---

22 Mar 2004 : Column 637W—continued

Growth Area Funding

Harry Cohen: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will identify the two sites referred to in the London Leyton area masterplan for which £150,000 growth area funding has been provided. [162727]

Keith Hill: Growth area funding of £150,000 has been awarded to the London Borough of Waltham Forest for the production of a masterplan for the Leyton area. The plan will provide a detailed development framework focusing on the development potential of two sites in close proximity to existing and potential transportation nodes. The two sites referred to are:

(1) the Lea Bridge Station Area; and

(2) Leyton Station and High Street South.

Housing

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 5 March 2004, Official Report,

22 Mar 2004 : Column 638W

column 1185W, on houses in multiple occupation, what plans he has to introduce a cap on the total licence fee payable per house in multiple occupation. [162238]

Keith Hill: The Government have no plans to cap the overall fee payable in respect of the whole house in multiple occupation. The cap will apply only to the individual units within the Houses in Multiple Occupation.

Local Government Finance

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

22 Mar 2004 : Column 639W

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:

(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.

(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

22 Mar 2004 : Column 640W

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.

New Deal for Communities

Mr. Edward Davey: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the administration budget was for each New Deal for Communities partnership for each financial year since 1999–2000; and what the estimated administration budget for each such partnership is for financial years (i) 2004–2005 and (ii) 2005–06. [160342]

Yvette Cooper: The New Deal for Communities (NDC) Programme has 39 NDC Partnerships and £2 billion has been committed to them over the 10 years of the NDC Programme. The 17 Round 1 Partnerships entered their delivery phase in 2000–01 and the 22 Round 2 Partnerships entered their delivery phase in 2001–02. The following table provides figures for the administration budget for each partnership for the financial years 1999–2000 and the estimate for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

The NDC Partnerships went through two phases before they entered their delivery phase. Phase 1 involved building up a partnership, phase 2 involved developing a delivery plan for the 10 years of the programme and, where possible, developing "quick win" projects. During Phase 1 and Phase 2 Management and Administration costs is expected to be high as the partnerships were in the initial stages of setting up and building a partnerships.

Overall, partnerships may only spend up to 10 per cent. of their 10-year budget total on M and A during the-year life of their programme. Profiles vary, and some partnerships have spent more that 10 per cent. per annum on M and A so far. However, we fully expect this to be reconciled by the time each partnership reaches its final year.

NDC Management and Administration Budget

Partnership	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04	2004–05(60)	2005–06 (60)
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	450,000	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
Sheffield	0	0	680,000	680,000	506,587	506,587	506,587
Bradford	0	314,000	460,600	514,700	502,200	500,000	500,000
Hull	0	731,000	791,360	577,190	500,000	500,000	450,000
Knowsley	0	0	306,969	524,627	504,820	780,611	1,168,580
Kensington(60)	0	479,619	574,097	619,000	650,000	670,306	800,000
Manchester	204,153	605,878	622,366	642,568	650,000	600,000	500,000
Oldham	0	0	151,324	254,196	360,700	405,000	409,000
Salford	0	0	204,571	289,997	740,000	740,000	740,000
Rochdale	0	0	282,000	1,357,000	2,114,000	3,044,000	2,858,000
Hartlepool	0	339,965	258,000	461,355	690,000	690,040	691,880
Newcastle	350,000	200,000	388,000	650,000	670,000	600,000	575,000
Middlesbrough	350,000	251,400	420,830	300,000	477,000	588,000	543,000
Sunderland	0	300,000	305,000	397,000	839,000	400,000	500,000
Total	4,247,289	11,334,782	16,218,614	20,429,929	23,238,929	23,750,389	22,970,758

⁽⁶⁰⁾ Please note that figures given for 2004–05 and 2005–06 are estimates and some are not yet agreed

22 Mar 2004 : Column 641W

---