§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of local government expenditure was provided by(a) business, (b) domestic householders and (c) central Government in each of the years 1979 to 1995. [32105]
§ Sir Paul BeresfordThe requested information is available from 1981–82. Figures for the proportion provided by domestic householders are gross of rebate or benefit—as detailed in note 2—and the grants supporting these expenditures are excluded from column 3.
Percentage Business rates as a proportion of local government expenditure (1) Domestic rates/community charges/council tax as a proportion of local government expenditure (2) Central government grants as a proportion of local government expenditure (3) 1981–82 24.9 21.6 54.4 1982–83 25.9 22.9 51.2 1983–84 26.0 23.4 49.5 1984–85 26.4 24.4 49.5 1985–86 27.8 26.3 48.2 1986–87 28.4 27.7 44.9 1987–88 27.9 27.9 43.9 1988–89 28.2 28.7 42.3 1989–90 28.8 29.2 40.5 1990–91 29.1 34.2 36.1 1991–92 31.4 21.6 47.2 1992–93 29.3 22.7 49.9 1993–94 27.8 21.5 52.2 1994–95 24.5 21.2 54.3 1995–96 (provisional outturn) 24.9 21.4 51.1 1996–97 (budget estimates) 26.9 22.1 48.5 1. For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 this represents non-domestic rate yields net of rate relief. For the years 1990–91 to 1996–97 this represents the distributable amount from the non-domestic rates pool.
2. Gross of domestic rate rebates for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90. Gross of community charge benefit grant and transitional relief/community charge reduction scheme grant (1990–91 to 1992–93). Gross of council tax benefit grant and council tax transitional relief scheme grant (1993–94 to 1996–97).
3. For the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 Government grants comprise aggregate Exchequer grant. For 1990–91 to 1996–97 Government grants included are revenue support grant, specific and special grants in aggregate external finance, community charge grant (1991–92), teachers pay award additional grant (1992–93), standard spending assessment reduction grant (1994–95 to 1996–97), police grant (1995–96 to 1996–97).
4. The percentages do not add up to 100 per cent. The difference is funding or drawing from balances.
§ Mr. PickthallTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those district areas in Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Devon, Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Kent, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Shropshire where the Local Government Commission for England concluded that the costs of transition would be recovered by ongoing savings in annual running costs following structural change. [32808]
305W
§ Sir Paul BeresfordThe Local Government Commission's estimates are in respect of whole county areas, not individual districts, and are expressed in each case as a range. They suggest that ongoing savings may be achievable in Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Shropshire. In each case the estimates of costs or savings are marginal; whether savings are in fact achieved or costs incurred will depend on the decisions of the local authorities concerned.
§ Mr. TippingTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the estimates of the Local Government Commission for England for the transitional costs arising from the proposals for the reorganisation of local government in the counties of Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Devon, Essex, Hereford and Worcester, Kent, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and Shropshire. [33029]
§ Sir Paul BeresfordThe Local Government Commission's estimates of transitional costs of reorganisation are:
Transitional costs £ million Berkshire 9.0–13.0 Cambridgeshire 14.8–7.9 Cheshire 13.6–8.1 Devon 5.0–9.0 Essex 26.5–12.2 Hereford and Worcester 6.0–9.0 Kent 17.8–11.2 Lancashire 12.9–6.1 Nottinghamshire 1.0–7.0 Shropshire 12.0–2.6 1 Excludes costs of redundancy, early retirement and other staff compensation costs. 2 Consists of £2.5 to £4.2 million for Thurrock (excluding redundancy costs etc.) and £4.0 to £8.0 million for Southend.
§ Mr. BerryTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the maximum allocation for supplementary credit approvals to meet transitional costs, arising from the structural change of local
306W
Disaggregation of county council budgets 1996–97 initial notional amounts £ million Disaggregated County budget 1996–97 District's net budget 1996–97 Initial notional amount Notional budget including parishes Indicative SSA 1996–97 Bedfordshire Bedfordshire CC 238.2 238.2 238.2 226.6 Luton 121.3 24.0 145.2 145.2 145.1 Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire CC 286.6 286.6 286.6 280.8 Milton Keynes 126.5 22.5 149.0 150.0 145.6 Derbyshire Derbyshire CC 433.4 433.4 433.4 411.0 Derby City 149.4 26.0 175.4 175.4 169.6 Dorset Dorset CC 211.7 211.7 211.7 206.7 Bournemouth 90.7 19.4 110.1 110.1 116.0 Poole 76.8 11.6 88.4 88.4 88.0 government, which will be available to relevant local authorities in England in the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99. [32962]
§ Sir Paul BeresfordProvision for supplementary credit approvals to meet transitional costs of local government reorganisation for 1997–98 will be decided as part of the local government finance settlement later this year; that for 1998–99 will be decided in the settlement for 1998.
§ Mr. DunnTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will calculate notional amounts for local authorities which are subject to local government reorganisation on 1 April 1997. [33373]
§ Mr. CurryWe intend to calculate a notional amount for each local authority which is subject to local government reorganisation on 1 April 1997. These figures will serve as a baseline against which to make a fair comparison of an authority's proposed 1997–98 budget requirement for capping purposes.
We have made a first calculation of notional amounts for these authorities. These figures are shown in the following table along with our estimate of what each reorganised authority's 1996–97 standard spending assessment would have been on the basis of their revised boundaries and functions.
The aim of our notional amounts calculation is to disaggregate the 1996–97 budget requirements of reorganised county councils so as to reflect the actual pattern of spending between their continuing areas and the areas of the new unitary councils. We are consulting authorities on those figures and we hope that local information will enable us to improve the calculations so as better to reflect the actual pattern of spending. We will generally be willing to accept locally-agreed budget splits put to me by both the relinquishing county and the new unitaries in its area.
Authorities have until the end of August to comment. We shall consult further on our proposed notional amounts, incorporating any changes which we may make as a result of this initial consultation, as part of the local government finance settlement for 1997–98 later this year. Final notional amounts will be included in a report under section 55 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 which will be subject to approval by the House of Commons.
307W
Disaggregation of county council budgets 1996–97 initial notional amounts £ million Disaggregated County budget 1996–97 District's net budget 1996–97 Initial notional amount Notional budget including parishes Indicative SSA 1996–97 Durham Durham CC 322.0 322.0 322.0 316.8 Darlington 61.5 11.6 73.1 73.1 70.3 East Sussex East Sussex CC 296.2 296.2 296.2 283.2 Brighton and Hove 146.1 35.9 182.1 182.1 187.6 Hampshire Hampshire CC 678.2 678.2 678.2 664.2 Portsmouth 111.9 25.4 137.3 137.3 145.9 Southampton 130.7 26.9 157.6 157.6 161.5 Leicestershire Leicestershire CC 343.2 343.2 343.2 327.8 Leicester City 204.3 55.2 259.5 259.5 255.5 Rutland 20.7 2.9 23.6 23.8 21.0 Staffordshire Staffordshire CC 461.2 461.2 461.2 459.3 Stoke on Trent 152.1 28.6 180.7 180.7 177.3 Wiltshire Wiltshire CC 231.8 231.8 231.8 228.5 Thamesdown 98.4 17.5 115.8 116.5 115.3