ICAEW article – Page 8 – Martin Wheatcroft

Magnox contract exit cost: a small price to pay?

16 September 2020: The National Audit Office has issued a report on the £20m cost of exiting the failed Magnox contract to decommission nuclear research sites and power stations.

The National Audit Office (NAO) report covers the handling by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) of the failed Magnox contract to decommission two nuclear research sites and 10 Magnox power stations and the estimated £20m cost incurred on exiting the contract.

The NDA is a statutory body established in 2005 to take ownership of the decommissioning programme for the UK’s oldest fleet of nuclear power stations and other nuclear facilities. At 31 March 2020, the NDA had an estimated liability of £135bn in its accounts for the costs of decommissioning still to be incurred.

The NDA has awarded a series of contracts to clean up nuclear sites and deal with radioactive materials, including fuel. This includes the 14-year Magnox contract awarded in 2014 to Cavendish Fluor Partnership (CFP) which the High Court decided was wrongly awarded, with the NDA agreeing a £97m settlement with a bidder in 2017.

The NDA then decided to terminate the contract with CFP nine years early, and an earlier report by the NAO stated how £122m had been lost by that point. The Public Accounts Committee reported in 2018 that the NDA needed to improve its understanding of the state of the sites, its ability to monitor work carried out on them, and the capability and expertise of its executive team.

Since 2017, a revised contract has been agreed with CFP and further litigation avoided, with £2.7bn of decommissioning work completed before the contract ended in August 2019.

The NAO says there have been further costs to the taxpayer, including an estimated termination cost of £20m to negotiate the early exit from the contract and incentivise a smooth handover of sites without further legal challenge. This is a relatively small amount in the context of the £6.9bn to £8.7bn estimated cost for decommissioning the Magnox sites.

The NAO report stated: “With the NDA now taking more direct control over the management of its sites, it will be critically important that it builds and retains better knowledge of the condition of its sites to enable it to plan and deliver decommissioning work efficiently and effectively. The NDA considers that it will be better placed to achieve this under its revised delivery model, but it is too early for us to assess the effectiveness of these arrangements.”

Martin Wheatcroft FCA, adviser to ICAEW on public finances, commented: “The huge sums being spent on decommissioning nuclear facilities can hide many sins, but we are fortunate that the National Audit Office is able to dig around and analyse what is going on.

“On this occasion, the £20m cost of exiting the Magnox contract appears a relatively small price to pay for a second chance at getting the decommissioning of the Magnox fleet right. There are much larger sums – in the billions – riding on the as-yet unproven new delivery model being put in place by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.”

Image of front cover of NAO report 'Progress report: Terminating the Magnox contract'. Click on the image to go to the NAO website to download the report.

This article was originally published on the ICAEW website.

Public sector debt hits £2tn for the first time

21 August 2020: The fiscal deficit of £150.5bn for the four months to July 2020 is almost triple the £55bn budgeted for the entire financial year.

The latest public sector finances for July 2020 published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on Friday 21 August 2020 reported a deficit of £26.7bn in July 2020, following on from £123.8bn for the three months to June 2020 (revised from £127.9bn reported last time).

Public sector net debt increased to £2,004.0bn or 100.5% of GDP, an increase of £198.3bn from the start of the financial year and £227.6bn higher than in July 2019. This is the first time this measure has exceeded £2tn, a major milestone that has arrived several years earlier than anticipated as a consequence of the pandemic.

Image of table showing variances against prior year. Go to the ICAEW website at the end for the table itself.

The combination of lower tax receipts and much higher levels of public spending has resulted in a deficit for the four months to July 2020 that is almost triple the budgeted deficit of £55bn for the whole of the 2020-21 financial year set in the Spring Budget in March, and almost seven times as much as the same period last year.

Cash funding (the ‘public sector net cash requirement’) for the four months was £199.1bn, compared with £5.4bn for the same period in 2019.

Interest costs have fallen despite much higher levels of debt, with extremely low interest rates benefiting both new borrowing to fund government cash requirements and borrowing to refinance existing debts as they have been repaid.

Some caution is needed with respect to the numbers published by the ONS, which are expected to be repeatedly revised as estimates are refined and gaps in the underlying data are filled. In particular, the OBR points out that the ONS has yet to record any allowance for losses that might arise on the more than £100bn of tax deferrals, loans and guarantees provided to support businesses through the pandemic.

Commenting on the latest figures Alison Ring FCA, director for public sector at ICAEW, said:

“The positive news for the Government is that despite debt reaching £2tn, low interest rates have reduced its cost, and its growth is slowing as the exceptional support measures to deal with the pandemic are withdrawn and furloughed employees return to work.

“The big question is how much permanent damage is being done to the economy, with accelerating job losses a concerning sign as we approach the autumn. How quickly debt continues to grow will also depend on any additional support that the Government might provide to sectors that are still struggling.”

Image of tables showing monthly breakdown for April through July 2020 and 2019. Go to the ICAEW website at the end for the tables themselves.

For further information, read the public sector finances release for July 2020.

This article was originally published on the ICAEW website.

£31 billion charge shines spotlight on £2.2tn pounds public sector pension liability

21 August 2020: Ministers insulated older employees from public sector pension reforms in 2015, despite advice saying not to. The courts found this was age discrimination, resulting in a £31bn charge in the Whole of Government Accounts.

When the Hutton review on public sector pensions reported in 2011, it recommended retaining the defined-benefit pensions provided to public sector employees. However, it wanted to reform how public sector pensions are calculated to reduce the cost to taxpayers, while at the same making them fairer for lower-paid employees.

Recommendations included switching from final salary to career average for calculating pension entitlements, aligning the retirement age for most public sector employees with the state pension age, and increasing employee contributions.

The Hutton reforms followed a major cost saving already achieved in switching from RPI to CPI-linked increases for pensions in retirement, which resulted in a one-off gain of £126bn in the 2010-11 Whole of Government Accounts (equivalent to a 10% reduction in the gross pension liability at that time) as well as reducing the cost of providing pensions going forward.

To protect existing employees, Hutton recommended that accrued rights at the date of the switch should still be calculated on final salaries, with only subsequent years of service accruing on an average salary basis. Retaining existing rights meant there was no significant gain or loss recorded when the reforms to existing pension arrangements were implemented in 2014 and 2015, with any cost savings arising in future years.

Despite the Hutton report explicitly stating that “age discrimination legislation … means that it is not possible in practice to provide protection from change for members who are already above a certain age”, the Government decided to provide transitional protection for older members. Full transitional protection was offered to workers 10 years or less away from retirement in 2012, with partial protection on a sliding scale tapering away to zero for those with 14 or more years to go until retirement at that point.

As might have been expected, given the clear advice in the Hutton review that this would constitute unlawful age discrimination, the UK Government lost in the Supreme Court in 2019 in the McCloud and Sargeant cases. As a consequence, employees that have lost out because the transitional protections did not apply to them will receive an uplift in their pensions when they reach retirement.

Illustrative example

To illustrate the issue, consider the case of fictional civil servants Sarah and Maxine who were 20 and 10 years away from retirement respectively in 2012 and who were moved into the new career-average ‘alpha’ pension scheme in 2015. Each is expected to retire with 30 years’ service on a final year salary of £80,000, following rapid promotions in their final 10 years of service.

Image of table with worked example. Click on link at the end of this post to for the article on the ICAEW website containing the table itself.

In this illustration, Maxine, who in 2012 had 10 years to go before retirement, should receive an initial pension of £40,000 a year when she retires in 2022, including a £500 transitional protection uplift.

Without transitional protection, Sarah would expect to receive £34,000 a year when she retires in 2032. Although the precise details of the remedy in response to the court judgements is still being worked out (see HM Treasury consultation), it is likely that Sarah will now receive a transitional protection uplift covering the period from 2015 to 2022, potentially adding around £4,000 (based on our illustrative assumptions) to her pension on retirement, but still below what she would have received without the changes.

The court ruling will only affect employees who would have got more under the final salary arrangements. For a significant proportion of public sector workers, the faster accrual rate on a career average basis will provide them with a higher pension than they would have received under the slower accrual rate applied to final salary under the old arrangements. They will not have lost out from not having had transitional protection.

Spotlight on the £2.2tn public sector pension liability

The £31bn past service cost recorded in the Whole of Government Accounts in 2018-19 added 1.4% to the amounts owed to current and former public sector employees for their accrued pension rights, increasing the gross liability recorded to £2.2tn at 31 March 2019. (The Government separately reported that the court judgements would cost £17bn but did not explain how this number reconciled with the £31bn reported in the accounts.)

£2.2tn is a huge amount of money, equivalent to around £80,000 for each household in the UK. Most public sector schemes are unfunded (£1,756bn out of the £2,244bn gross liability) with pension payments funded out of future taxation. Local authority and other funded public sector schemes (£488bn) do have pension fund investments (£350bn at 31 March 2019) set aside to pay pensions, but they will need to increase their contributions to those funds to cover the cost of extending transitional protections to affected employees.

There are no doubt many morals to be drawn from this story, but what it does highlight is the sheer scale of the pension obligations that public sector employers have built up over the years, and just how much a single ministerial decision can end up costing taxpayers.

This article was originally published on the ICAEW website.

Chief Secretary brands Treasury ‘new radicals in government’

3 August 2020: Chief Secretary to the Treasury Steve Barclay delivered his first speech last week, providing fresh detail on the plan for the Spending Review.

Steve Barclay’s first speech as Chief Secretary, delivered to thinktank Onward on Tuesday 28 July 2020, set out how he believes Treasury can be an accelerator of change in government.

He sees the Spending Review as a significant moment in the lifecycle of any government, but with the current review being conducted against the backdrop of the most challenging peacetime economic circumstances in living memory.

Despite that, the Government believes the recovery from this pandemic can be a moment for national renewal, with the Spending Review acting as the mechanism to deliver the Prime Minister’s ambition to ‘level up’ the country.

As a constituency MP, Barclay said he has run up against a system that is slow and siloed. By way of an example, he asked why there is a seven-year gap between funding being agreed for a road scheme and the first digger arriving? Or why it takes a decade to decide to produce a full business case on whether to re-open eight miles of railway track?

The lack of upfront clarity on outcomes, the slow speed of delivery and the variable quality of data within government are all areas the Spending Review provides an opportunity to challenge.

The Chief Secretary stressed that to ‘level up’ the country properly, the Government needs to ensure that Treasury decision-making better reflects the UK’s economic geography, with more balanced judgments taking into consideration the transformative potential of investment to drive localised growth.

He drew on the speed of change during the pandemic, with the furlough scheme taking just one month from being announced to being opened for applications when normally such schemes take months – years even – to deliver.

He asked if the wheels of government can be made to spin this fast in a crisis, with all the added pressures of lockdown, why can’t it happen routinely?

Time to level up

The Chief Secretary stated that the actions being taken to support businesses and jobs during the pandemic are the right thing to do, even though it comes at a cost. The cost of inaction would be far greater, he claimed.

Even though the Prime Minister has made it clear that austerity is not the answer to navigating a much-changed economic landscape, departments will have to make tough choices in the months ahead.

The commitment to reviewing the Green Book investment manual was reiterated with changes planned to allow room for more balanced judgments on investments to reduce inequality and drive localised growth.

During the speech, Barclay listed several priorities for government in the Spending Review:

accelerating the UK’s economic recovery;
levelling-up opportunity across the country;
improving public services; and
making the UK a scientific superpower.

Outcomes, speed and data

To achieve these objectives, the Chief Secretary focused on three key approaches: outcomes, speed and data.

On outcomes, the Spending Review would try to tie expenditure and performance more closely together, with Treasury having clearer sight of both intended outcomes and subsequent evaluation of their delivery.

For some of the most complex policy challenges, this will involve breaking the silos between departments, and pilot projects are currently being used to test innovative ways of bringing the public sector together.

On speed, Barclay noted that this is a ‘hallmark of the digital era’. Programmes need to start with robust goals and the temptation to repeatedly change plans has to be resisted if the UK is to bring down capital costs that are typically between 10% and 30% higher than in other European countries. A new Infrastructure Delivery Task Force (known as Project Speed) will be established to cut down the time it takes to develop, design and deliver vital projects.

This will involve more standardisation and modularisation between projects, for example in speeding housing construction. The Spending Review will seek to accelerate the adoption of Modern Methods of Construction and explicitly link funding decisions to schemes that priorities it.

On data, the Chief Secretary believes that government is behind the curve when it comes to obtaining, analysing, and enabling access to open data. It remains the case that decisions still rely heavily on spreadsheets from departments rather than data directly sourced in real time. Work has already begun to incentivise departments and arms-length bodies to supply higher quality standardised data and to support the Treasury to better interrogate this data.

Building this will involve sorting out the data architecture as well as the data sets, and the Spending Review will focus on addressing legacy IT and investing in the data infrastructure needed to become a “truly digital government”.

The new radicals

Barclay concluded with stressing the importance of taking risks, setting ambitious goals and experimenting with ways of delivery, even if failure is a possibility. He wants to move beyond a simple yes/no approach to public spending and instead bring together people, ideas and best practice from inside and outside government.

He concluded: “This is an opportunity for the Treasury to capture the ‘can do’ attitude shown by civil servants during the COVID pandemic and make it permanent. To be the new radicals, leading change across government.

“Done well, we can move on from an era of spreadsheets. We can create a smarter and faster culture in Whitehall. And we can ensure that Britain does indeed bounce back from this crisis stronger and better than before.”

Speech by Steve Barclay MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 28 July 2020.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Whole of Government Accounts hidden within announcements blizzard

24 July 2020: The UK celebrated 10 years of consolidated financial statements for the public sector with the publication of the Whole of Government Accounts for 2018-19.

The UK Government published its 10th Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) on Tuesday 21 July 2020, the day before Parliament packed up for the summer. The WGA is one of the most important public documents there is, but it was overshadowed by being put out on the busiest day for the year for government announcements, as departments rushed to finalise reports and get them out of the door while they still could.

Meeting this deadline was even more important this year, as a further delay until after the summer recess would have been extremely embarrassing. At just over 15½ months, the time taken to publish the WGA is substantially longer than the two to three months usually taken to prepare the annual reports of comparable private sector organisations. Even taking account of the additional three months caused by the pandemic, it takes a lot longer than the six to nine months that might be reasonably possible given the structure and reporting timescales applicable to public sector bodies in the UK.

Despite that, the WGA remains one of the most critical documents published by the government each year, providing a comprehensive report on the financial performance and position of the UK public sector for the 2018-19 financial year. In particular, it includes a full set of consolidated financial statements prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) instead of the much more limited headline fiscal measures of deficit and deficit normally used by the government when it reports on the public finances.

The WGA for 2018-19 reported revenue of £796bn and expenditure of £896bn before taking account of a £102bn credit from a change in discount rates. This gave rise to loss before the discount rate change of £100bn and an overall accounting surplus of £2bn for the year.

Total assets recorded in the balance sheet amounted to £2.1tn, including £1.3bn in fixed assets, £0.6tn of investments, cash and other financial assets, and £0.2bn in receivables and other assets. Total liabilities amounted to £4.6tn, including £2.2tn of financial liabilities, £1.9tn of employee pension obligations, £0.3tn in provisions and £0.2tn of payables and other liabilities. This means the balance sheet is in a substantially negative position, with net liabilities attributable to taxpayers of £2.5tn.

The financial statements, presented in the standard format familiar to readers of corporate reports, are accompanied by an extensive financial commentary analysing revenue, expenditure, assets and liabilities, as well as financial commitments and contingent liabilities. The overall WGA document is 200 pages long, similar in length to many corporate reports, albeit it has been expanded a little with disclosures on two major events after the balance sheet date: the withdrawal agreement with the European Union and the financial effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

The audit opinion on the financial statements continues to be qualified by the Comptroller & Auditor-General for a number of reasons, including the recurring decision not to consolidate the government-controlled Royal Bank of Scotland (now NatWest Group), a major inconsistency between central and local government in accounting for roads, the failure by the Ministry of Defence to look for embedded leases in its contracts, and using August 2018 rather than March 2019 numbers for academy schools. There are two matters of emphasis relating to the valuation of nuclear decommissioning provisions and the calculation of fair value disclosures on the Hinkley Point C nuclear electricity contract for difference.

ICAEW has put together a short summary analysis highlighting the key elements of the WGA, which you can read here.

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

First quarter public finances go even deeper into the red

22 July 2020: the latest public sector finances for June 2020 published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on Tuesday.

The ONS reported a deficit of £35.5bn in June 2020, following on from £45.5bn in May 2020 (revised down from the £55.2bn reported last time) and £46.9bn in April (revised down from £48.5bn).

Public sector net debt increased to £1,983.8bn or 99.6% of GDP, an increase of £178.1bn from the start of the financial year and £195.5bn higher than in June 2019.

Public sector finances: three months ended 30 June 2020

	3 months to June 2020 £bn	3 months to June 2019 £bn	Variance vs last year £bn
Receipts	169.1	193.9	(24.8)	-13%
Expenditure	(273.8)	(190.3)	(83.5)	+44%
Interest	(12.1)	(18.7)	6.6	-35%
Net investment	(11.1)	(8.9)	(2.2)	+25%
Deficit	(127.9)	(24.0)	(103.9)	+433%
Public sector net debt	1,983.8	1,788.3	195.5	+11%
Public sector net debt / GDP	99.6%	80.7%	18.9%	+23%

Source: ONS, ‘Public sector finances, June 2020’.

The combination of lower tax receipts and much higher levels of public spending has resulted in a deficit for the three months to June 2020 that is more than twice the budgeted deficit of £55bn for the whole of the 2020-21 financial year set in the Spring Budget in March, and more than five times as much as the same period last year.

Cash funding (the ‘public sector net cash requirement’) for the three months was £183.4bn, compared with £15.8bn for the same period in 2019.

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. In particular, the OBR points out that the ONS has yet to record any allowance for losses that might arise on the more than £100bn of tax deferrals, loans and guarantees provided to support businesses through the pandemic.

Martin Wheatcroft FCA, adviser to ICAEW on public finances, commented: “The fiscal deficit for April, May and June is more than double the forecast for the entire financial year. The number published today confirm that we are on track to reach a record deficit this year.

The time for tough decisions on raising taxes or cutting public spending is not yet upon us, but it is time for the Government to start planning ahead by putting together a long-term fiscal strategy.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

OBR: Pandemic worsens long-term outlook for public finances

20 July 2020: The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests tax rises or spending cuts of more than £60bn a year may be needed if the UK public finances are to be put onto a sustainable path.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has reported that the public finances are unsustainable over the next 25 to 50 years, given expected levels of economic growth and pressures on public spending from more people living longer. Fiscal risks have also increased significantly with two ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ economic shocks occurring in just over a decade.

Without action to increase taxes or cut spending over the next few decades, the OBR projects that the gap between receipts and public spending before interest will widen from around 1% of GDP in 2019-20 to between 10% and 15% in 2069-70, depending on how quickly the UK recovers from the coronavirus pandemic. Public sector net debt could increase to between 320% of GDP and 520% of GDP, based on the assumptions made.

The OBR has highlighted how the coronavirus pandemic has not only worsened the immediate prospects for the UK and global economies, but ‘economic scarring’ will permanently damage the expected level of tax receipts over the next 50 years. The vulnerability of the public finances to potential future economic shocks has also increased significantly.

The OBR believes that a V-shaped economy is still possible, but this is now considered to be an upside scenario, with the OBR’s central scenario based on a much slower recovery from the pandemic. The downside scenario takes even longer for the economy to recover.

Economic activity, as measured by GDP, and tax receipts are both expected to be lower in all scenarios than in previous forecasts.

Prospects for the public finances in the current financial year have continued to deteriorate with the OBR now forecasting a fiscal deficit between 15% and 23% of GDP, with a central scenario of £372bn (19% of GDP). This reflects a total of £192bn in fiscal interventions in 2020-21 announced by the Government to date to support the UK economy through the pandemic.

The OBR projects that in its central scenario the gap between receipts and expenditure excluding interest will widen to almost 13% of GDP by 2069-70 if no actions are taken, equivalent to almost £300bn in 2019-20 terms. With much higher levels of debt, and interest rates likely to be higher in the medium to long-term, this could cause the fiscal deficit to increase to over 30% of GDP in 50 years time.

The OBR has calculated that ‘fiscal tightening’ in the order of 2.9% of GDP (£64bn a year) would be required based on a target level for public sector net debt of 75% of GDP. This is subject to a number of fiscal risks, including that no further significant changes are made to the planned profile of spending on health and social care – a key source of policy risk.

Closing this gap could require potentially very significant levels of tax increases or cuts in public spending, especially if difficult decisions, such as on how to fund social care, continue to be deferred.

Martin Wheatcroft FCA, adviser to ICAEW on public finances, commented: “The Office for Budget Responsibility has yet again assessed the public finances and concluded that they are not sustainable, even before taking account of the eye-watering levels of borrowing being added to the national debt as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic.

Although we should expect tax cuts and spending increases in the immediate future as the Government looks to provide stimulus to the economy, the need to reduce the gap between tax receipts and public spending over the medium- to long-term means that tax rises or further cuts in public spending are likely in the years to come.

Despite this, there are actions that could be taken to improve the outlook for the public finances by developing a long-term fiscal strategy to put the public finances onto a sustainable path.”

Table 1 – OBR projections for the public finances: central scenario

CENTRAL SCENARIO	2019-20 % OF GDP	2020-21 % OF GDP	2024-25 % OF GDP	2044-45 % OF GDP	2069-70 % OF GDP
Receipts excluding interest	36.1	36.3	36.6	36.6	36.4
Expenditure excluding interest	(37.2)	(54.4)	(40.3)	(43.9)	(49.1)
Primary deficit	(1.1)	(18.1)	(3.7)	(7.3)	(12.7)
Net interest	(1.5)	(0.8)	(0.9)	(6.2)	(17.8)
Fiscal deficit	(2.6)	(18.9)	(4.6)	(13.5)	(30.5)
Public sector net debt	(88.5)	(106.6)	(102.1)	(173.7)	(418.4)

^{Source: OBR, ‘Fiscal sustainability report July 2020’. 2020-21 amounts adjusted for £50bn (2.5% of GDP) of additional fiscal interventions announced on 8 July 2020. Subsequent periods not adjusted.}

Table 2 – OBR projections for the public finances: upside and downside scenarios

DIFFERENCES FROM CENTRAL SCENARIO	2020-21 % OF GDP	2024-25 % OF GDP	2044-45 % OF GDP	2069-70 % OF GDP
Upside scenario
Primary deficit	3.6	2.1	2.2	2.3
Fiscal deficit	3.6	2.2	3.8	6.5
Public sector net debt	9.3	14.1	45.7	98.2
Downside scenario
Primary deficit	(4.3)	(2.2)	(2.3)	(2.4)
Fiscal deficit	(4.3)	(2.2)	(3.9)	(6.9)
Public sector net debt	(9.1)	(14.5)	(47.9)	(103.5)

^{Sources: OBR, ‘Fiscal sustainability report July 2020’; ICAEW calculations.
Positive differences = lower deficit or lower debt in percentage points of GDP; (negative) differences = higher deficit or higher debt.}

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

NAO reviews government support for exports

20 July 2020: National Audit Office gives a moderately positive report on government support provided to UK exporters.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has issued a report scrutinising the Department for International Trade (DIT) and UK Export Finance (UKEF) strategy for supporting British exports. These amounted to £701bn of goods and services in 2019, equivalent to 31.7% of GDP.

The UK Government’s ambition is to promote industrial growth by increasing exports from 30% to 35% of GDP, with DIT and UKEF expected to play a key part in achieving this goal. This is part of the overall ‘Global Britain’ strategy for the UK economy following the UK’s imminent departure from the European Union.

