§ Mr. Ken HargreavesTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what limits he has set, or plans to set, for authorities capped for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. PortilloMy right hon. Friend decided on 3 April to adopt principles for designating authorities for capping in 1991–92 which gave effect to the provisional criteria announced on 31 October 1990 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). Applying these principles, he has designated authorities and proposed caps for them as set out in the table. Under the status these authorities had 28 days ending on 30 April in which they could either challenge or accept their proposed caps.
Six authorities—Somerset, Iangbaurgh, Milton Keynes, Reading, Greenwich and Middlesbrough—accepted and my right hon. Friend has therefore in each case confirmed the caps for these authorities at the level he originally proposed.
Eight authorities—Basildon, Bristol, Ipswich, Lambeth, Norwich, Stoke-on-Trent, Warwickshire and Wirral—challenged their proposed caps and suggested alternatives as set out in the table. My right hon. Friend will consider their cases and all other relevant information before he decides on the level of the final caps, which may be the same as or different from the amounts he originally proposed.
My right hon. Friend will set out his final caps for challenging authorities in a draft order which he intends as soon as possible to lay before the House. If the House approves the draft he will set the final caps at levels specified in the order.
339W
Proposals for Caps Original budget Budget reduction Capped budget Original charge1 Charge reduction Capped charge Original budget percentage over SSA Percentage increase over 1990 £ million £ million £ million £ £ £ percentage Absolute excessiveness Basildon4 26.8 4.7 22.1 355 39 316 121.2 — Bristol4 59.4 6.0 53.4 384 20 364 44.5 — Ipswich4 17.3 1.3 16.0 324 15 309 50.0 — Langbaurgh3 16.2 0.6 15.6 338 6 332 36.3 — Middlesbrough3 21.0 0.8 20.2 317 7 310 21.9 — Milton Keynes3 22.3 2.1 20.2 315 16 299 24.6 — Norwich4 16.5 1.5 15.0 293 16 277 25.1 — Excessive increases Greenwich3 215.5 2.5 213.0 258 16 242 — 6.2 5(15.2) Lambeth4 315.5 8.3 307.2 450 48 402 — 10.7 5(6.5) Reading3 18.7 1.0 17.7 334 10 324 — 11.1 5(18.8) Somerset3 274.7 2.2 272.5 2246–275 6 240–269 — 9.9 5(3.0) Stoke—on—Trent4 28.0 2.2 25.8 272 11 261 — 16.4 5(14.4) Warwickshire4 278.3 6.0 272.3 2269–366 16 253–320 — 11.4 5(4.8) Wirral4 246.2 11.1 235.1 336 45 291 — 20.0 5(4.8) 1Original charges are after £140 general reduction in community charges. 2 Indicates that charges vary between shire districts. 3Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Greenwich, Reading and Somerset have accepted the proposed cap. 4Basildon, Bristol, Ipswich, Norwich, Lambeth. Warwickshire and Wirral have put forward an alternative at the level of their original budget; Stoke-on-Trent have put forward an alternative of £27.5 million. 5Figures in parentheses include percentage over SSA.