ICAEW chart of the week: Spending Review 2025

My chart for ICAEW this week looks at the government’s priorities as expressed through departmental budgetary allocations over the next three years.

A bar chart showing the average annual real-term percentage increase in departmental spending over the three years to 2028/29.

Defence +3.8%. 
Security +3.7%. 
Business & Trade +3.0%. 
Health +2.7%. 
Local Government. +2.6% (central funding +1.1%, balance from local taxation). 
Justice +2.0%. 
Overall average increase +1.5%. 
Science +0.9%. 
Education +0.8%. 
Devolved administrations +0.7%. 
Energy & New Zero +0.7%. 
Home Office +0.5%. 
Cabinet Office +0.4%. 
DWP -0.2%. 
Transport -0.5%. 
Culture, Media & Sport -1.4%. 
HMRC -1.5%. 
Hm Treasury -1.9%. 
Agriculture & Rural Affairs -2.3%. 
Foreign & Development -8.3%. 
Asylum -13.1%. 

13 Jun 2025. Chart by Martin Wheatcroft. Design by Sunday. Source: HM Treasury, 'Spending Review 2025'.

The Spending Review 2025 establishes base operating budgets for government departments for the three financial years from 1 April 2026 (2026/27, 2027/28 and 2028/29) and base capital budgets for four financial years (extending to 2029/30).

Departmental budgets for the current financial year ending on 31 March 2026 (2025/26), total £648bn and are expected to rise to £678bn in 2026/27, £697bn in 2027/28, and £717bn in 2028/29, an increase of 10.6% over the three years or 3.4% a year. This is equivalent to an average increase of 1.5% a year in real terms after adjusting for inflation of 1.9% a year on average over the spending review period.

The totals can be analysed between operating or ‘day-to-day’ budgets of £517bn, £536bn, £552bn and £568bn in 2025/26, 2026/27, 2027/28 and 2028/29 respectively and capital budgets of £131bn, £143bn, £145bn and £149bn. These are real terms increases of 1.2% and 2.4% a year on average over three years. 

The capital budget in 2029/30 is £152bn, a cut in real terms that reduces the average annual increase in capital budgets over four years to 1.8% a year on average.

My chart this week highlights how the 1.5% average annual real increase over three years in total budgets (operating and capital) has been allocated across departments, starting with the Ministry of Defence, which leads the pack with an average increase in its budget of 3.8% a year, followed closely by the security services, with an average annual increase of 3.7%. This reflects the elevation of national defence and security to the top of the government’s priorities since the general election last year, even though this increase will only move defence and security spending from 2.3% of GDP currently to 2.6% of GDP by 2027, a long way off the proposed 3.5% of GDP new minimum to be discussed at the NATO summit.

Economic growth and the NHS are the next highest priorities for the government and so it is perhaps unsurprising that the Department of Business & Trade does well with an annual average increase of 3.0%, closely followed by the Department of Health & Social Care, which receives 2.7%. The latter is the biggest increase in cash terms, at £31bn in total or about £12bn more in 2028/29 after adjusting for inflation.

Local government finances are in a parlous state and so the government has pencilled in a 2.6% average annual increase in core budgets for local authorities in England over the next three years. However, it is only increasing central funding by 1.1% a year on average, implying the balance will need to be made by local taxation, principally council tax.

The Ministry of Justice has been awarded 2.0% a year on average as the government seeks to tackle significant backlogs in the courts, overcrowded prisons and significantly under-resourced probation services.

The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology has received a below average annual increase of 0.9% over the next three years, but this follows an almost 12% increase over the past two years as the government has sought to increase investment in research and development to boost economic growth.

Despite being a key priority for the government, the Department for Education has only received a 0.8% average annual increase, partly because of falling primary school rolls in line with a significant fall in the birth rate over the last decade.

The devolved administrations – Scotland (0.8%), Wales (0.7%) and Northern Ireland (0.5%) – are budgeted to receive an average of 0.7% a year over three years as a consequence of the Barnett formula that links UK national government spending in England to the block grants provided to each devolved administration, adjusted for relative changes in population among other factors.

The Cabinet Office is expected to receive just 0.4% on average reflecting the contribution that planned efficiency savings are expected to contribute to administrative budgets. This is also the reason for the 0.2% a year real-terms fall in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) budget as automation helps reduce the cost of administering the welfare system.

The budget of the Department for Transport is expected to fall by 0.5% a year overall, but this partly reflects a fall in spending on High Speed 2 as it comes closer to completion. If that is excluded, the department’s budget is expected to increase by 0.5% a year on average. The actual increase in spending should be even higher, as the budget is net of passenger revenues that are expected to grow at a faster rate over the next three years.

Extra money for housing was found within the spending review, but this wasn’t enough to stop the budget for the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government from shrinking by an annual average of 0.6% a year as other activities are cut back, while the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (-1.4% a year on average) has also been asked to cut back its activities.

