• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Inflation ‘biggest concern for LGPS professionals’

    May 20, 2022

  • LGA calls for government support as regulators face staffing issues

    May 19, 2022

  • WMCA signs £4bn investment agreement with L&G

    May 18, 2022

  • Bill will give UK Infrastructure Bank power to lend directly to councils

    May 18, 2022

  • £400bn pension group collaborates on climate transition initiative

    May 17, 2022

  • CIPFA rejects proposal for vote on publication of fraud hub report

    May 17, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Understanding the future of business rate retention

0
  • by Guest
  • in Blogs · Resources
  • — 9 Nov, 2017

Photo: geralt/Pixabay, CC0

The move to 100% business rates retention remains contentious even as councils jockey to be included in pilot schemes. Adrian Jenkins writes that there are still battles to be had over how the scheme will work and who will be the winners and losers.

Earlier this year, we were asked by the County Councils Network to explore how business rate retention might work and how it might affect council councils.  Since then the fate of the policy itself has seemed somewhat in doubt, although now there are strong signals that some form of increased retention is likely, even if the shape of a new scheme in 2020-21 is still unclear.  The recent clamour amongst councils in two-tier areas to become 100% pilot-pools in 2018-19 shows that local government is keen to get more retention.

The work we did for CCN is therefore as relevant now as it was then, despite the changes in policy. We needed to understand how 100% retention or something like it might be implemented.  Of course, ministers could decide to do something different, or to make different assumptions, but by trying we did understand much more about how 100% retention might work.

Our starting point was to assume that a future 100% system would actually look very similar to the current 50% system: i.e. a funding baseline (BFL), a business rates baseline (BRB), and a top-up or tariff to make it fiscally neutral.

The BFL in a new 100% scheme takes the current BFL and adds additional funding streams. There are some obvious candidates (public health grant, revenue support grant, rural services delivery grant) but to reach the £10.5bn that is required to make 100% retention fiscally neutral is actually not that easy. Either the government will have to push the boundaries to find additional transfers, or a new system will need to be set up with a net tariff.

In national terms, the business rate baselines would be grossed-up from 50% to 100%. Single tier areas are simple but two-tier areas are not, and there are bound to be disagreements about the tier split between counties and districts. We modelled a county share of between 20% and 80%. The recent experience of negotiating the 100% pilot-pools might not help either: pilots have proposed a county share in the same kind of range. All the evidence points to a higher tier split for counties though, both to help contribute to the spending pressures from adult social care, and to create a more balanced system.

Baseline

Possibly the most important variable is the baseline reset. We assumed a full, 100% baseline reset in 2020-21, with a 50% reset five years later.  The full baseline reset could generate around £1bn, depending on growth between now and 2020-21. We also assumed that the surplus generated by the reset would be redistributed to local government based on BFL, although in practice it could either be used to offset the effect of the Fair Funding Review or to increase funding for adult social care.

Views on whether the baseline reset is a good thing or bad thing will largely depend on whether your authority has above-average business rate growth or not.  From the point of view of principle alone, we are uncomfortable with such a disruptive change. Disruption is not good for financial planning or the effective use of resources. And more importantly, it could seriously undermine the incentive-effect of rate retention: if authorities are not confident that they will be long-term beneficiaries of growth, then the incentive to invest in growth is diminished.

Other likely changes, however, should reduce risk and increase the incentive on growth: the safety net is set at 97% of BFL, and there is no levy. Removing the levy is controversial: it will give potentially enormous gains to high-growth authorities. Our modelling showed that there are grounds for considering a more sophisticated levy to mitigate largest growth.

Battles

What does our modelling tell us about how a new 100% retention scheme might be designed? Firstly, that it is likely to look very familiar, with the main building blocks being the same as the current 50% scheme.

Secondly, there is still a real battle to be had over the tier splits in two-tier areas. The 100% pilot-pools will tell us that there is no consensus yet between districts and counties yet, but our modelling suggests that the county share will likely increase significantly.

Lastly, the design of the scheme will determine who the winners and losers are. To date, these have mostly been high-growth district councils. The removal of the levy will give a long-term gain to those authorities with high-growth, but the baseline reset could easily wipe-out most of any gains that an authority has built up since 2013-14.  There is still much to play for.

Adrian Jenkins is a co-founder of Pixel Financial Management.

 

Share

You may also like...

