Subscribe to trusted local news
In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
- Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
26
Feb
Government grant axing legal action could cost taxpayers a ‘very large sum’, council leader says
Legal action over the government’s decision to cut a £14.3 million rural service delivery grant could cost taxpayers more than £250,000.
Cllr Carl Les, Conservative leader of North Yorkshire Council, told councillors today (February 26) that the authority was challenging the government over the "unfair" cut and had sought legal advice.
He added that the overall cost to taxpayers could be a "very large sum". However, he said the substantial loss in funding was a matter he felt was "worth challenging".
It comes as the Labour government announced in November that it would axe the £110 million fund, which helped councils cover the additional costs of delivering services across a rural area.
North Yorkshire was among the areas to receive the most funding, with the grant worth £14.3 million a year.
Cllr Les told executive council members on February 4 that a letter had been sent to the government seeking a judicial review on the matter.
He said:
The rhetoric that accompanied that decision said there was no evidence that services in rural areas cost more to deliver, that rural areas are more affluent than city areas and that councils just use (the grant) to bolster their reserves when clearly that is not the fact in North Yorkshire.
That decision in my view is unsound so we have asked Barry Khan (assistant chief executive for legal and democratic services) to write a letter as the first steps of a judicial review.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service previously reported the letter challenges the government decision on three points: the consultation process, the rationality of the decision and the impact it would have on the council’s public sector equality duties for the rural population.
At a full council meeting held at County Hall in Northallerton today, Cllr Andy Brown, a Green for the Aire Valley division, and Cllr Jack Proud, Labour member for Selby East, asked Cllr Les how much the legal action is likely to cost the taxpayer.
Cllr Les pointed out that the loss of the grant had cost the council £14.3 million from its budget plans — which led to the authority to dipping into its reserves to cover a £5 million shortfall.
He added:
...at the stroke of a pen and very suddenly, so I think that is worth challenging. I would hope members would agree with that.
The cost could be £250,000. It could be even more if either side decide to take it beyond the High Court and take it to the House of Lords. It could be a very large sum.
Cllr Les said the authority has so far spent £1,200 on the review, almost all of which has been done in-house.
However, the council has sought advice from a barrister who charges £625 an hour. Cllr Les told members it has “only had a very small bit of advice”.
He also told Cllr Proud the council’s legal services team has a budget in place for court action.
Cllr Les added:
We have sent a letter before action, that has elicited a response. We are studying that response as we speak and there are some further questions coming out of that, which will then allow us to follow up with a continuing letter.
Yes, there will further cross-party discussions, but especially with those other rural councils of all colours which have also been hit by this unfair move.
No other council has been affected as badly as North Yorkshire Council, Cllr Les said, adding the authority has been "hit the worst out of all the councils in the country".
All those other councils are also interested in this initiative, he said.
‘Are we sure our lawyers are better than the government’s?’
Cllr Brown told the council leader he “hears the concern” but does not understand the strategy.
He told Cllr Les:
Citing legal action against the British government is a very high-risk strategy. If we win, the government can simply change the rules and punish us further. If we lose, we pay our own considerable costs and risk paying theirs.
Are we so very sure our lawyers are better than the British government’s? Are we so very sure this is a wise risk to take with taxpayers’ money? Much is made of our shortage of cash; can we really afford this kind of gamble with taxpayers’ money?
Cllr Les said the authority “has not yet decided if we’re going to do that or not”, adding it is looking at the response to the letter before action.
0