The Independent Revenues and Benefits Monday Discussion Group spent much of its 2 March session exploring a question that is rapidly moving from policy theory into operational reality: what does the changing world of work mean for local authority services, especially revenues, benefits, council tax support, customer services and fraud? The discussion ranged across labour market inactivity, recruitment pressures, apprenticeships, hybrid working, universal basic income and the growing use, and misuse, of AI.
Opening the discussion, Malcolm Gardner framed the issue as more than a labour market debate. His central point was that rising economic inactivity, changing employer behaviour, local government reorganisation and the redesign of CTR schemes are beginning to collide. In practice, that means the future of work is no longer an abstract policy theme. It is arriving on managers’ desks now and influencing staffing, service design, local support schemes and wider social policy choices.
On the question of whether the labour market is entering a genuine downturn, Paul Howarth argued for a balanced reading. He said there is no single explanation and that the picture is clearly shaped by several overlapping pressures, including post pandemic health impacts, employer caution and political decisions that have increased employment costs. His view was that the problem is real, but complex, and should not be reduced to a single headline or cause.
Gareth Morgan pushed back against over reliance on headline surveys and forecasts. His view was that employer intention surveys often overstate what will actually happen, and that broad labour market statistics can mislead when stripped of context. He argued that the real questions are whether jobs exist, whether people have the right skills, whether employers genuinely need to recruit, and whether support systems stay in place long enough to be properly tested. He pointed to the value of longer term, longitudinal thinking and noted that too many labour market initiatives are abandoned before anyone can tell whether they worked.
That concern about long term capacity came through strongly in the discussion on local authority recruitment. Tom Clark said Liverpool is not pulling back. In fact, because of workforce churn and the demands of the Crisis and Resilience Fund, the council is recruiting more, not less. Robert Fox made a similar point from Swindon, although with a different emphasis: in his experience the challenge is less about reducing posts and more about filling them, particularly in hard to recruit areas such as social work and legal services. At the same time, he highlighted a striking mismatch, with huge demand for practical apprenticeships and oversubscription for maintenance roles.
Laura Bessell brought in the demographic reality many councils now face. She warned that a large share of her team is approaching retirement and that significant workforce loss is coming within the next few years. Her view was that councils do need to invest in the next generation, but she was candid that apprenticeships are not always easy to deliver well in a hybrid environment. In her case, the issue is not opposition to apprenticeships in principle. It is concern about whether the right support, supervision and wider exposure can genuinely be provided, especially when much of the learning needed in revenues and benefits happens through close day to day contact across several service areas.
Others were more positive about the apprenticeship route. Michael Fisher said he had seen apprenticeships work very well in practice, both in Preston and elsewhere. His view was that when authorities can support them properly, apprentices can bring energy, commitment and rapid progression, and can even challenge complacency in established teams. He also warned that many councils have been talking about an ageing workforce for years and that the issue is now becoming urgent. In his view, there could soon be real opportunities for younger staff to progress quickly, provided councils make that case clearly when recruiting.
Peter Haywood added an economic lens, arguing that the cost of employing staff has unquestionably risen, and that employers will respond accordingly. He linked this both to the wider private sector, where automation and self-service become more attractive as staff costs rise, and to local government, where pension contributions can make public sector pay packages look less appealing to younger workers who are more focused on immediate take home pay. His contribution underlined a recurring theme in the discussion: what may look attractive to employers over the long term does not always look attractive to younger recruits in the short term.
Julie Smethurst offered one of the clearest reflections on why local government can struggle to attract younger people. Her argument was that it is not just about salary. It is about the overall appeal of the work, the pressures of frontline service, and the changing expectations of younger generations. She suggested that many younger people are less motivated by traditional ideas of long-term job security and more likely to move on quickly if a role feels repetitive, inflexible or emotionally draining. She also made the practical point that frontline customer service work can involve significant stress and abuse, which makes lower paid public facing roles harder to sell.
Hybrid working sat behind much of that discussion. Julie broadly supported hybrid arrangements but noted that some authorities are now pushing back towards office attendance and are already meeting resistance, particularly from younger staff. Robert Fox added a useful corrective: hybrid policies can easily favour higher paid and less public facing roles, while staff who must attend in person continue to bear commuting and day to day workplace costs. His view was that if councils want to recruit and retain frontline workers, they need to think harder about fairness between those who can work remotely and those who cannot.
The debate then moved into income security and universal basic income. Gareth Morgan, drawing on his past work with the Basic Income Trust, said that a UBI style model is fiscally more workable than many people assume, especially if combined with targeted means tested support for housing and disability costs. In his view, the real barrier is not technical design but politics. UBI is redistributive, and that makes it difficult to advance in a political climate where unconditional support remains contentious. Paul Howarth broadly agreed, saying he could not see any UK government being willing to move far in that direction, even if simpler and more generous income support could help stimulate demand and improve outcomes.
Sean O’Sullivan added a more provocative perspective. He suggested that attitudes to income security may shift if AI begins to threaten professional and political occupations, not just lower paid work. His argument was that welfare reform has historically been treated as something done to poorer people, but that wider acceptance of more universal income protection may grow if automation begins to affect lawyers, accountants and other groups with greater political influence. Whether or not that proves right, it sharpened the group’s broader point that technological change may reshape not only the labour market, but also the politics around it.
AI itself produced some of the liveliest exchanges. Malcolm Gardner’s own position was measured: AI is likely to make a difference, but probably as a gradual shift in local government rather than an immediate revolution. He stressed that much depends on skill, particularly the ability to ask the right questions and critically assess the output. Poor use of AI, in his view, often reflects poor human use rather than machine intelligence run amok.
Paul Howarth remained cautious, describing himself as sceptical about AI’s immediate labour market impact. His point was that AI can be useful, but its outputs still require careful checking and cannot yet be relied on without informed oversight. Julie Smethurst made a similar distinction, saying the real danger is treating AI as a replacement for professional knowledge rather than as a tool to support it. In her view, the value lies in improving efficiency and freeing up staff for higher value work, but only where the user understands the subject well enough to test what the system is producing.
Gareth Morgan was especially strong on the risks of over enthusiastic adoption. He described recent examples of AI generated benefits tools that produced clearly incorrect outcomes yet were being praised and shared by people who did not understand enough to spot the errors. His warning was simple and important: if you do not understand what the correct answer should look like, you should not trust the tool. That point goes to the heart of public service use of AI, where confidence can spread faster than competence.
There was also a practical supplier challenge in the discussion. Gareth asked a pointed question: if software companies are using AI to reduce their costs and increase coding productivity, why are customers not seeing lower prices? That prompted knowing agreement from the group, along with examples of suppliers leaning on AI while still charging as though the same work were being done entirely by hand. It was a reminder that AI is not just changing internal workflows. It is also changing the commercial relationship between councils and suppliers, and not always in the customer’s favour.
The meeting closed with a brief look at fraud, following a Cabinet Office note on savings from fraud prevention and recovery. Even here, the panel’s mood was cautious rather than triumphalist. There was clear scepticism about headline claims and a sense that old lessons are being rediscovered under new labels. The announcement of a new Public Authority Fraud Investigation and Enforcement Service drew interest, but also some weary recognition that central reform does not always mean practical help for the fraud that local authorities actually identify.
Taken together, the discussion painted a picture of a sector under pressure, but not without ideas. The labour market is not moving in one direction only. Councils face recruitment challenges, but also opportunities. Apprenticeships can work, though not everywhere and not without support. Hybrid working brings benefits, but also fairness issues. UBI remains politically distant, yet the questions behind it are not going away. AI offers real promise, but only where professional judgement remains firmly in the driving seat. For revenues and benefits teams, the common thread is clear: the future of work is not someone else’s problem. It is already reshaping service delivery, workforce planning and the design of local support.
THE RECORDING CAN BE FOUND HERE
Downloads
