Local Authorities (Rate Limitation) (Hansard, 27 June 1985)

§ Dr. Cunningham
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show for each authority selected for rate limitation in 1985–86 (a) its rate limitation expenditure level set in July 1984, (b) its budgeted total expenditure, (consistent with figures in column 28 of "Finance and General Rating Statistics 1985–86") and (c) the percentage difference between the two figures.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
Based on information received from authorities, the information is as follows:

(a) (b) (c)

Expenditure level Reported "Total" expenditure Percentage difference between (a) and (b)

£ million £ million per cent.

Basildon 13.662 13.662 nil

Brent 140.021 ‡148.356 6.0

Camden 117.429 n/a n/a

GLC 785.233 744.995 -5.1

Greenwich 66.584 ^*66.584 nil

493W

(a) (b) (c)

Expenditure level Reported "Total" expenditure Percentage difference between (a) and (b)

£ million £ million per cent.

Hackney 82.315 ‡97.150 18.0

Haringey 128.658 ‡136.048 5.7

ILEA 900.366 945.057 5.0

Islington 85.564 85.723 0.2

Lambeth 113.558 ^*116.212 2.3

Leicester 24.392 n/a n/a

Lewisham 79.301 ^*‡81.682 3.0

Merseyside 205.180 ‡213.000 3.8

Portsmouth 16.751 16.511 -1.4

Sheffield 216.573 ‡218.630 0.9

Southwark 108.437 †108.437 nil

South Yorkshire 178.291 ‡178.674 0.2

Thamesdown 14.199 14.199 nil

n/a=not available.

^* based on information provided by authorities prior to rate setting (including Lambeth, which has still to set a rate).

† based on information provided informally by the authority and awaiting confirmation.

‡ the excess of reported expenditure over the expenditure level in part reflects the allowance made in setting the rate-precept limit where authorities budgeted in 1984–85 to make substantial use of special funds and where it seemed possible that they might have inadequate reserves in 1985–86; and, in the case of Hackney and Haringey, the allowance made for anticipated deficits in 1984–85.

§ Dr. Cunningham
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the overall total of expenditure for the authorities selected for rate limitation in 1985–86 at 1985–86 budget stage consistent with figures in column 28 of "Finance and General Rating Statistics 1985–86", compared with the same figures at budget stage for the same authorities in 1984–85; and if he will also publish the comparable figure for English local authorities as a whole.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
Based on available information, latest estimates are as follows:

"Total" Expenditure

1984–85 Budgets 1985–86 Budgets percentage increase (in cash terms)

£ million £ million per cent.

Authorities selected for rate limitation ^*3,233 †3,327 2.9

All England ^*21,194 †22,093 4.2

^* excluding budgeted contributions by the GLC to London Regional Transport, for consistency with the 1985–86 figures.

† for the two rate-capped authorities for which information is not available, budgeted "total" expenditure has been assumed to be equal to their expenditure levels.

§ Dr. Cunningham
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the total grant penalties incurred by the 18 authorities selected for rate limitation in 1985–86 at 1985–86 budget stage, consistent with figures in column 34 of "Finance and General Rating Statistics 1985–86", compared with the comparable penalties for the same authorities in 1984–86.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
Based on available information for 1985–86, total grant penalties incurred by the 18 authorities selected for rate limitation are estimated to amount to £83.9 million. In 1984–85 total grant penalties arising from the budgeted spending of these same authorities amounted to £142.6 million.
494W

§ Dr. Cunningham
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of those authorities from among the 18 selected for rate limitation in 1985–86 which set a rate or precept at or below the financial maximum approved by Parliament and which also propose to spend, according to figures consistent with those in column 28 of "Finance and General Rating Statistics 1985–86", above the rate limitation expenditure level set for each authority in July 1984.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
Of the 18 authorities selected for rate limitation in 1985–86 which have set a rate, the following are budgeting, or information available, to spend in excess of their expenditure Levels:

Brent

Hackney

Haringey

ILEA

Islington

Lewisham

Merseyside

Sheffield

South Yorkshire

§ Dr. Cunningham
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each authority selected for rate limitation in 1985–86 the percentage increase in its expenditure target in 1985–86 compared with its target for 1984–85, showing the average increase for all 18 authorities and the average increase for English local authorities as a whole.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
The information is as follows:

Percentage increase in expenditure targets between 1984–85 and 1985–86 for rate limited authorities

Per cent.