HMRC (-1.5% a year) and HM Treasury (-1.9% a year) see their budgets reduced significantly, with digitisation and efficiency savings expected to contribute significant sums.

The Department for Farming, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs (-2.3%) is also expected to see significant cuts over the next three years, as is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (-8.3%), although in the latter case that is principally driven by the decision to reduce overseas development assistance from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3% of GDP although some will come from back office savings.

Not shown in the chart are small and independent bodies and the government legal function, which are together expected to increase by 0.4% a year on average, although this comprise a -0.5% annual reduction in the former and a 5.3% average annual increase in the latter. The net changes after inflation are a fall of less than £0.1bn and an increase of just over £0.1bn respectively, which are rounding errors in the hundreds and hundreds of billions of pounds spent by government departments each year. 

Crown Consultancy gains traction as UK government spending soars

19 January 2021: Plans for an in-house government consultancy sound sensible, but will insourcing really deliver value for money for taxpayers?

The UK government spends hundreds of millions of pounds on consultants each year for services ranging from strategic advice to service delivery. While ministers and senior civil servants often comment they feel too much is spent on consultants, there continues to be a stream of new contracts awarded to the major professional service firms and consultancy practices.

This is a particularly high-profile issue in the context of the huge amounts of pandemic-related contracts awarded over the course of the last year.

Recent examples include bringing in procurement specialists and forensic accountants to sort out the audit trail for panic purchases of personal protective equipment or using a range of IT consultants to help rapidly design and build new border and customs systems following the UK’s exit from the EU Customs Union and Single Market.

In practice, there are many reasons why a government department – or any organisation for that matter – might want to engage external consultants. They can provide expertise not available in-house, as well as providing a flexible resource that can be mobilised quickly to achieve critical objectives. After more than a decade of tightening budgets in the public sector, it is unsurprising there is a limit to how many of the existing team can be diverted from day-to-day activities in order to (say) implement a major new IT system, transform the organisation or respond to a global crisis such as a pandemic.

Partly that is sensible human resource management. It does not make sense to employ hundreds, if not thousands, of staff across the civil service ‘just in case’ their expertise might be needed on a future project. At the same time, it also makes sense to bring in experience gained elsewhere from experts who know what works and what doesn’t.

Using external service providers also enables resources to be mobilised quickly and at scale. Again, a capability most organisations will not have – or normally need to have – internally. There are also other benefits, such as the ability to change team members at will, charge contractual penalties for non-performance or the ability to sue over poor service or bad advice: options generally not available when employing in-house teams.

However, those benefits come at a cost. Not only are salaries for consultants generally higher than those of staff in the public sector, but there is a premium on top to cover technical resources, overheads, insurance and margin that together mean than the per-hour rate can be a significant multiple of the cost of in-house staff, even when the civil services’ own overheads are factored in. 

Justifying this premium can be difficult, particularly in major projects involving very large teams of consultants. Another perceived issue can be where individual consultants are former civil servants apparently being re-employed at a much greater cost, even if that comes with technical and other resources not available when they were on the payroll.

recent report by the Public Accounts Committee argues that the extensive use of consultants is driven by an underlying lack of skills in the civil service, with the development of fourteen cross-government functions (such as the Project Delivery Service and the Government Finance Function) not having had the desired effect of strengthening internal capabilities sufficiently to reduce the need to bring in external consultancy support.

One solution that has often been mooted (and is now being considered more actively) is to establish an in-house consultancy organisation. This would have the scale to be able to employ technical experts and experienced consultants to help deliver priorities across the whole of government, both centrally and locally.

Of course, this is not a new phenomenon and there are a range of consultancy services already in existence inside the government. Examples include the Government Legal Department (originally the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, founded in 1876), the Government Actuary’s Department (founded in 1919) and the consultancy arm of the Government Property Agency (founded 2018). These all provide expert advice and support that government departments and agencies can utilise as needed, with any profit that might be generated coming back to the exchequer to be reinvested in public services.

The proposals for a Crown Consultancy ‘firm’ within government would be different both in terms of scale and also in the range of activities it would cover. Such an organisation would have many benefits in being able to utilise existing expertise within the civil service more effectively, while also bringing in private sector expertise and experience to bear on difficult challenges. There would also be opportunities to provide a wider range and depth of experience for civil servants with secondments as part of their development, providing career opportunities not currently available, particularly in technical specialities.

There are a number of hurdles to be overcome in establishing a Crown Consultancy. One of the more significant will be how to address pay disparities that may make it difficult to recruit individuals with the skills and experience required. Another will be in replicating the tools, techniques and resources that private sector firms have spent decades creating and that enable them to mobilise quickly to meet client needs.

Plans remain at an early stage, but of course, there are a number of external consultants available that can help move them forward!

This article was originally published by ICAEW.