Category: ICAEW article

Treasury backs PAC in battle over recommendations

17 June 2020: Treasury writes stern ‘Dear Accounting Officer’ letter instructing departments to stop delaying compliance with PAC recommendations.

In a co-ordinated move, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and HM Treasury issued instructions to government departments to stop unilaterally extending the deadlines on addressing PAC recommendations, and to write to the PAC promptly to explain any delays in completing agreed actions.

Meg Hiller MP, Chair of the PAC, recently wrote to HM Treasury complaining about the behaviour of some departments who have been deferring implementation of agreed actions to address PAC recommendations and doing so without providing an explanation for the delay. Sometimes the PAC only finds out about delays many months after deadlines have been missed.

In response, Treasury has issued a ‘Dear Accounting Officer’ letter instructing departments to ensure systems are in place to monitor progress on implementing recommendations and to write to the PAC immediately it becomes clear that a recommendation is no longer on track to be implemented by the agreed target date. Departments need to provide a detailed explanation for a deferral together with a revised date for completion.

Martin Wheatcroft FCA, advisor to ICAEW on public finances, said:

“This is an unusual and very public shot across the bows of departments. It brings out into the open the frustration felt by both the Public Accounts Committee and Treasury when weaknesses in systems and processes identified by the PAC are not dealt with as planned.

Permanent Secretaries are now on notice that any backsliding on implementing agreed actions is not acceptable, and that attempting to slip missed deadlines past the PAC in routine reports many months later is not going to work anymore.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Challenges for public bodies as PFI contracts end

8 June 2020: An NAO report has recommended that public bodies start preparations seven years before PFI contracts expire to negotiate the handover of assets and ensure service delivery is not disrupted.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has issued a report on the challenges public bodies are facing as private finance initiative (PFI) contracts come to an end. 

There are over 700 PFI contracts in the UK involving assets with a capital value of £57bn. Of these, 72 are due to expire over the next seven years in England, with an estimated £3.9bn of assets expected to revert to public sector ownership in that time.

The NAO is the independent audit body responsible for scrutinising public spending on behalf of Parliament. In addition to auditing the financial accounts of departments and other public bodies, the NAO examines and reports on the value for money of how public money has been spent.

PFI is a contracting approach where public bodies acquire the right to use an asset embedded within a long-term service contract. PFI contracts are typically for periods of up to 25 years and were used extensively from the late 1990s until the early 2010s to build a range of assets including (but not limited to) schools, hospitals, offices, transport infrastructure and military equipment. 

Most PFI contracts expire from 2025 onwards, meaning there has so far only been a limited number of practical examples to learn from. Of those, the NAO reports that four out nine of the public bodies they surveyed were dissatisfied with the condition of PFI assets at expiry.

Key findings in the report include:

  • The public sector does not have a strategic or consistent approach to PFI contract expiry and risks failing to secure value for money in negotiations with the private sector
  • There is a risk of increased costs and service disruptions if public bodies do not prepare for contract expiry adequately in advance
  • Insufficient knowledge about asset condition risks them being returned in worse quality than expected
  • Contract expiry is resource-intensive and requires different skills, with external consultants needed in most cases
  • Many public bodies start preparing four years or more before expiry, but experience suggests that preparation time is often underestimated. Infrastructure & Projects Authority (IPA) guidance is seven years
  • There is a potential for disputes, especially as PFI providers often have a financial incentive to cut spending on asset maintenance and rectification towards the end of a contract
  • Early PFI contracts are likely to be ambiguous about roles and responsibilities at contract expiry, with poorly drafted clauses open to interpretation.

The NAO recommends that public bodies and sponsor departments start preparing for contract expiry on a timely basis, ensure the PFI contract is complete and expiry provisions are well understood, develop a contract expiry plan and escalate problems which cannot be resolved at a local level. It also recommends that adequate funding is provided to cover dispute resolution and hiring additional resources.

The NAO believes that the IPA and sponsor departments have key roles to play in supporting public bodies and departmental teams responsible for PFI contracts with resources, sector-specific expertise, specialist advice and training. They need to identify high-risk contracts, such as those sitting with public bodies that lack appropriate skills and capabilities, and potentially establish an electronic repository to enable a more consistent approach across government.

