Elliott Keck is the Head of Campaigns for the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

“I would die in a ditch if someone tries to take Broxbourne council away.” This was Lewis Cocking, the new MP for Broxbourne speaking on the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s local government panel at Conservative party conference. He was answering a question on whether local government should double down on the growing trend towards unitary authorities. He and thousands of district councillors may now have an almighty fight on their hands. Angela Rayner has fired the opening salvo with an announcement that unitary authorities should be the standard form of local government across England.

The timing was hardly fortuitous. Just last week it emerged that Windsor and Maidenhead, one of England’s earliest established unitary authorities, has requested permission to raise council tax by 25 per cent without a referendum. The deputy leader of the council blamed previous administrations, saying they “cut council tax when every other council was either freezing it or putting on small amounts” and said “It’s either this or a Section 114, there is no choice.”

We at the TPA have generally been sympathetic to the creation of unitaries, publishing research in 2019 that identified significant savings while providing a framework to ensure new councils could take advantage of the opportunities involved. However, since then, single-tier or upper-tier councils have hardly covered themselves in glory. Of the seven English councils to issue S114 notices, an effective declaration of bankruptcy, all but one were top-tier/single-tier councils. There have been a number of district councils that have excelled in recent years, such as the council tax cutting Harlow council or debt free Tonbridge. There have also, on the other hand, been district councils that have used their comparatively minnow status to embark on wild and reckless experiments, such as south Cambridgeshire where staff have been given an extra 52 days of annual leave for nothing. Or, as they call it, a four-day week with 80 per cent of hours for 100 per cent pay.

But no matter what happens with district councils, when things go wrong they can only go so wrong. At the level of, for example, Birmingham, Nottingham or now Windsor and Maidenhead, a council that loses control of the finances can have devastating consequences. That’s why it’s imperative that Rayner rejects Windsor and Maidenhead’s request. The precedent it would set, just as she attempts a rollout of more unitary authorities across the country, would be a dangerous one. It would suggest that the supposed referendum cap on council tax is a mirage. As a council’s finances worsen, it disappears. There would be no two-tier system to balance each other – one well-run council easing the difficulties of a poorly run one.

Firstly it should be acknowledged that the council’s leadership are not wrong to point to their unusually low council tax levels. Excluding precepting authorities, Band D households pay on average £1,303 in Windsor and Maidenhead, compared to £1,393 in Hillingdon and £1,520 in Hounslow, two neighbouring London councils. Relative to other councils in the home counties, the difference is even more stark. Bracknell Forest’s average band D rate is £1,616 while Rushmoor’s is £1,766.

How depressing though that local councillors now see this as something to bemoan, rather than celebrate. Something to reverse rather than protect. And while Windsor and Maidenhead’s council tax is low, their income from council tax and business rates has increased from £91 million to £97.5 million, with their total income increasing from £306.4 million to £333.5 million, between 2019-20 and 2022-23.

Even so, let’s assume that council tax will need to rise. Under the referendum principles set down the council will be able increase council tax by 5 per cent, already well above inflation. They will also be receiving, so we hear, the multi-year funding agreement local authorities so frequently talk about. You can bet your house that the next few years will include relatively high ceilings for council tax rises, as the chancellor looks for ways to ease the pressure on central government funding. This will give Windsor and Maidenhead options for raising revenue. But what would be completely unacceptable is a single year, 25 per cent increase which would add hundreds of pounds onto household bills.

There is nothing to really compare this to in the history of council tax in England. While there have been 70 occasions when a council has increased council tax by more than 25 per cent since 1996-97, these have virtually all been district councils meaning the numbers we are talking about are miniscule. Take for example Huntingdonshire which in 1998-99 increased council tax by 149.69 per cent. This meant average band D bills increasing from £20 to £49 per year. The only closely comparable increases are those levied by a handful of London councils in 2003-04, a year when council tax rose by 12.9 per cent on average across the country and increased by 57 per cent in Wandsworth, 27 per cent in Westminster and Croydon and 25 per cent in Ealing. Yet even in the case of Wandsworth, what looks like a huge rise in percentage terms was only an increase of £131 in nominal terms, given Wandsworth’s exceptionally low levels of council tax, which continues to this day. There is a huge gulf between this and the £320 being proposed now.

Rayner should remember that the referendum cap is there for a reason, with an emphasis on the word “referendum.” Too often, councils have got into financial trouble safe in the knowledge they can get an exemption from this rule. If Windsor and Maidenhead want to hike council tax by 25 per cent, they can. The deputy prime minister should remind them that they simply need the approval of taxpayers.

The post Elliot Keck: If Windsor and Maidenhead Council wants to hike council tax by 25 per cent they should hold a referendum appeared first on Conservative Home.