Consolidated budgeting guidance 2014 to 2015

Jun 09, 2023

Updated 3 July 2014

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consolidated-budgeting-guidance-2014-to-2015/consolidated-budgeting-guidance-2014-to-2015

The fiscal mandate, against which the independent Office for Budget Responsibility judges the Government's plans, is to eliminate the structural current budget deficit over a five year rolling horizon. The Spending Review 2010 set out how the Government will deliver its deficit reduction plan reducing spending by around £80 billion by 2014-15.

Since then the UK economy has been hit by a series of shocks that significantly weakened the economic and fiscal outlook. In the Spending Round 2013, the Government announced its plans to ensure it continues to meet its fiscal targets and protect the economy and will reduce pending by around £11 billion in 2015-16.

Since the Online System for Central Accounting and Reporting (OSCAR) was introduced in 2012, a system of Common Chart of Account Codes has been introduced. The introduction of these Common Chart of Account Codes will ensure the reporting of public spending data will be consistent, accurate and timely across all Departments.

This budgeting guidance applies to in year control from 2014-15.

This section sets out the main areas where the guidance has been changed for 2014-15

The guidance on Prior Period Adjustments (PPAs) has been updated to clarify the use of such adjustment and to align the Estimates treatment with that in accounts. See Appendix 5 to Chapter 1 for details.

The guidance on Budget Exchange has been updated to include details of the flexibilities to retain income from asset sales as announced in the Spending Round 2013. See Chapter 2 for details.

The guidance on the recording of Single Use Military Equipment has been updated to comply with the changes to the treatment in National Accounts as laid out in the updated European System of Accounts 2010 (ESA10). See Chapter 6 for details.

The guidance on the impact of the revaluation of impairments has been updated in relation to Higher Education loans book not for sale (e.g. post Browne loans). See Chapter 8 for details.

The budgeting system has two main objectives:

In addition, the Treasury tries to keep down the compliance costs of the budgeting system and of the overall public spending control framework.

The Government's objectives for fiscal policy are set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility. These are to:

The means to achieving these objectives are through the Government's fiscal mandate, which the Chancellor announced in the June 2010 Budget. The fiscal policy mandate is also set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility:

The mandate and the supplementary target for debt are measured with reference to two fiscal aggregates:

The Government will use the ONS measures that exclude the temporary effects of financial interventions but account for any permanent cost to the taxpayer.

These aggregates are measured using the National Accounts. These are prepared in accordance with the internationally agreed framework ‘European System of Accounts’ (ESA95). ESA95 in turn is consistent with the System of National Accounts (SNA93), which was prepared under the auspices of the United Nations and is in use across the globe. The Office for National Statistics (ONS), acting as an independent agency, is responsible for the National Accounts.

Departmental Accounts (DAs) are based on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as interpreted by the Financial Reporting Manual (FReM). Many transactions are treated in the same way in DAs and National Accounts: pay is a current expense in any system of accounts. But there are a number of differences between the two systems of accounts.

These differences in accounting treatment explain some of the cases where DAs and budgets treat transactions differently, since budgets are trying to achieve objectives expressed in terms of the National Accounts rather than IFRS accounts. The number of these differences has been reduced as a result of Treasury's Alignment Project, which was implemented for budgets in 2010-11.

Annex A lists the main differences between budgets and DAs.

The budgeting system tries to ensure that departments have good incentives to manage their business well, to prioritise across programmes, and to obtain value for money.

So for example, departments are given SR settlements that allow for sensible planning. There are rules allowing departments to offset certain income against budgets when that helps management.

The Government published a framework for improving spending control. This sets out the Government's priorities for spending control in terms of monitoring, managing and the scrutiny of public spending.

Compliance costs are kept down by basing the budgeting rules on the DAs that departments draw up for parliamentary and public reporting purposes. Treasury intends that the treatment of transactions should always be aligned between budgets, Estimates, and accounts where possible.

However, where it is desirable either because of the need to support the fiscal framework or because controlling spending against information in DAs would not provide the right incentives for departments, the budgeting rules have a different treatment from DAs. In such cases departmental Estimates will normally follow the budgeting treatment.

The Treasury is responsible for the design of the budgeting system. We will always be happy to explain the budgeting rules. It is only the Treasury which may finally determine the budgeting treatment of a transaction.

The guidance does not cover every case. Sometimes we have deliberately kept the guidance simple for departments because certain transactions are rare or typically small. But there might be cases where if a large instance of such a transaction were to take place it would impact on the fiscal framework. So we will sometimes impose restrictions, even if the guidance does not provide for them, to protect the fiscal framework or to provide better incentives for departments. If departments face new circumstances, which might lead to difficulties for the fiscal framework, they should contact their Treasury spending team before they undertake the transaction.

Sometimes departments’ or public bodies’ consultants offer them suggestions for ways round the spending control framework. We have no interest in such schemes. Departments are asked to go with the spirit of the spending control framework. If a transaction is clearly just a way round the letter of the rules, then departments should follow the spirit of the rules. If you are in doubt, talk to your spending team.

Treasury Ministers have the right to modify the budgeting guidance at any time, although in practice we try to keep changes to a minimum and we generally consult departments before making significant changes.

Departments have separate budgets for:

Within the Resource budget DEL there are separate administration controls set in Spending Reviews. Administration budgets cover expenditure on running Central Government entities but excluding their frontline activities.

Appendix 1 to this chapter summarises the contents of budgets. Appendix 2 sets out the control totals diagrammatically. Appendix 3 sets out a list of the control totals – departments and their Treasury spending teams should at all times have a shared understanding of what the control totals are and how the department's spending matches up against them. Appendix 4 details the criteria for AME treatment of levy funded bodies. Appendix 5 provides details of the treatment of Prior Period Adjustments (PPAs) in accounts, Estimates and budgets. Appendix 6 provides information on dealing with Machinery of Government changes.

Cash is not controlled directly through the budgeting system. However, the Net Cash Requirement for Supply Expenditure is controlled through the Supply Estimates processes. Changes in the expected level of use of cash provide useful monitoring information. Departments should discuss the reasons for planned increases in the level of cash spending with their Treasury Spending Teams.

These controls support the achievement of the fiscal framework and provide management incentives for departments.

Resource budgets are Treasury's control over the level of current spending that impact on Surplus on the Current Budget (SOCB). Within the Resource budget some transactions will have an immediate or near-immediate impact on the fiscal position, for example pay, procurement and depreciation. Other transactions will only have an effect in future periods, for example the take-up of provisions, or revaluation of assets. Both types of transaction fall within the resource budget.

Administration budgets are controlled to ensure that as much money as practicable is available for front line services and programmes. Provision in the Resource budget that is not in Administration budgets is termed programme spending.

Capital budgets are controlled because net investment increases Net Borrowing and hence the level of debt.

Departmental Resource and Capital budgets are divided into:

Within each of these budgets departments are expected to pursue efficiencies and prioritise expenditure in order to optimise the value for money of spending.

As mentioned in paragraph 1.25 some transactions in the Resource budget do not have an immediate impact upon the Surplus on Current Budget (SOCB). In most cases these transactions will be recorded in Resource AME in order to allow HMT to control transactions which will have an immediate impact on SOCB in DEL. These transactions include the take-up and revaluation of provisions, and revaluations.

Where a transaction does have an immediate impact on SOCB it will follow the standard criteria set out below to determine whether the programme should be recorded in DEL or in AME.

All programmes are in DEL unless the Chief Secretary has determined that they should be in AME. The Chief Secretary may agree to put programmes into AME if:

The Treasury regularly reviews whether programmes in AME are still suitable for AME treatment. Where appropriate programmes are moved into DEL.

Normally, a programme will have both its Resource and Capital budget impact in either DEL or AME, but there are some exceptions. Where a department agrees an exception with Treasury it should be included in their settlement letter during the spending review process.

The Treasury continues to look at what the options are to improve incentives to control AME.

Both DEL and AME programmes need to be managed to maximise effectiveness, efficiency and economy in the use of public funds. For programmes in DEL that is well understood. Because DEL programmes compete for resources within a fixed envelope departments are under a clear pressure to review programmes, re prioritise and pursue efficiency measures.

It is therefore important that departments produce and share with the Treasury accurate in-year forecasts of DEL spending and risks. The key elements of the monthly financial data submitted on OSCAR must be consistent with internal financial management information, such as Board reports and management accounts. Any inconsistency arising from timing differences must be reconcilable.

Where appropriate in the management of DEL programmes:

AME programmes are spending like any other. They impact on the fiscal framework in the same way as DEL spending. They need taxes to be raised to finance them. So careful monitoring and management is just as important as it is with DEL. The nature of certain AME programmes means that some aspects of management, e.g. forecasting, are more important than with most DEL programmes.

The management of AME programmes serves the same ends as the management of DEL programmes, but the volatility of many AME programmes means that careful management is important.

Departments are reminded that with AME programmes also, just as with DEL, they need to put in place processes to monitor spending in year, to identify longer-term trends in spending, and to provide robust projections of future spending. Early identification of changes in AME spending is needed to allow risks to be managed effectively. In particular, departments should monitor spending in Resource AME and ensure that they take steps where appropriate to prevent undue increases in spending that affects the Surplus on the Current Budget (SOCB).

Departments should also review AME programmes regularly to ensure that they are helping to achieve government objectives effectively and efficiently. Departments should discuss with the Treasury proposals for optimising AME spending programmes.

They must obtain Treasury approval in advance for any changes which would increase AME spending (this includes both policy reforms and any administrative changes which impact on expenditure, for example measures to promote take-up) or if AME is likely to rise above expectation. Where the actions/inaction of a department increase AME, they are assumed to fund the increases in AME by reductions in their DEL budgets, or by identifying firm savings in AME. If AME spending is expected to come out higher than forecast, departments should also be prepared to discuss what steps should be taken to offset these increases. Whilst Treasury accepts that in some areas of AME inherent volatility may mean departments do not have the ability to manage the spending within budgets in that financial year, if the higher spending is likely to be permanent the department may be required to offset this elsewhere in their DEL or AME budgets.

Finally, departments should consider carefully the impact of AME spending on DEL spending and vice versa, both within and across departments. For example, DEL usually includes the cost of administering AME programmes and the quality of administration can have a significant impact on AME expenditure. And some DEL and AME programmes are complementary.

Switches are real changes in provision reflecting real world changes in spending or plans. They need to be distinguished from classification changes, which restate budgets to reflect new ways of scoring an unchanged activity.

Suppose a department has activity X which costs £50 million and which is within administration budgets.

If the department cuts the costs of activity X by £10 million, it has made a real reduction in spending. It then has £10 million that it may reallocate to other spending in administration budgets or that it may switch to programme spending.

If the Treasury agrees that activity X should no longer be in administration budgets, then budgets are restated: the administration budget is reduced by £50 million, and the programme budget increased by £50 million within an unchanged Resource Budget DEL. The reclassification does not create spending headroom within the administration budget.

There is a passage below on types of adjustment to budgets.

So that the control totals can work, departments are restricted in the switches they may make between them:

To relax any of the above restrictions would impact on the government's fiscal mandate or its administration costs target and would therefore need to be absorbed by the Reserve (see paragraphs 1.50 to 1.54 below). For this reason, any request to waive the above restrictions is viewed in the same way as a request for support from the Reserve and the same process (which is outlined below) will be followed.

In addition, as part of the SR settlement, some spending might be subject to specific ring-fences. If so, departments may not move money across the ring-fence, except as specified in the SR settlement. Ring-fences are normally set at the level of RDEL or CDEL. However, closer controls (e.g. on administration spending) may be set.

Departments are encouraged not to allocate their DELs fully against their programmes at the start of a financial year but to hold some provision back to deal with unforeseen pressures that emerge subsequently, including utilisation of provisions. This unallocated budget is referred to as the Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP).

DUP is reported in the Main Estimate as the difference between budgetary limits and the amounts allocated to specific functions; it is included within its own separate Estimate Line (within voted DEL) but cannot be spent by the department unless it is subsequently reallocated to appropriate functions in the Supplementary Estimate.

Departments are expected to manage their DEL budgets so as to stay within them. If pressures arise in one part of a DEL, departments should respond by:

Exceptionally, a department may seek support from the Reserve. As part of the spending plans announced in Spending Reviews, the government allocates a Reserve for genuinely unforeseen contingencies that departments cannot absorb within their DELs. Separate Reserves are held for Resource and Capital DEL; both are small. Support from the Reserve to departments’ Resource or Capital DELs is non-recurrent i.e. it will not affect departments’ SR baselines. Increases are generally stripped out when baselines are agreed for Spending Reviews. The failure to hold sufficient contingency will count against the department when decisions about granting support from the Reserve are taken.

If the Chief Secretary agrees to provide support to a department from the Reserve then the amount will be repayable the following year by means of a reduction in the department's DEL.

Departments that think they might require support from the Reserve should contact their Treasury spending team early so that alternative courses of action can be fully discussed while there is still time to put them into effect. Departments’ proposals should set out:

The drawdown of funding from the Reserve is subject to an assessment of need, realism and affordability at the time at which the funds are released. Reserve claims approved by the Chief Secretary should therefore normally be voted at Supplementary Estimates when such an assessment can most easily be made.

Departments are required to report contingent liabilities to Parliament. This process is separate from budgeting. The recording of contingent liabilities does not guarantee departments’ access to the Reserve. If a contingent liability matures, the normal budgeting procedures apply. That is, departments are expected to cover the costs by making offsetting savings as normal.

Departments are expected to keep track of their authorised control totals on OSCAR as these change with Machinery of Government changes, other classification and transfer changes, issues from central funds, authorised transfers to RDEL, and – exceptionally – issues from the Reserve. Departments and spending teams should at all times use OSCAR to have a common understanding of the authorised levels of:

Departments are expected to monitor spending against plan and to share information with their Treasury spending team (via bilaterally agreed information supply) and the Treasury collectively (via OSCAR).

Any breach of a budgetary limit is treated seriously, and departments need to take remedial action. Note that breaches can arise as a result of past errors treated as Prior Period Adjustments in accounts. See Appendix 5 for more details of how Prior Period Adjustments (PPAs) should be treated in budgets.

This passage sets out the process to follow where a department's final outturn breaches the final level set for any of the following limits:

For breaches in DEL the responsible Minister should write to the Chief Secretary as soon as practicable after the end of the year setting out:

When departments overspend against their control totals, there will be an offsetting reduction in the corresponding control total in the following year.

Breaches in departmental AME do not automatically incur a penalty. However, unforeseen changes in spending may indicate poor financial management by departments. The department should therefore write to the Spending Team providing the same information as set out for breaches in DEL above. This should include the options for offsetting the higher spending through savings elsewhere in either the department's DEL or AME.

Departments should discuss with their Treasury spending teams their proposals before their Minister writes to the Chief Secretary.

One department's policies may affect the spending of another department. Sometimes the link is obvious, for example where several departments have joint responsibility for a change to outcomes. In other cases the link may be less clear: for example, the creation of a new offence may impose burdens on the police, prosecutors, legal aid, and offender management budgets. European Community directives may also impose costs on a range of departments.

There has been a long standing set of general principles governing the question of policy changes with resource implications affecting more than one department. These include:

Where department A has or introduces a policy that benefits another department B it may seek a contribution to the costs from that other department B. There is however no obligation on B to pay.

Any new proposals, regardless of where they originate, fall to the department responsible for implementing the proposals.

Where a department introduces charges for a service previously provided for free, or moves from a subsidised service to full cost recovery, it should normally transfer DEL cover to any customers in the Central Government sector to leave them no better and no worse off.

Only some of the income that come to a department benefits budgets. Separate chapters in respect of Resource and Capital budgets set out when departments may set income against DEL spending. That covers both which sorts of income count as negative RDEL / CDEL and also when departments may obtain the benefit of income higher than the levels taken into account in the SR.

Where a department wishes to impose burdens on Local Authorities, it is responsible for securing the necessary resources and fully funding them by budget transfer to ensure that there is no upward pressure on council tax levels. A new burden is defined as any policy or initiative which increases the cost of providing Local Authority services.

The policy applies to any new burden imposed on Local Authorities (including police and fire authorities) except for policies, which apply the same rules to Local Authorities and to private sector bodies (for example a change in the rate of employers’ National Insurance contributions).

Departments contemplating a potential new burden should contact CLG (Local Government Finance Directorate) at the earliest possible stage to discuss the procedures to be followed – see Annex B for contacts.

Transactions between public sector bodies should be constructed simply. For example, where department A buys an asset from department B the purchase price should normally be paid in full in cash on the day of completion. Departments should not enter into or spend money on complex deals which do not have a clear justification in fairness or incentives as these are unlikely to be good value for the public sector overall. Departments should not seek to exploit differences in budgeting rules between different public sector entities. Where departments are unsure how best to construct a transaction with a public sector body they should consult HMT.

Where the Chancellor announces tax increases that impact on departments the normal rule is that tax lies where it falls.

Adjustments within or between departments’ overall budgetary limits fall into three categories. In summary:

The changes are implemented in different ways in budgets:

In addition departments may record changes to their expenditure numbers as Budgetary Outturn adjustments, which are not a change to the budget – they are used to describe changes against final budget allocations and are used for recording outturn.

It is the Treasury that determines finally what type of adjustment a change is. Departments that are in doubt should contact their Treasury spending team.

Annex C sets out where to find further guidance on types of adjustment.

The public sector in the National Accounts comprises Central Government and Local Government, which together make General Government, and Public Corporations (bodies which are publicly owned or controlled and which operate in a market or which trade). Budgeting rules apply to all bodies in Central Government.

It is the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that determines whether a body is in the public sector. You can look up the sector classification of bodies where that has been determined by the ONS in their Sector Classification Guide publication (see Annex C for the link).

The Treasury publishes a guidance note on sector classification (see Annex C for the link). In broad terms, bodies are in the public sector if they are owned or controlled by public sector bodies. A body will be controlled for example if the sponsoring department appoints a majority of Board members. Sometimes a lesser degree of influence can still be held to give control. The legal form of a body does not tell you what sector it is in. So, for example, if an ALB sets up a wholly owned subsidiary in the form of a limited company under the Companies Act that body would be public sector because it would be wholly controlled by the ALB.

Subsidiaries, interests in associates and joint ventures classified to the public sector are consolidated with parent bodies for budgeting. So if an ALB sets up a public sector non-trading body it will be part of the ALB's DEL allocation from the parent department.

Departments and public bodies who are in doubt about an actual or proposed body's sector classification should approach the Treasury for advice. The ONS should only be approached via the Treasury. That restriction on direct access to the ONS is so that the Treasury can:

Departments that are setting up a new body that will be or might be in the public sector should contact the Treasury's budgeting and classification branch with their proposals for budgeting, accounting and recording the body. The Treasury will pass the information on to:

Departments should not spend money on consultancy advice on National Accounts sector classification and should discourage their sponsored bodies from doing so. Sector classification is unlikely to be an area where consultants have expertise. The Treasury will provide advice on request.

IFRS standards include criteria for judging when bodies should be regarded as subsidiaries; the Financial Reporting Manual (the FReM) has adapted the standards so that consolidation applies only to bodies classified to the Central Government sector. Where a reporting body has a subsidiary that falls within the FReM definition it should be consolidated within group accounts. The criteria applied by IFRS (as adapted) are very similar to those used in National Accounts so normally the decision whether a body is a subsidiary under IFRS (as adapted) and whether it is a public sector body in the National Accounts under ESA95 will be consistent.

The Treasury produces WGA IFRS based accounts that are a consolidation of the accounts of most public sector bodies. Inclusion in WGA is based on the same National Accounts standards as budgets and Departmental Accounts. Since WGA includes the whole public sector all bodies classified as Central Government, Local Government, or Public Corporations, within National Accounts will be consolidated by WGA.

The term Arms Length Bodies (ALBs) is taken to include a department's executive NDPB's and Trading Funds where these bodies have been classified as being within Central Government by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

For accountability and governance purposes the Cabinet Office has lead responsibility for the classification of ALB's and will designate bodies into the various categories using its own criteria. Where departments are setting up a new body they should contact the Cabinet Office to discuss the governance arrangements. The Cabinet Office classification of entities will not necessarily line up with the National Accounts. The budget and financial control framework is based on National Accounts classifications, when the term ALB is used this should be taken to mean all Central Government bodies other than departments, their agencies or PCs.

Budgets, Estimate and accounts have three distinct frameworks and are used by Government for different purposes. In previous years there have been significant differences between the figures recorded in each of the frameworks, with certain transactions and programmes being recorded differently according to different sets of rules.

Budgets, Estimates and accounts are now substantially aligned, and the vast majority of spending by departments and their ALBs scores in the budget and Estimate at the same value and with the same timing as in accounts.

In broad terms however, in order to keep down compliance costs for departments, the budgeting treatment of items is generally based on the treatment in departmental accounts. Annex A sets out the main differences between DAs , Estimates and budgets.

In practice therefore when considering how to score a transaction you should:

Departments and other public bodies have to produce audited accounts that report to the public and for parliament on how they have used the resources at their disposal (defined in terms of accounting aggregates rather than budgeting aggregates). These accounts are normally for the body in question, and for subsidiaries or other bodies within the accounting boundary.

The underlying rules for departmental accounts are specified in the Financial Reporting Manual (FReM), produced by the Treasury and based on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). IFRS in DAs provides in some cases a different cut of information from that used for budgeting or the fiscal framework.

Department's accounts are audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office (NAO), who reports his findings to Parliament.

Accounting rules change from time to time. When they do, the Treasury consider the impact on budgets. Sometimes changes to accounting rules are not carried through into budgets. Departments are consulted on changes to accounting through FReM exposure drafts.

Departments should determine the accounting treatment, checking in cases of doubt with their NAO auditors on the application of the FReM in specific cases and with the Treasury's Government Financial Reporting (GFR) team on the interpretation of the FReM more generally. A link to where you can find full guidance on accounts is given in Annex C.

In some places this budgeting guidance summarises or describes accounting rules. That is done to provide context for the definitive statement of the budgeting rules. However, the only authoritative description of the accounting rules is in the FReM, and the summary in this budgeting guidance should be seen as indicative only.

Estimates are the mechanism by which Parliament authorises departmental spending.

Estimates require Parliament to vote limits for Resource DEL, Resource AME, Capital DEL and Capital AME, as well as any voted spending outside of budgets and the department's net cash requirement. These voted limits may differ from the figures in departmental budgets and Estimates, as elements of the department's budgets may fall within non-voted spending. The sum of voted and non-voted spending in DEL and AME will equal the figures in departmental budgets.

In the same way as budgets, Estimates are voted net of retained income. Any income treated as negative DEL or AME in budgets will net off against voted limits in the Estimate.

In rare cases some income may be treated as a Consolidated Fund Extra Receipt (CFER), and will not be retained by the department but returned to the Consolidated Fund. This will most commonly occur when the department has failed to anticipate this category of income or has generated more income than is allowed to be treated as within budgets.

A link to where you can find full guidance on Estimates is given in Annex C.

The Government's main measure for reporting overall public spending is Total Managed Expenditure (TME), a measure drawn from the National Accounts. TME may be defined as the sum of the public sector's current and capital expenditure. Current expenditure is presented net of sales of goods and services while capital expenditure is presented as net of asset sales.

Capital expenditure may be divided into:

Therefore, TME may be defined as the sum of public sector current expenditure, net investment, and depreciation.

TME is also the sum of DEL, Departmental AME and non-Departmental AME (including accounting adjustments).

A department's Resource budget is the sum of the Resource budget: DEL and the Resource budget: AME. The Capital budget is the sum of the Capital budget: DEL and the Capital budget: AME.

Neither the Resource budget nor the Capital budget is a control total, since departments may not make switches from AME to DEL. But they are useful numbers to present since they show the total current and capital spending in the budgets of the department. And they remind readers of spending data that both DEL and AME spending are spending: both need to be financed by taxes and borrowing.

In addition to the control totals, there is a presentational aggregate; Total DEL. Total DEL is not a control total. It is a standard way of showing total current and capital spending in DEL. It is defined as:

Depreciation here includes DEL impairments.

Depreciation is excluded from Total DEL because adding together depreciation and investment may be seen by some as in a sense double counting.

Transactions should be recorded accurately on OSCAR. OSCAR supplies information for a wide range of users and uses:

You can see that often departments themselves are directly affected by the accuracy of information on OSCAR.

Where to find the guidance on recording is shown in Annex C.

This table summarises the main standard contents of Resource and Capital budgets. Budgets are divided into DEL and AME. The Resource budget DEL is divided into Administration and Programme.

Departments and their Treasury spending teams should at all times have a shared understanding of what their control and planning totals are, whether the department's spending is on track to stay within limits, and what the risks are.

The control totals are:

The planning totals are:

The Chief Secretary has determined that the spending of a number of levy-funded bodies should be in AME rather than DEL. The Chief Secretary takes such decisions case by case. The AME treatment of individual bodies is kept under review.

Where an AME treatment has been approved for spending, the income from the levy must also be recorded in AME by the body.

While the Treasury has no plan to recommend to the Chief Secretary that any further levy-funded bodies should have AME treatment, the criteria that the Chief Secretary uses are set out below.

Prior period adjustments (PPAs are adjustments applicable and are required in Estimates where data for an earlier year needs to be restated. As such PPAs are primarily an accounting concept. They negate the need to re-open accounts where a material error or omission is found from previous years, or where a department makes a material change to its accounting policies. All PPAs should be discussed with the auditor at the earliest possible opportunity.

From a Supply perspective PPAs fall into two categories:

In terms of Supply (the provision of money from Parliament) and budget the Government is primarily interested in the second kind of PPA, where an error or omission has been discovered, or the department changes accounting policy on its own initiative (i.e. not an externally driven change in accounting standards). This is because changes initiated by the department, or an error in previous recording, have the potential to change net budgets and thus the reported outturn for previous years. In such cases HMT believes it is proper that Parliamentary authority is sought for the budgetary cover that should have been sought previously had the expenditure been identified correctly.

PPAs obviates any need to re-open accounts that have been signed off by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) of the National Audit Office (NAO), but also provides – retrospective – parliamentary authority for the expenditure. PPAs must therefore be included in voted Supply in an Estimate.

Where a PPA results from a change in accounting standards, this is treated as a classification adjustment for budgets. There is therefore no need to seek Parliamentary authority, but the change and its impact should be identified in "Note F Accounting Policy changes" in the next available Supply Estimate.

PPAs can be included in Main or Supplementary Estimates if discovered in time, for example, as part of the mid-year reporting exercise. They are most likely to occur in this form where a department initiates a change in accounting policy as it is under the control of the department as to when it happens. As stated earlier, the department should seek non-budget cover for the PPA, where the PPA accounts for all previous years’ expenditure, ending at the resource accounting implementation year of 2001-02.This is required even when the Department was in a position to fund the expenditure from budget cover if it had been recognised in the correct year initially.

If the need for a PPA is discovered whilst resource accounts are being compiled it will be allocated to the non-budget section of the Statement of Parliamentary Supply (SoPS). The PPA should reflect the prior year data only, but capped by the start of resource accounting in government, i.e. departments should not seek cover for events prior to 2001-02, the first full year of resource accounting.

PPAs can only be made for material errors or changes in accounting policy. Whilst there is no such concept of materiality in budgets (the database goes down to the nearest £1,000). If the NAO have accepted a PPA as not material, to be absorbed in that year's budgets, then HMT will follow suit.

Normally departments do not have any non-budget provision unless a PPA is recognised when compiling an Estimate. PPAs discovered during the compilation of accounts could not have been foreseen: the lack of any or sufficient non-budget provision in the Estimate will lead to an Excess Vote. The normal process for regulating Excesses will then be followed.

Whilst it is possible to have negative PPAs in accountancy terms, Supply does not require Parliament to approve a smaller number. Parliament approves a ceiling for expenditure against which departments are judged; it has no need to vote something which is already within an approved limit.

Once the year in which the PPA features has passed, departments should re-state budgets to reflect the true budgetary hit (DEL or AME, resource or capital) in the years affected on the database. This will ensure that the budget reflects the true outturn. Note that the database will only hold outturn for five previous years; any impact beyond that cannot be captured electronically but should be reported in the accounts and noted in the Estimate.

A Machinery of Government change occurs when there is a transfer of function between one (or more) Government Departments and there is a resulting change in the Departmental Accounting Officer responsibility. Departments should begin the process of agreeing amounts and budgets to be transferred as soon as a MOG has been announced. Departments should be aware of the following key points when reflecting a MOG change:

Other transfers of function within the public sector, for example, transfers between arm's length bodies within a single departmental group, or between local and central government will not require historic restatement. The net impact of assets and liabilities transferring should not affect the spending power of the transferring or receiving department. Further guidance on the accounting treatment for all business combinations under common control is available on the FReM website. A link to the FReM is given in Annex C.

Budget Exchange is a mechanism that allows departments to carry forward a forecast DEL underspend from one year to the next. It is intended that Budget Exchange will provide departments with flexibility to manage their budgets, while strengthening spending control and providing greater certainty in order to support effective planning.

Under Budget Exchange, departments may surrender a forecast DEL underspend in advance of the end of the financial year (by means of a DEL reduction in the Supplementary Estimate) in return for a corresponding DEL increase in the following year, subject to a prudent limit.

There will be no scope to carry forward underspends that are not forecast in advance of the Supplementary Estimate.

Budget Exchange will be available on all DEL control totals (including non-voted DEL), subject to the usual restrictions:

Separate arrangements will apply to the Devolved Administrations.

Formal Treasury approval is required for any increase to DELs. However, it is intended that approval to utilise Budget Exchange will be granted automatically up to a prescribed limit and subject to the other conditions detailed below, though Treasury reserves the right to withhold approval in exceptional circumstances.

The amounts that departments will be permitted to carry forward are set out in the table below, where the limit is expressed as a percentage of Resource DEL and Capital DEL in the year in which the underspend is forecast to occur. These limits vary by size of department in recognition of the difficulties faced by smaller departments in managing slippage between years and there are separate limits for Resource DEL and Capital DEL.

Departments will be free to elect how to split their Resource DEL carry-forward limit between Administration and programme budgets and between depreciation and non-depreciation.

To further ensure that the fiscal cost of Budget Exchange is manageable and that spending power is not allowed to accumulate over time, Budget Exchange will only be permitted from one year to the next. To operationalise this, any carry-forward from the previous year will be netted off the amount that can be carried forward into the next year. A worked example is shown below for a department with £1 billion DEL each year:

In the above example, we assume ALL other Budget Exchange rules are in effect.

The Budget Exchange process will be run to a Supplementary Estimates timetable. The exact timing will be confirmed in a PES paper ahead of the Supplementary Estimate, but it is likely that departments will need to inform the Treasury of the amounts that they wish to carry forward by late November/early December.

The in-year DEL reductions will be effected in the Supplementary Estimate, with the corresponding DEL increase awarded at the time of the Main Estimate the following year.

Departments may not generally carry-forward an underspend if they are simultaneously seeking to draw funds from the Reserve. As always, the drawdown of funds from the Reserve is subject to an assessment of need and so emerging underspends should be the first call for meeting pressures before additional funding is sought.

There is no scope to change DELs after the Supplementary Estimate. Any department that uses Budget Exchange and then subsequently breaches a DEL control total will be treated like any other overspend and will be subject to the same process outlined in Chapter 1. Departments will need to take this into consideration when surrendering a forecast underspend. Departments are under no obligation to surrender their entire forecast underspend.

It can be challenging for departments to match asset sale proceeds with capital expenditure perfectly on an annual basis. Therefore, as announced at Spending Round 2013, departments now have additional Budget Exchange flexibilities to carry forward the CDEL proceeds from the sale of tangible assets so that they do not have to be spent in the same year.

The flexibility will be considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to the following conditions:

In some cases, departments may prefer to keep the resource benefit that results from the Exchequer using asset sale proceeds to pay down debt and hence reduce interest payments. Therefore, instead of keeping the proceeds from a tangible asset sale, departments may surrender the proceeds in full to the Exchequer in exchange for an ongoing RDEL uplift equivalent to 3.5 per cent of the proceeds surrendered p.a. This will be subject to the following conditions:

In order that the Treasury can monitor the overall effect of these policies on the fiscal aggregates, departments should notify their Spending Team six weeks ahead of the Autumn Statement in each year if they envisage using either of these flexibilities on asset sales in that financial year.

These flexibilities do not affect any other rules around the retention and utilisation of asset sale income.

For areas of protected spend, the Treasury may not be able to offer the asset sale flexibilities above. We invite you to discuss asset sales on areas of protected spend with your Spending Team directly.

Departments are responsible for deciding whether to cascade Budget Exchange, or an alternative system for carrying forward underspends, to their Arms Length Bodies (ALBs). Departments will be responsible for managing any pressures this would create within their DEL.

The Resource budget scores most of the department's current expenditure. Expenditure is recorded on an accruals basis. So the Resource budget includes expenditure on pay, current procurement, current grants and subsidies, depreciation and the take-up, revaluation and release of provisions (as well as the cash payments associated with the release of the provision – which are recorded by economic type, i.e. pay, current procurement etc as above).

Since the Resource budget includes the resource consequences of acquiring and owning assets (depreciation and maintenance), departments should consider the inter-relationship of the resource and capital budgets when planning and monitoring expenditure. That inclusion should also help departments manage their entire asset stock as well as considering annual changes to the stock through new investments or disposals.

This chapter covers in detail the treatment of some specific items of departmental expenditure in the Resource budget. ALB expenditure scores in budgets in the same way as departments’ – see also chapter on ALBs. See next chapter for the treatment of income in Resource budgets. See separate chapters for the Resource budget implications of loans to the private sector, PFI deals, support for Local Authorities and support for Public Corporations. See also separate chapters for the rules governing the division of the Resource budget into Administration budgets / programme expenditure.

Items of Central Government's own expenditure score in the resource budget at the same value and with the same timing as in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure (SoCNE) in the departmental accounts. Care should be taken however as there are a couple of exceptions to this rule.

DAs do not distinguish between current grants and subsidies and capital grants. However, the National Accounts do, with current grants and subsidies affecting the current balance and capital grants not. Therefore departments have to distinguish between current and capital grants according to National Accounts principles. Current grants and subsidies score in the Resource budget; capital grants score in the Capital budget.

Current grants are paid to individuals and to not for profit bodies serving households. Subsidies are current payments paid to profit making bodies designed to influence levels of production, prices or wages.

Capital grants are unrequited transfer payments, which the recipient has to use to:

Where grants are paid that may be used at the recipient's discretion either on capital or on current expenditure they should be treated as current grants or subsidies. Both capital and current grants should be reflected in budgets for the year in which they accrue, which may be different to when the grant conditions are met by the receiving body.

Normally, debts are written off because the department is unable to enforce the debt against the debtor. Capital grants are imputed in the National Accounts in those cases where debts are written off "by mutual consent", that is, where for policy reasons the creditor department chooses not to enforce the debt. See section on impairments of financial assets below.

Payments of compensation to owners of capital goods destroyed or damaged by acts of war or natural disasters count as capital grants.

Major payments in compensation for extensive damage or serious injuries not covered by insurance policies may also count as capital grants – departments should consult the Treasury.

Pensions bulk transfer payments are treated as capital transactions in the National Accounts and pass through the resource budget (albeit offset by the release of the provision) – see pensions chapter.

The impact of tangible (e.g. land, buildings, IT systems) and intangible (e.g. patents, IT software, trademarks) fixed assets on the Resource budget is through depreciation, maintenance costs and impairments, which score in the Resource budget, and in DEL or AME as set out in this guidance. Gains or losses on the disposal of tangible and intangible fixed assets also score in Resource DEL (subject to the limits indicated in Chapter 4). Further guidance on the treatment of new capital spending on tangible and intangible fixed assets and investments and on the disposal of assets can be found in the chapter on Capital budgets.

Financial investments are treated in the same manner as other fixed assets. As they are not depreciated, they normally only impact on the resource budget through returns received on the investment or impairments.

They should be recorded on the department's balance sheet according to the appropriate treatment in the FReM with any fluctuations in value being dealt with through the revaluation reserve. Where no revaluation reserve exists, price movements which go through the department's SoCNE should score to the department's Resource AME budget. Where an investment suffers an impairment (i.e. a permanent write-off of value) this amount should be included in the resource budget as set out below. For further detail on the treatment of different types of investments in public sector bodies outside the departmental boundary, or other financial instruments, please refer to the FReM.

