Sat, 25th July Cardiff 22°
Nation.Cymru wordmark
Advertisement

News

Winners of Senedd election 'will face slowdown in finding growth'

By Mark Mansfield
Photo bmszealand

Martin Shipton

Whichever party or parties are in government after May’s Senedd election will face the challenge of a slowdown in funding growth, according to one of Britain’s leading think tanks.

This will create difficult trade-offs on tax and spending for the next Senedd, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies in a newly published report.

After increasing by an average of 2.5% a year in real terms so far in the 2020s, the Welsh Government’s funding for day-to-day (resource) spending is set to increase by an average of just 1.1% a year over the next three years.

Funding for investment (capital) spending has increased by even more over the last few years, but is now set to fall by an average of 1.3% a year.

In both cases, this more challenging funding outlook is driven by the UK government’s decision to have lower growth in overall spending across the UK in coming years as it seeks to reduce a large budget deficit and stabilise debt levels.

In the context of spending pressures in areas such as health, social care and special educational needs provision, it will mean whoever is in government in the next Senedd term will face difficult decisions on tax and spending. Indeed, without increases in revenues – whether through a boost to Welsh economic growth or increases in tax rates – and/or major improvements to public sector productivity, cuts to some services are highly likely to channel money to other services with growing spending needs. This is important context for any promises made during the election campaign, says the IFS report.

It has been suggested that a move to a needs-based funding formula for allocating funding to the Welsh Government could help address these challenges.

At least on the basis of currently available assessments of Wales’s relative spending needs, such a move could in fact exacerbate the challenges, according to the IFS.

The 2010 Holtham Commission estimated Wales’s spending needs per person were around 14% to 17% higher than those of England. We estimate that UK government funding for the Welsh Government was 25% higher per person in 2024–25 than the amount spent on comparable services per person in England. That is the equivalent of around £1.5 billion a year more than would be received if funding was instead 17% higher than in England.

These are among the key findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ first Welsh election briefing note, funded by the Nuffield Foundation.

The briefing note examines how and why Welsh Government funding has changed over time, and the outlook for the coming Senedd term, which will shape the tax and spending options available to the next Welsh Government. Further detail can be found later in this press release.

Growth 

David Phillips, head of devolved and local government finance at the IFS and co-author of the report, said: “After falling during the 2010s, the last six years have seen real-terms increases in Welsh Government funding, mostly as a result of increases in UK government funding. Yet UK government decisions now mean that growth in funding is set to slow over the next few years.

“When seen alongside a range of pressures on the state, lower growth in funding will mean whoever is in government after the next election will face difficult choices over taxes and spending on different services. Without an increase in revenues, or a major improvement in public sector productivity, cuts to some services are likely. This is important context when assessing the proposals the different parties put forward. Reductions in some taxes or increases in spending on priority items are feasible but will require tough choices elsewhere in a Welsh budget that will already be under some strain.”

Martin Brogaard, Research Economist at the IFS and co-author of the report, said: “The Welsh Government receives substantially more from the UK government per person than is spent on comparable services in England – around 25% more in 2024–25 according to our estimates. This is substantially higher than available estimates of Wales’s relative spending needs.

“But those estimates are based on data that are now almost 20 years old. The UK and Welsh (and ideally other devolved) governments should jointly commission a new independent assessment of the relative spending needs of the different nations of the UK. This would allow for a more informed debate about how much funding the Welsh Government and other devolved governments should receive. And better information on how funding compares to needs would help the electorate judge the performance of the Welsh Government.”

The report also states that after falling during the 2010s, Welsh Government funding has increased since 2019–20 – for both resource and capital spending. On as close to a like-for-like basis as possible, resource funding in the current financial year, 2025–26, is set to be 16.3% higher in real terms than 2019–20, or 11.9% higher per person, after accounting for population growth.

Real-terms increase

Higher funding since 2019 entirely reflects a £3.2bn real-terms increase in UK government funding. Devolved business rates revenues have fallen in real terms (by £0.3bn), but the net contribution of other devolved funding sources has increased (by £0.3bn). The partial devolution of income tax is making a positive contribution to the Welsh Government’s budget despite it keeping devolved income tax rates in line with those in England. This reflects the fact that the UK government’s policy of freezing tax thresholds boosts revenues from each tax band by relatively more in Wales than in England.

On as close to a like-for-like basis as possible, capital funding has increased by 38% in real terms since 2019–20, again reflecting increases in UK government funding.

The coming Senedd term is set to see a slowdown in funding growth for both resource and capital spending purposes. This funding slowdown will necessitate tough trade-offs between different spending areas and different investment projects. Restrictions on Welsh Government borrowing prevent it from borrowing more to offset this.

After increasing during the 2010s, the relative funding advantage of Wales relative to England is now set to fall, with UK government funding for devolved Welsh services falling from around 25% above English levels in both 2019–20 and 2024–25, to around 21% above English levels by 2028–29 under current spending plans and population projections. That latter figure is still £0.9 billion higher than if funding per person was 17% higher than in England (the upper end of the Holtham Commission’s relative needs estimates).

The projected decline in Wales’s funding advantage reflects the so-called ‘Barnett squeeze’: the population-based increments in funding under the Barnett formula are a smaller percentage increase in Wales (and Scotland) because funding starts from a higher level. The IFS says this is true even accounting for the additional 5% top-ups to funding increments that the Welsh Government has received since 2018 as part of the Welsh fiscal framework agreement with the UK government in order to slow the squeeze.

'Challenging'

Responding to the report, a spokesperson for the Welsh Government said: “We have seen a significant increase in our funding due to the current UK Government. We have more than £1bn in new funding in 2026-27, over and above the £1.6bn uplift embedded in the current year's budget. This is the result of us working with the UK Government to make a real difference to people here.

“We need a higher level of funding per person than equivalent programmes in England to provide the same level of service, because of its socio-economic and geographical characteristics. While we are in challenging financial times, the settlement over the next three years is over £5bn more than it would have been based on the previous UK Government’s spending plans.”

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News

2 comments

Alwyn

This is one of the biggest challenges at the Senedd election. Without wanting to be too negative, there are going but to be very few options to improve NHS, education or economic growth as real term budgets are reducing over next 3 to 4 years. In fact, once salaries, essential works and statutory responsibilities are taken a care of, I imagine they'll be about 50-100 million pounds per year to do anything new. This is the partly a consequence of labour in Westminster not being able to cut other budgets that are mushrooming. By the way the report says that England's 'needs' are growing. This means if Barnett was to replaced by a need based system, it's becoming more likely that Wales would actually lose funding.

