The Independent Revenues & Benefits Discussion Group met on 21 July 2025 to reflect on two significant developments: the proposed council tax exemption for terminally ill residents and the government’s investment in local service “innovation squads.”

Exempting the Terminally Ill: Well-Meaning but Misplaced?

Malcolm Gardner opened the meeting by highlighting a campaign led by Marie Curie for a council tax exemption for people with a terminal diagnosis of less than 12 months to live. Manchester City Council is currently the only authority known to have adopted this approach under its Section 13A policy.

Kirsty Brooksmith (Hammersmith & Fulham) welcomed the compassion behind the idea but raised concerns about practical implementation and the burden on frontline staff to validate diagnoses. “To administer, it’s really hard,” she noted.

Bob Wagstaff questioned whether council tax was the appropriate mechanism: “All taxpayers die… isn’t the issue poverty and how we treat people who are ill, rather than how long they’re expected to live?”

Gareth Morgan warned against definitional inconsistencies: “What’s terminal for one benefit might not be terminal for another,” he said, stressing the complexity of aligning various systems.

Rachael Walker offered a personal perspective, noting her own spouse’s experience of falling through policy gaps despite a terminal diagnosis. She acknowledged the campaign’s good intentions but concluded it was “a poverty issue.”

Christina Ward, drawing on her previous role with Macmillan, argued that “Council tax isn’t the right place” for this support, though she sympathised with the burden terminally ill individuals face. Julie Smethurst agreed, emphasising that authorities already have discretionary tools to support such households.

Michael Fisher concurred that Section 13A is the logical home for such cases but warned against the optics of a sudden bill for surviving household members. “It has happened straight away and it’s a pretty ugly look,” he said.

Innovation Squads: Local Reform or National Distraction?

Discussion then shifted to the Government’s £100 million commitment to innovation squads in 10 pilot areas. Gardner questioned whether this new initiative—aimed at improving local delivery on issues like housing and early years—would offer real value or repeat past mistakes.

Rachel Walker was sceptical: “These squads can’t fix national issues at a local level… there’ll be some great case studies, but we’ll move on and nothing will change.”

Julie Smethurst questioned staffing feasibility: “Where are they going to find this pool of practitioners from?”

Naomi Armstrong flagged the loss of DHP funds being repurposed for crisis support, warning that the innovation squads “won’t touch the gap” in temporary accommodation subsidy losses.

Paul Howarth linked the initiative to past “challenge funding” schemes, cautioning that “we’ve been here before,” with projects often failing to survive once funding ends. He called for more cross-departmental working within Whitehall.

Gareth Morgan suggested the money might be better spent identifying and sharing existing best practice, rather than “deciding to be innovative because there’s money to do it.”

Top of the In-Tray: Reorganisation, Savings, and Schemes

The group closed with a roundtable on what’s currently at the top of members’ service agendas.

• Naomi Armstrong cited local government reorganisation, especially the sudden appearance of new structural proposals in her area.
• Elizabeth Whitehead-Davies pointed to Reading’s expansion plans undermining local devolution initiatives in West Berkshire and South Oxfordshire.
• Julie Smethurst listed staffing savings, automation, and supported housing costs as pressing concerns.
• Rachael Walker shared her work with Essex chief executives, warning of political and demographic challenges in aligning CTR schemes: “It has to be done now.”
• Michael Fisher noted a looming skills crisis in Revs & Bens, as staff eye early retirement amid uncertainty.
• Bob Wagstaff recounted the practical and political challenges of aligning schemes in multi-council partnerships: “Even though we don’t know what the destination is, we should have left already.”

The meeting concluded with light-hearted reflections on Boston’s colourful local politics and a reminder from Gardner to keep up Pirate Day traditions.

The Independent Revenues & Benefits Discussion Group continues to provide a vital forum for expert analysis, shared learning, and open debate at a time of significant policy flux.

For more information or to join future sessions, contact Malcolm Gardner at Visionary Network. info@visionarynetwork.co.uk

The recording can be found here

Please note that the handout contains additional slides covering other items of interest in the news and job adverts, which are provided in partnership with Business Smart Solutions (https://www.businesssmartsolutions.co.uk/).