Revealed: the council that spends more on pensions than it collects in tax
The Shetland Islands council puts the equivalent of 111pc of its council tax haul into staff pensions, while councils in Hackney, South Oxfordshire, Newcastle-under-Lyme and the Orkney Islands all shell out more than half.
Another 19 fork out the equivalent of at least a third of what they take in.
Together, the 24 councils have stuffed almost £3bn into staff pensions over the past five years – but still hiked their tax rates by an average of over 7pc for 2025-26.
As rates soar to record levels and second home owners are hit with double premiums, Telegraph Money can reveal:
12 Scottish, nine English and three Welsh local authorities now shell out more than a third of their council tax on staff pension contributions – with the total bill exceeding £730m a year.
60 councils spend at least 20pc of what they collect.
The Local Government Pension Scheme already pays 2.3 million retirees and another five million current and former workers are building up generous, inflation-linked pensions.
It comes after nine in 10 areas across England endured the maximum 4.99pc council tax rise last month, with parts of Scotland and Wales slapped with even higher increases.
Local authority funding comes from multiple sources, including government grants, but tax receipts represented more than half of English councils' core spending power last year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The Local Government Pension Scheme for England and Wales is one of the world's largest funded schemes, with 6.7 million members and £390bn in assets. Scotland's scheme has another 639,000 and assets of £60bn.
Together, they pay retirees £15bn a year in inflation-linked, guaranteed pensions for life. Employers pay an average contribution of 19.8pc of salaries for staff pension in England and Wales and 17.5pc in Scotland.
Now, following a series of Freedom of Information requests, The Telegraph can reveal the true cost of the generous schemes – and how much of your council tax is used to fund them.
Nigel Farage, Reform leader, said: 'For all the talk of debt, for all the talk of interest rates, for all the talk of local, county and national budgets, the real elephant in the room is public sector pensions.
'What is happening is a microcosm of an even bigger national problem. These will present big challenges for Reform in the councils we're in control of.'
The Shetland Islands council reported the highest percentage of contributions paid compared to council tax collected with 111pc. Its pension costs of £74.9m over the past five years dwarfed the £67.7m it collected from ratepayers.
In March, council officials said the council's major spending commitments and millions in borrowing repayments would lead to cuts to everyday services.
Orkney Islands council was also near the top of the list after spending the equivalent of 58pc of council tax.
The highest in England was Hackney council, which collected £415.2m in council tax between 2020 and 2024 and paid £243.3m, or 59pc, into staff pensions. It has yet to release its 2024-25 figures, but confirmed in November it would need to make savings of £67m by 2028.
South Oxfordshire district council received £43.8m over the past five years, but spent £25.2m, or 58pc.
Blaenau Gwent county borough council, at 39pc, was the highest in Wales after taking in £176.9m and spending £68.5m.
A total of 60 local authorities have spent more than a fifth of the council tax they collected on pension contributions since 2020-21.
Among the 24 that spent over a third, the average council tax increase for 2025-26 was 7.5pc. It ranged from 1.99pc in Newcastle-under-Lyme to 15pc on the Orkney Islands.
Birmingham council, which effectively filed for bankruptcy and announced £300m in cuts over two years, spent more than £100m a year, equivalent to 29pc of its council tax.
The figures come as homeowners and renters battle soaring council tax rates across the country.
Almost half of properties in England now face bills of at least £2,000, while the number of households on the hook for a £5,000 bill has quadrupled.
Six councils were also granted permission for exceptional increases by Angela Rayner, with Labour-run councils in Bradford and Newham hiking rates by 9.99pc and 8.99pc respectively. Increases in Scotland and Wales were even higher.
Second home owners have also been hit after more than 200 local authorities brought in a 100pc council tax premium from April 1, enabled by rules introduced under the Conservatives.
Telegraph analysis found that 2,000 second home owners in popular holiday hotspots could face bills of £10,000 or more across both their residences. The average second home owner will now see their tax bill rise 77pc to £3,672 in 2025-26.
John O'Connell, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Local taxpayers are fed up with seeing more and more of their cash being used to prop up gold-plated pensions that most could only dream of.
'Households across the country are still reeling from the latest round of council tax rises and authorities are cutting back key services. All the while, those working in local councils are sitting pretty on defined benefit nest eggs that are all but non-existent in the private sector.'
Despite the amounts paid in by councils, the Local Government Pension Scheme remained almost £6bn in deficit at its last valuation. Of 87 individual schemes, 26 still didn't have enough money to pay their retirees.
There were hopes that councils would be able to cut their contributions following the next round of valuations, due later this year. However, experts fear this is now less likely after Donald Trump's announcement of global tariffs hit investment markets.
