Review of MOD Cash Management, 25 November 2003

REVIEW OF MOD CASH MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS Origin/Author Date : 25 November 2003 Cap Gemini Ernst & Young UK PLC 76 Wardour Street London WIF OUU Phone +44 (0)20 7734 5700 Fax +44 (0)20 7297 3900 Dedassified Reference MODCASH Version 1 - November Poca Derinitions 5. Key Findings 6. Next Steps Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C 20 © Cap Gemini Ernst & Young UK plc 2003 Raference MODCASH Version T - November 2002 The document reports a number of key findings against the terms of reference and oflers some additional relevant findings. The report does not draw conclusions or make recommendations. The study forward. 2. Terms Of Reference The following terms of reference have been referenced: "This review will be set up by the Head of the Government Accountancy Service and will be led independently of the govemment, but with the full involvement of Treasury and MOD officials. It will examine: • the quality and effectiveness of MOD's cash planning, monitoring and control within the Goverment's Resource Accounting and Budgeting framework; and • the division of responsibilities, flow of information and effective financial management between the top level budget holders and MOD centre. It will report initial findings to the Chief Secretary and the Defence Secretary within two weeks, and will be completed by the end of November 2003." 3. Review Conduct This review was undertaken between 28 October and 5' November by from Cap Gemini Ernst & Young. Comments have been received on the first and second draft reports and have been considered in completing this final version. We are grateful to the MOD, which has provided documents for review, and has arranged a number of interviews at short notice to allow us to respond to our terms of reference. The following interviews have been conducted: MOD Centre Trevor Woolley - FD Bruce Mann - DGFM Tom McKane - DGRP Reference: MODCASH Version 1- November 2003 We have also had input and assistance from John Dodds from HMT. John Dodds and We have also reviewed draft findings with Trevor Woolley, lan Woodman, Andrew Likierman, 4. Definitions In the interests of clarity it has proved necessary to define and use some specific terms: • Net Cash Requirement - the actual cash requirement flowing through the bank account, derived from the accruals based accounts and the management of working capital. This represents the required draw down on the Consolidated Fund and is voted as part of the Estimates process. • Near Cash - approximates to RDEL plus CDEL less old AME. totals voted by Parliament. • Net Cash Control - the process of defining, cascading and controlling against net cash • Net Cash Management - the process of ensuring that annual net cash requirements are dentified and covered through the supply Estimate, ensuring that supplementaries an raised as required. • Net Cash Estimating - the process of determining the Net Cash Requirement flowing from the planning round before the start of the financial year. This feeds into the Supply Estimate process; • Net Cash Forecasting - the process of ensuring that immediate (<2 month) and longer term (within a year) cash flow requirements are identified. The short term forecasting impacts the draw down from the Consolidated Fund and the longer term forecasts support the Estimates process: • Near Cash Control - the process of defining, cascading and controlling selected lines within the Operating Cost Statement, plus Capital expenditure against limits set by the Treasury. • CAPITAL systems - these are the commercially available packaged software that MOD uses to produce its financial information. The CAPITAL systems include Accounting Operations systems (which are being systematically upgraded and standardised en Oracle 1li software) and the Short Term Planning system (based on Oracle Financial Analyser Referenca: MODCASH Varsion 1 - November 2003 It is important to note that the RAB budgetary framework (Stage 2) requires control of RDEL and provide the control mechanism for public expenditure. Net Cash Planning MOD at the end of the planning process, as a consequence of other resource based decisions; Near Cash Planning in 03/04 did not look at near cash after the completion of its initial phase; Short Term (1-2 months) Net Cash Forecasting • Short term monitoring and forecasting is effective. Longer Term (2 month to End of Year) Net Cash Forecasting The approaches to longer term monitoring are not well developed and would need further work if Net Cash Control were included as part of the RAB budgetary framework; Net Cash Management - In Year deliver a range of outcomes but which are not designed to enforce Net Cash Control. Net Cash Control - Year End provide basic assurance that the MOD does not overspend the Spring Supplementary Net introduction of RAB. Near Cash Control - In Year Reference MODCASH Varsion 1. - Novaniber 2003 Sources: • The Treasury guidance on Stage 2 RAB is clear that departments only need to budget for and control RDEL and CDEL. • Government Accounting, Section 11.8 Key Finding 1.2: Within the MOD there are different levels of cash (near cash and net cash) management and forecasting. Sources: • Interviews with MOD Centre and 4 TLBs (there are a total of 11 TLBs) • Review of TLB reporting packs (pre AP3 and post AP3) • Written response to our draft report. Net Cash these iterns. flow. This is compounded by the timing of the underlying processes - i.e. the STP and Estimates processes complete prior to the end of the financial year (and certainly before the final balance sheet values are known). This means that there is always going to be a variation between the STP and net cash estimates in the Supply Estimates and the actual opening position at the start of the financial year. Although the MOD had moved to control based on the RAB Stage 2 Control Framework, and the TYM instructions from DGRP/ DGFM made it clear that RDEL and CDEL were the control totals, among the TLBs we visited different internal controls have been implemented. Land Command decided to retain the previous near cash (old DEL) control regime - based on an assumption that the MOD internal ring fencing arrangements for some non cash items would leave no room for flexing between old DEL and old AME in their budget. Others (DLO and DPA) did not see any need to control and manage cash versus old AME, although they have the split entirely maintained the split for TLB internal reporting purposes. Central TLB had moved away from MOD Centre has said that all TLBs, and the MOD Centre, had full visibility of both the accrued cash and non-cash lines in the OCS and carried out full variance analysis against these Roference: MODCASH Version 1 - November 2003 year end net cash position. Sources: • Interviews with MOD centre DGRP and DGFM • Instructions on Control Regime for In Year Management 2003/04 issued 12 May 2003 by 2003. • Net Cash Requirement - End Year Monitoring and Control Instruction dated 17 January That, combined with the introduction of new systems to deliver KAB the MOD's central cash ledger, requirements have been flagged through Supplementary Estimates. Near cash continued to be controlled until the end of 2002/3 under Stage 1 RAB. processes have not had to be used. management is in place. This is of mixed quality and ongoing development continues. Sources: • Interviews • TLB AP Returns • Short Term Cash Management - League table of Departmental Performance • Fleet AP 03 In Year Management Pack. Reference: MODCASH Version 1 - November 2003 were and systems working alongside each other (CLIME, Oracle, Net Cash Requirement Tool, Historic Extrapolation) to manage net cash: • Oracle and CLIME - (CLIME consolidates data from Oracle and other financial systems used in TIBs) provide actual and forecast net cash figures. • The NCR tool provides a further forecasting system using OCS and B/S data from Oracle or other TLB financial systems. It is a mandatory tool for use each month by experience. • Historic extrapolation offers an alternative check on forecasts on the basis of past These tools used together help formulate requests for changes in net cash provision through the Supplementary Estimate process. Although there are differences between the results generated from these tools, due in part to uncertainties in working capital forecasts on a month by month basis, MOD Centre believe that together they provide a sufficiently clear picture for the purpose for which they are used - i.e. forecasting to support the Supply Estimates process. Some TLBs, however, expressed concern over the quality and accuracy of the information generated, others raised concerns over the quality of the inputs, given the TLB's ability to forecast working capital and consumption. These would need to be addressed were there to be a requirement to control net cash. Some TLBs have developed complex and sophisticated approaches to tracking net cash requirements; others have not. Whilst there is a net cash spend profile generated by IPTs for the DPA and this is updated throughout the year, it appears that this planned cash flow information is not used as part of the central net cash management process. The MOD does not have a consolidated commitment accounting ledger (or visibility on purchase orders) and does not have visibility on invoices received (accounts payable) until these have been processed by DBA (this is often well after the accrual should have been recorded). This restricts its ability to assess accruals on a monthly basis and pro-actively to foresee potential cash flow needs and to manage its working capital. However, the AP report, post AP06, does include a section on Committed Expenditure. Reference: MODCASH Varsion 1 - November 2003 Sources: • Interviews • 2003/04 In Year Management: Issue of Revised Control Totals and Amendment to AP06 Model Submission from DPA to TLBs - 14 Ocober 2003 • SR2002 Guidance • E-mail from HMT to dated 20* Feb Summary Chronology: • Although the Treasury's SR2002 guidance does not differentiate between near cash and non cash for control regime purposes, the MOD's Spending Review bid was prepared on a near cash and non cash basis and did, as required, distinguish between Stage 1 RDEL and AME; • In early January 2003MOD input the relevant financial data from the initial phase of STP 03 to the PES database for the Main Estimates process. Figures generated automatically by the PES database showed a decrease innon cash resource of £806m. From February 2003, HMT sought to clarify this amount in correspondence with MOD. The Settlement Letter contained an 'estimate of the cash spending associated with SRO2 plans for presentational purposes and to allow a reconciliation back to previous plans'. • 2nd April John Dodds wrote to MOD increasing its near cash and net cash provision by £200m 'without prejudice'; • After discussions between HMT and MOD, a residual non-cash to near cash sum of £490m remained at issue (versus the initial (806m). As part of this MOD said that they had reduced non cash items through good management and that they wanted to re-deploy this to cash. Eventually it was discovered that £170m of the £806m was due to technical adjustments. The remainder of the reduction from €806m to £490m related to planned write-offs which had not actually been implemented.; In September 2003 MOD advised the Treasury that the residual £490m had increased to £870m, as a result of further non-cash to near cash transfers. These were identified in the later stages of the STP process, which had been finally completed some months before, but after the Main Estimates had been submitted. • 2 weeks later MOD advised that the final sum at issue was £1.15bn. The MOD Centre said that this further change was a result of additional analysis and te-calculation and clarification of the assumed SR02 near cash baseline. Treasury said that at this time the Reerince: MODCASH Varsian 7 - Novembor 2003 ass a change against the original RDEL and CDEL cash close to £1.55bn. Commentary: an in-year forecast or changes. enable them to meet the 2003/04 near cash control total imposed by HMT in September 2003, albeit with significant slippage into 2004/05. - may not impact directly on an immediate cash flow (Net Cash Requirement) eg: • Stock consumption; * Working Capital Movements; • Accruals for assets in the course of construction. • CDEL implications of on balance sheet PFIs. these controls may not be sufficient. would have materialised in net cash terms. Referance MODCASH Varzion t - November 2003 HMT and for the previously agreed non-cash to near cash movements included in the Main Estimate. This requirement will need to be considered in the Spring Supplementary Estimates subject to any forecast changes in the working capital movements over the remainder of the year. It is not clear which (if any) system will prove accurate, although the DGFM suggests that if you look at the scatter of the outputs from the different forecasting tools and take the average then the MOD believe that it will be able to live within the currently agreed net cash requirement as provided through the Main and Winter Supplementary Estimates. TOR: Examine the division of responsibilities, flow of information and effective financial management between the top level budget holders and MoD centre. Division of Responsibility The structure of finance does not align with key processes but the division of responsibility between the DGFM and DGRP is clearly understood on the ground and the teams work effectively together. • There is clear communication between the Centre and the TLBs with clear budgetary delegation and effective control and holding to account. Flow of Information The planning data is held in systems owned by the DGFM but the data and process is owned by DGRP. At the end of the planning process the DGFM converts the STP data into an Estimate and enters the relevant data into the PES database. Planning data is loaded to Accounting Operations Systems and is not updated to reflect in year changes. • Actual financial data is processed through the Accounting Operations systems, which are owned and maintained by DGFM. These are being standardised on Oracle 11i and this is providing greater visibility to the centre. • Summary data for consolidation is input to CLIME and this provides the information available to the centres of each TLB and the Centre of the Department. • The centre has access to financial consolidation data from the CLIME and/or Oracle financial systems, which allows the information to be reported and reviewed in a number of ways. Throughout the year the MOD could have reviewed aggregated data in the financial systems on a near cash basis, although there is no suggestion that this has happened and it was not required under RAB Stage 2 There is a regular monthly and quarterly flow of information from the TLBs to the DGRP. This includes commentary and analysis and there is a quarterly challenge and review Reference MODCASH Version 1 - Novembar 2003 70 Key Finding 2.1: At the start of this year there was direction from the Centre of MOD to TLBs to control RDEL and CDEL and to report back on the impact on net cash. RDEL and CDEL control has been effective. Sources: • Interviews; • AP In Year reporting packs; Management Board Pack; . Finance Organisation Charts Terms of Reference for Finance Roles; Instructions to TLBs. The following diagram shows the key information flows and MOD relationships: Management Marit-ly summary Annual financial raport Board accounta (monity / Monibly balanced quaranty) scorecand Consolidation Reconchlation Facencilation Budget preparation of TLB figures SF0Q / 04 Cash Forscarting ICLIVE/NGR STP Initial & Final STP Statelical basias DGRP Consolidation a DGFM Banking operations Summary for DAS Notification of airementapprovals Estimatoe and PES database Settlements Monthly budget pack Bysium Gonoratod budgets (CLIME): Palcies & Standarde OCS Cash forecasts Mor Vromart apervals Financel the year and YTD; Balarce Sheat Instructions & Quidanoe and STP - Plans & Budgets Systama Guidance STP Plans reporting formats' tOwnad by OGRP but lund jointly by DoRe and DGFM (October update issued by DGRP) The MOD had moved away from stage I to stage 2 RAB in its entirety. Control totals have been cascaded to TLBs on this basis - 12* May letter from D P&A and CFC makes it clear that TLBs are responsible for DEL control total (C and R) not net cash, but Referenco- MOOCACH Version 1 - Novembar 2003 17 "Poretons yalems and oner sources. Full variance reports are submitted to the centre of MOD (DPA) by each of the TLBs each quarter. These reports include a full OCS and B/S, variance analysis (including commentary) against the DEL control totals, and information showing the impact of change on the parliamentary controls. For QI, Q2 and Q3, management meetings are held between the FD and echo th his to hallenges for par ewith equired easis directed on the DEL. There is a significant complexity around the MOD's supply chain, and processes are in place to nanage centrally asset movements/changes and late equipment deliveries from the Defenc Procurement Agency. Virements between TLBs are also managed and signed off centrally and controlled outside of the Accounting Operations systems. This process is well understood. he MOD has been focused on reducing certain parts of its asset base (stock holding an apital assets) in order to reduce the capital charee and depreciation chareed against RDE However, there are some areas where control could be improved - e.g. one of the systems that manages stock consumption and returns does not yet fully support the accounting for these items; the accounting framework introduced under RAB for stock is complex requiring accounting. achieved during 2003/04) Significant leaming is still required across much of the MOD and HMT as it gets to grips with full resource accounting (this is being addressed). AL Version 1 - Novembar zone DOUCES. • Documentation on PSCE from Liz Passman • Interviews The Treasury controls PSCE in order to help manage public spending and thereby monitor adherence to the fiscal rules. PSCE is a national accounts concept using internationally accepted definitions (as defined in EAS95). by Government Accounting requirements may not have been present in MOD Estimates. and HMT). therefore, assume that this will solve the PSCE problem, as there are significant timing differences e.g. around the capital programme and the treatment of stock consumption. Key Finding 3.2: Treasury and MOD understand the specific requirements of the Resource Accounting and Budgeting Control framework. However, the interaction between RAB and other control regimes is unclear. Since Spring 2003, Treasury in correspondence to the MOD has sought to clarify that cash management remains important and has raised issues relating to both near cash and net cash management. Sources: • HM Treasury Secure Intranet Site • Blue Book • Government Accounting • SR 02 Guidelines • HMT Internet Site on RAB • 2 April letter from John Dodds to Bruce Mann Remerca MODCASH 13 Version T - November 2003 that in year control is provided through DEL limits set by Treasury. Other publications state resources and net cash so that they do not exceed amounts voted by parliament. For the past 2 years under Stage 1 RAB, the MOD has been controlled by Treasury on a near cash basis (old RDEL) which provided the required fiscal control. With the move to Stage 2 RAB and the removal of near cash (old RDEL) from the control regime, there needed to be a stronger direct focus on net cash to provide the necessary fiscal control. alien be i did on is to rein cut an on no a t. near cash requirement derived by Treasury, is included within the supplementary budget information to the Supply Estimates. These were to allow reconciliation back to previous plans and for use in presentations but were not themselves part of the RAB control regime. Therefore, at the start of 2003/4, MOD were of the belief that there was no requirement for them to implement a formal cash control (near cash or net cash) regime. While Phase 1 of STP03 was conducted on a Stage 2 RAB basis, old AME (i.e. non-cash) was still broken out separately