Agenda item

An update on the proposed Council Tax Support for Veterans.

The Leader of the Council presented the report.

The Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 28 November 2023 requested that:

‘A report to explore the feasibility of providing Council Tax relief exclusively to employed Veterans residing in Band A properties, considering relief rates of 5% and also 10%, yielding two distinct options. The analysis must encompass a detailed examination of the financial implications on South Kesteven District Council, Lincolnshire County Council and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire.’

The primary and most reliable source of data regarding characteristics of veterans in South Kesteven was from the 2021 Census accessed through the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This data was the source of most of the data outlined in the report.

8,691 veterans, across 6,028 households were living within South Kesteven. The ratio of households to residents implied that a significant number of single-person households. 30.90% of veterans live in single-person households compared to 22% of the general resident population. This data supports the financial modelling assumption surrounding Single Person Discount award in Option 2 (paragraph 2.20 of the report).

Some data was unavailable, e.g. average veteran weekly wage; and median household income of veterans. Data is available for both metrics for the general population and for the median household income down to quite granular geographies. This was best used as a measure of the general area level of affluence rather than the performance of particular demographics. For example, the average modelled gross household income (2020) in Bourne West is £45,600. It is not known how the 378 veterans living in Bourne West are performing relative to that figure. Some likely have a higher household income, others likely have a lower.

The Head of Service (Revenues, Benefits, Customer and Community) drew the Committee’s attention to information within the equality and diversity section of the report. There was an inequality with regards to the eligibility whereby veterans would have to be employed and reside in a Band A property to be eligible for the scheme.

The requirement of veterans being employed can mean that certain veterans that were retired or disabled may not have the employment status to be eligible for the scheme, which was over 50% of the veterans living within South Kesteven.

An amendment to the recommendation was proposed and seconded:

For the following questions in the upcoming consultation about the Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for 2025-26:

a)    Do you support providing targeted council tax relief for employed veterans in Band A properties? Yes or no?

b)    If yes, should the relief for employed veterans in Band A properties be 5% or 10% off their annual council tax bill?

Recommendation two of the reports before us, ‘that no further work is undertaken on the development of a Council Tax Support Scheme for Veterans’, would be nullified.

It was queried as to whether the content of the 2023 consultation on the Council Tax discount was available. It was noted that previous consultation questions related to the discount for Veterans.

The Head of Service (Revenues, Benefits, Customer and Community) clarified that the question included within the consultation for the Council Tax Support Scheme in 2023 was ‘whether or not the consultees would support the introduction of a Council Tax discount for Veterans’.

260 out of 370 respondents to the consultation in 2023, said that they would support the introduction of a Council Tax discount for Veterans. Respondents were then asked ‘what level of discount they felt veterans should be entitled to’: 8 of the 260 said 5%, 42 of the 260% said 10% and the rest were a variable of between 15-25%.

One Member emphasised that more questions may prevent veterans wanting to complete the consultation. It was noted that all nuances should be included within questions asked of veterans.

It was noted that the Armed Forces Covenant outlined that Council’s were not obliged to financially aid veterans. It was not in place to offer benefits to veterans, it was to ensure that they were treated with fairness and respect in the community, economy and society, and that they face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in provision of the public and commercial services.

One Member felt that the decision for a discount for veterans to be put in place would go against the advice given in the Armed Forces Covenant, due to disadvantaging those citizens to the effect of the veterans.

Paragraphs 1.2 to 1.8 in the report would be relevant in relation to the amendment proposed, in terms of the Inclusion and Equality Act implications. Lincolnshire County Council had raised concerns and objections to the introduction of a veteran scheme as part of their consultation response in 2023, due to it being seen as discriminatory.

One Member highlighted that the consultation for council tax discount schemes was completed annually. It was clarified that the amendment proposed would include the 2 questions to be asked, as part of the annual consultation.

As part of the Council’s statutory consultation, the proposed scheme for 2025/26 would be presented to the Committee at the next meeting in July 2024. Following that meeting, the discount scheme would go out to stakeholder consultation, with the addition of the 2 questions proposed, if the amendment was approved. 

One Member highlighted that whether the scheme discriminatory or not, it may be unlawful, which meant the guidance received by Lincolnshire County Council should be followed.

The Community Engagement Manager clarified that under the Equalities Act 2010 and the Armed Forces Act 2022, if the Council were to discriminate or disadvantage a veteran, this would be a lawful matter, whereby the Council could be challenged in Court.

If this amendment was taken forward, robust evidence to show reasoning behind the criteria proposed and whether the Council should introduce the scheme in its proposed form should be explored and whether the scheme would be disadvantaging those veterans that may not fit into the criteria. 

This proposal fell.

Councillor Richard Dixon-Warren made the following statement, in his capacity as the Armed Forces’ Champion for South Kesteven District Council, it was requested that the statement be included within the minutes of the meeting (see appendix).

(Councillors Max Sawyer, Tim Harrison, Lee Steptoe and Bridget Ley voted in favour of the recommendation).

(Councillors Mark Whittington, Gloria Johnson and Ben Green voted against the recommendation).

ACTION: For the Deputy Chief Executive (S151 Officer) to provide the Committee with up-to-date costings on work undertaken by Officers on veterans.

It was queried whether the Council were advertising options available to veterans living in poverty, as well as organisations that they could be referred to.

The Community Engagement Manager informed the Committee that information was available on the Council’s website relating to the support available to Armed Forces, Veterans, and their families. A directory for all support for Veterans was being worked on across the County.

The Cabinet Member for People and Communities suggested that information on support available for Veterans be sent out weekly.

The Community Engagement Manager confirmed that in terms of Armed Forces, flag raising and events took place all around the District.

At the next Rural and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 10^th July 2024, an overview of the work taken place would be heard. 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED that the Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

1. Notes the contents of the report and provides feedback on the modelling undertaken and proposed scheme eligibility.

2. Requests that no further work is undertaken on the development of a Council Tax Support Scheme for Veterans.

(Councillors Max Sawyer, Tim Harrison, Lee Steptoe and Bridget Ley voted in favour of the recommendation).

(Councillors Mark Whittington, Gloria Johnson and Ben Green voted against the recommendation).