Clearly I don’t think post-doctoral researchers should be exempt from council tax.

An exemption from council tax is part of the current way the state funds those working towards a PhD. What I am objecting to is an individual council making up its own rules on council tax eligibility. I’m not defending the current arrangements.

I have previously outlined my view that it would be better if those funded by the UK state to work towards a PhD were given a salary, rather than a studentship, they would be in a better position with regards to:
*Employment law
*Status (resulting in training opportunities offered to staff).
*Accommodation (availability of both rental property and mortgages)

As a result I think the UK taxpayer would get a better return on their investment. I would want the salary set to be at such a level as to result in the same after-tax take-home pay as offered by current studentships.

Whilst idly flicking through another part of this site, I came across the following comment of yours from 11 September 2008 “I wonder if he was referring to PostDocs, and suggesting they “study”, I imagine most would be insulted by that insinuation, its bad enough calling those doing research intended to result in a PhD students!”.

If you don’t think they are - or should be called - students, why should the Council be expected to treat them as such for Council Tax purposes?

Just a thought.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam.misc/msg/aaf2324d3dc37fa8

This is astounding, and shocking.

There is a West/Central Area committee meeting at 19.30 on the 10th of December at the Castle End Mission, Pound Hill, Cambridge, CB3 0AE The meeting includes an open forum for members of the public to speak and would be an appriopriate place to go to ask the Liberal Democrat councillors what they’re up to.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_652422.html

It appears Cllr Cantrill is slightly relaxing the stance he is taking against post-fourth year students:

The council intends to contact students effected [sic] to indicate that all 4th year graduate students will be exempt or receive a discount from council tax and to emphasise that the authority will continue as it has always done to look at exceptional cases where a student’s course may go beyond the 4th year.

For comparison his previous response, which specifically limited exceptional cases to illness and scientific equipment failure, can be found in comment 8. The “as it has always done” line, is like much of the content of the press release, a cynical and scurrilous attempt to rewrite the history of this situation. In the press release he wrote: “I welcome the council’s prompt action to clarify the position” apparantly trying to distance himself from the council’s actions which he is responsible for.

Cllr Cantrill doesn’t appear to have grasped the problem is with research students, not those on courses; he’s making painfully slow progress, but at least it’s in the right direction.

Cllr Ward wrote:

The “fourth year is OK, fifth year isn’t” compromise sounds like a ludicrous fudge to me.

It’s a pity Cllr Ward didn’t come to this view earlier; I hope he will be lobbying his fellow ruling Liberal Democrats to try and get them to change their view too.

Dear Mr Howarth,

I am writing to draw your attention to the fact that last week Cambridge City Council decided to invent its own rules on council tax liability for research students. I hope you will agree with me that bodies such as the Cambridge City Council shouldn’t be creating their own rules on council tax liability, but the position should be made clear and consistent at a national level.

I understand, having spoken to the council leader Ian Nimmo-Smith, that the council considers it has been left with no choice but to invent its own rules this as a result of a lack of clarity in the legal position. The current problems have arisen as a result of a number of legal judgements which have, while struggling to make sense of poorly drafted regulations, just made the position more confused.

I believe the easiest way of solving the current problem would be to update the The Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 to make it clearer that the exemption from council tax applies to research students. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19920548_en_1.htm Are you able to do anything to seek such an order? The fact councils and judges find it difficult to work with the current position clearly shows it is needed.

The council’s new rules can be seen in the written answers provided at last week’s full council meeting:
http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/councillors/minutes/2009/1022CNLwQ.pdf

The council claims to be, in part, simply taking belated action following a judgement which states “the College must normally require attendance of students on the material course at some identified place”. If the council chose that element to base its new rules on it would be preventing many research students in Cambridge, particularly those working in subjects other than those which involve laboratory work, from gaining an exemption from council tax. [There is no element of the judgement which directly corresponds with the council's new 4 year limit.] I have placed a copy of the judgement on my website at:
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/pdf/research_student_council_tax_judgement.pdf

Regards,

One of the key elements in the judgement is:

I am wholly satisfied that sub-paragraph (b) means that the College must normally
require attendance of students on the material course at some identified place. Since, as
Mr Fayad rightly concedes, he was not required to attend at a particular place when
writing up his thesis, he is not, for the very special purposes of these provisions, to be
regarded as engaged in a full-time course of education, and therefore cannot benefit
from the discount arrangements.

However many research students, particularly in subjects such as History or English very rarely have to attend at a “particular place”.