Tax rises ‘feel inevitable' after jump in Government borrowing
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said public sector net borrowing rose to £20.2 billion, its fourth-highest April figure on record, mounting further pressure on Chancellor Rachel Reeves to meet her fiscal rules.
The state borrowing figure reflects the difference between Government spending and its income, largely through tax receipts.
The latest figure showed that the Chancellor had to borrow more money than expected over the month, surpassing analyst predictions of £17.6 billion.
It comes as Rachel Reeves seeks to meet her fiscal rule of balancing day-to-day spending with revenues by 2029-30, while improving public services and targeting accelerated economic growth.
Economists have said the increased deficit, plans to increase defence spending and the U-turn on winter fuel payments could indicate future tax rises are needed to balance the state finances in the longer term.
Ruth Gregory, deputy chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said: 'April's public finances figures showed that despite the boost from the rise in employers' national insurance (NI) contributions, the fiscal year got off to a poor start.
'With the PM announcing a partial U-turn on the cut to winter fuel payments, the dilemma faced by the Chancellor over how to deal with increased spending pressures in an environment of low economic growth and high interest rates hasn't gone away.
'With the markets seemingly uneasy about more public borrowing, further tax rises are starting to feel inevitable.'
Matt Swannell, chief economic adviser to the EY Item Club, said higher borrowing and pressure from US tariff plans on economic growth could 'more than eliminate the slim headroom' against the rules.
He said: 'A potential reversal of winter fuel payment cuts and the likelihood that defence spending will need to rise again will make the fiscal arithmetic even more challenging and increase the pressure to generate more revenue through tax rises.'
The rise in borrowing was largely linked to increases in public sector pay, national insurance payments and higher benefits and state pensions.
Central government departmental spending on goods and services rose by £4.2 billion year-on-year to £37.9 billion thanks to April pay increases and cost inflation.
Meanwhile, social benefits paid by the state rose £1.3 billion to £26.8 billion after inflation-linked rises in many benefits.
Public sector net debt was estimated at 95.5% of UK GDP (gross domestic product) at the end of April 2025, meaning the proportion of debt was 0.7 percentage points higher than a year earlier and remains at levels last seen in the early 1960s.
Public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks was £20.2 billion in April 2025. This was £1.0 billion more than in April 2024 and the fourth-highest April borrowing since monthly records began in 1993.
Read more ➡️ https://t.co/4TNYxGM84F pic.twitter.com/B5wUMdEHv5
— Office for National Statistics (ONS) (@ONS) May 22, 2025
The deputy director for public sector finances at the ONS, Rob Doody, said: 'At £1 billion higher than the same time last year, this April's borrowing was the fourth highest for the start of the financial year since monthly records began more than 30 years ago.
'Receipts were up on last April, thanks partly to the higher rate of national insurance contributions.
'However, this was outweighed by greater spending, due to rising public services' running costs and increases in many benefits and state pensions.'
On Thursday, the ONS also revised down its borrowing figure for the latest fiscal year, to March 2025, by around £3.7 billion to £148.3 billion after receiving more information on tax receipts.
It was still around £11 billion above the forecast set by the Government's official forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones said: 'After years of economic instability crippling the public purse, we have taken the decisions to stabilise our public finances, which has helped deliver four interest rate cuts since August, cutting the cost of borrowing for businesses and working people.
