Archives For Gillian Fawcett

By Jigmi Rinzin, Parliamentarian, Bhutan

While Bhutan has a very good monetary and financial mechanism in place, we have only just started on the evaluation front when it comes to public financial management.

It is important to mention that this is not a unique position for Bhutan. The entire South Asian region is undergoing a shift when it comes to evaluation. This offers the countries within the region a unique opportunity.

Being a member of the National Council, a view of the House of Parliament in Bhutan allows me a unique perspective. I look at the roles of parliamentarians beyond legislation.

I am a member of Parliamentarians’ Forum on Development Evaluation (PFDE) with colleagues from other South Asian countries. We collectively aim to provide enabling environments in our respective countries.

In Bhutan, I’m a member of the Evaluation Association of Bhutan (EAB) where we work towards facilitating the practitioners, evaluators and other stakeholders involved in monitoring and evaluation for effective and efficient conduct of their roles and responsibilities.

A National Council Member’s foremost mandate, besides legislation, is to review performance of governments, NGOs, civil society and other bodies critical to the functioning of the state machinery. When you have a duty to review state functionaries, monetary evaluation ends up having a great deal of relevance.

Bhutan has a designated office: a division under our Gross National Happiness (GNH) Commission (Bhutan’s Planning Commission) called the Research and Evaluation Division. This Division is the centre-coordinating agency for monitoring and evaluation in the country.

Since the implementation of the National Monitoring Evaluating System in 2006, the Royal Government of Bhutan has been working on developing the policy for this subject matter. There is a need for a comprehensive policy on evaluation to ensure transparency and accountability in public sector development projects.

As a parliamentarian, I play a role in ensuring the right policies are in place that provides the necessary enabling environments. Although this might sound broad, what it means in practice is ensuring that we concentrate on developing a complete and whole evaluation culture and system within Bhutan, which at the moment is something that needs to be worked on.

To go even further, Bhutan will need to work harder towards the application of international standards in order to strengthen decision-making, management and accountability. Implementing such standards can be achieved through development reforms.

Effective public financial management (PFM) can only be achieved through better quality accounting and public audit processes.

In Bhutan, we have the Royal Institute of Management (RIM) which provides high-level training in professional development for management and growth in the country. RIM provides formal MBAs, postgraduate certificates and diplomas.

Formed in 2010, Accounting & Auditing Standards Board of Bhutan (AASBB) is involved in spearheading the development of Bhutan Accounting Standards (BAS) and Bhutanese Standards on Auditing (BSA).

ACCA is a body that could provide substantial support to the Bhutan accounting profession. Adopting ACCA public sector programmes for local conditions could provide a path for sustained and improved training. ACCA could explore collaborating with the RIM and AASBB.

When it comes to the subject of corruption, Transparency International’s index of perception of corruption for 2013 placed Bhutan in 31st position among 177 nations and 1st in the South Asia region. For a new democracy, this ranking is impressive.

Our arrangements for audit and legislative accountability has played a key part in allowing Bhutan to rank the highest among South Asian nations when it comes to the perception of corruption.

Bhutan’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) serves to reinforce our democratic culture by reiterating on principles of good governance, accountability, transparency and the public debate.

PAC members are chosen on the basis of their reputation for their integrity. The PAC is seen to add value to the audit reports through scrutiny of government performance. It reviews them, questions witnesses, examines facts and figures, gathers and sifts evidence, makes recommendations and conducts follow-up on their implementation.

These measures play a crucial part in creating a sound system and culture without which would translate to an increasingly difficult road ahead when it comes to continuing the Kingdom of Bhutan’s healthy track record of transparency.

Bhutan has achieved a lot in a little time and the challenge now is to sustain momentum in combating corruption and consolidating democratic culture in the country.

Through the PAC and other Committees, Parliament must go beyond financial scrutiny to assure every programme initiated by the government brings maximum value for money.

David Walker, co editor of Breaking Out, is contributing editor at the Guardian

Public audit is breaking out. Its core task remains independent assurance that precious public money is spent lawfully and effectively. But the ‘in and out’ or ‘injection’ model for audit is no longer enough. Auditors are assuming a wider responsibility, bringing them closer to executive management.

