“Fiscal headroom”. It is a desperately boring term, meaningless to many. Yet this bit of economic jargon may well have the power to swing the next election.
It is thanks to fiscal headroom that the chancellor may be able to splurge on billions of pounds of tax cuts in the coming months, hoping to lift the Conservatives’ sagging polls. It is on the basis of “fiscal headroom” that Sir Keir Starmer will decide whether he can go ahead with his much-vaunted plans to invest untold amounts in Britain’s energy sector.
All of which raises a rather important question – what is fiscal headroom anyway?
Happily, the explanation is quite simple. When politicians talk about fiscal headroom they are mostly talking about something quite specific; the room they have to spend money before they break their fiscal rules.
Ever since Gordon Brown, successive chancellors have imposed rules to discipline their borrowing. These rules have changed over time – mostly when the chancellor of the day realised he was about to break them. Today’s chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, has a few such rules but the most important one – the one he and pretty much everyone pays most attention to – is the rule about the national debt.
This rule states that he has to show that he is bringing down Britain’s net debt (in other words, the amount the state owes) as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) within five years.
There is plenty of logic in trying to keep the national debt under control. While there’s no hard and fast rule about precisely what level of debt is “safe” or not, there are many episodes throughout history of countries getting into big economic trouble when they allow their national debt to rise too high (since it often means higher debt interest payments, which can spiral out of control).
The fiscal equivalent of St Augustine’s prayer
But it’s also worth pointing out at this point that this rule is actually a lot less strict than it might at first sound. It’s not saying “bring the debt down immediately”. It’s saying “you can absolutely increase the national debt if you want to, provided it looks like it’s on the way down five years from now”. It is the fiscal equivalent of St Augustine’s prayer: “Lord, make me good. But not yet.”
Advertisement
And the current government plans aim to do precisely that. The figures in last November’s autumn statement show that its preferred measure of the national debt (there are many – don’t ask) actually rises in the coming years, from 90.2% of GDP in 2023/24 up to 95% of GDP by 2026/27.
Only in the following years does it start to fall, quite gradually, to 94.9% of GDP in 2027/28 and then to 94.4% of GDP in 2028/29. And, since it’s falling, the debt rule is met. Hurrah!
If at this point you’re still following, you’ve probably noticed a few things.
First, these supposedly strict fiscal rules aren’t actually stopping the national debt from rising. It’ll be considerably higher in five years’ time than it is today.
Second, the rate at which the debt is falling towards the end of this decade is actually quite slow.
Third, we seem to be fixating quite a lot on a couple of years (the difference between 2027/28 and 2028/29) which are a long way away, way beyond the government’s current spending plans.
And you’re right on all three. But no matter, because if all you care about is fiscal headroom, all that matters is the difference between those two figures, 94.9% of GDP and 94.4% of GDP. And that difference works out, in actual money, at about £13bn.
A made-up rule
Now, I could have easily skipped the preceding paragraphs and begun this article with this fact. Headroom equals £13bn. That, after all, is what most of Westminster does.
But every so often context can come in useful, and in this case the context underlines something important. Namely, that headroom is not an immutable law of economics. It is the product of a self-imposed rule. It is, to put it more bluntly, made up.
But this made-up number has an enormous bearing on economic policy right now. Since both the Conservatives and Labour have adopted the same fiscal rule, they also find themselves having to bend their knee to the god of headroom.
Jeremy Hunt says he won’t spend any more than the headroom he has at the next budget. Which, to translate, means he’ll probably spend nearly all the billions of headroom he has. Rachel Reeves says while she would like to invest £28bn on green energy technology projects, she won’t do it if it breaks the fiscal rules.
So the questions of how many tax cuts the chancellor offers this year and how much Labour will invest in the energy transition both hang on this made-up number. Indeed, the two things are related, since if Mr Hunt splurges a lot in the coming months, there’s no headroom left for Ms Reeves if she gets into office.
One of the single most important numbers in politics
Some would say this is all a bit silly. And they might just have a point. But since both main parties have agreed to respect this concept of headroom, it is among the single most important numbers in politics right now.
Yet here’s the other thing. What looks like a monolithic number is actually changing all the time. Since “fiscal headroom” is actually the difference between two other big numbers (the national debt four years hence, minus the national debt five years hence) which change quite a lot when the economy gets bigger or smaller or taxes come in faster than expected, it has a tendency to yo-yo around from one year to the next.
