HC Deb 22 March 2004 vol 419 cc638-40W
Mr. Pickles

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the levels of net debt were for each local authority in England in the most recent year for which figures are available. [161499]

Mr. Raynsford

Levels of net debt for each local authority in England at 31 March 2003 (latest available data) are available on the Local Government Finance section of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website at: http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/ stats/debt3.xls.

It should be noted that authorities with high levels of debt are generally those that have undertaken capital investment and that long-term borrowing to finance capital expenditure is currently regulated through the issue of credit approvals and, from 1 April 2004, will be subject to the Prudential System.

Mr. Pickles

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether a capped local authority will receive additional financial support from central Government to compensate for the costs of re-billing. [162675]

Mr. Raynsford

No. Any authority that was capped "in year" would have to fund the re-billing costs from its own budget.

Mr. Pickles

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the average(a) district, (b) county, (c) London, (d) metropolitan and (e) unitary authority in England of re-issuing council tax bills following capping. [162676]

Mr. Raynsford

The cost involved for an individual local authority would depend on the size of the authority and other local circumstances.

Mr. Rosindell

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how much money the Treasury plans to set aside in 2005 for local government grants; [162450]

(2) how much money the Treasury set aside for local government grants in (a) 1997, (b) 1999, (c) 2001 and (d) 2003. [162451]

Mr. Raynsford

The total of Government grant for local authorities' revenue spending, covering in the main Revenue Support Grant, National Non-Domestic Rates and specific grants in each of these years is as follows:

£billion
1997–98 35.767
1999–2000 39.545
2001–02 44.661
2003–04 51.551
2004–05 54.860

Miss McIntosh

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the range of new responsibilities to be undertaken by local authorities in the next financial year. [162302]

Mr. Raynsford

New responsibilities that could constitute new burdens for local authorities are identified with the Local Government Association in the relevant Spending Review. Relevant new burdens were taken into account in the Local Government Finance Settlement for 2004–05.

Mr. Andrew Turner

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2004,Official Report, column 1710W, what the value was (a) of the grant paid to the Isle of Wight for 2004–05 and (b) which would have been calculated for the grant in 2004–05 using the area cost adjustment methodology proposed, but subsequently suspended for 2003–04. [162506]

Mr. Raynsford

The information requested is as follows:

  1. (a) This is a good settlement for the Isle of Wight who will receive £101.6 million in formulae grant in 2004–5. On a like for like basis, formulae grant for the Isle of Wight has increased by 7 per cent. since 2003–4.
  2. (b) At the 2003–4 provisional settlement, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister calculated the area cost adjustment (ACA) for the Isle of Wight separately from that of Hampshire. As a result the Isle of Wight had an ACA factor of one.

Had the ACA been calculated in this way for the 2004–5 settlement it is likely that the Isle of Wight would again have an ACA factor of one compared to, for example 1.0433 for education, and that the authority would have received less revenue support grant in 2004–5.

However, quantifying exactly the effect on grant in 2004–5 of calculating the ACA separately for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in 2003–4 and 2004–5

NDC Management and Administration Budget
Partnership 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–051 2005–061
Newham 332,786 490,000 515,000 480,000 700,000 600,000 650,000
Shoreditch 400,000 340,000 340,000 340,000 590,000 540,000 540,000
Aylesbury 400,000 168,750 304,800 383,212 688,370 679,800 497,100
Ocean 400,000 599,000 680,000 680,000 670,000 620,000 620,000
South Kilburn 0 240,000 335,000 496,000 496,000 696,000 696,000
North Fulham 0 299,500 380,000 520,000 500,000 528,472 520,000
EC1 Islington 0 400,000 450,000 670,000 500,000 500,000 518,000
Clapham Park 0 400,000 450,000 584,000 563,800 563,154 639,000
New Cross 0 427,670 227,670 482,119 710,732 500,000 501,497
Seven Sisters 0 208,000 612,000 635,000 553,000 550,000 550,000
Brighton 362,350 628,680 775,564 660,178 437,451 543,991 572,532
Southampton 10,000 387,000 362,000 385,850 450,000 600,000 480,000
Plymouth 10,000 40,000 225,610 461,957 424,000 380,000 Not yet agreed
Bristol 320,000 450,000 500,000 518,000 533,000 590,000 540,000
Luton 0 0 375,000 600,000 500,900 Not yet agreed Not yet agreed
Norwich 0 395,900 425,900 425,900 450,000 475,000 450,000
Leicester 198,000 542,000 985,000 800,000 692,000 620,000 600,000
Nottingham 200,000 299,000 360,000 482,000 520,000 500,000 500,000
Derby 10,000 15,000 299,000 428,000 500,000 425,000 425,000
Sandwell 400,000 546,968 599,437 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
Walsall 0 223,000 250,000 465,000 450,00 455,000 260,000
Coventry 0 260,000 385,002 519,021 555,000 555,000 550,000
Wolverhampton 0 255,000 173,844 435,526 577,076 594,000 612,000
Kings Norton 300,000 262,452 301,692 237,189 526,941 735,428 507,582
Aston 0 235,000 116,500 520,000 520,000 535,000 550,000
Doncaster 0 0 344,478 453,344 426,352 440,000 450,000

can only be done at disproportionate cost. This is because it would require the re-calculation of the 2003–4 and 2004–5 ACA and the 2003–4 and 2004–5 settlements including the floor and ceiling calculations. This is a lengthy process.

Back to