THE recent Advice York report ‘Pushed into Poverty: the real cost of council tax reform’ has reignited the debate on council priorities.

While reductions in central government funding are undoubtedly the primary factor in reduction of support, our council has nevertheless imposed on some of its most vulnerable residents a particularly inequitable scheme.

New Policy Institute data suggests only two local authorities (out of 326) have more regressive schemes. This suggests the declaration, however well-meaning, to make York a poverty-free city was empty rhetoric.

Furthermore, however unpalatable current choices are, the priority accorded to addressing poverty is nevertheless a choice when set against other ways of spending money.

Interestingly, Ian Floyd, CYC director of customer and business support, makes great play on York’s financial inclusion measures as if that were explanation enough. Ironically, he points to the contribution made by the council to the funding of the advice sector which he says is intended to address poverty issues and financial inclusion.

If so, surely part of the purpose of such funding is to exercise a responsible influence on local policy in which case the council should be engaging with the recommendations contained within the report rather than shooting the messenger with its defensive and flawed justification for such a regressive scheme.

Richard Bridge, Holgate Road, York.