Consider this – last March, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was saying the amount of headroom was a mere £6bn. Not much, in other words.
But then, at the autumn statement, we learned that the public finances turned out to be in a better state than expected. That, plus the fact that there was an extra year until the deadline, increased the potential headroom by nearly £25bn in one fell swoop. So what looked like £6bn in headroom actually turned out to be £31bn of headroom.
All of which is why the chancellor was able to splurge £18bn in November (on those National Insurance cuts) and to leave us still with a supposed £13bn headroom this time around.
And something similar is likely to happen again when we get to March’s spring budget. The public finances are looking a bit healthier than expected. This morning’s public finance figures showed the deficit and debt interest payments were both lower than anticipated.
The upshot is that most economists think that £13bn of headroom could actually be anywhere up to £23bn. So there’s more money for the chancellor to spend, should he see fit.
It’s possible that at this point your head is spinning. Perhaps you’re wondering why on earth Westminster is tying itself in knots to stay true to a fiscal rule which was only made up a few years ago. Perhaps you’re wondering why the future of this economy hangs not on the question of the smartest long-term policy but on the difference between a few decimal places on a spreadsheet produced by the OBR.
These are all good questions. But mentioning them in Whitehall these days is tantamount to blasphemy. Trust, instead, in the creed of fiscal headroom. Everyone else is.
Sir Tom Scholar, the former top Treasury civil servant sacked by Liz Truss during her premiership, is being lined up as the next chairman of Santander UK, Britain’s fifth-biggest high street bank.
Sky News has learnt that Sir Tom, who played a pivotal role in the UK’s response to the 2008 financial crisis, is the leading candidate to replace William Vereker.
The appointment, which is subject to regulatory approval, could be announced later in the spring, according to insiders.
Sir Tom’s prospective recruitment comes amid a period of intense speculation about the future of Santander UK, which bulked up rapidly during the banking crisis by absorbing Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley.
The Spanish banking giant entered the British retail market in 2004 when it bought Abbey National, setting in motion a chain of dealmaking which would result in it becoming a serious challenger to Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and NatWest Group.
If confirmed in the role, Sir Tom will follow a pattern of former senior public officials in taking on the chairmanship of Santander UK.
The post has been held in the past by Baroness Vadera, a Treasury minister during the 2008 meltdown, and Lord Burns, the former Treasury permanent secretary.
Sir Tom also held that latter role until his ousting during the shortlived Truss government, which led to him receiving a payoff of more than £350,000.
In addition to his position during the banking crisis, he was instrumental in devising the COVID-19 furlough scheme, which protected millions of private sector jobs during the series of lockdowns imposed on the British public.
He was widely respected among international banking regulators and finance ministers, and his sacking by Ms Truss sparked fury among senior civil servants.
Since leaving the Treasury, he has been appointed as chair of the European operations of Nomura, the Japanese bank.
At Santander UK, he will work closely with Mike Regnier, the former building society boss who has been its chief executive since 2022.
In recent months, there has been growing speculation that Santander UK’s parent is open to a sale of the business amid frustration about the scope and burden of British banking regulation.
Both Barclays and NatWest have been sounded out about a potential merger of their UK retail businesses with that of Santander UK, although formal talks have not progressed to a meaningful stage.
Ana Botin, Santander’s group executive chair, has appeared to publicly rule out a disposal, saying that the UK remains a “core market” for the group.
An attractively priced offer could yet gain Ms Botin’s attention, according to people close to the earlier talks.
One insider said, however, that Sir Tom’s recruitment was likely to dampen further speculation about a possible sale of the British business.
Shares in the Madrid-listed parent company, Banco Santander, have performed strongly in recent months, but fell by more than 8% on Friday as investors digested the fallout from President Donald Trump’s global tariffs blitz.
The company now has a market capitalisation of about €83.25bn (£70.7bn).
City sources said the search for Mr Vereker’s successor had been led by Heidrick & Struggles, the headhunter, in conjunction with Baroness Morgan, the former cabinet minister who sits on Santander UK’s board as its senior independent director.
This weekend, Santander UK said in a statement issued to Sky News: “Santander UK is conducting a thorough appointment process.
“The new chair will be announced once that process has concluded, including having obtained board and regulatory approval.”
The cost of having staff is going up this Sunday as the increase in employers’ national insurance kicks in.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in the October budget employers will have to pay a 15% rate of national insurance contributions (NIC) on their employees from 6 April – up from 13.8%.
