Cooper still in last-minute talks with Treasury over spending review
But Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is yet to agree a final settlement with the Chancellor, with reports suggesting greater police spending will mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget.
Downing Street is now understood to be involved in the talks, with Ms Cooper the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury.
Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for health, defence and education, but tougher budgets for other departments (Peter Byrne/PA)
The spending review is expected to see funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects as the Chancellor shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules.
But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues.
On Monday morning, technology minister Sir Chris Bryant insisted that the spending review would not see a return to austerity, telling Times Radio that period was 'over'.
But he acknowledged that some parts of the budget would be 'much more stretched' and 'difficult'.
Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that the spending review could contain no new projects or funding for London (Lucy North/PA)
One of those areas could be London, where Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned the spending review will include no new projects or funding for the capital.
The mayor had been seeking extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo Underground line, along with powers to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police, but his office now expects none of these will be approved.
A source close to the Mayor said ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'.
They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs.
'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
For too long, communities across the country have been locked out of the investment they deserve.
That's why on Wednesday, we announced funding worth £15.6bn, helping to drive cities, towns, and communities forward. pic.twitter.com/SJ41aeSZJz
— HM Treasury (@hmtreasury) June 6, 2025
Last week, Ms Reeves acknowledged she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review.
The Department of Health is set to be the biggest winner, with the NHS expected to receive a boost of up to £30 billion at the expense of other public services.
Meanwhile, day-to-day funding for schools is expected to increase by £4.5 billion by 2028-9 compared with the 2025-6 core budget, which was published in the spring statement.
Elsewhere, the Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034.
Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
HMRC failure to notify MPs sooner about £47m phishing scam ‘unacceptable'
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been warned by a committee of MPs that its failure to report details of a breach affecting around 100,000 taxpayers is 'unacceptable'. The Treasury Committee said it was only alerted to the information when a notification was published on the HMRC website on the same day as a live session. On June 4, it emerged that HMRC had lost £47 million after a phishing scam breached tens of thousands of tax accounts. Senior civil servants at HMRC told the Treasury Committee that 100,000 people have been contacted, or are in the process of being contacted, after their accounts were locked down in what they said was an 'organised crime' incident which started last year. On Tuesday, the committee published a letter from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) stipulating that it had not discussed the phishing incident with HMRC and was not aware of it prior to the hearing on June 4. The committee also published a letter sent via email from its chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier to John-Paul Marks, chief executive, HMRC. The letter said: 'I am alarmed that it was never deemed necessary to inform Parliament about an issue which affected such a vast number of taxpayers and led to the loss of £47 million of public money. 'To discover this information during a session from press reports and without adequate time for the committee to review the information in detail is unacceptable.' The letter said the committee is seeking responses from HMRC as to 'why was Parliament not notified earlier about the loss of £47 million of taxpayers' money, whether through a written ministerial statement and/or public or confidential letters to the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee?' The committee is also seeking responses over why the update was published on the day of the committee hearing on the work of HMRC and who else in Government was told about the incident and when. It also wants to receive a timeline of how the incident unfolded and find out what measures HMRC has put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future. The letter asked for a reply by June 24 2025. Meanwhile, the letter from Glenn Collins, head of technical and strategic engagement, ACCA, to Dame Meg, dated June 5, said: 'While we regularly engage with HMRC, including earlier in the year about issues relating to agent account access, we have not received any communication from HMRC on the issue of taxpayer account breaches until yesterday. 'We have highlighted to HMRC our frustration that HMRC has not been transparent or timely in its communication over this important issue.'
