Britain’s Borrowing Breakpoint: September Marks Five-Year High in Public Debt

As borrowing tops £20 billion for the month, the UK faces its toughest fiscal test since the pandemic

The UK government borrowed £20.2 billion in September 2025 — the highest level for the month in five years, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The figure underscores a sobering reality for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who faces her first full-year Budget next month amid mounting pressure to stabilise the nation’s finances while avoiding the ghosts of austerity.

Borrowing — the difference between government spending and tax income — was up £1.6 billion compared with September 2024. Over the first six months of the financial year, the total has reached £99.8 billion, £11.5 billion more than in the same period last year.

That level of deficit places the UK’s public sector debt at 95.3 per cent of GDP, its highest since the early 1960s.

The numbers behind the headline

Despite stronger tax receipts, debt interest payments surged, offsetting fiscal gains from higher National Insurance and income-tax inflows.

In September alone, the Treasury spent £9.7 billion servicing debt — a jump of £3.8 billion year-on-year. Rising inflation and Bank of England base-rate hikes have inflated the cost of index-linked gilts, pushing interest payments to levels unseen outside wartime.

These figures were only slightly below analysts’ forecasts but have sharpened concerns that Reeves will need to raise taxes by up to £27 billion in her upcoming Budget to meet her self-imposed fiscal rule: funding day-to-day government spending without new borrowing.

Fiscal rules and the legal framework

Under the Charter for Budget Responsibility, the government must demonstrate that public debt is falling as a share of GDP within five years. While the Charter is a political commitment rather than a statute, it forms part of the Fiscal Responsibility Charter (approved by Parliament), giving the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) oversight of compliance.

If Reeves breaches her rule, she is required to explain the deviation in Parliament and set out a corrective plan — a process that has become ritual since the 2008 financial crisis.

The OBR’s projections in March 2025 assumed borrowing of £20.1 billion for September. The latest ONS figure exceeds that slightly, underscoring the narrow fiscal room Reeves has to manoeuvre without breaking her legal-policy framework.

Why borrowing is rising again

Several structural factors explain the upturn:

• Debt-interest spiral: Index-linked bonds — around 25 per cent of UK gilts — rise automatically with inflation. Though inflation is cooling, its lagged effect continues to elevate payments.
   
• Public-sector pay settlements: Pay awards for teachers, nurses and civil servants added billions to the current-spending bill.
   
• Benefits uprating: State benefits, including pensions, are legally indexed to inflation under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, compelling automatic increases.
   
• Ageing population: Higher welfare and NHS spending are baked in demographically, reducing fiscal flexibility.

Economic growth and tax constraints

Economists agree that Reeves’s easiest path to fiscal credibility is faster growth — not deeper cuts.

Paul Dales of Capital Economics told the BBC that “the Chancellor would love tax receipts to be higher” but that this depends on productivity and wage growth. His firm forecasts that “higher taxes on households will have to do the heavy lifting” — a political challenge for a government still defining its economic identity.

Reeves has publicly ruled out rises in income tax, VAT or employee National Insurance, which leaves “unprotected” sources such as capital gains, inheritance and property taxation squarely on the table.

Political pressure from all sides

Chief Secretary to the Treasury James Murray defended the government’s position, saying ministers would “never play fast and loose with the public finances.”

Opposition parties, however, framed the numbers as evidence of mismanagement. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride accused Reeves of “losing control of the public finances,” while Liberal Democrat Treasury spokeswoman Daisy Cooper said “alarm bells should be ringing for the government ahead of the Budget.”

Such exchanges highlight the central political tension: every pound spent on interest is a pound not spent on hospitals or schools — yet cutting too deeply risks stalling recovery.

Interest payments: the silent tax

At nearly £10 billion for the month, debt-interest payments now rival major departmental budgets. For context:

• The Department for Education’s annual schools budget is roughly £58 billion.
   
• The Home Office spends around £20 billion a year.
   

In effect, interest costs consume the equivalent of half the Home Office budget every 30 days.

Legally, the Treasury has limited options. It must meet gilt obligations under the National Loans Act 1968, and default is unthinkable. The only escape is economic growth — or inflation high enough to erode real debt, a politically dangerous medicine.

