§ Mr. FraserTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what percentage poll tax collection rate the reduction of £140 in respect of each poll tax payer in Lambeth will be paid.
§ Mr. KeyEntitlement to community charge grant, which will compensate authorities for the income from community charges forgone under the Community Charges (General Reduction Act) 1991, will be based on the rate of charge collection actually achieved by each authority in 1991–92; except that, where the charge is reduced to zero as a result of the Act, entitlement will be based on the authority's original estimate of its rate of collection, disregarding the effect of the Act.
§ Mr. Austin MitchellTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the sums added to or subtracted from Grimsby's standard spending assessment under his new system of resource allocation under his new system of local government finance.
§ Mr. KeyThe consultation paper about the proposed new council tax issued on 23 April states that the Government do not propose any major changes to standard spending assessments.
§ Mr. CartwrightTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out those local authorities which have been rate-capped or charge-capped during each of the years in which the capping system has operated.
§ Mr. Key[holding answer 29 April 1991]: Listed in the table are those authorities which were selected for rate limitation in each of the years between 1985–86 and 1989–90, and for community charge limitation in 1990–91 135W and 1991–92. In addition for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89, the three years following abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London council, the Local Government Act 1985 designated for precept limitation the Inner London education authority, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, the Northumbria police authority, the metropolitan county police authorities, the metropolitan county fire arid civil defence authorities, and the metropolitan county passenger transport authorities.
Authorities designated for selective rate limitation. 1985–86 Basildon Lambeth Brent Leicester Camden Lewisham Greenwich Merseyside GLC Portsmouth Hackney Sheffield Haringey South Yorkshire ILEA Southwark Islington Thamesdown 1986–87 Basildon Lambeth Camden Lewisham Greenwich Liverpool Hackney Newcastle upon Tyne Haringey Southwark Islington Thamesdown 1987–88 Basildon Lambeth Brent Lewisham Brighton Middlebrough Camden Newcastle upon Tyne Gateshead Newham Greenwich North Tyneside Hackney Sheffield Haringey Southwark Hounslow Thamesdown Islington Tower Hamlets 1988–89 Basildon Liverpool Camden Manchester Ealing Middlesbrough Greenwich Newcastle upon Tyne Hackney Southwark Haringey Thamesdown Kingston upon Hull Tower Hamlets Lambeth Waltham Forest Lewisham 1989–90 Camden Southwark Greewich Thamesdown Hackney Tower Hamlets Lewisham ILEA
136W
Authorities designated for community charge limitation 1990–91 Avon Haringey Barnsley Hillingdon Basildon Islington Brent Lambeth Bristol North Tyneside Calderdale Rochdale Camden Rotherham Derbyshire St. Helens Doncaster Southwark Greewich Wigan Hammersmith and Fulham 1991–92 Basildon Milton Keynes Bristol Norwich Greenwich Reading
Ipswich Somerset Lambeth Stoke-on-Trent Langbaurgh-on-Tees Warwickshire Middlesbrough Wirral
§ Mr. CousinsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate(a) the cost of establishing and maintaining community charge registers in the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91 and (b) the cost of central Government publicity and information, including staff costs, to promote and support the establishment and maintenance of community charge registers in the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91.
§ Mr. KeyThe costs of establishing and maintaining community charge registers are not separately identifiable. The Government have not undertaken specific publicity on the establishment and maintenance of community charge registers. We have, however, produced a series of community charge practice notes, jointly with the local authority associations. Practice note No. 3 dealt with compiling the community charge register; No. 8 dealt with the canvass; No. 9 dealt with sole or main residence; and No. 24 dealt with maintaining the community charges register. We estimate that the total cost of printing these practice notes was £17,400. Copies were placed in the Library.
§ Mr. CousinsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate(a) the direct cost to local authorities of collection, and the enforcement of collection, of the community charge in 1990–91, (b) the indirect cost to local authorities of loss of cash flow arising from delays in payment of the community charge in 1990–91 and (c) the payments shortfall and the national non-collection rate of the community charge in its first year of operation in England.
§ Mr. KeyEnglish local authorities budgeted to spend £440 million on the collection of community charges in 1990–91. Estimates of the cost resulting from delays in collection cannot be made from the information collected from authorities; and information on arrears and bad debts at 31 March 1991 is not yet available.
§ Mr. CousinsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost of community charge transitional relief in 1990–91(a) in total and (b) for each standard region.
§ Mr. KeyWe shall be in a position to publish a final figure for the amount of relief given in 1990–91 when local authorities submit their final grant claims later this year. The total amount of relief grant claimed by authorities in their initial claims for 1990–91 is £259,881,592. The amount for each region in England is as follows.
£ North West 47,854,631 North 22,451,448 Yorkshire and Humberside 36,023,883 West Midlands 21,353,472 East Midlands 26,830,977 East Anglia 11,137,309 South East 68,733,298 South West 25,496,574
§ Mr. CousinsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of re-billing the community charge for 1991–92.
137W
§ Mr. KeyMy Department is discussing with the local authority associations what additional administrative costs local authorities are incurring as a result of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act and of the accompanying changes in the community charge reduction scheme, and how these should be reimbursed. Our preliminary estimate is that these costs will be in the range of £50 to £60 million in England.