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

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Slough welcomes commitment that Office for Local Government ‘will not be a burden’

    June 30, 2022

  • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities

    June 29, 2022

  • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets

    June 28, 2022

  • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’

    June 27, 2022

  • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’

    June 27, 2022

  • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council

    June 23, 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

Chris Buss: 100% business rates retention is a Meccano set without a spanner

0
  • by Guest
  • in Chris Buss · Funding
  • — 6 Mar, 2017

Photo: Les Chatfield, Flickr.

The business rates retention scheme as currently configured is a car crash waiting to happen, according to Chris Buss. He argues Westminster must still provide a base level of resource from central taxation.

One hundred percent business rates retention is one of those matters absorbing many hours of thought amongst colleagues, particularly those who have been involved in the various DCLG working groups trying to make it happen.

I have to be honest and say that it’s not something that I have taken a detailed interest in until recently, largely because it is something due to be introduced after my retirement.

However, I’ve had to take a closer look in recent months particularly after recent press coverage which, if one believes parts of the press, will lead to wholesale closure of high streets as well as many of the local hostelries I intended to visit in retirement.

I have reached the conclusion that in the words of one of the books I first read as a child, 1066 and All That, 100% business rates retention is a bad thing — well, at least in the way that’s currently being proposed.  Why have I reached this view, you might ask.

Levers

Those of us who have done a few years in local government will remember the system pre-nationalised non-domestic rates when rates, both business and residential, were set locally (although from the mid 1980s the concept of capping had been introduced).

The local government financing system pre-1990 also did not have compartmentalisation of local authority accounts — there was no ring fence around the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and no ring-fenced schools budget.

Oh, and of course, there was the concept of central government support for those authorities that had either high needs, or a low resources base or both: this concept was called grant which, at the time, was regarded as a good thing.

Grant theoretically enabled (if local authorities wished to) for a base uniform level of service to be provided across the country.  The effect of this system was that local authorities had a range of levers at their disposal to source income or reduce expenditure, rather than the straight jackets that we now have to work within.

As I see things the 100% business rate retention scheme effectively leaves the local authority sector in England to argue over how we fund and support those who have greatest need and less resource without central government financial support.

Some might argue that this is preferable to leaving it up to central government, and I do have some sympathy with this view.  However, the argument only stacks up if there is no central government interference in the new localised system which past and current experience shows is unlikely to happen.

Tools

What do I mean by that? Well, an example is the decision to change on business rates the inflation linkage from RPI to CPI which will reduce resources over time.  And there will, no doubt, be further interventions to smooth out the impact of revaluations.

These are just two examples of potential central government interference in the system and there will, no doubt, be many more to come when central government, usually the Treasury, decides that they have the divine right to amend the system without thinking of the consequences (for good examples, just refer back to HRA interventions of recent years).

Effectively, local government has been given a mechanism which is supposed to enable it to fund itself but without the tool kit to make the mechanism work.  In effect, a Meccano set without a spanner.

All of the above is bad enough without the fact that in the future we will have a politically sensitive tax base — business rates — which is also extremely vulnerable to the economic cycle. It will also fund two services which have an inexhaustible demand for resources as we, as a society, live longer and seem unable to provide adequate safeguarding arrangements for our most vulnerable young residents.

The impact of this is potentially a financial car crash likely to happen in the next five years i.e.  on, or about, the next business rates revaluation.

I do hope I’m wrong. But unless someone actually accepts that central government needs to have a financial say in the funding regime by providing a base level of resource from central, rather than local, taxation —funding those services that central government has mandated local government to provide to a minimum standard — we have, in my view, a crash in the making.

Those in authority in local government will only have themselves to blame for going along with a plan that has the reliability of a Friday afternoon built Austin Allegro or Morris Marina.

Central government will say they gave us what we asked for and will wash their hands of it all.  And it will be our residents that will suffer.  We really ought to have the courage to say, ‘Sorry, but as currently configured, the car you’re asking us to drive won’t work: it’s badly built, under powered, has no brakes and only one gear.’

Asking for a Rolls Royce or even a high spec BMW in the current austerity climate won’t wash, but something that’s reliable and, more importantly, works is still required.  Localised business rates as a single solution just doesn’t fit the bill.

Chris Buss is  finance director and deputy chief executive at Wandsworth Borough Council.

Get the Room151 Newsletter

Share

You may also like...

  • Impact Awards: Councils can make ‘game-changing’ difference to carbon management 22nd Apr, 2021
  • Queen’s Speech: an ambitious plan hampered by omissions 11th May, 2022
  • “Localism, localism, localism”, or simply time for better funding 19th Apr, 2021
  • Spending review: A lift from grant funding, rising gilt prices and inflation worries 28th Oct, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Homes England agrees strategic partnership with two authorities
    • Soaring inflation and pay pressures to add £3.6bn to council budgets
    • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’
    • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as ‘disappointing’
    • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 2 days ago

    Hillier confirmed as keynote speaker for LATIF/FDs’ Summit: Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has been confirmed as a keynote speaker for Room151’s combined Local Authority Treasurers Investment Forum (LATIF) and FDs Summit. The… dlvr.it/ST70F7 pic.twitter.com/hxV676Iley

    Room151 2 days ago

    Councils’ funding at risk due to ‘undercounting’ in census data: Population estimates in London and Manchester may have been significantly underestimated in the 2021 census potentially threatening government funding for frontline services in these… dlvr.it/ST707J pic.twitter.com/VncIyaXa01

    Room151 3 days ago

    Gove at LGA: councils to receive two-year financial settlement: Michael Gove has announced that councils will receive a two-year financial settlement from next year to provide authorities with “financial certainty” and allow them to plan ahead. The… dlvr.it/ST0kSV pic.twitter.com/wxL3UM4sGO

    Room151 3 days ago

    LGPS valuations: the digital journey: Rob Bilton explains how technology is helping to deliver one of the most complex data exercises in the world of public sector pensions. The 2022 valuations for LGPS funds in[...] dlvr.it/ST0kMq pic.twitter.com/VxjSPC2Uvo

    Room151 1 week ago

    Conrad Hall: ‘more sophisticated’ regulation needed for local government: The chair of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code Board has questioned the sophistication of financial regulation in local government and the continuing focus of the Department for Levelling Up,… dlvr.it/SSnPBV pic.twitter.com/G5d7JCWF8c

    Room151 1 week ago

    Slough Council approves plans to restructure finance department: Slough Borough Council has approved plans to restructure its finance department to enhance capacity and capability and to address a “significant weakness” in the function. The local… dlvr.it/SSf8DG pic.twitter.com/l5lmyHmkBg

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story DMO rate edges lower to 10bps
  • Next story Regulator working on change to MiFID rules for local authorities

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares