§ Mr. RookerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 9 November,Official Report, column 14, regarding households facing one-off increases under the community charge, he will give a regional breakdown by household size of the affected households.
§ Mr. HowardAs I explained in my reply of 26 October at column37–38, no regional breakdown of gainers and losers by household type is available.
§ Mr. RookerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply on regional gainers and losers with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge, on 26 October,Official Report, columns 37–38, what assumptions he used in that reply 482W regarding transitional grant provisions; and what assumptions he used for figure J7 in the Green Paper Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government."
§ Mr. HowardAs I told the hon. Member in my reply of 2 November, my reply of 26 October assumed no transitional grant provisions. Figure J7 assumes the existence of the "safety net" arrangements described on page 26 of the Green Paper.
§ Mr. RookerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a decision on the transitional arrangements for the introduction of the poll tax.
§ Mr. RidleyThe Government have given careful consideration to the arrangements for introducing the community charge in England in 1990–91, in the light of the many representations that have been made. There are two elements: the introduction of the community charge and abolition of domestic rates within each area ; and the phasing in of the impact of changes in grant and non-domestic rates on individual areas (safety netting).
We have decided that the vast majority of areas should introduce the full, safety netted community charge in 1990–91; domestic rates will be abolished in those areas from 31 March 1990. However, in some areas where spending is particularly high, either as a result of ILEA or the borough or both, it would be too disruptive to introduce the new system in full in one go. That was the reason for our initial phasing-in proposals. In the light of comments on these proposals we have now decided to concentrate the phasing-in on these particular areas only. This will give them more time to adjust their spending while ensuring that the benefits of the new system will flow through more quickly elsewhere.
In areas where local authorities have budgeted to spend more than £130 per head above their grant-related expenditure assessments in 1987–88, we propose that the community charge should therefore be introduced only partially in 1990–91 at £100 (assuming unchanged spending). Domestic rates there will be phased out and the full community charge phased in between 1990–91 and 1994–95. On this basis the phasing-in would only apply throughout inner London and in the London borough of Waltham Forest.
The safety net, which we have already announced, will enable the effect on domestic taxpayers of changes in the grant and non domestic rate arrangements to come through gradually. In 1990–91 the safety net will ensure that there is no change in the distribution of grant and non-domestic rates between areas, except that we now propose that contributions will be limited to a maximum of £75 per adult in any area. This will slightly reduce the extent to which areas are able to gain from the safety net. The safety net will be phased out in equal steps between 1991–92 and 1994–95.
I have today placed in the Library tables illustrating the impact of these proposals on each local authority area, on the basis of 1987–88 spending.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to provide updated data on the effects of his proposed changes to local government finance, taking into account the updated tax benefit model and other data.
§ Mr. RidleyI hope to be able to provide this information before the Christmas recess, although this 483W could be delayed if those concerned have to continue to provide statistical information in answer to the parliamentary questions at the present rate.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether occupants of sheltered accommodation will be liable for(a) standard community charge, (b) collective community charge, or (c) will be exempt from community charge by virtue of their being in residential care.
§ Mr. RidleyOccupants of sheltered accommodation will almost always be liable for the personal community charge, subject to any rebate to which they may be entitled.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of the likely incidence of(a) pressure being appliced to occupants of tied farm cottages and other accommodation not to enter themselves on the electoral register in order to avoid payment of community charge, (b) 18-year-olds, and rising 18-year-olds being omitted from the electoral register in order to avoid liability for community charge, (c) owners of two homes avoiding being registered for electoral registration at their main residence, but instead registering where they think a lower community charge will apply and (d) difficulties faced by local authorities and electoral registration offices in compiling the new electoral register.
§ Mr. RidleyNone.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, column 592, how the sufficiency of the resources to he made available to community charge registration officers will be decided.
§ Mr. RidleyIt will be for the local authority, in the first instance, to decide what level of resources is sufficient to allow the registration officer to carry out his functions.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in theOfficial Report a table showing' the percentage change in community charge for a 1 per cent. increase in spending for each authority, taking into account the actual spending figures implicit in his answer of 29 June, Official Report, column 44. and not assuming each authority spends at the level of its assessed need.
§ Mr. RidleyI refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) on 21 October at column819.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what latest information he has for each local authority on(a) the numbers of adults that will be exempt from payment of the community charge, and (b) the numbers of students who will pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge ; and how these figures will affect his community charge estimates published on 29 June.
§ Mr. RidleyWe estimate that, nationally, around 500,000 people may be exempt from the community charge in England, and that around 750,000 students will pay 20 per cent. of the charge. The exemplifications published on 29 June did not take account of exemptions. But nor did they take account of the product of the standard community charge, which will provide local authorities with additional income.
484W
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the National Union of Ratepayers Associations on his proposals to abolish domestic rates; and if he will indicate whether the National Union of Ratepayers Associations supports his schemes for a community charge.
§ Mr. RidleyThe National Union of Ratepayers Association submitted comments on the proposals contained in "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 8714). Although I do not have the permission of those who submitted comments to publish their views, I placed a summary of the responses we received in the Library on 15 December 1986.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether student nurses will benefit from the dispensation that students will be liable for only 20 per cent. of the community charge payment.
§ Mr. RidleyStudent nurses will not come within the definition of full-time students for these purposes.
§ Mr. O'BrienTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention to introduce comparable property values throughout the United Kingdom for the purposes of applying the national uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Howard[holding answer 16 November 1987]: We shall start the process of harmonising valuation practice within Great Britain with the 1990 revalution.