§ Sir Barney HayhoeTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set out the parameters, in terms of weekly income and implied tax rates, of the poverty trap which would be created by the proposed community charge; and what is his estimate of the numbers of people that would be affected, set out in appropriate income bands.
§ Mr. PortilloI have been asked to reply.
This information cannot be worked out at present, both because certain operational details of the community charge rebate scheme have yet to be decided, and also because insufficient data are held centrally to permit the setting up of appropriate models.
§ Mr. RookerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 17 NovemberOfficial Report columns 483–4, on the transitional arrangements for the poll tax, he will give the figures for households which will experience an increase of (a) 50 per cent, or more and (b) 80 per cent, or more in local tax bills for the illustrative year 1990–91.
§ Mr. HowardBased on 1987–88 spending, I estimate that in 1990–91, 3 million households might face an increase of more than 50 per cent, in their local tax bills as a result of the introduction of the new system; and that 1.8 million might face an increase of 80 per cent, or more. However, as I emphasised in my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 9 November, at column14, this outcome need not arise if local authorities start now to reduce expenditure.
§ Mr. RookerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the relationship between increases in expenditure per adult and increases in poll tax, set out in his reply of 21 October,Official Report, column 819, are affected by his announcement regarding transitional arrangements for the introduction of poll tax.
§ Mr. HowardThe transitional arrangements will make no difference to the impact on an authority's gross community charge of an increase in expenditure. During the transitional period, as a result of the phasing out of the safety net and, where appropriate, domestic rates, there will be changes in net community charges which are not related to changes in expenditure. Even then, the contribution of overspending to community charges will remain clear — for every £1 per head change in expenditure the community charge will be £1 more or less than it would otherwise have been.
230W
§ Mr. RookerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the £75 limit on safety nets referred to in his reply of 17 November,Official Report, columns 483–4, is a cash amount for the year 1990–91.
§ Mr. HowardThat is the Government's intention.
§ Mr. RookerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give illustrative figures showing which local authorities would remain on the maximum safety net for poll tax if it were(a) £90, (b) £100 and (c) £125.
§ Mr. HowardThe figures show the areas with the highest contributions per adult to the safety net if no maximum contribution were set. The figures are based on 1987–88 budgeted spending.
£ South Bucks 191 Chiltern 182 Westminster 132 Elmbridge 128 Wycombe 121 Epsom and Ewell 118 Epping Forest 108 Three Rivers 108 Windsor and Maidenhead 106 Surrey Heath 101 Wokingham 100 Waverley 99 Solihull 97 Barnet 95 Hertsmere 94 Woking 94 Rochford 92 St. Albans 92 Southend-on-Sea 91