Basildon 14.7

Brent 2.7

Camden 13.8

Greater London

Council 39.8

Greenwich 13.7

Hackney 3.1

Haringey 3.5

ILEA 12.8

Islington 19.6

Lambeth 10.4

Leicester 3.1

Lewisham 4.7

Merseyside 22.5

Portsmouth 3.1

Sheffield 2.7

South Yorkshire 8.6

Southwark 14.3

Thamesdown 3.1

All rate limited authorities 16.4

All England 6.2

§ Dr. Cunningham
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each authority selected for rate limitation in 1985–86 for which figures are now available, the percentage increase or decrease in its 1985–86 budgets, consistent with figures in column 28 of "Finance and General Rating Statistics 1985–86", compared with its original 1984–85 budget, consistent with figures in column 28 of "Finance and General Rating Statistics 1984–85".

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
The available information is as follows: 495W

Percentage change in budgeted "total" expenditure between 1984–85 and 1985–86

per cent

Basildon -0.7

Brent +4.9║

GLC +0.7^*

Greenwich -2.2†

Hackney +17.2≑

Haringey +4.7║

ILEA +2.4

Islington -0.5

Lambeth +1.7†

Lewisham +2.3†║

Merseyside +18.5║

Portsmouth -2.1

Sheffield -0.1†║

Southwark -0.7‡

South

Yorkshire +3.9^*║

Thamesdown -0.7

^* The year-to-year changes are affected by the change in the treatment of TSG; and, in the case of the GLC, the percentage has been calculated after deducting from the authority's 1984–85 budgeted "total" expenditure the budgeted contributions to passenger transport, which in 1985–86 are the responsibility of LRT.

† based on information provided by authorities prior to rate-setting (including Lambeth, which has still to set a rate).

‡ based on information provided informally by the authority and awaiting confirmation.

║ the percentage increases in expenditure may in part reflect the allowance made in setting the rate-precept limit for these authorities which budgeted in 1984–85 to make substantial use of special funds and where it seemed possible that they might have inadequate reserves in 1985–86, and, in the case of Hackney and Haringey, the allowance made for anticipated deficits in 1984–85.

	(a)	(b)	(c)
	Expenditure level	Reported "Total" expenditure	Percentage difference between (a) and (b)
	£ million	£ million	per cent.
Basildon	13.662	13.662	nil
Brent	140.021	‡148.356	6.0
Camden	117.429	n/a	n/a
GLC	785.233	744.995	-5.1
Greenwich	66.584	^*66.584	nil

	"Total" Expenditure
	1984–85 Budgets	1985–86 Budgets	percentage increase (in cash terms)
	£ million	£ million	per cent.
Authorities selected for rate limitation	^*3,233	†3,327	2.9
All England	^*21,194	†22,093	4.2
^* excluding budgeted contributions by the GLC to London Regional Transport, for consistency with the 1985–86 figures.
† for the two rate-capped authorities for which information is not available, budgeted "total" expenditure has been assumed to be equal to their expenditure levels.

Percentage increase in expenditure targets between 1984–85 and 1985–86 for rate limited authorities
	Per cent.
Basildon	14.7
Brent	2.7
Camden	13.8
Greater London
Council	39.8
Greenwich	13.7
Hackney	3.1
Haringey	3.5
ILEA	12.8
Islington	19.6
Lambeth	10.4
Leicester	3.1
Lewisham	4.7
Merseyside	22.5
Portsmouth	3.1
Sheffield	2.7
South Yorkshire	8.6
Southwark	14.3
Thamesdown	3.1
All rate limited authorities	16.4
All England	6.2

Percentage change in budgeted "total" expenditure between 1984–85 and 1985–86
	per cent
Basildon	-0.7
Brent	+4.9║
GLC	+0.7^*
Greenwich	-2.2†
Hackney	+17.2≑
Haringey	+4.7║
ILEA	+2.4
Islington	-0.5
Lambeth	+1.7†
Lewisham	+2.3†║
Merseyside	+18.5║
Portsmouth	-2.1
Sheffield	-0.1†║
Southwark	-0.7‡
South
Yorkshire	+3.9^*║
Thamesdown	-0.7
^* The year-to-year changes are affected by the change in the treatment of TSG; and, in the case of the GLC, the percentage has been calculated after deducting from the authority's 1984–85 budgeted "total" expenditure the budgeted contributions to passenger transport, which in 1985–86 are the responsibility of LRT.
† based on information provided by authorities prior to rate-setting (including Lambeth, which has still to set a rate).
‡ based on information provided informally by the authority and awaiting confirmation.
║ the percentage increases in expenditure may in part reflect the allowance made in setting the rate-precept limit for these authorities which budgeted in 1984–85 to make substantial use of special funds and where it seemed possible that they might have inadequate reserves in 1985–86, and, in the case of Hackney and Haringey, the allowance made for anticipated deficits in 1984–85.