Andy King, of wealth manager Evelyn Partners, said the 'huge divide' between public and private sector pensions raised questions over affordability and fairness for taxpayers.
He said: 'A lot of council tax payers will be surprised at just how much of their continually rising bills go towards funding pensions, rather than into local services. The scheme is hugely more generous than private sector pensions, and local government staff may not know how good it actually is.'
A Local Government Association spokesman said: 'The Local Government Pension Scheme [LGPS] can help encourage people to develop a career in local government. With pay often lower in local government than comparable private sector roles, the LGPS can mitigate that while occupational pensions, like the LGPS, can help public sector workers avoid needing welfare benefits in retirement.
'The LGPS is the most robust public sector pension scheme. Compared with other major public sector pension schemes, the employer contribution rates in the LGPS are also generally much lower.'
A Hackney council spokesman said: 'Council tax income is just one of many funding sources that form our £1.9bn budget this year and help us deliver over 800 services that our residents rely on.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BBC apologises to Jenrick over suggestions he is xenophobic in Radio 4 broadcast
The BBC has apologised to Robert Jenrick after a refugee charity boss suggested the shadow justice secretary is xenophobic during Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Jenrick has accused the broadcaster of smearing 'millions of worried citizens as 'xenophobic' for their completely understandable fears'. While appearing on the radio on Wednesday, Krish Kandiah, a director of Sanctuary Foundation, claimed Mr Jenrick had increased 'fear of the stranger' among people. Mr Kandiah added: 'The technical name for this is xenophobia. 'All phobias are by definition irrational. Nevertheless, they have a huge impact. 'Over the past year, xenophobia has fuelled angry protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers, deepening divisions in our communities.' In a letter to the Conservative MP, the broadcaster's head of editorial standards Roger Mahony said the comments went 'well beyond' what is expected of its Thought For The Day segment. Mr Mahony said: 'I have concluded that, while its reflection on fear in society from a faith perspective is broadly in line with expectations of Thought For The Day, some of the language it used went beyond that. 'I have asked for the two references to xenophobia to be edited from the programme on BBC Sounds. Please accept my apology for their original inclusion.' The content has since been removed from the programme on BBC Sounds. Mr Jenrick said: 'Illegal migration is obviously fuelling crime and the public are right to be concerned about it. 'It's extremely disappointing the BBC thought it was acceptable to smear millions of worried citizens as 'xenophobic' for their completely understandable fears about undocumented men entering illegally.' A series of protests have been held outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, over recent weeks after an asylum seeker was accused of attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, denies the charges of sexual assault and is due to stand trial this month. In a statement, the BBC said: 'During this episode of Thought For The Day, criticism was made of recent comments by shadow secretary of state for justice Robert Jenrick, about hotels housing asylum seekers. 'While the programme's reflection on fear in society from a faith perspective was broadly in line with expectations of Thought For The Day, some of the language used went beyond that and we apologise for its inclusion. 'It has been removed from the version on BBC Sounds.'


New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
U.K. Secretly Spent $3.2 Million to Stop Journalists From Reporting on Data Breach
The British government spent $3.2 million on a secret legal order preventing journalists from reporting a data breach that put almost 19,000 Afghans and their families at risk, according to records obtained by The New York Times. The breach, which happened in 2022, exposed the personal details of thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces before the Taliban takeover in 2021. The government, led by the Conservative Party at the time, went to England's High Court to obtain an order barring anyone from disclosing the breach, even to the people whose lives were feared to be at risk from the Taliban as a result. Journalists were also prevented from reporting on the existence of the court order itself. The government's legal action began in August 2023, when journalists first asked the Ministry of Defense about the breach, and continued until the order was lifted last month. It cost the British government 2.4 million pounds, or over $3.2 million, according to information disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request. Government ministers involved in the decision have since defended the stringent legal order, which is known in Britain as a 'super injunction,' arguing that it was necessary to protect the people whose personal details had been disclosed. As a direct result of the data breach, Britain spent at least £400 million on a secret program to relocate 4,500 Afghans to Britain. But the government's unprecedented use of a super injunction has intensified questions about freedom of the press in the country. The State Department's annual publication of reports on international human rights on Tuesday criticized Britain's record, describing 'credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression,' while Vice President JD Vance has also argued that free speech is under threat. The British government has said it upholds free speech, but that it balances that right with the need to prevent violent disorder, hate crimes and the swaying of trial juries. Justice