HC Deb 05 March 1981 vol 1000 cc197-8W
Mr. Pawsey

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for the re-assessment of grant-related expenditure levels to reflect actual data rather than the estimated data in respect of the following indicators (a) E.6(ii) rate rebate and rebates for the disabled, (b) E.7(a) gross rent income, (c) E.7(c) average housing revenue account dwelling stock and (d) E.7(d) average annual rents in the region and estimated numbers of dwellings in the different categories.

Mr. King

I envisage that actual expenditure in 1981–82 will be taken account of in respect of indicator E6(ii). I intend, however, to consult the local authority associations on this and on the possibility of any revisions to the components of indicator E7 to reflect the final position on housing revenue accounts in 1980–81.

Mr. Pawsey

asked the Secretary' of State for the Environment what are the reasons for the difference in assessment of the grant-related expenditure pound per head of population for Rugby and Nuneaton.

Mr. King

Authorities' overall grant-related expenditure assessments depend on the values of each of the indicators specified in the RSG report. One major difference in the grant-related expenditure pound per head for Rugby, and Nuneaton and Bedworth is the housing revenue account component of the GRE calculation.

Mr. Pawsey

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why the grant-related expenditure for Rugby has been reduced by £309,750 in respect of a notional housing revenue account deficit.

Mr. King

I refer my hon. Friend to the publication, Grant Related Expenditure: How the Expenditure Needs of Local Authorities are Assessed in the New Block Grant, for a description of the reasoning underlying this component of GRE, and to the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1980 for the method of calculation. Copies of both publications have been deposited in the Library.

Mr. Pawsey

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to make any changes to the method of assessing grant-related expenditure in the light of the figures produced for 1981–82.

Mr. King

A major advantage of the new grant-related expenditure assessments is that its component parts are open to examination and refinement. We shall be considering possible improvements in our consultations with the local authority associations on the rate support grant settlement for 1982–83, which will be starting shortly.