Rachel Reeves accused of leaving devolved nations in red after NICs rise
Rachel Reeves has been accused of shortchanging the UK's devolved nations after leaving the Welsh, Scottish and northern Irish governments with multimillion-pound funding gaps.
The chancellor said the Treasury would fully cover the 1.2% rise in national insurance contributions for employers on salaries above £5,000, which came in on 6 April.
However, Reeves has calculated the amount of money needed by using the Barnett formula, which ensures funding increases proportional to England in terms of population.
Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast – which all operate larger public sectors than England – now say they have been left in the red.
The Celtic nations' finance officials have argued the move violates the UK's statement of funding policy, which states each constituent government is not allowed to act in a way that creates adverse financial implications for the others.
The Welsh cabinet secretary for finance, Mark Drakeford, announced last week that the Welsh government would use £36m annually, taken from its reserves, to plug half the gap, but a further £36m would have to be funded by public sector employers, including health boards, all 22 local councils, Natural Resources Wales and Cardiff airport. The funding shortage amounts to cuts across the board of about 14%.
Drakeford said: 'We have made our position very clear with the Treasury that using the Barnett formula in this instance is a breach of the rules. If this was a one-off, we may have been able to use more of our reserves to cover the shortfall, but as it is, this will unfairly impact Wales year after year.'
The bill for Scotland's public services amounts to an estimated £700m, and about £200m in northern Ireland. The Treasury has agreed an additional £339m for Edinburgh and £146m for Belfast.
Scotland's budget is already under significant pressure from the rising cost of devolved welfare benefits, public sector pay settlements, and new policy commitments – including the mitigation of the two-child limit.
Holyrood's finance secretary, Shona Robison, has called repeatedly for the tax increase to be fully funded by the UK government. She said: 'We have been calling for the UK government to abandon its employer national insurance rise, which risks damaging the economy by making it harder for businesses to take on or keep staff.
'Failing that, we have asked that they fully fund this tax increase to ensure Scotland's NHS, councils and other public services don't lose out on vital revenue.
'As such, it is deeply disappointing that the funding falls so far short of the more than £700m bill we estimate public services face. It feels like Scotland is now being punished for having decided to employ more people in the public sector and to invest in key public services.'
The UK government has defended the use of the Barnett formula in calculating public sector national insurance contributions. A spokesperson said the changes were 'in line with agreed funding arrangements and longstanding precedent'.
However, the row has reignited a longstanding debate over whether the Barnett formula – in use since 1978 – is fit for purpose, and whether it should be reformed or scrapped in favour of a universal needs-based approach.
It also adds to growing friction between the Welsh Labour and UK Labour administrations.
Wales has consistently voted Labour for 100 years, and Welsh Labour has controlled the Senedd since its inception in 1999. However, with a year to go before the next Welsh elections, recent polling has suggested the party will trail in third place behind Plaid Cymru and Reform UK, with just 18% of votes, putting the first minister and Welsh Labour leader, Eluned Morgan, under pressure to differentiate her wing of the party from its Westminster counterpart.
Rory Carroll contributed reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves must rethink how tax and spend decisions are made after welfare U-turn
There are many lessons for Labour's bruised leadership from last week's embarrassing U-turn on welfare cuts, but one is surely that how – and when – fiscal policy is set is not working. Binary fiscal rules, a slim margin for error (less than £10bn), and the Office for Budget Responsibility's twice-yearly forecasts, have combined to turn tax and spending decisions into a grim spectator sport. City analysts are constantly second-guessing exactly how Rachel Reeves's hand will be forced next. As the Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, put it last week, before the benefits climbdown, 'having the financial markets marking fiscal policy to market on a daily basis is not a good state of affairs'. The chancellor promised to hold only one budget a year, at which tax changes would be announced: a decision aimed at demonstrating stability and strength. However, the Treasury began signalling during the bond market panic in January that she was prepared to use her spring statement to make spending cuts, if higher interest costs set her on course to break her fiscal rules. Some wise heads argued at the time against the idea of hastily drawing up cuts, tailored to close whatever gap the OBR identified in five years' time – the period over which the rules are assessed. As the former Bank deputy governor Charlie Bean put it: 'I think we want to get away from this idea that we continually have to be neurotically changing taxes and spending to try to control this OBR forecast so that it's hitting our target.' In his understated way, Bailey effectively agreed with that this week, arguing: 'There is a danger in overinterpreting a five-year-ahead forecast.' They are right: one result is hasty policy changes driven by cost-cutting targets (although the Treasury lays part of the blame on the Department for Work and Pensions for, it claims, dragging its heels over the reform package). Another consequence is that the debate over economic policy ends up being reduced to a desiccated row over tax and spend. That is especially depressing, given that the contours of an economic strategy are starting to emerge more clearly, a year into Labour's term. The focus last week was meant to be the 'modern industrial strategy' – a hefty document that set out a new approach to nurturing eight strategic sectors, including clean tech, advanced manufacturing and the creative industries. There was much to praise – a senior figure at one business lobby group joked that they would struggle to know what to campaign on next, as so many of their long-running asks had been met. Unions were gratified at the focus on creating jobs and funding additional training – and the promise of workforce strategies for sectors experiencing skills shortages. The government's pragmatic trade strategy, also published last week, was another victim of the overwhelming focus on the welfare row. All this was lost in the Westminster drama of defending the cobbled-together cuts and then negotiating the concessions that already looked inevitable when Reeves insisted on Monday that there would be 'no U-turn'. Her team now have two unenviable tasks ahead of them. First, they will have to start work on a possible package of tax increases to announce in the autumn. As her aides are keen to point out, she could yet strike lucky: growth could bounce back; inflation could ease more rapidly than expected, freeing the Bank of England to crack on with rate cuts; and gilt yields could slide. Treasury officials will be pushing hard over the summer to try to convince the OBR to take into account the growth-friendly nature of some of the government's policies, perhaps nudging forecasts in the right direction. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion However, the majority of independent experts currently believe it is more likely than not that the OBR will downgrade its expectations of productivity – and therefore growth – setting Reeves on course to breach her fiscal rules, even without the £4bn-plus cost of the policy swerves on winter fuel and disability benefits. Reeves could ditch those fiscal rules, of course – but that would be sticking two fingers up at flighty financial markets. Tweaking the rules to allow herself more leeway seems less unthinkable, given how many times previous chancellors rewrote their own rules – but she would have to proceed with caution. While they deny that they are poring over a menu of potential tax rises (although they surely must be), Reeves's allies privately concede that they are thinking about how to avoid another debilitating annual cycle of fevered speculation about fiscal policy. Here they have a number of options, some of which were set out by the International Monetary Fund in its recent report on the UK economy. One is just to build up a bigger buffer against the fiscal forecasts, of course, to reduce the constant sense of jeopardy – but that would probably require an even bigger tax grab. Another would be to commission only one OBR forecast a year instead of two – dodging the spring iteration that prompted the scramble for welfare cuts. This possibility alarms the Treasury, with its echoes of Liz Truss, who saw the OBR as part of the 'anti-growth coalition' and paid the price in the bond markets. A sensible halfway house might be to continue to commission two forecasts but treat the spring one – given there is no budget alongside it – simply as a useful waymarker, for what the chancellor might have to consider in the autumn. Whatever emerges from this rethink, it must allow Reeves to be more flexible in the face of changing economic circumstances because the framework she so carefully constructed to project strength has instead trapped Labour into decisions that ultimately proved untenable.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Why Labour must take urgent action to restore investor confidence and turbocharge economic growth
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Almost exactly a year on from the Labour party sweeping to power, we are beginning to see how Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves plan to deliver on their ambitions to restore confidence in the UK's economic prospects and turbocharge growth. The spending review and now the industrial strategy have both provided more detail on the government's vision, building on some of the positive moves the government has already made. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad No one would dispute that the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer are operating in an evolving – and often difficult – international context, and that they have acted swiftly and effectively to mitigate emerging challenges. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have been engaging in good faith with business, but the October Budget hit business confidence (Picture: Jacob King) | PA Good work undermined Similarly, the government has begun a process of regulatory reform that could help stimulate business activity and it continues to show a willingness to engage in good faith with industry, including financial services. Plans to reduce energy costs for some industries, albeit on an elongated timescale, will also be welcome. Yet it is fair to say that much of this good work had been undermined by less positive changes elsewhere. Few would dispute that the October Budget knocked business confidence at a time when momentum finally appeared to be returning to the UK economy. Further negative changes later this year may dent confidence still further. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Equally, while the government continues to favour reform, many businesses are growing increasingly frustrated at the pace of change. Above all, there is a sense that the optimism that surrounded the new government's economic prospectus is – a year on – rapidly diminishing. Strong interest in Scotland Following a recent trip to the United States to promote investment in our financial services industry, it is clear there is still strong international interest in what Scotland and the wider UK have to offer. We may have challenges around infrastructure and the general business environment, but Scotland's financial and professional services sector continues to punch well above its weight. The strength of our universities, the depth of our talent base, our record in innovation, our relative political stability and the clarity of our regulatory frameworks are all powerful selling points. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While economic fundamentals matter, so too does sentiment, so it is important that we address some of our weaknesses, otherwise there is a risk of the UK's attractiveness deteriorating in comparison to other locations. The government is making efforts to address some of these challenges and recent announcements offer an opportunity to restore investor confidence. That is one reason why Scottish Financial Enterprise is organising a Global Investment Summit, which will take place in Edinburgh this October. Convened in partnership with the City of London and the Lord Mayor, the summit will bring together major international investors, UK business leaders, politicians and policymakers to help unlock the next wave of growth. Clear government support will send a strong message that financial and professional services remain a key part of the UK's economic future, and that Scotland is central to that. After a year in office, the government's probationary period is now over. The country and economy urgently need momentum – and, with its plan now in place, the government must kickstart it.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Is Keir already lining up his next U-turn? Starmer faces fresh rebellion from Labour MPs over his 'family farm tax'
Sir Keir Starmer has been put on notice of a fresh Labour rebellion over the Government's 'family farm tax'. More than 40 Labour MPs are said to be considering a bid to water down looming changes to agricultural and business inheritance tax relief. It comes after the Prime Minister performed a trio of embarrassing U-turns in recent weeks. Sir Keir has reversed his position on axing the winter fuel payment for millions of pensioners, a national grooming gangs inquiry, and welfare cuts. This has left Labour rebels feeling emboldened that they can force the Government into further policy changes. According to the Telegraph, a group of Labour backbenchers are considering using amendments to legislation to exempt small family farms from a planned tax raid. At last year's Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced farmers will pay a 20 per cent rate of inheritance tax on land and property they inherit worth more than £1million. The Government has insisted the measures - dubbed the 'family farm tax' and set to be in place from April 2026 - will only affect the wealthiest quarter of landowners. But the National Farmers' Union (NFU) and others say the impact of Ms Reeves' measures will be much more widespread. Critics claim the move could wipe out family-run farms with tight margins, as they will be forced to sell up in order to pay death duties. There have been months of demonstrations by farmers in response to the Chancellor's tax raid, including tractor protests in Wesminster. A 'rural growth group' of Labour MPs is now proposing the raising of the £1million cut-off point at which estates lose their tax reliefs. They have suggested estates receive full tax relief on the value of agricultural properties up to £10million, 50 per cent to £20million, and nil thereafter. Sam Rushworth, Labour MP for Bishop Auckland, who is a member of the group, told the newspaper they would 'consider what amendments to put down'. Mr Rushworth said: 'We are all keen to avoid amendments. I don't want it to get to that point. I am a Labour MP and I broadly support the Government. 'I would like to see them bring forward different recommendations in the Bill.' Ex-Cabinet minister Louise Haigh, who was a leading rebel over the Government's now partially-reversed welfare cuts, has called for Sir Keir to 'reset' his relationship with the British public. 'I think this is a moment and an opportunity to reset the Government's relationship with the British public and to move forward, to adopt a different approach to our economic policy and our political strategy,' she told the BBC in the wake of the PM's climbdown on welfare changes. 'And I think that has been accepted from within government and a lot of people, both in the parliamentary Labour Party, but crucially, the country will really welcome that.' The Government's original welfare package had restricted eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which is the main disability payment in England. It also cut the health-related element of Universal Credit. But, after Sir Keir offered concessions to rebel MPs, the changes to PIP will now only be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only. All existing recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will also have their incomes protected in real terms. A Government spokesman said: 'Our reforms to agricultural and business property relief are vital to fix the public services we all rely on. 'Three quarters of estates will continue to pay no inheritance tax at all, while the remaining quarter will pay half the inheritance tax that most people pay, and payments can be spread over 10 years, interest-free. 'We're investing billions of pounds in sustainable food production and nature's recovery, slashing costs for food producers to export to the EU and have appointed former NFU president Baroness Minette Batters to advise on reforms to boost farmers profits.'
