HC Deb 26 November 1987 vol 123 cc315-7W
Mr. Pike

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from businesses in the north-west region concerning the proposals for a unified business rate.

Mr. Howard

My right hon. Friend has received several representations from businesses in the north-west. If the unified business rate had been implemented this year, it would have saved businesses in the north-west £180 million, or 18 per cent, of their present rate bills.

Mr. Heddle

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the likely impact of the proposed unified business rate on non-domestic ratepayers in each of the districts in Staffordshire expressed in percentage terms.

Mr. Howard

I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) of 29 June at column44, which showed the percentage change in non-domestic rates in each district in the event of a move to a national non-domestic rate set at the 1987–88 average. The changes illustrate for Staffordshire districts range from +4.2 per cent, to -1.6 per cent.

Mr. Wilson

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether recently released mental patients will be liable for the poll tax.

Mr. Howard

Patients released from psychiatric hospitals will cease to be exempt from the personal community charge, unless they fall within any of the categories of exempt person which we have announced.

Mr. Rooker

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the formula showing the effect on all local authorities not benefiting from the maximum poll tax safety net of each £1 change in the safety net both upward and downward.

Mr. Howard

[holding answer 25 November 1987]: Areas contributing to the safety net, but below the level of the maximum contribution, are unaffected by the decision to have such a maximum. For each £1 fall in the maximum contribution (for example from £75 to £74), areas benefiting from the safey net would see that benefit reduced by £1 x the adult population of the areas benefiting from that reduction over the total adult population of areas benefiting from the safety net except that no area is required to become a net contributor to the safety net as a result of this calculation.

Mr. Rooker

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 19 November on households gaining and losing on the introduction of the poll tax, he will give figures for the estimated amount of money which each of the defined households will lose for the losers and gain for the gainers, giving separate figures for gainers and losers.

Mr. Howard

[holding answer 25 November 1987]: The figures requested are as follows:

Rounded estimates of gains and losses for main household types from full introduction of the Community Charge
Losers £ million Gainers £ million Net gain £ million
Single pensioners 10 140 130
Other single adults 40 170 130
Two adults 550 660 110
Three plus adults 440 70 -370
Total 1,040 1,040 0

Mr. Rooker

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 17 November,Official Report, columns 483–4, relating to the transitional arrangements for the poll tax, he will provide an update of his reply on 26 October, Official Report, columns 37–38, on regional loser and gainer households for the illustrative year 1990–91.

Mr. Howard

[holding answer 25 November 1987]: The figures requested are as follows. They have been produced on the same basis and are subject to the same qualifications as those I gave the hon. Member on 26 October at column 38.

England only
Impact of the inroduction of community charge in 1990–91 with £75 maximum safety net contribution Dual running in Inner London and Waltham Forest only (assuming no change from 1987–88 spending levels)
Northern ('000)s Yorks & Humberside ('000)s East Midlands ('000)s East Anglia ('000)s Greater London ('000)s South East ('000)s South Western ('000)s West Midlands ('000)s North Western ('000)s England ('000)s
Pounds per week
Losers
10+ 1 5 2 1 12 7 2 4 3 37
5–10 26 33 31 13 67 118 29 49 58 426
2–5 175 268 216 83 293 511 198 249 334 2,328
1–2 129 217 158 70 302 424 168 205 207 1,880
0–1 304 514 360 225 605 769 375 454 531 4,138
Total losers 636 1,037 767 392 1,279 1,830 772 961 1,133 8,809
GAINERS
0–1 362 521 403 213 574 808 374 515 652 4,423
1–2 98 163 137 66 192 364 152 178 202 1,553
2–5 139 186 173 78 229 592 199 239 303 2,139
5–10 25 66 30 23 59 176 44 68 99 588
10+ 7 3 6 3 11 37 9 12 10 97
Total gainers 631 939 749 383 1,066 1,977 778 1,012 1,266 8,800
Percentage of net income
Losers
10+ — — — — 1 — 1 1 1 4
5–10 3 2 1 — 1 4 — 1 4 18
2–5 66 107 82 31 109 212 69 105 140 921
1–2 182 268 200 88 275 488 201 258 287 2,247
0–1 385 660 485 273 894 1,126 501 595 701 5,620
Total losers 636 1,037 767 392 1,279 1,830 772 961 1,133 8,809
Gainers
0–1 390 604 475 245 666 1,090 473 606 735 5,282
1–2 153 175 164 77 226 512 174 212 292 1,984
2–5 75 144 99 56 139 313 114 166 201 1,306
5–10 12 15 10 4 31 56 16 26 33 202
10+ 2 1 2 1 4 6 1 2 4 25
Total gainers 631 939 749 383 1,066 1,977 778 1,012 1,266 8,800