The latest meeting of the Independent R&B Discussion Group, chaired by Malcolm Gardner, convened to discuss the recent Spending Review and its implications across government departments, local authorities, and welfare provision. The session included detailed contributions from a range of experts: Paul Howarth, Gareth Morgan, Alex Clegg, Rachael Walker, Sean O’Sullivan, Robert Fox, and Bob Wagstaff.
Paul Howarth opened the main discussion with an overview of the Spending Review, explaining its technical nature as the allocation of departmental running costs and capital budgets. He clarified that while overall departmental spending would grow by 2.3% annually, this disguises disparities between departments. Health emerged as the clear winner with 2.8% growth, while education and justice also secured relatively strong settlements. Conversely, departments such as the Home Office, Transport, and Agriculture faced tighter budgets, with Whitehall administrative budgets subjected to stringent efficiency targets. Defence saw the most significant capital spending increase, reaching 2.5% of GDP by 2027/28.
Local government funding was a key focus. Howarth noted that core spending power for local authorities is set to rise by 2.6% annually, but this is predicated on councils applying the maximum permitted council tax increase of 5% each year. The Spending Review confirmed the transition of the Household Support Fund into a new three-year Crisis and Resilience Fund, maintaining funding at £1 billion per year, though concerns were raised that this incorporates existing Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs), potentially representing a net cut.
Alex Clegg expanded on this point, suggesting that the Crisis and Resilience Fund largely replicates the current Household Support Fund arrangements, with limited reform beyond rebranding. He emphasised that the government faced a strategic choice between prioritising health or distributing resources more evenly and had opted for a middle ground.
Gareth Morgan highlighted ongoing issues around adult social care, stressing the lack of progress on reform despite decades of debate. He also pointed to emerging tensions within the Barnett Formula, particularly regarding the devolved administrations’ compensations for public sector employment costs.
Rachael Walker welcomed the greater certainty provided by the multi-year funding settlement, expressing hope that this would allow local authorities to develop more mature and targeted support schemes. However, she cautioned that many Household Support Fund schemes to date had been rushed and lacked detailed demographic analysis, often defaulting to broad voucher-based distributions.
Sean O’Sullivan strongly supported the consolidation of various hardship funds into a single scheme, arguing that fragmentation had historically benefited only those adept at navigating complex systems. He warned, however, that effective coordination across local authority departments remained challenging, even within unitary structures.
Robert Fox provided a contrasting experience, observing that some authorities had devolved Household Support Fund administration to parish and town councils to better target local needs. He reiterated that the most vulnerable often fail to seek help, complicating effective delivery.
Further discussion addressed council tax pressures. Both Bob Wagstaff and Sean O’Sullivan criticised council tax support schemes that demand unaffordable contributions from those on Universal Credit, exacerbating hardship and undermining collection rates. Bob argued that the entire council tax system, originally a temporary post-1990 solution, is now overdue for fundamental reform.
The group also touched on emerging technological initiatives, including the proposed government digital identity wallet and national data library. Malcolm Gardner noted that these developments risk creating back-door national ID systems, while Gareth Morgan questioned the feasibility, cost, and human rights implications of such projects.
Finally, Paul Howarth and Malcolm Gardner expressed scepticism over government projections on reducing tax evasion through expanded compliance efforts, noting that similar targets have repeatedly failed to materialise.
The session concluded with thanks to all participants, and a reminder that the group will reconvene after the conference season.
The Independent Revenues & Benefits Discussion Group continues to provide a vital forum for expert analysis, shared learning, and open debate at a time of significant policy flux.
For more information or to join future sessions, contact Malcolm Gardner at Visionary Network. info@visionarynetwork.co.uk
The recording can be found at Recording Link
files to download
Please note that the handout contains additional slides covering other items of interest in the news and job adverts, which are provided in partnership with Business Smart Solutions (https://www.businesssmartsolutions.co.uk/).