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

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • John Turnbull elected president of the SLT

    May 12, 2022

  • Pension pool identifies biodiversity as a priority

    May 11, 2022

  • TfL latest to face credit-rating downgrade by Moody’s

    May 10, 2022

  • Government proposes ‘fairer, more accurate’ business rates system

    May 10, 2022

  • Queen’s Speech confirms planning reforms

    May 10, 2022

  • 18,000 affordable houses lost through ‘permitted development’

    May 9, 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

Without ‘confidence’ in local government funding s114 notices remain a risk

1
  • by Guest
  • in Blogs · Funding
  • — 20 May, 2020

 

Local government minister Robert Jenrick

An extra £3.2bn has been poured into local government to help deal with the Covid-19 crisis. Adrian Jenkins argues more will be needed to confront spending on the pandemic, lost revenues and financial stability

Local authorities have received £3.2bn in extra funding but it is becoming clear that is not enough. Adrian Jenkins calls for clarity over funding Covid-19 spending, lost revenues and financial stability.

Coronavirus is placing huge pressures on local authorities and as a result the sector is facing widespread financial failure unless there is further financial support from central government. The lockdown is exposing the financial weaknesses in local government caused by 10 years of austerity—but also adding immediate financial pressures that are of a much greater scale.

One problem for local government is that the scale of these financial problems is not yet known. Will there be major losses in business rates and council tax? Probably, but we don’t know how much yet. And local government has put itself in a weak position: it always manages to balance budgets whilst claiming it is at a “tipping point”. The Treasury’s view, not unreasonably, is that local authorities tend to “cry wolf” and that it will only provide more funding when there is strong evidence.

Confidence trick

So far, local government has received £3.2bn in general funding (the famous two tranches), £500m in Hardship Fund for council tax support claimants, plus a further £600m that is largely passed directly to care homes. It is clear that this is not enough.

To some extent, the sector has been distracted by arguments about dividing the pie rather than maximising the size of the pie. But the evidence is already there that the financial pressures on local authorities is greater than the £3.7bn of direct funding.

Connecting this evidence with certainty about whether individual local authorities will issue section 114 notices requires a further step—but it is not difficult to see that the only thing standing between directors of finance issuing these notices is an expectation that there will be more funding from central government. It is only a confidence trick that is keeping many local authorities afloat.

At the heart of this problem is a lack of clarity and structure from Whitehall about how it will support local government. A strong commitment upfront from ministers in the early days of the crisis has been undermined by less-than-helpful statements (“sharing the burden”) since. Add to that a muddled allocation methodology for the second tranche of £1.6bn.

Worryingly, some ministerial statements have suggested that local authorities should use their own reserves first: not unreasonable, but not particularly helpful either.

Objectives

We are not here to argue about whether the distribution of the £1.6bn is justified or not. What is more important to the sector is that it lacked transparency (about quantum, distribution and process): there are no clear objectives for what the Government wants to achieve, or the process it is going to follow to get there.

What is the point of the funding to local government? The objectives, in our view, are twofold.

Firstly, to move funding to ensure local authorities can provide the essential services to support the fight against Covid-19. Secondly, to ensure that every authority is financially viable.

So far, the focus has been on the former and this has partly been achieved (although there is still a significant shortfall; see £10bn needed for local government to manage Covid-19 crisis). Increasingly local authorities will want to engage on the latter, and, without engagement from central government, s151 officers will be looking at s114 notice.

How should funding to local government be structured? Our suggestion is that funding should be split into three strands:

  • Funding additional expenditure associated with Covid-19;
  • helping authorities with reduced income streams;
  • ensuring authorities remain financially viable.

Funding additional expenditure

This is rightly the immediate focus of funding from central government. Distribution of that funding is difficult, however. We do not yet know the relationship between local spending on Covid-19 and infection rates or any other needs basis, such as the existing adult relative needs formular (adult RNF).

It is likely that some spending is universal and that funding could reasonably be distributed on the basis of population. Some spending is more closely linked to the size of an authority’s older population, and there is also evidence that infection rates are higher where there are greater levels of deprivation. Other types of spending correlated with specific “needs” (e.g. homelessness).

We need a more sophisticated approach than has been used so far in the first two tranches of funding. DELTA returns might help to show the distribution of spending across the country, and the types of bases that are most suitable. At the very least, the sector needs a transparent approach from the ministry for local government that makes use of the evidence that is available.

Helping with income losses.

The distribution of income losses will be very different to the distribution of spending pressures, and we need to have clarity about when funding is for income losses and when it is for expenditure.

The second funding tranche was very muddled: it seemed to be a bit of both, and different for different sectors.

A more fundamental question is whether the government be compensating authorities for income losses, and if so, to what extent?

Your answer to this question possibly depends on how much income your authority generates. But it will require a more sophisticated approach to get this right. Income sources such as car parking is very unevenly distributed.

And there will be concerns about “moral hazard” if the national taxpayer was funding losses from commercial investment. For the most important income streams—council tax and business rates—we will not know the scale of the losses for a few more months.

What the sector needs is a longer-term commitment to support lost income along the lines of the “income guarantee” proposed by the County Councils Network. One option might be to guarantee income losses up to an agreed threshold, and allow councils to fund losses above this threshold from borrowing.