Martin Chamberlain, the judge who lifted the order relating to the Afghan data breach last month, said that it was the first super injunction ever granted 'contra mundum,' meaning 'against everyone,' and that it interfered with freedom of expression and Britain's democratic processes. When Labour entered government last year, it commissioned an independent review into the super injunction and the resettlement program, which led to the lifting of the injunction and the public disclosure of the data breach. Critics argued that the government's legitimate interest in protecting the safety of Afghans was supplanted over time by a desire to avoid an embarrassing headline during an election year. The breach happened in February 2022, when a member of the British military accidentally emailed an external contact a spreadsheet containing the details of 18,700 Afghan servicemen, police officers and others seeking refuge in Britain after the Taliban takeover. The disclosure was not discovered until part of the spreadsheet was posted on Facebook in August 2023. Within days, journalists approached the Ministry of Defense about the breach, prompting the government's application for an injunction. Holly Bancroft, the home affairs correspondent for the Independent newspaper, was among the first journalists to be served with the order. She told The New York Times that she was unaware of the data breach and had asked the Ministry of Defense why many Afghans who had previously been denied permission to travel to Britain were suddenly being approved — decisions she now knows were part of the emergency response. Ms. Bancroft said she had been invited into a room inside the ministry's headquarters, handed a paper copy of the super injunction and told not to 'talk to anyone about it' other than a lawyer. Ms. Bancroft estimates that over the next 18 months, she attended more than 20 hearings at London's High Court, where The Independent and other news organizations, including The Times of London and Associated Newspapers, were campaigning for the injunction to be lifted. The government fielded a roster of senior lawyers to argue against them. Asked for comment on Wednesday, the Ministry of Defense pointed to the statement made by John Healey, the defense secretary, while disclosing the breach last month. He said he felt 'deeply concerned about the lack of transparency' and had chosen to 'reassess' the basis for the injunction when he entered government. Steve Kuncewicz, a specialist media lawyer from Glaisyers Solicitors, said that no legal power comparable to super injunctions existed in the United States and 'couldn't be considered' because of the First Amendment. 'They are a creature of the U.K. courts,' he said. The orders had previously been sought to prevent the disclosure of 'embarrassing details of people's private lives,' he noted, such as the order obtained in 2010 by a former England soccer player, John Terry, over allegations of an extramarital affair. The use of super injunctions has long been contentious in Britain but, Mr. Kuncewicz said, the Afghan data breach case was 'unique.' 'These orders are only meant to stay in place for the shortest amount of time, and be granted in the narrowest terms possible,' he added. 'They are really chilling to free speech.'


New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
Alexander Isak and the Premier League players who have tried to force a transfer
Less than a week before Newcastle United's Premier League season opener against Aston Villa, The Athletic reported that their star striker Alexander Isak is adamant he will not play for the club again. Isak, who has scored 62 goals in 109 appearances for Eddie Howe's side, views his career there as over after three years. Newcastle, though, say they have no intention of allowing him to leave, and have turned down a £110million ($149.3m at the current rate) bid this summer from Premier League champions Liverpool. Advertisement The question now is whether Isak will successfully force the club's hand or continue into the season still refusing to feature. Or maybe there will be a reconciliation — perhaps after the transfer window shuts on September 1 in what is now a World Cup year. The Athletic looks back at some similar situations, from Harry Kane's non-move from Tottenham Hotspur to Manchester City to Dimitri Payet's one-man strike at West Ham United, to get a sense of what could happen next. A problem for Isak is that being under contract at Newcastle until the end of the 2027-28 season significantly weakens his hand. It is the same obstacle fellow striker Kane faced when he tried to move from Hotspur to Manchester City this time four years ago. He wanted out after Spurs failed to secure Champions League football for the 2021-22 campaign and believed he had a 'gentleman's agreement' with chairman Daniel Levy that he could leave if they received a suitable offer from another Premier League side. However, he had another three years remaining on his contract at the time and Tottenham would not countenance a sale for anything less than £150million ($203m today). Sound familiar? In an attempt to give himself more leverage, Kane did not return for Spurs' pre-season on the date expected by the club following that summer's European Championship with England, but after receiving criticism, he posted a statement on social media insisting he 'would never, and have never, refused to train'. In the end, after City failed to meet the asking price and Levy stayed insistent that he would only sell him overseas, Kane remained at Tottenham. He went on to play a crucial role there for two more seasons before moving to Bayern Munich in summer 2023. Isak believes he made it clear last year that 2024-25 would be his final season as a Newcastle player, though some at the club deny this was expressed and believe the striker planned to discuss the situation, including the possibility of fresh contract terms, this summer once the campaign was over. Advertisement There are echoes there of 2013, when Luis Suarez became embroiled in a debate with Liverpool over whether he should be allowed to leave. He claimed their manager Brendan Rodgers had promised him he could go if Liverpool did not qualify for the 2013-14 Champions League (which they failed to do, only finishing seventh) and Arsenal submitted a bid of exactly £40,000,001 in the, incorrect, belief that Suarez had a release clause that would be triggered by any offer over £40m. Suarez was forced to train on his own in pre-season over his attempts to force a move, and it was the intervention of Liverpool's captain at the time Steven Gerrard that eventually convinced him to stay and helped broker peace between the Uruguayan and Rodgers. The following season, Suarez was named Premier League player of the year after scoring 31 goals in the competition as Liverpool came agonisingly close to winning the title. He was then sold to Barcelona in July 2014. If Isak truly has no desire to reintegrate at Newcastle, as was reported by The Athletic's David Ornstein this week, the obvious question that follows is whether he flat-out refuses to train. That nuclear approach has been employed by different footballers when seeking a transfer, though with varied success. In 1998, Nottingham Forest striker Pierre van Hooijdonk refused to return for pre-season over what he perceived to be the club's lack of investment in their squad. 'I think we all felt similar to Pierre that summer,' former Forest defender Alan Rogers told The Athletic in 2020. 'We all felt frustrated. But you don't expect one of your team-mates to go on strike like Pierre did. He just went about it completely the wrong way.' The Dutchman was not a popular figure in the dressing room when he was finally persuaded to go back to work in the November, as team-mates Dougie Freedman and Steve Chettle recounted to The Athletic in 2020. One of the most memorable and succinct quotes from the whole affair, though, was then Forest manager Dave Bassett's initial reaction to the idea of Van Hooijdonk returning: 'If he thinks we're going to offer him an olive branch, he knows where he can stick it.' Advertisement As it turned out, Van Hooijdonk was a decent player, even with a metaphorical olive branch somewhere uncomfortable. He could not save Forest from relegation but did score six goals in 19 starts and two substitute appearances in the league, a tally only bettered in the squad by fellow forward Freedman, who got nine. He then moved to Vitesse Arnhem in his homeland that summer. This was a strike that could not be reconciled. West Ham United co-owner David Sullivan hailed Payet as a 'world-class player' when he arrived at the London club in summer 2015, later describing him as 'the best player I've signed in 25 years. He's a £30million ($41m at today's exchange rate) player. He's a supreme footballer. He makes every player in our side play better. On his day, he's world class — he's unstoppable.' After an excellent debut season in which he scored 12 goals and provided 15 assists in 38 appearances across all competitions, Payet was named West Ham's player of the year. But the Frenchman's exit the following season was as explosive as he could be on the pitch. After a quieter start to Payet's second season (22 games, three goals), West Ham manager Slaven Bilic revealed in January 2017 that the player wanted to leave. The situation was that Payet was on strike over the issue, refusing to train or play. He was eventually banned from the first-team training ground and told to work with the under-23 squad at another facility. There was no way back and at the end of that month, West Ham accepted a £25million bid from Marseille and Payet returned to the club they'd bought him from for less than half that amount 18 months earlier. By Bilic's admission, the Frenchman was his team's best player. He was also contracted to West Ham until the summer of 2021. But neither of those factors stopped the move he wanted from materialising. Young forward Berahino's relationship with West Bromwich Albion, the club where he came up through the youth ranks, never recovered from 2015's summer transfer window. The 21-year-old had scored 20 goals across all competitions in 2014-15, leading Spurs' manager at that time Mauricio Pochettino to push for the north Londoners to sign him. West Brom's chairman Jeremy Peace maintained Berahino was not for sale, despite multiple Tottenham bids and a transfer request by the player. Advertisement The saga came to a head with Berahino saying he would never again play for a club run by Peace. On September 1, he posted on Twitter (now X): 'Sad how I can't say exactly how the club has treated me but I can officially say I will never play (for) Jeremy Peace.' The post was later deleted and Berahino did play for West Brom again, apologising for his threat to go on strike, but his career at the West Midlands club never recovered. In January 2017, he made the short move to Stoke City. He has since played for Sheffield Wednesday and in Belgium, Cyprus and Slovenia and had a brief spell with a team in India, but never again hit the heights of goalscoring that he reached in those early years with Albion. He only turned 32 last week and is currently without a club. 'I think 'frustrating' is the word to sum him up because he had such a high and then such a low,' James Morrison, who played with Berahino at West Brom, told The Athletic in 2020. 'But maybe we let him down. Having that Tottenham move rejected obviously affected him, and as a club we maybe could have helped him more. 'He'd worked his way up and was scoring goals in the Premier League and that chance came for him to go to Tottenham and play Champions League football. I think most players would be disappointed, and as a footballer you could see his frustration. I don't think he ever got over that.' (Top photos of Suarez, left, and Isak: Getty Images) Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms Play today's puzzle