Should the social care precept be raised?
Revenue raised by council
Author: Liam Booth-Smith |
Increasing the social care precept, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, is the worst option except for all the others. That the government seems prepared to allow councils to increase it, a change many expected in the autumn statement, shows belated pragmatism. Giving councillors the freedom to make the case politically for any rate rise to their residents is sensible. You’re more likely to look favourably on the additional burden if you know the care homes the money is going to support, or know someone who will benefit personally.
Yet, such a measure is only temporary. The most pressing issue is the lack of financial stability in the system, in short, there just isn’t enough ready cash. Richard Humphries correctly suggests that money already promised should be brought forward. Even this however, will not save its life, merely extend it. We will be back next year, and if not then the year after, with similar ‘demands’ for more resource.
We’ve pulled together some very ‘rough’ analysis of the likely financial benefit of increasing the precept. Essentially taking the 15/16 figures for council tax receipts held by DCLG, calculating the value of 1% – 3% rises in that base, then cutting this increase up by the over-65 population in each local authority area. (The adult social care budget goes on more than over 65s, and this analysis is very simple, but hopefully it gives people a sense of the impact.)
The tables below show the top and bottom 20 beneficiaries of a precept rise when compared to their elderly population.
Top 20 local authorities:
| Local Authority | Political control | Total council tax receipts 2015-16 | Extra revenue raised from 1% increase | Extra revenue raised from 1% increase per over 65 | Extra revenue raised from 2% increase | Extra revenue raised from 2% increase per over 65 | Extra revenue raised from 3% increase | Extra revenue raised from 3% increase per over 65 |
| City of London | N/A | £7,038,000 | £70,380 | £68.00 | £140,760 | £136.00 | £211,140 | £204.00 |
| Tower Hamlets | Labour | £97,047,000 | £970,470 | £62.33 | £1,940,940 | £124.66 | £2,911,410 | £186.99 |
| Richmond upon Thames | Conservative | £138,022,000 | £1,380,220 | £54.56 | £2,760,440 | £109.13 | £4,140,660 | £163.69 |
| Islington | Labour | £97,636,000 | £976,360 | £54.13 | £1,952,720 | £108.27 | £2,929,080 | £162.40 |
| Lambeth | Labour | £124,872,000 | £1,248,720 | £53.85 | £2,497,440 | £107.71 | £3,746,160 | £161.56 |
| Kensington & Chelsea | Conservative | £102,409,000 | £1,024,090 | £53.58 | £2,048,180 | £107.15 | £3,072,270 | £160.73 |
| Hackney | Labour | £88,773,000 | £887,730 | £51.03 | £1,775,460 | £102.07 | £2,663,190 | £153.10 |
| Haringey | Labour | £111,985,000 | £1,119,850 | £50.06 | £2,239,700 | £100.13 | £3,359,550 | £150.19 |
| Kingston upon Thames | Conservative | £101,048,000 | £1,010,480 | £49.64 | £2,020,960 | £99.27 | £3,031,440 | £148.91 |
| Southwark | Labour | £109,506,000 | £1,095,060 | £49.04 | £2,190,120 | £98.08 | £3,285,180 | £147.13 |
| Camden | Labour | £114,941,000 | £1,149,410 | £47.94 | £2,298,820 | £95.88 | £3,448,230 | £143.81 |
| Hammersmith & Fulham | Labour | £76,563,000 | £765,630 | £46.65 | £1,531,260 | £93.30 | £2,296,890 | £139.94 |
| Reading | Labour | £80,268,000 | £802,680 | £45.01 | £1,605,360 | £90.03 | £2,408,040 | £135.04 |
| Merton | Labour | £101,868,000 | £1,018,680 | £44.06 | £2,037,360 | £88.11 | £3,056,040 | £132.17 |
| Milton Keynes | NOC | £118,397,000 | £1,183,970 | £43.04 | £2,367,940 | £86.07 | £3,551,910 | £129.11 |
| Bracknell Forest | Conservative | £60,762,000 | £607,620 | £42.95 | £1,215,240 | £85.90 | £1,822,860 | £128.85 |
| Slough | Labour | £54,836,000 | £548,360 | £42.76 | £1,096,720 | £85.52 | £1,645,080 | £128.28 |
| Wokingham | Conservative | £100,786,000 | £1,007,860 | £42.37 | £2,015,720 | £84.73 | £3,023,580 | £127.10 |
| Newham | Labour | £86,854,000 | £868,540 | £42.18 | £1,737,080 | £84.35 | £2,605,620 | £126.53 |
| Hounslow | Labour | £111,874,000 | £1,118,740 | £41.65 | £2,237,480 | £83.30 | £3,356,220 | £124.96 |
| Lewisham | Labour | £107,543,000 | £1,075,430 | £41.15 | £2,150,860 | £82.30 | £3,226,290 | £123.45 |
Bottom 20 local authorities:
| Local Authority | Political control | Total council tax receipts 2015-16 | Extra revenue raised from 1% increase | Extra revenue raised from 1% increase per over 65 | Extra revenue raised from 2% increase | Extra revenue raised from 2% increase per over 65 | Extra revenue raised from 3% increase | Extra revenue raised from 3% increase per over 65 |
| Rotherham | Labour | £104,133,000 | £1,041,330 | £23.22 | £2,082,660 | £46.44 | £3,123,990 | £69.67 |
| Kingston upon Hull | Labour | £82,451,000 | £824,510 | £23.08 | £1,649,020 | £46.15 | £2,473,530 | £69.23 |
| Norfolk County Council | NOC | £427,224,000 | £4,272,240 | £23.06 | £8,544,480 | £46.13 | £12,816,720 | £69.19 |
| Walsall | NOC | £105,616,000 | £1,056,160 | £23.05 | £2,112,320 | £46.11 | £3,168,480 | £69.16 |
| Wirral | Labour | £138,314,000 | £1,383,140 | £22.69 | £2,766,280 | £45.37 | £4,149,420 | £68.06 |
| Wolverhampton | Labour | £92,138,000 | £921,380 | £22.68 | £1,842,760 | £45.36 | £2,764,140 | £68.03 |
| Birmingham | Labour | £313,091,000 | £3,130,910 | £22.65 | £6,261,820 | £45.31 | £9,392,730 | £67.96 |
| Stoke-on-Trent | NOC | £87,846,000 | £878,460 | £22.63 | £1,756,920 | £45.26 | £2,635,380 | £67.89 |
| St Helens | Labour | £70,741,000 | £707,410 | £22.53 | £1,414,820 | £45.06 | £2,122,230 | £67.59 |
| North East Lincolnshire | Labour | £63,071,000 | £630,710 | £22.30 | £1,261,420 | £44.59 | £1,892,130 | £66.89 |
| Sefton | Labour | £126,530,000 | £1,265,300 | £22.19 | £2,530,600 | £44.39 | £3,795,900 | £66.58 |
| Lincolnshire County Council | NOC | £323,611,000 | £3,236,110 | £21.89 | £6,472,220 | £43.78 | £9,708,330 | £65.66 |
| Torbay | Conservative | £66,920,000 | £669,200 | £21.69 | £1,338,400 | £43.38 | £2,007,600 | £65.07 |
| Knowsley | Labour | £49,796,000 | £497,960 | £21.64 | £995,920 | £43.27 | £1,493,880 | £64.91 |
| Doncaster | Labour | £106,770,000 | £1,067,700 | £20.88 | £2,135,400 | £41.76 | £3,203,100 | £62.63 |
| South Tyneside | Labour | £55,354,000 | £553,540 | £20.61 | £1,107,080 | £41.23 | £1,660,620 | £61.84 |
| Blackpool | Labour | £54,543,000 | £545,430 | £20.02 | £1,090,860 | £40.05 | £1,636,290 | £60.07 |
| Sandwell | Labour | £93,338,000 | £933,380 | £19.93 | £1,866,760 | £39.85 | £2,800,140 | £59.78 |
| Sunderland | Labour | £91,125,000 | £911,250 | £19.47 | £1,822,500 | £38.95 | £2,733,750 | £58.42 |
| Dudley | Labour | £112,861,000 | £1,128,610 | £19.39 | £2,257,220 | £38.79 | £3,385,830 | £58.18 |
Two things jump out. Firstly, the political impact is distributed. Previous criticism of the precept was that it favoured Tory councils over Labour ones, the evidence suggests this might be changing. Secondly, the geographic splits suggests when business rates devolution hits, the situation could rapidly deteriorate as areas currently likely to lose out there, also appear to do worse off under the precept.
I’ve shared my view previously that social care isn’t as politically salient as people in local government think it is. There really aren’t the votes in it and today’s Times story suggesting No10 blocked action in the autumn statement on social care in favour of those ‘just managing’ suggests as much. Local government needs to get smarter on the politics behind social care. It needs to acknowledge the problem is bigger than a funding model; it’s about whether society wants to pay for aging well or not. It may not like the answer.
PS – you can download a full excel sheet of the data here, including all councils. Feel free to use but do credit Localis if you do.