§ Mr. HindTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will relax the two-year time limit within which action must be taken against community charge defaulters.
§ Mr. HeseltineMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I will shortly be laying regulations to extend from two to six years the time within which enforcement action may be taken. Whilst authorities will have been able to take action against the bulk of community charge defaulters within the original two years, this will not be possible in every case. We are determined that authorities should be able to enforce against all defaulters. There will be no amnesty for non-payers.
§ Miss Emma NicholsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on abolition of private bailiffs for recovery of community charge arrears; and what response he has made.
§ Mr. KeyWe have received a number of representations. We believe that local authorities should continue to be able to call on the assistance of private bailiffs in enforcing the community charge.
§ Miss Emma NicholsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance he has issued to local authority associations regarding the offering of realistic repayment arrangements for people in arrears with community charge before taking court action to recover arrears;
(2) what guidance he has issued to local authority associations on the order in which the following enforcement remedies for recovery of community charge arrears should be used when more than one are applicable (a) attachment of earnings, (b) deductions from income support and (c) distress;
(3) what guidance he issues to local authority associations regarding the processing of outstanding claims for community charge benefit before taking court action to recover arrears of community charge;
(4) if he will review the guidance for (a) prevention of arrears and (b) recovery of arrears of community charge when issuing guidance on arrears of council tax.
§ Mr. KeyMy Department, in conjunction with the local authority associations, produced a series of community charge practice notes to assist local authorities with the implementation of the community charge. The note on the collection of the charge advised authorities about their discretion to accept payments on account and to permit flexible payment arrangements for community charge payers. The note on enforcement explains that it is for the authority to decide, in each case, which power to use in particular circumstances; or the order in which the powers are to be used having regard to the cost-effectiveness of the276W various options. It is not a defence against the making of a liability order that a benefit claim is outstanding. However, we expect local authorities to seek to ensure that they do not summons people where bona fide benefit applications are outstanding.
As with the community charge my Department in conjunction with the local authority associations will be issuing a new set of practice notes to assist local authorities with the implementation of the council tax. In producing these notes we shall of course look at all aspects of the administration of the tax to see what lessons can be learnt from the community charge.
§ Miss Emma NicholsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will review his policy on the provision of weekly/fortnightly payment methods for payment of the council tax;
(2) if he will commission research to examine the cost effectiveness of setting up weekly payment arrangements for the council tax in order to prevent arrears.
§ Mr. KeyWe are content that the Local Government Finance Bill provides a sufficiently flexible regime for council tax payments. Tax payers will have a right to pay in 10 monthly instalments. In addition authorities can offer their tenants the option of making payments at the same frequency as their rent payments. This could include weekly or fortnightly payments. There is nothing to prevent an authority making agreements with tax payers about the frequency of instalment payments, but such agreements would fall outside the statutory enforcement procedures. It will be for local authorities to decide, within the flexibility provided, which is the most cost effective approach.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those local authorities who will lose area protection grant in 1992–93 showing the amount to be lost expressed both in £ million and £ per poll tax payer.
§ Mr. PortilloThe total amount of area protection grant payable in 1992–93 will be £308 million. A table showing the proposed reduction in area protection grant between 1991–92 and 1992–93 expressed in million pounds and pound per chargepayer is shown.
277W
Reduction in area protection grant between 1991–92 and 1992–93 Local authority (£ million) (£ adult) Greenwich -4.1 -25 Hammersmith and Fulham -3.0 -25 Lambeth -0.4 -2 Lewisham -4.2 -25 Southwark -3.7 -25 Tower Hamlets -3.3 -25 Wandsworth -5.6 -25 Barking and Dagenham -2.8 -25 Hillingdon -3.0 -17 Hartlepool -1.7 -25 Langbaurgh-on-Tees -0.8 -7 Middlesbrough -1.5 -15 Allerdale -1.8 -25 Barrow-in-Furness -1.5 -25 Carlisle -1.5 -19 Copeland -1.4 -25 Eden -0.9 -25 Amber Valley -2.2 -25 Bolsover -1.4 -25
Local authority (£ million) (£ adult) Chesterfield -1.9 -25 Erewash -2.1 -25 High Peak -1.6 -25 North East Derbyshire -1.9 -25 Torridge -1.0 -25 Chester-le-Street -0.7 -18 Derwentside -1.6 -25 Durham -0.5 -7 Easington -1.9 -25 Sedgefield -1.7 -25 Teesdale -0.5 -25 Wear Valley -1.3 -25 Boothferry -1.2 -25 Cleethorpes -1.1 -21 East Yorkshire -1.6 -25 Great Grimsby -1.4 -21 Holderness -0.3 -8 Kingston upon Hull -5.1 -25 Scunthorpe -1.2 -25 Blackburn -2.5 -25 Blackpool -1.1 -10 Burnley -1.7 -25 Hyndburn -1.5 -25 Pendle -1.6 -25 Rossendale -1.2 -25 Alnwick -0.5 -23 Berwick-upon-Tweed -0.5 -25 Blyth Valley -1.5 -25 Wansbeck -1.2 -25 Craven -1.0 -25 Ryedale -0.3 -5 Scarborough -2.1 -25 Selby -0.4 -7 York -2.0 -25 Ashfield -2.1 -25 Mansfield -1.7 -23 Stoke-on-Trent -1.5 -8
§ Mr. WellsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of the consultation on the local government finance settlement for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. HeseltineI hope to lay before the House tomorrow the Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1992–93, the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England), the Population (England) Report (No. 3), and the Special Grant Report (No. 3); together these reports establish the amount of grant to be paid to local authorities and the basis of its distribution for 1992–93. I shall be sending copies of these reports to all authorities, together with a table showing the standard spending assessments and grant entitlement of each authority; these will also be placed in the Library and Vote Office. I should also make it clear that I stand firmly by my intentions for capping criteria which I announced on 26 November.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for all relevant local authorities(a) the post-16 component of their education standard spending assessment in 1991–92, (b) their actual expenditure in 1991–92 and (c) the proposed figure for 1992–93, showing aggregate totals for England expressed in £ million and constant prices.
§ Mr. PortilloI have today placed a table in the Library showing the requested information on standard spending assessments. Comparable information on actual expenditure on post-16 education is not available.