at that stage. Key Finding 3.3: There is no End Year Flexibility for net cash as EYF is a budgetary consumed in year, the lack of EYF on cash potentially removes the ability to pay. The absence of end-year flexibility for net cash suggests thatnet cash has not been regarded by the Treasury as part of the RAB Budgetary Control Framework. Over the past 2 years the MOD has underspent by fibn net cash (estimates plus activities under RAB, the Parliamentary regime maintains annual net cash spend as part of its key controls. For the MOD however, there are legitimate causes of major short term timing AL Referancal MODCASH Varsion 1- Moverder area 14 Key Finding 3.4: There are a number of factors that have been offered to support the shift from non-cash to near cash. The following are believed to have a material contribution, although at present only around 1/3 of the overall shift has been definitively identified: internally ring fenced within TLBs, the MOD centre re-allocated the non cash savings to near cash headings within the overall RDEL total. There was a change to some of the asset lives spreading depreciation over a longer period. This had the effect of reducing depreciation and increasing the capital charge, however, the net effect was to release non cash to be spent on near cash items. This is one of the behaviours that the RAB control framework allows and encourages. Indeed the strategic defence review made assumptions about the MODs underlying asset base shrinking, thereby releasing funds to be re-invested to deliver the strategy. • The timing of the MOD planning process is not ideal for supporting the Estimates, which means that opening balance sheet values impacting net cash requirements are not known at the planning stage and this impacts the Estimate figures. • Costs associated with slippage of the Equipment Plan are managed centrally through the ring-fencing provisions. Any slippage can reduce the depreciation charge significantly allowing non cash savings to be used for near cash expenditure. Other factors considered but not regarded as material: • The opening cash balance was different to plan. This is not an issue because the MOD does not carry large cash balances and therefore does not carry forward cash. The MOD planning systems do not directly provide a net cash requirement figurethis is generated by the Estimates team as a consequence of resource plans. • The treatment of stock used for Iraq meant that consumption happened over the year- end (charged to 2002/3 accounts) with replacement and payment in 2003/4. This was compounded by both the re-credit of stocks not used and the revaluation of stocks to Reference: MODCASH Varsion 1 - Novembar 2003 15 6. Next Steps The following issues / questions have been raised both in the presentation of this draft report and with the MOD. We have now received the following responses from MOD: • Last year's STP planning sought additional non cash RDEL coverage. As MOD were looking at the plan in terms of near cash and non cash at that time, why did they not also identify and flag issues with funding on the cash side too? Response: During STP03, a net reduction in the requirement for provision for non-cash items emerged STP03 was conducted on a Stage 2 RAB basis (i.e. RDEL and CDEL) but for scrutiny purposes, TL.Bs phase 1 submissions showed non-cash costs within total RDEL. In Dec 2002, tracked separately. The remainder of the STP03 planning process was performed on a RDEL and CDEL basis only. STP / EP 03 were concluded in late Feb03. Main Estimates were cash consequences, in February 03 was an increase in the asset values, requiring additional funding of non-cash RDEL. Did these increases materialise and was additional RDEL funding provided for these despite the net overall asset value reduction? Response: The initial stages of the QQR in late 2002 indicated an increase in valuations, which would have valuations upwards were more than offset by revaluations downward. In 2003/03 93 Rha of fixed asset impairments was charged to the OCS. In addition, extensions to asset lives further reduced non-cash requirements. These changes were reflected in the STP03 process iL Raference MODGASH Vorsion y - Novernher P02J • Ascertain from where the data in GEMS is sourced for the MOD submissions equates to the Main Estimate figure derived from the STP process. GEMS. Other suggested actions flowing from this draft report, or suggested in discussion of this draft report but outside of the Terms of Reference, are: • An analysis of the detailed causes breakdown of the £1.15bn against the contributory factors shown in this report; • An analysis of the reasons for previous years' net cash "underspend" and the impact on 03/04 if any; • A review of the expected and currently forecast net cash and near cash outturn for MOD and identification of the financial impact on PSCE; • A review of the control regime to confirm: whether net cash or near cash should be used as a surrogate for PSCE; whether net cash, near cash or something else should be used to provide Treasury with