The NAO says the IPA should assess the value of money of establishing a centralised pool of internal resources, such as lawyers and surveyors, that authorities can use, provide contract expiry guidance and terms of reference for consultants, develop a consistent approach to resolving legal disputes, and develop an investor strategy to manage relationships with PFI equity investors, management service companies, and contractors.

The report’s final recommendation is to HM Treasury, saying it should provide funding to departments assisting financially constrained public bodies where it is value for money and practical to do so.

Commenting on the report Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector, at ICAEW said:

“Public bodies are very experienced in the operation of ongoing PFI contracts. But with most PFI contracts not due to finish until 2025 or later, they have much less experience of managing contract expiry.

The NAO is quite right to highlight the need to start planning well in advance and the need to invest in the very different skills and expertise required to negotiate the handover of assets to ensure service delivery is not disrupted. 

The role of the Infrastructure & Projects Authority and sponsoring departments will also be critical in supporting the 182 public bodies responsible for just one PFI contract, and in ensuring that lessons learned are shared across the public sector.

With tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds at stake if public bodies get this wrong, it is extremely important that the Government is not penny wise and pound foolish by failing to invest in the sufficiently skilled resources that will be required to get the best value for money for the taxpayer as PFI contracts come to an end.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW Fiscal Insight: Coronavirus and the public finances

28 May 2020: ICAEW has today published a Fiscal Insight on coronavirus and the public finances, setting out how a huge economic shock combined with unprecedented fiscal interventions are driving a global and UK fiscal crisis.

The Fiscal Insight describes how the global economy is experiencing a major recession with severe consequences for public finances around the world. Whole sectors of the economy have been closed down, while governments have borrowed heavily to finance large-scale fiscal interventions in order to mitigate the damage.

In the UK, there has been a dramatic transformation in the fiscal position with public spending expected to exceed £1tn for the first time, with a fiscal deficit approaching £300bn and net debt rising from £1.8tn to in excess of £2.2tn.

Rebuilding the public finances will be challenging, with sustainable public investment key to driving the economic recovery and a long-term fiscal strategy essential to repairing public finances.

ICAEW Fiscal Insight cover page. Click on image or link to reach the contents.

April public finances awash with red ink

27 May 2020: fiscal deficit of £62.1bn in April exceeds budget of £55bn for the whole of 2020-21.

The latest public sector finances for April 2020 published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a deficit of £62.1bn in April and a revision of £14.0bn to the deficit in the financial year to March 2020; a total of £76.1bn in costs and revenue losses reported since the previous monthly release.

Public sector net debt increased to £1,887.6bn or 97.7% of GDP, an increase of £118.4bn or 17.4 percentage points compared with April 2019.

These results reflect the substantial fiscal interventions by the UK Government to support businesses and individuals affected by the coronavirus pandemic, together with a collapse in tax revenues since the lockdown. The deficit of £62.1bn for the month of April is more than the budgeted deficit of £55bn for the whole of the 2020-21 financial year set in the Spring Budget only a couple of months ago.

Table 1 summarises the results for April 2020, while Table 2 sets out the revised results for the financial year to 31 March 2020.

Some caution is needed with respect to the numbers published by the ONS, which are expected to be revised as estimates are refined and gaps in the underlying data are filled.

Alison Ring, director of public sector for ICAEW, commented:

“The volume of red ink in April’s public finances is astonishing.

The scale of the damage from the coronavirus pandemic is only just starting to become apparent, particularly when you consider that the deficit in April alone is more than previous forecasts for the whole of 2020-21.

A full-year deficit of £300bn as suggested by the Office for Budget Responsibility looks increasingly plausible, with the only silver lining the ultra-low interest rates payable on the borrowing needed to finance it.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

PAC launches local authority property investments inquiry

27 April 2020: the Public Accounts Committee has launched a formal inquiry into the risks from English local authority investments in commercial property, and how these are monitored by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The inquiry will investigate concerns about gaps in commercial skills and whether risks are being properly monitored, as well as the potential for big losses following the coronavirus.

The National Audit Office (NAO) reported in February that English local authorities had invested £6.6bn in commercial property over the three years to 31 March 2019, an increase of 1,340% compared with the previous three years.

With many of these investments funded by borrowing, the PAC is concerned about what the coronavirus pandemic might be doing to local authority finances, especially on the £2.5bn invested by councils outside of their local areas.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) plans to question officials from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on gaps in commercial skills in local government, and the extent to which MHCLG formally monitors commercial activity and long-term exposure to risk. The PAC will also ask officials about the Ministry’s response to COVID-19, and what impact the pandemic has had on local government finances.

Commenting on the launch of the investigation Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector at ICAEW, said: “The Public Accounts Committee is right to ask questions about the significant increase in balance sheet risk being taken on by a small but growing number of local authorities and how those risks are being managed both locally and by central government. The coronavirus pandemic will have resulted in significant losses in many local authority commercial property portfolios, adding to the pressure on their finances at a difficult time.

“The PAC also needs to consider the structural issues that have driven local authorities to establish debt-financed ‘mini sovereign wealth funds’ that predominantly invest in one particular asset class, rather than spreading risk across multiple types of investment. 

“Central government also needs to consider how local authorities can be encouraged to invest in infrastructure and other productive assets that will support economic growth and benefit local taxpayers in the long-term, in addition to managing financial investment risks effectively. This will be particularly important if the economy is to recover fully after the end of the pandemic.”

The PAC has put out a call for evidence asking for submissions by Wednesday 6 May 2020.

For further insights during the coronavirus pandemic, please see the ICAEW designated COVID-19 hub.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

OBR: deficit could reach £273bn or more

15 April 2020: a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) indicates that the fiscal deficit could increase to £273bn in 2020-21, but it cautions that this is only one of many plausible scenarios.

The OBR has produced its first analysis of the potential economic and fiscal impact of the coronavirus, based on a three-month lockdown followed by restrictions for a further three months. 

At the same time, the International Monetary Fund has warned that the global economic contraction underway is likely to be the worst since the Great Depression, dwarfing the financial crisis twelve years ago.  

In its ‘coronavirus reference scenario’, the OBR indicates that the UK economy could fall by 35% in the second quarter of 2020, before bouncing back to leave the economy 13% smaller in 2020 than in 2019. 

The consequence would be an increase in the deficit for the fiscal year ending 31 March 2021 to £273bn or 14% of GDP, while public sector net debt could be £384bn higher than budgeted for, reaching £2.2tn or 95% of GDP by the end of the fiscal year.

The OBR says that the economic impact of the coronavirus will derive much less from people falling ill or dying, than from the public health restrictions and social distancing required to limit its spread, severely reducing demand and supply at the same time. That means lower incomes, less spending and weaker asset prices, all of which reduce tax revenues, while job losses will raise public spending.

Once the crisis has passed and policy interventions have unwound, the OBR thinks that annual borrowing could return to roughly the Spring Budget 2020 forecast. However, net debt would continue to be much higher, potentially £260bn (10% of GDP) more than the baseline forecast by 31 March 2025. 

The OBR analysis assumes that increased public spending, tax cuts and holidays, loans and guarantees, and actions taken by the Bank of England, designed to support household incomes and to limit business failures and layoffs, will help prevent greater economic and fiscal damage in the long term. However, it warns that the longer the disruption lasts, the more likely it is that the economy’s future potential output will be ‘scarred’ with adverse consequences for future deficits and for fiscal policy.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) now predicts that the global economy will contract by 3.0% in 2020, much worse than the 0.1% contraction seen during the financial crisis in 2009 and a cut of 6.3% from its previous prediction in January. The IMF prediction is based on a shallower, but longer recession than the OBR’s scenario for the UK. Overall, the IMF believes that the cumulative output loss in 2020 and 2021 from the pandemic could be as much as $9tn.

Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW, commented: “The analysis published by the OBR is not a forecast, but the scenario it presents is pretty startling; making clear that whatever actually happens, the damage to public finances from the coronavirus pandemic will be extremely severe.

“While the OBR suggests that the economy and tax receipts could recover relatively quickly, the additional debt burden will weigh on the public finances for many years for come.”

Fiscal deficit 2020-21: £55bn Spring Budget +£130bn lower receipts +£88bn higher spending = £273bn Reference scenario. Net debt: £1,819bn +£384bn = £2,203bn.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Treasury announces extra £9.5bn for public services

14 April 2020: the Chancellor has increased the coronavirus emergency response fund to £14.5bn to cover the escalating costs of dealing with the pandemic.

Easter Monday saw Rishi Sunak announce an extra £9.5bn for the NHS and public services, adding to the £5bn already included in the emergency package announced with the Spring Budget on 11 March 2020.

This brings additional funding for the NHS and public services to £14.5bn, comprising £6.6bn for health services, £3.5bn to keep the railways running, £1.6bn for local authorities, and £0.9bn for food packages and other support for clinically vulnerable people, together with £1.9bn for the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Altogether, this brings the estimated cost of fiscal measures announced by the Government in response to the coronavirus pandemic to somewhere in the region of £95bn. In addition to the £14.5bn for the NHS and public services, £27bn has been announced in business rates discounts and small business grants, £5bn in enhancements to Universal Credit and housing benefit and £750m for charities. The costs of the employee furlough and self-employed income replacement schemes will depend on take-up, with estimates that these could cost around £40bn and £9bn respectively for their initial three-month terms.

This does not include the effect of collapsing tax revenues and higher welfare spending on the public finances, nor any potential costs from the £330bn of loans and guarantees being advanced to support business. As a consequence, the fiscal deficit this financial year is now almost certain to exceed £200bn, compared with the baseline of £55bn set out in the Spring Budget just over a month ago.

Martin Wheatcroft FCA, adviser to ICAEW on public finances, commented: “This is probably not going to be the last announcement of additional funding for the NHS and public services this year given the extraordinary challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic. 

“It is positive that the Chancellor has made it clear that money will be made available to front-line services as needed, an important signal for budget holders conditioned by a decade of austerity to manage resources carefully, rather than to spend whatever it takes to achieve a critical objective.

“We can and will worry about the bill later, when the need for a long-term fiscal strategy to put the public finances onto a sustainable path will be more important than ever before.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Health Secretary recapitalises NHS with £13.4bn write-off

3 April 2020: Surprise move puts NHS trusts into a much stronger financial position, saving them hundreds of millions in interest payments every year.

The Health Secretary Matt Hancock has announced that he is writing off £13.4bn of debts owed by NHS trusts at 1 April 2020.

These write-offs will save the NHS trusts concerned hundreds of millions in interest each year, providing an immediate financial boost to hospitals across the country. It will also put them on a sounder footing for the long-term, without the need to find cash to repay these debts in the future.

Although the transaction is described by the Government as neutral to the public finances because the loans concerned are all internal within the Department of Health & Social Care, it will increase the £130bn annual cost of the NHS going forward to the extent that interest charges and debt repayments no longer flow back to the Exchequer.

The department also announced that it is introducing new funding arrangements for the NHS with a ‘simpler internal payment system’ to help NHS trusts in responding to COVID-19.

The loans being written off principally relate to borrowing to fund deficits (interim revenue debts and working capital loans) and borrowing to finance shortfalls in capital funding (interim capital debts). ‘Normal course of business’ loans and external debts embedded in private-finance initiative (PFI) contracts will continue as liabilities of the NHS trusts concerned.

The debt write-offs will take the form of a capital contribution with outstanding loan balances at 1 April 2020 converted into equity, adding £13.4bn to the net assets of the 107 NHS trusts affected.

The pressures that the NHS is under from the coronavirus have highlighted the problems with the existing funding model and the Health Secretary has also written to NHS trusts letting them know that should they need extra cash during the coronavirus emergency that this will also be provided as an equity injection, rather than building up new debts.

Martin Wheatcroft FCA, adviser to ICAEW on public finances, commented:

“Although writing off debts owed by the NHS has no net effect on the public finances in theory as the balances are all internal to government, it will have very real-world effects on the ground. By relieving NHS trusts of a significant financial burden, the Government is putting each of them into a much better financial position to deal with the coronavirus and to invest in services for patients.

