• 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

Known unknowns: questions the Fair Funding Review still needs to answer

0
  • by Guest
  • in Chris Buss · Funding
  • — 4 Mar, 2019

The government’s consultation document on reforms to local government funding left more questions than answers, says Chris Buss.

Back in December the Government issued its consultation document on local government funding post 2020 – we are therefore getting to the end of the “Fair Funding Review”. 

Long term readers of my musings may recall my thoughts on the subject published by Room 151 in February 2018.

So how has the government performed in achieving a task that I described a year ago as “mission impossible”?  Let’s see.

In the past year the government has published its response to the original consultation.

That, to be honest, was like most things – a mixed blessing.  

In future the major determinate of government financial support will be population with some adjustments for area cost and deprivation.

There will be a limited number of service specific calculations for social care (adults and children), highways, public health, fire and rescue, flooding and coastal protection and historic debt.

But arguments to include as service specific areas such as waste and homelessness have been rejected.

The latter is in my view unfortunate as homelessness has a significant financial impact on many local authorities.

Of course, the detail of how these will work and the weightings to be applied are still awaited and until these are known, there’s no certainty.

The government has also published for consultation what it’s thinking about including when considering a council’s resources.

Much of this is familiar territory, but there are a couple of suggestions that are worthy of comment.  

The first is to include the income raising ability that a local authority has from fees and charges.

The consultation recognises that many of these sources of income are linked to cost and that the decision as to whether to charge at or below cost – or indeed at all – is a local matter.

Inconsistency and opportunism

It then goes on to almost say that working out how much a council can raise from fees and charges falls into the “too difficult” box.

However, there’s one exception, as the consultation then says that surpluses on parking operations should be treated as a resource.

The consultation recognises as a footnote that the use of any parking surplus is restricted by law to a few highway and transport related functions, but still suggests that this is in effect an income source that should be treated as a resource.

This is inconsistency and opportunism at its best (or worst).

It ignores the fact that parking income fluctuates with the economy and that moves by other parts of government at either a local or national level such as emission zone charges and congestion charges impact on this area.

The inconsistency is two-fold: firstly if one area of charges is to be considered then really all areas of charges should be looked at and, secondly, the logic behind why areas such as homelessness are not included as a separate service in the needs calculations is the same logic as to why parking income should not be included as a separate resource.

Consistency, of course, was not one of the guiding principles of the review.

The second area is on council tax.

Here the government, in my view, has missed a trick.

They’ve taken as a fixed point that a number of the nationally set discounts such as for single parents and students should remain national.

Council tax discounts ought to be a local decision, and greater freedom on some of these areas would be welcomed.

And, as expected, the consultation has missed out on the opportunity to look at council tax bands and values, and rebalancing them to reflect current prices – this has definitely been buried in the “too difficult” box.

Silence of the plans

The consultation is however silent on a number of items that will impact on how the new arrangements will work.

The most obvious area of silence is on the overall quantum of the cake to be distributed.

There may be some insight into this when the chancellor’s spring statement is published in March but even in that document the figure will be very high level.

The consultation is also silent on the future of what for many authorities are now significant income streams in the form of New Homes Bonus and the Improved Better Care Fund.

The latter is of course linked to the future funding of social care which is the biggest elephant in the room.

Trying to fix a new local government funding settlement whilst awaiting a consultation on the largest single service is really bordering on the edge of acceptability even for the current government.

The other area of uncertainty is the damping arrangements which will need to apply post-2020 to reflect the change in resource allocations in the new system.

Councils who are adversely impacted by this will need time, and not just a few months, to adjust expenditure or raise other income to reflect the redistribution of business rates around the system.

The damping arrangements need to reflect this and to give adequate time for change or flexibility to increase council tax above any referendum norm.

Without this there will be adverse consequences.

The areas of silence – or known unknowns – dwarf the areas being consulted upon.

The impact of these changes could well be dramatic and even an early announcement in say September or October could leave some councils with some very difficult decisions.

One possible solution might be to give councils notification before the summer recess that their overall level of government support for 2020/21 will be no less than say the cash total received in 2019/20.

It’s not a perfect solution but it gives councils the one thing they need which is a bottom line of certainty.

So, overall, how’s the government done, after all I did describe it a year ago as mission impossible? Well to be honest there are still too many known unknowns, let alone the unknown ones, to give an honest view.

So unusually for me, I feel I can’t give a view.

In the words of the song: There are more questions than answers, and the more I find out, the less I know”.

However, I do know that this review is a missed opportunity to take a long hard look at a system which is creaking at the seams and needs a fundamental review.

In terms of tax base and sustainability, current arrangements – which now only rely on income from business rates to circulate resources around the system – are becoming increasingly fragile, as the nature of business use of property in the United Kingdom rapidly changes, impacting the long term resource available to local government.

Chris Buss is a former executive director (resources and assets) at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and a former director of finance & deputy chief executive at the London Borough of Wandsworth.

Share

You may also like...

  • 2022 is the year for confronting ‘chaos’ in audit and accounting 14th Dec, 2021
  • Income losses and lack of data hamper Whitehall’s support of councils in the pandemic 4th Jun, 2021
  • Waste authority to issue green bond through UKMBA 2nd Feb, 2022
  • Is local government funding “broken”? 12th 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 24 hours 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 Crunch talks set to prevent late budget in Powys
  • Next story What does the 2019 Spending Review mean for councils?

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares