§ Mrs. CurrieTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in rank order the metropolitan councils outside London showing the totals held in reserves at the latest available date;
(2) if he will list in rank order the London boroughs showing the totals held in reserves at the latest available date.
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesThe latest available estimates of the level of reserves as at 1 April 1994 are given below. The authorities are ranked by order of reserves excluding those held by schools, non-LMS; schools' reserves are shown separately, LMS. The first column, "Non-LMS reserves", includes funds, which may be substantial, held for specified purposes which may not be available to the council for general use—for example, funds to finance capital projects to which the authority is committed; and insurance funds where the authority is bearing its own insurance risk. These estimates are subject to amendment as authorities finalise their accounts. Compatible data on the use of balances in 1994–95 which would be needed to derive an estimate of the level of reserves at 1 April 1995 are not yet available.
158W
Estimated level of reserves at 1 April 1994 Non-LMS £000 LMS £000 London boroughs Islington –5,773 2,548 Brent –214 4,545 Lewisham 1,278 7,993 Hounslow 2,576 4,884 Kingston upon Thames 2,694 1,803 Merton 2,717 2,441 Lambeth 3,050 450 Hammersmith and Fulham 3,948 2,390 Richmond upon Thames 4,205 2,116 Camden 4,690 4,757 Waltham Forest 5,284 5,330 Sutton 7,643 1,808 Bexley 7,704 4,699 Hillingdon 10,117 2,675 Greenwich 10,950 5,729 Tower Hamlets 11,911 4,200 Hackney 12,521 2,179 Havering 13,734 3,676 Haringey 14,332 4,312 Barnet 14,744 4,508 Southwark 15,152 2,723 Redbridge 15,417 3,385 Newham 18,505 4,695 Westminster 18,659 3,722 Harrow 22,191 2,699 Enfield 23,742 5,527 Kensington and Chelsea 24,231 1,382 Croydon 28,307 5,606 Ealing 40,891 2,791 Barking and Dagenham 41,766 3,136 Wandsworth 54,547 2,811 Bromley 74,093 3,154 City of London 204,706 73 Metropolitan districts Bradford –2,139 12,287 Sefton 3,034 5,610 Wirral 3,992 3,687 Walsall 4,262 4,033 Tameside 4,977 1,303 North Tyneside 5,269 373 Knowsley 6,066 1,817
Estimated level of reserves at 1 April 1994 Non-LMS £000 LMS £000 Manchester 7,253 2,912 Sheffield 7,326 5,014 St. Helens 7,932 4,262 Bury 8,000 2,225 Liverpool 8,337 9,486 South Tyneside 8,593 1,859 Doncaster 9,373 7,197 Wigan 9,774 4,197 Calderdale 10,045 2,311 Rochdale 10,582 211 Bolton 10,850 2,291 Stockport 11,183 2,613 Coventry 11,194 4,305 Wakefield 13,614 3,686 Rotherham 14,342 3,128 Salford 15,919 2,476 Gateshead 16,636 1,625 Wolverhampton 17,299 4,301 Solihull 19,218 4,581 Barnsley 19,412 3,081 Kirklees 21,833 4,214 Sandwell 23,093 5,756 Trafford 26,964 2,169 Dudley 27,066 1,493 Sunderland 29,592 2,053 Newcastle upon Tyne 31,659 4,271 Oldham 33,508 2,381 Leeds 41,207 4,728 Birmingham 89,526 16,696 Source:
Level of reserves (outturn) at 1/4/93 + / - appropriations to/withdrawals from reserves 1993–94 (RS return for 1993–94).
§ Mr. AllenTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to relax constraints on spending for local authorities and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesThe Secretary of State announced his provisional capping criteria for local authorities on 1 February. He will announce his final criteria once authorities have set their budget requirements for 1995–96.
§ Sir Irvine PatnickTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the value of reserves for the core cities of Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. CurryI refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) to my hon. Friend, the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) earlier today. This provided data on the level of reserves held by each metropolitan district.
§ Mr. TippingTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra finance would be available to local authorities in 1995–96 if the capping level for all local authorities was set at 3.2 per cent. above their 1994–95 budgets.
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesIf the capping limits for 1995–96 were set at 3.2 per cent. above local authorities' 1994–95 budgets—net of a local precepts and adjusted for various changes of function, boundary and financing—they would claw a little under £600 million of additional public expenditure compared to the cap limits implied by the current provisional capping criteria.