'We're fixing the NHS, with three million more appointments to bring waiting lists down, rebuilding Britain with our landmark planning reforms and strengthening our borders, delivering on the priorities of the country through our Plan for Change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
It's great to have a female Chancellor - just not this one!, says jeweller Kiki McDonough
Kiki McDonough's status as a successful businesswoman would have come as a surprise to her father, her teachers and at least one bank manager. It even seems to slightly surprise Kiki herself, who has the air of an accidental entrepreneur. Her eponymous jewellery brand, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this summer, is worn by the Princess of Wales and the Queen. She is invited to give her views on business and the economy on high-profile TV programmes, including Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, where she lambasted the Labour Government. McDonough, who turns 71 this month, started her business in the heady 1980s when Mrs Thatcher was in Downing Street and women were storming the City and setting up businesses of their own. 'Unless you were there you can't understand how extraordinary it was to have the first woman Prime Minister,' she says. 'She pushed her way through the old school network. There were so many entitled men. I knew some of them.' She has considerably less admiration for the country's first female occupant of No 11 Downing Street, Rachel Reeves. 'It's great to have a female Chancellor but unfortunately this one... it hasn't worked as well as we would have liked. Being the first woman chancellor and to have screwed up,' she says, referring to the increases in employer National Insurance Contributions. 'These tax changes Labour has brought in – it is completely counterproductive. If you want business to succeed you don't pile on a lot of hurdles and barriers. They spread doom and gloom like butter, and once you have done that, it is very hard to unspread it. Rumour has it Reeves might take more taxes in the next Budget. She shouldn't be spending so much.' McDonough started her business when a family friend, Nigel Milne, asked her to design modern jewellery for his shop in Mayfair. Until then, she had been a secretary, including for David Stirling, the founder of the SAS, having left school as soon as she could because lessons bored her. Though her father had an antique jewellery shop, she says she knew nothing about the business, adding: 'But I was young and you just go for it. I'm not much of a feminist but I priced my jewellery between £95 and £950 as women were starting to earn more, to make their own decisions and buy their own jewellery.' Her first designs included crystal heart earrings with a diamond-set bow on top. 'Well it was the 80s,' she says. David Deakin, whom she had lined up to make them, told her he didn't think they would sell. 'I wasn't sure either. We laugh about it now,' she says. The designs, which are still on sale today, proved wildly successful. 'I asked my father for £5,000 to start my own jewellery business,' she says. 'He had been a jeweller – I am from five generations of jewellers – but none women. 'He looked rather bemused and said he was not sure it was a good idea. He loaned me the money for two years. I paid him back within a year, and no one was more surprised than me, let alone him.' 'Women were not taken as seriously back then. I remember going to the bank manager at Barclays when I had been in business six or seven years. 'He asked me into a meeting where he said he didn't think this was the bank for me. 'I rang up HSBC and they have been fantastic ever since. I do feel a little bit of that Pretty Woman thing, that he made a big mistake, huge. It was definitely because I was a little woman with a little jewellery company.' One or two snooty rivals on Bond Street 'thought I was pathetic' she says. 'I never let it bother me. Have a laugh and soldier on. 'My mother said it is terribly unattractive to complain. My father was a prisoner-of-war and that puts it in perspective.' McDonough's Royal connection goes back to 1986, when Sarah Ferguson arrived at Bordeaux airport wearing onyx heart and bow earrings and a pearl and onyx heart necklace. Soon after, Diana, Princess of Wales, began wearing Kiki jewellery too. McDonough knew Diana's sisters and thinks they must have said something to her about McDonough's jewellery. 'She was lovely. When she came to my shop she waited her turn. 'The jewellery I do is not bling or cutting edge, it is pretty and hopefully makes you feel prettier. 'That's what I think jewellery should be, it shouldn't walk in the door before you. It suits the working mother lifestyle, where you can wear it every day and love it. Twice divorced, she combined the business with bringing up two sons. She says: 'I had children quite late and thought why have them if you're not going to see them? I didn't take a break, I just ran the business at a slightly slower growth rate. Then when the children went away to school, I thought right, that's it. 'My prices are now £950 to about £25,000. I still love seeing people in the street wearing my jewellery. It's a bore to keep something in a safe, I think jewellery should be worn with jeans. I put on a pair of earrings on a Monday and take them off on a Friday.' She is, she says in cut-glass tones, a 'great Liverpool fan', a passion acquired from her youngest son. Her other great passion is ballet, and she has designed a collection inspired by prima ballerina Lauren Cuthbertson. She says: 'Ballet and football are both about really neat footwork and amazing athleticism and strength, but ballet is my ultimate. I love it.' Next on the agenda is expanding in the US. She hasn't seen Melania Trump wear her jewellery, adding: 'Though I have to say, she does dress beautifully. I think she's amazing. She is a cool customer.' McDonough has no plans to retire, and says her two sons won't take over when she eventually steps back. She says: 'I don't have that ambition to pass on a family business. I have had the best 40 years any woman could possibly ask for, and counting, so whoever has it next – lucky them.'
