Category Archives: Business

Does the latest financial settlement for local authorities shift the dial on council finances?

The government has now confirmed the local authority financial settlement for 2025-26. This is a crucial time of year for councils who rely on these funds to deliver statutory services including adult and children’s social care, and support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Independent providers of these services should pay close attention to the financial settlement as it provides a good indication of future cost pressures for councils at a time when demand for statutory services continues to rise.

The final settlement will provide £69.4 billion of core spending power to local authorities in England. This represents a rise of £4.4 billion compared to 2024-25, constituting a 6.8% cash terms increase (or 4.3% when adjusted for inflation). Of this £69 billion figure, 24% is non-ring-fenced settlement funding, 14% is grants for social care, 6% is other grants, and the remaining 55% is council tax. While the overall increase in spending power is broadly aligned with increases in recent years, in real terms it is approximately 9% below where it was in 2010-11. Since this date, councils have become increasingly reliant on council tax revenue to meet their statutory obligations.

The funding settlement does not appear to provide much relief to local authorities who continue to struggle under the pressure of growing demand for services. Chair of the Local Government Association, Cllr Louise Gittins, said the extra funds ‘will help meet some of the cost and demand pressures they face but still falls short of what is desperately needed’. She went on to say that that the funding landscape remains extremely challenging for councils of all types and many could be forced to make further cuts to non-statutory services.

However, the government hopes change is on the horizon with its proposed reforms to local authority funding. Ministers believe these reforms will provide more financial certainty to councils, which will in turn allow them to better manage their spending and reduce cost pressures. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently concluded a consultation on local authority funding reform and is in the process of analysing the responses it received. One of the primary proposals under consideration is to move to a multi-year settlement from 2026-27, which the government believes ‘will enable [councils] to better plan ahead and achieve better outcomes for local residents, as well as better value for money for taxpayers.’

Overall, the recent confirmation of the local authority funding settlement points to more of the same for councils up and down the country – mounting cost pressures will leave council leaders scrambling to meet rising demand for services. For providers of local authority funded services, this demonstrates the ongoing importance of communicating to commissioners their high-quality, value for money offering which will reduce the burden on council resources. It will also be vital for businesses to monitor the government’s response to the consultation on local authority funding as this will allow them to best anticipate and respond to possible future changes to commissioning practices following the policy’s implementation.

To discuss the local authority funding landscape in more detail, please contact Hugo Tuckett (hugo@gkstrategy.com).

Unpacking the government’s 2025 mandate to NHS England

At the end of January, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Wes Streeting delivered the government’s 2025 mandate to NHS England. This is a crucial document which sets out the health secretary’s goals for the health service over the next 12 months. It also provides all-important detail about the government’s emerging views on reform of the health and social care system ahead of the much-anticipated 10-Year Health Plan, due to be published later this year – likely in June or July.

The findings of Lord Darzi’s investigation into the health service, commissioned and published in the weeks immediately following Labour’s general election victory, have unsurprisingly been hugely influential in shaping the development of Streeting’s inaugural mandate to NHS England. The health secretary has said the mandate will help address the urgent challenges identified by the Darzi investigation and includes a ‘sharp focus on improving efficiency and productivity.’ Streeting again warns that the ‘culture of routine overspending without consequences’ is over.

At the heart of the 2025 mandate are three key aims: reducing waiting times, improving access to primary care, and improving urgent and emergency care. To reduce waiting times, Streeting has said he is refocusing the NHS on making progress towards an 18-week standard, whereby 92% of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment, which will work in tandem with the steps set out in the government’s Elective Reform Plan published earlier this year. Patient choice is also at the heart of this agenda. The mandate emphasises the importance of implementing a cultural shift in the NHS to prioritise the patient experience in reducing waiting times, including through the use of the private sector to enable greater patient control over their treatment.

