• Home
  • About
  • 151 IMPACT AWARDS
  • Subscribe
  • Conference
  • Events Calendar
  • Webcast151
  • MOTB
  • Log In
  • Register

Room 151

Impact Awards –>
  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews

Stephen Sheen: Public interest in Prudential Framework has provided a worrying wobble

0
  • by Stephen Sheen
  • in 151 News · Stephen Sheen · Technical
  • — 9 Apr, 2019

When the Prudential Code was being developed, there was no expectation that it was going to be a document that was going to change the world. Its function was largely to provide assurance to the four national administrations that proposals allowing local authorities to develop capital programmes wholly on the basis of whether their consequences were affordable out of future budgets would have a happy outcome.

As a compact between central and local government, guaranteeing the indulgence of the former and the good behaviour of the latter, the code’s contents do not generally move far beyond statements of the obvious.  They were largely what any reasonable capital finance professional would come up with if asked to define the rules for prudent behaviour.

It is therefore possible for an authority to operate effectively under the Prudential Framework without any detailed knowledge of the code’s provisions.  But since the foundation of the framework, it has been the understanding that if governments lose confidence in the code, the whole framework is at risk.

A number of recent news stories have caused the framework a worrying wobble:

  • public worries about the use of capital receipts to fund redundancies
  • MHCLG concern over compliance with the statutory guidance covering investment properties
  • Peterborough City Council’s proposals for applying capital receipts to minimise MRP

What these wobbles have in common is an unusual level of public interest and some confusion as to how the Prudential Framework should operate, resulting in plenty of debate but much of it ill-focused.

One of the big advances of the Prudential Framework was to break down the distinction between revenue and capital resources. Previously, annual capital budgets were capped by a limit on the new borrowing that the government would allow to be taken out in a particular year. When the framework was implemented in 2004, all spending decisions could be made on an equal footing focusing on their impact on the revenue budget, with capital payments resulting in revenue charges established by cost amortising the cost over the life of the relevant asset.

The only substantial area that remains ring-fenced is capital receipts. The proceeds from asset sales are generally restricted to being applied to new capital investment or set aside to finance past capital expenditure. In the commercial world, entities would be able to treat any surplus of proceeds over undepreciated cost as unrestricted income.

To a degree this restriction makes sense, in that it prevents authorities from using one-off gains to cover ongoing service spending needs, but there are two issues with this:

  • if the asset disposed of was surplus to requirements and its cost had been financed, what would be wrong with doing it?
  • the policy can lead to the accumulation of capital receipts balances, whose use is limited by the fact that new assets will generate running costs that are not affordable from revenue budgets

In England and Wales, the flexible use of the capital receipts initiative was designed to restore some harmony.  Newly-generated receipts can be used to fund revenue expenditure intended to secure ongoing savings or to transform service delivery to reduce costs.

In this context, redundancy costs are a prime candidate for consideration
— exceptional costs that will reduce the wage bill on a permanent basis.  The idea of using capital receipts to meet these costs is wholly reasonable.  Public worries about flexible use should therefore focus separately and more specifically on the appropriateness of the asset disposal or the acceptability of the redundancy proposals. Bringing the two together is not an escalation of either issue.

The greater risk will be in relation to circumstances where capital receipts are being used to support revenue expenditure without a proper assurance that savings will be generated. Without this assurance, there could be a double whammy of giving revenue an unsustainable one-off prop and not freeing any future revenue headroom to finance the capital expenditure that could otherwise have been met from the capital receipts.

Problems might also arise with the framework’s propensity to throw up capital receipts where they have no substance as a new resource, such as with certain capital loan repayments and sale and leaseback deals.  If unsupported receipts were applied to revenue expenditure, they would fix a permanent black hole in an authority’s balance sheet.

The NAO’s Auditor Guidance Note for 2018/19 expects auditors in England to focus on the application of the scheme in their audits, so we may be in for several months of scrutiny of flexible use.

Tensions also arise under the Prudential Framework with the Government’s approach to statutory guidance. It is clear that the guidance issued in England and Wales has an objective of limiting the overall amount of borrowing that an authority takes out. For local authorities this is a secondary consideration, with borrowing being limited by the affordability of the consequential interest payments from future revenues.

In meeting their statutory duties to act prudently, authorities will commonly come across parts of the statutory guidance that are expecting them to be over-prudent and contrary to the fundamental “who benefits pays” principle. For instance, there is an expectation that loans to support capital expenditure will be financed even where there is no evidence that the loan will not be repaid in full, and even where it is secured by effective collateral.

Any authority complying completely with the statutory guidance will therefore, to a degree, be working to its own detriment.

With everyone aware that “MHCLG is watching you”, there is pressure on authorities to avoid departures or to have very strong grounds for doing something different. In this respect, the reported policy of Peterborough appears sensible – to reduce the MRP that would otherwise have been made in years when significant amounts of capital receipts have been set aside.  This is based on an understanding that the proper measure of prudence should be where you arrive at at the end of the year (in terms of unfinanced capital expenditure), rather than what you have done during it.

However, there are plenty of other rumoured goings-on that don’t sound particularly sensible. I would reiterate the view I expressed in a previous article – the Prudential Framework is so complicated that there are no experts, just people who know a bit more than others. If you don’t understand what your authority is being recommended to do, don’t presume that the person telling you has that much more of an understanding.

If the Prudential Framework is going to thrive and the Prudential Code survive, then lashings of scepticism should be encouraged from members, officers, external auditors, the media and people’s auditors. But prudent good practice should always be defended, no matter how much explaining it might take.

Stephen Sheen is the managing director of Ichabod’s Industries, a consultancy providing technical accounting support to local government.

Get the Room 151 Newsletter

Room151 Conferences & Events



Share

You may also like...

  • Council income, devolution complications, Manchester advice contract, joint services for London councils Council income, devolution complications, Manchester advice contract, joint services for London councils 16 Jul, 2015
  • CIPFA welcomes report on FRC CIPFA welcomes report on FRC 19 Dec, 2018
  • Call for needs-based solution as districts ‘punished’ by negative RSG proposals Call for needs-based solution as districts ‘punished’ by negative RSG proposals 25 Jul, 2018
  • Council predicts £5.5m budget overspend after a single month Council predicts £5.5m budget overspend after a single month 27 Jun, 2019

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 2 days ago

    Impact Awards: Cheltenham’s tech hub and Hackney’s recovery from cyber attack: The CCLA/Room151 Impact Awards spotlight  finance teams with a direct impact on their local communities and the environment. This week we explore Cheltenham Borough Council’s… dlvr.it/Rxg53h pic.twitter.com/iH8oGKOfSs

    Room151 3 days ago

    Collaboration the key to district recovery post-pandemic: Regeneration and economic growth will depend on districts’ ability to secure funding and work with public and private partners, argues Sanjiv Kohli. Covid hit us in March 2020 and immediately[...] dlvr.it/Rxb4VK pic.twitter.com/FiMynEQVPU

    Room151 1 week ago

    Impact Awards: Liverpool’s cafe culture and Warrington’s investment in homes: The CCLA/Room151 Impact Awards showcase  finance teams with a direct impact on their local communities and the environment. This week we spotlight Liverpool City Council’s… dlvr.it/RxJsKb pic.twitter.com/dEYpaz6HP0

    Room151 1 week ago

    Doing something in #localgov #finance for housing or regeneration? Check out the 'Place Shaping' category room151.co.uk/impact-awards/… sponsored by @31tenConsulting in the CCLA/Room151 Impact Awards. #timetoenter !! pic.twitter.com/dU99vE6Wws

    Room151 1 week ago

    Doing something in #localgov #finance for Adult Social Care & Health? Check out the ASC&H category room151.co.uk/impact-awards/… sponsored by Fundamentum Social Housing REIT in the CCLA/Room151 Impact Awards. #timetoenter !!

    Room151 1 week ago

    Doing something in #localgov #finance for the environment? Check out the 'carbon management' category room151.co.uk/impact-awards/… sponsored by @ACSLLP in the CCLA/Room151 Impact Awards. #timetoenter !!

    Room151 1 week ago

    So what are the seven categories for the CCLA/Room151 Impact Awards? Here they are room151.co.uk/impact-awards/… #localgov #finance #outcomes

    Room151 1 week ago

    Why should LGPS be concerned about rising inflation?: The impact of the coronavirus pandemic, lockdown and wider economic uncertainty created  deflationary pressures which raise important considerations for the Local Government Pension Scheme writes… dlvr.it/RxF7Fs pic.twitter.com/JlcjROBIpz

    Room151 1 week ago

    JOB ALERT: LPFA Finance Director vacancy: London Pensions Fund Authority Finance Director and s151 Officer Competitive salary and benefits The largest Local Government Pension (LGPS) provider in London with around £6.5 billion of assets and 135[...] dlvr.it/RxBdJP

    Room151 1 week ago

    Richard Harbord: Further signs that local government finance is failing: The crisis in Liverpool and a fix for education budgets are further indication that local government finance is in need of a root and branch review. Even for those students[...] dlvr.it/Rx9PSV pic.twitter.com/sAanC2gEyu

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    Impact Awards: Finance helps launch school meals company and support business during lockdown: The CCLA/Room151 Impact Awards will showcase the way finance teams have a direct impact on their local communities and the environment. This week we spotlight… dlvr.it/RwnlF4 pic.twitter.com/AJhne1MVG4

    Room151 2 weeks ago

    "This work has made a vital, practical contribution to ensuring people have been supported through the pandemic." #impact #151awards #covid #s151 room151.co.uk/treasury/impac… #impactcasestudies #councilfinancemakesadifference

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Blogs
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • LGPSi
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Recent Posts
    • Resources
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
  • Archives

    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • Previous story CIPFA FM code to seek greater assurance and transparency
  • Next story Airport tax mooted as Birmingham Commonwealth Games funding solution

© Copyright 2021 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.