Birmingham, the second-largest city in Britain, announced its financial insolvency on Tuesday, ceasing all non-essential expenditures in response to substantial equal pay claims amounting to as much as $954 million; the Birmingham City Council issued a Section 114 notice to halt all spending, with the exception of essential services.

 

In the notice, the city council cited a negative general fund position resulting from the costs associated with addressing the equal pay claims. These claims were projected to surpass the council’s available financial resources, leading to a situation where spending commitments exceeded available funds.

The potential financial burden of addressing new equal pay claims was estimated to fall between £650 million (approximately $816 million) and £760 million (around $954 million). 

The council explicitly acknowledged its inability to cover this potential liability, emphasizing the likelihood of recognizing this liability in either the current or previous fiscal years, which would further worsen the general fund balance; this predicament was deemed unsustainable for the council.

Given this financial crisis, the council declared a suspension on entering into new agreements or commitments for expenditure, and all non-essential spending was immediately halted. The Birmingham City Council serves a population of over one million residents and is situated in the heart of England‘s largest multicultural city. Notably, the city hosted the Commonwealth Games last year.

Earlier in June, the council had engaged in discussions with the government after disclosing its obligation to pay up to £760 million to settle equal pay claims. This amount equaled the entirety of its annual spending on services and was escalating at a rate of up to £14 million per month, as reported by the BBC in June.

The genesis of this crisis traces back to a 2012 ruling by Britain’s Supreme Court, which mandated the council to address claims made by numerous women who had suffered monetary discrimination. 

According to the BBC, these claims predominantly pertained to female employees in roles such as teaching assistants, cleaners, and catering staff, who were denied bonuses granted to employees in traditionally male-dominated positions like refuse collectors and street cleaners.

Local Councils In A Dilemma 

In recent years, local councils across the United Kingdom have faced mounting financial pressure as their budgets were reduced, necessitating significant cuts in services. 

Some councils resorted to risky investments in a desperate bid to generate revenue, while others found themselves overwhelmed by rising costs, particularly in the realm of social care; this financial turmoil culminated in several high-profile municipal bankruptcies.

One such instance was the collapse of Northamptonshire Council in 2018, marking the first council bankruptcy since Hackney in 1998. A survey conducted by the Local Government Association indicated that approximately 90 percent of councils were depleting their financial reserves to keep operations afloat. 

Alarmingly, 26 councils were estimated to be at risk of bankruptcy within the following two years.

It’s worth noting that, unlike individuals or companies, local governments in the UK do not “go bankrupt” in the traditional sense; instead, they rely on various sources of income, including taxes, service charges (e.g., parking fees), and central government funding, to maintain a balanced budget. Since the 1980s, UK councils have been prohibited from running a deficit budget.

When a council’s chief financial officer (CFO) realizes that the municipality cannot meet its financial commitments and cannot reduce spending sufficiently to balance the budget, they may issue a “Section 114 Notice.” 

This notice effectively freezes spending and is viewed as a career-ending move by most CFOs. The challenge arises when councils have allocated significant funds to essential services like social care for adults or children’s services, which are difficult to cut without legal challenges or potential harm to vulnerable individuals.

Following the issuance of a Section 114 Notice, the council must implement cuts to address the financial crisis. In extreme cases, government-appointed commissioners, often former local council chief executives, can assume control of some or all of the council’s functions, a situation that can persist for years.

Politics To Be Blamed?

Politics also plays a role in these financial crises, as the central government may be less sympathetic to councils controlled by opposing parties. 

Government intervention can vary based on the political dynamics; in some cases, councils resort to capitalization, which involves generating capital receipts, such as selling assets, to support the revenue budget. However, this one-time infusion of cash does not address the underlying cost challenges.

Therefore, desperate to boost their finances, some councils have engaged in risky ventures, including investments in shopping centers, renewable energy projects, and high street shops, using capital funds to generate budget revenue. Unfortunately, these endeavors have sometimes resulted in colossal failures, such as Thurrock Council’s billion-pound investment in a solar company.

While additional funding for social care may alleviate some immediate pressures, long-term challenges persist, and broader reforms to social care remain elusive, leaving local councils facing a prolonged period of austerity and the potential for more Section 114 notices in the future.

Birmingham’s financial troubles join a list of several other councils that have faced bankruptcy in recent years, each grappling with unique challenges:

• Hackney (2000): Mismanagement and inadequate accounting led to financial difficulties in Hackney, east London, as the council struggled to meet its spending commitments. Widespread mismanagement and financial errors were uncovered, necessitating significant cost-saving measures.

 

• Northamptonshire (2018): Despite a history of privatization and cost-saving strategies, Northamptonshire County Council faced financial shortfalls due to inadequate planning for a growing population, outsourcing social care services, and selling public buildings. It declared bankruptcy, leading to job cuts and reorganization.

 

• Slough (2021): Slough Borough Council, under Labour leadership, declared bankruptcy after discovering a £100 million gap in its finances, later revealed to be a £760 million debt. Poor leadership and quality control were cited as contributing factors, prompting government intervention.

 

• Thurrock (2022): Thurrock, in Essex, filed a Section 114 notice in December 2022, citing a £469 million financial deficit attributed to high-risk financial decisions and inadequate oversight. Government commissioners were appointed to monitor spending, and a £636 million bailout was sought.

 

• Croydon (2022): The London borough of Croydon faced financial challenges resulting from risky property investments and overspending on social care, requiring a £120 million government bailout. Organizational dysfunction was identified as a root cause of the financial troubles.

 

• Northumbria (2022): Northumbria County Council issued a Section 114 notice in May 2022 due to illegal payments related to an international health consultancy business. The former chief executive received additional payments, resulting in her suspension and a £209,000 payout.

 

• Woking (2023): Woking Borough Council in Surrey declared bankruptcy with a debt projected to reach £2.5 billion by 2024/25. The financial issues were primarily attributed to questionable investments made by the previous administration, including a 23-story Hilton hotel. Government commissioners were appointed to address these challenges, citing suboptimal record-keeping as a contributing factor.

The Last Bit, The financial distress that has occurred in Birmingham and other British councils highlights the complex financial domain in which these local authorities operate. 

The issue of equal pay claims, rooted in historical inequalities, has been a significant contributing factor to these fiscal crises. 

While each council’s situation is unique, there are common threads of mismanagement, inadequate financial planning, and high-risk decisions that have strained their budgets. The consequences of these financial crises extend far beyond the council chambers, impacting essential public services and the lives of residents.