HC Deb 29 March 1990 vol 170 cc247-9W
Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the Government's estimate of the number of households excused from paying rates in the current financial year because of insufficient income and the number who paid a reduced rate for the same reason; how many in each case were estimated as liable to pay more and how many less under the poll tax in identical circumstances; and how many who were not eligible for a reduction in rates on income grounds, will be eligible for a reduction under the poll tax.

Mr. Chope

No such estimates were made when it was decided that the community charge offered the best alternative to domestic rates.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will exclude expenditure on education from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes;

(2) if he will exclude expenditure on maintenance of council housing from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes;

(3) if he will exclude expenditure on public libraries from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes;

(4) if he will make it his policy as part of his charge-capping proposals to indicate the areas of the capped budget in which he proposes each authority should make reductions.

Mr. Chope

It would not be right for me to speculate on the detailed operation of community charge capping, were my right hon. Friend to use his capping powers for 1990–91.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's current estimate of the number of households paying the full rate whose occupants would contribute less under the poll tax, and the average amount saved in each case.

Mr. Chope

Had local authorities set community charges at the levels contained in the Community Charge Transitional Relief Report (England), I estimate that 55 per cent. of households with no entitlement to rate rebates in 1989–90 would pay a lower proportion of their net income in community charges in 1990–91 than they did in rates in 1989–90. The average amount paid in rates for these households in 1989–90 was £516 compared to £503 in community charge in 1990–91. These estimates are based on simple survey data taken from the family expenditure survey and are consistent with the analysis of the distributional impact of the community charge placed in the Library on 15 February.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in theOfficial Report the estimate of the numbers who would have (a) gained and (b) lost if the level of poll tax had not exceeded the Government's targets.

Mr. Chope

The Government have not set targets for the level of the community charge in each area. An analysis of the effect on household finances of moving to the community charge was placed in the Library on 15 February. This showed 60 per cent. of households gaining.

Mrs. Mahon

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to exempt from poll tax women residing in refuges who have been the victims of domestic violence and have been forced to leave the marital home.

Mr. Chope

A period of residence within a women's refuge does not confer exemption from the community charge unless it is a night shelter or hostel. But, in general, women will not be registered at refuges for the community charge unless, exceptionally, they are solely or mainly resident there. In almost all cases, women stay in refuges for short periods, during which they will be registered for the personal charge at their previous address.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the total figures for 1990–91 local government finance for(a) the distributable amount, (b) the distributable amount per adult, (c) net total standard spending, (d) revenue support grant and (e) population of England.

Mr. Chope

The information requested is as follows:

  • the distributable amount: £10.4 billion
  • the distributable amount per adult: 292.51
  • net total standard spending: £29.8 billion
  • revenue support grant: £9.5 billion
  • sum of the relevant populations of English charging authorities: 35.7 million.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, with reference to paragraph 2.5 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), what definition is used for(a) relevant populations as used in the explanation of distributable amount per adult and (b) relevant population, as used in the subsequent sub-paragraphs; and if he will list the relevant population for each authority.

Mr. Chope

The rules for calculating relevant population are set out in the Population Report (England) approved by this House on 18 January. Figures for each authority were placed in the Library on 11 January, with other details of the 1990–91 settlement.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, with reference to paragraph 3.7 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), if he will list the results for each authority of applying formulae to indicators in section(a) and multiplying by the area cost adjustment for education, but not scaling to control.

Mr. Chope

I have today placed in the Library a table which shows the standard spending assessment for primary education for each authority, prior to scaling to the control total for this sub-block.