WOKINGHAM CONSERVATIVES have performed a u-turn on a part of their controversial scheme to support vulnerable residents in the borough after criticism from residents.

The authority’s council tax reduction (CTR) scheme had come under fire after a change in its policy meant parents receiving child maintenance grants would see a portion of this counted as their income.

Critics claimed this move ‘penalised single parents’ but now the leader of the council has announced that this element of the proposals will be scrapped.

Councillor Julian McGhee-Sumner, leader of the council, said: “Having listened to the arguments and the concerns raised, we now believe that the child maintenance proposal in our council tax reduction scheme isn’t right.

“A meeting will be set up to make alterations to the scheme before it is implemented, removing the inclusion of child maintenance payments.

“I also want to thank all of those who have raised this issue with us, and I want you to know that we heard you, and we are now making this change.”

The policy was approved by councillors at a meeting on Thursday, January 24 after all Conservative members present voted to push through the scheme after Liberal Democrats and Labour councillors voted against the proposal.

This meant Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) was able to submit its policy before the deadline of January 31, but the u-turn now means the document will have to be approved again.

The News understands that a full council meeting will be arranged for February in order to ensure the council has a CTR scheme in place.

Liberal Democrats councillor Lindsay Ferris, leader of the opposition, told The News: “This is a welcome move because this is a serious issue. it would have really hit families quite hard.

“I will take it as a positive. It is an improvement but it still could be that it (the CTR scheme) will be hitting some people on low incomes. We need to have a look at what the consequences of it are.

“It is an improvement but it is a sum of it being rushed through in the first place and it does not bode well.

“If we were able to have called it in we would have called it in. But because it is a financial issue we can’t do that.

“There was a lack of thought in this, but at least somebody in the Conservative group has had the courage to stand up and admit they have made a mistake.”

Labour councillor Rachel Burgess said: "I’m delighted that the Conservatives have seen sense and listened to the Labour group on this, an issue that affects some of Wokingham’s most vulnerable residents.

"The inclusion of child maintenance payments as income in council tax reduction calculations was blatantly unfair - as the Labour group pointed out en masse.

"It’s just a shame the Conservatives only woke up to the issue after Labour councillors pointed it out to them – it was as if they had not even read the proposals. They say they are listening, but as a first step they should try being prepared for council meetings.

"It seemed as though most of them did not know what they were voting for, and were content to nod these damaging proposals through without question.

"Not one backbench Conservative councillor stood up against the proposals at the full council meeting. On the contrary, all three Labour councillors spoke vociferously against the changes – and this just shows that what Wokingham desperately needs is hard-working councillors whose first duty is to their residents."

Labour councillor Andy Croy told the News of his delight at the Conservative u-turn and expressed his concerns over when the new proposals will be approved or refused. 

He said: "The leader of the council can not just go and overturn the decision - there will need to be another council vote."

At last week's meeting, Conservative councillors Anthony Pollock and Parry Batth were the only two members of the ruling group to speak in favour of the plan. 

Cllr Croy said after the u-turn that the lack of Tory speakers was "quite shocking".

The Labour councillor also spoke at the full council meeting, where he said: "This scheme proposes that we literally take cash from children. But it’s not cash – it will be food, clothes, school trips, colder houses or mums going without an evening meal."