§ Mr. David NicholsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the reasons why, following the publication of table 67 by his Department which illustrated community charges implied by levels of local authority spending then current for 1987–88 and for 1988–89, his Department changed the basis of its estimates for 1989–90 to include only income from rates and Government grants.
§ Mr. ChopeThe illustrative charges for 1989–90 were calculated after the Government had made it clear that income from rates and grants was the likely basis of the expenditure assumption needed for safety nets in 1990–91. The 1989–90 illustrative charges were therefore calculated on this basis, which also gave a consistent comparison between actual average rate bills in 1989–90 and illustrative charges. Figures calculated on the previous basis were placed in the Library on 19 July 1989.
§ Mr. David NicholsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has issued the guidance, referred to in his written answer to the hon. Member for Taunton,Official Report, column 27 of 13 November 1989, on the boundary between domestic and non-domestic property; and whether he will place such guidance in the Library.
§ Mr. ChopeI hope to be able to issue the guidance later this month; a copy will be placed in the Library.
§ Mr. FrenchTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of the number of people who will be liable to pay standard community charge on unoccupied domestic property.
§ Mr. ChopeNo estimates have been made of this particular category, but we intend to collect information about the standard charge in the regular statistical returns which authorities will be making under the new system.
§ Mr. FrenchTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which local authorities have stated that they will provide relief from the standard community charge on unoccupied property for a period in excess of three months;
(2) which local authority councils have declared their intention to levy standard community charge at less than twice the personal community charge.
§ Ms. ArmstrongTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount and proportion of the education component of the standard spending assessment for each authority benefiting from an area cost adjustment factor greater than one derives from the operation of that factor: and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. ChopeThe information requested is shown in the table.
430W
Table Showing the amount and proportion of the 1990–91 education standard spending assessment deriving from the area cost adjustment factor for authorities with a factor greater than one Authority Amount of Education SSA deriving from the area cost adjustment in £ million Percentage of Education SSA deriving from the area cost adjustment 1 2 City of London 0.209 25.4 Camden 7.629 14.5 Greenwich 11.894 14.5 Hackney 13.278 14.5 Hammersmith and Fulham 6.594 14.5 Islington 9.285 14.5 Kensington and Chelsea 4.307 14.5 Lambeth 15.253 14.5 Lewisham 12.437 14.5 Southwark 12.315 14.5 Tower Hamlets 13.201 14.5 Wandsworth 12.168 14.5 Westminster 6.428 14.5 Barking and Dagenham 5.136 10.6 Barnet 9.356 10.6 Bexley 7.204 10.6 Brent 11.490 10.6 Bromley 8.434 10.6 Croydon 10.920 10.6 Ealing 10.687 10.6 Enfield 9.406 10.6 Haringey 8.426 10.6 Harrow 6.947 10.6 Havering 7.545 10.6 Hillingdon 7.343 10.6 Hounslow 7.307 10.6 Kingston-upon-Thames 3.854 10.6 Merton 5.011 10.6 Newham 10.467 10.6 Redbridge 7.568 10.6 Richmond-upon-Thames 3.825 10.6 Sutton 5.061 10.6 Waltham Forest 8.685 10.6 Bedfordshire 6.699 3.8 Berkshire 13.449 5.9 Buckinghamshire 10.349 5.0 East Sussex 6.443 3.8 Essex 24.520 5.3 Hampshire 17.299 3.8 Hertfordshire 23.001 7.8 Isle of Wight 1.394 3.8 Kent 20.315 4.4 Oxfordshire 5.781 3.8 Surrey 22.170 8.6 West Sussex 7.833 4.3 Isles of Scilly 0.406 42.9
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities will be sending to the letter of 29 January on Manchester and the poll tax from the leader of Manchester city council; whether the Minister's claim that the city council seems intent on setting the highest poll tax it can get away with represents Government policy; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. David HuntI have not yet received any such letter. If authorities spend at the level of their standard spending assessments, the community charge everywhere before safety net adjustment and certain special grants would be about £278. Higher charges will be a consequence of authorities' spending decisions, and authorities will be accountable to their electorate for the level of community charge they introduce.
431W
§ Mr. David PorterTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) further to his answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) of 17 January,Official Report, columns 252–53, if he will make it his policy to bring forward a community charge capping scheme between the February cycle of local authority meetings and the end of the financial year;
(2) if he will make it his policy to cap local authorities that propose a 1990–91 community charge which is more than 10 per cent, above the Government's target figures for charges.
§ Mr. ChopeI have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 17 January.
§ Mr. David PorterTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given local councils as they settle their community charges for the forthcoming financial year.
§ Mr. ChopeMy right hon. Friend has made it clear that if some of the horrendously high figures for the community charge being bandied about are in fact set next year, he will have no hesitation in capping the authorities concerned.
§ Mr. David NicholsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his estimates of(a) grant towards local government spending to the Exchequer and (b) the total contributed or to be contributed by non-domestic rates for 1988–89, 1989–90, and 1990–91, in a manner consistent with the figures given in the reply of 15 November 1989, Official Report, column 242.
§ Mr. Chope[holding answer 23 January 1990]: The available information requested is as follows:
£ million 1988–89 1989–90 1990–91 All government grants1 17,940 18,545 20,365 Net non-domestic rate yield (including LRT levy)2 8,800 9,600 310,500 1 Figures are not available on a comparable basis to those given in the reply of 15 November 1989, Official Report, column 242. Those figures were based on returns showing outturn on an accruals basis submitted by local authorities. The figures given above are the English component of those published in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" and include payments of Rate/Revenue Support Grant, current specific grants (both inside and outside AEF) and capital grants on a cash basis. The figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 exclude grants in respect of polytechnics which were transferred from the local authority sector in April 1989. 2 LRT levy was excluded from figures given in the reply of 15 November 1989. For 1988–89 and 1989–90 these amounts were estimated to be £75 million and £114 million respectively. 3 The Distributable Amount for 1990–91, gross of the allowance for costs of collection and the City Offset. It is on a comparable basis with figures for earlier years, after taking into account the effects of transitional arrangements.
§ Mr. MarlowTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage and absolute increase in community charge for every 1 per cent, increase in expenditure incurred over the levels that are covered by central Government grant; and what is the level of charge for(a) Northampton and (b) Northamptonshire at that level of grant; and if he will tabulate the information also for every district/county in England and Wales.
§ Mr. Chope[holding answer 29 January 1990]: Assumed 1990–91 community charges to the nearest pound for every 432W charging authority in England were placed in the Library on 11 January. The assumed charge for Northampton is about £294 after the safety net. County councils will not set community charges. The basis of calculation of the assumed charge is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Transition Report (England).
I have today placed in the Library a table showing for each charging authority in England the increase in community charge, in pound per adult and percentage terms, for a one percentage point increase in spending from the 1989–90 figure, over and above the 4.64 per cent, increase allowed in calculating assumed charges. This shows separately the effect of increases by precepting authorities, including county councils, and by charging authorities.