  • ‘Chasing yield’ not the best strategy as negative rates loom 21st Jan, 2021
  • The climate-impact: Why are green house gas emissions so important to LGPS? 21st Jul, 2021
  • Course aims to aid move from private sector to council accounting 29th Sep, 2021
  • Room151 panel backs unitary councils and devolution 8th Feb, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 21 hours ago

    2022 LGPS valuations: difficult discussions in uncertain times: Michelle Doman looks at the impact of inflationary pressures, the war in Ukraine, climate risk and Covid-19 on employer contributions. At the start of 2022, for Local Government Pension… dlvr.it/SQlvy9 pic.twitter.com/Dd0lrHjWNb

    Room151 1 day ago

    Investing today: nowhere to hide: Partner Content: Alex Stanley from Ardea Investment Management suggests that investors have few places to hide amid a synchronised sell-off in both bonds and equities. However, there are catalysts that[...] dlvr.it/SQlNVC pic.twitter.com/KkGGnduzPL

    Room151 2 days ago

    Treasury to restrict PWLB loans to councils at risk of non-repayment: The Treasury has released new guidance that restricts local authorities’ access to Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) advances if there is a “more than negligible risk” of a council’s… dlvr.it/SQhLTV pic.twitter.com/vBsS7xMJdb

    Room151 2 days ago

    Mixed reaction to proposed government intervention powers: There has been a mixed reaction to the government’s legislative plans to strengthen its intervention powers over local authority finances. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill has proposed… dlvr.it/SQhLMB pic.twitter.com/50foWxpPGs

    Room151 2 days ago

    Post-Brexit struggles for national and local government regulators. @LGAcomms @NAOorguk Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/lga-call… #Brexit #government pic.twitter.com/s3c8ySGy5G

    Room151 2 days ago

    CIPFA: a question of transparency: Roman Haluszczak’s campaign for publication of the independent report into the collapse of CIPFA’s London Counter Fraud Hub has been rejected again by the institute. He is now calling for[...] dlvr.it/SQgC5V pic.twitter.com/08fWsHFF4g

    Room151 3 days ago

    Back to the future for the PWLB: The Public Works Loan Board is tightening its lending criteria to ensure that loans will be repaid by local government borrowers. But, asks Peter Findlay, shouldn’t they have been doing[...] dlvr.it/SQcmmm pic.twitter.com/bVv4fe0Xlv

    Room151 3 days ago

    Great piece from Peter Findlay on the PWLB’s tightening of its lending criteria. He raises some pointed questions for the Treasury and explains why the ‘casino council’ characterisation was simplistic and inaccurate. #PWLB #localgov room151.co.uk/treasury/back-…

    Room151 3 days ago

    The Queen's speech highlighted the need for accelerating UK infrastructure investment into levelling up projects and cutting emissions. @UKInfraBank #QueensSpeech #ClimateAction #emissions Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/bill-wil… pic.twitter.com/hFmF2veVIa

    Room151 3 days ago

    Huge funding heading to the @WestMids_CA from @landg. @andy4wm #LevellingUp #netzero #regeneration Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/wmca-sig… pic.twitter.com/ajhZhia6mx

    Room151 3 days ago

    LGPS governance, Cagney and Lacey style: What regulatory response can be expected following the publication of the Good Governance project’s Phase 3 report and the closure of the Single Code of Practice consultation? Susan Black offers[...] dlvr.it/SQbfXf pic.twitter.com/xwqHOEu2AP

    Room151 4 days ago

    More evidence of the importance of emerging markets in the journey to net-zero. @BordertoCoast @BrunelPP @northernlgps @EAPensionFund @WYPF_LGPS Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 #LGPS #NetZero #NetZeroCarbon #EmergingMarkets room151.co.uk/brief/400bn-pe… pic.twitter.com/qCm0EGxzLn

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Audit
    • Blogs
    • Business rates
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Council tax
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Education
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Governance
    • Graham Liddell
    • Housing
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Infrastructure
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • Levelling up
    • LGPS
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Net Zero
    • Private markets
    • Recent Posts
    • Regulation
    • Resources
    • Responsible investing
    • Richard Harbord
    • Risk management
    • Social care
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Transport
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
    • William Bourne
  • Archives

    • 2022
    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • Previous story Council investors race to lobby IFRS9 panel as arcane reg threatens ‘perverse outcomes’
  • Next story Chancellor’s crackdown on property acquisition expected to hit councils investing beyond their borders

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares