APPENDIX 11B
Report for Council Tax Support
Consultation
(a)
Table of Contents
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 1
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 2
Key Points ................................................................................................................................. 2
Overall ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Option Three – a discriminate approachError! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Option Two – an indiscriminate approach ................................................................................ 5
Option One – the cut being passed on to taxpayers through cuts in services or higher
Council Tax charges .................................................................................................................. 6
Option Four – a combination of options two and three ............................................................ 6
Summary .................................................................................................................................. 6
Representative Agencies Involved in the Consultation.............................................................. 8
(b)
Methodology
It was agreed that two focus groups will be held with key support groups in Buckinghamshire.
The people invited to the groups have significant knowledge of assisting the groups who
currently receive assistance with their Council Tax and who will be able to bring that knowledge
to this debate. The list of agencies/support groups were provided by the local authorities.
Within the groups we used a version of conjoint analysis to debate the many different groups
who are currently receiving benefit and to evaluate how this might be changed in the future. A
key facet of the discussion was around the principle behind the brief that work is better than
benefits.
Chiltern and Aylesbury Vale District Councils hosted one group each and members of the
Revenue and Benefits teams from all the four councils came to view the groups. Both groups
were very well attended with the group in Aylesbury including broader issue respondents and
at Chiltern there were more single issue respondents, who focused on particular need groups
and represented charities and single issue / debt management organisations. Throughout the
report we will refer to the two types of respondent we saw as “generalist” and “single issue /
debt management” people.
(c)
Overview
Something which became clear in the groups is the difference in views between those who
have a wide understanding and remit in the benefits area and those who deal with mainly debt
and/ or single issue groups, such as people with disabilities or carers. Those with a wider remit
tend to see the welfare system as being fairly generous and offering the lifeline it is designed to
give whereas those working with debt and other single issue groups feel the system is not
generous enough. It could be that the debt issues mean that whilst the welfare system might
work for subsistence living it is difficult when managing debt alongside living. The group in
Aylesbury included more “generalists” and in Chiltern we saw more “single issue” third sector
respondents. The single issue/ debt management people tended to work for charities or not
for profit bodies, with some possibly volunteers.
What we also heard in the groups is that there is a significant “industry” around benefits and
welfare management and those working in the sector tend to fall into one of two categories.
Either that the benefits system barely does enough and it is their job to extract as much as
possible for their “customers” as possible or that it works pretty well and is perhaps somewhat
generous in some areas. The generalists tended to be the Welfare Advisors / Housing
Association teams and they have views on the system they represent and a good degree of
confidence in it. Whereas the single issue / debt management people are keen to work the
system to meet the charitable aspirations their organisation represents for their customers. In
the Aylesbury group those who feel it is their job to find as much from the system as possible
were comfortable hearing the views of others, this was less the case in Chiltern where more
people felt the current system was not generous enough and those who had other views were
in the minority. The only exception to this was those working with the young and homeless
where they were more open minded about the need to make savings.
In conducting these groups it was very clear that a significant culture change is going to be
required in order to make these changes work in a positive way. Those involved in welfare
claiming and claimants, who see the system as too meagre, just cannot imagine how their
customers would manage on any less. The people with these views tended to be older.
Younger respondents were much less likely to hold these views. They were more pragmatic
and understood that there was only so much money and that savings had to be found. They
were much more likely to buy in to the idea of changes to ensure the system was in their view
“fairer” and possibly more even. The older respondents who worked with debt and more single
issue groups just didn’t think their customers could afford to take any cuts in support and were
less concerned about “fairness” and were more worried about their customers’ ability to live.
(d)
Key Points
Changes such as these are likely to be difficult to implement but this piece of consultation
showed that opinion is towards making the changes. It is not universal but it does suggest
that this could be the best time to make the changes whilst some support exists.
There appears to be some shift in thinking away from total support for the minority in need
towards the needs of the wider community who have traditionally paid for this support.
Debt is a big issue for some in the welfare recipient groups. Those groups who assist people
to manage their debt feel the pressure of the role they have taken on and are vociferous in
support of their customers.
The need for a discretionary pot to support those most affected by the changes is universally
accepted by respondents.
The ethos that everyone should pay something towards local services does have strong
support from some. In communicating the changes this will be an important message to
emphasise.
(e)
Overall
In the Aylesbury group they took the line that everybody should make some contribution
towards the cuts and that existing charge payers should not be charged more to subsidise
welfare payments
In Chiltern they thought the cut should be paid for by a mix of some savings in CTS and from
the charge payer. The certainly didn’t want to see a cut in services as many thought that
might mean their own grant being cut.
Listening to both debates it was the more generalist respondents who favoured finding the
savings from the CTS budget. It was those representing more focussed, single issue bodies
who were more in favour of finding the money from charge payers. From the conversations
it was clear that many of those bodies were working with people who did not work for
whatever reason whereas the generalists were concerned about a wider scope of people.
(f)
Option Three – a discriminate approach
We used the list of groups and ideas put forward by the Buckinghamshire councils as the means
to have a debate around a “discriminate cut” in certain areas and where those cuts could be
made. In each group this provoked a lively discussion and whilst some found naming any
groups for cuts in CTS very difficult others found it helpful as a means of describing why they
see some forms of support more helpful than others.
It is important to note that in the Aylesbury group there was much wider support for some
cuts. They saw the need to save money and in some cases rationalise the support being
offered to some groups whom a number of respondents thought would be able to help
themselves given the right encouragement. The conversation in Aylesbury possibly “turned”
the views of those representing bodies who were involved in debt management work. In
Chiltern the views were different, because the profile was so different. Here the stories about
living off very little money were frequent and those working with debt were in the majority.
The views on each discriminate group are combined in the grid below but it is worth noting
that those where there was support for a cut in support tended to come the Aylesbury group
and often, but not always those who did not support a cut came from Chiltern.
Suggestion for a cut in CTS
Views
Capping Council Tax Support This was felt to be rather unfair on someone who has lost
at an agreed charge band ( this their job. There should be at least a year for the individual
could be Band C or Band D)
to be able resolve the situation before having to sell their
house. However there were those who felt that if
someone had a house of significant value they should not
qualify for any support. This might be an area where a
discretionary pot could be used.
Reducing Council Tax Support For some this was an absolute “no” as there was a feeling
for under 35’s to Band A that the younger people are already being hit hard
properties
enough. However others felt this was already the case as
their only entitlement is for a room in a shared house so
could be a possibility.
Limiting maximum Council Tax Again this split the two groups. In Aylesbury respondents
Support to a % of maximum strongly felt that everyone should pay something, so this
idea was a good one. In Chiltern they saw it as a problem
liability
as some of the people they see, especially those with debt
just would not be able to pay and it would just become
another debt to juggle.
Limiting maximum Council Tax Again this split the two groups. In Aylesbury respondents
Support to a % of maximum strongly felt that everyone should pay something, so this
liability
idea was a good one. In Chiltern they saw it as a problem
as some of the people they see, especially those with debt
just would not be able to pay and it would just become
another debt to juggle.
Minimum payments – say £5 a This was a possibility for most respondents. There was
week
agreement that a re-wording would need to take place so
that if it came to £5 or less it would show no benefit as
being due.
Stop
non
dependant For those keen to see less benefit being paid this was seen
deductions (this simplifies as poor idea even if it did save admin. For those keen to
admin but increases CTS)
ensure maximum amounts of benefit for their customers
they saw it as a “win win”.
Increase
non
dependant This was an area which respondents thought was worth
deduction income bands
exploring. No one dismissed it and it was definite area for
a cut from the more generalist respondents.
Withdrawal of second adult For those working in general welfare management this was
rebate
seen as a sensible route for a cut. For respondents
working with customers with issues this was not because
they felt it would be another problem which some of their
customers would be unable to deal with as some find it
difficult to get other adults to pay their share. This is
where there was divergence between those in professional
welfare roles, such as Welfare Advisors working for BCC
and those working for single issue / debt management
organisations like Citizens Advice and advocacy
organisations. It is in these conversations that the
“politics” of the cuts in support came to the fore. The
Welfare Advisors have views on the system they represent
including a good degree of confidence in it whereas the
single issue / debt management people are keen to work
with the system to meet the charitable aspirations their
organisation represents for their customers.
Reduction in the Capital In the main most felt this was reasonable however the
allowance to, say £6,000
amount was subject to some debate. Some, in the Chiltern
group, felt that £6,000 was quite low and felt happier at
about an £8000 level.
Changing earnings disregards This was not an altogether popular change. Most said they
to one amount instead of are there for a reason and would not want them changed,
several
(based
circumstances)
on partly because this could impact upon the low paid
workers more than those purely on benefit. In the
Aylesbury groups this was a particular consideration, it was
less so in Chiltern although this may have been because
the respondents in that group appeared to be working
with non working claimants rather than those who worked
on low pay.
Decrease or limit the amount Most felt this was not a desirable change especially if it
of childcare disregards
affected working parents. However for others when child
maintenance is being paid this might be a sensible option.
Include
child There was a distinction made here between Child Benefit
maintenance/benefit
as which most felt should be disregarded however child
income (currently disregarded) maintenance was felt relevant to include as in some cases
it can amount to a significant amount of money. There
was a proviso that child maintenance needs to be checked
that it is paid as it is often not in which case there might be
a requirement to call on the discretionary pot.
Include
disability
living Those living with disabilities are a group which most
allowance as an income
consider need to be exempt from any cuts in support.
No backdating of benefit
There was a clear split here between the generalists and
the single issue / debt management people.
The
generalists absolutely agreed that there should be no
backdating whereas the others found it useful to manage
debts.
Stop underlying entitlement
When related to fraud most agreed this was a sensible
move however those dealing with customers with debt
and other issues felt this would mean more debt accruing
which had to then be managed.
2.
Option Two – an indiscriminate approach
Here we made the suggestion of a notional 20% cut to all non protected claimants. Having
worked through all the groups who could be affected for the Aylesbury group this option
seemed very sensible. For the Chiltern group this was not considered a viable option as they
felt that many of the customers they see just would not be able to afford such a cut. Again this
appeared to be linked to the debts which many claimants carried.
The reason why the more generalist favoured this option was because it would be
straightforward to explain and would enshrine the idea that everyone would pay something,
which for these people was considered very important as part of the culture change some felt
was required. It was felt that for the people they saw to know that they are contributing to the
local services would be an excellent step forward and that it might help with respect levels
both for themselves and local services.
For some in the single issue / debt management this suggestion was impossible to imagine.
Again it is important to point out it was those charities helping those with debts who found it
most difficult to accept although the carers organisation and those working with disabilities
also worried it would be hard to find extra money.
3.
Option One – the cut being passed on to taxpayers through cuts in
services or higher Council Tax charges
This proved to be a the halleluiah moment for the group in Aylesbury as no one felt existing
charge payers should be charged more to subsidise a welfare payment. This was debated and
agreed that the whole amount of the cut should be financed from the support claimant group
themselves. They wouldn’t want to see cuts in services to finance the change and expected the
councils to find the money in savings to current payments.
In Chiltern this was not the case. At first they favoured taxing “those with big houses” more,
when it was explained that this was not possible within the current rules they thought the cut
should be paid for by a mix of some savings in CTS and from the charge payer. They certainly
didn’t want to see a cut in services as many thought that might mean their own grant being cut.
The net effect of this conversation possibly showed that most look at this subject from a
personal “interest” perspective whether they realise it or not. The single issue / debt
management people see their work as very difficult at the moment as they take on the financial
issues of people who feel or are unable to manage their own and a cut in any benefits would
make that job more difficult. The generalists see all sorts of people as well as those who pay
full council charge and do not want more people to need benefits, which might happen if
Council Tax goes up too much. The view of the generalists chimes more easily with the policy
of “work is better than benefits” whereas for those in the “welfare industry” be it charitable or
otherwise feel this culture change most keenly. Some are not ready for it and may never be.
4.
Option Four – a combination of options two and three
The grid on page three and four show the thoughts on option two and above for option three.
The group in Chiltern wanted an option five which was the savings from option two which they
agreed with the rest of the money to fund the payments coming from the charge payer.
5.
Summary
The subject of cuts is a contentious one. Some say it is political but what we heard from
these groups is that it is perhaps more driven by the needs of the different groups providing
services than what one might call “politics”. The charitable / service industry built up
around welfare benefits of all sorts can appear quite entrenched. This appears to be in part
because they have built up a very strong empathy with those they serve, it is also because
their roles might be called vocational and they see it as their vocation to help claimants
within that role. Changes of the sort we discussed might make this more difficult.
Those working in the public sector seemed to be up for the challenge of culture change
around the distribution of benefits and the costs of them whereas the single issue / debt
management appeared to want more benefits to distribute in order to try and eradicate
whichever issue their organisation was there to serve. It almost came down to a practical
versus ideological debate. The practical people tended to be the public sector teams. They
appeared to be able to debate wider and longer term issues. The single issue / debt
management people are terribly worried about the people they serve and how they will
manage and this makes it tricky for them to see beyond their area. Those working in
welfare and possibly a wider service provision such as housing see the needs beyond
welfare claimants and have other ideas about how issues might be solved, including the idea
that work is better than benefits.
For those who favoured a cut in support they felt it was a positive move to make the
changes. For the others they tended to see it as a political issue aimed at their customers.
For the councils making the changes it will be very important to bring the groups whose
views prevail with them to help them communicate the choice they have made. However as
one of the Welfare Officers said: “As the system gets tighter the councils need to be clearer
about what it is for and why people qualify or not”. Having moderated these groups it is
also worth debating what role Council Tax Support has in assisting people with debts.
The need for a discretionary pot of money was agreed as important by everyone, how it is
used might be another debate entirely. Ask the generalists and they are likely to say those
who are working on low pay, ask the single issue / debt management people and they will
say for those in the greatest financial need, which is likely to be those who do not work, for
whatever reason. Whichever approach individual Authorities take it will be necessary to
produce a clear protocol as to how any discretionary funds will be allocated.
6.
Representative Agencies Involved in the Consultation
These are the people who came to the two forum meetings.
Aylesbury
Name:
Organisation
Julia Johnson
Age UK (Bucks)
Helen Wain
Age UK (Bucks)
Sue Gehnich
Age UK (Bucks)
Karen Mead
Aylesbury Vale Advocates
Sandra White
Aylesbury Women’s Aid
Sue Norman
Buckingham Citizens’ Advice Bureau
Ian Payne
Buckingham Citizens’ Advice Bureau
Janice Moore
Bucks Welfare Benefits
Antonia Day
Bucks Welfare Benefits
Trevor Morrow
Red Kite Community Housing
Rachel Dillon
Wycombe Homeless Connection
Amersham:
Name:
Organisation
Sylvia Jones
Beaconsfield Advisory Centre
Anne Benstock
Beaconsfield Advisory Centre
Anne Whiteley
Bucks Carers
Liz Bubbear
Bucks Floating Support
Don Lindskog
Burnham Access Group
Liz Wright
Chiltern Citizens Advice Bureau
Gregory Whyte
Riverside ECHG Old Tea Warehouse
Anna Stachowiak
Riverside ECHG Old Tea Warehouse
Barbara Poole
People’s Voices
Kamla Joshi
South Bucks and Chiltern Access Group
Leonie Farmer
South Bucks CAB