IFS - England’s council funding system is unsustainable – and big choices loom
A new report by researchers from the Institute for Fiscal Studies finds that overall spending on local services by English councils fell by 21% between 2009-10 and 2017-18.
Some services have seen much deeper cuts though. Spending on planning & development and housing services fell by more than 50% while cultural & leisure services and highways & transport also saw cuts of more than 40% over the same period.
This has allowed councils to protect social care services from the full force of budget cuts. Spending on adult social care fell by 5% between 2009–10 and 2017–18 – although the numbers receiving care fell by much more – and spending on acute children’s social care services (such as social work, safeguarding and fostering) actually rose by 10%.
The report also looks to the future, and summarises the funding options and issues for councils as we approach the 2020s.
The total amount of funding available to councils looks like it will become increasingly inadequate, despite an end to overall budget cuts. This is because current plans seem to envisage councils relying on council tax and business rates for the vast bulk of their funding – and revenues from these taxes are unlikely to keep pace with rising costs and demands.
- With annual increases to council tax of 3% (the maximum councils can increase it without a referendum if powers for extra increases for social care lapse as planned), rising costs and demands mean that adult social care could require 60% of local tax revenues within 15 years, up from 38% now. Without additional funding, this would mean cuts to other services, many of which have already seen cuts of 40%+.
- Even if council tax was increased by 4.7% a year (the average increase this year including the extra increases ring-fenced for social care), adult social care could amount to 50% of local tax revenues. This would leave little additional revenue to be shared between the whole raft of other services councils are expected to provide.
A big choice therefore looms:
- Either councils have to be provided with additional revenues, to enable them to continue providing existing services, let alone extend and improve them;
- Or government and society must accept that councils can afford to provide fewer or lower quality services than they currently do.
The allocation of funding between councils is also crucial.
For example, the government could raise more revenues nationally and then allocate to councils according to need. This would likely result in service provision being more comparable across councils, but could stymie local choice and accountability.
Alternatively it could build on recent reforms and give councils additional powers to raise more tax locally. This would allow councils to make different decisions on tax and spending levels, and give them stronger incentives to grow local tax bases and economies. However, it could mean bigger divergences in the range and quality of services in different council areas.
These sorts of trade-offs should be borne in mind as we approach the conclusion of the so-called Fair Funding Review of council funding, and this autumn’s Spending Review. The decisions taken on how to fund councils will have big implications for the kind of country that England is – and should therefore be subject to proper political and public debate, which has so far been lacking.
David Phillips, an Associate Director at the IFS and an author of the report, said:
"Current plans for councils to rely on council tax and business rates for the vast bulk of their funding don’t look compatible with our expectations of what councils should provide.
A proper national debate on how much we are willing to pay and what we expect of councils is therefore needed. Without it, we will default to a situation where the services councils can provide are gradually eroded without an explicit decision being taken – until ad hoc funding is found as a response to political pressure. Such an approach would not be conducive to long-term planning by either councils or the government."
Neil Amin-Smith, a Research Economist at the IFS and an author of the report, said:
"It is equally important to consider how funding is allocated between councils, and how willing we are to tolerate bigger differences in tax and spending between different parts of England in order to give local councils more control and stronger financial incentives.
Without debate, the risk is that we continue with reforms to the funding system that emphasise local financial incentives, while trying to regulate for common service standards in the context of a funding system that is just not set up to deliver them."
Latest News from
Reward farmers who help fight climate and nature crisis, urges IPPR think tank13/05/2021 14:35:00
Now the UK has left the EU’s agricultural schemes, the government should seize the opportunity to transform farming to protect the environment and secure the livelihoods of farmers, according to a new IPPR report.
IEA - Nanny statists have “exploited” this pandemic, says new research13/05/2021 13:35:00
Governments are increasingly adopting higher sin taxes and more prohibitions, finds the 2021 Nanny State Index
IFS - Elective hospital admissions dropped by a third last year, while outpatient appointments and non-COVID emergency admissions each fell by a fifth13/05/2021 12:35:00
New analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Harvard University and Imperial College London shows there were 2.9 million fewer planned admissions, 1.2 million fewer non-COVID-19 emergency inpatient admissions and 17.1 million fewer outpatient appointments between March and December 2020 compared with the same period in 2019.
Policy needs to adjust following encouraging GDP data, says IEA expert13/05/2021 11:35:00
Julian Jessop, Economics Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on the latest GDP and trade data from the Office for National Statistics
Queen's speech: IPPR reaction to ‘policy gulf’ on environment, planning, health and care agenda13/05/2021 10:35:00
Think tank welcomes some targets and commitments, but says bold action and clear policy must follow
Ill-considered ‘junk food’ ad ban “has to be binned”, says IEA expert13/05/2021 09:35:00
Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs responded to renewed government plans to ban ‘junk food’ advertising
Adam Smith Inst - "Nutty nanny statism": Government plans to ban 'junk food' advertising online and after 9.00pm11/05/2021 16:35:00
The Adam Smith Institute’s Head of Research Matthew Lesh responded to the Government maintaining plans to ban so-called ‘junk food’ from online advertising and before 9.00pm on television
“Unlikely to supercharge economic growth”: IEA experts respond to Queen’s Speech11/05/2021 15:35:00
Mark Littlewood, Director General at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on the Queen’s Speech
JRF - Queen’s Speech: Where is the Employment Bill for low-paid workers?11/05/2021 14:35:00
JRF responds to today's Queen's Speech
The apprenticeship levy should be scrapped completely, says IEA expert11/05/2021 13:35:00
Professor Len Shackleton, Editorial and Research Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, responded to the news that £1bn of apprenticeship levy funds has gone unspent in the nine months since last May