Tag: #publicfinances

ICAEW chart of the week: Spending Round 2019: an ‘end to austerity’?

Spending Round 2019 £330.8bn + inflation £6.1bn + reclass £1.6bn + increases £13.8bn = £352.3bn

On 4 September 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the UK Government’s plans for departmental spending for the next financial year, 2020-21; as illustrated by the #ICAEWchartoftheweek. 

This was unusual, as the announcement was not accompanied by a Budget setting out how those plans would be funded, nor by updated economic forecasts to indicate the expected effect on the overall public finances. This is also the second year running that the three-year Spending Review has been delayed and replaced by a one-year plan.

The primary announcement was for an increase of £13.8bn in departmental current spending in the next financial year (2020-21), a 4.1% real-terms increase over the current financial year. This was £11.7bn more than had been previously included in public finance forecasts and increases ‘Resource DEL excluding depreciation’ to £352.3bn.

There is an extra £4.1bn for health, £1.0bn for social care, £2.2bn for education, £1.3bn for law & order, £0.7bn for defence and security, £0.6bn for devolved administrations, and £1.3bn in other increases. The latter includes £0.4bn for transport, £0.2bn for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, £0.1bn for international development, £0.1bn for the next census, £0.1bn for the Department for Work & Pensions, £68m for air quality, biodiversity and animal health, £54m to tackle homelessness, and £46bn for the Birmingham Commonwealth Games. 

The Chancellor also announced that departmental capital spending would increase by £3.9bn or 5.0% in real terms. This is £1.7bn more than had previously been announced and increases ‘Capital DEL’ to £81.9bn. There is £2.2bn for transport infrastructure (including HS2, other rail projects and road building), £1.9bn in additional international development investment, £0.5bn for the defence equipment programme, and £0.5bn for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, partially offset by £1.2bn in lower reserves and other changes.

Although department current spending is expected to rise by 4.1%, and capital spending by 5.0%, the overall increase in total managed expenditure in 2020-21 is a 2.4% rise to £865.2bn, with annually managed expenditure (‘AME’) relatively flat in real-terms. With the cost of pensions rising ahead of inflation, this implies further cuts in the welfare budget, and so this may not be the full ‘end to austerity’ claimed by the Chancellor.

The uncertain economic outlook also causes concern. A recession, whether or not induced by Brexit, could have adverse consequences for the public finances, raising the worrying prospect of a return to austerity in the three-year Spending Review now scheduled for next year.

ICAEW chart of the week: Schools budget up £14bn, or is it £1.2bn?

English schools budget 2020-21 +£2.6bn, 2021-22 +£4.8bn, 2022-23 +£7.1bn

The Prime Minister’s announcement of a ‘£14bn package’ of more money was welcome news for English schools as they prepare to re-open their doors after the summer holidays.

Unfortunately, as is common with government announcements, there is a tendency to add several years together to give a bigger headline, exacerbated this time by the inclusion of inflation to make the headline even bigger! 

In reality the announcement is a lot less exciting, as illustrated by the #ICAEWchartoftheweek. The announced increase in the 5-16 schools’ budget in three years’ time of £7.1bn (from £45.1bn in 2019-20 to £52.2bn in 2022-23) turns out to be £3.6bn, or an average of £1.2bn a year after taking account of inflation and the expected growth in the number of school pupils of around 2% over that time.

This is still very good news for schools trying to manage within constrained budgets, but (as the IFS and others have reported) the increase will still be insufficient to restore real-terms per pupil funding to the levels seen before the financial crisis. A 12% increase in pupil numbers since 2009-10 has seen budgets squeezed as funding has been constrained to inflation-only increases for most of the last decade.

Ironically, the Chancellor wasn’t able to take advantage of the same trick in his announcement the following day of £400m for further education and sixth forms, despite the fact that this was proportionately a bigger increase. The announcement was only for one year, so he couldn’t add multiple years together to create a bigger headline, and HM Treasury no doubt held the line about not adding in inflation.

Either way, these announcements are indication of how the fiscal approach is changing after a decade of austerity and struggling public services. This week’s Spending Review will give us a few more clues about the direction of public spending, although if (as rumoured) the Budget is postponed then we may not find out what the plans for taxes and borrowing to fund these increases until the Spring.

Fiscal risks report

Last week, the OBR published their second fiscal risks report – 294 pages of detailed economic analysis on risks to the UK public finances. 

I am assuming that you will have read it all by now, but on the off-chance you haven’t, can I point you to this (much briefer) ICAEW summary instead?

As I say in the summary:

“The OBR highlights the continuing vulnerability of the UK public finances to economic headwinds and policy risks. Both revenue and spending are under increasing pressure as the population grows older and productivity stubbornly refuses to improve.

The report stresses the short-term risks to the public finances arising from Brexit or a potential global recession, with the ‘mild’ no-deal scenario presented by the OBR suggesting a significant hit to the public finances in the order of £30bn a year, before considering potential policy responses that could cost even more.

Perhaps more concerning is the OBR’s observation that austerity fatigue is leading to a fiscal loosening and less ambitious objectives for the management of the public finances. With the public finances already on an unsustainable path in the longer-term, the temptation to defer necessary decisions even further into the future appears to be proving too difficult to resist.”

https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/about-icaew/policy/fiscal-risks-report-2019.ashx?la=en

ICAEW chart of the week: A rush of capital spending in March

Our #ICAEWchartoftheweek this time is on the subject of public sector net investment. This is the government’s preferred measure of capital spending, including much needed investment in the UK’s economic and social infrastructure.

Over the years, the process for delivering capital expenditure in the public sector in the UK has had a pretty bad reputation. 

The anecdote goes that the first quarter is spent arguing about budgets, in the second everyone goes on holiday, and it is only in the third quarter that programmes finally get up and running, before everything stops for the Christmas break. The final quarter is then a mad rush to spend the remaining budget before the end of the financial year.

Unfortunately, there does appear to be some support for this conjecture when we take a look at the actual numbers.

According to the provisional financial results for the year released last week, around 41% of public sector net investment in 2018-19 was incurred in the last quarter. £8.2bn or 19% was reported in the last month alone!

Brexit has been an added complication in this particular financial year, with the government’s no-deal preparations in the run up to the end of March involving additional capital spending. Despite this, March was the peak month last year, as it has been over the years.

This is a stubbornly consistent feature of the public finances in the UK, even after numerous attempts within government to improve capital budgeting and delivery processes. For example, departments are now able to carry over some of their capital budgets to future years, which in theory should reduce the incentive to spend every last penny of their allocation in-year. In practice, a great deal of activity seems to take place in March, while April and May appear to be much quieter.

Of course, it is possible that our concerns about the quality of government’s investment delivery process are not fully justified. There could after all be some very good reasons as to why the winter months are the best time for carrying out public capital works!