HC Deb 30 June 1988 vol 136 cc358-9W
Mr. Wilson

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the latest estimate cost for the tax collection in each local government area(a) by total amount and (b) as a proportion of current cost of domestic rates collection.

Mr. Howard

There are no estimates available for the cost of collecting the community charge by local government area. In its report, Price Waterhouse has estimated the cost of collecting the community charge (including national non-domestic rates) in 1990–91 to be between £379 million and £435 million compared to the £200 million it now costs to collect rates.

Mr. Wilson

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to require poll tax registration officers to seek dates of birth under the registration process.

Mr. Howard

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 7 June to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), at column482.

Mr. Carrington

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet come to a decision in relation to the joint representations he has received from the City of London, the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities about his proposal that domestic rates should be retained in some parts of inner London for four years after introduction of the community charge; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley

I have considered those representations carefully, together with others from the individual boroughs concerned, the arguments which were put when this matter was considered in another place, and revised illustrative community charges for the affected boroughs which I published last week—Official Report, 23 June, columns 713–14.

In the light of all these considerations I have concluded that it would now be right to withdraw the proposals for residual rating, to move direct to the community charge and to abolish domestic rates everywhere in England with effect from 1 April 1990. The Government are, therefore, today tabling in another place amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill which will have this effect.

The Government's original concern was with protecting community charge payers in the high spending areas from excessively high community charges. The present position, that residual rates should apply to 10 authorities, is no longer justifiable on the evidence before me. I have therefore accepted the arguments which have been put to us that other powers within the Local Government Finance Bill are sufficient to achieve the objective of tolerable levels of community charge in those inner London boroughs. I have placed in the Library exemplifications of the community charges which take account of this charge. These exemplifications replace those I provided on 23 June to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), at columns 713–14.

Mr. Fatchett

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any estimates of the effect of the community charge on people under the age of 25 years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard

[holding answer 28 June 1988]: Many young adults under 25 currently make no direct contribution to the cost of local services despite the fact that they are consumers of those services and entitled to vote in local elections. We expect that the community charge will bring home to those people the cost of local services and improve local accountability. Those on low incomes will be eligible for rebates in their own right.