§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in order of percentage loss or gain the grant-related expenditure for the standard spending assessments allocations for all English districts in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will list for each the proportion of the population of each authority living in urban areas.
§ Mr. ChopeI have today placed in the Library a table showing the information requested on grant-related expenditure assessments and standard spending assessments for all non-metropolitan districts in England. I cannot provide information on the proportion of the population living in urban areas as there is no standard way of classifying such areas.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in theOfficial Report the rate proposed for 1990–91 and the average rate per head payable in the current year for Castle Point district council.
§ Mr. ChopeI estimate that the average domestic rate bill per adult for Castle Point is about £318 in 1989–90. I have no firm information on the proposed community charge for 1990–91.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in theOfficial Report the rate proposed for 1990–91 and the average rate per head payable in the current year in Southend-on-Sea.
§ Mr. ChopeI estimate that the average domestic rate bill per adult for Southend-on-Sea is about £363 in 1989–90. I have no firm information on the proposed community charge for 1990–91.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in theOfficial Report the rate proposed for 1990–91 and the average rate per head payable in the current year for Wealden district council.
§ Mr. ChopeI estimate that the average domestic rate bill per adult for Wealden is about £292 in 1989–90. I have no firm information on the proposed community charge for 1990–91.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations informed the decision to treat business and domestic property in a different manner in respect of rates.
§ Mr. ChopeI refer the hon. Member to our Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) published in January 1986, and our explanations during parliamentary consideration of what is now the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will provide figures for inner London and outer London of the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult as against rates, together with the contribution made by the safety net.
§ Mr. ChopeI have no information on 1990–91 community charges payable in inner or outer London. Tables showing the information requested but based on assumed community charges were placed in the Library on 11 January.
477W
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how, with reference to paragraph 3.36 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £59.11 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials can check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the standard spending assessment arrived at for Grimsby.
§ Mr. ChopeThe figure referred to in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) was determined by my right hon. Friend after full consultation with local authority representatives. It accounts for £82 per adult of Great Grimsby's SSA.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how, with reference to paragraph 3.40 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £5.56 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials may check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the SSA arrived at for Grimsby;
(2) how, with reference to paragraph 3.40 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £9.56 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials may check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the SSA arrived at for Grimsby;
(3) how, with reference to paragraph 3.40 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), the figure of £4.35 is arrived at; how poll tax payers and council officials may check its validity; and what effect the choice of this figure has on the SSA arrived at for Grimsby.
§ Mr. ChopeThe figures referred to in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) were determined by my right hon. Friend after full consultation with local authority representatives. They are used to calculate the other services SSA element for county councils. Following this calculation, there is a transfer of £1 per adult to all districts in the county of Humberside, including Great Grimsby.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total poll tax figure appropriate to Grimsby; and what account he has taken of(a) the kind of service, (b) the social and economic problems of the area, (c) the state of housing stock and (d) levels of unemployment, poverty, single-parent families and homelessness in arriving at it.
§ Mr. ChopeAll charging authorities, including Grimsby, could set a community charge of £278 (before the safety net and special grants) in 1990–91 if they and the authorities precepting on the collection fund in their area spent at the level of their standard spending assessments. The assessment for each notifiable authority takes account of the services provided by that authority as set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). That report also sets out the indicators used to calculate SSAs, such as social conditions (including housing conditions), low incomes and single-parent families, and the weight given to each.
§ Mr. FraserTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much Lambeth council will receive from the uniform business rate, revenue grant and other non-poll tax sources of revenue for 1990–91.
§ Mr. ChopeLambeth charge payers will benefit from revenue support grant, business rates and inner London478W education grant paid to help meet the cost of services provided by Lambeth, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority and the Metropolitan police. In 1990–91 these will amount to £174,276,383, £50,465,924 and £9,475,207, respectively.
Lambeth council will also receive specific grants from the Government to help meet specific expenditure. Lambeth can raise revenue through its own fees and charges for services provided.
Some charge payers in Lambeth will pay a reduced community charge as a result of community charge benefit and transitional relief, which will be paid for by the Government.
§ Mr. David PorterTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the past 12 months from officials or members of Suffolk county council relating to the size of Government grant for 1990–91; and what inquiries his Department has made to date into the spending plans of Suffolk for 1990–91.
