I need to better understand the concept of negative expenditure in UK public spending. The definition says
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, income from insurance payments, guarantee fees and income from rent of buildings (but not land).
More on page 11 of this paper.
For example in the 2015 UK Budget's Total Managed Expenditure is £765bn, where the HM Treasury spending is -£43bn, because HM Treasury earned more than it spent in that period, and the sum of all other departments is 765+43=£808bn. My question is, what do we say is the "size" of the government budget? The government physically spent more than 765, they just did not financed all of it from tax revenue, that is all.
The problem becomes much more exposed if we look at one of the state agencies the Agriculture & Horticulture Development Board. It receives only £1.2M from the government budget but then it "earns" another £57.4M from Levies that enters the budget on the spending side as -57.4 and the total expenditures I see are over £66.3M. But in their annual report they reffer to it as
The total 2014/15 income was £66.746
Apparently Total Income and Total Managed Expenditure are two very different things. What we say is the "size" of the budget? If we nett off the negative expenditures then the budget of this agency is only £1.2M but that is misleading, isn't it? What is the correct terminology?