Depreciation is a measure of the wearing out, consumption or other reduction in useful life of a fixed asset, whether arising from use, passage of time or obsolescence through technical or market changes. Depreciation is charged on fixed assets annually and scores in the resource budget.

Accounting policies for depreciating assets are chosen by the Department, as set out in the FReM. Departments should consult with the Treasury before changing significant accounting policies and estimation techniques where it appears that there could be a potential impact on budgets and on the National Accounts.

Depreciation should always be a positive number. If a department nonetheless believes that negative depreciation is appropriate, they are asked to write to their designated contact in the Government Financial Reporting (GFR) Team, HM Treasury, explaining the circumstances before tallying their data.

To calculate the depreciation charge for budgeting purposes, departments should include all depreciation on all assets, however they were originally funded.

Depreciation usually scores in departments’ Resource DEL budgets. Within the resource DEL budget, depreciation scores to administration or programme depending on whether the underlying assets are used to support administration or programme delivery.

The budgets for depreciation and impairments scoring in DEL are within a ring-fenced part of the RDEL budget. Departments should have a shared understanding with Treasury what part of their RDEL budget is within this ring-fence. RDEL provision can be switched freely into the ring-fence, but provision cannot be moved out to fund other RDEL spending. Also departments cannot switch RDEL from within the depreciation ring-fence into CDEL. As well as scoring against the depreciation ring-fence, administration depreciation additionally scores to a department's administration control total.

The principle of a ring-fence will apply in the exceptional cases where Treasury has agreed that the depreciation scores to AME budgets.

Where the purchases of assets were funded from the Lottery, from a capital grant from the private sector, the asset was a donation in kind, or the asset was purchased from a donation, the depreciation should be recorded in AME rather than DEL. Where an asset is part funded through capital grant, only that element of the depreciation that relates to the grant will be recorded in AME, the rest of the depreciation will be in DEL as normal.

The intention of this exceptional treatment is to ensure departments have appropriate incentives and budgetary flexibility to accept grants.

Chapter 7 contains further detail on the budgeting for receiving capital grants.

Impairments are recorded where there is the permanent loss or write-off of recoverable value of an asset below the value recorded on the balance sheet in the accounts.

Where an impairment is applied to tangible fixed assets or leased tangible fixed assets, the budgeting treatment is dependent on the reason for incurring the impairment. The same budgeting treatment applies to intangible fixed assets, but where a department believes an intangible is subject to one of the categories of impairment below it should first contact HMT.

In order to provide support for departments’ management decisions, impairments are split into six different categories, some of which score in AME and the others in DEL. The definitions of the categories of impairments are included in the FReM; the budgeting guidance for these categories is included below.

The following types of impairment relating to the consumption of economic benefit or service potential score in DEL budgets:

The following types of impairment score in AME budgets:

A fall in value relating to changes in market price should first of all be offset against a revaluation reserve for the asset in question if there is one, and once that element of the reserve is exhausted the fall in value should be taken to the SoCNE and would score in AME. This type of impairment includes:

The impairment of stocks would be treated differently depending on the budgeting treatment of stocks:

The same budgeting treatment applies to the impairment of investments as to the impairment of tangible assets, but where a department believes an investment is subject to one of the categories of impairment above it should first contact HMT.

Where a department impairs (writes-down) a debtor, or other financial asset, the SoCNE will record a charge in respect of that impairment and the balance sheet value of the asset will be reduced.

For the National Accounts and budgeting we need to distinguish between debts impaired "by mutual consent" and those extinguished unilaterally.

The vast majority of debt write-offs or impairments will be because it has become uneconomic to seek to settle the debt, or the debtor has in some way disappeared – through insolvency etc. Where the asset is impaired because the asset has become un collectable this is termed a unilateral write off in the National Accounts.

In other cases, the department may choose to write off a debt that the debtor could repay. In these cases, the department has taken a policy decision to impair the debt to free up resources for the recipient; in effect the department has given a gift to the recipient. So these cases are viewed in the National Accounts as the giving of a capital grant to the recipient, who on receipt of the grant uses the proceeds to repay the outstanding debt.

Although these debts are termed write-offs "by mutual consent" there does not need to be a formal agreement with the debtor. It is enough for the department not to pursue a debt that could economically be recovered.

The effect on the debt position of a debt write-off by mutual consent is the same as the effect of a unilateral debt write-off: the government's debt position is worse off relative to what it would have been had the debt been repaid. However debts written off by mutual consent are recorded separately on OSCAR; this is partly to allow the different DEL and AME treatments to be reflected, but also so that the imputed capital grant can be shown in the National Accounts. That is because a capital grant scores in certain measures that do not include loan repayments, in particular: Total Managed Expenditure, Public Sector Net Borrowing and General Government Net Borrowing.

Where departments are considering large write-offs of debts by mutual consent – more than £200 million – they are asked to inform the Treasury beforehand. That gives the Treasury warning of the effects on the fiscal numbers.

The DEL / AME treatment depends on the asset concerned. The intention is to ensure that the impact on DEL reflects the fiscal consequences.

The first case is where a department has scored expenditure to acquire the asset (e.g., policy lending). If the expenditure was scored in DEL the write-offs score in AME, as the department has already born the cost of acquiring the asset. If the expenditure was scored in AME or outside of budgets, the write-offs normally score in DEL to ensure departments are incentivised to manage such assets.

The second case is where a department has recorded accrued income, giving rise to a debtor. If the accrued income was originally scored in DEL, the write-offs will also score in DEL. If the accrued income was originally scored in AME, and is a unilateral write-off as defined above, the write off will score in AME. If however the write-off is by mutual consent, the write off will score in DEL, reflecting the fact that this is a policy choice.

If departments are in doubt as to whether a write off should be recorded in DEL or AME they should contact Treasury for guidance.

Where a department is wholly or substantially funded from income all bad debts and impairments will score in RDEL – this treatment will normally only apply to certain Regulators.

IAS 16 provides entities with the option of carrying tangible fixed assets at historical cost or fair value. However, the FReM has withdrawn the option to carry assets at historical cost; therefore all tangible fixed assets must be carried at valuation at the reporting period (see FReM for details of the full accounting and valuation requirements).

Where a revaluation results in a fall in value of an asset it will be necessary to establish whether any of the fall in value is as a result of:

A fall in value relating to a consumption of economic benefit or deterioration in the quality of service provided by the asset should be treated as an impairment and currently is always taken to the SoCNE and would score in DEL (see earlier section on impairments). A fall in value relating to changes in market price should first be offset against a revaluation reserve (for the asset in question), and once that element of the reserve is exhausted the fall in value should be taken to the SoCNE.

The treatment of revaluations in budgets mirrors the treatment in accounts. Where an asset is revalued on a department's balance sheet, the department must score a cost/benefit in its budget. Revaluations above historic cost will be taken to the revaluation reserve so will not score. By default, revaluations of assets score in Resource AME.

In Departmental Accounts revaluations of certain types of financial asset are taken directly to the SoCNE, rather than any revaluation reserve. The budgeting treatment reflects this, and revaluations of these assets also score to Resource AME.

Theft of assets is treated either as stock write down or impairment of fixed assets (i.e. permanent loss of its recoverable value), depending on what is stolen. Either way, the write down or impairment will be shown in the Resource budget DEL (Loss or Damage resulting from normal business operations).

Under IAS 19 accrued employee benefits must be shown on the balance sheet. This includes any untaken leave of employees as a liability and prepayments of employee compensation as an asset. Net changes in the balance sheet position of accrued employee benefits will go through the SoCNE in the resource accounts.

The net changes in the SoCNE will be reflected in budgets as a resource cost in DEL.

In general terms, stocks will impact on the Resource budget only when they are consumed or written off. In exceptional instances certain purchases treated as increases in stocks are included in the Capital budget – see separate chapter on Capital budgets.

The total value of stock purchases will be included in a department's net cash requirement (NCR), which is voted in Estimates. The value of stocks consumed during the year should be included in the resource budget, as should any amounts for stock items that are written off. Stocks should be valued at the lower of cost and Net Realisable Value, i.e. the actual or estimated net sale proceeds. Any write-down scores in the Resource DEL.

Cash balances do not convey spending power. A department may have cash reserves built up, but this does not translate into budget cover.

Note that measures of cash (including "cash required by operations" in accounts and the Net Cash Requirement (NCR) in Estimates) will have a different coverage from Resource Budget DEL. For example, capital expenditure impacts on the NCR and capital grants on cash required by operations; neither cash measure is divided into DEL and AME. Therefore, departments should monitor and control Resource budget DEL directly.

However, departments may find it helpful to monitor cash and use unexpected increases in cash outflows as a trigger to check whether spending is rising above expectation. However, because of the differences referred to above, that cash outflows are in line with expectations does not prove that RDEL is under control.

Debtors are assets, and typically arise when the department has delivered goods and services, but is yet to receive payment, or has prepaid for goods or services. Changes in debtors generally represent a movement in working capital. Debtors in general terms therefore only impact on the budgeting framework through provisions and write-offs.

However in certain cases movements in debtors are more akin to net lending, for example in complex contractual scenarios over an extended timeframe (that is, more than one year). In these cases the budgeting system scores movements in debtors in the Capital budget of the department concerned. That scoring is intended to capture and control the impact of what is in effect lending on Public Sector Net Debt.

Accordingly, departments should treat, as net lending, in their capital DEL the whole amount of transactions that meet both of the following criteria:

There is further guidance on the treatment of pre payments and debtor assets in budgets in the chapter on Capital budgets below.

Note that if the prepayment is discounted, the SoCNE will show a credit entry as that discount unwinds (the credit entry represents an interest payment from the holder of the prepaid cash). This transaction scores in Resource DEL.

Creditors are liabilities, and typically arise where a department is yet to pay for goods or services it has consumed or it has received payment in advance of providing the goods or services to which the payment relates.

Provisions are one of the most puzzling aspects of accounting for non-accountants. At the same time, the budgeting treatment of provisions is something that many accountants struggle to get to grips with. So provisions are one area in particular where budgeting officers and accountants will need to work closely together in order to arrive at the right result.

A provision is a liability of uncertain timing or amount. A cost is recognised as a provision in the Departmental Accounts when a department has a present obligation (legal or constructive) as a result of a past event, when it is probable that a transfer of economic benefits will be required to settle this obligation, and when a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation (e.g. early retirement costs) but where there is some uncertainty, either as to the amount or timing. For further guidance on when provisions should be recognised and how to value them please refer to the FReM.

The Resource budget recognises this cost in AME at the same time that the accounts do and in DEL when the provision is released. When recording provisions in the Resource budget there are 3 key stages:

In rare cases the cash payment mentioned in the second bullet above will score in AME rather than DEL.

In Departmental Accounts the drawdown of the provision and the release of the provision are simply a cash movement on the balance sheet (debit liabilities / credit cash).

However, the budgeting system recognises these entries as well as the initial recognition and any revaluations that appear in the SoCNE.

This dual recognition is because in the National Accounts the initial recognition of the liability does not score upfront, rather the actual transfer scores when the cash is paid. Scoring the separate elements to the transaction in this way ensures that the information required for the National Accounts is available and allows us to control spending in support of the fiscal framework.

This need to support the fiscal framework is a key consideration when looking at the impact of provisions in Resource budgets (see later chapter).

Certain provisions in respect of capital spending score in Capital budgets – see chapter on capital budgets.

The example below illustrates the scoring of provisions and related expenditure, in this case making a payment. Note that the transactions in provisions are scored in AME and the associated expenditure is normally in DEL.

Resource Budget Impact

Regulators that are wholly or substantially funded from income will exceptionally score all provisions in DEL.

These rules do not apply to provisions in respect of student loans, whose treatment is set out in the later chapter on financial transactions.

Amounts for contingent liabilities are not included in the Resource budget, but they are contained in notes to the accounts, and not recognised as actual liabilities on the balance sheet. Departments should consider in the course of drawing up their budget whether any contingent liabilities are likely to crystallise. If so then these amounts should be treated as creditors or as a provision as appropriate and an expense scored in the Resource budget accordingly. This treatment follows resource accounting definitions.

In some cases departments find that they are responsible for contingent liabilities because of their position in government, in others the decision to take on a contingent liability is discretionary and represents a transfer of risk from the private sector. In these discretionary cases departments should discuss with Treasury whether taking on the liabilities is the best option.

Generally departments and public sector bodies do not insure because government as a whole is well placed to absorb the risk, rather than paying to lay off that risk to the private sector. However in certain circumstances departments will have insurance. Payments of insurance premia are current costs in resource DEL.

Where an insured asset is lost, stolen or otherwise written off, a charge will be recognised in the SoCNE and Resource budget to reflect that cost. The subsequent payment from the insurance company should be recognised as income in the SoCNE and Resource DEL in the accounting period in which it was recognised.

Replacement of the asset will require the appropriate (most likely capital) budgetary cover.

Under standards set out in the FReM, notional insurance should not be shown in the SoCNE or the Estimate. Any department that is recording notional insurance should therefore remove it.

If any department believes that it should record notional insurance in the SoCNE or the Estimate or the budget they are asked to write to their normal Treasury spending team explaining the circumstances in order to obtain agreement before submitting data.

Tax credits are transfers of resources made through the tax system. The recording of tax credits is complicated by the different demands for information in the National Accounts and in department's annual accounts and budgets. Classification of tax credits is based on three criteria:

The classification of tax credits, based on the above criteria, and the subsequent reporting is set out in the table below:

Notional audit fees score in the department's DEL as resource expenditure within administration costs. The expenditure needs to be separately identifiable on the OSCAR database in order that it can be removed in the AME accounting adjustments to line up with TME as measured by the National Accounts.

TME as measured by the National Accounts.

The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme is a mandatory UK-wide trading scheme introduced in April 2010, which is designed to incentivise the take up of cost effective energy efficiency opportunities. The CRC Scheme impacts on government departments and the devolved administrations as they are regarded as mandated participants, and also on other public sector entities that meet the CRC Scheme's qualifying criteria. The CRC scheme is administered by the Environment Agency.

Links to Information on the development of the scheme is given and full details of the administration of the scheme are given in Annex C.

The CRC scheme is currently in its introductory phase (phase1), where reporting entities, covered by the CRC scheme, production of emissions will give rise to the recognition of a liability to later purchase and surrender allowances to match their emissions for that financial year. For the purposes of budgets this expense should be recorded as RDEL in the year that the emissions arise. From 2014-15, the purchase and surrender of allowances related to 2014-15 emissions is expected to occur within the same financial year.

If Departments have any queries related to CRC spending they should contact their Treasury spending team. All other policy questions on CRC should be directed to the CRC team in DECC.

The Estimate, as with the accounts, will be produced at the group level and will therefore normally need to remove any intra-group transactions. The financing of Arms Length Bodies (ALBs) (including NDPBs) through grant-in-aid is automatically excluded from budgets and Estimates, but any other intra-group transactions such as the purchase of shared services by an NDPB from the parent department, will need to be removed by the department and not recorded on the OSCAR database.

The Estimates must include all movements between various budgetary control limits. Therefore, if an intra-group transaction were to involve any such movement (for example, an NDPB, whose spending appeared in AME, purchased a service from its parent department, whose spending appeared in DEL) those transactions would need to be included in the Estimate.

Full guidance on the consolidation of intra-group transaction is given in the Supply Estimates Manual and a link is given in Annex C.

Departments and ALB's may not set income against budgets except where permitted. Separate chapters deal with income in the Capital budget, income in respect of loans and departments’ income from PCs.

Income that passes through the SoCNE in the Departmental Accounts should normally be recorded in resource budgets as either DEL or AME. Income passing through a department's Trust Statement would normally be outside of budgets.

In Treasury presentations of public expenditure, the treatment of income streams is determined by the National Accounts classification of the type of receipt. For some classifications the income is presented gross, in others it is netted-off of expenditure. This breakdown has no fiscal effect and does not imply a specific budgetary treatment. It is not reflected in National Accounts presentations.

Receipts classified as negative public expenditure receipts are netted off, and hence reduce levels of total public spending.

The most common examples are payments for goods and services. However negative PE receipts also include: royalties for IPR, income from insurance payments, and income from rent of buildings (but not land).

Revenue receipt refers to income that cannot be netted-off of public expenditure. It covers income that is used to finance expenditure rather than acting to reduce it.

The most common example of a revenue receipt is tax income. However it also includes: fines and penalties, payments of compensation, economic rents, interest and dividends, donations, and income from the EC.

It is the Office for National Statistics acting as an independent agency that determines the treatment of income in the National Accounts. Annex C gives links to some guidance notes describing the National Accounts treatment of income. Treasury then determines the budgeting treatment of income. If you are in doubt about the National Accounts treatment or the budgeting treatment you should approach HM Treasury.

The following forms of departmental income are treated as a benefit to the Resource budget:

Income that is negative current public expenditure in the National Accounts is marked with a ^.

Also note that where appropriate, charges should be set using the principles in Managing Public Money.

By default, income which is treated as a benefit to the Resource budget will score as negative DEL in budgets. The income will score as negative AME where the associated programme or body responsible for the income is also recorded in AME.

Departments and ALBs may find that some of the expenditure incurred in generating income will fall in AME due to its transaction type (e.g. provisions, revaluations etc). This does not mean that the income, or even a portion of the income, should be recorded in AME.

The following income may not be treated as negative in Resource budgets:

The first three bullets above would normally be recorded in a Trust Statement by the department with responsibility for collecting the money (or the department with policy lead by agreement). There is an exception to this however, where Treasury agrees that this income may be netted-off of expenditure the income will be recorded as in DEL budgets and within the SoCNE. See sections later in this chapter for full details of netting-off of tax, and fines and penalties.

Sales of goods and services count as negative public expenditure in budgets provided they meet certain criteria. In brief:

See Annex C for a link to the guidance note on when transactions are sales of goods and services in the National Accounts.

Royalties is a term from National Accounts. Annex C contains a link to a guidance note on the National Accounts treatment.

In brief, royalties are payments for the right to use produced assets made and sold in an open market, such as inventions given patent protection, computer software, copyright material, artistic and literary originals, and the income from allowing use of a government agency's logo by a commercial organisation.

For something to be a produced asset, it should be of a sort that is or could be produced by the private sector. So an invention made in a government scientific laboratory could be an open market asset, since a private sector firm could have run such a laboratory and made the invention, even if in practice firms do not do research in this area. But if the government has for example a legal monopoly, which has led to the creation of the asset, then it is less likely to be seen as an open market asset.

Royalties from the use of intangible assets made and sold in an open market are treated as income from the sale of goods and services. The allowable cost is the market value of the royalty – in essence, what the market will pay. So the whole of the amount paid for the asset, good, or service may be treated as negative public expenditure.

It may be difficult to tell whether a one-off payment covering a number of years is for the sale of an asset or an upfront payment in respect of a number of years’ royalty. Similarly, it may be hard to test whether a payment spread over a number of years is for the sale of an asset or a current royalty.

The tests used by commercial accountants will be a guide as to whether a capital asset has been sold or rented out. For larger cases, departments should consult the Treasury to ensure that they are treating the income in accordance with the National Accounts.

In general:

Ownership rights would typically include unimpeded use of the asset, right to resell the asset and benefit or suffer from changes in the value of the asset. Typically, capital income is shown as a single entry in the accounts at the time of sale, but the cash may come in tranches (deferred consideration).

"Royalty" may be used in a number of cases other than the National Accounts meaning of the term. These cases may not be netted off budgets as royalties, sales or rents in respect of assets created in nature, e.g. North Sea Oil, the radio spectrum, or water. Such income is normally classified as economic rent, and is outside of budgets.

Taxes, licences treated as taxes, and levies are compulsory unrequited payments to general government. "Unrequited" means that the payer obtains nothing personal in return. That includes not only obvious taxes like Income Tax, but also cases where a tax is hypothecated, perhaps to provide services generally for business in an area, or to recover costs from businesses that are in general the cause of some harm that needs to be remedied (e.g. pollution).

In exceptional cases, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury may agree that taxes be netted off budgets. The Chief Secretary will bear in mind the criteria below when considering applications:

Departments who wish to propose that tax income be netted off DEL should contact the Treasury for advice as to how a submission should be compiled. See Annex B for contact details.

Consideration of netting off proposals should normally be linked to Spending Review discussions. Where this is not possible Treasury will consider proposals as they arise, but the srong presumption must be that any agreement on netting-off will not alter the level of funding agreed to in the last spending review. As such an agreement to net off income will be reached, alongside agreement to reduce the departments DEL budget by a compensatory amount.

Transactions treated as tax in the National Accounts are normally recorded in a Trust Statement by the relevant department. However where Treasury agrees to a netting-off treatment the accounting will follow the budgeting and the tax will be recorded as income in the department's SoCNE.

The ONS has classified certain obligation based levy funded schemes as taxation and public spending in the National Accounts and impute these economic flows through the public sector. Tax and spend arising from these types of schemes should be monitored and controlled like any other departmental spending and included in departmental budgets. Departments should seek guidance from HM Treasury on the classification and budgeting treatment of such schemes and on the mechanism for reporting to Parliament. They should also consult Managing Public Money and their Treasury spending team when considering the design of new schemes. A specific example of the budgeting treatment of tax and spend can be found in the "Control framework for DECC levy-funded spending" (see Annex C for link).

Fines and penalties are compulsory unrequited payments to General Government that are in the nature of a punishment.

In exceptional cases, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury may agree that fines and penalties be netted off budgets. The Chief Secretary will bear in mind the criteria below when considering applications:

Departments who wish to propose that fine income be netted off DEL should contact the Treasury for advice as to how a submission should be compiled. See Annex B for contact details.

Consideration of netting off proposals should normally be linked to Spending Review discussions. Where this is not possible Treasury will consider proposals as they arise, but the strong presumption must be that any agreement on netting-off will not alter the level of funding agreed to in the last spending review. As such an agreement to net off income will be reached, alongside agreement to reduce the departments’ DEL budget by a compensatory amount.

Transactions treated as fines and penalties in the National Accounts are normally recorded in a Trust Statement by the relevant department. However where Treasury agrees to a netting-off treatment the accounting will follow the budgeting and the fines will be recorded as income in the department's SoCNE.

A dividend is a payment made to a shareholder in consideration of having put equity finance into a body. The equity finance may be in the form of Companies Act shares, Public Dividend Capital (PDC) or the implied equity in a statutory Public Corporation. Public sector bodies may hold equity in other public sector bodies or in private sector organisations. Dividends are payments made out of current earnings.

If dividends are greater than the profits of the current and two previous years – super-dividends – they count as equity withdrawals in the National Accounts (a financial transaction as opposed to a current receipt in the National Accounts). Equity withdrawals count as capital income for budgeting. A more detailed definition of when a payment is a dividend as opposed to a withdrawal of equity for budgeting purposes is given in the Public Corporations chapter.

In DAs, reductions of equity in the form of sales of shares or PDC reductions would not normally go through the SoCNE. But special payments from bodies that are not accompanied by actual reductions in equity holdings would go through the SoCNE; they may be termed super-dividends. Such super-dividends would be equity withdrawals in the sense above.

"Dividends" received from bodies within Central Government, including joint ventures classified to the Central Government sector, are not dividends but transfers within Government and as such are not generally treated as negative in budgets.

Income from the rent of buildings and land counts as a benefit to the Resource budget.

In addition to the rent of land, this heading includes rents payable to the owners of inland waters and rivers for the right to exploit such waters for recreational and other purposes. Rent of land does not include rents on sub-soil assets, or of other natural assets (spectrum etc).

Any proposal to treat as negative DEL rent other than the conventional rent of land or buildings needs explicit Treasury agreement.

DAs divide the proceeds from the sale of an asset into an element that covers book value and a profit or loss on disposal.

The book value is a benefit to the Capital budget. The profit / loss on sale scores in the Resource budget. Profit is a benefit to RDEL while loss is a cost. The level of profit on disposal scoring in resource DEL is limited to a maximum of £20 million, or 5 per cent above the net book value of the disposal, whichever is the lower. In cases where profit exceeds this maximum departments should contact Treasury to discuss the treatment; Treasury may require some or all of the additional profit to be retained in capital DEL.

In the National Accounts, capital expenditure is recorded net of income from sales of capital assets. The National Accounts do not separate the profit/loss on disposal from the book value element of sales income. Both of those components of the transaction are taken through the capital account of the National Accounts. In other words the disposal at open market value reduces total capital expenditure in aggregate.

Therefore profit / loss on disposal is not an influence on the Surplus on the Current Budget, since SOCB is measured by reference to transactions on the current account, measured with reference to the National Accounts. For this reason, it is capped.

Donations may benefit either Resource or Capital budgets: capital donations are dealt with in Chapter 7.

Donations have to be entirely voluntary. They have to be unrequited – that is the donor should receive no direct benefit in return. They also have to come genuinely from outside the body that receives them, i.e. not be financed or backed in some way by the recipient. Departments and public bodies may net off the donations that are made to finance expenditure for the common good and that are directed by the donor to a specific project, programme or body, for example:

This treatment would include any donations in kind. However donations in kind should have no net impact in budgets. To record a donation in kind the department should show two equal and opposite transactions:

Donations or grants going from one public sector body to another have a specific treatment in accounts and budgets. Refer to Chapter 8 for further details.

Departments should exclude such donations from budgets. Examples of donations that may not be netted off include:

The government's hypothecated income from the National Lottery is a tax. The spending by the National Lottery distributing bodies counts as expenditure in AME.

Where a government department or ALB that is not a National Lottery distributing body obtains income from a distributing body to finance spending in the Resource budget DEL it should take the income into budgets as negative Resource budget DEL.

The UK makes financial contributions to the EU Budget and receives funding covering a variety of policy areas. This creates a cost to the Exchequer, through increasing the UK's gross contribution to the budget and reducing the UK's abatement.

In order to maintain sound incentives on departments, the Treasury expects departments to be responsible for any additional costs to the Exchequer that arise from changes to EU spending proposals. This applies both to the EU annual budget and the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). In all cases, departments should engage with the Treasury at as early a stage as possible.

The Treasury may impose a charge within DEL on the relevant department (adjusting its budget downwards) to reflect the cost to the Exchequer of EU spending outcomes. Any reduction would reflect the baseline of the agreed UK negotiating position.

If appropriate, departments should expect the Treasury to take account of the cost to the Exchequer of EU spending outcomes as part of Spending Reviews, or through DEL reductions at Estimates. Treasury will assess this and take into account the positions adopted by departments in negotiations.

To facilitate monitoring, departments should inform the Treasury, as soon as possible of all current or forthcoming proposals in their policy areas that may have significant fiscal consequences.

The mechanics of accounting for the receipt and costs of additional EU spending and income through Annual Budget negotiations depends whether the department in question receives the EU funding directly. However, whether EU funding is included inside or outside accounts, the principle that departments may be held responsible for additional costs to the Exchequer remains.

In most cases where the EU provides funding for activities, it will be by way of a grant to the department. This grant will be recorded as income in Resource Accounts.

In order to make the costs of additional income explicit the Treasury may adjust departmental DEL downwards, equivalent to the cost to the exchequer of additional income from the EU. This will take place at the next appropriate Estimates. In some circumstances, the cost may be greater than the income.

Departments may not include EU funding in their accounts for one of two reasons:

Since these transactions are outside of accounts they will also be outside of budgets. Such income and spending will nonetheless incur a cost to the UK, including through the impact on the abatement. The Treasury may choose to reflect this cost through a charge within DEL that reflects the cost to the Exchequer of any changes in EU spending.

Departments’ budgets should be set net of any recoverable VAT. Departments may retain VAT refunds for business activities and also for certain non-business activities. Refunds would therefore not be included in budgets.

The actual cash paid corresponding to the VAT leads to an increase in debtors. When the VAT is repaid that leads to a decrease in the debtors and an increase in cash. The net movement in this debtor feeds into the departmental Net Cash Requirement and must be recorded in the additional information section of the SCOA as a movement in working capital.

VAT output tax charged as an addition to the cost of services or goods supplied is outside the scope of budgets. Tax received results in an increase in creditors until paid over to HMRC (or offset against recoverable input tax). The payment then clears the creditor balance.

In general, departments should record income for budgets at the same time as they record it in the Departmental Accounts.

Both budgets and Estimates are set on a net basis. Any income that may be retained within budgets (as set out earlier in this chapter) may also be retained in Estimates, and will reduce the voted limits.

In some rare cases there will be exceptions to the above where income received by the department is recorded as being negative in DEL but must be returned to the Consolidated Fund in the Estimate. These exceptions are referred to as Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts (CFERs) and will most likely be the result of one of two scenarios:

Annex C contains links to further information on supply Estimates.

In many cases current income does no more than cover the costs of production of the activity to which it relates. For example, fees and charges are typically set so as to recover no more than current costs, including depreciation. (Refer to Managing Public Money for further detail).

To ensure that they obtain the right level of income from such sources, Departments will want to consider whether they have any services where less than full costs are currently recovered and which should move towards full cost recovery, or other services which may be appropriate candidates for the introduction of user charging.

In other cases, income can generate returns that far exceed current costs of production, for example licensing the exploitation of an invention in the open market. In these cases the Government has to balance two considerations:

And we need to keep the rules simple.

Departmental budgets are set in the SR net of negative RDEL income. So the SR settlement has to be informed by the expected level of negative RDEL income. The SR process should be used to identify the expected level of department's income; any expected changes, and an assessment of the potential for new income. It will look especially at the prospects of moving under-recovering services towards full cost recovery and/or identifying new sources of income from user charging. The SR settlement will include an explicit statement of the expected level of income in the years of the SR period.

Departments will be allowed to keep the negative DEL income that they obtain in the SR period up to the amount that was taken into account in the SR. Income cannot be predicted wholly accurately, and the Treasury wishes to encourage departments to find new income streams where appropriate. Departments may therefore, in any year, also retain negative RDEL income up to 20 per cent above the level envisaged for that year as part of the SR settlement without an adjustment to budgets.

Negative DEL income in respect of co-funded ALBs that originated from other departments does not count towards the 20 per cent limit.

Where the SR settlements did not clearly set out an expected level of income, departments may in any year retain total negative RDEL income up to 5 per cent of spending in Resource DEL without an adjustment to budgets.

If departments expect to obtain more negative RDEL income than provided for above, they should talk to the Treasury about whether they may retain all or part of the income without an adjustment to budgets. When considering proposals, the Treasury will wish in particular to encourage additional income where this represents the results of positive management action, as opposed to under-forecasting.

In Spending Reviews, Administration budgets are set for entities classified as Central Government bodies for National Accounts purposes including executive agencies and other Arms Length Bodies (ALBs) that receive government funding unless specific exemptions have been agreed.

Although devolved administrations are not set Administration budgets in Spending Reviews, they do operate their own arrangements for constraining the costs of running central government.

Expenditure that does not fall within Administration budgets set in Spending Reviews is known as programme expenditure. Expenditure in AME is assumed to be programme.

Administration budgets cover the costs of all central government administration other than the costs of direct frontline service provision. In core departments support activities that are directly associated with frontline service delivery are considered to be programme, but in ALBs if there is no clear distinction between support for the frontline and for non-frontline activities, all support activities are deemed to be within Administration budgets. In practice Administration budgets include activities such as provision of policy advice, business support services, back-office administration of benefits, advice on and administration of grant programmes, technical or scientific support, and the work of the Government's Regional Offices.

To keep the number of reclassifications to manageable levels, the Treasury is only willing to consider cases that represent a substantial body of on-going work. Also, the merits of very substantial reclassifications need to be weighed against the potential effects on the Administration Budgets regime overall as well as presentational and timing issues.

Where a department believes that expenditure should be reclassified from administration spending to programme spending, they should contact their Treasury spending team. All reclassifications from administration budgets need to be approved by the CST and lead to restated limits.

The split between administrative and programme expenditure happens above the level of the individual civil servant. Departments are encouraged to classify spend according to the work of the business area rather than trying to split business areas along proportional lines.

Administration budgets are simply a sub-set of Resource DEL and share most of the characteristics of DEL. They are set net of negative DEL that relates to administration expenditure. The chief components of expenditure within Administration budgets are:

Payments to staff as a result of early exit, where a case explicitly linked to improved efficiency has been agreed in advance with the Treasury, may exceptionally be excluded from Administration Budgets and scored to programme.

Consultancy fees and contract charges should be charged against Administration budgets where the consultancy relates to some component of administration expenditure listed above, or where the work carried out might otherwise be carried out by staff funded from Administration budgets*. The presumption should be that consultancy spending should be scored within Administration budgets. Where a department believes consultancy spending associated with a particular programme should be classified as programme spend they should agree this with their Treasury spending team. Administration expenditure should include:

This rule is designed to avoid any perverse incentive to contract out functions, or use consultants in place of civil servants, simply because the resulting work would then be charged under programme costs. Decisions on how support or policy services should be supplied should be made purely on an assessment of what offers the best combination of value for money and effectiveness, rather than because programme cover may be more readily available than administration cost cover or vice-versa.

Departments may offset negative Resource budget DEL income relating to administration costs against their Administration budget. This includes income from ALBs and other UK public sector bodies, where classified as administration income.

Departmental Accounts must include a note reporting outturn against final Administration budgets.

The element of net operating costs that falls with Administration budgets is reported in the SoCNE as net administration costs. The only differences between outturn against Administration budgets and net administration costs are the differences that apply generally between the SoCNE and Resource Budget set out in Table A.1 of Annex A.

All changes to Administration budgets – including changes to expenditure and income provision within Administration budgets – require Treasury approval.

HMT spending teams may give approval at official level for:

Approval from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is required for most other increases to the Administration budget. In particular:

As with all spending, departments or agencies and their Accounting Officers have to take ultimate responsibility for ensuring an outturn within Administration budgets. Outturn, which exceeds an Administration budget, constitutes the breach of a budget and will be subject to the arrangements set out in Chapter 1.

Departments must note that, although the Administration budget is not specifically voted as a limit by Parliament, it is included within the department's Supply Estimate and any breach of the limit will lead to an Excess Vote. Detailed guidance on administration costs and Estimates is available in the Supply Estimates manual (see Annex C for link).

ALBs’ capital expenditure scores in budgets in the same way as departments’. See next chapter for the treatment of income in Capital budgets. See separate chapters for the capital budget implications of loans to the private sector, PFI deals, support for Local Authorities and support for Public Corporations.

New capital spending by departments and ALBs scores in the Capital budget at the same value and with the same timing as in accounts. Some areas can give rise to tricky decisions on whether they are capital or not, and departments should check carefully the treatment of:

Capital budgets are net of any income that is treated as negative expenditure in capital budgets – see separate section. Capital spending includes expenditure on tangible and intangible fixed assets, howsoever financed.

In addition Capital budgets include net acquisitions of financial assets (e.g. movements in loans to the private sector) that score as movements in fixed assets on the balance sheet. In exceptional cases movements in debtors or other current assets (stocks / prepayments) may be included in the Capital budget.

When budgeting for capital expenditure, departments should consistently follow agreed accounting policies when deciding what costs of a project should be capitalised (in most cases this should be uncontroversial but there are a few categories of expenditure, such as some consultancy costs, that could be either capital or resource).

Capital budgets include capital grants.

In some cases transactions in financial assets or liabilities will have an impact on the fiscal aggregates. Where this occurs the transaction is usually scored in capital budgets either as a benefit or a cost. Further detail is included in Chapter 8.

In line with the FReM, fixed assets are carried at fair values rather than being based on historical costs. Departments can use depreciated historical cost as a proxy for fair value for assets that have short lives or low values (or both). Otherwise, departments should use the most appropriate valuation methodology available (for example, professional valuations, indices etc).

Departments need to make assumptions about future expected disposals and acquisitions of fixed assets and movements in the value of fixed assets held, to be able to budget for the resource consequences (depreciation, maintenance and impairments) of holding these items.

Past trends and movements in indices should provide evidence to support departments’ forecasts for the revaluation of assets As the assumptions used in forecasting fixed asset values will no doubt change over time, departments should regularly review their continued appropriateness and bring any significant changes to the early attention of their spending team.

DAs divide the proceeds from the sale of an asset into an element that covers book value, which impacts on the balance sheet, and a profit or loss on disposal, which goes through the SoCNE.

The book value of the disposal is a benefit to the Capital budget.