In the different countries of the UK, as with Australia, Canada and emergent Kenya and Jamaica, auditors no longer report and run. Securing value for public spending increasingly demands their sustained presence. They are having to intervene earlier in financial decisions then stay to follow up, checking recommendations have been adopted.

This expanded role results from the crash and – in many countries – enforced austerity in public finance. Parliamentarians demand more assurance that the funds they vote for are buying the services intended. Media and civil society, mistrustful of politicians, turn to auditors as a check-and-fail safe. Permanent secretaries and agency heads enlist auditors to expand executive capacity.

The picture painted by contributors to Breaking Out, ACCA’s new collection of essays from leading public auditors, isn’t uniform. Political circumstances and the autonomy of audit institutions vary. Within the UK, devolution, and in Scotland’s debate about independence, has opened unprecedented vistas for auditor generals to survey wider landscapes, looking at financial viability decades ahead and – sometimes quizzically – at lines of demarcation between local and central government and between adjacent agencies and departments.

John Doyle, the auditor general of the Australian state of Victoria, says auditors must go beyond the traditional sweeper-up role and take a more muscular role, assuming joint responsibility with managers and parliamentarians for improving public sector performance. The view from Canada sees audit as a ‘real time’ contributor to effective spending decisions by civil servants – it should be an extra administrative resource.

Intervene earlier in the processes by which money is allocated to departments, says Amyas Morse, the Westminster parliament’s comptroller and auditor general, and problems can be nipped in the bud. Providing assurance earlier in the life cycle of a project can limit the impact of administrative failures, preventing them from snowballing.

So audit should be peering ‘upstream’ at how decisions are made within government departments and agencies. It must also look ‘downstream’ to how services are delivered. Downstream lie contractors and the increasing proportion of public services that are outsourced to private firms. Auditors are supposed to ‘follow the money’ – Professor Ron Hodges of Birmingham University and ACCA’s head of public sector, Gillian Fawcett, argue: the trail leads to auditors examining the performance of firms such as Serco and G4S. Private sector auditors are responsible for their accounts, but the work they do for the public sector – and what they are paid for it – are matters for public auditors.

But not all auditors welcome the new expansiveness. Marcine Waterman, controller of audit at the Audit Commission – the English government agency that is now being wound up – says auditors are not improvement advisers. They can hold a mirror up to a public body that is not performing, but must intervene sparingly and modestly.

What happens, asks John Muwanga, drawing on his experience as Uganda’s auditor general, when public demand for better services lands on the auditors’ desks. He is worried by the ‘expectation gap’ between what auditors can do and what the public thinks they must do.

And yet public auditors are not going to escape fiscal fate. As long as money is tight – and austerity looks set to last, compounded in the UK and across the European Union by the health and social care pressures of ageing – public and parliaments will demand more value for money. Short of an administrative revolution in which general managers themselves suddenly acquire new financial competence, the services of public auditors are going to be in high and growing demand.

By Gillian Fawcett, head of public sector, ACCA

In the 2013 Budget, George Osborne told parliament that he intended to “introduce a new limit” on Annual Managed Expenditure (AME) that would “bring real control to areas of public spending that had been out of control” yet do so in a way “that allows the automatic stabilisers to operate.”

Therefore, it was no surprise the chancellor used the June 2013 Spending Review to announce reforms to AME and reign in the ‘out of control’ element of public sector spending.

AME currently stands at £350bn (€408.7bn, $533.4bn) and accounts for almost half of the government’s annual expenditure. While the chancellor has made the first tentative steps towards tightening the purse strings on AME, there is still much more to be done to make this part of public finance more accountable.

The measures announced include a cap on certain elements of AME, including tax credits, welfare benefits and a temperature test for the winter fuel allowance of pensioner’s living abroad. The chancellor also announced that he would be expanding the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to monitor AME spending and issue a warning when the government is reaching the agreed limit.

Consequences

While this is a welcome move, he failed to offer further detail on the consequences of this limit being breached.

