Huge rises in council tax not enough to offset cuts
Government ‘shifting the burden’ over social care
A YORKSHIRE council leader has called for a “fundamental review” of the council tax system after it was revealed that English authorities are set to rake in an extra £1bn next year – yet the sum fails to offset Government funding cuts.
East Riding leader Coun Steve Parnaby has also called for a review of the way adult social care is funded, claiming the Government is “shifting the burden” onto local authorities by forcing them to increase the amount they charge local ratepayers to pay mounting care bills.
Earlier this month East Riding approved a 5.99 per cent increase in council tax, of which three per cent is for the social care precept.
Across England, 64 councils are considering or have approved increasing council tax by 5.99 per cent – the maximum they can without triggering a referendum, analysis from the Local Government Association (LGA) has shown. Authorities in Rotherham, Wakefield, Sheffield, Kirklees and Bradford have approved the same increase, with Calderdale set to vote today.
LGA chairman Lord Porter has warned the hikes will fail to offset cuts of £1.4bn in funding from central government and additional expenses from the National Living Wage – forcing further cuts to services like parks, children’s centres and libraries.
Coun Parnaby said: “We have a four-year financial plan and we still have a £10m gap – of that £10m, £8m is for social care. The precept goes somewhere towards it, but the Government is shifting the burden to local taxpayers rather than national taxes – it removes accountability.
“If we are just passing on national tax increases, that’s really not what the council tax system is about. It needs a fundamental review. Tinkering around at the edges is not a solution.”
The LGA said 147 out of 152 of England’s social care authorities are set to charge a precept for social care, raising an extra £548m. But Lord Porter said the extra money will be “wiped out” by an estimated £600m extra needed to cover increases in the National Living Wage.
Rotherham Council’s leader Coun Chris Read said it was “evil genius” from Government to make local authorities responsible for social care – increases in which would be more impactful in traditionally Labour-voting poorer areas. “We are still looking at reducing services by something like £6m in the coming year, and about 100 jobs will go,” he said. “The increased pressure of social care, combined with cuts, are squeezing councils to the brink.”
Last week Yorkshire’s largest authority, Leeds, approved a 4.99 per cent rise in council tax. Deputy leader Coun James Lewis said: “In 2010, for every £1 in council tax, we got £2 in Government grants.
“It’s complex, but now, for every £1 people pay we’re getting the equivalent of 16 pence. The Government support has been reduced to little or nothing.”
A Government spokesman said it was delivering “a real-terms increase” to councils over the next two years and it wanted to work with local authorities to develop a new funding system.
Government is shifting the burden to local taxpayers. Coun Steve Parnaby, leader of East Riding Council.
IT IS indicative of the parlous state of localgovernment funding that many residents will being paying even more for a much-diminished service when they receive their next council tax bill.
Even in those areas of Yorkshire where the increase could be an eyewatering 5.99 per cent – virtually double the rate of inflation – this will not be sufficient to offset further cuts to key public services.
And, while buck-passing Ministers will claim this is a matter for the councils concerned, the Government cannot afford to stay in denial about the controversy and how cuts could impact upon society’s most vulnerable.
After all, a large part of the current crisis stems from sustained reductions in Whitehall grants, the implementation of the National Living Wage and the social care needs of an ageing population ignored for far too long.
Yet, while many town halls do not help themselves by paying excessive salaries to senior executives who are unable to provide strong leadership or take decisions, it is not easy to plan for the future, and long term, when there’s so little certainty, or clarity, from the Government about future funding levels.
However, while Ministers are right to challenge councils to do more with less, the plain fact of the matter is that the future of local government is intertwined with the finances of the equally cash-strapped National Health Service and these issues can’t, and won’t, be reconciled until a consensus is reached on how to meet the care needs of the elderly, frail and vulnerable.
Given the number of respected politicians from all parties who have been making the case for greater correlation between health and care services, Theresa May would have the country’s respect if she began this process. Not only is there a need for a national consensus, but taxpayers will want reassurances that their hard-earned money is being spent as intended and not going to waste.