§ Mr. Wrayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what detailed and researched information he has about the likely increased costs required by the community charge, as compared with the costs of collecting the present rates.
§ Mr. HowardMy officials are discussing with the local authority associations and others the likely cost of operating the new system. The cost to each local authority will depend largely on its success in reducing unit costs.
§ Mr. Wrayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make compensation available to local authorities in the event of serious delays in the collection of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. HowardThere is no reason to expect such delays.
§ Mr. Wrayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will detail the measures to be taken for the protection from abuse of the information about citizens and their families for the application of the community charge;
(2) what legal provisions he proposes to introduce to deal with abuse by people involved in the gathering of information for the poll tax with the knowledge so obtained.
§ Mr. HowardI have no reason to believe that there will be any abuse by community charge registration officers of the information they obtain. The Data Protection Act 1984 places obligations on those who record and use personal data and gives rights to individuals about whom data are held.
§ Mr. Wrayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures will he adopt in order to avoid potentially regressive effects of the community charge in England and Wales.
§ Mr. HowardThe Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) demonstrates that the community charge will be less regressive than domestic rates for those with low incomes.
§ Mr. Wrayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the extent to which the proposed community charge will result in retirement pensioners being displaced from their family households as a result of increases in the local taxation burden on that household.
§ Mr. HowardNone. There is no reason why a retirement pensioner should place a greater financial 37W burden on a family household than at present. The community charge will be an individual liability and each individual or couple within the household will be able to apply for a rebate.
§ Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the numbers of people who will be required to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge.
§ Mr. Howard[pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 818]: Figure J9 of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) estimated total housing benefit case load (GB) at 7.66 million when the community charge was fully in place. Of that total it is estimated that 44½—s54½ million cases would be entitled to 80 per cent. rebates. These estimates of housing benefit case load are derived from a computer model and are sensitive to community charge levels, to income support rates and to the arrangements for transition to the community charge. The estimate, therefore, gives a broad indication only of the possible outcome.
§ Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce figure J7 of Cmnd 9714
Figure J7 of Green Paper Paying for Local Government by region based on 1985–86 data Number of Gainers and Losers: Thousands of Households Northern Yorkshire and Humberside East Midlands East Anglia Greater London South East South Western West Midlands North Western England ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) ('000s) POUNDS PER WEEK Losers 10+ 12 19 2 — 182 1 1 — 6 221 5–10 106 158 29 3 239 16 12 14 92 668 2–5 294 438 172 39 387 154 139 124 359 2,107 1–2 152 250 160 38 251 207 116 116 218 1,507 0–1 338 510 307 123 396 396 293 309 515 3,186 Total losers 901 1,375 669 203 1,455 773 561 563 1,190 7,690 Gainers 0–1 222 340 389 239 392 928 432 588 591 4,121 1–2 57 88 186 131 160 547 199 286 202 1,857 2–5 69 131 220 155 239 1,054 279 399 302 2,849 5–10 14 39 43 43 77 423 70 119 101 929 10+ 4 1 9 4 21 83 9 17 12 160 Total gainers 366 600 847 572 890 3,034 989 1,409 1,208 9,916 PERCENTAGE OR NET INCOME Losers 10+ — — — — 14 — — 1 1 16 5–10 16 25 — — 183 — 1 — 4 230 2–5 234 350 67 8 367 41 37 33 207 1,343 1–2 251 407 176 40 340 141 137 121 320 1,933 0–1 400 593 426 155 550 591 386 409 658 4,171 Total losers 902 1,375 669 203 1,455 773 561 564 1,191 7,694 Gainers 0–1 251 385 485 319 477 1,327 552 710 691 5,198 1–2 66 129 229 146 208 896 240 387 285 2,586 2–5 38 78 117 94 167 694 171 256 199 1,814 5–10 10 8 14 12 32 106 26 49 29 284 10+ 2 — 2 1 5 12 1 7 4 33 Total gainers 366 600 847 572 890 3,034 989 1,409 1,208 9,916
§ Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will construct a table in the same form as figure J7 on page 125 of "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) showing the numbers of 38W "Paying for Local Government", showing households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge by (a) region, (b) local authority, and (c) parliamentary constituency.
§ Mr. Howard[pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 818]: The figures show the numbers of households projected to experience different levels of changes in "household tax bills". The projections use 1985–86 data, the latest currently available for use within the tax benefit model. They are based on the illustrative community charges published on 29 June 1987. Overall, they show 9.9 million households with reduced houehold tax bills and 7.7 million with increases. These projections are sensitive to assumptions about spending and grant levels about which it is not possible to make projections up to 1994 when implementation will be complete. A further disaggregation of these figures by households type could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Projections for individual local authority and constituency areas are not possible because of the limitations of the sample survey data on which the projections are based.
adults living in each of the households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge.
39W
§ Mr. Howard[pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 818]: The table shows estimated numbers of households gaining and losing by household type on the basis of illustrative community charge figures for 1985–86. It is
Impact of the introduction of the full community charge in England Thousands of gainers and losers: household types Pounds per week Single pensioner Other single adult Two adults Three + adults All households Losers 10+ — — 98 123 222 5 to 10 2 25 254 387 669 2 to 5 20 91 1,291 704 2,108 1 to 2 45 115 1,056 292 1,509 0 to 1 404 283 2,217 284 3,187 TOTAL LOSERS 471 515 4,916 1,791 7,695 Gainers 0 to 1 1,233 634 1,994 257 4,122 1 to 2 185 295 1,248 128 1,856 2 to 5 365 514 1,823 146 2,849 5 to 10 125 150 597 56 928 10+ 12 16 114 17 160 TOTAL GAINERS 1,920 1,609 5,776 605 9,915