Cross-posted: Some thoughts on Bristol's Budget

My piece for the Bristol Lib Dem website on Tuesday's Budget decision:

Politics can be murky business at times but in Bristol things are remarkably clear following the Budget debate yesterday: your Council Tax will be going up by 1.95% in April.

Something else is clear, too: all the parties had their price in supporting the Mayor's budget. Only one, though, was prepared to defend the ordinary Council Tax payer against an increase in this regressive tax.

Only one party recognised that, while the economy is starting to recover, household budgets remain tight and argued that people should be protected from increased costs, if possible.

Only one party had the vision to find the funding that would have enabled a Council Tax freeze: 50% from Central Government, the rest from council reserves set aside in case of various eventualities but often untouched for years.

Only one party... but the Mayor and Council rejected this approach, and voted through a budget that will see every Council Tax payer pay more.

So what of the other parties? Well, Labour are arguing that the Lib Dems' Freeze The Tax campaign is a cynical ploy. But whilst Labour talk tough and refer to a "cost of living crisis", they have refused to support a practical measure to address this. Now, that is what I call cynical.

They argue that they have managed to obtain a package of reversed cuts unlike any achieved by any opposition party in Bristol Council's history. The reality, though, is that all it took for them to move from a position where "we cannot support the budget" to a position of support was £1.3million of cuts reversed. £1.3million from a budget of £389million.

Ironically, £1.3million is precisely what a Council Tax Freeze would cost. But the source of the funds was different. Had Labour been prepared to negotiate, they could have had their amendment and a Council Tax Freeze. Like I said, cynical.

Meanwhile, the Tories - whose representative on the Mayor's cabinet is Deputy Mayor and has responsibility for Finance matters - were whole-heartedly in favour of the Budget. Indeed, they did not table any amendments to the substantive debate.

Whilst nationally Eric Pickles and other Conservative ministers pushed Councils to freeze the tax, the Bristol Tories chose to support raising them. The self-describing 'Party of Lower Taxes' does not, it appears, believe in them for Bristolians.

The Mayor - in a party of one - is often caricatured as still being a Lib Dem in all but name. After last night, though, I believe that that notion can be put to rest. He was adamant from the start that he would not freeze the tax - and with the help of all parties but his former one, he got his way.

Finally, the Greens - what was their contribution? Well, as with the Tories, they brought forward no amendments. They have variously said that this was because their arguments are national, that without Trident the Council would have more to spend, that a 'Robin Hood Tax' on financial transactions would be a cure-all, that they argued their case in Cabinet and behind the scenes and that 1.95% rise is modest and OK as below inflation... 

Whatever, the over-riding impression is that, at best, they have failed to engage and, at worst, they would have wanted a higher rise such as the 4.95% being levied in Green-controlled Brighton.

So when your Council Tax bill arrives, and you're forking out more each month, remember that there was one party prepared to take a stand for freezing the tax, one party that wasn't bought off, one party that wasn't complicit in raising your taxes and one party that wasn't prepared to stand idly by.

It wasn't a cynical ploy and it really could have been achieved but for the other parties who took positions contrary to their rhetoric, policy or both.

Andrew

Why a Large Retail Levy is not right for Bristol

Councillors on the Bristol's Overview and Scrutiny Management Board met yesterday to follow up a motion passed at Full Council in June that called for the council to explore the possibility of seeking the powers for an additional Business Rate Levy on large retail units.

The proposal was rejected by all of the committee bar the Green Councillor, and the report back to full council will be, it seems, a brief affair. No matter, here a few comments by way of history and analysis.

The original motion, which was proposed by Greens, was as follows:

Bristol City Council notes the campaign being run by 'Local Works' entitled 'Save our communities from large supermarkets'.

The campaign specifically asks councils to submit the following proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act:

'That government gives local authorities the power to levy a new local rate of 8.5% on large retail outlets in their area with a rateable value not less than £500,000 and the power to use the revenue collected to improve local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection.'

Council notes that - within Bristol - such a levy could raise up to in the region of £1.6 million pa.

Bristol City Council welcomes this proposal and fully supports it and therefore calls on the Mayor also to support it, and to submit the proposal to government.

Prior to the meeting, however, this had been reworked to obtain cross-party support, so that the motion as passed read:

Bristol City Council notes the campaign being run by ‘Local Works’ entitled ‘Save our communities from large supermarkets’. The campaign specifically asks councils to submit the following proposal under the Sustainable Communities Act:

‘That Government gives local authorities the power to levy a new local rate of 8.5% on large retail outlets in their area with a rateable value not less than £500,000 and the power to use the revenue collected to improve local economic activity, local services and facilities, social and community wellbeing and environmental protection.’

Council notes that within Bristol such a levy could raise up to £1.6 million from the city’s largest supermarkets alone and potentially a much larger figure from ‘all the large retail outlets’ referred to by the campaign (Council notes that supermarkets cannot legally be singled out for the purposes of the levy).

Council believes that the idea of seeking powers for a levy on retail outlets should be explored and requests that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee delegate this inquiry to the relevant scrutiny commission and report back to Council in September.

Although there was a hope amongst some that any money raised could, potentially, be used to persuade Supermarkets into areas crying out for such provision, some of the problems with the proposal were already obvious: not least that, although being touted as anti-supermarket, the proposal actually targeted all large retailers.

The issues became even clearer on perusal of the report prepared for today's meeting - and the notion of persuing such a policy became nuch less attractive. In particular, the following points jumped out at me:

1. Despite originally being proposed by the Greens as being anti-Supermarket (and still marketed as such), only 32% of the affected businesses are Supermarkets.
2. 44% of the businesses are in areas deemed to be in the 10% of most deprived areas in England - should we really be considering increasing costs on these?
3. Although not broken down in the report, I reckon 20% or so of the affected businesses are in Business Improvement Districts - as such, should these not be treated as anchor tenants whose presence should (in theory) attract rather than repel other retailers?

Given that we had mooted using funds to support Supermarkets moving into those areas in desperate need of them - but this would potentially increase the inbalance highlighted above in terms of numbers of affected businesses in poorer areas. 

Six of the affected properties - all non-supermarket - are in the Broadmead "Business Improvement District" area, which is due for a renewal. Implementing such a plan could jeopardise the continuation of BID status if those businesses were to vote against on the basis of potential additional charges from the Levy.

There is also an "after-the-stable door" element to this: the supermarkets have, by and large, got out of the routine of opening large stores, and moved to the local/metro/central/express/M formats instead. This motion does nothing on that front. And whilst the big companies may suck up any charge that is imposed - in the short term a least - it's not hard to imagine that future decisions on where to locate could be affected on the basis other places outside the city bounds but within the city's sphere of spending would not impose such a charge...

Although it could be possible to look at setting a higher threshold - e.g. charging a levy only those 14 businesses with Rateable Values in excess of £1m (which would make it more Supermarket focused) - and/or implementing a system (if legally possible) of rebates on the levy for businesses in the most deprived communities, I think the committee is right in recommending that this is not proceeded with.

Andrew