Agenda item

To advise Council of the scope for changes to the Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017/18. Review of the scheme is a statutory responsibility and, in addition, the Council needs to identify the scope for cost reduction in the light of budget pressures.

(All Members present had been granted a dispensation to speak and vote on this item)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) concerning the scope for changes to the Council Tax Support Scheme for 2017/18. The review of the scheme was a statutory responsibility and, in addition it was necessary to identify the scope for cost reduction in the light of budget pressures.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor James Fredrickson and seconded by Councillor Anthony Chadley:

That the Council:

“Notes the various options contained within this report and selects a preferred option.”

(Councillors James Podger and Ian Morrin left the meeting at 8.17pm)

Councillor James Fredrickson in introducing the report noted that the Council Tax Support Scheme (CTS) replaced Council Tax Benefit (CTB) in 2013. This was a local scheme but one of the requirements was that pensioners and claimants deemed to be vulnerable could not be any worse off under the CTS than they were under CTB. Councillor Fredrickson noted that CTB had been fully funded by government grants but this was no longer the case. Funding for CTS had reduced since 2013/14 and now formed part of the Revenue Support Grant and could no longer be identified as a separate income stream.

The Council had considered its own scheme, looked at what other authorities were doing and had then undertaken a consultation process on proposed changes with affected parties. A total of 71 responses were received.

Councillor Fredrickson commented that in considering schemes from other Councils it had become apparent that other authorities had opted to redefine the ‘vulnerable group’. The Council had looked at this option (options 18 and 19) and decided that it had no intention to make the vulnerable group smaller and had therefore discounted these options despite the fact that they could generate £240k of savings.

Councillor Fredrickson commented that West Berkshire was very fortunate to have a very low unemployment rate. It was therefore felt that it was right to look at the options pertaining to working age claimants as they had the ability to change their income levels. He therefore proposed that Members support the adoption of option 17 (30% deduction from liability, capped at Band C, minimum award £10 per week, capital limit of £6k and tapering 30%).

Councillor Lee Dillon was pleased that the Council had decided not to redefine the vulnerable group and he could see the logic behind reducing the capital limit. He felt that the comments made by the CAB that ‘Many residents on JSA and workers on low pay can barely afford the current 10% contribution so how will they afford an increase on the same income?  The WBC proposed increases in contribution to 25% and 30% are respectively 2.5 and 3 times what residents are paying currently which are unreasonable percentage increases compared to JSA incomes’ were well made and that some people would not be able to influence the level of income they received.

Councillor Dillon noted that around 370 claimants who had previously been required to pay £3 per week would now be required to pay £10 per week. While £7 per week (a 233% increase) would not be a lot of money for some people it could have a significant impact on some of these claimants and their families. There might also be a knock on effect on the Council’s collection rates.

Councillor Alan Macro commented that the changes were designed to encourage claimants to increase their earnings but by increasing the taper rate this would act as a disincentive to increase income.

Councillor Chadley commented that around 2000 affected residents were issued with a copy of the survey and there was also widespread publicity around the consultation. The response was not huge (71 responses and in 15 cases the respondents did not answer any of the specific questions asked). There appeared to be a general acceptance that changes were needed and only around a third of the respondents disagreed with this proposal. 

The Council was continuing to protect the most vulnerable residents but the policy was designed to encourage those with the ability to work to do so. West Berkshire had a low number of Job Seekers Allowance claimants and the number of job opportunities exceeded the number of working age residents. In addition there were a large number of residents in the district that commuted to other areas for employment. In response to comments made by Councillor Dillon Councillor Chadley noted that it would not be possible to predict collection rates until the data was collected but reminded him that the Council had some of the best collection rates around.

Councillor Fredrickson commented that there had been a lot of discussion around the £10 threshold. It was a small amount and it might be preferable to increase the threshold for administrative purposes. He reminded Members that the Council had decided not to consult on options 18 and 19 despite the increased savings that these proposals could generate. It was not possible to predict collection rates but across the years these had remained broadly static.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.