Reflections from the Independent Revenues and Benefits Monday Discussion Group
This week’s Independent Revenues and Benefits Monday Discussion Group ranged widely, but two themes dominated the discussion: the government’s latest youth employment package, and the continuing argument over council tax support, Universal Credit and the wider future of local taxation. As ever, the session brought together a mix of operational experience, policy insight and healthy scepticism.
Chairing the session, Malcolm Gardner set the agenda by highlighting the latest youth unemployment announcement, alongside wider issues including the changing benefits landscape, Scottish anti-poverty policy, the new subsidy hub and ombudsman reform. He framed the youth employment package as the latest in a long line of attempts to tackle the same problem: how to help young people into work in a way that is practical, credible and lasting.
Malcolm also steered the later debate on council tax support and the Institute for Fiscal Studies report on integration with Universal Credit, drawing out both the practical concerns and the bigger constitutional questions around localisation, localism and the future of council tax itself.
Gareth Morgan was quick to point out that the new youth employment package was England only, and that Wales has already had a Young Person’s Guarantee in place for some time. He described a broad Welsh offer that includes help into education or training, support with job search, self-employment, apprenticeships, work placements and wider employability support. His view was that much of the new English package appeared to echo what Wales has already been doing.
Gareth’s wider contribution throughout the session was consistent: he argued that devolved systems can be more agile, more connected and more responsive. Later, on council tax support, he challenged the idea that England should simply accept the current link between local authority finance and the financial hardship of poorer residents. In his view, a more integrated national system could do more to target support fairly and reduce postcode inequality.
Robert Fox brought a practical local authority perspective to the youth employment discussion. He highlighted existing local initiatives, joint working with Jobcentre Plus, targeted support for those who need extra help into employment, and local schemes designed to build skills and employability. He also pointed to work with employers in growth sectors, including logistics and technology, and to the use of apprenticeships within council related services such as housing.
His contribution suggested that while national policy is important, some councils are already building local partnerships and employer links that can help young people into work in a more grounded way.
Michael Fisher offered one of the clearest and most direct diagnoses of the problem. In his view, many employers now expect fully trained, fully formed workers to arrive at the door, rather than investing in training and development themselves. He argued that the culture of “growing your own” workforce has declined sharply over the last 20 to 30 years.
He also reflected on his own experience of trying to create apprenticeship opportunities, saying that the practical offer available to employers was often limited and unhelpful. His argument was not simply that government schemes are weak, but that employer behaviour has shifted in a way that undermines long term workforce development.
Kirsty Brooksmith’s view was that the problem cannot be separated from years of budget pressure. She argued that training budgets are often among the first casualties when organisations are forced to make savings, leaving services without the capacity to invest in apprenticeships or structured development. In her view, the issue is not just willingness; it is whether employers, especially public sector employers, still have the resource to support younger staff properly.
Kirsty also made a wider point about the ageing workforce, observing that many offices now have very few younger staff. By the end of the meeting, she returned with an unusually candid reflection, saying she was leaving the session feeling “a little bit guilty” about what her authority was probably going to do to its council tax reduction scheme. It was a striking closing remark because it captured the tension between financial reality and social conscience.
Rachael was one of the strongest voices in the session. On youth employment, she questioned the short-term nature of many government initiatives, arguing that constant change undermines confidence and leaves young people without a clear, consistent path. She contrasted this with the more coherent framework in Wales and suggested England should learn more seriously from devolved approaches.
On council tax support, Rachael was uncompromising. She said the IFS report was fundamentally flawed and criticised it on several grounds. First, she argued that it misunderstood the relationship between council tax support and the revenues side of local government, including billing, collection and enforcement. Secondly, she said it confused localisation with localism, failing to grasp that post 2013 reform was shaped by austerity and ideological choices as much as by administrative design. Thirdly, she argued that the report did not understand the realities of poverty, local taxation or the structural unfairness built into council tax itself.
Her broader conclusion was even more radical: scrap council tax altogether. For Rachael, the problem is not simply the design of council tax support but the underlying tax itself, which she regards as outdated, distorted and no longer defensible.
Paul Howarth brought a more cautious but equally firm perspective. On youth employment, he questioned why so many similar schemes have appeared over the years without solving the underlying issue. He suggested that government and Jobcentres need to look much more honestly at why previous approaches have failed, and whether employers are genuinely committed to making such schemes work. He also saw value in looking at Wales, where smaller scale government can sometimes act with more agility.
On council tax support, Paul returned to a long-standing point of principle: council tax support is not a benefit in the true sense, but a discount or reduction on council tax liability. For him, the language matters because once it is treated as a benefit, policy thinking becomes muddled. He also stressed the financial reality that more generous reform would require substantial funding, and that this is where the English system differs fundamentally from Wales and Scotland, where devolved governments have more directly supported local authorities.
Sean O’Sullivan strongly agreed with the distinction Paul was making. He argued that council tax support should be seen as a subsidy to help people pay council tax, not as a benefit in its own right. In his view, treating it as a benefit changes the mindset of decision makers and makes cuts easier to present politically.
Sean was also critical of banded council tax reduction schemes, arguing that they are often designed more for administrative convenience than for the needs of residents on low incomes. He suggested that services have shaped schemes around what is easier to run, rather than what is fairest or most supportive. That was one of the sharper operational critiques in the session.
Bob Wagstaff made two notable contributions. On youth employment, he argued that the barriers are deeply structural. In his view, the economy no longer encourages people to start at the bottom and work their way up. Instead, the labour market increasingly expects workers to arrive part trained, while underinvesting in the next generation. He also reflected on his food bank work, noting that many younger people who come into contact with crisis support are dealing with instability at home as much as with unemployment itself.
On council tax, Bob’s argument was that the entire system has become “twisted and warped”. He pointed out the inequity of poorer areas effectively bearing greater burdens and argued that council tax, along with council tax support, is now part of a wider legislative framework that no longer bears much relationship to real life. Like Rachael, his conclusion was that the whole structure needs replacing rather than tinkering.
What stood out across the session was that there was no easy faith in headline announcements. On youth employment, speakers broadly welcomed the intention to do more, but questioned whether employers, budgets and institutional design are aligned enough to make a lasting difference. On council tax support, there was even less consensus on the remedy, but strong agreement that the current arrangements are unfair, incoherent and under severe pressure.
If there was a common thread, it was this: local government is too often left managing the consequences of national policy choices without the funding, coherence or reform needed to make the system fair. The Monday group did not settle the argument, but it did something better. It exposed the real fault lines, identified where policy is detached from practice, and reminded everyone that behind every technical scheme sits a set of choices about fairness, responsibility and what kind of state we want to build.
The recoding can be found here
Downloads
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/).