The NAO’s last report in 2013 concluded that the then ambition of increasing exports to £1tn by 2020 (which was not achieved) would require better coordination between the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and UK Trade & Investments (now part of DIT) and the setting of tough, measurable milestones. It makes the same point in this report, with better coordination required between DIT, UKEF and other government departments if the export strategy is to be achieved.

In 2018, DIT set out its initial strategy for increasing exports but the NAO says that it will need to be kept up to date to ensure long-term value for money. In particular, the strategy will need to adapt depending on the trade arrangements in place after the UK leaves the EU Single Market and Customs Union at the end of the year, as well as addressing the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on UK and global trade.

DIT is focusing on around 230,000 businesses with turnover greater than £500,000.

The NAO criticises the evidence underlying the strategy to increase exports to 35% of GDP, saying it is not clear how stretching such an ambition is, nor is the timetable in which the target is expected to be achieved clear.

The NAO is also critical of the lack of sufficient data on which of the 5.9 million businesses in the UK make exports or have the potential to become exporters. Better insights are needed, with, for example, greater understanding about emerging sectors such as renewable energy. The ability to expand exports into new areas needs to be explored.

A start has also been made by DIT on digital services to provide export support, but a full pilot service will not be in place until April 2021.

The overseas networks of DIT and UKEF staff need to work more closely together to avoid missing export opportunities. DIT has 1,400 staff overseas but not all have finance expertise or the technical skills necessary to promote export finance effectively, and while UKEF supported exports to 72 countries, 80% of the value of these exports was concentrated in just five of them.

The report also explores barriers to exporting, indicating that DIT lacks capacity to resolve all market access barriers. Access to finance can also be a barrier, despite the financial support provided by the UKEF. UKEF is developing new products and working methods to help in this respect, for example by providing greater delegated authority to five banks who can apply for some UKEF products to get immediate cover for exporters.

The report concludes that overall a good start has been made but there are massive challenges for both DIT and UKEF in the months ahead.

Commenting on the report Alison Ring, director for public sector at ICAEW, said:

“The National Audit Office has again highlighted the need for better coordination within government if greater success in exporting is to be achieved. Effective government support will be increasingly important following the UK’s departure from the EU.

More and higher quality data will be essential in developing insightful and focused policy, a recurring theme across government.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

PAC slams Ministry for local commercial investment failures

13 July 2020: The Public Accounts Committee has severely criticised central government for complacency as local authorities put £7.6bn into risky commercial property investments.

In a hard-hitting report, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has severely criticised the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for failing to properly oversee the local government prudential framework in England.

The National Audit Office (NAO) reported earlier this year on the huge rise in local authority investment going into commercial property, with £1.8bn invested in 2016-17, £2.6bn in 2017-18, £2.2bn in 2018-19 and £1bn in the first half of 2019-20. This compares with the £200m spent on commercial properties in 2015-16.

ICAEW submitted evidence to the inquiry.

Key findings and recommendations from the PAC report include:

More active oversight of the prudential framework is needed, including publicly challenging local authorities where there are concerns.
MHCLG’s failure to ensure local authorities adhere to the spirit of the framework has led to some local authorities taking on extreme levels of debt.
Requirements to set aside money each year to service debt (the Minimum Revenue Provision) should be strengthened.
Actions taken to address risky and non-compliant behaviour have been too little and too late.
A ‘soft’ approach of guidance changes has not worked, and ‘hard’ more timely and effective interventions are needed, with rigorous post-implementation reviews.
The local government prudential framework has been impaired and now requires a fundamental review.
MHCLG does not have access to the data it needs to carry out its oversight responsibilities.
External audit has a role to play, but more important is real-time scrutiny of commercial investment strategies and investment decisions.
Local governance arrangements are not robust enough, with investments not being properly transparent or subject to adequate scrutiny and challenge.

The PAC is particularly critical of the Ministry for taking four years between identifying that local authorities were starting to ‘borrow for yield’ to making more substantive changes to Public Loan Work Board lending rules. This was despite NAO and PAC reports highlighting the issue in 2016.

The PAC also highlights significant shortcomings in data, with MHCLG ‘flying blind’ as local authorities borrowed billions of pounds. It also doesn’t feel that lessons have been learned about capturing data on emerging and future commercial investment activities and not just about investments that have already been made.

Commenting on the report Alison Ring, Director for Public Sector at ICAEW, said: “This is a hard-hitting report from the Public Accounts Committee that severely criticises the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government for complacency about the huge expansion in debt-financed commercial property investment by English local authorities over the last four years.

The PAC rightly focuses on the importance of data in carrying out central government’s oversight role, enabling better understanding and analysis of risks in local authority balance sheets. Stronger governance at a local level is also needed, with improved transparency and scrutiny needed both before, and after, investments are made.

However, it is important that any changes to the prudential framework do not prevent local authorities in making essential investments in local infrastructure and in encouraging local economic activity as the country emerges from lockdown.

Supporting the economic recovery may involve councils taking on more – rather than less – balance sheet risk, making the PAC’s recommendations about strengthening both local governance and central oversight even more critical.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.

Universal Credit improves but attracts NAO criticism

14 July 2020: The National Audit Office has stated that vulnerable claimants struggle with Universal Credit and face financial difficulties, while administration costs are still too high.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has issued a new report on the troubled Universal Credit welfare benefit that is in the process of replacing six existing benefits. The report states that the Department for Work Pensions (DWP) should do more to support vulnerable people and others who struggle to make a claim.

With many more people on Universal Credit, the NAO reports that the number of people paid late increased from 113,000 in 2017 to 312,000 in 2019. As a proportion this was an improvement, going from 55% to 90% paid on time, but for those paid later than the scheduled five weeks the average additional delay was three weeks. Some 6% of households (105,000 new claims) waited around 11 weeks or more for full payment.

The NAO also reports that the cost of implementing Universal Credit had risen from £3.2bn to £4.6bn, not including the effect of the coronavirus pandemic. The average cost of administrating each claim has fallen to £301, but this is still higher than the DWP business case target for 2024-25 of £173 per claim.

Many of the payment delays affect vulnerable claimants and others who struggle to make a claim, especially as many are in financial difficulty before they apply. Nearly half have not been earning in the three months before claiming, while many are already in rent arrears. Claimants with more complex needs and circumstances, such as people with learning difficulties, can struggle to engage with the claims process or to provide the evidence required, leaving them at greater risk of being paid late.

Around 57% of households making a new claim obtain an advance payment, but this can lead to further financial hardship and debt when that advance is deducted from subsequent payments. The proportion is much higher for more vulnerable claimants, including the very poorest, those with disabilities or those with children with disabilities.

The NAO says that the DWP has been doing well in paying proportionately more people on time and has made improvements to its systems to address problems that were blocking large numbers of payments. However, the NAO also found that the DWP needs to better understand and address the needs of people with more complex claims.

Fraud and error are listed as “major issues” in the report, with over one in ten pounds paid through Universal Credit being incorrect. The DWP estimates that £1.7bn (9.4% of claims) was overpaid in 2019-20 and that 1.1% of claims were underpaid, the highest error rate for any benefit outside of tax credits. These errors contributed to the NAO qualifying the DWP’s 2019-20 accounts for the 32nd year running earlier this month.

The NAO’s work relates to the period before the coronavirus pandemic caused a significant jump in the number of claims for Universal Credit (over three million since the beginning of March). Dealing with vulnerable claimants will be even more critical if they are not to slip through the safety net.

Commenting on the report Alison Ring, director for public sector at ICAEW, said:

“The NAO report highlights how challenging implementing Universal Credit has been and how many vulnerable claimants are struggling financially. It complements the DWP on improvements to date but reports that late payments are still a significant issue – as are fraud and error.

Although the DWP appears to be making better progress in rolling out Universal Credit than before, it is still not expected to be fully implemented for several years to come. It remains a complex welfare benefit and more thought should be given to its design and how it could be improved to reduce delays, reduce the need for advance payments and reduce the likelihood of error and fraud.

The NAO also highlights the challenges that DWP is currently experiencing, with over three Universal Credit claims since the beginning of March.”

This article was originally published by ICAEW.