§ Mr. ChopeMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received two written representations from members of Suffolk county council; one in July 1989 concerning total standard spending, grant distribution and the safety net; the other in November 1989 concerning Suffolk's standard spending assessment, new duties of local authorities and the safety net. In addition, I met my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) to discuss Suffolk's representations.
No inquiries have been made specifically to Suffolk county council about its spending plans for 1990–91, but all authorities have been requested to supply to the Department details of their budgets within seven days of their budget decision.
§ Sir John StanleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of his figure of £176.40 per head for Tonbridge and Mailing, given in his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on 30 January,Official Report, column 178, into its main components.
§ Mr. David HuntIt is not possible to provide the breakdown requested. There are no components of revenue support grant. Grant is unhypothecated and is paid to receiving authorities in support of the revenue expenditure of authorities in their area.
§ Ms. ArmstrongTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West on 5 February,Official Report, columns 431–32, what is the corresponding amount and proportion of the education component of grant-related expenditure assessments 1989–90 for each authority which derives from the operation of factors relating to the payment of London weighting and other cost differences between London and surrounding areas and the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. ChopeThe information requested is shown in the table:
479W
Amount and proportion of the 1989–90 education grant related expenditure assessment (adjusted for changes in function between 1989–90 and 1990–91) deriving from the London based area cost adjustment factor Authority Amount of education GRE derived from the area cost adjustment in £ millions Percentage of education GRE derived from the area cost adjustment City of London 0.054 9.1 Camden 3.455 9.1 Greenwich 5.386 9.1 Hackney 5.976 9.1 Hammersmith and Fulham 2.986 9.1 Islington 4.204 9.1 Kensington and Chelsea 1.950 9.1 Lambeth 6.907 9.1 Lewisham 5.632 9.1 Southwark 5.577 9.1 Tower Hamlets 5.978 9.1 Wandsworth 5.510 9.1 Westminster 2.802 9.1 Barking and Dagenham 3.683 8.6 Barnet 4.767 6.3 Bexley 3.986 6.3 Brent 7.617 8.6 Bromley 4.613 6.3 Croydon 5.591 6.3 Ealing 7.373 8.6 Enfield 4.925 6.3 Haringey 5.332 8.6 Harrow 3.479 6.3 Havering 4.294 6.3 Hillingdon 3.958 6.3 Hounslow 3.761 6.3 Kingston upon Thames 2.106 6.3 Merton 3.538 8.6 Newham 7.011 8.6 Redbridge 4.000 6.3 Richmond upon Thames 2.020 6.3 Sutton 2.777 6.3 Waltham Forest 4.232 6.3 Berkshire 2.584 1.2 Buckinghamshire 1.245 0.7 Essex 4.251 1.0 Hertfordshire 5.785 2.1 Kent 1.366 0.3 Surrey 6.239 2.6 West Sussex 0.734 0.4
§ Mr. David PorterTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1979 the direct total grants made to Waveney district council in(a) cash terms, (b) constant price terms and (c) cash terms per head of population;
(2) if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1981 the direct total grants made to Suffolk county council in (a) cash terms, (b) constant price terms and (c) cash terms per head of population.
§ Mr. ChopeThe information is as follows:
480W
Direct Revenue Grants—1 Waveney Cash Terms1 Constant Price Terms 1981–822 Cash Terms per Head of Population £ (£ million) (£ million) 1981–82 3.308 3.308 33 1982–83 3.611 3. 368 36 1983–84 3.947 3.517 39 1984–85 4.298 3.649 42 1985–86 4.416 3.570 43 1986–87 4.862 3.789 46 1987–88 5.216 3.860 49 1988–89 5.382 3.714 51 1989–90 5.815 3.750 55 1 Excluding Domestic Rate Relief Grant. 2 Using GDP Deflator.
Direct Revenue Grants—1 Suffolk Cash Terms1 Constant Price Terms 1981–822 Cash Terms per Head of Population £ (£ million) (£ million) 1981–82 90.036 90.036 150 1982–83 93.920 87.599 155 1983–84 94.948 84.608 155 1984–85 97.534 82.797 158 1985–86 90.914 73.240 146 1986–87 92.285 71.927 147 1987–88 98.124 72.622 155 1988–89 104.403 72.049 163 1989–90 99.397 64.101 156 1 Excluding Domestic Rate Relief Grant. 2 Using GDP Deflator.
§ Mr. David PorterTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1979 the expenditure of Waveney district council in(a) cash terms, (b) constant price terms and(c) cash terms per head of population;
(2) if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1981 the expenditure of Suffolk county council in (a) cash terms, (b) constant price terms and (c) cash terms per head of population.
