§ Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what, in the most recent year for which figures are available, was the estimated total unspent 194W much is precepted by the Inner London Education Authority, in the case of inner London, the Greater London Council and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police, and how much is raised by each borough authority; and how much of the rate burden is paid by non-voting commercial and industrial businesses and how much by the domestic ratepayer.
§ Mr. KingI am able to give estimates based on recent returns made by local authorities. The estimated amount to be raised from the rates is given in col. (1), and the estimated precepts made by the GLC, ILEA and the Metropolitan Police, in each case net of the initial—percentage close-ended—calculation of block grant, are shown in cols. (2)-(4). Col. (5) shows the balance of (1) available for borough purposes before London equalisation, which redistributes resources between inner London boroughs. Cols. (6)-(8) show the estimated proportions of the rate burden met in 1981–82 by domestic, commercial and industrial and other ratepayers.
revenue for (a) supplementary benefit and (b) rent rebates or allowances and rate rebates as a result of claimants making the wrong choice between benefits.
§ Mr. StanleyAs I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 18 May 195W 1981—[Vol. 5, c. 24]—it has been estimated that in the mid-1970s, 400,000 people were getting less help than they were entitled to because they had made the wrong choice between benefits. However, the amounts which they were losing are not known.