Title

In the run-up to the RSG announcement, there have been the usual arguments about the distribution of what is a very limited pot of money. These arguments are depressing, since it is a zero-sum game – for every winning council, there is a loser. It also plays right into the Government's hands because the arguments are about distribution rather than focusing on the real issues of overall funding. In the South East, we don't expect many favours from the Government. However, what we find hard to explain to our taxpayers is the scale of the difference in funding to local councils. In Surrey, council taxpayers fund 82% of services – the Government funds 18%, while in Manchester, the Government funds 71% of services. As a consequence, Surrey people have less spent on services but have higher average council tax bills. Despite the stereotypical image of everyone in Surrey being a stockbroker, that is not actually the case. Local government funding is only one element of the distribution of public resources. If we look at the whole of government spending, the position is even more stark. The Surrey economy provides £12.9bn in taxes, and we receive back £7.4bn in benefits and grants. Income tax transfers to the Government from Surrey account for 4% of the UK total. In the South East, public expenditure per person is £7,416 compared with the UK average of £8,445. Contributions from taxation, on the other hand, are £9,376 per head in the South East, compared with £8,016 in the UK as a whole. The lack of resources for public services in the South East can't be good for the economy. If the South East is to continue to make a large contribution to the nation's wealth, it must receive the investment in infrastructure and services to support the people generating that wealth. Phil Walker is finance director of Surrey CC

Title

FINANCE

Money matters

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING