Local authorities should be given greater powers over ‘unfair' council tax, MPs warn
An inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government concluded that interim powers should be devolved to councils, ahead of a more comprehensive overhaul of what it described as "the most unfair and regressive tax in use in England today".
The Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee's report recommended that individual authorities be empowered to revalue properties in their areas, define property bands, set the rates for those bands, and apply discounts.
Beyond council tax, the report suggested that a broader devolution of fiscal powers, such as the ability to apply a tourist tax, should also be considered to address the growing financial strain on local government, exacerbated by austerity measures introduced in the 2010s.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner recently voiced her support for "more push" towards fiscal devolution, aligning with the government's commitment to transfer central decision-making to local areas.
Furthermore, the committee advocated for replacing central government ringfencing of funding with "a rigorous outcomes-based system of accountability".
This would ensure local authorities are held responsible for achieving agreed outcomes within their overall budgets, rather than simply meeting spending targets.
Council tax bill rises hit 5 per cent in April for the third year in a row, as almost all councils increased bills up to, or close to, the maximum permitted.
The revaluation of properties has long been called for, with council tax bands in England still based on property values in 1991.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the most expensive properties (Band H) attract three times as much tax as the least valuable (Band A) despite being worth more than eight times more now, as prices have risen most in affluent areas.
'Council tax is therefore both increasingly out of date and arbitrary, and highly regressive with respect to property values,' it added.
A recent analysis commissioned by the County Councils Network found allowing councils to administer and retain taxes generated locally would boost funding for services by more than £4 billion in many areas and 'supercharge' economic growth.
Florence Eshalomi, Labour chair of the committee said: 'When residents are paying more and more in taxes but seeing less and less in regular, everyday services, such as libraries and fixing potholes, then trust in local democracy is at risk of being undermined.
'Government in England is overcentralised. The current financial pressures on local government are also driven largely by mandatory, high-cost, demand-led services, such as social care and special educational needs or disabilities, where councils have little control over these needs.
'Councils are trapped in a straitjacket by central government, with local authorities lacking the flexibility or control to devise creative, long-term, preventative solutions which could offer better value for money.
'If, as a country, we are going to deliver growth and improve local services, Westminster needs to ease its grip and let councils have more power to control their own affairs and be accountable to their own electorates.'
The report also called called for the Government to reconsider its decision to freeze local housing allowance rates and extend its support for local authorities to acquire new housing stock through the local authority housing fund.
Responding to the findings, the Local Government Association (LGA) said the findings provide further evidence of the fragile state of local government finances.
Pete Marland, chair of the LGA's economy and resources board, said: 'Greater financial certainty and a simpler funding system are important. However, all councils remain under pressure and face having to increase council tax bills to try and protect services at the same time as making further cutbacks.
'A sustainable, long-term financial model for local government must lead to all councils having adequate resources to meet growing cost and demand pressures.'
London Councils, which represents the capital's 32 boroughs, said the report shows 'change is long overdue', but raised concerns over the Government's plans for changing the way funding is distributed.
Claire Holland, chair of London Councils, said: 'The Government's plans to reform council funding are pivotal for ensuring local areas receive funding that genuinely matches their levels of need and enables them to cope with fast-rising costs and pressures.
'It's right that the Government is targeting deprivation in the new formula, but we are concerned that the measures used in the current proposals will not sufficiently account for London's extreme housing poverty.
'This could mean London is left without the funding we need to deliver vital local services and return to financial stability.'
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'The Government is taking decisive action to fix the broken council funding system, so local leaders can deliver the vital public services their communities rely on.
'We have announced over £5 billion of new grant funding for local services on top of the £69 billion already made available this year to boost council finances, and we will go further to reform the funding system to make it fit for the future.
'This will ensure councils get the support they need and protect residents from further costs by keeping a 5% limit on the amount council tax can be raised without a referendum.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Doomed 105-year-old football club could go out of business in days
Morecambe Football Club faces imminent closure, with prospective buyers stating it will go out of business on Monday without immediate action. Panjab Warriors, the prospective buyers, have urged current owner Jason Whittingham to sign the deal to allow the takeover to proceed and save the club. The club's academy is set to cease operations by the end of the week, and the first team has already halted activities due to lapsed insurance. Morecambe's membership with the National League has been suspended, and the club remains under embargo ahead of the upcoming season. Panjab Warriors, supported by a minority shareholders action group, are ready to complete the acquisition to preserve the club's 105-year legacy.
