§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the names of all local authorities which originally appeared in his list of those councils to lose rate support grant under sections 48 to 50 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and which have subsequently had the penalty removed.
§ Mr. KingMy right hon. friend the Secretary of State announced on 18 September the names of the following 14 authorities which were potentially liable to grant penalty under the transitional arrangements unless they made the savings necessary to qualify for waiver:
395W
- Camden
- Islington
- Tower Hamlets
- Lambeth
- Hackney
- Lewisham
- Newcastle-upon-Tyne
- Hammersmith and Fulham
- Brent
- Waltham Forest
- Hounslow
- Greenwich
- Afan
- Sheffield
Subsequently five of these authorities qualified for waiver:
and a sixth, Greenwich, made an application on 14 January which is still under consideration.
- Islington
- Newcastle-upon-Tyne
- Hammersmith and Fulham
- Afan
- Sheffield
§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the names of every local authority which, at the most recently available date, has queried any aspect of the calculation of its grant related expenditure figures as published in the rate support grant report (England) 1980; and if he will list the outcome of each query.
§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the names of every local authority which, at the most recent available date, reported one or more mistakes in the calculation of its grant related expenditure figures as published in the rate support grant report (England) 1980; and if he will list the mistakes in each case.
§ Mr. KingTwo mistakes in the grant related expenditure (GREs) published in the rate support grant report (England) 1980 have been drawn to my Department's attention; a typographical error transposed two digits in the GRE for Sedgefield district council from the figure laid before the House, and in the calculation of GREs the areas in hectares—indicator B.1—of Weymouth and Portland district and of Wimbourne district were transposed.
In addition, three authorities—Wycombe, St. Edmundsbury and Woking district councils—have notified the Department of clarifications of data, submitted by them earlier, which were used in the calculation of GREs.
§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish, for each local authority which originally appeared in his list of those councils to lose rate support grant under sections 48 to 50 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and which has subsequently had the penalty removed (a) the original budget estimate of its expenditure in 1980–81, (b) the revised budget estimate notified to his Department during
396W
£ million Current* Expenditure for 1980–81 at November 1979† prices Original Budget (as corrected) First Revised Budget Final Revised Budget Sheffield 121.784 117.413 115.143 Newcastle 75.295 73.261 71.129 Hammersmith and Fulham 31.775 31.441 29.623 Islington 34.369 34.369 32.670 Afan 3.454 3.309 3.244 * Including uncapitalised and Home office non-relevant expenditure † The figures were provided by local authorities at November 1979 prices the summer of 1980 and (c) the budget estimate of expenditure which finally qualified each authority to have the penalty removed, where this is different from the figure in (b), in each case in a form consistent with column 55 of "Financial, General and Rating Statistics 1980", published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
§ Mr. KingThe available information is as follows:
£ million Rate and Grant-Borne Expenditure (as in col. 55 of Financial General and Rating Statistics) at estimated outturn prices Original Budget First Revised Budget Final Revised Budget sheffield 179.718 174.562 172.945 Newcastle 113.447 112.647 110.397 Hammersmith and Fulham 45.680 46.117 47.730 Islington 66.395 66.395 64.605 Afan 5.758 5.433 5.353 These figures relate to authorities' estimates of their total expenditure in cash terms. This expenditure definition was not used in determining whether an authority was exempted from abatement of grant under the transitional provisions. The waiver in respect of the authorities listed above was made on the basis of the authority having reduced the volume of its current expenditure in the light of my right hon. Friend's call for revised budgets. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of today's date to his written question. The figures R J 6–5 in the third column of the table reflect, among other things authorities' revision of their own inflation assumptions in the light of up-to-date information when they completed their final revised budgets.
§ Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish, for each local authority which originally appeared in his list of those to lose rate support grant under sections 48 to 50 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and which has subsequently had the penalty removed (a) its original revenue expenditure total, in volume terms at November 1980 prices, (b) the revised expenditure total notified to his Department during the summer of 1980, in volume terms, at November 1980 prices and (c) the expenditure total which finally qualified each authority to have the penalty removed, where this is different from (b), in volume terms at November 1980 prices.
§ Mr. KingThe available information is as follows:
397WThe London borough of Greenwich made an application for exemption on 14 January which is still under consideration.