Agenda item

To meet legislation that requires that for each financial year the Council must consider whether to revise its Council Tax Support Scheme or to replace it with another Scheme. A decision must be made by 31^st January each year.

(Councillor James Podger declared a personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest in Agenda item 15 by virtue of the fact that his daughter was a Hungerford Town Councillor and he had not applied for a dispensation to allow him to take part in the debate on this item. As his interest was personal and a disclosable pecuniary interest he left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter).

(Councillor James Podger left the meeting at 7.47pm and returned at 8.25pm)

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 15) which asked Members to consider whether to revise its existing Council Tax Support Scheme or to replace it with another scheme under the requirements of the relevant legislation. A decision was required by the 31^st January each year.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Alan Law and seconded by Councillor Laszlo Zverko:

That the Council:

“for the purposes of a Council Tax Support Scheme for 2014/15:

1.      The CTS Scheme for 2014/15 should replicate that in place for 2013/14 with the single exception that claimants in the unprotected group will be required to pay a minimum of 10% of their Council Tax liability rather than 8.5% as in 2013/14;

2.      An amount of £6.23m be drawn from Revenue Support Grant to contribute towards funding of the Scheme together with £1.23m income generated by earlier changes to Council Tax discounts;

3.      That the proposals for addressing variations between estimated and actual costs through the Collection Fund be approved;

4.      No transfer of funding will be made to parish and town councils;

5.      That the associated risks be noted.”

Councillor Law, in introducing the item requested that the following corrections be made to typographical errors in the report: the figure in Recommendation 2 should read £1.23m and not £1.27m as stated on the agenda and that this figure was also erroneously referred to in the financial implications, in paragraph 4.1(2) in the Executive Summary and paragraph 8(2) of main body of report.

He also noted that the scheme was called the Council Tax Support Scheme and any reference to Council Tax Reduction Scheme should read Council Tax Support Scheme throughout the report.

The Chairman, with the permission of those Members present, accepted the corrections.

Councillor Law explained that this was predominantly a technical report that the Council was required to produce to take on board changes made by Central Government the previous year. The Council Tax Support Scheme had replaced the Council Tax Benefit and as a consequence the Council had received 14% less funding. The Council had also previously received a specific grant to fund the scheme but this year the funding ((£6.23m) would be included in the Revenue Support Grant. The Council was therefore recommending that all claimants in the unprotected group would pay a minimum of 10% Council Tax, which was an increase when compared to the 8.5% charged the previous year.

In respect of recommendation 4 all Town and Parish Councils had been informed in January 2013 that they would not receive the transfer funding this year.

Councillor Jeff Brooks drew Members’ attention to page 23 of the agenda and in particular to the line in the equalities section which stated that the policy would not have an impact on how other organisations operated in terms of equality. He opined that if funding was not transferred to the town and parish councils it was possible that they would no longer be able to offer grants to disadvantaged groups and therefore there would be an impact. He was therefore concerned that the Equalities Impact Assessment did not contain sufficient detail. Councillor Marcus Franks stated that Councillor Brooks’ assertion was conjecture and the Council could not surmise what the Town and Parish Councils did with their budgets.

Councillor Brooks also stated that the 1.5% (from 8.5% to 10%) increase would equate to an 18% increase in costs to those in receipt of benefits many of whom were being paid a minimum wage. He noted that the non-collection rate had almost doubled as people in work were struggling to pay their Council Tax and the information provided suggested that the Council was having difficulty collected the payments from these individuals.

Councillor Brooks was also concerned that if the Council determined recommendation 4 at this meeting and then there was a change in the guidelines produced by Central Government the Council would have fettered its discretion. Councillor Marcus Franks reminded Members that the Council had not received funding to support the Town and Parish Councils this year.

Councillor David Allen commented that the guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government towards the end of 2012 set out a clear expectation that the Council Tax Support Grant would be passed to the Town and Parish Councils.

Councillor Tony Vickers suggested that instead of raising the contribution from claimants in the unprotected group from 8.5% to 10% the Council should remove the 28 day exemption period currently in place for empty homes. This receipt would negate the need to introduce increase and it would also mean that two thirds of the funding would still be available to the Town and Parish Councils.

Councillor Pamela Bale drew Members’ attention to paragraph 1.4 of the report which stated that ‘the Council would not be in a position to make such a payment unless the Government reverses its position on the matter.” She stated that if there was a change the Council would be able to review its position. It was confirmed that if there was a material change in circumstances Members would be able to revisit the decision despite the six month rule.

Councillor Gordon Lundie stated that it was not appropriate for the Council to increase its taxes in order to pass the funding onto other organisations.  Town and Parish Councils had to take on responsibility for meeting their own funding gaps.

Councillor Alan Law commented that noted that a comprehensive Equality Impact Assessment had been undertaken when the scheme was first introduced in December 2012. Pensioners and vulnerable persons were still protected and would continue to receive 100% of their liability. There was financial assistance available for those on low incomes.

Councillor Law reminded Members that the increase from 8.5% to 10% equated to 44p per week. He also noted that collection rates were almost identical to previous years. Councillor Law reiterated that the Parish and Town Councils had been informed in January 2013 that they would not receive the Council Tax Support Grant this year.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer clarified that a full Equality Impact Assessment had taken place in the previous year, reference to it was made in the report and it was referenced in the background documentation. Sarah Clarke also explained that if there was a material change in circumstance the Council could review the decision not to pass the funding onto Town and Parish Councils despite the six month rule.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.17.3 it was requisitioned that the voting on the Motion be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against and abstaining were read to the Council as follows:

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeff Beck, Brian Bedwell, Dominic Boeck, Paul Bryant, Virginia von Celsing, George Chandler, Keith Chopping, Hilary Cole, Roger Croft, Richard Crumly, Adrian Edwards,  Marcus Franks, Manohar Gopal, John Horton, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Mike Johnson, Graham Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Joe Mooney, Irene Neill, Graham Pask, Andrew Rowles, Garth Simpson, Anthony Stansfeld, Ieuan Tuck, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster, Laszlo Zverko (34)

AGAINST the Motion:

Councillors David Allen, Jeff Brooks, Mollie Lock, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, Gwen Mason, Geoff Mayes,  David Rendel, Julian Swift-Hook, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (11)

ABSTAINED:

None.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.