The profit / loss on sale scores in the resource budget. Profit is a benefit to RDEL while loss is a cost. The level of profit on disposal scoring in resource DEL is limited to a maximum of £20 million, or 5 per cent above the net book value of the disposal, whichever is the lower. In cases where profit exceeds this maximum departments should contact Treasury to discuss the treatment; Treasury may require some or all of the additional profit to be retained in Capital DEL.

On disposal of assets, departments should also be aware of any financial assets created in the terms of sale. This is most commonly in the form of overage agreements (see Chapter 7 for details).

DAs do not treat purchases of stocks as investment in fixed assets. Rather, stock movements are treated as changes in current assets. Normally, budgets follow accounts in their treatment of stocks, and stocks are excluded from budgets until they are used, disposed of or written off.

The net acquisition of stocks is an item of capital spending in National Accounts and increases TME. Therefore it would be appropriate to score all net acquisitions of stocks in capital budgets. However in the interest of keeping down compliance costs we normally ask departments to follow the treatment in DAs.

Different budgeting rules are however appropriate where the item being acquired for stock would be the acquisition of a fixed asset if it were not being acquired for stock. For example, land acquired by English Partnerships for reclamation and development scores as capital expenditure in Capital budgets.

Similarly, if stock acquisitions are large, or set to increase significantly, it may be appropriate to score them in Capital budgets.

Where departments are aware of stock acquisitions that might fall into the categories above, they should consult the Treasury on whether treatment in capital budgets would be appropriate.

Where stocks score in Capital budgets they score like fixed asset transactions. The costs of purchase and improvement of land treated as stocks score in the Capital budget. Disposal scores at net book value as a benefit in the capital budget. Any write offs prior to disposal should be treated in accordance with the rules on impairments detailed in the chapter on Resource budgets. Any profit / loss on disposal score in RDEL.

Normally, movements in debtors and pre payments are treated as working capital and do not impact directly on budgets – see Chapter 3.

Debtors and prepayments are assets, and typically arise where a department has delivered goods and services, but is yet to receive payment, or where the department has prepaid for goods or services. Changes in debtors generally represent a movement in working capital that in general terms only impacts on the budgeting framework if written off.

However in certain cases movements in debtors are more akin to net lending, for example in complex contractual scenarios over an extended timeframe (that is, more than one year). In these cases the budgeting system scores movements in debtors in the capital budget of the department concerned. That scoring is intended to capture and control the impact of what is in effect lending on Public Sector Net Debt.

Accordingly, departments should treat, as net lending, in their Capital DEL the whole amount of transactions that meet both of the following criteria:

The scoring in such cases would be:

In other words, the treatment would be on a net basis like the treatment of loan principal.

Note that the transaction financed by the prepayment would also score in budgets in the normal way. For example a payment of rental costs scores in the resource budget in the year the services are consumed, whether prepaid or not. In the case of capital budget transactions, the utilisation of the pre payment would provide an element of budget cover.

Note that if the prepayment is discounted the SoCNE will show a credit entry as that discount unwinds (the credit entry represents an interest payment from the holder of the prepaid cash). Both these transactions score in the Resource budget.

Capital grants are unrequited transfer payments, which the recipient has to use to:

Where grants are paid that may be used at the recipient's discretion either on capital or on current expenditure they should be treated as current grants or subsidies.

Capital grants are imputed in the National Accounts (but not in budgets – which show loan write-offs) where debts are written off "by mutual consent", that is, where the debtor could repay the loan or debt but for policy reasons the creditor department chooses not to enforce the debt. See the section on Impairments of financial assets in Chapter 3 for more information.

Payments of compensation to owners of capital goods destroyed or damaged by acts of war or natural disasters count as capital grants.

Major payments in compensation for extensive damage or serious injuries not covered by insurance policies may also count as capital grants – departments should consult the Treasury.

Pensions bulk transfer payments are treated as capital transactions in the National Accounts and pass through resource budgets (albeit offset by the release of the provision) – see chapter on pensions.

Capital grants include payments to the private sector resulting from calls on financial guarantees. This applies to all financial guarantees and is not restricted to those financial guarantee contracts which are recognised by IAS 39. The setting up of a financial guarantee contract is covered in Chapter 8.

Where the liability of a guarantee crystallises or a cash payment is made, the cost will be recorded in CDEL as a capital grant.

Where a fixed asset is gifted by a department, Capital budgets will show no net impact. However departments are requested to note that gifting an asset does not represent a write-off or a loss on disposal – gifts made in this manner are treated as capital grants in kind, they are a transfer of value from the department to a third party. To achieve the correct recording required for National Accounts, departments must make up to two equal and opposite entries:

There are no resource consequences of this grant in budgets, but Departmental Accounts will show a cost in the SoCNE. The capital grant (and therefore the disposal of the asset) will be equal in size and timing as the impact in accounts.

It is unusual for a department to need to record provisions in respect of capital spending that will be incurred; where provisions are taken up, they most commonly relate to capital grants the department is obligated to pay, or remedial work on fixed assets the department will need to carry out. In these cases the take up, revaluation and release will score to Resource budgets in the same way as provisions relating to resource spending. The utilisation will score in Capital budgets.

The example below illustrates the scoring of capital provisions and related expenditure.

Budget Impact

Provisions are liabilities of uncertain timing or amount that, as a result of a past event, will more likely than not require the transfer of economic benefits from one party to another. In most cases incurring a liability will lead to a cost in the SoCNE of the party recognising the liability.

However in some highly unusual cases, the recognition of that liability is also the trigger point to recognise access to future economic benefits for the holder of the liability. In those cases it may be appropriate not to show a cost in the SoCNE. Instead the accounts would show an increase in fixed assets as well as the liability.

If a department believes that it should be capitalising their provisions in this way they should seek clarification from their usual Financial Reporting Policy Team contact in the first instance.

In cases where HMT's GFR team have agreed that capitalising the provision is the correct treatment in the DA, the Capital AME budget will score the recognition of the liability.

When the actual cash payment is transacted this will score in Capital DEL. The provision in Capital AME will be released.

The Resource budget scores the items that score in the SoCNE in the departmental accounts:

No special treatment applies where a department has a creditor in respect of the acquisition of a capital asset. In other words the capital expenditure scores in the capital budget at the same time as the asset is recognised in the accounts. The cash transaction is then a movement in cash and creditors in accounts and outside the budgeting framework.

Following implementation of ESA10, National Accounts no longer differentiates between single and dual use military equipment. Within ESA10 there is differentiation between (single use) military inventories and (single use) weapons systems. The former are durable military goods (i.e. ammunition, rockets, some missiles, bombs, torpedoes etc) and are treated as inventories. Spending on single use military inventories will be included within the capital DEL budget when the purchase of such equipment takes place. The value of inventories consumed during the year will be included with the resource DEL budget as should any items that are written off with a corresponding reduction in the CDEL budget.

Expenditure on weapons systems (such as ships, planes, tanks and other large single use capital items) is to be treated as capital spending in National Accounts like the spending on dual use military equipment discussed below. Spending on these items should be recorded on a staged payment basis in line with IFRS. In the National Accounts, these assets will be depreciated using a similar methodology to other balance sheet assets.

Expenditure on dual use military equipment is treated as capital in National Accounts. Dual assets are those that could be used by civilian organisations for the production of goods and services such as airfields, docks, roads and hospitals. Expenditure on almost all fixed structures will be treated as capital expenditure in the National Accounts as is that on types of equipment which have alternative non-military uses - such as transport equipment, computers and communication equipment and hospital equipment.

The following items of capital income may normally be set against capital budgets within the terms set out below. Only income in connection with DEL programmes scores in capital budget DEL:

When a department or ALB disposes of an asset, the net book value of this asset scores as negative capital DEL. Any profit or loss on disposal, i.e. the difference between net book values and actual sale value, scores in the Resource budget as either positive (loss) or negative (profit) DEL.

The level of profit on disposal scoring in Resource DEL is limited to a maximum of £20 million or 5 per cent above the net book value of the disposal, whichever is the lower. In such cases, departments should discuss with Treasury spending teams the treatment of income above this level; Treasury may require some or all of the additional profit to be retained in capital DEL. It is anticipated that such occurrences will be very rare, since regular revaluation of assets before disposal limits the difference between book value and sale proceeds.

The government's income from the National Lottery is a tax. The spending by the National Lottery distributing bodies counts as expenditure in AME.

Where a Government department or ALB that is not a National Lottery distributing body obtains income from a distributing body to finance spending in the Capital budget DEL it should take the income into budgets as negative Capital budget DEL.

Capital grants are unrequited transfer payments, which the recipient (in this case government) has to use to:

Where grants are paid that may be used at the recipient's discretion either on capital or on current expenditure they should be treated as current grants or subsidies.

Departments should note that this definition does not match the accounting definition of a grant specified for capital purposes, as set out in the FReM.

Receipts of capital grants from outside of the public sector should be treated by departments as negative CDEL.

Where a department uses a capital grant to buy capital assets, the depreciation of those assets should exceptionally be recorded in AME. See section in Chapter 2 on depreciation for further details.

Donated assets and gifts of capital assets should be recorded in the same way as an asset purchased by way of a capital grant. Budgets will show two equal and opposite transactions in the CDEL budget:

Where a department receives an asset by way of donation, the depreciation of the asset should exceptionally be recorded in AME. See section in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.16, on depreciation for further details.

Departments are reminded that income from the EC Budget is not free to the UK. The budget is funded by Member States, including the UK. Income received from the budget incurs a cost to the UK Exchequer, both by increasing the UK's gross contribution to the budget and by reducing the UK's budget abatement. As set out in Chapter 4, the Treasury may request Departments to cover any costs to the Exchequer from their DEL budgets. This will apply whether the capital funding is inside or outside of accounts.

In general:

Ownership rights would typically include unimpeded use of the asset, right to resell the asset and benefit or suffer from changes in the value of the asset. Typically, capital income comes as a single receipt at the time of sale, but the cash receipt may come in tranches (deferred consideration).

When a department disposes of surplus property, it will enter into an agreement with the purchaser; it is common for these agreements to contain a clause on overage / claw back. The intention of an overage clause is to allow the department to gain some benefit if the purchaser should sell the property on in the future for a profit above that envisaged at the time.

This clause represents a financial asset and should be recorded on the department's balance sheet accordingly. The amount and timing of this financial asset will be subject to uncertainty, and departments may find it difficult to value. In these circumstances departments should refer to accounting guidance and use the same valuation in budgets.

Since this financial asset comprises part of the value of the property being disposed it, in effect, allows the public sector to retain part of the value of the property. So on disposal the scoring in CDEL should be:

The accounting for revaluations and impairment of assets received in overage agreements is the same for other investments. When the financial asset is disposed of, either because of maturity or open market sale, the amount received by the department will score as negative CDEL. Timing of recording of income.

In general, departments should record capital income for budgets at the same time as they record it in the Departmental Accounts.

Income from capital transfers (i.e. grants, developer contributions and donations received) other than income from the EC should be recorded for budgeting purposes at the time that the income falls due, that is, when the cash is due to be paid. That may be different from the recording in DAs if exceptionally the accrual of the income has been related to work done at a quite different time.

Capital transfers from the EC should be recorded for budgets in line with DAs. Departments are encouraged, where appropriate, to accrue income from the EC to match the payments that the income finances. The reason for the different treatment is that where income from the EC finances a payment to a third party it is treated for the National Accounts as a direct payment from the EC to the third party recipient. By accruing the income to the date of the payment it is easier to derive the National Accounts number.

In some cases capital income does no more than cover the costs of replacing the asset disposed of. For example, a department might sell one office block and spend the money on moving into another that suits it better.

In other cases, income can be large in comparison with the needs for replacement, or there may be no replacement. Examples are selling an invention in the open market, or when a department moves from an expensive building into a cheaper one. In these cases the Government has to balance two considerations:

And we need to keep the rules simple.

Departmental budgets are set in the SR net of negative CDEL income. The expected level of negative CDEL income should inform the SR settlement. So, the SR process should be used to identify the expected level of department's income, any expected changes, and an assessment of the potential for new income. The SR settlement will include an explicit statement of the expected level of income in the years of the SR period.

Departments will be allowed to keep the negative DEL income that they obtain in the SR period up to the amount that was taken into account in the SR. Income cannot be predicted wholly accurately, and the Treasury wishes to encourage departments to find new income streams where appropriate. Departments may therefore in any year retain negative CDEL income up to 20 per cent above the level envisaged for that year as part of the SR settlement and set out in their DIS without an adjustment to budgets.

If departments expect to obtain more income than provided for above, they should talk to the Treasury about whether they may retain all or part of the income without an adjustment to budgets. When considering proposals, the Treasury will wish in particular to encourage cases where the additional income represents the results of positive management action, as opposed to under-forecasting.

This is sometimes called net lending or policy lending. It includes loans given and shares purchased, net of repayments and sales of shares. Policy lending transactions are not in capital expenditure as they are financial, as opposed to non-financial (i.e. spending) transactions. Policy lending excludes financial assets acquired to manage the department's liquidity such as bank deposits and balances in the Government Banking Service (GBS).

Policy lending to the private sector adds to public sector net debt (PSND). Consequently net lending to bodies outside the budgeting boundary score to a department's capital budget.

This chapter:

Loans are payments made to another party where the expectation is that the payment will be wholly repaid, normally with interest, and normally to a fixed regular payment schedule.

Loans need to be distinguished from deposits:

The making and withdrawing of deposits do not score in budgets, though deposits themselves may attract interest income.

The budget treatment of a loan is:

Normally, lending scores in DEL. Where exceptionally a loan scheme is in AME (e.g. Social Fund), generally the associated resource transactions will score in Resource AME. An exception to this is debt write-offs by mutual consent which scores in DEL for AME lending.

Because of the soft terms on which student loans are offered, the departments and devolved governments who issue student loans must calculate the impairment resulting from the cost at which the loans are delivered.

Subsidy impairment – Student loans are offered at a loan rate lower than government's cost of capital, as such over the lifetime of the loans there is an effective subsidy. The main student loans impairment is to account for this subsidy and will be valued as the difference between the expected income from the loans and the costs of delivering them at government's cost of capital (agreed as 2.2 per cent for loans).

Impairment relating to policy write offs – The second impairment is to account for "policy" write-offs; when loans are issued, it is the policy of the department that these will be written off in certain circumstances, e.g. death or disability of the debt owner or age of the debt. These amounts are recognised at the point the loan is made. Where these debts are deemed to be policy write offs, they will be recorded as capital transfers in the National Accounts at the time the loan is formally written-off; there is however no transaction in Departmental Accounts or budgets.

The arrangements described in this chapter for student loans are only applicable to loans owned by government and do not apply to loans which have been sold (such as the 1998-99 student loan book).

In August 2013, loans were introduced in further education for learners aged 24 and above, studying courses at level three and above. The following guidance applies to Further Education student loans, Higher Education student loans currently subject to a sale (Pre-2012 reform Income Contingent Repayment student loan book) and Higher Education student loans not subject to a sale. The following budgeting guidance will apply equally to England and, where appropriate, the Devolved Administrations

In period one:

In the Departmental Accounts, the net effect of these two adjustments is to provide the net present value of the loan book.

In period two and subsequent periods budgets will record the following impacts:

In period three:

Any revaluations of the impairment that occur periodically because the original values were based on forecasts that have turned out to be incorrect, or because of updates made to the student loans model, and which go beyond the target impairment set by the Treasury will be charged to RDEL, in the same way that the original impairment is charged to DEL.

Any revaluation of the impairment that occur periodically because the original values were based on forecasts that have turned out to be incorrect, or because of updates made to the student loans model, and which go beyond the target impairment set by the Treasury, will be charged to DEL over a 30 year period (unless departments decide to cover the costs from their DEL over a shorter timeframe). One thirtieth of the total cost will be charged to non ring-fenced RDEL each year for 30 years, with the residual amount each year RAME. The net effect of these entries in RDEL and RAME each year will equal the annual impairment charge due to these forecast changes (refer to Appendix 2 for a worked example). Revaluations of the impairment that occur for any other reason will be charged to RDEL in full and in-year, in the same way that the original impairment is charged to RDEL.

In all cases any adjustments to the impairment arising from a change to the discount rate will be treated as a change of accounting policy and in budgets treated as a classification change.

Purchase and sale of shares in private sector bodies scores in Capital DEL.

Note that purchase or sale of shares will affect the amount of control the public sector has over the corporate actions of a body. Where this transfer of control is significant then departments should consider the impact on classification of the body – see Chapter 1 for details of classification.

Privatisation proceeds score in AME, even where the asset or business being sold was on a DEL programme.

Sale of shares in a private sector PPP is the disposal of a financial asset by the department. As a form of privatisation, the income scores as a benefit to the Capital budget AME.

Sale of shares in a public sector PPP increases the public sectors financial liabilities; this increase does not affect net debt as equity liabilities are excluded from measurement of PSND. As above, the income scores as a benefit to Capital AME.

Where, under IAS 39, departments are judged to have entered into a financial guarantee contract the treatment in budgets should generally follow the accounting. Budgeting will follow the resource accounting treatment for the initial recognition, and revaluation of these contracts on balance sheet.

Since neither contingent liabilities nor provisions are recorded in National Accounts, movements in guarantee contracts will have no impact on the fiscal position unless they are called. Financial guarantee contracts impact on budgets in the following ways:

For details on payout against financial guarantees see separate chapter on Capital budgets.

Regardless of whether Departmental Accounts recognise a financial guarantee contract, any new financial guarantees or letters of comfort should be given the same consideration as entering into contingent liabilities as set out in Chapter 3.

Departments must also show that the budgetary implications of the guarantee will be affordable within existing budgetary allocations. At the point of making the guarantee, departments must make allocations in plans allowing sufficient CDEL to cover payments out against the guarantee. In particular departments should make an assessment of the probability distribution of different levels of payout and ensure that the planned CDEL is sufficient to cover this payout with a high degree of confidence.

Where payout against the guarantees will be outside of the current SR period, departments should discuss handling with Treasury.

Departments may engage in transactions denominated in a foreign currency. Where there is a timing difference between the transaction being recorded in accounts and the cash being paid, any movements in the exchange rate with the foreign currency will affect the value of the creditor/debtor.

Departments should record movements in exchange rate as follows:

Departments have the option to hedge against exchange rate risks to protect their budgets against adverse movements. Guidance on recording hedging is included below.