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Nephews locked in court battle over dementia-stricken aunt's £400k estate
Two nephews are locked in a £400,000 fight over the fortune of a widow, who disinherited one side of her family after they suggested she go into a care home. Doreen Stock, who did not have any children, died in 2021 aged 86. She left her entire estate to her nephew, Simon Stock, and his wife Catherine, who lived close to her south London home. Mr Stock claimed he had been like a son to Doreen – but the will is now under challenge in court after Doreen's great-nephew, 39-year-old Ben Chiswick, launched a bid to inherit it himself. Ben, a propulsion engineer who is based in Michigan, US, had been due to inherit her fortune under a previous will written in 1986 when he was a baby, but was dramatically disinherited by his great-aunt a year before her death after his parents suggested Doreen spend time in a care home. He is fighting to reinstate the previous will, claiming Doreen, who he says was a 'fixture in his childhood', was too stricken by dementia to properly understand what she was doing when she changed her wishes. However, the Stocks are fighting the case, claiming Ben – who has lived in the US since 2017 – had no "meaningful relationship" with Doreen beyond his early years. Simon, meanwhile, had been 'the nearest thing to a son she had', they said. Sitting at Central London County Court, Judge Jane Evans-Gordon heard that "independent" and occasionally "stubborn" Doreen had a deep emotional attachment to her home in Charminster Road, Mottingham, having shared it with her husband Samuel until his death in 2001. Doreen's first will, made in 1986, ultimately left her estate to Ben, the son of her niece Patricia Chiswick and husband Brent. The estate principally contains the Mottingham house, which is valued online at about £400,000. The court heard Doreen had had a good relationship with the Chiswicks, who helped her with her shopping and visited her regularly. She even made a lasting power of attorney in their favour, but before she died she revoked the document and changed her will, leaving everything to a nephew on her husband's side: tax advisor Simon Stock and his wife Catherine. Challenging the will, Ben Chiswick claims that his great-aunt's dementia in her final years means there is serious doubt whether she had the necessary capacity to make the changes. He said the fact there was no discussion with his side of the family about the new will suggested "something not right" about her change of mind. "Doreen and I had a really happy relationship and she understood that leaving her estate to me would make a massive difference to my life," he said in his evidence. Barrister James McKean, for Simon and Catherine, told the court that Doreen had also been close to Simon, contributing to his school fees as a child. Although she previously had a close relationship with Ben's parents, that was ruined when they suggested she go into a care home in 2019, the court heard. To make matters worse, Patricia had then arranged for a "capacity assessment" for her aunt, which the barrister said led to Doreen fearing her independence was being threatened and ultimately changing her will. There had been "building resentment" with the way her power of attorney was being administered, which "finally boiled over in the summer of 2019 when the Chiswicks made an ill-judged – though perhaps well-intentioned – suggestion to Doreen that she spend a period in residential care'. 'Doreen was, by all accounts, jealously independent. It is little wonder that she found the proposition to be alarming and offensive," the barrister said. 'No doubt Doreen was worried about the prospect of going into a home, then was asked to undergo the capacity assessment, and put two and two together." Within weeks of the assessment, which resulted in a report stating she "lacked capacity", she had begun steps to revoke the power of attorney and make a new will in Simon and Catherine's favour, he told the judge. Quizzing Patricia Chiswick in the witness box, he added: "Doreen loved her home and it had been her and Samuel's home before his death. There was a deep emotional connection to that property. "Saying to Doreen that she should leave that property and spend some time in a care home was offensive to her, wasn't it? "From Doreen's perspective, this must have looked a real threat to her independence." But Patricia denied upsetting the pensioner, insisting that the plan was only ever for a short break in a care home while she and her husband went on holiday. "It was simply a suggestion because we don't usually go away for three weeks at a time, and I think she had been quite unwell and her health was deteriorating in general," she said. "I was concerned about leaving her and I thought it would be quite nice if she could go somewhere where she could be looked after while we were away. "It was absolutely stressed that it was for three weeks. There was no suggestion she was going to stay there indefinitely." The Chiswicks did not visit Doreen again between the capacity assessment in 2019 and her death in May 2021. For Patricia's son Ben, who is the claimant in the case, barrister Simon Lane said that, at the time she made the new will, she was 'vulnerable and was behaving out of character'. The 2019 assessment conducted after the suggestion of a care home move had resulted in an expert's finding that she "lacked capacity", he said. But Mr McKean said the assessment was deficient, with Doreen answering with "prickly hostility" when she was quizzed about things that made no sense to her, such as a fire which never actually happened. Other assessments around the same time had resulted in findings that she did have capacity, although she was suffering with "mild" dementia, he said. "Doreen may have had some memory problems, but capacity and memory are different beasts," he said. "The court will struggle to find any evidence of impaired cognition or reasoning. On the contrary, Doreen's behaviour, values and reasoning were consistent and plausible at all times." He said there was reason for her to decide to change her will, the last being made more than 30 years previously, and that by then Ben – living and working on the other side of the Atlantic – would have been "far from her mind as a beneficiary". He had not seen her again or even spoken on the phone after moving to the US, while most of the evidence of their relationship came from when he was a child. On the other hand, Simon and Catherine had been able to visit her regularly, living not far from her in Eltham, south London, he said. "The court can be surprised neither by the making of the disputed will, nor by Doreen's choice of beneficiaries," he added. The judge is expected to give her ruling on the case at a later date.
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ex-watchdog chair warns of loss of public trust over business appointments
A lack of transparency surrounding senior civil servants taking on new jobs could lead to a 'fatal' loss of public trust in the political system, the former head of the lobbying watchdog has warned. Lord Pickles, who until April chaired the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), told MPs he is concerned that a lack of focus on cases which do not fall under the committee's remit because they involve less senior roles could lead to a major scandal. Acoba's work involves independently advising the Government, former ministers, senior civil servants and other crown servants on the rules around taking employment after leaving their jobs. Echoing previous criticisms of the current rules, Lord Pickles described them as 'dead in the water, next to useless, pointless and in need of reform' during an appearance before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He added: '(Acoba) only deals with top civil servants and less senior officials are the responsibility of the board at different government departments. 'That is the area that I'm most concerned about. I was concerned when I went in and I thought the last government were extraordinarily lucky not to have a scandal operating. 'The churn in the civil service is around 40,000 a year… it is of that magnitude. 'It would not be unreasonable to look at those people who had responsibility for procurement, for awarding contracts, and if you designated those posts and put them through a similar process.' When pressed further on the issue, he added: 'If there was to say one thing that I would really like (the committee) to pursue it is that, because it will blow and given the confidence that the public has in politicians and the system, I think it might well be fatal.' Lord Pickles repeated concerns about the focus on ex-ministers rather than Whitehall officials, some of whom he said are reluctant to engage fully with a process designed to maintain transparency. He added: 'I think it is really important to understand that everybody concentrates on the ex-ministers because they've heard of them. 'But the real action is taking place among civil servants and there has become, I think, a degree of entitlement that is deeply worrying – both at Acoba level and below. 'There is a kind of a cohort effect taking place, in which the existing cohort looks after the exiting cohort in the assumption that that new cohort will look after them.' He also questioned the ethos of some politicians and senior civil servants over their commitment to the seven Nolan Principles of behaviour in public life, adding 'everybody believes in the seven principles of public life until it applies to them'. Lord Pickles said: 'If you look at the number of problems that we've had over the past five years, it can be neatly summed up in that people say: 'You know, the rules aren't for me because I am completely impeccable.' 'So far as the seven principles are concerned, the runt of the litter, the one that everybody ignores – the one that actually should be the most important – is leadership. 'I think those who engaged in public life in terms of moving towards propriety, they should set an example. 'In the recent years, I have been threatened with judicial review. I have been threatened with various lawyers and the like. 'If you are looking to take in lawyers, if you are trying to sort … you've entirely missed the point of the government business rules.' Lord Pickles said the advisory process should be adjusted to focus on cases with the highest level of risk rather than applications in all circumstances. He added: 'The business rules should be changed to just remove the flotsam and jetsam out of the system altogether and go to a kind of exemption regime and move it much more on a risk basis so you can really focus in on the exact risk and can be much more transparent with the public.' Labour's manifesto pledged to establish a new ethics and integrity commission, with an independent chair, to 'ensure probity in Government'. Lord Pickles said there is limited time for the Government to establish the commission through legislation, with delays for proposed amendments likely. He added: 'I have got no objection whatsoever to it being put on a statutory basis. 'I'm just worried that the practicality is the Machiavellian nature of this building will conspire to ensure that it doesn't matter.' Isabel Doverty, who was an independent member of the committee since 2021, has been appointed as Acoba's interim chair until December 31 2025.
