HC Deb 07 March 1991 vol 187 cc237-9W
Mr. Battle

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) of 21 February,

Breakdown (by programme) of DOE Expenditure in Y & H Region (£ million) at 1990–91 prices
1986–87 1987–88 1988–89 1989–90 11990–91 forecast outturn 1991–92 estimated
Rate Support Grant/ Revenue Support 15,29.0 1,575.6 1,522.6 1,410.3 888.1 n/a
Percentage 172 177 171 159 100
Housing Investment Programme Allocations 162.9 153.2 142.1 114.8 186.7 178.2
Percentage 87 82 76 61 100 95
Housing Subsidies 0.38 0.33 nil nil 256.73 n/a
Percentage 0.7 0.5 100
UDG/URG/City Grant (grant approvals) 2.72 4.52 38.28 8.14 37.74 n/a
Percentage 35 58 494 105 100
Urban Programme n/a 29.68 27.69 29.03 27.96 27.66
Percentage 100 99
Urban Development Corporation n/a n/a 12.18 19.71 33.0 23.59
Percentage 37 60 10 71
Gypsy Grants 0.89 0.38 0.80 0.28 1.45 1.89
Percentage 61 26 55 19 100 130
City Action Team n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.76 0.80
Percentage 100 105
Derelict Land Grant (DLG) 4.29 10.97 11.12 11.38 14.11 14.70
Percentage 30 78 79 81 100 104
Private Sector DLG 1.74 1.02 4.69 1.76 0.55 1.14
Percentage 316 185 852 320 100 207
11990.91 saw the introduction of a new capital control system and new financial regime.
2 This is the Housing element of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy.
3 City Grant approvals to date.
Breakdown (by programme) of DoE expenditure in Leeds metropolitan district (£ million) at 1990–91 prices
1986–87 1987–88 1988–89 1989–90 11990–91 forecast outturn 1991–92 estimated
Rate Support Grant/ 176.0 178.5 167.5 149.9 137.7 N.A.
Revenue Support (128 per cent.) (130 per cent.) (122 per cent.) (109 per cent.) (100 per cent.)
Housing Investment 29.1 26.9 23.9 18.3 33.6 30.1
Programme Allocations (86 per cent.) (80 per cent.) (71 per cent.) (54 per cent.) (100 per cent.) (90 per cent.)
Housing Subsidies Nil Nil Nil Nil 28.35 N.A.
(100 per cent.)
UDG/URG/City Grant 1.04 2.96 0.23 0.08 0.05 N.A.
(grant approvals) (2,080 percent.) (5,920 percent.) (460 per cent.) (160 per cent.) (100 per cent.)
Urban Programme N.A. 4.7 5.4 5.1 5.3 5.1
(89 per cent.) (102 per cent.) (96 per cent.) (100 per cent.) (96 per cent.)
Urban Development N.A. N.A. 2.99 9.45 14 .0 11.3
Corporation (21 per cent) (68 per cent.) (100 per cent.) (28 per cent.
Gypsy Grants Nil Nil 0.47 0.038 0.76 0.16
(62 per cent.) (5 per cent.) (100 per cent.) (21 per cent.)
City Action Team N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.37 0.38
(100 per cent.) (103 per cent.)
Derelict Land Grant 0.048 0.163 0.194 0.245 0.750 0.708
(DLG) (6 per cent.) (22 per cent.) (25 per cent.) (33 per cent.) (100 per cent.) (94 per cent.)
Private Sector DLG Nil Nil 0.34 0.36 3Nil Nil

Official Report, column 196, if he will provide a breakdown by programme of his Department's expenditure in (i) Yorkshire and Humberside and (ii) the metropolitan district of Leeds at (a) 1990–91 prices and (b) as a percentage of the 1990–91 expenditure.

Mr. Key

A breakdown of the Department's main programmes is given in the table for the years 1986–87 to date, at 1990–91 prices,(a) for Yorkshire and Humberside region and (b) for the metropolitan district of Leeds. The figures are also expressed as a percentage of the 1990–91 expenditure. Changes in programme definition and the introduction of new capital and revenue support systems mean that figures for individual years may not be directly comparable.

Notes:

1 1990–91 saw the introduction of a new capital control system and new financial regime.

2 This is the Housing element of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy.

3 PRIVATE SECTOR DLG no longer available in Leeds following the introduction of City Grant.