Where departments carry out transactions in foreign currencies, their expenditure or income will be subject to the risk of exchange rates moving unfavourably. Departments have the option of hedging against this risk to gain certainty on outcomes, and mitigate against the risk of unfavourable movements in the exchange rate. Managing Public Money contains more detail on the appropriateness of hedging.

National Accounts treats a forward contract used in a hedge in the same way as any other financial instrument. So any revaluations over the life of the contract would score to the revaluation account; and at maturity of the contract all flows are recorded as financial transactions.

In order to maintain hedging as a useable option in budgets, the budgeting does not follow the National Accounting treatment in this case. Instead the benefits / costs of a hedge are realised when the department incurs the associated expenditure or receives the income.

The following items must be recorded in budgets for exchange rate hedges:

This recording is necessary to capture the correct treatment in both budgets and National Accounts. A basic worked example of the recording of an exchange rate hedge is available in Appendix 1.

When hedging against a specific cost or income stream, departments may find that the timing of the budgeting impacts for exchange rate moves are different to the timing of the hedging impacts. Where departments find this creates pressure in their budgets they should discuss the correct treatment with Treasury.

Note: the £33,300 credit to AME represents the gain on the forward contract from the movement in the exchange rate. The subsequent £19,000 charge represents the loss on the subsequent exchange rate move. The ultimate credits to RDEL and CDEL represent the net gain, split by the ultimate use of the cash. In the example, the gain on the contract is £14,300 of which £3,600 has been used in RDEL and £10,700 in CDEL, matching the split of the expenditure of the forward contract in line with the expenditure it was bought to cover.

HM Treasury have set a figure of 28 per cent as the target level of impairment, for loans issued which are not subject to a sale. A revaluation of the impairment had indicated that the level set will actually be above the target set by HM Treasury. The amount of this additional impairment is £30 million. This sum (£30 million) will be charged to the department's budget over a period of 30 years.

In the first year £1 million (1/30th) will be charged to RDEL and the balance charged to RAME, in the second year a further £1 million will be charged to RDEL, with the charge to RAME being reduced to £28 million (effectively an AME/DEL switch). This treatment will continue until the full impairment has been charged to RDEL.

Budgetary impact of Additional Impairment beyond target

In each year additional loans will be made which will possibly impact on the level of additional impairment to be charged.

This chapter applies to the budgeting of all bodies in the Central Government sector (as defined by the Office for National Statistics) other than government departments (including executive agencies), and bodies referred to in the following two paragraphs. An ALB could therefore be:

The term ALB refers to most non-government departments regardless of whether or not they have been classified by the Cabinet Office. This chapter does not apply to Public Corporations. Most trading funds are Public Corporations, but some may be Central Government bodies. This chapter applies to any trading fund that is a Central Government body

ALBs resource consumption and capital expenditure score in the departments’ resource and capital DEL in the same way as the department's own spending. So departments should normally use the output from the ALB's own accruals accounts as the basis for working out the ALB's impact on budgets.

Budgets include expenditure that ALBs finance themselves from income that is not negative DEL, use of reserves or borrowing (where, exceptionally, permitted).

Grants and grant in aid paid by the department and any other financing facilities made available by the department are outside the department's budget. This treatment will align with the accounting which eliminates intra-group transactions between a department and its ALBs. The financing of ALBs through grant in aid is automatically excluded from Estimates and budgets, but other intra-group transactions, such as the purchase of shared services by an ALB from the parent department, will need to be removed by the department and not recorded on the OSCAR database. Full guidance on the consolidation of intra-group transactions can be found in the Supply Estimates Manual. A link to the manual can be found in Annex C.

Following the 2010 Spending Review, ALBs were set Administration budgets; these should be scored in the same way as the department's own Administration budgets. See Chapter 5 for more detail on Administration budgets.

Where an ALB has a subsidiary that is itself a body in the Central Government sector that subsidiary will be consolidated with the ALB for budgeting purposes.

Where an ALB has a subsidiary that is a Public Corporation, that subsidiary will score in budgets like Public Corporations accountable directly to Ministers and the Public Corporation will impact on the parent department's overall DEL. Departments may place the DEL impact in the DEL allocated to the ALB.

Where an ALB enters into a joint venture, departments need to be clear whether the joint venture is classified to the public or private sector. If to the public sector, departments need to be clear where the budgeting impact falls.

Departments are expected to set their ALBs firm Resource and Capital DEL budgets for the year ahead. Departments are generally advised to set firm or indicative budgets for forward years to help ALBs plan.

Departments should monitor in-year both:

The ALBs impact on the department's Resource budget DEL is made up of its gross resource consumption less its negative DEL income. Similarly, the Capital budget DEL is net only of negative DEL income. Whether ALB income / receipts are negative DEL follows the same rules as for departmental receipts (see separate chapters). So, for example, charges for the sales of goods and services are typically negative DEL and the receipt of taxes are typically not. Expenditure financed in cash terms by non-budget income scores gross in budgets.

Where an ALB obtains income that is not negative DEL, the department may arrange for the ALB to pass the cash to the department for surrender to the consolidated fund. Alternatively, the cash may be retained by the ALB and offset the ALB's need for cash grant in aid. Either way, income that is not negative DEL does not convey spending authority.

Normally, ALBs are not allowed to borrow. Where exceptionally they are allowed to borrow the spending financed by borrowing scores gross in budgets. This applies whatever the source of borrowing (department, market, European Investment Bank). The cash raised by borrowing does not score as negative DEL.

Use of reserves – i.e. the run-down of savings – has the same effect overall as borrowing. So expenditure financed by the use of reserves counts as spending in budgets.

Exceptionally, some ALBs pay Corporation Tax. Such payments are resource AME, because payments within Central Government of taxes on income are consolidated out in National Accounts. ALBs should not devote resources to tax minimisation or tax planning.

Depreciation charges may only be recorded in AME for grant funded assets where the grant originated from the sponsoring department.

This section applies to all grants from a Central Government body to an ALB, regardless of whether they are grant-in-aid or capital. It does not apply to bodies purchasing services from ALBs.

Where an ALB receives grant from more than one department then the following budgeting treatment will apply.

Department A makes a voted cash payment to department B. It is for the departments concerned to decide how the ALBs costs should be apportioned, and therefore how large department A's payment should be. department B is the sponsor of the ALB and pays it a single grant-in-aid, including an element in respect of the payment made by department A. department B takes responsibility for the budgetary impact of the ALBs expenditure. The ALBs expenditure should score in department B's Budgets (resource / capital and DEL / AME as appropriate). Department B's grant-in-aid to the ALB scores outside the budget in the normal way. Department A's payment to department B scores in department A's DEL as a cost, and in department B's DEL as a benefit – thereby sharing the budgetary impact.

In the numerical examples:

This treatment will apply to all grants that move between CG budgeting boundaries. So in the example above department A could just as easily be replaced by ALB A – the grant would still be required to go through department B.

The spending of a number of levy-funded bodies, defined against the criteria in Appendix 4 to Chapter 1, is in AME, rather than DEL.

All NHS Care Commissioning Groups and NHS Provider Trusts are Central Government bodies – this includes Foundation Trusts. CCGs are recorded in budgets in the same way as NDPBs, as set out earlier in this chapter. The budgetary treatment of NHS Provider Trusts (inc. foundation Trusts) is set out below.

The departmental Resource DEL and AME budgets score the majority of transactions in the same way as any ALB. The only items where the treatment of a transaction is different to the standard ALB model are:

All capital transactions of Provider Trusts are treated in the same way as capital transactions of ALBs. Capital transactions between the Trust and the department score in the same way as transactions between an ALB and its sponsor department.

For further information on the treatment of PFI in budgets, please see the chapter on PFI.

NHS Trusts in Wales and Northern Ireland score in budgets in the same way as ALBs. NHS Trusts no longer exist in Scotland, and funding is channelled through NHS and special health boards.

Departmental budgets include government support for Local Authorities. They do not include self-financed Local Authority spending.

The Resource budget includes current grants to Local Authorities.

Departmental Account (DAs) do not distinguish between current and capital grants. Both go through the SoCNE. National Accounts do distinguish between current and capital grants, and the budgeting treatment follows the National Accounts distinction, with capital grants going through the capital budget.

Capital budgets include:

Supported Capital Expenditure (Capital) is the Local Government finance term for capital grants. Capital grants may be distinguished from current grants in that capital grants have to be used by Local Authorities to:

Where grants are paid that may be used at the recipient's discretion either on capital or on current expenditure they should be treated as current grants.

Payments of compensation to Local Authorities for capital goods destroyed or damaged by natural disasters count as capital grants.

Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue) (SCE(R)) is the Local Government finance term for the amount of borrowing which government is prepared to support. A stream of current support to cover Local Authority borrowing to this level is provided as non-ring-fenced revenue as part of the Revenue Support Grant Settlement.

Departmental budgets score the capital value of SCE(R). The current support is paid by CLG (Local Government) as part of the Revenue Support Grant.

For certain outturn years, departments score the capital values of the predecessor regime, credit approvals.

Self-financed borrowing by Local Authorities under the prudential borrowing regime that is not supported by Central Government does not score in departmental budgets.

Grants to enable Local Authorities to repay debt principal score in capital AME budgets. Any payment of such a grant requires specific Treasury approval. Normally, approval of such a grant will be associated with offsetting budgetary adjustments.

Where a department gives a grant that covers both debt repayment and the payment of any associated debt interest premia by the Local Authority to the debt provider the two elements of the grant should be separated. The element that covers premia should score as a current grant in DEL budgets.

Where a Local Authority uses a debt repayment grant to repay debt and receives a discount on that debt because of that then:

ALBs support to Local Authorities is treated in the same way as support for Local Authorities provided by departments.

As part of the SR settlement departments are allocated a specific amount of RDEL to fund the ongoing cost of Local Authority PPP projects.

Transactions between Local Authorities and their Public Corporations are recorded as transactions between those two sectors. If a department provides grants to a Local Authority which it in turn uses to support its Public Corporations then the transaction at the departmental level should be recorded as a transaction between Central and Local government, in resource or capital budgets as appropriate.

Similarly, where a department provides SCE(R), which is for ultimate use by a Public Corporation accountable to a Local Authority it will score in the department's budget in the usual way.

CLG (Local Government) and the devolved administrations have the power to issue directions to Local Authorities to capitalise certain expenditure. Such directions do not change the nature of the expenditure from current to capital. Rather, broadly, they allow Local Authorities to borrow or use capital receipts in order to finance current spending.

There may be arguments for allowing Local Authorities to spread the incidence of certain lumpy current expenditure payments such as large redundancy payments in order to smooth the path of Council Tax. However, capitalisation directions run contrary to Treasury's position to protect SOCB.

Where a department considers that it requires additional resources to fund burdens on Local Authorities, it is responsible for securing those resources. If a department introduces offsetting measures at the same time to reduce other burdens on Local Authorities, it will need to fund the net additional cost.

Departments should not consider general efficiency savings within Local Authority to be an available source of funding for new burdens, nor should they assume that authorities can absorb the cost of a new burden through reduced expenditure on existing functions. Such assumptions will result in increased pressure on council tax levels. Departments should inform CLG (Local Government Finance Directorate) at the earliest possible stage of any new policy affecting Local Authority – see Annex B for contacts and Annex C for guidance.

Public Corporations (PCs) are defined for the National Accounts by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). ONS publish a list of PCs in the publication Sector Classification Guide (see Annex C for links). If a body is not listed in Sector Classification Guide and you are in doubt as to whether it is a PC, or if you are considering setting up a body that might be a PC, you should contact HM Treasury.

PCs are bodies that are controlled by government or another Public Corporation and that are market bodies, i.e. their income comes mainly from trading activities. Certain regulatory activities may count as trading.

PCs may take various legal forms, including statutory bodies and Companies Act companies. Not all statutory bodies or Government owned Companies Act companies are PCs; they may be ALBs for example.

Most trading funds are PCs. However, trading fund is a legal designation leading to a particular Estimates treatment. The ONS need to consider separately whether a particular trading fund meets the National Accounts criteria for PC status. This chapter applies to trading funds that are PCs, with some special features – see below. Those trading funds that are not PCs are budgeted for as departments or ALBs as appropriate. Some Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) may be PCs – see the passage on PPPs below. If they are PCs they are budgeted for like other PCs.

Certain special arrangements apply to self-financing Public Corporations (SFPCs), which are set out below in this chapter.

This chapter applies to Public Corporations answerable to Ministers. UK subsidiaries of a Public Corporation are included within the budgeting controls of the parent Public Corporation. Departments should discuss with the Treasury the budgeting arrangements for non-resident subsidiaries of a Public Corporation. These budgeting rules also apply to Public Corporations that are a joint venture of one or more Public Corporations accountable to Ministers. Different arrangements apply to Public Corporations answerable to Local Authorities (see chapter on support for Local Authorities).

The aims of the budgeting framework with regards to Public Corporations are:

In addition, the budgeting framework aims to reduce compliance costs for departments, by being based as far as is practicable on entries in departmental resource accounts and the PCs’ accounts.

The government's fiscal framework applies to the whole of the public sector, that is general government (Central and Local government) and Public Corporations. In the fiscal framework:

The EU's debt and deficit measures apply to general government. So they exclude the performance and spending of Public Corporations but include certain of departments’ transactions with Public Corporations. That helps to explain why we need accurate measures of government's dealings with Public Corporations even though domestically we measure performance at the public sector level.

It is for departments to manage their relationship with their Public Corporations in the way that best meets their needs. Departments should take advice from the Shareholder Executive where appropriate. The Shareholder Executive are based in BIS but operate both in an executive function for departments in relation to some PCs and as advisors alongside departmental shareholder team for others. The Treasury issues guidance on Public Corporations policy in general and on trading funds policy.

Departments are expected to set PCs clear objectives and challenging targets covering return on Capital Employed, dividend levels, efficiency, and quality of goods and services. The corporate plans of PCs should be subject to agreement by the department. That is particularly important where PCs have been under performing against profits targets; face risks to performance, or might generate substantial levels of excess cash.

Public Corporations are recorded in budgets on an "external finance basis". This means that the transactions of the PC are, in most cases, outside of the department's budget. The budget of the sponsoring department will show all transactions between the department and the PC. Additionally, should the PC undertake any borrowing the financing raised will be recorded in the budget of the sponsoring department.

The table below sets out the main elements of scoring PCs on an external finance basis.

Most PCs are recorded on a consistent external finance basis as described above. However a selected few bodies have been classified as self-financing Public Corporations (SFPCs) and these have a different treatment in budgets which places more transactions in AME. The detailed budgetary requirements for SFPCs are set out later in this chapter.

Public Corporations, by definition, are market bodies majority financed by sales of goods or services. Where comparable bodies operate in the private sector they must achieve a return on investment appropriate to the risk of operating in that market. As such the sponsor department should require its PCs to generate a certain rate of return on the capital employed in producing services.

Departments must agree with Treasury what an appropriate rate of return for each of their PCs. This anticipated level of return should be considered alongside other sources of income at spending reviews – see Chapter 4 for details on income in the resource budget.

In exceptional cases a department may choose to subsidise a PC for policy reasons and collect a level of income lower than the level agreed with Treasury. In these cases spending review calculations should always use the agreed level of income rather than the subsidised level. Departments should be careful to comply with Trading Fund guidance on disclosure to parliament where appropriate.

Departments should begin by establishing an appropriate post-tax Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) for the PC. To work out the WACC, departments should consider the whole of the Capital Employed in the PC, not just the department's share.

Looked at from funding, Capital Employed comprises total equity, reserves, debt including all interest bearing liabilities and un-funded or under-funded pension liabilities. This may not always match the figures reported on a department's balance sheet.

The appropriate WACC should be calculated using a cost of equity and cost of debt commensurate with the returns equity and debt investors would expect to receive from investing in a comparable private sector business with the same level of risk.

For some regulated businesses it may be appropriate to use a Regulatory Asset Base or Regulatory Capital Value (RCV) in respect of all or part of the PC as the Capital Base upon which a cost of capital charge is levied. If you think that would be the appropriate Capital Base you should talk to HM Treasury.

The Shareholder Executive will be able to provide support and expert advice to departments in determining the appropriate cost of equity or debt.

A PC should be set a target return to earn at least its WACC multiplied by the overall Capital Employed. You should use the average Capital Employed over the year.

In the case of PCs performing essentially government-type functions, 3.5 per cent real will normally be appropriate. A PC competing in the market should typically be expected to return a higher rate to reflect the prevailing market rate.

Where a PC has a monopoly, departments should ensure that the rate of return set is not exploitative.

The right rate for the PC should be agreed with the Treasury when a new PC is set up and as part of the SR process.

Once the total Capital Employed and target rate of return has been worked out, the department's expected receipts are calculated by deducting those elements on which the Public Corporation owes a return to another funder.

In principle, the calculation is:

Budgets are set net of other departmental receipts. As a result, departmental allocations will take the expected receipts from PCs into account. For example, if a department had agreed a total spend of £500 million for 2012-13, and it had a PC with expected interest and dividend payments to the department of £30 million, the net Resource budget would be equal to £470 million.

The government obtains a return from Public Corporations partly through the normal tax on corporations and partly as owner. Public Corporations may undertake normal tax planning but should not incur wasteful expenditure on tax mitigation.

The passage on WACC above assumed that Public Corporations have not operated in a way designed to reduce their tax bill. Where Public Corporations have undertaken tax mitigation – in particular where Public Corporations have high levels of interest-bearing debt – departments should consult the Treasury on how to work out the WACC so as to counter act the effects of tax mitigation.

Managing Public Money (4.2.6 and Annex 4.4) gives more guidance to departments and ALBs on tax planning.

Trading funds that are Public Corporations are normally budgeted for exactly like other Public Corporations.

The budgeting for trading funds that are treated as departments is exactly the same as all other PCs. Where the PC is engaging in borrowing from the NLF or PCMOB then the amount borrowed must score in the CDEL budget of a parent department.

Subsidies are unrequited current payments to trading bodies:

Departments have to obtain a return from their PCs that covers the rate of return agreed with Treasury. The return comes in the form of interest and dividend income from the PC. In order to be able to pay the necessary amount of interest and dividends, the PC needs to achieve a high enough level of earnings, and the department should ensure that the PC is set sufficiently challenging targets and that they are met. A dividend policy should then be agreed between the PC and its department as shareholder.

If the PC's level of earnings do not allow it to pay the right level of interest and dividends, the department should pay a subsidy to the PC so that it can make those payments. The reason for this requirement is to make it transparent to Parliament and public that a PC is under-performing and needs a subsidy to be paid. Where a department has no power to pay a subsidy or where such a subsidy would represent state aid, the overall effect on budgets is still the same, since it is the initial shortfall in PC performance against the cost of capital that impacts on the Budget. However in these cases the department should still disclose the effective subsidy in a note to the accounts.

No subsidy need be paid if the Treasury and the department agree that the PC's under-performance was due to normal volatility.

It is important to make clear to PCs that only making the expected return after receiving a general subsidy is not good enough. The payment of a subsidy needs to be accompanied by the PC's development of a recovery plan to get performance back on track.

Where a department wishes a PC to perform a social policy function then it should pay for that explicitly out of its budget rather than seeking to recover the costs by accepting PC underperformance or by over charging PC customers. A department has two choices:

It may be appropriate for subsidies to be paid by a department other than the sponsoring department where it is the other department that wants the social policy function to be carried out.

Where a department wishes a PC to perform a social policy function and does not have legal power to pay a subsidy the department should contact HM Treasury to establish how best to obtain transparency.

Departments should ensure that payment of subsidies is compatible with EU state aid legislation.

Where a department supports a PC to repay debt early and the PC has to pay an interest rate premium, the element of grant that covers the premium scores as a subsidy.

That is the case even if the department makes a single grant payment in support of both principal repayment and early redemption premia: the two elements must be divided into a subsidy and a capital grant.

Where the department is supporting only a part of the PC's total payment covering debt repayment and premium, the grant should be divided into subsidy and capital grant in the same proportions as the total payment by the PC is divided into premium and debt principal repayment.

This section sets out the resource budget and capital budget scoring of Public Corporations on an external finance basis.

For a Public Corporation the departmental Resource DEL scores:

When debts are repaid early:

Where a department's accounts show interest payable from PCs in respect of NLF loans and the subsequent payment of interest to the NLF then both should be reflected in the Resource budget.

A dividend policy should be agreed between the PC and its department as shareholder. The department may choose not to recover the full rate of return (as agreed with Treasury) as a dividend (in order to allow for reinvestment of its profits by the PC). But, the eventual cost of this under recovery should be borne by the department. As such budgets should be set at spending reviews on the expectation that the full agreed rate of return will be achieved.

Note that the SoCNE, and budgets, will in Year 1 record the dividends expected to be received in respect of Year 1, even though the cash will not be received until Year 2.

Not all receipts treated as dividends in DAs count as dividends for budgeting. Please see the section on equity withdrawals below.

The Capital budget scores:

Loans score in the Capital budget whatever their purpose, that is whether they have been taken out to finance working capital or fixed assets investment.

Note that the Capital budget does not score capital expenditure by the PC, only the external support for capital expenditure. Subject to their agreeing their business plans with their department as shareholder, PCs are therefore free to invest insofar as they are able to finance their investment from asset sales, income that covers depreciation and a level of profits that exceeds what is needed to pay interest and dividends as agreed with the department.

Capital grants are unrequited transfer payments that are intended to finance investment by the PC. Investment includes the acquisition of any capital asset (land, buildings, vehicles, machinery etc.) and any financial asset (lending, company securities etc.). Grants to finance stock building should also be treated as capital grants. Grants to refinance pension funds are capital grants.

Capital grants should be paid whenever the NLF has made a loan to a PC that the PC would otherwise be unable to repay – this demonstrates transparency to Parliament. For voted loans, follow the procedures in Managing Public Money.

Capital grants should also be paid where a department wishes a PC not to be burdened by a loan that it could not repay, perhaps as part of a restructuring.

Grants from the department to make good a shortfall in a real pension fund score as capital grants in budgets and may need special recording. Departments contemplating such a grant should contact the Treasury.

Expenditure financed by PCMOB scores in the government's fiscal framework like any other expenditure. Therefore PCMOB should be controlled. Where PCs wish to borrow on the market or overseas, departments should discuss proposals (other than for overdrafts) with HM Treasury. Approval for borrowing from the private sector will be permitted only in exceptional cases.

PCs may normally only borrow from the market or overseas where at least one of the following applies:

PCMOB scores as a cost in capital budgets of the sponsor department.

PCMOB does not include movements in PCs’ bank deposits or other liquid financial securities.

Further details of the Treasury's approach to lending to PCs, particularly ensuring an appropriate lending rate is used, can be found in DAO (GEN)13 / 04 – see Annex C for the link.

Departments should ensure that PCs do not build up excessive cash balances. Cash balances are excessive if they are more than the amount needed to fund expenditure in the next three years as set out in the corporate plan that has been agreed with the department. Excess cash balances should be taken out of PCs so that the spending power that they represent is prioritised across the departmental group as a whole. Excess cash balances are normally taken out by means of equity withdrawals.

Equity withdrawals benefit Capital budgets. So a department may in effect borrow spending power from its PC, extracting cash in one year (obtaining a Capital DEL benefit) and making spending power available to the PC through Capital DEL in a later year.

Equity withdrawals are exceptional payments from accumulated reserves or cash balances. They should be distinguished from dividends in that dividends should be paid out of the profits of the current year or the two previous years.

Equity withdrawals do not need to result in an actual repayment of shares or PDC. That is, they may simply be a cash transaction.

In DAs, equity withdrawal of this type will go through the SoCNE as special dividends, in the same way as ordinary dividends. There is no impact on the department's Statement of Financial Position other than the increase in cash. However because of the differing treatment in National Accounts and budgets departments need to distinguish equity withdrawals from dividends according to the principles described above.

In the National Accounts for General Government, income from dividends scores as current income, while income from equity withdrawals scores ‘below the line’ as a financial transaction. They thus have a different impact on certain of the fiscal measures.

Where equity withdrawals do result in an actual repayment of shares or PDC then there is no difference in treatment between DAs and budgets. The double entry in DAs would be to reduce fixed assets and increase cash. Where a profit is taken to the SoCNE the department should discuss proposals with their Treasury Spending team.

For the treatment of PFI in budgets, please see the chapter on PFI.

Certain PCs have been designated by the Treasury as SFPCs and have special scoring. The transactions that score in budgets, and treatment of resource/capital, are consistent with all other PCs; but SFPCs place different transactions in AME or DEL.

The main rationale underpinning SFPCs is that the Spending Review is used to prioritise spending financed by taxes. Where Public Corporations expect to recover expenditure from fee-payers in a competitive open market that expenditure may be excluded from the SR prioritisation process.

However, SFPCs are still public bodies, their spending is still public spending, their activities impact on the fiscal framework, and their liabilities contribute to net debt. They therefore need to be managed and monitored.

It is for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to designate an SFPC where it is appropriate to the Treasury's conduct of the SR. The criteria that guide the Chief Secretary include:

The following PCs have been designated as SFPCs: Commonwealth Development Corporation, Channel 4, Crown Estate, and the Royal Mint.

Departments control Self-Financing Public Corporations in the same way as other PCs. In the SR, departments agree a forward plan in respect of the SFPCs alongside but not in the normal SR process. At this point, the status of the SFPC as self-financing should also be reviewed as to whether it still fulfils the classification criteria. As with other spending in AME, performance against the plan is monitored formally by departments and the Treasury in the run-up to each Budget report.

The plan will include the appropriate rate of return and the arrangements for under-performance, see below.

Self-Financing Public Corporations face the same budgeting rules and are scored in the same way as set out above, except that certain transactions score in AME rather than DEL. So, for SFPCs budgeted for on the external finance basis:

The subsidy formally paid to the Crown Estate to cover certain administration costs scores in Resource AME. Dividend income received from the Crown Estate is outside budgets.

SFPCs should cover the agreed rate of return through their payments of interest and dividends.

When returns from the SFPC fall short of the department's rate of return, an underperformance charge equal to the short-fall will be charged to departmental RDEL. This underperformance charge reflects the budgeting guidelines for PCs and is intended to incentivise departments to manage SFPCs appropriately as well as provide visibility of underperformance to Parliament and the wider public.

In other words, the underperformance charge will be equal to:

During the SR period, departments may be able to negotiate a cap on their exposure to underperformance charges. On an exceptional basis, e.g. if the SFPC is undergoing a restructuring programme, it may also be possible to use a recovery target rate of return for calculation of the underperformance charge. However, when an SFPC underperforms on an ongoing basis, reclassification as a PC should be considered as part of the SR process.

PPPs that are entities in their own right may be classified by the ONS to the public or private sectors. In some PPPs, shares may be sold and the PC remains in the public sector. In other cases (e.g. NATS), shares may be sold and the PC may move into the private sector. The ONS takes into account a range of factors when considering classification and not simply the percentage of government shareholding.

In the case of SFPCs, PCMOB may only be undertaken in line with the agreed forward plan. The plan will set out what should be done with the sum realised by a share sale. In default of other arrangements, the sum should be taken out of the SFPC by way of an equity withdrawal in order to offset the PCMOB.

Sale of shares on the privatisation of a Public Corporation is the disposal of a financial asset by the department. The income scores as a benefit to the Capital Budget: AME.

Departments are asked to provide certain financial information about PCs in addition to the budget data.

Even though for most PCs capital expenditure does not score in budgets we ask departments to obtain information about all PCs’ outturn and plan capital expenditure and to pass it on to the Treasury via OSCAR using a non-budget identifier.

This information needs to be accurate and kept up to date because:

The information that is required is:

In addition, for the larger Public Corporations, the Treasury seeks special non-OSCAR returns of outturn and plan gross operating surplus (broadly, profit before depreciation).

This information is useful to the Treasury as gross operating surplus is an item on the revenue side of the Surplus on the Current Budget, used to measure achievement of the temporary operating rule.

Where the public sector engages in a joint venture with a private sector partner the new entity will be subject to the same classification considerations as any other new body (see Chapter 1 for details). Annex C contains a link to guidance on the public sectors involvement in Joint Ventures.

This chapter has separate sections for the following cases

Departments are required to recognise in their budgets the accruing cost of their existing staffs’ pension liabilities that will need to be met in future periods. For those departments whose staff are members of the large unfunded multi-employer schemes (such as the PCSPS) IAS19 allows departments to account only for the contributions payable to the pension scheme administrator (the accruing superannuation liability charge or ASLC).

The employing department bears the cost of that ASLC in its Resource budget DEL, as part of its salary bill.

The department bears no further liability in respect of pensions.

The employee may also pay a contribution into the scheme. Such payments are made by the employee out of her or his pay. The department will have shown pay as a cost in its Resource budget DEL. It should not show anything further in respect of the employee contribution.

Some departments and ALBs run pension schemes with a real fund (as distinct from a notional fund used for unfunded schemes). Such departments and ALBs also have to comply with the accounting standard IAS 19.

IAS19 covers the position where:

In these circumstances, the employer should recognise that deficit in the fund as a liability on their balance sheet.

The cost in the departmental budget is the same as that shown in the accounts of the department or ALB under IAS19. Specifically the movement in the pension scheme liability as recorded in the SoCNE scores as a cost in the resource budget. Any actual contributions to the scheme that serve to reduce the liability score in the cash subsection of the resource budget offset by a negative amount. However, note that these effects will not net-off within AME and DEL budgets. An example is given below.

Example assumes that the contributing department pays 100 cash to the scheme but that the accruing cost of the pensions liability is 110.

The accruing liability would normally fall to Departmental Resource AME, whilst the cash costs would fall to DEL. This is more analogous to the costs borne by those departments who contribute to unfunded schemes, and reduces the scope for volatility in departmental resource DELs. Where there is a serious or structural deficit the scheme actuary will ultimately suggest higher contributions or a one-off payment to rectify affairs. This would score against DEL like normal contributions.

Where there is a surplus in the scheme, the department or ALB should recognise that surplus as an asset if the conditions in paragraph 37 and onwards of IAS 19 are satisfied, i.e. to the extent that employers can recover that surplus either through reduced contributions in future or through refunds from the scheme. This will be a benefit to the Resource budget in AME. Movements in the value of the surplus then impact on the SoCNE and Resource budget.

"By analogy" means schemes run by analogy to the multi employer pension schemes. The budgets of departments or their ALBs that run unfunded by analogy pension schemes should recognise the accruing cost of their existing staff's pension liability that will need to be met in future periods. Such schemes should be accounted for on an IAS 19 basis as adapted for the unfunded schemes in the Central Government sector.

The department or body that employs the staff recognises a provision on the balance sheet in respect of the accruing liability to pay pensions in the future, and a cost in their budget based on the change in that liability.

To ensure parity between those bodies who pay into multi-employer schemes and those bodies that run their own unfunded by analogy schemes the costs borne by the by analogy schemes in resource DEL are equivalent to those paid by departments who pay into the multi-employer schemes. Accordingly the following transactions score in the Resource budget DEL:

This treatment is broadly analogous to the costs borne by a department that contributes a multi-employer scheme because the current service cost borne by the department is broadly equivalent to the ASLC that would be paid to multi-employer pension scheme administrators.

To ensure parity in the DEL treatment between those departments who pay into the multi-employer schemes and those that run their own unfunded by analogy schemes certain transactions score in Departmental AME:

Pensions payable and bulk and individual transfers out are charged to the provision and as such, provided they are matched by the reduction in provisions; do not hit the Departmental Accounts. Nor do they score in Departmental Resource AME budgets as expenditure.

Bulk transfers to the private sector score as capital transactions in the National Accounts and are treated as a cost in the resource budget offset by the release of provision.

As is the case with other provisions, OSCAR needs to record both these payments and the offset by the release of the provision. These data are needed for the National Accounts.

As noted above, where payments are not covered by an existing provision they score as charges in the resource AME budget.

Unfunded broadly by analogy arrangements for chairs, vice-chairs, board members and other holders of public appointments are also subject to IAS 19 as adapted for unfunded schemes in the Central Government sector and should be included in any measure of a body's unfunded liabilities.

Where an unfunded scheme joins the PCSPS it will be required to make a cash payment equivalent to the value of the liability that is being transferred. For the transferring body that has previously recognised a liability in its balance sheet in respect of its unfunded pensions liability, this will be a balance sheet transaction – a movement in cash and liabilities – with no impact on the SoCNE. It follows that there is no impact on budgets. However any amount of cash that is required above or below the liability previously recognised on the transferring body's balance sheet will be a cost / benefit to the SoCNE.

Budgetary cover for this debit or credit will be provided for as an AME item. The cash required for the transfer will be provided in the appropriate manner - either through supply or grant in aid to the body transferring the liability with no further impact on budgets.

For an unfunded scheme joining the PCSPS that has not previously recognised a provision on its balance sheet it follows that any payment it makes will be a cost in its SoCNE. Budgetary cover for this cost will be provided for in AME.

This section of the budgeting guidance applies to the administrators of the multi-employer unfunded pension schemes (schemes under Section A):

This section applies to the budgeting of the schemes themselves. It does not cover employing departments’ contributions to the schemes – see Section A of this Chapter.

The transactions of these schemes are scored in AME. The transactions follow those that are recorded in the Departmental Accounts, and are as follows:

Both pension benefits payable to retired members and group and individual transfers out of the scheme that score in the accounts only on the balance sheet as a movement in cash and liabilities have no subsequent impact on the budgets. However it is necessary to score these transactions separately on OSCAR, and to ensure that they are balanced by an equal and opposite release of provision, so that the cash requirement can be calculated, and so that the correct information is recorded for the National Accounts. Bulk transfers to the private sector need to be identified separately.

Where payments are not covered by an existing provision they do score as charges in Departmental Resource AME. Any notional audit costs do not score in the relevant pensions Estimate instead these score in the associated departmental Estimate against Resource DEL.

Where a public sector body makes a bulk transfer into a funded scheme this cash payment increases TME. Where departments are considering such payments they must contact HMT to obtain consent for the transfer. This is the case whether the transferring body has previously provided for the liability or not, or whether they have been making contributions to a public sector multi-employer scheme or not.

Departments should contact the Treasury early in the process of considering such transfers.

The chapter sets out:

This chapter applies to all finance leases, operating leases, and service concession arrangements, as identified under IFRS accounting standards. The term "PFI" is used throughout as a shorthand for these transactions, but the substance of this chapter will still apply where leases or service concessions are not classed as PFI.

PFI is a means of procuring services with significant asset content. The choice of means of procurement should be driven entirely by value for money considerations. So:

Departments must follow the detailed methodology laid out in the PFI VfM Assessment Guidance when determining whether a prospective PFI project will be value for money (see link in Annex C).

In some cases, PFI deals are called Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). If so, they should be scored like other PFI deals. Not all PPPs are PFI deals. PPP can also be a name for certain sorts of public corporation (see separate chapter on Public Corporations) or private sector body (in which case the department will have an investment – see Chapter 6).

The UK public sector moved to IFRS accounting standards in 2008-09; under IFRS there are three important standards for the recording of PFI and other leases:

DAs should be completed according to the IFRS compliant standards set out in the FReM.

The recording in budgets is intended to match the fiscal impacts of a PFI transaction. The last two bullets above (relating to IFRIC 4 and IAS 17) are broadly in line with National Accounts standards; as such the budgeting will follow departments’ accounting treatment (except in exceptional cases).

IFRIC 12 (as interpreted in the FReM) is very different to the equivalent standard in National Accounts. Since National Accounts is used to measure the fiscal position, budgets follow the National Accounting standards rather than IFRS. Recording in Estimates follows this treatment.

For accounting purposes, service concession arrangements should be assessed under IFRS based FReM. However, the department should further consider the treatment of these arrangements under National Accounts standards. These transactions are covered in Part VI of the ESA95 Manual on General Government Deficit and Debt – see Annex C for link.

Budgeting and accounting standards fit together as follows:

If a project is either a finance lease or in substance borrowing then it is held to be on balance sheet. On balance sheet projects are in effect capital expenditure by the purchasing authority that has been financed by borrowing from the contractor. Off balance sheet projects are purchases of services by the purchasing authority from the contractor who has created an asset in order to deliver the services.

It is the department's responsibility to come to a view on the expected classification of a project, where possible with the agreement of its auditor. The department is at risk in cases where the eventual classification by the auditor or by the Office for National Statistics does not match the department's expectations. The ONS will not consider the classification of most projects, but can consider any classification they wish as part of the National Accounts process.

Additionally, HMT may choose to scrutinise any PFI project regardless of the recording under the different standards. In the first instance departments and procuring authorities should consult their Treasury spending team while preparing the project's Outline Business Case to determine if it requires Treasury approval.

In the fiscal framework, on balance sheet projects:

The budgeting system reflects the distinction between on and off balance sheet projects, with technical differences in the way that the distinction impacts on departments and ALBs versus PCs.

Projects on balance sheet for National Accounts purposes score in Capital budgets like capital expenditure undertaken directly by the department / ALB. The value of the capital expenditure and the timing of recognition should follow the accounting set out above.

Annual repayments under the PFI contract, i.e. the unitary charge, will be treated in the Resource budget as a mix of:

Where the project is off balance sheet for National Accounts purposes, the budgeting impact is as if the department is purchasing services. Any associated capital expenditure is an investment by the private sector and does not appear on the procuring authority's budget. The only entries in the budget of the department or ALB are the payments under the unitary charge, which are payments for services and score in the Resource Budget.

PCs scored on the External Finance Basis. For most Public Corporations the budgeting system scores their external finance. External finance includes Public Corporations’ Market and Overseas Borrowing (PCMOB). PFI that is on balance sheet for National Accounts purposes is a form of PCMOB and is treated in the same way:

Projects that are off balance sheet for National Accounts purposes do not score in Capital budgets (except to the extent there is a reversionary interest to be accrued over the length of the contract). The Public Corporation's payments of the unitary charge are a cost of doing business in the calculation of profits like any other purchase of services.

A barter transaction is one in which party A disposes of an asset, good or service to party B; party A then receives an asset, good or service in return from party B. Money is not used as the medium of exchange, or is used for only a proportion of the transaction. Barter deals can involve the creation of financial assets and liabilities such as loans, if the goods and services are exchanged at different times.

Sale and lease back deals may include an element of barter. In this scenario a department disposes of buildings to a private sector company at no charge or at a price below the normal market value. In return the company provides the department with serviced office accommodation at below market price for a number of years. The reduction in the cash charge for service payments is a way for the department to obtain value from its asset, instead of getting the full market value in cash.

In effect part of the value of the building is bartered for future serviced office space. The reduction in the selling price is in effect a pre-payment of rentals. You can view this as a loan to the private sector company financed from the receipt from the disposal of the building.

However, this is only one example, and these general principles apply equally to barter deals that do not involve property or the PFI.

Barter deals should be recorded as if the exchanges had taken place in cash at current market prices. This recording applies to accounts, budgets and in the National Accounts.

National Accounts aim to score transactions at the Open Market Value (OMV). Scoring barter transactions at zero or another price would not reflect the economic substance of the transactions and misstate the balance of expenditure between sectors of the economy.

The real economic value of the asset disposed of is the OMV not nil or just the cash sum received; the annual running costs should also be measured at the OMV cost of accommodation and not just the cash sum paid.

If the delivery of bartered assets, goods and services occur at different times it might be necessary to record a financial transaction. For example, if a department sells a building at below OMV in return for reduced future rents, there is in substance a loan from the department to the company. The reduction in the selling price is a prepayment of rents, and represented as such in the Departmental Accounts.

For a barter transaction to be a viable proposition, the reduction in sale price would have to be at least equal to the net present value of the future rent reductions – using a discount rate reflecting the cost of capital of the government. So the imputed future rents have to be recorded as being equal to the cash actually paid, plus the amount being financed by the prepayment, plus an extra amount (representing a finance charge on the prepayment).

OMV is the price of the asset, good or service that would be paid in an open market transaction without any element of barter. When assets, goods or services are bartered it is necessary to determine their OMV so that accounts can be recorded properly (i.e. using OMVs) and also for investment appraisal to ensure that the barter deal is good value for money.

It is for departments to determine and record OMVs.

Broad information for establishing OMVs should be available from information in the investment appraisal undertaken before the department decided to structure the deal in a particular way, in the supplier's bid documentation, and in the contract documentation and supporting papers.

For accounts, it should be assumed that the goods bartered have equal value. This means that once the OMV has been determined for the assets, goods or services supplied, the value of the assets, goods or services received in exchange will be known. For example, consider the case of a building being sold at below OMV in return for being able to pay reduced rents (i.e. at below OMV) in the future. The OMV of the building could be estimated as the cash price paid plus the net present value of the future rent reductions (using 3.5 per cent discount rate); or the rent reductions could be estimated from the difference between the cash received and OMV of the building sold; or if both components can be estimated reliably the residual would be the implied discount rate for the financing charge. The method used should be agreed with Treasury.

Note that the OMV of an asset for this purpose may differ from the amount recorded in the department's balance sheet if that has not been updated recently. In such cases the difference between the balance sheet figure and OMV would be recorded in Departmental Accounts and budgets as a loss/gain on sale. The difference between the OMV and the cash amount actually received as a result of the barter deal (i.e. that part of the value of the building that is bartered) would not be recorded as a loss on sale, in our example this would be shown as a prepayment.

For investment appraisal it is of course necessary to measure as directly as possible the OMV of all components – to identify which option is best value for money.

This section of the budgeting guidance assumes that accounting tests have determined that the new rental contract is not a finance lease. If the department continues to bear most of the risks and rewards associated with ownership then this suggests that the new rental contract is in fact a finance lease and the provisions of this section of the guidance do not apply (see separate section).

Barter deals should be scored in Departmental Accounts and budgets as though they were separate transactions made at the OMV.

In the example above departments should record:

The profile through time of the unwinding of the prepayment will depend on the discount rate assumed and the desired profile of the imputed additions to the service charges (could be flat or perhaps increase with inflation). In the rest of the example a 3.5 per cent discount rate is used, and the imputed additions to the service charges are constant. In other words, the sum of the loan repayment and the capital charge on the amount outstanding is constant.

Capital DEL scores as a benefit the book value on disposal. Resource DEL scores profit/loss on disposal as a benefit/cost respectively.

The Resource budget includes the full cost as reflected in the SoCNE comprising:

The balance sheet will show an asset (prepayment) for the difference between the cash received and the OMV of the asset as determined by the barter deal.

So in the example given above suppose:

Appendix 1 to this chapter shows a worked example of the accounting and budgeting for a sale and lease back deal that includes a bartered element, where the deal is on balance sheet.

Some deals involve the legal transfer of the asset to the public sector at the end of the deal period. In some cases the asset will not be expected to have a value and in other cases it will. Where the asset is expected to have a value the department is said to have a reversionary interest (RI).

In many cases the existence of a reversionary interest will point to the public sector having the whole of the asset on its balance sheet for the life of the deal, as the public sector is taking residual value risk. In that case the reversionary interest rules are irrelevant.

However in some cases the deal may be judged to be off balance sheet and the department is taking residual value risk, departments are required to score against CDEL the reversionary interest that would have applied under UKGAAP – note this only applies to projects signed before April 2009.

Under UKGAAP, where a department had an RI it would build up an RI asset on its Statement of Financial Position over the life of the contract. At the end of the contract the asset would revert to the department who would debit non-current (infrastructure) assets and credit the RI asset. In other words, the RI asset built up over the life of the contract will finance the acquisition of the infrastructure asset at the end of the period. In order to build up the RI over the life of the contract part of the unitary payment would have been capitalised. This would have resulted in a lower SoCNE-cost scoring in the departmental accounts and an increase in the RI asset on the balance sheet.

Where schemes are off balance sheet for budgets, but there would have been a RI charge under UKGAAP, the budgets will not follow the accounts but will show.

Capital DEL shows the following:

Resource DEL shows the following:

Termination payments may be payable if a PFI contract is ended early.

In the case of on balance sheet PFI, termination payments could represent just the extinguishment of the liability, and so not be shown in budgets, or in addition to the repayment of debt there could be a cost in budgets. That difference in treatment would depend upon the level of the balance sheet liability compared with the termination payment and what, if any, other assets come on the balance sheet.

Where the amount of cash paid is different to the outstanding liability, and the department is not gaining any other assets, then the National Accounts treat this element of the payment (difference between liability on the balance sheet and cash paid) as a capital grant to the contractor. This is a cost (or potentially a benefit) in the departmental Capital budget (DEL).

Where the department is receiving additional assets as part of the termination deal then it may be appropriate to capitalise the cash payment above the value of the liability. In effect the department is purchasing the additional assets from the contractor, and the price paid is the value of the cash payment above the liability that is being extinguished. Departmental budgets treat this in the same way as any other capital addition, i.e. in capital budgets (DEL).

Termination payments paid under off-balance sheet deals lead to a cost in the SoCNE and a charge to the resource budget (assuming no asset is assumed in return).

Any department facing a termination payment should contact your normal Treasury spending team to seek advice.

This section of the guidance briefly sets the background and the policy of sharing refinancing gains on PFI deals, and details the treatment of the associated transactions in the National Accounts, Departmental Accounts and budgets. The guidance deals with the scenario where the PFI contractor goes to the private sector debt markets to refinance their debt.

When a private sector contractor enters into a PFI deal they will borrow from the market to finance the capital expenditure they are undertaking. The market will charge the contractor a certain interest rate on that borrowing; this will be based on many things including the amount of risk perceived by the lender. The contractor will take this rate of interest into account when setting the unitary charge that is charged to the public sector for the use of the infrastructure created under the PFI contract.

It is common practice for the PFI contractor to refinance or restructure their debt once the project is up and running. The contractor will, at this point, be able to negotiate a lower interest rate, as they can demonstrate that the amount of risk has reduced.

Guidance on how procuring authorities with existing PFI contracts should be able to access these gains and split the benefit with the private sector partner can be found on the HM Treasury website ("Refinancing of Early PFI transactions").

The sharing of refinancing gains for more recent deals is laid out in the standardised PFI contract ("SoPC4"), supplemented by additional guidance issued by HM Treasury ("SoPC4 Addendum October 2008: Amended Refinancing Provisions" and "SoPC4 Addendum April 2009: Amended Refinancing Provisions"). The benefit could be in the form of either, a drop in the unitary charge or an increased level of service, or the gain may be shared via an upfront lump sum.

In general departments benefit in their budgets from what they can negotiate.

When refinancing occurs the contractor's cost of providing the service drops thanks to the restructured debt profile. This is shared with their customers (the public sector) via a reduced price to buy the service, an increased level of service to buy the service or as a one off payment.

Where the gain is shared via a cheaper service cost this is simply less current expenditure in the National Accounts, resource accounts and departmental budget over the remaining life of the contract.

Where the gain is shared via a one-off windfall payment to the public sector we risk distorting measures of GDP in the economy if we record this as less consumption by the public sector in one year. It is more correct to view the lump sum as a portion of the on-going savings to the contractor, which has been rolled up and then split between the parties. The view in such a situation is that the private sector has lent the public sector cash up front and has an asset on their balance sheet, each month this would unwind to finance the reduction in the unitary charge. In effect the contractor is pre-paying a reduction in the service charge.

This means that the refinancing gain is recorded as a benefit to the public sector matched to the time frame in which it is viewed to have accrued. A simple example ignoring any discounting is given below.

On receiving the cash the department shows an increase in liabilities (creditors).

Then annually:

The budgets follow the accounts. In other words the upfront receipt of the cash does not benefit the resource budget, but the lower annual service charge does.

This appendix sets out the accounting and budgeting treatment for a sale and lease back deal including a bartered element where the deal is on balance sheet. This does not relate to service concession arrangements.

Department Yellow enters into a PFI deal for a new headquarters building with the Reader Sinclair Consortium. The consortium will design and build and then operate the HQ for a period of 30 years from the date of occupation. In addition, the consortium will provide the IT Systems for seven years, after which that part of the contract will terminate. The building will revert to Department Yellow at no cost at the end of the contract period. This is determined to be an on-balance sheet PFI deal.

The cost to Department Yellow comprises two elements: annual Unitary Payments (UP) and the transfer of properties (Barter Deal). The transfer of properties under Barter Deal results, over time, in lower service payments. Annual UPs cover capital, a finance charge, and a service payment. The Barter Deal comprises the transfer of five properties at various stages throughout the project, including two prior to occupation of the new HQ. The final transfer can be deferred by five years. If Department Yellow opts for deferral, the department will pay compensation to the Consortium in the form of an upfront cash payment equal to the value of the property under the contract at the original transfer date. Upon vacation of the property, the Consortium will repay to Department Yellow the value of the property at that date.

The contract takes effect from 1 April YEAR 0. The new HQ will be occupied from 1 April YEAR 3. The schedule of Barter Deal transfers is:

The total value of the new HQ and IT is £250 million. It is estimated that £229 million is in respect of the new HQ and £21 million relates to the IT element. In addition, the UP includes total interest of £320 million and total service costs of £15 million. (Total value of UP over 30 years is £560 million). The values of the five plots included in the Barter Deal are shown below. The year YEAR-1 is the year prior to the contract coming into effect.

The schedule of UPs is as follows, starting in year beginning 1 April YEAR 3.

The value of the plots in Department Yellow's accounts needs to be adjusted for 1 April YEAR 0 to reflect the Barter Deal value at the future date of transfer, taking account of projected movements in value in the intervening period, during which the plots continue to be recognised as fixed assets by the department. (Note: this assumes that the values have been agreed at the time the contract is signed.)

Department Yellow accounts for the plots as they are transferred to the Consortium prior to the occupation of the new accommodation as follows

When Department Yellow occupies the new accommodation, the property is valued at £250 million (see background section) and is brought on balance sheet.

The accounting entries are:

The £250 million is a capital DEL hit.

Department Yellow accounts for the transfer of Plot 4 after the occupation of the new building as follows:

Each year until the end of the lease, there will be a cash requirement in respect of the UP. There will be a resource DEL hit equal to the imputed interest rate. As the building is on balance sheet, depreciation also scores in both the SoCNE and Resource DEL. The capital repayment, i.e. the movement in the long-term creditor is outside of budgets.

The accounting entries are:

In addition to the service and interest elements, depreciation also passes through the SoCNE.

In addition, Department Yellow can now start to release the prepayment. Because it represents the lower service payment, it should be released over the period of the reduced service payment (in this example, considered to be the life of the contract).

The accounting entries are:

The release of the prepayment has no budgetary impact – as noted it is the full SoCNE costs that are reflected in the budget.

In X008, Department Yellow determines that it needs to retain Plot 5 beyond YEAR 10. Under the contract, therefore, the department will have a cash requirement of £13 million to pay to the Consortium.

The accounting entries are:

Since the value of the Plot 5 is included in the overall valuation of the new accommodation, there is no DEL hit involved in the deferral, as the cash is used to repay the creditor. (Note: the accounting entries do not deal with Supply in respect of the net cash requirement.)

During the five years of the deferral, the department will continue to revalue and depreciate Plot 5 in the normal manner.

Under the terms of the contract, Department Yellow has to vacate the property in X015, and the Consortium pays to the department the value of the property at that date.

The accounting entries are:

There is a negative capital DEL impact in respect of the disposal of the asset.

As a result of the implementation of the Treasury's Alignment project in 2011-12 most differences between Departmental Accounts and budgets have now been removed. The majority of transactions should therefore be recorded in budgets at the same value and with the same timing as in accounts. There are however some outstanding misalignments, these are set out in the tables below. Treasury will continue to try and minimise the differences between budgets and accounts consistent with the principles of alignment.

Table 1 below shows the main differences between the SoCNE in Departmental Accounts and the Resource budget.

Table 2 shows the main difference between Capital budgets and additions to fixed assets and investment in DAs.

This annex gives details of Treasury and other officials who may be contacted for further advice:

The Treasury's public website gives access to the Charter for Budget Responsibility (which provides details of the Fiscal Mandate)

ONS publish a Sector Classification Guide which lists many bodies and sets out what sector of the economy they are in

The Cabinet Office publishes a range of material about Non Departmental Public Bodies

The Treasury publishes a range of classification guidance notes cover National Accounts treatments

Guidance on Supply Estimates is available at the HM Treasury public website

Guidance on OSCAR and recording transactions can be found at the OSCAR website

Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses gives information on public spending analysed by reference to the budgetary control framework, sectors of the economy, government functions (irrespective of which organisation is spending the money), and the country or region of the UK, which has benefited from public spending. Appendices describe the control framework. One of the appendices is a glossary of public expenditure terms

Managing Public Money offers guidance on how to handle public funds of all kinds

The Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) contains the technical accounting guidance used for public funds. It is available on its dedicated website

Dear Accounting Officer letters give guidance on a range of subjects

Information on Whole of Government Accounts is available.

The PFI/PPP area of the Treasury's website gives access to the main policy document on PFI/PPP – Meeting the Investment Challenge, the value for money guidance and guidance on refinancing

The Treasury guidance on the wider market initiative is available.

The Treasury website section on the Green Book on option appraisal. The Social Time Preference Rate is discussed in Annex 6.

You can also look at the Cabinet Office's website for pensions.

The European System of Accounts (ESA10) is used by the Office for National Statistics in assembling the National Accounts

The ESA10 Manual on Government Deficit and Debt provides detailed guidance on the application of ESA10 to General Government. Part VI includes guidance relating to the recording of service concessions

The Control Framework for DECC levy-funded spending is available via the National Archives.

The Department for Communities and Local Government's new burdens guidance is available.

The guidance on the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) is available.

A glossary of public expenditure terms is published as an appendix in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses – see Annex C for link.

Good debt management is a key part of achieving the government's objectives for fiscal policy. These objectives are set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility (section 3.1) and in the Consolidated Budgeting Guidance (section 1.3).

Debt owed to central government at 31 March 2013 was £137 billion and it is estimated that £22 billion of this was overdue. Write offs and remissions in 2012-13 were £6 billion.

Government has a duty to manage its debtors effectively as part of good financial management in order to maximise value for the taxpayer. Government debt includes overdue tax liabilities, benefit overpayments, tax credit overpayments and outstanding fines and court confiscation orders.

Departments and their arm's length bodies (ALBs) must work together with HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office to reduce fraud, error and debt.

Departments and their ALBs should adopt the principles set out below to work with HM Treasury and Cabinet Office to minimise debt across government:

These principles will be reviewed periodically.

The management of debt must be in accordance with Managing Public Money and Consolidated Budgeting Guidance:

Previous: Black cab rapist John Worboys who drugged and attacked more than 100 women set for release from jail Next: Design and operation of high

Send inquiry

Send