She also lowered the threshold at which employers pay NIC from £9,100 a year to £5,000 a year, meaning they start paying at an earlier point on staff salaries.
This is on top of the national minimum wage rising, the business relief rate for hospitality, retail and leisure reducing from 75% to 40% and the rising cost of ingredients and services.
Sky News spoke to people working in some of the industries that will be hardest hit by the rise in NIC: Nurseries, hospitality, retail, small businesses and care.
NURSERIES
Nearly all (96% of 728) nurseries surveyed by the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) said they will have no choice but to put up fees because of the NIC rise, leaving parents to pick up the shortfall.
More on Cost Of Living
Related Topics:
The NDNA has warned nurseries could close due to the rise, with 14% saying their business is at risk, 69% reducing spending on resources and 39% considering offering fewer places with government-funded hours as 92% said they do not cover their costs.
Sarah has two children, with her youngest starting later this month, but they were just informed fees will now be £92 a day – compared with £59 at the same nursery when her eldest started five years ago.
“I’m not sure how we will afford this. Our salaries haven’t increased by 50% during this time,” she said.
“We’re stuck as there aren’t enough nursery spaces in our area, so we will have to struggle.”
Karen Richards, director of the Wolds Childcare group in Nottinghamshire, has started a petition to get the government to exempt private nurseries – the majority of providers – from the NIC changes as she said it is unfair nurseries in schools do not have to pay the NIC.
She told Sky News she will have to find about £183,000 next year to cover the increase across her five nurseries and reducing staff numbers is “not off the table” but it is more likely they will reduce the number of children they have.
Image: Joeli Brearley, founder of Pregnant Then Screwed, said parents are yet again having to pay the price for the government’s actions. Pic: Pregnant Then Screwed
Joeli Brearley, founder of the Pregnant Then Screwed campaign group, told Sky News: “Parents are already drowning in childcare costs, and now, thanks to the national insurance hike, nurseries are passing even more fees on to families who simply can’t afford it.
“It’s the same story every time – parents pay the price while the government looks the other way. How exactly are we meant to ‘boost the economy’ when we can’t even afford to go to work?”
Purnima Tanuku, executive chair of the NDNA, said staffing costs make up about 75% of nurseries’ costs and they will have to find £2,600 more per employee to pay for the NIC rise – £47,000 for an average nursery.
“The government says it wants to offer ‘cheaper childcare’ for parents on the one hand but then with the other expects nurseries to absorb the costs of National Insurance Contributions themselves,” she told Sky News.
“High-quality early education and care gives children the best start in life and enables parents to work. The government must invest in this vital infrastructure to make sure nurseries can continue to deliver this social and economic good.”
HOSPITALITY
The hospitality industry has warned of closures, price rises, lack of growth and shorter opening hours.
Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, a small southwest England restaurant and country pub/hotel group, said the economic situation now is “much worse” than during COVID.
The group has put plans for two more projects on hold and Mr Brod said the only option is to put up prices, but with the rising supplier costs, wages, business rates and NIC hike they will “stay still” financially.
Image: Dan Brod, co-owner of The Beckford Group, said the government does not value hospitality as an industry. Pic: The Beckford Group
He told Sky News: “What we’re nervous about is we’re still in the cost of living crisis and even though our places are in very wealthy areas of the country, Wiltshire, Somerset and Bath, people are feeling the situation in their pockets, people are going out less.”
Mr Brod said they are not getting rid of any staff as their business strongly depends on the quality of their hospitality so they are having to make savings elsewhere.
“I’m still optimistic, I still feel that humans need hospitality but we’re not valued as an industry and the social benefit is never taken into account by government.”
Image: Chef/owner Aktar Islam, who runs Opheem in Birmingham, said the rise will cost him up to £120,000 more this year. Pic: Opheem
Aktar Islam, owner/chef at two Michelin-starred Opheem in Birmingham, said the NIC rise will cost him up to £120,000 more in staff costs a year and to maintain the financial position he is in now they would have to make “another million pounds”.
He got emails from eight suppliers on Thursday saying they were raising their costs, and said he will have to raise prices but is concerned about the impact on diners.
The restaurateur hires four commis chefs to train each year but will not be able to this year, or the next few.
“It’s very short-sighted of the government, you’re not going to grow the economy by taxing hospitality out of existence, these sort of businesses are the lifeblood of our economy,” he said.
