§ Mr. AtkinsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the expenditure of the Dorset county council and Bournemouth borough council for 1989–90 and 1990–91; what the domestic rate poundage and average rate for the Bournemouth ratepayer was for 1989–90 and what it would have been for 1990–91; what the community charge for Bournemouth would have been for 1989–90 and what it is for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement on the outcome taking account of the revenue support grant for both authorities.
§ Mr. ChopeParagraphs 3.1(i) to (v) of the Revenue Support Grant Transition Report (England) explain the calculation made of the amount of income received by each local authority in 1989–90 comparable with 1990–91 levels. The calculation produces a 1989–90 income of £257.3 million for Dorset county council and £15.6 million for Bournemouth borough council.
In 1989–90 the average domestic rate poundage in Bournemouth was 219.5p, producing an average domestic rate bill before any allowance for rebates—of £480.
Illustrative 1989–90 community charges were published in July 1989 and showed a figure of £234 in Bournemouth, after taking account of the transitional arrangements.
Information for 1990–91 based on returns received from local authorities will be placed in the Library shortly.
It is our intention, when community charges are finally set, to say what the increase would have been in domestic rates had that taken the place of the community charge.
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will set out a table 479W showing for Hertfordshire county council (a) the budget for net expenditure for 1989–90, (b) the budget for net expenditure for 1990–91, (c) the increase in net expenditure between 1989–90 and 1990–91, (d) the net addition to balances budgeted for 1990–91 and (e) the percentage rate increase that would have occurred had the domestic rating system still been in place and no change in domestic rateable value occurred;
(2) whether he will set out a table showing (1) for Durham county council and (2) for Darlington borough council (a) the budget for net expenditure for 1989–90, (b), the budget for net expenditure for 1990–91, (c) the increase in net expenditure between 1989–90 and 1990–91,(d) the net addition to balances budgeted for 1990–91 and (e) the percentage rate increase that would have occurred had the domestic rating system still been in place and no change in domestic rateable value occurred;
§ Mr. ChopeNet current expenditure in 1989–90 for these authorities is as follows:
Net current expenditure 1989–90 £ million Hertfordshire county council 498.786 Durham county council 313.538 Darlington borough council 8.847 Budgeted net current expenditure and budgeted net additions to balances in 1990–91 are not yet available. It is our intention when community charges are finally set to say what the increases would have been if domestic rates had taken the place of the community charge.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for Lancashire the estimated percentage of the adult population, including spouses, now paying rates, the percentage expected to be chargeable to the poll tax and the number expected to contribute the same as or less than at present.
£/adult Safety net receipt Low rateable values area grant Cash change GRE to SSA Business rate income (a) (b) (c) (d) Beverley — — 6 293 Boothferry 70 17 25 293 Cleethorpes 46 — -1 293 Glanford 23 — 17 293 Great Grimsby 46 — -5 293 Holderness 33 — 14 293 Kingston upon Hull 74 25 -6 293 East Yorkshire 67 11 12 293 Scunthorpe 65 — -2 293
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each district authority the amount taken out of reserves by that authority and, where relevant, the county authority and per capita effect on the poll tax in that authority area.
§ Mr. ChopeI intend to place a summary of the information returned from local authorities in the Library of the House after information has been received from all authorities.
§ Mr. David NicholsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the estimated total amount
480W
§ Mr. TredinnickTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the replacement of the community charge with a system of raising local government finance based on a local income tax.
§ Mr. ChopeI continue to receive representations on a wide range of issues relating to the abolition of domestic rates.
§ Mr. HaywardTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the 10 London boroughs with the largest per capita overspend against his Department's standard spending assessment; and if he will indicate that overspend;
(2) if he will list the 10 metropolitan boroughs with the largest per capita overspending against his Department's standard spending assessment; and if he will indicate that overspend;
(3) if he will list the 10 shire counties with the largest per capita overspend against his Department's standard spending assessment; and if he will indicate that overspend.
§ Mr. ChopeI intend to place a summary of the information returned from local authorities in the Library of the House after information has been received from all authorities.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each district authority of Humberside(a) the safety net figure, (b) the low rateable value allowance, (c) the increase or decrease of standard spending assessment and grant-related expenditure and (d) the loss or gain from unified business rate, all on a per capita basis.
§ Mr. ChopeThe information requested is shown in the following table:
of local government spending per head (a) for 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91 for each of the counties of Somerset, Devon and Dorset, each of the London boroughs of Lambeth, Camden, Islington, Wandsworth and Westminster and each of the metropolitan boroughs of Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Sheffield.
§ Mr. ChopeFollowing is the available information. I intend to place a summary of the information on 1990–91 budgets in the Library of the House when information has been received from all authorities.
481W
Net current expenditure 1989–90 Per head1 £ Somerset 508 Devon 473 Dorset 427 Lambeth 564 Camden 495 Islington 501 Wandsworth 432 Westminster 631 Birmingham 583 Bradford 632 Manchester 704 Sheffield 563 1 Using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-year estimates of total population to derive per capita values.
§ Mr. AllenTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he anticipates informing local authorities of his definition of mentally impaired for the purposes of community charge rebates.
§ Mr. ChopePeople who are severely mentally impaired are exempt from the personal community charge providing they are in receipt of one of a number of qualifying benefits and a certificate from a registered medical practitioner, stating that for the purposes of the community charge they are severely mentally impaired.
The Personal Community Charge (Exemption for the Severely Mentally Impaired) Order 1990 was made on 6 March. The order amends the qualifying benefits and the definition of severely mentally impaired, in order to bring in such people as those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and senile dementia. Copies have been sent to charging authorities and placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
People who are exempt from the personal community charge do not need to claim community charge benefit.
§ Mr. AllenTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department expects to inform local authorities which 19-year-olds are on appropriately defined full-time courses for the purposes of entitlement to community charge rebates.
§ Mr. ChopeMy Department wrote to all charging authorities on 16 November 1989 explaining the range of courses it intends to define in regulations, for the purposes of extending exemption from the personal community charge to certain people under the age of 20 who are in full-time further but not higher education. A copy of the letter is in the Library of the House of Commons. Regulations will come into force by 1 April 1990.
People who are exempt from the personal community charge do not need to claim community charge benefit.
§ Mr. SpearingTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of(a) the national sum to be collected from ministers of religion and their immediate families in respect of the community charge and (b) by how much this is likely to differ from receipts by local authorities from rating demands on them or on church bodies responsible for their accommodation.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each district authority482W in England (a) the increase or decrease in Government assessment of spending levels, standard spending assessment against grant-related expenditure, for that authority and each authority contributing to the poll tax total, (b) his estimate of the number of households qualifying for transitional relief and (c) the safety net figure for that authority.
§ Mr. ChopeI have today placed in the Library a table showing the available information. In calculating the change between adjusted grant-related expenditure and standard spending assessment at column(a), the grant-related expenditures and standard spending assessments of precepting authorities have been allocated between their constituent authorities in proportion to relevant population. I have no estimates of numbers qualifying for transitional relief in individual authorities.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assumptions he made in setting his estimate of the community charge about the size of the standard charge for second homes.
§ Mr. ChopeIn calculating the community charge for standard spending of £278, my right hon. Friend has made no assumption about the standard charge.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, with reference to paragraph 3.29 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), what effect the choice of the figure of(a) £7.11 and (b) £1.37 has on (i) the level of the standard spending assessment for Humberside and (ii) his estimate of the level of poll tax for Great Grimsby.
§ Mr. ChopeThe figures referred to in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) contributed(a) £9 and (b) £5 per relevant adult to the standard spending assessment for Humberside. On (ii) I propose to place in the Library of the House a summary of the information returned on community charges for individual authorities, when this information has been received from all authorities.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, with reference to paragraph 3.32 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), what effect the choice of the figure of(a) £1,928.93 and (b) £13.05 has on (i) the level of the standard spending assessment for Humberside and (ii) his estimate of the level of poll tax for Great Grimsby.
§ (b)Mr. ChopeThe figures referred to in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) contributed(a) £28 and (b) £2 per relevant adult to the standard spending assessment for Humberside. On (ii) I propose to place in the Library of the House a summary of the information returned on community charges for individual authorities, when this information has been received from all authorities.
§ Mr. Allan StewartTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the community charge which each county council would have set if it had been required to do so in respect of(a) a budget set according to his Department's guidelines and (b) the actual budget determined; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. ChopeCounty councils do not set community charges. Revenue support grant and business rates are 483W paid into the collection fund in each non-metropolitan area in support of the expenditure by both the county council and the district council. It is not possible to hypothecate these sums to county council or district council spending. As a result it is not possible to calculate hypothetical community charges for county councils.
§ Mr. NellistTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many people in Coventry would be eligible for transitional protection on a poll tax of £394 per person; and if he will outline the methodology used to calculate the level of relief.
§ Mr. ChopeI have no information on the number of people in individual local authorities who are eligible for transitional relief. The basis for calculating the level of relief is set out in the practice note, "Community Charge: Transitional Relief Scheme for England". Copies of the practice note were placed in the Library when it was published in December 1989.
§ Mr. AmessTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the arrangements for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of the community charge transitional relief scheme.
§ Mr. David HuntLocal authorities will be reimbursed in full for the estimated £810 million which they would forgo in community charge income as a result of abating personal community charges for some 7.5 million charge payers over the next three years. Authorities will also be reimbursed for their reasonable costs incurred in preparing for and administering the scheme.
Following a study of these costs by KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, management consultants, I announced proposals for these costs on 15 February. Following consultation with the local authority associations, I have decided to make the following arrangements.
Authorities' preparation costs for the scheme, largely for computer software, will be reimbursed in full on the basis of the actual expenditure incurred as confirmed by the authority's auditor. I estimate preparation costs to be about £7 million in total.
The general administrative costs which authorities will incur as a consequence of the scheme, in particular dealing with inquiries, will be reimbursed by a single flat rate payment of 27p per charge payer, with an allowance for higher costs in London. In inner London the rate will be 31p per charge payer and in outer London 30p per charge payer. The administrative costs grant will be about £9.5 million in total.
Applications by elderly or disabled persons for extra relief will be reimbursed at a rate of £3 per application made, which includes both successful and unsuccessful applications. In inner London the rate will be £3.60 and in 484W outer London £3.45. Where an authority issues a second bill, which does not relate to a substitute charge, it will be reimbursed at a rate of 50p per bill for the cost of printing and postage.
The total cost of this package of grant aid is about £21 million. I believe that it fulfils the Government's commitment to meet in full authorities' reasonable costs incurred in preparing for and administering the community charge transitional relief scheme.
§ Mr. AshleyTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much it would cost the Government to exempt all non-employed status YTS trainees with special training needs endorsements from paying the community charge.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the net cost of exempting all non-employed status YTS trainees with special training needs endorsements from paying the poll tax.
§ Mr. David Hunt[holding answers 15 and 16 March 1990]: The gross cost of exempting all non-employed status YTS trainees with special training needs endorsements would be about £5.6 million. This assumes a total of 15,500 such trainees liable to pay the charge. The information is not available to give a net cost to the Government. Virtually all non-employed trainees, and a proportion of employed trainees, will be entitled to community charge benefit.