Whole of Government Accounts 2012-13 - Public Accounts Committee Contents

Conclusions and recommendations

1.  Parliament lacks visibility over the impact of the Government's fiscal consolidation measures. The Treasury plans that, by the end of the current Parliament, some £126 billion of consolidation measures will be achieved from a combination of spending cuts (some £100 billion) and increased tax revenues (around £26 billion). Officials explained that tax revenues were not increasing as expected and, although the spending cuts were being delivered, they were less clear where the savings had been made. The Treasury told us that the planned savings over the spending review period included some £20 billion from welfare savings, £20 billion from reducing the public sector workforce, £6 billion from pay restraint, and £5 billion from increasing pension contributions from public sector workers. The make-up of the remaining savings was not clear.

Recommendation: The WGA is a key means by which Parliament holds the Government to account for its management of public finances, including its progress in delivering fiscal consolidation measures. The Performance Report part of the WGA is now the most appropriate place to set out the impact of the government's fiscal consolidation measures on Government finances so that trends in performance can be assessed.

2.  The Government has made progress in reducing the deficit but the challenges in meeting current and future targets for eliminating the deficit look very challenging. The Treasury estimates that it will have reduced the deficit in the public finances from 11% of Gross Domestic Product in 2010 to 5.5% by the end of the current Parliament. The challenge in delivering further fiscal consolidation measures during the next Parliament should not be underestimated. Under present policies some £250 billion out of over £700 billion public expenditure is protected from spending cuts and tax receipts continue to be well below forecasts. This leaves the challenge of identifying and delivering further expenditure cuts as very testing. As well as the uncertainty around the levels of tax revenues, the challenge of delivering further savings in public sector spending is likely to be greater than that experienced so far given the large areas of expenditure that are protected. The Government also has existing commitments to meet long term obligations such as the costs of nuclear decommissioning, where costs continue to increase at a massive rate, and the ability to recover student loans where estimates of write-offs also continue to grow fast. Long-term fiscal consolidation will not be achieved without better management of the risks and uncertainties in the public sector balance sheet. The Treasury has acknowledged that its Spending Teams need to better understand the impact of current spending decisions on future generations.


·  The Treasury should use the WGA to set out the risks and uncertainties it faces in meeting fiscal consolidation and how these are being managed.

·  The WGA should also set out how Spending Teams have used WGA information to influence the next spending round and beyond.

3.  The Treasury does not currently assess the level of fraud and error across the whole of Government. They know that in 2013-14 fraud and error on tax credits amounted to £2 billion and fraud and error on benefits and pensions amounted to £3.3 billion.

Recommendation: As we recommended last year, the Treasury should:

·  collect information across the whole of Government so that it can disclose the totality of monies lost through fraud and error.

·  develop a consistent and coherent policy across Government for tackling fraud and error with a view to reducing the losses concerned.

4.  The WGA does not provide Parliament with information on national or regional spending. The WGA currently provides an analysis of expenditure between central government, local government and public corporations. We believe that an analysis of national and regional spending would demonstrate to Parliament the effective allocation and use of resources on a national and regional basis. We welcome the Treasury's agreement to include this disclosure in future.

Recommendation: The Treasury should develop and implement an action plan and timetable for the future disclosure of expenditure on a national and regional basis.

5.  The Treasury has not demonstrated sufficient oversight in ensuring that all parts of the public sector comply with the government's expectations on pay restraint. Pay costs form a significant part of public sector spending and a lack of control over pay could negate savings made elsewhere. The Treasury sets the framework for public sector pay but has been slow to exert its direct control over decisions taken by the wider public sector when setting remuneration packages. For example, although the Treasury took steps to eliminate automatic annual increments as part of its own pay awards system, it has yet to see this achieved throughout the rest of the public sector. The Treasury has also been slow in identifying and addressing seemingly excessive pay awards for some roles in the education sector, such as University Vice Chancellors and 'Super-Heads' and has only recently started to collate information in areas such as the Academy sector. Given this track record, we are sceptical as to whether government are taking this matter seriously and are concerned that messages around the need for pay restraint for the public sector are undermined by remuneration packages offered to more senior public servants.

Recommendations: The Treasury should:

·  set clear expectations of appropriate senior level pay, and pay restraint more generally, for all publically funded bodies to apply;

·  publish, a clear picture of pay trends across the whole of the public sector within the WGA; and

·  enhance accountability for the decisions made by public bodies by expanding the scope of the WGA Remuneration Report to include senior banded salary details for other WGA sectors as well as those for the civil service.

6.  Off payroll arrangements across central government still occur too often and have yet to be tackled throughout the wider public sector. We have concluded previously that better procedures were needed to manage 'off-payroll' arrangements, where individuals organise their pay to be remitted to a limited company to avoid income tax, across the public sector. Guidance from the Treasury and Cabinet Office now requires these arrangements to be reported in central government accounts and we welcome this improved transparency. However, we are concerned that there are no similar arrangements in the local authority and public corporations sectors. We also welcome the Treasury's stance in sanctioning central government bodies that have failed to follow guidance, but are disappointed where Treasury oversight has failed to ensure some departments are addressing problems effectively. For example, in 2013-14, there were some 2,214 new 'off-payroll' arrangements within central government and, in 27% of cases, departments did not insert clauses into contracts allowing them to seek assurances on individuals' tax obligations.

Recommendations: The Treasury should:

·  continue to work with the Local Government Association to set clear expectations on the use of such arrangements across the local authority sector;

·  develop appropriate frameworks for disclosing off-payroll arrangements within local government and public corporations; and

·  in light of applying the existing guidance over the past two years within central government, consider lessons learnt and where this guidance can be strengthened so that all departments are consistent in their application of the guidance.

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2015
Prepared 7 January 2015