§ 66. Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will recommend the appointment of a 144W Royal Commission to examine the rating system in this country, and in particular the inequalities of its application and alternative methods of raising local revenue.
§ Mr. CrossmanNo. It could only delay action following the Government's own examination.
§ 67. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the average increase in rate poundages in 1965–66 over the level prevailing in 1964–65; and what is the amount which this represents by way of additional burden on the domestic ratepayer.
§ Mr. CrossmanAs weighted by rateable value, 1s. 1d. or about 11½ per cent.
The answer to the second part of the Question is about £55 million. I would add, however, that London accounts for over £21 million of the domestic increase.
§ 68. Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he now has for early relief to ratepayers by transferring a larger part of the burden of public expenditure from the local authorities to the Exchequer.
§ 69. Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now announce his proposals on rating reform.
§ Mr. CrossmanI must ask the hon. Gentlemen to await the outcome of the Government's examination of local government finance, including the rating system.
§ 71. Sir T. Beamishasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the Burgess Hill Ratepayers Association can expect an acknowledgment of their letter of 13th March and their reminders of 31st March and 22nd April on the subject of rating; and when they can expect a considered reply.
§ Mr. CrossmanI very much regret to say that a reply to the Association's first two letters was only sent on 23rd April. On 28th April another letter was sent acknowledging the Association's third letter and expressing regret that the previous reply had not been in time for the Association's meeting.