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.
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 |
(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. | |||
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.
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. | |||
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 |
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".
The available information is as follows:
| 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. | |