§ Dr. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has commissioned into the effects on local authority management of yearly changes in block grant, expenditure guidance and grant holdback.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinNone, but the Audit Commission is currently engaged in a study into the effect on local authorities' economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the way in which block grant is distributed.
§ Dr. Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the most recently available estimate of local authority expenditure incurred under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, expressed as a proportion of gross local authority expenditure.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinReturns so far received from local authorities in England for 1982–83 show expenditure incurred under Section 137 to be ⅓ per cent, of their gross rate fund revenue expenditure.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the percentage change in the budgeted total expenditure and the budgeted block grant between 1981–82 and 1983–84 for (a) aggregate local authority expenditure in England, excluding the Metropolitan police and (b) the Metropolitan police.
§ Mr. WaldegraveFrom local authorities' budget returns, following are the percentage changes between 1981–82 and 1983–84 in their estimates of "total" expenditure for block grant purposes and in their block grant claims:
"Total" expenditure Per cent.
Block grant Per cent.
All authorities in England excluding Metropolitan Police Authority +12.4 *-3.7 Metropolitan Police Authority +18.5 *n/a Notes:
568W
- Based on original budgets in 1981–82.
- The definition of total expenditure in 1981–82 and 1983–84 is different. Interest receipts on revenue balances were not deducted from total expenditure in 1981–82, but were in 1983–84.
* The Metropolitan Police Authority did not receive block grant directly in 1981–82, when it was paid to the boroughs on its behalf. In 1983–84, block grant was paid directly to the MPA.
§ Mr. Lesterasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report those authorities planning to spend in excess of grant-related expenditure plus 25 per cent. in 1983–84, and show for each of them and in total the reduction in spending that would be achieved if their planned spending were to be reduced to the higher of 95 per cent. of their planned spending or 1983–84 target.
§ Mr. WaldegraveFollowing is the information for England:
Reduction in spending £000
Basildon 630 Bassetlaw 0* Blackburn 102 Bristol 0* Burnley 135 Camden 5,438 Chesterfield 151 Chester Le Street 144 City of London 958 Crawley 330 Darlington 177 Dartford 0* Derwentside 18 Durham City 0* Greater London Council 43,371 Greenwich 3,147 Hackney 3,505 Haringey 6,562 Harlow 378 I.L.E.A. 42,903 Islington 3,787 Lambeth 5,444 Lansbaurgh 0* Lewisham 2,522 Manchester 3,264 Merseyside 8,883 Middlesbrough 86 Newcastle-upon-Tyne 5,511 Norwich 138 Nuneaton 0* Peterborough 0† Reading 118 Rossendale 138 Sedgefield 0† Sheffield 11,015 South Yorkshire 8,447 Southwark 5,022 Stevenage 116 Thamesdown 716 Thurrock 397 Tower Hamlets 1,567 Tyne and Wear 7,276 Wansbeck 98 Wear Valley 0† Wyre Forest 78 Total 172,572 * 1983–84 budget below target † 1983–84 budget at target These 45 authorities have budgeted in aggregate to exceed their 1983–84 expenditure targets by £529 million, an average excess of 16 per cent.