Improving access to primary care is the second key aim of the mandate. This mirrors one of the three strategic shifts the health secretary wants to see as a result of his reform agenda: shifting more treatment from hospitals to communities. Streeting is clear that primary care services are the front door to the health service but for too many people it is not possible to get a timely appointment, if at all. The mandate requires NHS England to enable patients to access general practice more quickly and tackle ‘unwarranted’ variation in services provided by general practice.

Improving urgent and emergency care is the mandate’s third aim. The mandate labels ambulance response times and waiting times in A&E as ‘unacceptable’. While the health secretary recognises that transforming these services will take time, he does state that a start must be made ahead of the government publishing its strategy to improve urgent and emergency care later this year. The mandate therefore includes a specific focus on reducing long wait times to improve patient safety, experience and outcomes.

The ambitions set out by Streeting in his first mandate are laudable. The bleak fiscal situation means the health secretary will have a hawk-like focus on monitoring performance against budgets. This is in recognition that the uptick in funding that the Department of Health and Social Care received at the October budget is unlikely to point to further significant cash injections in the immediate future. For providers, it also underscores the importance of positioning themselves as a high-quality, value for money partner to ICBs and NHS Trusts in delivering strong outcomes for patients.

If you would like to discuss the 2025 NHS mandate in more detail and what it means for businesses in the sector, then please contact Hugo Tuckett (hugo@gkstrategy.com) or Arth Malani (arth@gkstrategy.com).

Sugar, we’re going down: is the review of the soft drinks industry levy a taste of things to come?

The health secretary has warned he will “steamroll” the food and drink industry by launching a new plan to tackle obesity. In an interview with The Guardian setting out his priorities for the year, he said the move is part of a broader focus on preventing ill health rather than simply treating it. The plan is being worked up across government departments and the sector will soon be invited to feed into a consultation process.

Is this political rhetoric indicative of a heavier-handed approach to public health than under the previous iterations of government? Our gut instinct is yes, but proof of the pudding will be in the government’s response to the Soft Drink Industry Levy (SDIL) review. Launched last October, health and treasury ministers are considering revisions to the existing sugar content thresholds, including increasing the scope to milk-based and milk substitute products, and the levy rates.

Although the SDIL is widely considered to be a successful and effective policy intervention, the UK’s sugar consumption remains significantly above recommended levels, especially among children. By lowering the sugar thresholds and widening the scope of products, more soft drink producers will be impacted by regulations and will be forced to either reformulate products or see their production costs increase. The review will be completed in the spring with changes enacted in the 2025 Budget, so producers should be closely following policy developments throughout the course of this year. The government’s response to the review will set the mood music for the National Food Strategy so this is a crunch point for all those in the sector, not just soft drinks producers.

Beyond the health merits for cracking down on sugar content, there are political and economic factors at play. Politically, the Prime Minister insists that 2025 is a year of delivery after a slow and difficult start to his tenure. Further state intervention in food and drink markets in the name of public health would play to a large section of the labour backbenchers. Party morale is likely to be put to the test in the coming months as the nation’s economic woes continue. This is where HM Treasury comes into the picture; amid turbulent financial markets and disappointing economic growth, the Comprehensive Spending Review will be an uncomfortable experience for the Chancellor and her team. Raising revenue from the levy could ease some of the pressures that will undoubtedly fall on the schools budget, which the levy supports.

For industry there is a fine balance to strike. Full resistance to public health reform would be counterproductive and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of consumers. Developing and maintaining an open, constructive dialogue with government, including showcasing innovative reformulations, will be a far more effective approach. Framed in this way, industry will be able to better make the case that a proportionate approach to SDIL and wider reforms will deliver positive health and economic change.

If you would like to discuss the sugar levy and the government’s public health agenda in more detail, please contact GK Associate Director David Mitchell at: david.mitchell@gkstrategy.com

A fork in the road for food security

GK Senior Adviser James Allan considers the publication of the Food Security Report and why the opportunity is ripe to engage with ministers and officials holding the pen on the food strategy due for publication in 2025.

The government has published its three-yearly Food Security Report and it is hefty. Five themes covering 16 sub themes and 37 indicators ranging from food crime and pathogen surveillance to physical access to food shops and consumption patterns. Ministers had chosen to delay the publication of the report in hope of avoiding the farmers in protest against the £1m cap to Agriculture Property Relief introduced at the autumn budget. But this issue has not abated. Tractors returning to Westminster on the day of publication detracts from the business of government and its work to address food security.

The report’s headline finding is that those disadvantaged across society, including low-income households and people with a disability, are less likely to meet government dietary recommendations, and this trend has increased. All the while, the UK’s self-sufficiency has remained broadly unchanged in the past two decades, but the risks have heightened. The UK continues to source food from domestic production and trade at around a 60:40 ratio. But digging a little deeper, the UK is highly dependent on imports for fruits, vegetables and seafood – all sources of micronutrients essential to balanced and healthy diets in the fight against rising levels of obesity.

The risks to food security and self-sufficiency are numerous: climate change, nature loss, water insecurity, labour shortages and geopolitical events, the list goes on. More than this, these risks are interconnected with both acute and chronic impacts which trigger and compound each other. One can easily imagine a shortage of rice on British supermarket shelves if an extreme weather event, compounded by increased geo-political tensions, threatens the 46% of rice that is imported from India and Pakistan. At home, declining levels of natural capital are somewhat slowing, but boosting domestic production will mean prioritising and funding sustainable farming practices that restore and preserve our ecosystems to fully reverse this trend. Such schemes are not cheap for a government navigating tight public finances, as the second phase of a comprehensive spending review has kicked off with the Chancellor asking government departments to find 5% efficiency savings.

What’s new?

The government is set to adopt a “systems approach” which will focus minds on the outcomes of the whole system from production to consumption. Defra secretary Steve Reed is also promising a new way of engagement with not just sector and industry leaders, but also academics and charities to corral collective ambition, influence and effort. For food producers and retailers, this is a seismic opportunity to leverage your consumer and business story for a political audience that is in listening mode.

Pulling this off will be the test of ministers and officials drafting the government’s new food strategy due for publication in 2025. Why? Because if this Labour government is truly socially minded, addressing food insecurity will be a political priority. Doing so will aid better health and educational outcomes thereby reducing the burden on schools and the NHS, both of which are areas the Labour party self-identifies as being custodians of.

For investors, having a clear understanding government workstreams toward food security will be important. Investment decisions will need to be considered in the context of UK self-reliance in the food and energy sectors, but especially where technological innovation better position investors to capitalise on emerging trends, ensure long-term sustainable returns, and help shape a more secure and resilient national food system.

While spectators might eagerly await the publication of the government’s food strategy next year, the opportunity to engage is now.

Navigating changes to food and drink packaging: A guide for investors

Mark Field, director and founder of Prof Consulting Group, outlines what investors need to know about packaging in the food and drink sector

Setting the scene

Food and drink packaging is undergoing major transformation with innovations at each stage of the value chain. By responding to regulatory, consumer, and supply chain challenges, companies are finding new ways to reach customers and help them shop more sustainably. The role of packaging is to keep food and drink intact, safe and fresh along its journey from producer to consumer. It provides a space to communicate information to customers and to represent a brand. Carefully managed, it is a window to showcase a company’s values, but poor execution risks significant brand damage.

Shifts in the regulatory and commercial landscape

Regulation – responding to concerns about environmental pollution and climate breakdown, the regulatory landscape is shifting to place responsibility on producers for the packaging they put into the market.

In Europe, the upcoming PPWR is part of the region’s circular economy plan to value waste and minimise its environmental impact. The new regulation updates existing rules and aims to harmonise how packaging is managed throughout EU countries, making trade smoother. PPWR will require all countries to increase the share of reusable packaging which includes deposit return schemes, targets, economic incentives and minimum percentages of reusable packaging. In addition, 70% of all packaging by weight must be recycled by 2030. For some companies this might mean investing in new packaging equipment to handle new materials, for example, in the transition from plastic to paper. For others it can mean an entirely new way of selling, such as using returnable glass jars instead of plastic pots.

Nations in the UK are considering (England) or have implemented (Wales) deposit return schemes where consumers return packaging to a retail outlet and receive money back. This requires investment into infrastructure such as reverse vending machines. Others are working with digital technology to trace their products through the recycling system starting with the home curb side collection and rewarding customers who participate.

The UK’s plastic packaging tax charges a flat rate per tonne of plastic packaging with less than 30% recycled plastic. Companies must ensure they have accurate information on the packaging they buy to submit data to a government register.

Communication on packaging sustainability must be accurate and not mislead consumers according to the upcoming EU Green Claims Directive and the UK’s existing CMA’s Green Claims Code. One of the goals is to ensure that consumers are empowered to participate in the circular economy and can make informed choices. Consumers and NGOs are alert to greenwashing and don’t hesitate to call out companies who overstep the line.

A new UN treaty to regulate the production and disposal of plastic is expected at the end of 2024. Brands are calling for a limit to the amount of virgin plastic produced and for support on recycling and reuse systems.

Consumers – people expect companies to ensure their packaging is sustainable and research shows they want to participate in the transformation. According to global surveys, recycling packaging is the most popular sustainable behaviour, practiced by 62% of people. Companies can respond to these needs with clear and accurate disposal communication and with innovation in packaging formats.

Supply chains – extracting raw materials places undue pressure on natural resources and creates pollution that worsens climate and nature breakdown. Reducing the extraction of virgin raw materials, such as oil and timber, is urgent. Food and drink companies can limit their contribution to these challenges and take the opportunity to strengthen their resilience in the face of shortages and rising costs. UK and EU packaging leaders are moving from efficiency and lightweighting towards new materials, recyclable and recycled, and reusable packaging formats. For example, alcoholic drinks companies are experimenting with infinitely recyclable aluminium instead of glass, and being lighter, the product has fewer transport emissions.

Risks and opportunities

Companies who are unable to understand or keep pace with regulatory changes face increased costs resulting from levies on non-recyclable packaging, fines for misleading green claims and increased costs of excess packaging. Evidence shows that if customers are disappointed, companies will lose sales.

However, leading companies in the sector are embracing the transformation and innovating across the value chain. For example, with smart packaging technology using freshness tags; using alternative materials to plastic such as seaweed coatings and mushroom fibre cushioning; and using more reusable and refillable packaging. Infrastructure to support circularity is also growing, with refill stations, mobile and fixed reverse vending machines, and scanning and tracking technology increasingly prevalent. Cameras and cloud-based systems can be used to enable traceability and visibility over each process involved in collecting, recycling and cleaning packaging.

Companies that can promote and support convenient sustainable living will succeed in today’s crowded market. Many value-driven brands are entering the market and winning customers on this basis.

What should investors be asking?

Investors who want to understand the sustainability of packaging used by food and drink businesses should be asking management teams the following questions:

How does the business actively prepare for upcoming regulatory change and comply with existing regulations?

Does the business follow industry codes and benchmarks?

How does the business track the competitive landscape and identify gaps and innovations that resonate with consumers?

Does the business understand how customers use and dispose of their packaging?

Does existing packaging have clear recycle/reuse instructions?

Can the business substantiate claims on packaging sustainability?

Does the business know and manage the full life cycle along the value chain from raw material production through to disposal?

Does the business communicate their sustainability status openly e.g. on website linked to a QR code on packaging?

How does the business collaborate with stakeholders in all markets to ensure their packaging is reused/recycled correctly?

Prof Consulting Group helps to lead business to success in the UK and Australian food industry with its team of industry-leading experts and extensive range of services. For more information or to discuss how Prof. Consulting Group can support your business, please visit https://www.profcg.com/contact/

The £0.5bn revenue raiser, incurring the wrath of farmers

GK Senior Adviser James Allan visited the farmers protest in Westminster and assesses the likelihood of a government u-turn and its agriculture policy plans.

