§ Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment for each county and district authority, what is the amount of rate support grant given in 1986–87, the amount it is intended to give for 1987–88 and the percentage difference.
§ Mr. ChopeThe change in grant depends on the expenditure decision by each authority in 1986–87 and 1987–88.
I have placed in the Library figures showing the: changes between provisional 1986–87 1st supplementary report grant entitlements and the 1987–88 grant entitlements implied by the provisional 1987–88 RSG settlement if (a) all authorities increase current expenditure in line with forecast inflation, that is 3.75 per 505W cent., and (b) authorities subject to rate and precept limitation spend at their expenditure levels and all other authorities increase current expenditure by 5.25 per cent.
§ Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what county and district local authorities in 1986–87 were protected from the effects of grant loss by the imposition of a safety net; in each instance how much that safety net was; and what percentage of the total rate support grant it formed of each relevant local authority.
§ Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, for each county of district local authority, what is the effect on the rate support grant for 1987–88 of the removal of any safety net that was imposed in 1985.
§ Mr. ChopeSafety net multipliers determined for 1985–86 were removed in 1986–87, subject to a further safety net of 5p. There were three further stages of safety nets in 1986–87. Under the proposals published on 3 October the overall safety net multiplier determined for each authority in 1986–87 will be removed in 1987–88, subject to a 12p safety net on this and other changes in grant. Given the interaction of these various stages, it is not possible to separate out the grant effects in 1987–88 of the removal of safety nets for 1985–86.
§ Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when local authorities were told of the decision to impose a safety net in the rate support grant system in the current year; what local authorities it affects; and what is the consequence of the rate support grant settlement of each relevant authority;
(2) how the safety net which is being introduced for 1987–88 for county and district councils is calculated; and when it was decided to introduce such a safety net;
(3) how local authorities were made aware of the proposed safety netting arrangements for 1987–88 on or before 22 July 1986.
§ Mr. ChopeThe Secretary of State's proposals for an RSG safety net were announced in his consultation paper issued on 3 October, which was sent to all authorities. The detailed arrangements for implementing the proposed net are set out in paragraph 21 of that paper, a copy of which is in the Library.
Block Grant as Percentage of Total Expenditure: Oxfordshire and All Shire Counties 1981–82 1982–83 1983–84 1984–85 1985–86 1986–87 Oxfordshire CC Total Expenditure (£ million) 151.0 161.0 165.9 168.4 174.5 192.0 Block Grant (£ million) 58.1 54.0 52.9 50.6 38.7 30.5 Block Grant as percentage of total expenditure (per cent.) 38.5 33.5 31.9 30.0 22.2 15.9 All shire counties Total Expenditure (£ million) 8,4700 9,054.9 9,416.8 9,529.3 9,980.7 11,012.6 Block Grant (£ million) 4,002.5 3,956.2 3,946.9 4,018.7 3,737.6 3,645.2 Block Grant as percentage of total expenditure (per cent.) 47.3 43.7 41.9 42.2 37.4 33.1 Footnote: Figures shown for years from 1981–82 to 1985–86 are from the most recent RSG supplementary report for the year in question. Figures for 1986–87 are the latest estimates.
506WWithin the fixed total of block grant available, the decision to set a safety net to protect authorities from excessive grant losses affects the grant entitlements of all local authorities. These grant entitlements, as adjusted by the safety net, are set out in the tables attached to the, consultation paper.
§ Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, for each county and district local authority, assuming that each spends at the settlement assumption for 1987–88 and taking no account of possible transfers from balances, what is the estimated amount for each one of the percentage increase or decrease in the amount that needs to be raised from ratepayers.
§ Mr. ChopeThe change in revenue to be raised from ratepayers depends on the expenditure decisions by each authority in 1986–87 and 1987–88 and the use of reserves in each year.
I have placed in the Library figures showing the change in the 1986–87 revenue to raise implied by the provisional 1986–87 1st supplementary report, and the 1987–88 revenue to raise implied by the provisional 1987–88 RSG settlement if (a) all authorities increase current expenditure in line with forecast inflation that is 3.75 per cent., and (b) authorities subject to rate and precept limitation spend at their expenditure levels and all other authorities increase current expenditure by 5.25 per cent. In areas where rateable resources are increasing, these figures overstate the implied increase in the rate poundage.
§ Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes there are for 1987–88 in the methodology of calculating grant related expenditure for county and district local authorities.
§ Mr. ChopeParagraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the consultation paper issued to local authorities on 3 October contain my right hon. Friend's proposal for changes in the method of calculating grant related expenditure for 1987–88. Copies of the paper are in the Library.
§ Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, for each year since 1981 what was (i) Oxfordshire county council's net expenditure, (ii) block grant received and (iii) block grant as a percentage of net expenditure; and, in each instance, what were the mean figures for all county councils.