HC Deb 09 January 2002 vol 377 cc859-61W
Mrs. May

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the GLA precept on the council tax of London boroughs in reaching the local government settlement for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [25707]

Mr. Byers

London boroughs set their own council tax, to which a GLA precept is added when bills are sent to council taxpayers in London.

The London boroughs and the GLA should seek the views of their local electorate and taxpayers on the trade-off between changes in tax and changes in service levels.

From next spring, council taxpayers in London will be able to see clearly by how much their council tax has changed for their borough and for the GLA. This will be shown up-front on the bill, not hidden away in the leaflet.

Mrs. May

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 137, what impact the change in grant to shire districts will have on the overall local government settlement; and from which budget the additional funding required will be taken; [25842]

(2) pursuant to his oral answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 137, if he will set out the adjustments which will be made to the 2001–02 baseline for shire districts and the basis of the new calculation; [25841]

(3) pursuant to his oral answer of 18 December 2001, Official Report, column 137, if he will list (a) the alternative baseline for 2001–02 for each shire district, (b) the increase in grant based on 2.3 per cent, increase on the (i) original baseline and (ii) revised. [25840]

Mr. Byers

In my answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 137 I announced that I would introduce an alternative baseline for 2001–02 which, in effect, adjusts only for the transfers of service for which shire districts are responsible and that, in order to guarantee a minimum 2.3 per cent, increase for shire districts, I would ensure that all shire districts received a minimum grant increase of whichever increase is the greater—2.3 per cent, on the original baseline, or 2.3 per cent, on this alternative baseline.

I will provide further details as part of the final settlement announcement towards the end of January once the consultation period has ended.

Mrs. May

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his oral statement of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 168, if he will set out his reasons for introducing a minimum level of grant increase for the Greater London Authority; and what assessment he has made of the impact of that decision. [25843]

Mr. Byers

In both 2000–01 and 2001–02 the Greater London authority was guaranteed a minimum level of grant increase of 0 per cent, under the Central Support Protection Grant scheme, as were other authorities without education and social services responsibilities.

For 2001–02 we replaced the Central Support Protection Grant for authorities with education and social services responsibilities by the floor and ceiling damping mechanism which operates directly on the amount of Revenue Support Grant payable to an authority.

For 2002–03 we have extended floor and ceiling damping to cover all local authorities who are entitled to receive Revenue Support Grant, and have also raised the minimum level of grant increase for authorities without education and social services responsibilities from 0 per cent, to 2.3 per cent.

Providing a minimum level of grant increase, based on a like-for-like comparison of grants in 2002–03 with what they would have been in 2001–02 if the transfers and responsibilities applying in 2002–03 had been in place in 2001–02, provides stability and so helps local authorities to plan effectively. The floor and ceiling damping mechanism is fairer and more transparent than the damping previously provided through the Central Support Protection Grant scheme.