On 19 November, farmers were out in force and took to the streets of Westminster for a heartfelt protest for a sector that feeds the nation. At the autumn budget, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves introduced a cap of £1m for assets eligible for Agriculture Property Relief and Business Property Relief. Estimated to raise £0.5bn a year by 2029/30 for spending on public services, the measure has been dubbed a ‘family farm tax’ for farmers that “don’t do it for the money because there is none”.

The extent to which the Chancellor’s action equates to a “death knell” for the family run farm is somewhat contested. While the Country Land and Business Association estimates 70,000 farms will be impacted by the change, various policy wonks and tax specialists argue that this does not consider other reliefs and is based on the quantity of farms, rather than ownership structures. Disputed figures aside, it risks fueling a shift public opinion against the government and one of the shortest-lived honeymoon periods for a new Prime Minster. A survey carried out by JL Partners found that 53% of respondents felt the autumn budget was unsuccessful, so the farming community are not alone.

Is this Reeves’ Cornish pasty tax moment?

When then-Conservative Chancellor George Osborne introduced a 20% tax on hot foods to end VAT anomalies in 2012, few anticipated the political drama of “pastygate” which ensued. The Conservative government was criticised for being out of touch, with some commentators even alleging class war. Then Prime Minister David Cameron was caught out for saying he’d eaten a pasty in Leeds Railway Station when the West Cornwall Pasty Company duly noted that the pasty outlet had closed two years previous. The controversy detracted from Osborne’s budget and ultimately led to a government u-turn and a negative with 49% of people describing the government’s handling of pastygate as a “shambles”. In a similar vein, the political fallout from this protest will be difficult for the Labour government to manage. Whatever Reeves’ next move, pastygate demonstrates that u-turns are not unprecedented when public opinion moves against a pinch point policy issue.

Beyond the political drama

Politics aside, the protests cut to the core of several interrelating policy issues, chief among them food security. Should farmers up the stakes and choose to strike, the government has already confirmed contingency plans to mitigate against likely food shortages. Any disruption to already fragile “just in time” food supply chains, which are a hallmark of the British supermarket industry, would have an immediate knock-on effect for the consumer, and in turn, the voter. This year of global elections has demonstrated that voters do not reward incumbents when food prices rise.

Yet given the 60/40 split of domestic and imported food produce respectively, the issue of food security is both desperately domestic and international. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only led to record levels of food inflation, hitting low-income households the hardest, but also a decline in business investment in the UK food and drink sector. Then there’s the issue of climate change. While India and Pakistan account for roughly 46% of UK rice imports, the government acknowledges that India is increasingly a climate vulnerable country. In short, a greater dependence on food imports arising from a possible collapse of domestic farming exposes the UK to yet more unpredictable geo-political and climate risks.

The British farming sector does not operate in isolation; it is critical to the UK’s broader rural economy, supporting industries such as agricultural machinery, agri-tech and innovation, and food processing. More than this, farmers are custodians of the UK countryside, contributing to environmental goals of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and sustainable land management and forestry. Though contentious, the Chancellor’s action prompts a broader conversation about agricultural reforms which align with national priorities and ensures the voice of the farming community is heard. The government has yet to set out substantive details but spoke of a new deal for farmers during the election campaign. Now in government, Defra Secretary Steve Reed has signalled a focus on trade deals undercutting low welfare and low standards; maximising public sector purchasing power to back British produce; and a land-use framework to balance nature recovery and long-term food security.

Whether Reeves doubles down or pivots on the Agriculture Property Relief depends on the government’s willingness to expend political capital to defend its decision. Labour’s instinct will be to fight on but the party finds itself on new ground. Its broad but narrow majority is part contingent on non-traditional Labour voters, many of them in rural areas. The MPs in these constituencies will have their eyes on a 2029 general election. Maintaining the rural vote and positioning Labour as the party of both rural and urban communities will be a challenge for the government. How Starmer and Reeves handle the ‘family farm tax’ could well define this iteration of the Labour Party. For investors and businesses alike, keeping abreast of these political battlegrounds, and preparing for the associated commercial risks and opportunities, will be important in making the case to a government that might well bend to a shift in public opinion.