§ Mr. ChopeThe information is as follows:
Net current expenditure—Waveney Cash terms Real terms 1981–82 prices1 Cash terms per head2 £ million £ million £ 1981–82 3.360 3.360 34 1982–83 3.815 3.558 38 1983–84 4.299 3.831 42 1984–85 4.437 3.767 43 1985–86 4.820 3.883 47 1986–87 5.204 4.056 50 1987–88 5.524 4.088 52 1988–89 5.905 4.075 55 1989–90 6.694 4.316 63
481W
Net current expenditure—Suffolk Cash terms Real terms 1981–82 prices1 Cash terms per head2 £ million £ million £ 1981–82 161.042 161.042 268 1982–83 175.258 163.463 289 1983–84 186.098 165.832 304 1984–85 195.393 165.869 317 1985–86 205.461 165.519 329 1986–87 223.867 174.482 356 1987–88 243.835 180.462 384 1988–89 266.449 183.876 417 1989–90 280.023 180.587 438 1Using the gross domestic product deflator to convert from cash values to constant prices.
2Population figures used to derive per capita values are latest available office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid year estimates of total population.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the standard spending assessment totals for 1990–91 for each service within(a) the district other services block and (b) the county other services block for the London borough of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. ChopeNeither the SSA element for the district other services block nor the SSA element for the county other services block is broken down between sub-services within the element. The services covered by each element are listed in annex D to the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). The figures for the two elements for Westminster are:
£ million District level services 51.583 County level services 14.819
§ Mr. CohenTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his plans for regulations concerning the disclosure of anonymous poll tax data will give community charges registration offices the option of whether to disclose data; and whether he will make a statement.
§ Mr. ChopeThe limited amount of personal information that may be disclosed and the circumstances in which such information may not be disclosed are prescribed in part II of the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989.
§ Mr. ShersbyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 12 February,Official Report, column 56, if he will make an estimate of the monetary value of the shift in the burden of business rates from the north to (a) the London boroughs and (b) the London borough of Hillingdon.
§ Mr. ChopeI estimate that as a result of the revaluation and move to a uniform poundage, the non-domestic rate burden in the north will reduce substantially. The table below shows the aggregate reduction at 1989–90 prices in rate bills in the northern regions and the corresponding increases in London. The figures make no allowance for the effect of the transitional arrangements and are based on the rating lists deposited on 20 December 1989.
Change in non-domestic rate burden £ million North West region 290 Northern region 140 Yorkshire and Humberside region 150 Inner London authorities 610 Outer London boroughs 20 On the same basis, I estimate that non-domestic ratepayers in Hillingdon will face increases of about £13 million.
§ Mr. KnapmanTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a revised482W version of table 5 in the analysis of the effect of the new business rating system published by his Department on 20 December 1989, showing changes in rate bills by English region for the property of private business and nationalised industries.
§ Mr. ChopeThe analysis to which my hon. Friend refers, a copy of which is in the Library (Deposited Paper NS 5522), relates to properties occupied by private businesses and nationalised industries. Table 5 of the paper, unlike the other tables, inadvertently included property occupied by local authorities. I am therefore, as my hon. Friend asks, placing in the Library a revised table covering the property of private businesses and nationalised industries only.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply is being sent to the letter to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities of 29 January on Manchester and the poll tax from the leader of Manchester city council.
§ Mr. David Hunt[holding answer 13 February 1990]: I have replied to the letter of 29 January from the leader of Manchester city council making clear that high community charges in Manchester would not be the result of our settlement but due solely to the council's own budget decisions. I have pointed out to Mr. Stringer that a community charge of £700 plus which he has argued would be needed to keep services in Manchester running at this year's level implies expenditure in 1990–91 more than 40 per cent. higher than the comparable amount for this year. Even charges of £450 or a little below would imply increases in spending approaching some 20 per cent. Under the settlement Manchester receives an increase in SSA over GRE of 13.3; per cent.—the highest increase for all metropolitan districts.
§ Mr. MaddenTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidance to those responsible for administering the community charge in Bradford and elsewhere that application forms for rebates should be made available in bulk to local advice agencies, including citizens advice bureaux and law centres.
§ Mrs. Gillian ShephardI have been asked to reply.
Local authorities have statutory responsibility for the administration of the community charge benefit. It is for each authority to decide where claim forms should be made available.