§ Mr. GrocottTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional staff he estimates on average district councils will need to recruit in order to implement the poll tax.
§ Mr. HowardIt is not possible to estimate an average figure. Different authorities will choose to adopt different computer systems some of which be relatively capital intensive while others will be relatively manpower intensive.
§ Mr. GrocottTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average cost to a district council of preparing for the implementation of the poll tax.
§ Mr. HowardThe explanatory and financial memorandum attached to the Local Government Finance Bill contained an estimate of between £70 million and £90 million on the establishment of the register and preparation of new billing and collection systems. Those figures would equate to an average cost of between £174,000 and £223,000 for each collecting authority.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish revised exemplifications of community charge levels for all English and Welsh 53W authorities for 1987–88, taking into consideration (a) rates of Government estimates for likely evasion and other non-collection rates in each local authority area, and (b) the use of rate fund balances by authorities.
§ Mr. HowardThe Government have made no estimate of evasion and non-collection rates. The exemplifications we have published do take account of the use of balances.
§ Mrs. MahonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from members of the public since 1985(a) in support of and (b) opposed to the community charge.
§ Mr. HowardA summary of 1,271 responses received by my Department before 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since June 1987, my Department has received some 3,800 letters, including about 3,400 from individual members of the public. The letters contain a variety of comments on specific aspects of our proposals or requests for further information, and for this reason do not readily lend themselves to an analysis of correspondents' views.
§ Mr. DobsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether poll tax registrars will have access to family practitioners committee lists of patients;
(2) whether poll tax registrars will have access to district health authority lists of patients;
(3) whether poll tax registrars will have access to the Department of Health and Social Security/National Health Service central register list of patients;
(4) whether poll tax registrars will have access to the lists of women patients being used to call and recall women for cervical cancer screening.
§ Mr. HowardCommunity charges registration officers will have access to none of these lists.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce the figures in figures 6 to 11 of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge, on the basis of the rebate system currently in operation being applied to all figures.
Household type Number receiving rate bills (millions) Total value gross rate bills (£million per annum) Numbers entitled to rebates (millions) Total value rebates (£million per annum) Single pensioner 2.5 795.7 1.6 321.6 Other single adult 2.2 723.5 0.7 167.2 Two adults 11.1 4,471.3 2.2 421.2 Three or more adults 2.5 1,060.7 0.5 67.3 All 18.3 7,051.3 5.0 977.5 The total value of the net bills for the households receiving rebate is not readily available.
§ Dr. CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce the figures in figures 7, 8, 10 and 11 of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge, splitting the data for two adult households into pensioner couples and others.
54W
§ Mr. RidleyNo. By the time the community charge takes effect the new housing benefit system which Parliament has approved will have been in operation for two years.
§ Sir Brandon Rhys WilliamsTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made as to the proportion of the total number of people eligible for rebate in respect of the proposed community charge in England and Wales who will already be in receipt of means-tested benefits;
(2) what is his estimate of the increase in the total number of people, including claimants and their dependants, who will become entitled to means-tested benefits following the introduction of the community charge in England and Wales; and what estimate he has made as to the numbers who will then be eligible for a community charge rebate but will not claim it.
§ Mr. ScottI have been asked to reply.
I regret that it is not possible to provide estimates in the form requested. The Government's Green Paper "Paying for Local Government," published in 1986, estimated the community charge rebate case load in Great Britain at 7.66 million, 1.17 million above the rate rebate case load. No detailed estimates using more up-to-date assumptions are available. The Green Paper figures were based on potential entitlement and did not take account of failure to claim benefit. Nearer to the time we will be publicising the availability of community charge rebates.
§ Dr. John CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extract from the data used in the construction of figures 9 to 11 of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge in England (1) the number of households receiving rate bills, (2) the total value of their gross bills, (3) the number of households receiving rebates, (4) the total value of such rebates and (5) the total value of the net bills for the households receiving rebates, the figures to be provided(a) for all households in England and (b) separately for (i) one adult (non-retired), (ii) one adult (retired), (iii) a pensioner couple, (iv) other two adult households with or without children, (v) three adults with or without children and (vi) four or more adults, with or without children.
§ Mr. RidleyThe estimates requested are as follows:
§ Mr. RidleyThe following tables split the figures for two-adult households and tax units in figures 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Department's note of 13 January 1988 on the relationship between local taxes and income, showing the results for "pensioner couples" and "other couples" separately.
55W
Figure 7: Impact of the Community Charge with safety nets (1990–91 position: England) Thousands of gainers and losers: Household types Two adults Pensioner couples Others Pounds per week Losers 10+ — — 5–10 15 85 2–5 200 1,465 1–2 220 1,220 0–1 725 2,225 Total losers 1,165 4,995 Gainers 0–1 285 1,750 1–2 120 855 2–5 145 1,175 5–10 60 450 10+ 15 115 Total gainers 625 4,350 Percentage of net income Losers 10+ — 0 5–10 5 10 2–5 170 520 1–2 240 1,150 0–1 750 3,310 Total losers 1,165 4,995 Gainers 0–1 355 2,935 1–2 150 950 2–5 105 435 5–10 10 25 10+ 0 5 Total gainers 625 4,350
56W
Figure 8: impact of the Community Charge with safety nets (1990–91 position: England) Thousands of gainers and losers: tax unit types Two adults Pounds per week Pensioner couples Others Losers 10+ — 5 5–10 40 155 2–5 285 1,775 1–2 270 1,325 0–1 795 2,330 Total losers 1,385 5,590 Gainers 0–1 295 1,915 1–2 125 975 2–5 155 1,310 5–10 60 515 10+ 15 155 Total gainers 650 4,870 Percentage of net income Losers 10+ — 5 5–10 15 30 2–5 245 720 1–2 310 1,330 0–1 810 3,500
Two adults Pounds per week Pensioner couples Others — — Total losers 1,385 5,590 Gainers 0–1 370 3,225 1–2 155 1,080 2–5 110 520 5–10 10 40 10+ 0 10 Total gainers 650 4,870
Figure 10: Impact of the Community Charge with no safety nets (England) Thousands of gainers and losers: Household types Two adults Pensioner couples Others Pounds per week Losers 10+ 15 115 5–10 35 320 2–5 220 1,335 1–2 160 960 0–1 565 1,700 Total losers 995 4,430 Gainers 0–1 355 1,500 0–2 120 1,085 2–5 210 1,525 5–10 75 660 10+ 20 160 Total gainers 780 4,930 Percentage of net income Losers 10+ 5 5 5–10 30 110 2–5 200 765 1–2 220 1,080 0–1 545 2,470 Total losers 995 4,430 Gainers 0–1 415 2,870 1–2 180 1,355 2–5 170 650 5–10 15 45 10+ — 10 Total gainers 780 4,930
57W
Figure 11: Impact of the Community Charge with no safety nets (England) Thousands of Gainers and Losers: Tax unit types Two Adults Pensioner couples Others Pounds per week Losers 10+ 15 130 5–10 60 395 2–5 295 1,595 1–2 205 1,060
Two Adults Pensioner couples Others 0–1 635 1,795 Total Losers 1,215 4,970 Gainers 0–1 370 1,615 0–2 130 1,205 2–5 215 1,705 5–10 80 760 10+ 20 200 Total Gainers 820 5,490 Percentage of net income Losers 10+ 5 5 5–10 50 145 2–5 275 940 1–2 275 1,245 0–1 610 2,635 Total Losers 1,215 4,970 Gainers 0–1 435 3,105 1–2 190 1,535 2–5 175 770 5–10 15 65 10+ 0 15 Total Gainers 820 5,490