HC Deb 19 November 1987 vol 122 cc672-4W
Dr. Cunningham

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 12 November, if he will publish(a) the implied taxable income per authority used in his estimate, giving the source and statistical confidence limits and (b) equivalent calculations showing the local income tax liability and community charge liability for (i) single adults on half, one and a half and two times average earnings, (ii) married couples on half, one, one and a half, and two times average earnings, (iii) single pensioners on half, one, one and a half, and two times average single pensioner household income; and (iv) pensioner couples on half, one, one and a half, two times average pensioner couple income.

Mr. Ridley

The covering notes explained that the figures were calculated on the assumption that differences in taxable resources between areas would be fully equalised. It was unnecessary, therefore, to make any assumption about the taxable income of each authority.

The tax liability of the persons referred to would depend on several factors, including the size of any mortgage. The tax rates we have published would enable any individual to calculate their local income tax liability in the light of their personal circumstances.

Mr. Ron Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 16 November, if he will list the precise parts of a farm business which will be liable to pay the nationally fixed non-domestic rate after 1990; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard

It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of business carried out on farms which will continue to be liable for rates. The list would, however include farm shops, and storage premises not used in conjunction with agriculture on that farm. Farmhouses, which currently pay domestic rates will not be rated after the community charge is introduced.

Mr. Rooker

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 2 November,Official Report, column 596, he will now provide a table

£ per week
Thousands of households Single pensioners Other single adult Two adults Three adults+ All Households
Losers
10+ — — — 35 35
5–10 — — 30 395 425
2–5 5 35 1,275 1,010 2,330
1–2 30 115 1,410 330 1,880
0–1 350 320 3,195 270 4,140
Total Losers 380 470 5,905 2,050 8,810
Gainers
0–1 1,350 740 2,190 140 4,425
1–2 210 285 980 80 1,550
2–5 335 520 1,200 85 2,140
5–10 100 100 350 35 590
10+ 10 10 70 10 95
Total Gainers 2,010 1,655 4,785 350 8,800

These figures are based on 1985–86 figures and illustrate the position in 1990–91. Like the figures in Table J7, all the above figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000 households. Differences between this Table and Table J7 may reflect therefore rounding or sampling errors.

Mr. Rooker

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his replies on households gaining and losing on the introduction of the full commuity charge in England,Official Report, 26 October, columns 37–38 and columns 39–40, he will give figures of the estimated amount of money gained by gainers and lost by losers.

of gainers and losers in the same form and on the same basis as table J7 in Cmnd. 9714, "Paying for Local Government";

Mr. Howard

[holding answer 17 November 1987]: On the basis of the transitional arrangements set out in my reply to the hon. Member of 17 November it is possible to make the following estimates of gains and losses by household type:

Mr. Howard

[holding answer 17 November 1987]: It is estimated that gains and losses from the full introduction of the community charge would amount to £1,040 million —net of rebates. This total includes net gains for single pensioners and other single adult households of £260 million net gains for two adult households of £110 million and net losses for households with three or more adults of £370 million.