Community Charge Levels (Hansard, 25 April 1991)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, before the Budget announcement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lambeth had set the highest charge at£590, and Wandsworth the lowest at£136. After the Budget the ranking did not change but the charge set by Lambeth is reduced to£450 and Wandsworth to nil.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely interesting reply. Will she say what explanation there is for that quite extraordinary disparity between one borough and another?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, it would take too long to give a detailed reply, except to say that on almost every count on financial management and quality of services Wandsworth simply does a better job.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House the specific support that Wandsworth has received from the Government during the past few years which no other borough has had?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, every charge payer in Lambeth is supported by government support to the tune of£1,557. Lambeth spends considerably above 368 its SSA. As a direct comparison, Wandsworth receives government support of only£1,192 and spends considerably below its SSA.

§ Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
My Lords, the now somewhat tattered reason for the poll tax was its universality. Can the noble Baroness explain why it is a good thing that no one in Wandsworth should pay anything?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, under the system that is about to be phased out and the new system that is about to be phased in, the relativities of good, well-run authorities will still be evident.

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, will the Minister inform the House how many schools were closed in Wandsworth and Westminster resulting in a loss of jobs? Do the Government agree that that is a way of saving money?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am not aware of any schools being closed in Wandsworth or Westminster. However, that is another question. It is not part of this Question, which relates to the highest and lowest spenders.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I live in the Tory-controlled county of Berkshire in the borough of Reading. Because of the high charges in Tory-controlled Berkshire, I pay£476, less of course the£140 that the Government have given for electoral purposes. Is the noble Baroness aware that, if Reading were receiving the same level of grant as Wandsworth, Reading would make a rebate instead of a charge to its charge payers and Wandsworth charge payers would pay considerably more? How does she explain that disparity?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I have given the details across the Dispatch Box previously. Reading and Berkshire both spend above their SSAs. I believe that the combined figure is£35. When an authority spends under its SSA not only does it benefit because it spends less but it benefits because the grant that it receives, which is consistent with its SSA, becomes a bonus. When an authority spends above its SSA, not only does it not receive any more grant above the SSA but it also has to charge the charge payer more. The gearing effect of spending above is just as important as the gearing effect of spending down.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, before the noble Baroness gets into trouble from her comrades and colleagues in Berkshire, Berkshire is not spending above the SSA.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I shall check the figure. However, I recall answering the question specifically about Reading and Berkshire. Compared with Wandsworth, one of the reasons is that they spend above the SSA.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, all authorities receive grant consistent with their SSA whatever the level of spending. Therefore if they spend down, not only do they have the benefit of spending down but also the benefit of surplus grant, 369 which benefits the charge payer. If they spend above, they have to levy disproportionately on the charge payer.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government have indicated that it will take them four years to provide 35 more secure places in children's homes to avoid children being remanded into prison service accommodation? Is she aware that 28 of those places have been abolished by the London Borough of Wandsworth? That borough is therefore very nearly responsible for sending a high proportion of children to prison because of its failure to provide adequate accommodation, is it not?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the noble Lord cites a very specific detail which I am unable to answer at the Dispatch Box. Clearly I shall consider the matter. I have undertaken a fairly detailed study of the services provided in Wandsworth compared with other authorities which are not so proficient. On most counts Wandsworth comes out on top.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, since the borough of Lambeth has one of the highest charges, if not the highest, and the borough of Wandsworth, next to it, for some reason has a nil charge, would it not be fair and equitable to amalgamate the two boroughs so that they pay the same in order to achieve the Prime Minister's aim of an equal society?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, that is far from the Question on the Order Paper. However, the noble Lord might like to put such a question to the people of Lambeth.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, quite apart from other considerations, one of the reasons for the outstanding performance of Wandsworth—an area in which as a former ratepayer and as a resident I must declare an interest—is that it has an internal structure of command which is far superior to that of Lambeth, or for that matter of any other Labour-controlled borough in London?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, that is absolutely true. The Government have determined that internal management needs consideration. However, Lambeth is probably the worst example of internal management in the whole of local government.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, does the Minister accept that if we compare this year's Budget figures with those of last year the average Tory district council has increased its expenditure by 13.9 per cent., whereas the average for Labour districts is 12 per cent.? Does she also accept that since 1979, had RSG remained at the same level, the average bill would now be£101 per head, unlike the present average poll tax? In other words, the figure is due almost entirely to the Government switching the burden from central taxation to local taxes. Does the Minister also accept that under Labour's Fair Ratesthe average household would now be benefiting by at least£67 per year?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, in Labour'sFair Rates the figure is wrong. With an annual rolling revaluation programme involving four factors—capital values, rental values, rebuilding costs and maintenance costs—Fair Rateswould be unbelievably bureaucratic and expensive. It is obvious that, with no capping and high-spending local authorities, ratepayers would be much worse off. Conservative authorities in shire districts and counties and in any class of authority are charging their charge payers less. I have the specific figures but I do not have time to give them. In aggregate all Conservative authorities are spending 4 per cent. below SSA and all Labour authorities 3 per cent. above SSA.