Reeves’s response: growth through deregulation

At this week’s Regional Investment Summit in Birmingham, Reeves announced plans to “scrap red tape” for businesses, claiming the reforms could save firms £6 billion annually.

Such supply-side adjustments aim to ease planning restrictions and simplify procurement rules — changes that intersect with administrative law. Simplifying regulatory burdens requires secondary legislation under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and modern equivalents, meaning any “slash in paperwork” must still respect statutory duties on equality, consultation and environmental protection.

Balancing deregulation with legal compliance will be one of the Treasury’s quietest but toughest tasks in 2026.

Long-term debt outlook

Public sector net debt has hovered around 95 per cent of GDP since 2023 — nearly triple its pre-2008 level. While pandemic-era borrowing explained much of that spike, fiscal drag and weak growth now sustain it.

The OBR expects total interest payments to exceed £110 billion this fiscal year, more than the Defence and Transport budgets combined.

Legally, there is no debt ceiling in the UK, unlike the United States. Instead, Parliament authorises borrowing annually via the Finance Act and Appropriation Act, guided by the Treasury’s internal limits. The discipline is political, not statutory — but the consequences are the same: markets judge credibility, not compliance.

Comparing past Septembers

Tax, law, and the limits of flexibility

Reeves’s “ironclad rule” — that current spending must be balanced by current receipts — is voluntary but politically binding. Breaking it would invite accusations of fiscal recklessness, potentially spooking gilt markets.

Yet the rule interacts with statutory obligations that leave little room for manoeuvre:

• The Pensions Triple Lock guarantees state-pension rises by the highest of inflation, earnings or 2.5 per cent.
   
• NHS England’s funding mandate, set under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, commits the government to multi-year real-terms increases.
   
• Local Government finance settlements are largely fixed in statute.
   

Taken together, these commitments mean over two-thirds of departmental spending is legally pre-allocated. The fiscal “wiggle room” Reeves controls is therefore smaller than it appears.

Analysts’ warnings

Independent think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates Reeves will need £22 billion just to plug the current shortfall, rising to £27 billion if productivity forecasts are downgraded.

Capital Economics suggests “households will feel the brunt” through frozen thresholds, higher council-tax bands and targeted wealth levies — all technically within Reeves’s tax-rise pledge not to touch headline rates.

For households, this means a slow squeeze rather than a sudden shock.

Legal accountability: what happens next

Once the Autumn Budget 2025 is published, the OBR must assess whether it meets fiscal sustainability tests. Under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, the OBR’s analysis is independent and must be laid before Parliament alongside the Budget documents.

If the Chancellor’s plans rely on unverified assumptions — such as revenue from deregulation or hypothetical growth — the OBR can qualify its forecast, signalling risk to investors. Such warnings, while technical, often move bond markets faster than political speeches.

Austerity’s shadow

Both economists and lawyers remember the last time borrowing spikes triggered sweeping cuts. Following the 2008 crisis, the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010 (since repealed) mandated deficit reduction. The resulting austerity reshaped public services and spurred a decade of litigation over local-authority funding and welfare reform.

Few expect Reeves to repeat that model — politically untenable after the pandemic — but the spectre of enforced restraint looms. In the end, legal rules do not reduce debt; growth does. Yet the law can compel transparency, discipline and honesty about trade-offs.

Conclusion: debt as destiny

September’s borrowing data is less a shock than a warning. The UK’s fiscal system — legally complex and economically fragile — is entering a new era where every policy carries a price tag.

The Chancellor must deliver a Budget that satisfies markets, voters, and Parliament’s fiscal guardians, all without stifling recovery.

History suggests that may be the most delicate constitutional act a modern British government can perform.

In summary:

Britain’s borrowing surge is both a financial and legal story — one where the numbers reflect not just economics, but the binding obligations of modern government. As the Chancellor prepares her Budget, the challenge is no longer how to spend less, but how to spend lawfully, sustainably, and convincingly.

Contact Us Now

Related articles:

County Court Judgment Removal

How to Remove a CCJ from Your Credit File