comfort that PSCE can be controlled; • A review of the control regime applied to MOD for the remainder of this year to allow Treasury and MOD priorities to be met. • Rapid introduction of working capital and net cash control and management guidance processes for MOD - subject to clarification on the Treasury controls above. Reference: MOOCASH 17 Version 1 - Novembor 2003 Prevention Variances Actuals Forecast AP01 With AP03 No No Actuals & FOO APO2 With AP03 No Actunis & FOO No АРОЗ Yes Quarterty! Yes Actuals & FOO Yos 31-Ju-03 APO4 Monthly Yes Yes Actuals & FOO No 26-Aug-03 Yes AP05 Yes Monthly Actuals & FOO No 23-Sep-03 Quarterty Yes APOS Yes Actuals & FOO Yes 23-0ct-03 AP07 Yes Yes Monthly Actuals & FOO 25-Nov-03 Update АРОВ Yes Yes Monthly Actuals & FOO Update 05-Jan-04 AP09 Yes Quarterly Actuals & FOO Yes Yes 28-Jan-04 Monthly Ap10 Yes Yes Actuals & FOO No 24-Feb-04 Yes Ap11 Monthly Yes Actuals & FOO No 23-Mar-04 Ap12 Yes Monthly Yes Actuals & FOO No 27-Apr-04 Ap13 Monthly Yes Yes Actuais & FOO No 26-May-04 "Extrac from 'Control Regime for TYM 2003/04' isued jointly try DGRP/ DGFM on 12.05 cg Reference. MODCASH Version 1 - November 2003 see caste corner fold win concenary ino management acions taken / lobe taken Risk / range assessment Part 2 Actuals YTD vs Budget with commentary inc management actions taken OOS Actuals Full Year Forecastvs Control Total with commentary ino management acions taken / lobe taken Part 3 CDEL YTD vs Budget with commentary inc management scions taken CDEL! CDEL Full Year Forecastvs Control Total with commentary inc management actons taken / libe taken Risk / rango assessment Part 4 AP opening & closing balance inc. movement: AP closing balance sEnd Year Forocast BIS Intongible & Tangibla FA:Current Assots; Creditors «tyr; Long term Liabiltias (with breakdowns) YTD commentary ine management actions taken Ful Year commentary inc management actions taken / to be taken Part 5 Net Cash Requirement YTD vs Budget with commentary Part, Control Tolals Net Cash Requirement Full Year va Control Total with commentary Other (Net Resources, Rasource & Non Op A-I-A) YTD vs Budget with commentary Other (Net Resouroes, Resource & Non Op A--A) Full Yoar vsBudget with commentary Part 6 AME YTD vs Budget with commentary ine maragement action taken AME' AME Full Year with commentary ine management action to be taken Risk / range assessmont Part 7 Amt, cost calegory, event / narrative, stakehoklers Ring fencod AME Part 8 RDEL/ COEL Transfers Transfers Exporting / importing TLB, detail, value in, value out Part 9 Major receipts (>E1mn) actual and forecast Hem, anticipated / actual timing, amount Receipts • lasod on 'Cartrol Regimo for In-Year Managament 2003/04' (issued 12.05.03) Where approarate suetions roguis arelandon of ane vart obstenan data o5 reported and CLIME Rolaranco: MODCASH Vaccion 1= Novembar 2003 ВТОРИВЕНЬ Stock Consumption Full Yearys Control Total inc prior AP comparative and remarka YTD commentary ino manegement actions taken Ful Year commentary ine managoment actions taken / lo bo taken Risk / range assessment Part 1b RDEL Indirect YTD vs Budget inc prior AP comparative and remarks RDEL Directl RDEL Indirect Full Year vs Control Total inc prior AP comparative and remarka YTD commentary inc management actions taken Full Year commentary inc management actions taken / to be taken Füsk / range assessment Ring fenced ibers Part 2 Actuals YTD ve Budget with commentary OCS Actuals Full Year Forecasts Control Total with commantary inc (OCS breakdown includes subtotals for RDEL Direct, Slock Consumption, RDEL Indrect, AME and Othon Part 3 CDEL YTD vs Budget ine prior AP comparative and remarks CDEL' CDEL Full Year vs Control Total inc prior AP comparative and remarks YTD commentary inc management actions taken Ful Year commentary ine management actions taken / to be takon Risk / range assessment Part 4 AP opening & closing balance inc. movement; AP closing balance sEnd Year Forecast DIS Intangible 6 Tangible FA Current Assets; Creditors < tyr; Long ferm Liabilitina (with breakdowns) YTD commentary ind management actions taken Full Year commentary inc management actions taken / to be taken Part 6 Treasury Controls - RDEL, CDEL, AME Other Monthly Contro Parlamentary Total Summar - Net Resources, Net Cash Fequirament, Rasource & Non Op A-i-A YTO Actual vs Budget, Full Year vs Budget Part & Not Cash Requirement - YTD commentary Parliamentary Net Cash Requirement - Full Year commentary Control Totals Resource & Non Op A-i-A - Commentary Refnerice: MODCASH Version 7 - November 2003 Expenditura Section 2 Agreed Responsibility Transfers - Summary Section 3 Major Receipts by Month - Actual and Forecast Section 4 Quality Assurance & IYM Issues Log Section 5 Agreed Responsiblity Transfers- Detail • Basod on 2003/04 In-year management less of revied control iotals and amendmert to APOS modal submission' (issued 14. 1003) and actuaDLO aubmission for AP08 reporiod and CLIME Whare appropriale, sectiona require axplanation of any varancesbolveen dala aa AL Reference: MODCASH Varion t - November 2008