Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 5
5
The non-coterminous reporting date of the Academies sector risks undermining comparability and weakening accountability for...
Conclusion
The non-coterminous reporting date of the Academies sector risks undermining comparability and weakening accountability for billions of pounds of public money. The WGA consolidation process faces persistent challenges due to the misalignment of financial reporting periods between academies and central government. Academies operate on a financial year ending 31 August, whereas the government’s year ends on 31 March, creating timing mismatches when incorporating academy accounts into the WGA. HM Treasury has previously noted that aligning the academies’ year end with the government’s would not be feasible, citing disruption to the sector’s operational cycle, costly system changes, and the administrative and audit burden of managing two-year ends, which it argues would not represent value for money. We believe this is a very weak argument and require more detailed assessment of the justifications to be convinced that the current approach remains the most appropriate. We note that unincorporated businesses were encouraged by HMRC to change their reporting dates – at considerable cost to each business. recommendation a. Treasury should outline in the Treasury Minute response the discussions held with the Department for Education to align financial year-end dates for academies. 6 b. Treasury should provide, alongside the Treasury Minute response, their value for money assessment of aligning the Academies sector.
Government Response
Response Pending
HM Government
Response Pending
The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. misalignment of the Academies Sector poses to the WGA consolidation. Prior to the arrangements currently in place from 2016-17, full consolidation of net spending by academies in DfE’s estimates, budgets and accounts was attempted, consistent with the approach for other departments’ arm’s length bodies (ALB). This resulted in repeated qualifications of DfE’s accounts and undermined effective Parliamentary control by creating uncertainty around departmental spending limits. In 2015 a series of meetings between Treasury and DfE were held to discuss the future of reporting for the academies sector and the current approach - including the production of the Academy Sector Annual Report and Accounts (SARA) – was agreed. It was designed to enable effective departmental reporting whilst providing accountability and transparency for the financial position of the academies sector in the absence of net spending being included in Supply Estimates and DfE’s annual report and accounts. Following the Committee hearing, the Treasury commissioned DfE to undertake further analysis of the costs and benefits of alignment. DfE are separately engaging with the NAO about the impact of changes to audit requirements, and in January 2026 the DfE Permanent Secretary wrote to the Chair of the Education Committee outlining the history behind the current reporting regime in place; and the implications of changes to ISA 600 on the audit of the Academies SARA. The letter included a proposal to continue to prepare the SARA, but on an FRS102/SORP basis and with a change to the nature of the audit engagement. Alongside discussions about financial reporting arrangements – including a senior meeting to specifically discuss Academies reporting arrangements in light of the Committee’s recommendations - the Treasury spending team engages regularly with DfE including on Academies expenditure to get assurance of processes and controls in place including the publication of the School Costs Technical Note and annual decisions around how schools budgets should be allocated through the Dedicated Schools Grant. The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. considerations of aligning the academies sector financial year-end with that of central government. An initial assessment indicates that alignment could present operational, financial and audit-related challenges. These include disruption to the link between academies’ financial reporting and the academic cycle, pressures on audit capacity, and potential impacts on the timeliness of DfE’s group accounts and the WGA. There may also be wider system and data implications for academy trusts and the department. DfE’s initial estimate (as of April 2026) is that over five years the cost of aligning the Academies sector could be £231 million, rising to £267 million if an audited sub-consolidation of the academy sector is required. £124 million of these costs would be one-off costs and incurred in year one. Alignment would be consistent with CLoS principles and avoid the need to deviate from the normal parliamentary and spending control framework, but these benefits are harder to quantify. The Treasury will interrogate the estimated costs and benefit s and make a final consideration on VfM of alignment of the sector during the 2027 Spending Review when the audit and reporting landscape is clearer.