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is this tough US-EU trade deal a triumph for Brexit Britain? Only in leavers' most delusional fantasies
Those who misled the country over Brexit are usually quieter these days. They do not hang their heads in shame, but change the subject whenever they can. They deflect with their new war-cry that Britain must also leave the European convention on human rights. As the effects of their wicked Brexit folly worsen by the month, they rarely get a chance to whoop: 'We were right!' So their glee was unrestrained when the great US global bully gave Britain a less hard beating with a 10% tariff on its goods, compared with the EU, which was walloped with 15%. Their joy overflowed when the business and trade secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, conceded: 'I'm absolutely clear, this is a benefit of being out of the European Union, having our independent trade policy, absolutely no doubt about that.' But what else can a trade secretary, speaking through gritted teeth, actually say? In his attempts to attract foreign investment, he can hardly tell the truth about the damage done by leaving the EU. These advocates of Brexit should gloat while they can. When the French prime minister called the EU's deal with Donald Trump a 'soumission' (submission), Kwasi Kwarteng seized on the word in a piece for the Telegraph, writing: 'For the French, with their memories of capitulation to the Nazis in 1940, the word is even more associated with abject humiliation than it is in English.' Yes, that's the same Kwarteng who hurled the British economy over a cliff only three years ago. 'This trade deal is the EU's greatest humiliation since Britain voted to leave', read the headline on his column. But he would never confess that the difference between a 10% and 15% tariff with the US is minimal, since we trade twice as much with the EU as the US. It barely equates to the regular variation in exchange rates: in other words, it's 'a rounding error', the Centre for European Reform's trade expert, John Springford, told me, when compared with the hammer blow Britain gave itself with Brexit. The UK-India trade deal signed with the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, last week was greeted with another Brexiter whoop from the Conservative peer Daniel Hannan. Also writing in the Telegraph, he said: 'My party, and Brexiteers more widely, should be taking credit for having done what all the clever Europhiles have spent six years telling us was impossible. Instead of moaning, we should welcome Starmer's belated understanding that world's biggest and fastest-growing markets are outside the EU.' But the Tory leader took another view: 'Keir Starmer called this 'historic.' It's not historic, we've just been shafted!' Kemi Badenoch said, dismissing the India agreement as a bad deal that would increase immigration. I don't know whether clever men like Kwarteng and Hannan are blinded by Brexit monomania or paralysed by the awful knowledge of the damage they have inflicted on their country, unable to confess an act of treachery and delusion hardly matched in British history. But as ever, facts are too inconvenient for them to deal with. Yes, the India deal is the biggest and most substantial trade deal since leaving the EU. Yes, it's a deal that would have been impossible to do from inside the union. But how big is it? It will add 0.13% to our economy. That's better than the Australia agreement, worth just 0.08%, the New Zealand deal, worth 0.03%, or the proposed US agreement, worth 0.16%, according to Department for Business and Trade analysis. But our fragile economy needs all the help it can get, so hurrah for Brexit and our new trade deals! But the gloaters ignore the context: our great Brexit losses. Here's the Office for Budget Responsibility's assessment: 'Our forecasts have assumed that the volume of UK imports and exports will both be 15% lower than if we had remained in the EU.' That 15% loss in trade 'will lead to a 4% reduction in the potential productivity of the UK economy'. In other words, as Jonty Bloom of the New World calculates, we need 50 India trade deals to make up for Brexit, because Britain does more than 40% of its trade with the EU – more if you include the European Economic Area and Switzerland. India has just 2% of our trade. Brexiters bleat that Labour is sneaking us into the EU by the back door, with deals on Horizon, the EU's research and innovation funding programme; soon, hopefully, Erasmus; and maybe a youth experience scheme. We hope for agricultural products and energy deals. But even these, say the trade experts, are still small potatoes. Major attempts to rescue Britain's 4% loss in productivity since 2020 hit the concrete walls of Boris Johnson's monumentally bad trade and cooperation agreement. Brexit zealots protest against agreements to keep a dynamic alignment with EU standards that would make trade easier. But it doesn't apply to our internal environmental standards: outside EU rules, we have let our water quality fall behind the EU. More than 85% of bathing waters in the EU are rated excellent compared with just 64% in the UK, with the gap rising every year, reports the European Movement. Public opinion has shifted rapidly: we are now a 'Bregretful' country, where only 31% still think it was right to leave and 61% say Brexit has been more of a failure than a success. Who do they blame? The Conservatives and Boris Johnson are top of the list, with 88% and 84% respectively holding them responsible. More than two-thirds (67%) blame Nigel Farage. A majority of Britons (56%) want to rejoin the EU as the grim reaper carries off old Brexiters, replacing them with young, pro-European voters. Don't expect bolder moves from the Labour government in its current frame of mind. Though defence and security draw us towards ever closer union, public opinion is not to be trusted. If people were confronted now with actual re-entry terms – paying in, free movement, joining the euro, no special deals – their answers might change. The mood might also be different if the far right continues its gains in EU countries, dividing the union's values. What might it take to throw off the economic, political and psychological darkness of Brexit? A clever – or Cleverly? – new Tory leader daring to break with the past, confessing the error of Brexit and taking us back into the EU, once and for all. It may take another generation to recover. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Times
32 minutes ago
- Times
Whatever Keir Starmer says, Heathrow's third runway is a folly
F or a flight to nowhere, at least it's a popular one. Heathrow's third runway is back on the radar again: a reheated version of its pre-Covid plan, only this time with a jumbo £49 billion price tag. It's got a political tailwind, too, with the PM saying he'll do 'whatever it takes' to get 'spades in the ground' by 2030 and Rachel Reeves bizarrely making it her No 1 growth project. Yet there are good reasons Britain has been failing to build this landing strip since 1968. And none of them have gone away, whatever the breezy assurances of the Heathrow boss Thomas Woldbye: the fellow who was famously sparko when the North Hyde substation fire shut the airport. In fact, some have got trickier. Back then, no one was contending with 'net zero' or the joys of the M25 — least of all putting all 12 lanes in a tunnel and having the planes land on top.