Given the demand-led nature of AME and the right of every UK citizen and some non UK nationals living in the UK, to claim benefits and a state pension, it seems unlikely that there will be a hard cut off point.

As a result, regular breaches seem likely, much like in other areas of the public sector where targets are routinely missed.

In order to reduce the cost of the UK’s welfare system in the long-term, the chancellor needs to take a structural look at AME expenditure and the drivers behind every expense.

A future focus on investing in preventative services is the best way to achieve long-term savings and this can only come from understanding local demographics and implementing measures to tackle the AME cost drivers in each local authority.

On a more strategic level, there should be greater emphasis on the costs of life, from cradle to the grave in all areas of public spending, which is something the government has struggled with for many years.

Emulating the US and Australia?

The UK would benefit from longer term fiscal strategies, similar to the US and Australia, where fiscal policy is planned out 50-75 years ahead. AME would also benefit from this kind of future planning.

In addition to capping AME, the chancellor could have explored the possibility of devolving some AME spending decisions to government departments or local authorities. They would then be responsible for spending these AME budgets in the way that they feel is most appropriate for their local area – making AME a more accountable part of public expenditure. Currently there is no accountability or scrutiny of AME, despite its high expenditure.

AME was originally introduced to control public expenditure and avoid arbitrarily cutting public services. However, over the years, that purpose appears to have been lost and AME spending has spiralled out of control.

It is encouraging to see that the chancellor is making the moves to manage this unaccountable and expensive section of the public purse. But he may have missed a golden opportunity to once and for all take a radical approach to AME.

Only time will tell if the changes made in the 2013 Spending Review go far enough to amount a long term reform.

This post was first published in International Business Times, July 2013

Gillian Fawcett-8525

By Gillian Fawcett, head of public sector, ACCA

There is a risk that the Chancellor’s Spending Review is seen in isolation, but to appreciate the potential effects of some of the latest austerity measures announced by George Osborne, you have to look back to 2010.

There is a ticking time bomb of public sector cuts that have yet to be implemented from when they were announced early in the Coalition’s life. The full impact of the austerity measures have yet to be felt by households in Britain. However, the cuts of £11.5billion announced in the latest Spending Review for 2015-16, in addition to those from 2010, will be felt with full force when they are eventually implemented. The protection of critical frontline services can no longer be guaranteed. No one knows yet what the impact the cuts will be and yet Chancellor’s scythe keeps slicing away.

There were few surprises when it came to Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL). Though there were some sweeteners in there, such as the welcomed emphasis on capital spending to stimulate growth, in reality that increase in capital spending looks good only on paper. When taken along with the widespread cuts to departments and local government, the extra money is nothing more than shuffling the deckchairs around.

There will come a point where the Government can’t cut the DEL budget anymore and public services will suffer. Frontline services are already at breaking point. ACCA’s current research Developing strategic financial leadership highlights that directors of finance in local government feel confident that they have delivered all that was asked to date, but are less confident about the future and the next 10 years. There is a general lack of a long-term strategy for public services.

Where there were positives in the Chancellor’s review was in the pooling of health and social care budgets for the elderly. This has been a long time coming and will allow greater flexibility and efficiency of service provision.

The Chancellor also took a step in the right direction with the annually managed expenditure (AME) budget, which totals £350 billion, over half of public expenditure. AME has for too long not been actively managed and controlled. The emphasis has been on ‘hands off’ management for too many years. So the cap is a good move but with the caveat that limits and caps are notoriously broken. So perhaps with that in mind, the Chancellor took the safety measure of a wider role and powers for the Office of Budget Responsibility, in particular its trigger of an early warning signal and monitor expenditure.

However, the Chancellor didn’t go far enough and missed further opportunities to take a more structural look at AME and review the drivers behind the budget headings and how they inter-relate. The lack of a long-term strategic review is evident. The cap is a short-term fix. There needs to be a longer term perspective that goes beyond the short-term political cycle.

Other countries, such as the US and Australia, have long-term fiscal strategies that encompass 50 years or more. Here in the UK, we seem wedded to the immediate future. There was no consideration as to whether the AME budgets should be devolved, exploration of the impact new policy initiatives would have on AME, or any focus on what the impact that further joint-working by government departments might have.

There needs to be more emphasis on whole life costing – cradle to the grave, across all public spending, not just AME. Perhaps then we will get a clearer understanding of the true cost of what public expenditure should be, rather than have a demand-led welfare system.

It seemed unusual and illogical to makes cuts in the Treasury where financial leadership is needed most. Managing public expenditure needs more, not less expertise. While setting an example might seem like the right gesture, government needs stronger financial leadership at a time of on-going cuts and greater financial management.

All in all, the Chancellor made some positive movements to getting public expenditure under control, but the potential impact of back-logged cuts from 2010 on top of some of these announcements today, as well as his reluctance to take a radical approach to tackling annual managed expenditure, outweigh those positives.

This was first published in The New Statesman, June 2013

SH  01

By Sarah Hathaway, head of ACCA UK

Trust: over the last year, perhaps even longer, the “T” word seems to have been everywhere, from whether we can trust the food we eat to whether we can trust our financial experts (Libor), our media (Leveson) and even our health services (The Francis Inquiry into the NHS).

The professions have a massive part to play in rebuilding and sustaining trust – that was the main outcome of a timely event I attended a couple of weeks ago, organised by ACCA for Professions for Good. Representing 1.2 million practitioners, Professions for Good is a collaboration of the bodies responsible for the entry policy, professional standards and qualifications across many of the UK’s largest professions – from accountants to lawyers. ACCA is a member, along with The Science Council, ICAEW, The Bar Council, RICS, RIBA, RAE, CMI, CIOT, AAT, CII and CIPD.

This roundtable was Chatham House, so under the Rule I am unable to attribute who said what, but it was a lively debate attended by lawyers, accountants, an MP, a journalist and a self-confessed marketing professional (myself) to look at how we can rebuild trust in the communities and society in which we live and work.

This ACCA roundtable was the final in a series of three such discussions organised for Professions For Good – The ICAEW focussed on Trust and Business, while the AAT conducted theirs about Trust and Professional Careers. Gillian Fawcett, our head of public sector, chaired our event, where we looked at a wide range of questions – from where public distrust stems, to whether there is a greater need to instil ethics through education in professional services.

The evidence is uncomfortable reading: when it comes to trust, an Ipsos MORI Poll in 2011 showed that people trusted doctors to tell the truth more than any other profession, with almost 9 out of 10 of those questioned trusting them. They were followed by teachers, professors, judges, scientists, the clergy and the police. The least trusted in the poll were politicians, with just 14 per cent believing them to tell the truth.

Edelman’s global trust barometer, now in its 13th edition, has also recently revealed that one in five respondents believes a business or governmental leader will actually tell the truth when confronted with a difficult issue. This year’s Barometer demonstrates a serious crisis of confidence in leaders of both business and government.

Aside from these findings, recent public sector scandals such as the Stafford Hospital care failures, Baby P, the phone hacking saga, MPs’ expenses and even the recent “Plebgate” story appearing in the media have all done the professions, government and other public sector bodies no favours in improving trust within the community and society.

A report presented to the Prime Minister in January 2013 from the Committee for Standards in Public Life also highlighted recent unethical – or in some cases possibly criminal – behaviour on the part of the police, the historical behaviour of the armed forces, police and Security Service in Northern Ireland, high profile problems in hospitals and care homes, the BBC, national journalists and banks. The report importantly pointed out that “the factors which influence behaviour in the public sector are likely to be very similar to those which drive high or low standards in other sectors.”

So it appears that no sector – private or public – is immune from the loss of trust; the accountancy profession itself is not immune, but I don’t think as a profession we are complacent about the future. I meet plenty of professional accountants who are working to deliver public value, which for ACCA means acting in the public interest, promoting ethical business and growing the economy. But going back to our Trust roundtable, the outcome and conclusion was all down to three simple words –  the need for accountability, transparency and openness; for me, the accountancy profession is eminently placed to deliver these three seemingly simple – but challenging – things.

And there lies the challenge for all the professions. I’d love to hear from readers what they think the professions should be delivering, and what being a professional means.