Agenda item

To consider the changes recommended in respect of the 2019/20 Local Council Tax Support Scheme.

8.0    The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources presented the report and highlighted key aspects. It was noted that since 2013, Gloucester City Council has maintained an up to 100% reduction scheme. However, changes needed to be considered, and hence a public consultation was carried out.

8.1    Councillor Wilson asked whether households had been warned of the increase. Moreover, he queried whether the scheme was worth it, considering only £46,000 in savings would be made. In response, the Intelligent Client Officer explained that they had engaged households most likely to be affected by the scheme, through voluntary organisations and social media amongst others. Additionally, The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources explained that £43,000 was a good figure in terms of budget saving.

8.2      Councillor Ryall expressed her concern with the way the survey had been constructed, which she believed was difficult to understand, even for someone with a PHD. In her view, some of the survey responses suggested people were unsure how to respond to some of the questions, with such answers as ‘unsure’ and ‘I don’t know’.  The Intelligent Client Officer responded to say that she accepted this, and that the complicated part of the consultation was to simplify what was an intrinsically complicated issue. Prior to launching the consultation, they had engaged with service users such as housing associations, and ultimately, had done the best they could in the circumstances.

8.3       Councillor Ryall asked whether it would be possible to be sent the summary of the survey. The Intelligent Client Officer said that this would be sent to Committee members.

8.4       Councillor Stephens suggested that the scheme would affect the poorest in society, who would struggle to make the payments. Further he questioned whether an equality impact assessment had been carried out. Similarly, he submitted that, ultimately, the costs would only be picked up elsewhere. Finally, he observed that the scheme was being looked at without the Budget which he felt was problematic. Responding to Councillor Stephens’ queries, the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources advised that the responses from the public consultation would be taken on board, and the responses would be included in the report going to Cabinet.

8.5   The Transformation Manager explained that around 36.4% of local authorities had taken up a local council tax support scheme. In addition, he pointed to studies which support a local authority’s ability to collect council tax if government cuts are over a certain amount. He added that there were plans in place to deal with any potential pressure on low income households. In particular, the Discretionary Housing Scheme would help to alleviate any pressure on low income households.

 8.4      Councillor Stephens asked whether it was known how much the Discretionary Housing Scheme costs now and would cost in the future. The Transformation Manager advised that as the scheme had only been introduced towards the end of the last year, there were no figures currently available.

8.5    Councillor Haigh pointing to paragraph 3.9 questioned why all war pensions could not be fully disregarded. The Transformation Manager explained that the £10 was only relevant to people who were not in receipt of Universal Credit. On the other hand, households who were in receipt of Universal Credit would still have their war pensions fully disregarded.

8.6       Councillor Hilton argued that the local council tax support scheme was flawed. His reasons were as follows; firstly, that only a small amount of money was being collected. Secondly, he suggested that it would affect the poorest in society, and potentially put these households in debt. Finally, he stated that the scheme needed to be reconsidered, and that the Council should try by all means to maintain a 100% discount.

8.7   The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources answered Councillor Hilton ‘s queries as follows. There was a collections process in which those who found themselves in trouble would be treated fairly, with a different process being considered for smaller balances. She added that the policy for this would be circulated to members. Furthermore, the City Council had protected those most challenged in society since 2013, however maintaining this would be financially challenging. Moreover, they would need to look at this with Gloucestershire County Council as the billing authority.  Lastly, she added that the proposals for the scheme would be going through multiple rounds of scrutiny, and all options were still open at this stage.

           The Chair extended the meeting by 15 minutes.

8.9    RESOLVED: - That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee makes the following recommendations to Cabinet:

(1)  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee does not accept the proposal of the minimum payment scheme. Cabinet is asked to reconsider the scheme and look at alternative options

(2)  Notwithstanding the recommendation above, if Cabinet decides to go ahead with the scheme, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommends that (a) introduction of the scheme is phased out over two years (b) all war pensions to be disregarded under the scheme.