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Millions of homeowners could be paying far too much for their mortgages
Homeowners may be paying too much on their mortgages because of unreliable data from the UK's main statistics body. Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey told MPs that the Bank's lack of trust in number crunchers at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) 'does have a bearing' on its decisions on interest rates, which in turn affect mortgage payments. The Governor did not spell out the implications – but if doubts about the data are delaying interest rate cuts, then millions of borrowers may be paying the price. Problems have been plaguing the ONS figures on jobs and wages for the past couple of years. These include difficulty finding enough people to respond to surveys since the pandemic. Smaller sample sizes increase the risk of inaccurate data. The state of the labour market is a key element in the Bank's deliberations on interest rates. Its aim is to keep inflation near a target rate of 2 per cent. A strong jobs market and robust growth in wages are normally seen as a factor that would push up inflation and therefore make it less likely the Bank will cut interest rates – and vice versa. But given the uncertainty around the ONS's key Labour Force Survey (LFS), which tracks this information, members of the Bank's rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee are instead having to make their own judgments by piecing together data from elsewhere. At a Treasury Select Committee hearing last week, Bailey said efforts by the ONS to improve the reliability of its figures are 'a work in progress' and there was a 'very severe health warning' on the data. Sarah Breeden, the Bank's deputy governor, said other data sources, such as figures from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) were being used to help the Bank make its decisions. However, the HMRC data does not cover self-employed people, a key part of the labour market, which is included in the LFS. Bailey has previously described unreliable labour market figures as a 'substantial problem' for the Bank. His latest comments go further, by saying that the issue is directly affecting decisions on interest rates. Poor data could affect Britain's 8.4 million mortgage holders, particularly the 1.1 million whose borrowing rates vary as the Bank changes interest rates. The last rate cut in May – even though it was just a quarter of a percentage point – lopped hundreds of pounds off the average annual mortgage bill. A typical tracker mortgage saw its annual payments reduced by nearly £350, while the average borrower with a standard variable rate saved £166, according to trade body UK Finance. The ONS suffered a fresh embarrassment on Thursday when it admitted that the UK's inflation reading in April of 3.5 per cent had been overstated by 0.1 of a percentage point because of an error in how it calculated data related to vehicle tax. The statistics body has been shaken by changes at the top after its boss Sir Ian Diamond stepped down last month for health reasons. Some experts have said the problems mean the Bank of England is effectively 'flying blind'.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
HAMISH MCRAE: Flying Footsie defies the gloom
If the Government's finances are in such a mess and the economy is stagnant, why are share prices close to an all-time high? Could it simply be the UK is a pretty good place to invest – provided you are a foreigner and don't have to pay our taxes? This week sees Rachel Reeves' spending review, setting out what the Government proposes to do with our taxes for the next three or four years. It's the first shot a Labour government has had at this exercise since 2009, in the aftermath of the banking crash. Then Chancellor Alistair Darling savaged spending plans to such a scale that, in theory at least, there would be cuts of 490,000 public sector jobs. It was a total about-turn of the exercise by Gordon Brown when money taps were flowing. The so-called 'austerity' of the Coalition Government the following year was actually started by Labour. Reminding people of this is not to beat up Reeves' predecessors, or to get into the debate about spending headroom, or the commitment to the Office for Budget Responsibility's fiscal rules. It is just to point out that, for all the fine words of successive Chancellors, they are prisoners of the harsh mathematics of public finances. If the taxes come in strongly, that is fine. If not, they are in trouble. Right now, notwithstanding her increase in tax rates, revenues are weak. Why? Well, we don't yet know, but it looks like people with money are hunkering down – or bunking out. The top 1 per cent of earners pay 29 per cent of all income tax, and the top 10 per cent pay 60 per cent. It's early days, but there are bits of evidence of a shift in behaviour. The Capgemini World Wealth Report last week showed that the UK lost 14,000 millionaires last year. That's not as big a decline as in France or Germany, but a stunning contrast to the increase of 562,000 millionaires in the US. There is data from Henley & Partners that 26,000 non-doms left the UK last year, and there are suggestions that the changes brought in by Reeves will cut tax revenue rather than increase it. Job losses are certainly coming as a direct result of the increase in employers' National Insurance Contributions (NICs), but thanks to the unreliability of the Office for National Statistics' numbers it's too early to know how hard employment is being hit. What we do know is that revenues from income tax, NICs and capital gains tax in April, the first month of the financial year, were disappointing – disappointing, that is, from the perspective of the Treasury, if not from those of us handing over the money. This isn't a mass exodus of high-earners or of the already wealthy. It feels more like the 1970s when some people did leave the country, but most just cut their costs and waited for the change of government that eventually happened in 1979. The difference is that back in the 1970s, financial markets were all over the place, the pound was savaged before recovering, and inflation was heading upwards. Now UK shares are doing well, and the pound has made a decent recovery. The FTSE 100 index, at 8,838 is only 50 points off its all-time high in March, and the pound is back to $1.35. It is completely plausible that the Footsie could go through 9,000 in the next few days, and I expect sterling to reach $1.45 by year-end. All this is happening despite the chaos in world trade and expectation that Reeves will have to raise taxes again come the autumn. Why? Three explanations. One is that the UK equity market is the least ugly, or at least one of the less ugly, contenders in the global beauty parade. Where else do you put your money? You are buying into large, hitherto relatively unfashionable enterprises that earn decent profits and pay good dividends. At a time of huge uncertainty, you should not try to be clever, but just diversify your assets. Two, the fact that Britons are to be clobbered with yet higher taxes and the economy will stay stagnant is unimportant to foreign investors. Big UK firms earn on average three-quarters of their profits overseas. And finally, even if the global trade war does hot up, the UK is not in Donald Trump's firing line. What's not to like?