The news that funding arrangements for the NHS are being revisited is also welcome. Many of these debts arose because of an overcomplicated system of funding that meant that many hospitals were not receiving sufficient income to cover their operating costs. A simpler funding model will make a big difference to the ability of NHS trusts to manage their finances effectively and hence the quality of the health care that they can provide.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Spending Review suspension sensible, but avoid more delays

2 April 2020: ICAEW has called the delay to the UK Government’s 2020 Spending Review a ‘sensible move’ in the current climate, but warned that any further delays pose a major risk to infrastructure projects and economic recovery.

The 2020 Spending Review, scheduled to be completed by July this year, has been delayed to enable the government to remain focused on responding to the ongoing coronavirus outbreak. It is likely that the 2020 Spending Review will now be moved to November to coincide with the Autumn Budget, adding a further delay of at least four months to the process.
 
The last three-year Spending Review was in 2015, covering the financial years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The anticipated 2018 Spending Review never took place and departmental budgets were instead ‘rolled over’ into 2019-20, while the Spending Review in 2019 was also cancelled and replaced by an interim Spending Round that set out current spending by departments for one financial year (2020-21) and capital investment plans for two financial years (2020-21 and 2021-22).
 
Based on the overall spending envelope set out in the Spring Budget 2020, the Spending Review this year is expected to set out detailed financial budgets for each government department for a three-year period (from 2021-22 to 2023-24) and four years for capital investment (to 2024-25), enabling public bodies to plan ahead and get the best value for money for the taxpayer.
 
Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW said: “The latest delay is completely understandable given the huge ramifications for the economy and the public finances of the coronavirus emergency. It makes sense for the Chancellor and the Treasury to redeploy resources to deal with the coronavirus now and to re-evaluate spending plans later when there is a clearer view on the financial impact.
 
One concern is the risk this further delay poses to infrastructure projects, given how important they will be to a successful economic recovery. The need to plan and design infrastructure well in advance means that delays in authorising funding could have a significant knock-on effect to when projects are eventually delivered, and to the boost they can give to the economy. 
 
The Chancellor should give some thought to providing assurances to departments about capital funding in 2021-22 and 2022-23 so that they have sufficient certainty to green-light projects sooner rather than later.
 
The Chancellor should also consider the Government’s approach to Spending Reviews. There are many arguments in favour of holding five-year Spending Reviews every three years, rather than three-year Spending Reviews every five years.”
 
For more information:

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Government watchdog sounds COVID-19 fraud risk alarm

31 March 2020: the Government Counter Fraud Function has published new guidance for public bodies about fraud arising from the actions taken to address the coronavirus emergency. 

Unfortunately, fraud is inevitable given the relaxation in scrutiny over emergency payments made by public bodies to support individuals and businesses affected by the current crisis. But there are still steps that can be taken to minimise fraud where possible.
 
The guidance sets out five overarching principles for public bodies to apply to counter potentially fraudulent activity in delivering emergency programmes:
 
1.     Accept that there is an inherently high risk of fraud, and it is very likely to happen.
 
2.     Integrate fraud control resources into policy and process design.
 
3.     Work together with fraud control teams to implement low friction counter measures to prevent fraud risk where possible.
 
4.     Carry out targeted post-event assurance to look for fraud, ensuring access to fraud investigation resources.
 
5.     Revisit the control framework when emergency payments shift into longer term services – especially where large sums are invested.
 
The guidance is intended to support government departments, local authorities and other public bodies to move quickly to provide financial support to those affected, whilst doing what is possible to address the inevitable frauds that will be committed. It recommends ensuring that consistent data is collected from those applying and receiving payments and putting in place robust claw back agreements to recover funds that are paid out incorrectly.
 
The advice makes clear that public bodies will need to put in place post-event assurance processes to review the payments being made now. 
 
Alison Ring, Director, Public Sector for ICAEW, commented: “It is important that public bodies move as quickly as they can to support individuals and businesses in distress but despite that, there is a lot they can do to minimise the potential for fraud. Where possible, implementing existing fraud prevention measures in the time available, combined with extensive post-transaction scrutiny and assurance to be carried out later.
 
The need for appropriate open access provisions, allowing public bodies to verify transactions at a later date and recover fraudulent claims where possible, will be an important component to both deferring fraud in the first place as well as detecting fraud afterwards.”

For the latest news and guidance on the ongoing impact of COVID-19 for businesses and accountants, visit ICAEW’s dedicated Coronavirus Hub.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.