George Osborne’s major announcement on business rates – pledging localisation of business rates by 2020 – is not an original Tory government idea. Neither is it a Labour opposition idea – we only promised to give back the proceeds of growth.
It is a big Labour local government idea that Labour in Westminster should not equivocate on.
For years many Labour councils have been arguing the case for decentralisation of taxation. It is not just about the money, although connecting money raised to the areas raised helps. Control over rates mean a much greater link between businesses and taxation locally and more flexibility for local government to innovate. This is fundamental for councils to show leadership and to effectively champion growth and jobs.
Calls have been growing louder for years: the real question is why it has not happened sooner. The uniform business rate was ostensibly introduced in 1990 to give businesses a greater sense of certainty for larger businesses with operations spanning several authorities. Not knowing the multipliers each property paid was seen as burdensome to business. Today technology means that excuse is no longer a reasonable justification.
In reality uniform business rates were introduced by the Conservatives to muzzle local government autonomy – by and large a view accepted later by the Labour party centrally, if for slightly different reasons.
The system the UBR created is deeply unsatisfactory for growth – under the central-grant system councils of all hues pay less attention to local economic growth – as the proceeds go straight to the Treasury rather than to them. At worst it allowed many councils to withdraw from active approaches to economic development or support for the labour market. For many others this meant growth was not seen as ‘core business.’
It is time to end this three decade long consensus and go even further.
If implemented correctly – and it is a big ‘if’ – relocalising rates could create a much more dynamic understanding between democratically elected councils, enterprise and growth and transform local economies.
Labour councils should lead this and shape the new agenda. Of the 20 biggest rate-collectors 14 are Labour-run or -led. These councils and many others are already crucibles of innovation with inward investment agencies, apprenticeship brokering, new digital infrastructure, modern business spaces and more.
Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell should see this as the start of a much wider discussion about the decentralisation of power in England. Already the Greater Manchester councils have called for a further £6bn in further devolution to help expand the Metrolink network, create jobs and take over skills. They also want to decentralise council tax, stamp duty and air passenger duty from Whitehall.
Other English cities and regions are making their case or joining together to press the case for powers they need. In London a settlement between boroughs – each equivalent to a middle-sized city outside of the capital – the mayor, and Whitehall is being pursued looking at skills and welfare. London should have a visitor levy and use the proceeds to promote London for tourists and establish global trade shows to open international markets for our businesses to grow more wealth.
This is not to say that the rates proposal is not without difficulties or hard choices and there will inevitably be a Tory and a Labour way of doing this.
Clearly for the new system to function it will have to develop a new redistribution mechanism from richer councils to councils in poorer areas with lower rateable values. This remains unsaid by the government, but fairness and practicability of the new regime dictate this and is something all Labour councils should agree with. It also needs a capital investment model for infrastructure where it is needed.
Yes, there are legitimate fears that control over local business rates will create a Dutch auction between authorities (or business leverage) to provide lower rates to firms seemingly at the expense of funding for public services. Maybe it will: business rates represent a big fixed cost to some businesses and lower rates would no doubt be attractive to some. However, moving or locating is a big thing and firms also make decisions using a range of other factors: like transport links, travel to work, clustering of similar or supply-chain businesses, broadband, housing and supply of talent.
It is certainly problematic that business rate rules will still be controlled by the Treasury and national (Conservative) policy, and this could have an impact on revenues if there are future changes (such as broad or complex exemption rules and changes to planning, like office-to-residential changes which erodes the base).
There is a danger, as rates grow and are collected and the central grant is finally eliminated (the aim by 2020), that local authorities will be given more powers without the full Whitehall funding necessary to deliver them – adding further pressures to budgets cut for a decade. But give us the tools, we will do the job: council leaderships are more aware of this than anyone. But they also demand further flexibility to work collectively together, shake things up and solve common problems faced by our communities however hard these problems initially appear.
Although it will be challenging to the dominant austerity narrative, over the next five years it is inevitable that Labour will have had to evolve its economic and spending case to the British people. Local budgets being used on the ground to supercharge growth, skills and jobs is fundamental to explaining Labour’s purpose.
The leadership in Westminster should not just dismiss this as a Tory plot to ‘localise the pain’ of tough spending decisions – although many difficult discussions are to be had – but the start of a wider discussion about English local government we should have been having long ago.
———————————
Theo Blackwell is cabinet member for finance and technology policy at Camden council, the highest Labour-run business rate-collecting authority in the country. He is also a member of the Progress strategy board and tweets @camdentheo
———————————
My concern is that the Tories are setting another trap – especially if they link this to elected mayors or the like. Where I live in Ellesmere Port – with our Uranium enrichment plant, toxic waste incinerator, fertiliser factory, oil refinery, car production factory and plant that makes lead additive for petrol – we have always felt we got a raw deal from losing the business rates. We get all the crap but none of the wealth generated. Labour’s refusal to address this was disappointing. But when the Tories started this process of giving some UBR to councils they also dumped them with picking up a load of back-dated rating appeal costs. I am sure they will only be pursuing this to dump more on councils. The idea of devolution in Manchester to a non-elected mayor is already causing big concerns. Having just won control of our unitary council in May the prospect of combining with neighbouring Tory Boroughs – and electing a mayor – raises the issue of losing control after just months in power. So these are complex issues.
Work at Home~Follow this guide to make $97/hour…I just purchased themselves a McLaren F1 when I got my check for $19993 this past 4 weeks and just over 17 thousand lass month . this is really the nicest-work Ive had . I began this 10-months ago and straight away started making more than $97… p/h .learn the facts here now .
vv….
➤➤➤➤ http://GoogleCyberTechHomeJobsEmploymentPrime/get/chance/top…. ✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱✱
Good point on rating appeals – not looking forward to that.
The current UBR system raises £26bn, of which £14.5bn is retained by Local Authorities, with the balance of £11.5bn sent to the Exchequer. The Exchequer keeps £2.1bn and then redistributes £9.4bn, in the form of grants.
Under the George Osborne proposal:
1. The redistibutive element would be retained for only one year and would then be frozen, so any future growth in rate revenues would be retained by the Local Authority meaning that redistribution declines thereafter.
2. The £2.1bn currently taken by the Treasury will not benefit Local Authorities because they will be expected to agree to further expenditure savings before the end of November.
3. If a Local Authority’s rate revenues decline by more than 7.5% in a year then there will be some form of, as yet unspecified, “safety net”.
4. Any Local Authority can choose to reduce rates but only those with a Mayor can raise rates, by up to 2%, in order to pay for infrastructure projects.
There is the danger that the withering away of the distributive element (for any future revenue growth after the fist year) may only serve to increase the huge disparity between the regions. This may be perhaps be favoured by those who live in London, the South East and East of the country, as the ONLY areas that appear (in the official government statistics) to generate either a balance of overall revenue or a surplus, relative to their expenditure.
It could be argued that business rates are but a small proportion of overall revenues but this measure could exacerbate the huge regional distortions that already exist, as can be seen in the link below:
http://tinyurl.com/q3co56t
How do we deal with the problems caused by an over-concentration on London? On the one hand it is seen as an economic success but the negative consequences are profound:
1. Very expensive housing (even in relation to local median income).
2. The costs of running a business are far higher than elsewhere, so logically anywhere but London makes good economic sense, be it for manufacturing, research and development or even finance. Other countries in the EU, particularly Germany, do not seem to have fallen into the same trap, regarding their Capital but many MPs can’t seem to escape the London ‘bubble’ and flawed mindset.
Relocating parliament to somewhere like Bradford (close the the geometric centre of the UK) might just shake MPs out of their complacency, improve the transport infrastructure in the North, because they would have to use, it and have many additional benefits. Progress might have to relocate their office but would save handsomely on running costs – everyone’s a winner!
This is a serious point. If you changed your font, spent some time on sizing and structuring your website you;d get far more readers.
Its awful to read