Agenda item

The Chairman, Councillor Gourlay, had requested that this item should feature on the Agenda.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor G McGuinness referred to the fact that when the Scheme had come through Cabinet the previous year he had referred to a number of questions asked about the financial impact of the scheme in relation to the “bedroom tax”.  He asked if there was enough data to carry out an impact analysis to see if there were any particularly hard hit groups. 

The Benefits Manager explained that there was not specific data on types of groups and the effects on those groups because each case was looked at on its merits, and  if someone was affected by multiple hits on their benefits for example those who weren’t pensioners or with small children they would often be the recipient of the discretionary scheme.  An applicant was only refused once all of someone’s income and outgoings had been looked at in detail and deemed ineligible for the scheme.

Councillor McGuinness asked if there was an opportunity to carry out an impact analysis on this.  The Benefits Manager responded that a form of analysis could be carried out but it would be inconclusive because of the variety of different levels of claims and awards.

Councillor Gourlay referred to the newspaper report on the level of bailiff use by the Borough Council at 3,800 incidents, he asked if the level was this high due to the non payment of Council Tax following the changes to the scheme.  The Benefits Manager responded that the high usage of the enforcement was for a number of reasons, and would not be reflective of the actual usage for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk only because the Borough carried out the car parking and its enforcement for a number of other Councils so their figures would appear less and ours higher.

Councillor Gourlay asked what was being done in the consultation process to get the level of participation in the consultation up on previous years.   The Benefits Manager explained that she had carried out considerable consultation the previous year including roadshows to different sites, mail shots etc with a very limited response.

Councillor Daubney responded that the response reflected the national picture, but he felt that the most effective thing that could be done was to keep the level of Council Tax low as the Council had been doing.

Councillor Gourlay referred to the assumption that the self- employed would be assumed to be earning the minimum wage for benefits purposes over the last 2 years which was often not the case.  He asked why that stance had been taken.  The Benefits Manager responded that it had been brought in during the first year of the Scheme to link with the requirements of Universal Credit.  She explained that some self-employed claimed tax credits etc and when they initially started in business were given a start up period of 6 months to enable the income received to build over that time.  The income level would be reviewed after the 6 months.

Councillor Gourlay asked if the things taken into account for the self employed included an element of advertising for the new business, to which it was confirmed that it did.

Councillor McGuinness referred to the reference to the cost of the Council Tax Scheme in 6.4 of the report and asked if it was the national scheme for Council Tax customers.  The Benefits Manager responded that the term referred to the old scheme and those protected by it, as there was no national scheme for the working age.  She agreed to look at the terminology used. 

Councillor McGuinness referred to 6.5 of the report and the level of deficit for the County and Borough and Parishes compared to the previous year.  He asked what the difference in the scheme was on the previous year and whether it would affect all precepting authorities equally.  The Benefits Manager responded that it was due to the caseload change which affected the levels of impact on the precepting authority.  She did not have the detail of the previous years figures to hand and agreed to look at the differences on two years and provide the figures from the previous year to Councillor McGuinness.

Councillor Joyce drew attention to the fact that the administration of the discretionary hardship scheme fell to the Borough Council to fund, he asked what was the average of pass and fails for the assessments for the relief.  The Benefits Manager explained that there was not a meaningful average because the average figure worked out on numbers of cases and levels did not give a true reflection.  Councillor Daubney  considered that any figure worked out in this way would potentially be meaningless because there wasn’t a norm, particularly as some people had to take into account the costs of care and support etc.

Councillor Gourlay made reference to those Councils who were not operating the Council Tax Support Scheme, and asked if the Council Tax Payers in the Borough were paying more because of it.  He suggested that some things could be given up in the Council’s budget to fund it.  Councillor Daubney responded that the Council’s budgets were balanced against no increase in Council Tax, whereas those authorities not operating a scheme were loading large costs against those people who were paying Council Tax.

With regard to the lack of response from the County Council on the scheme which had been sent out for consultation, the Chief Executive informed Members that he had raised it with the Chief Executive of the County Council who she assured would give a response.

Councillor Joyce asked if the Council or the Government picked up the tab for the protection of pensioners in the scheme.  Councillor Daubney explained that the Government Policy was that pensioners would be protected, which brought a cost, for which there was a cost which had to be absorbed by the Council and its adopted scheme.

Councillor McGuinness asked if the Council was required to have the discretionary fund, to which he was informed that whilst the local authority had a discretion to have one, but if one was not in place the Council could be taken to a tribunal.

As suggested by Councillor McGuinness, Councillor Gourlay moved that full impact analysis be carried out on the previous schemes.  Councillor Collingham asked what benefit requiring officers to carry out the additional work would bring any benefit to the scheme.  On being put to the vote the proposal was lost.