Reply
Neil Anderson

The UK Government, the IFS and Growth Highlighting the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) recent report, Martin Shipton (Nation.Cymru, 24 February 2026) https://nation.cymru/news/winners-of-senedd-election-will-face-slowdown-in-finding-growth/) identifies the political choices made by the UK Government (UKG) that are at root of this new wave of creeping austerity being launched upon us. It should be noted that the IFS does not take issue with the Government’s strategy but generally endorses it. The UKG’s political choices are said to be driven by their supposed fear of 'a large budget deficit' which is leading them to 'stabilise debt levels'. The UK Government is deluding itself in pursuit of this agenda, albeit without any intellectual support, that is wholly misplaced, with damaging consequences for our society and our economy. This was evidenced by the Future Generations Commissioner a day later (N.C 25 February 2026) among the cultural wreckage of cities and towns all over Cymru. Set within the self-imposed straitjacket of Rachel Reeves’ so-called fiscal rules, the inevitable outcome will be a continuing shrinkage of the public sector as we cast ourselves further adrift on the random whims and foibles of the private sector. Who, apart from the UKG, says that the budget deficit (the accumulation of which is called the ‘national debt’) is too large? It seems as if The City, the tail that wags the dog, has intimated its concern – The City appears to believe that the public sector is ‘crowding out’ the private sector in the scramble for government money. Who else believes that? Who can prove it? But this concern is not based on any accounting or economics textbook or theory. The ratio of the ‘national debt’ to Gross Domestic Product has been significantly higher (and in any case, is a meaningless statistic) in the past. The evidence in recent years is that, despite the squeeze, the private sector has not been able to secure any meaningful ‘growth’ (and that’s problematic in itself). The City has only special pleading in its armoury. Along with faulty analysis, faulty diagnosis and faulty prognosis… Neither it or the UKG appears to understand the role of the ‘national debt’ in our economy. First and foremost, it provides valuable liquidity to businesses and households. On the other side of the ledger (in a two-column accounting system) is a credit which is tapped into to keep our communities operating.  It is owned by banks, insurance companies, large businesses – and the UKG itself (about £800b)! It is a very safe refuge for savings, whether of the overnight balances of private banks or long-term savings by individuals. So moves to reduce the ‘national debt’ and its annual accumulation, including by fiscal rules or quantitative tightening (QT) or higher interest rates hit local economies, small business economics and household economics. Many of the latter are increasingly impoverished by small increases in real incomes and large increases in costs (food, energy, rents/mortgages). Unnecessarily, as the cure is worse than the disease!  Meanwhile, the UKG, along with the IFS, perpetuates a number of other myths about the economy, suppressing facts and dishonestly misrepresenting policies. For example, the media frequently repeats the lie of ‘taxpayers’ money’.   There is no such thing as ‘taxpayers’ money’. There is only government money, created by the Bank of England and the government. As a consequence of this belief, it is widely, but wrongly, believed that tax precedes spending. But if there wasn’t government money, what would there be to tax? Similarly, ‘the balanced budget’ is another myth engendered by the mock-concern over deficit spending. Nevertheless, governments of all political stripes invariably run deficits, which are, in any case, essential to maintain liquidity in the economy.  High interest rates are supposedly designed to control inflation, but there is no known mechanism that demonstrates this. In fact, recent history is littered by the repeated failure of this tool, as exercised by the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. Furthermore, high interest rates have been shown to increase inflation. Another faulty analysis, another faulty diagnosis, another policy failure. What can the incoming government in Cymru in May 2026 do in response to the stranglehold exerted by the Treasury over the finances of our country? First, it must learn how money really works in our economy. That is, that spending precedes investment and taxation. That the constraints on the economy are not arbitrary rules but those of the real world (resources, labour). That taxation does not fund anything.  Second, it must press the case for a much-improved fiscal settlement, whether through a revised Barnett formula or otherwise. The real needs of the people of Cymru point the way…and are not inflationary. Third, it must utilise what freedom it has to introduce more progressive tax rates. Fourth, it must reconfigure Welsh Government expenditure to reap the rewards of local investment, especially where multipliers are positive (eg. nurses wages, retrofitting houses, sustainable food production). This is invariably the case when real needs are being met (food, shelter, education etc). At the same time, investment in airports, highways, ever-more energy and productivity should be curtailed. Much of that is part of the extractive economy, not designed to bring benefit (including control and ownership) to the economy of Cymru.   Finally, it should act to mitigate the negative impacts of UKG spending in Cymru. The analysis presented here has solid theoretical underpinnings, with the experience of the real world in the approximate period 1946 – 1976 to back it up as well.    There is another way to operate an economy – an honest and transparent way that doesn’t rely on obfuscation and untruths. Modern money recognises that the public sector drives the economy (remember we’ve tried the private sector and that hasn’t worked), investing in communities and providing opportunities for the private sector to thrive (unlike in recent times). For an independent Cymru, the lesson is exactly the same – don’t be lured into neoliberalist myths to the contrary! Our own currency and power to set interest rates will respond to Cymru’s needs, not tagging along with an out-of-control economic model that has repeatedly failed to deliver. In the meantime, we must resist the pervasive thinking that currently has the media and politicians in its thrall, and as exemplified by the IFS’s recent report. If the much-sought after growth is to be attained, it will have to arise from resources that are not being utilised currently – unemployed and under-employed labour, energy, materials etc – is inflation is to be minimised and benefit to the economy of Cymru is to be maximised. Anything else will be unsustainable.  

Reply

Leave a reply

Replying to Neil Anderson Cancel

The UK Government, the IFS and Growth Highlighting the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) recent report, Martin Shipton (Nation.Cymru, 24 February 2026) https://nation.cymru/news/winners-of-senedd-election-will-face-slowdown-in-find...

Comments are reviewed before they appear.