“They think if a hospitality business closes another will open but people know it’s tough, why would they want to do that? It’s not going to happen.”
The chef sent hundreds of his “at home” kits to fellow chefs this week for their staff as an acknowledgement of how much of a “s*** show” the situation is – “a little hug from us”.
RETAIL
Some of the UK’s biggest retailers, including Tesco, Boots, Marks & Spencer and Next, wrote to Rachel Reeves after the budget to say the NIC hike would lead to higher consumer prices, smaller pay rises, job cuts and store closures.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC), representing more than 200 major retailers and brands, said the costs are so significant neither small or large retailers will be able to absorb them.
Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, told the Treasury committee in November that job losses due to the NIC changes were likely to be higher than the 50,000 forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
Image: Big retailers have warned the NIC rise will lead to higher prices, job cuts and store closures. File pic: PA
Nick Stowe, chief executive of Monsoon and Accessorize, said retailers had the choice of protecting staff numbers or cancelling investment plans.
He said they were trying to protect staff numbers and would be increasing prices but they would likely have to halt plans to increase store numbers.
Helen Dickinson, head of the BRC, told Sky News the national living wage rise and NIC increase will cost businesses £5bn, adding more than 10% to the cost of hiring someone in an entry-level role.
A further tax on packaging coming in October means retailers will face £7bn in extra costs this year, she said.
“This huge cost burden will undoubtedly reduce investment in stores and jobs and is likely to lead to higher prices,” she added.
SMALL BUSINESSES
A massive 85% of 1,400 small business owners surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in March reported rising costs compared with the same time last year, with 47% citing tax as the main barrier to growth – the highest level in more than a decade.
Just 8% of those businesses saw an increase in staff numbers over the last quarter, while 21% had to reduce their workforce.
Kate Rumsey, whose family has run Rumsey’s Chocolates in Wendover, Buckinghamshire and Thame, Oxfordshire, for 21 years, said the NIC rise, minimum wage increase and business relief rate reduction will push her staff costs up by 15 to 17% – £70,000 to £80,000 annually.
To offset those costs, she has had to reduce opening hours, including closing on Sundays and bank holidays in one shop for the first time ever, make one person redundant, not replace short-term staff and introduce a hiring freeze.
The soaring price of cocoa has added to her woes and she has had to increase prices by about 10% and will raise them further.
Image: Kate Rumsey, who runs Rumsey’s Chocolates in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, said they are being forced to take a short-term view to survive. Pic: Rumsey’s Chocolates
She told Sky News: “We’re very much taking more of a short-term view at the moment, it’s so seasonal in this business so I said to the team we’ll just get through Q1 then re-evaluate.
“I feel this is a bit about the survival of the fittest and many businesses won’t survive.”
Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the FSB, said the NIC rise “holds back growth” and has seen small business confidence drop to its lowest point since the first year of the pandemic.
With the “highest tax burden for 70 years”, she called on the chancellor to introduce a “raft of pro-small business measures” in the autumn budget so it can deliver on its pledge for growth.
She reminded employers they can claim the Employment Allowance, which has doubled after an FSB campaign to take the first £10,500 off an employer’s annual bill.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
National Insurance rise impacts carers
CARE
The care sector has been warning the government since the October that budget care homes will be forced to close due to the financial pressures the employers’ national insurance rise will place on them.
Care homes receive funding from councils as well as from private fees, but as local authorities feel the squeeze more and more their contributions are not keeping up with rising costs.
The industry has argued without it the NHS would be crippled.
Raj Sehgal, founding director of ArmsCare, a family-run group of six care homes in Norfolk, said the NIC increase means a £360,000 annual impact on the group’s £3.6m payroll.
In an attempt to offset those costs, the group is scrapping staff bonuses and freezing management salaries.
It is also considering reducing day hours, where there are more staff on, so the fewer numbers of night staff work longer hours and with no paid break.
Image: Raj Sehgal said his family-owned group of care homes will need £360,000 extra this year for the NIC hike
Mr Sehgal said: “But what that does do unfortunately, is impact the quality you’re going to be able to provide, at a time when we need to be improving quality, but something has to give.
“The government just doesn’t seem to understand that the funding needs to be there. You cannot keep enforcing higher costs on businesses and not be able to fund those without actually finding the money from somewhere.”
He said the issue is exacerbated by the fact local authority funding, despite increasing to 5%, will not cover the 10% rise.
“It’s going to be a really, really tough ride. And we are going to see a number of providers close their doors,” he warned.
Nadra Ahmed, executive co-chair of the National Care Association, said those who receive, or are waiting to access, care as well as staff will feel the impact the hardest.
“As providers see further shortfalls in the commissioning of care services, they will start to limit what they can do to ensure their viability or, as a last resort exit the market,” she said.
“This is very short-sighted, with serious consequences, which alludes to the understanding of this government.”
Government decided to ‘wipe the slate clean’
A Treasury spokesperson told Sky News the government is “pro-business” but has “taken the difficult but necessary decisions to wipe the slate clean and properly fund our public services after years of declines”.
“Our budget choices have already delivered an NHS with falling waiting lists, a £3.7bn rescue package for social care, and vital protection for Britain’s small businesses,” they said.
“We’re making tough choices today to secure a better tomorrow through our Plan for Change. By investing in economic growth and early years education while capping corporation tax, we’re putting more money in working people’s pockets and giving every child the best start in life.”
Donald Trump’s trade war escalation has sparked a global sell-off, with US stock markets seeing the biggest declines in a hit to values estimated above $2trn.
Tech and retail shares were among those worst hit when Wall Street opened for business, following on from a flight from risk across both Asia and Europe earlier in the day.
Analysis by the investment platform AJ Bell put the value of the peak losses among major indices at $2.2trn (£1.7trn).
The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite was down 5.8%, the S&P 500 by 4.3% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by just under 4% at the height of the declines. It left all three on course for their worst one-day losses since at least September 2022 though the sell-off later eased back slightly.
Analysts said the focus in the US was largely on the impact that the expanded tariff regime will have on the domestic economy but also effects on global sales given widespread anger abroad among the more than 180 nations and territories hit by reciprocal tariffs on Mr Trump‘s self-styled “liberation day”.
They are set to take effect next week, with tariffs on all car, steel and aluminium imports already in effect.
Price rises are a certainty in the world’s largest economy as the president’s additional tariffs kick in, with those charges expected to be passed on down supply chains to the end user.
The White House believes its tariffs regime will force employers to build factories and hire workers in the US to escape the charges.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:07
The latest numbers on tariffs
Economists warn the additional costs will add upward pressure to US inflation and potentially choke demand and hiring, ricking a slide towards recession.
Apple was among the biggest losers in cash terms in Thursday’s trading as its shares fell by almost 9%, leaving it on track for its worst daily performance since the start of the COVID pandemic.
Concerns among shareholders were said to include the prospects for US price hikes when its products are shipped to the US from Asia.
Other losers included Tesla, down by almost 6% and Nvidia down by more than 6%.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:54
PM: It’s ‘a new era’ for trade and economy
Many retail stocks including those for Target and Footlocker lost more than 10% of their respective market values.
The European Union is expected to retaliate in a bid to put pressure on the US to back down.
The prospect of a tit-for-tat trade war saw the CAC 40 in France and German DAX fall by more than 3.4% and 3% respectively.
The FTSE 100, which is internationally focused, was 1.6% lower by the close – a three-month low.
Financial stocks were worst hit with Asia-focused Standard Chartered bank enduring the worst fall in percentage terms of 13%, followed closely by its larger rival HSBC.
Among the stocks seeing big declines were those for big energy as oil Brent crude costs fell back by 6% to $70 due to expectations a trade war will hurt demand.
The more domestically relevant FTSE 250 was 2.2% lower.
A weakening dollar saw the pound briefly hit a six-month high against the US currency at $1.32.
There was a rush for safe haven gold earlier in the day as a new record high was struck though it was later trading down.
Sean Sun, portfolio manager at Thornburg Investment Management, said of the state of play: “Markets may actually be underreacting, especially if these rates turn out to be final, given the potential knock-on effects to global consumption and trade.”
He warned there was a big risk of escalation ahead through countermeasures against the US.
Sandra Ebner, senior economist at Union Investment, said: “We assume that the tariffs will not remain in place in the announced range, but will instead be a starting point for further negotiations.
“Trump has set a maximum demand from which the level of tariffs should decrease”.
She added: “Since the measures would not affect all regions and sectors equally, there will be winners and losers as in 2018 – although the losers are more likely to be in the EU than in North America.
“To protect companies in Europe from the effects of tariffs, the EU should not respond with high counter-tariffs. In any case, their impact in the US is not likely to be significant. It would be more efficient to provide targeted support to EU companies in the form of investment and stimulus.”