with no true benefit in innovation. 
 
There can also be unintended consequences for the accuracy of company accounts, with financial statement disclosures distorted by the desire to meet the requirements to obtain a particular tax relief.
 
While the NAO comments that HM Treasury and HMRC have started to improve, it recommends the development of a formal framework for designing and administering tax expenditures, and the introduction of a robust methodology for assessing value for money on a regular basis.
 
This call echoes the Barber Review on Public Value in 2017, which called for delivery of better outcomes for citizens, noting that the Treasury has historically placed greater emphasis on inputs rather than outcomes. It commented that a public service is more valuable if taxpayers and citizens believe in it, are willing to fund it, and commit to supporting its outcomes more widely.
 
Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW, commented: “Although this is a fairly technical report from the NAO, it goes right to the heart of the compact between citizens and government. How can we build trust in the tax system if the tax authorities are unable to fully justify the benefits of tax expenditures and confirm that intended outcomes are being delivered?”

Responding to the report, a government spokesperson said: “We want tax reliefs which deliver value for taxpayers and minimise the risk of any avoidance and evasion activity. We will consider the NAO’s recommendations so that we can continue to improve our management of reliefs.”

The NAO report is publicly available here.

This blog post was first published on the ICAEW Insights Hub.

ICAEW chart of the week: UK international reserves

21 February 2020: UK international reserves of £41bn analysed by currency.

UK international reserves: £149bn assets - £108bn liabilities = £41bn net. Euro £12bn, US dollars £13bn, Other currencies £6bn, Gold £10bn.

The UK’s official holdings of foreign government debt, central bank deposits, IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) and gold are the subject matter for the #icaewchartoftheweek, being the foreign currency assets and liabilities used in monetary operations.

The UK Government and the Bank of England together held £149bn in foreign currency assets as of 31 December 2019, equivalent to approximately two months’ public spending or just under 7% of gross national income. However, these assets were offset by £108bn in foreign currency liabilities, comprising £59bn in net financial derivatives (currency forwards, interest rate and cross-currency swaps), £23bn due on repo transactions and £26bn in other liabilities.

Even though the official reserves are an extremely important tool used to help ensure the smooth operation of financial markets, provide confidence in the UK’s financial stability and (if needed) support the value of sterling, the net balance of £41bn is relatively small, with £12bn invested in the Euro, £13bn in the US dollar and £6bn in the Yen and other currencies, together with £10bn of gold.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Public sector employment

Headcount / FTEs - Health and social work: 1,925,000 / 1,657,000; Education 1,500,000 / 1,105,000; Public administration 1,056,000 / 897,000; HM Forces and Police: 402,000 / 391,000; Other 505,000 / 464,000.

The #icaewchartoftheweek is about public sector employment, illustrating how just under 5.4m people work for public bodies in the UK or around 4.5m full-time equivalents (FTEs). This is 16.5% of the total UK workforce of 32.8m as of last September on a seasonally-adjusted basis.

The largest employer in the public sector is the NHS, with a headcount of 1.7m out of the 1.9m who work in the health and social work sector (1.5m FTEs). Included in the million or so people who work in public administration is the 451,000-strong Civil Service (419,000 FTEs) with most of the remaining 605,000 working for local authorities and non-departmental public bodies (FTEs 478,000).

Total public sector headcount has started to increase again in recent years with NHS and non-NHS headcount up 6.8% and 0.6% respectively over a nadir of 5.2m three years ago (up 2.5% overall), compared with an increase of 3.8% and a fall of 12.1% respectively over the previous seven years (down 7.8% overall between September 2009 and December 2016).

With increasing demand on the NHS from more people living longer and the ‘end of austerity’ we should expect to see further increases in public sector employment over the next few years.

ICAEW chart of the week: Inflation

Chart: RPI 4% in Jan 2018, 2.5% in Jan 2019, 2.2% in Dec 2019. CPI: 3%, 1.8%, 1.3%. CPIH: 2.7%, 1.8%, 1.4%.

The #icaewchartoftheweek is on inflation this week, with the Office for National Statistics reporting that consumer price inflation fell to 1.3% in December 2019 – its lowest level for over three years and towards the lower end of the Bank of England’s target range of 1% to 3%.

Accompanied by very low levels of economic growth, this has prompted speculation that the Bank of England may cut interest rates at some point this year to try and stimulate the economy. They may also be hoping that plans to boost infrastructure spending will help kick-start the economy and encourage a tad more inflation at the same time.

The Chancellor is currently consulting on plans to converge the statistically flawed Retail Prices Index with CPIH (CPI including housing) over the coming decade. This will be good news for commuters and some students, given RPI’s use in calculating fare increases and interest payments. However, it will be less good for many pensioners and holders of government debt who currently benefit from higher rates.

ICAEW chart of the month: UK international trade

Imports £718bn: EU £369bn, EFTA £34bn, USA £87bn, Other Americas £26bn, Asia-Pacific £138bn, Other £64bn. Exports £673bn: EU £297bn, EFTA £29bn, USA £133bn, Other Americas £29bn, Asia-Pacific £108bn, Other £77bn.

With recent changes in ICAEW communications, the ICAEW Public Sector team has started an #icaewchartofthemonth to complement the #icaewchartoftheweek.

The first #icaewchartofthemonth was published on the ICAEW’s Insights Hub (icaew.com/insights) on Friday 31 January 2020 and is on the UK’s international trade. It highlights how important the £718bn in imports and £673bn in exports in the year to 30 September 2019 are to the economy of the UK.

As the UK Government starts to negotiate new trade arrangements with countries around the world, the EU will be the highest priority. Imports into the UK of £369bn represent 51% of total imports and exports to the 27 EU countries of £297bn are 44% of total exports. This is followed by the USA, where imports of £87bn and exports of £133bn represent 12% and 20% respectively.

Trade relationships with countries in the Asia-Pacific region will also be very important, in particular China (imports £60bn and exports £39bn), Japan (£17bn and £15bn) and the 10-country Association of South East Asian Nations (£22bn and £19bn).

https://www.icaew.com/insights/features/2020/jan-2020/uk-international-trade