Ensuring financial viability.

Direct funding cannot be a panacea that ensures no authority needs to issue a s114 notice. The quantum is unlikely to be high enough, and the distribution is never going to fully coincide with spending pressures and income losses. And no basis of distribution can possibly reflect “lost savings”.

A sensible backstop might be to allow capitalisation of losses, and without further financial support from central government, the ultimate backstop can only be the (unlimited) ability to increase council tax.

Currently, the government’s fall-back option is that local authorities facing a s114 should approach MHCLG with their problems.

After what happened to Northamptonshire County Council when they issued their s114, the prospect of throwing oneself on the mercy of central government is not an enticing one. The offer has the hollow ring of, “we are auditors and we are here to help”.

There might be cases that need bespoke help from MHCLG, but I am sure that the sector would prefer properly structured support that did not have to rely on one-on-one help.

Confidence

Backing up these principles, the sector needs confidence that there will be a process for reviewing the local government’s funding requirements (preferably every month), and that the government is committed to delivering these objectives.

There was a feeling that the second tranche of funding was a lot harder to drag out of the government than first; and whether this is true or not, it is about confidence, and that is lacking.

Without confidence in the process (and the outcome), s151 officers will start to think that a s114 notice might be necessary after all. And that is in no-one’s interests.

Adrian Jenkins leads the funding advisory service at Pixel Financial Management.

FREE monthly newsletters
Subscribe to Room151 Newsletters

Monthly Online Treasury Briefing
Sign up here with a .gov.uk email address

Room151 Webinars
Visit the Room151 channel

Share

You may also like...

  • Mike Thatcher: constructing a new role for local government 27th Jan, 2022
  • LGPS: responding to the new normal 8th Mar, 2022
  • 12 days of Christmas messages from the section 151 officer 16th Dec, 2021
  • Warrington’s credit rating downgraded by Moody’s 3rd May, 2022

1 Comment

  1. RichardSz says:
    2020/05/22 at 10:57

    Adrian is right to point out the risk of s114 notices in the light of the uncertainty about how the government will or will not support local government.

    I haven’t got a lot of sympathy for Councils that went heavily into commercial investments. I assume they have covered the risk for loss of rents – or they should have.

    Here’s a challenge – how many of you had a pandemic on your risk registers? A confession – I never did! Perhaps we should now. My understanding is that HMG had it on their risk register but did sweet FA about it. A lesson learned as the next pandemic is just a few years away.

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 4 hours ago

    Bags of capacity – now to housing delivery: HRAs have been freed up and councils are starting to invest, but some remain cautious, writes Steve Partridge. He suggests that a minimum of £10bn of additional borrowing could be[...] dlvr.it/SQDvxk pic.twitter.com/yZmoWzHv6U

    Room151 5 hours ago

    Bags of capacity – now to housing delivery room151.co.uk/treasury/bags-…

    Room151 1 day ago

    To Michael Gove: a modest proposal: Conrad Hall has written an open letter to the levelling up secretary suggesting an unusual (and tongue-in-cheek) proposal to help councils predict next year’s government grant. Dear Secretary of State,[...] dlvr.it/SQ9GpX pic.twitter.com/mSX1xgeL8a

    Room151 1 day ago

    Queen’s Speech: an ambitious plan hampered by omissions: Richard Harbord examines the impact of the government’s legislative proposals on councils, and concludes that local authorities expect and need more from central government. However you view the… dlvr.it/SQ8hmP pic.twitter.com/BsnziyNPIO

    Room151 2 days ago

    Insights and inspiration from LGPS leaders past and present: Four current and former LGPS leaders have recently given powerful and insightful interviews as part of the Fiftyfaces podcast, which showcases inspiring investors and their stories. Hosted by… dlvr.it/SQ53lC pic.twitter.com/IRYMFPxdA2

    Room151 3 days ago

    Rate rise represents ‘fastest increase in borrowing costs in 25 years’: Partner Content: CCLA Investment Management’s Robert Evans analyses the rationale for the Bank of England’s latest rise in the Official Bank Rate and assesses the likely outcome of… dlvr.it/SQ33k3 pic.twitter.com/A81yiS1UgN

    Room151 3 days ago

    The Liability Benchmark, very much unloved at the recent Room151 treasury briefing, receives a much more positive assessment from Jackie Shute. There’s ‘no better tool for treasury portfolio management’, she says. #localgov #finance room151.co.uk/treasury/in-pr…

    Room151 3 days ago

    In praise of the Liability Benchmark: Jackie Shute responds to recent criticisms of the framework used to plan the future borrowing requirements of a local authority. I’m not suggesting that this debate will have the same[...] dlvr.it/SQ2cGf pic.twitter.com/4rqXTpHC9A

    Room151 3 days ago

    Room151 launches survey on IFRS 9 override and MRP impact: Room151 has launched a survey to gauge the sentiment in local government on two important issues: the IFRS 9 statutory override and the consultation on Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP). The[...] dlvr.it/SQ1VT7 pic.twitter.com/ahPEiLoFNC

  • 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 LGPS pools: Navigating the impact of a pandemic
  • Next story The Municipal Bonds Agency offers ‘certainty’ and a chance for councils to ‘control their own debt’

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares