| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Oct 2004 : Column 783W—continued
London Assembly
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much central Government money was given to the Greater London Assembly in this financial year. [191550]
Mr. Raynsford: The Government this year are giving the following block funding to the Greater London Authority and its four functional bodies (Transport for London, Metropolitan Police Authority, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and London Development Agency):
| Grant | £ million |
|---|---|
| GLA general grant | 36.3 |
| GLA transport grant (for TfL) | 2,224.5 |
| Police grant (for MPA) | 1,123.1 |
| Revenue support grant (for MPA and LFEPA) | 796.5 |
| Non-domestic rates (for MPA and LFEPA) | 171.3 |
| LDA grant | 316.1 |
| Total | 4,667.8 |
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much central Government money will be given to the Greater London Assembly in each of the next five years. [191554]
Mr. Raynsford: The Department for Transport announced in July the following settlement for the Greater London Authority Transport Grant (for TfL) over the next five years:
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 2005–06 | 2,161 |
| 2006–07 | 2,383 |
| 2007–08 | 2,544 |
| 2008–09 | 2,528 |
| 2009–10 | 2,651 |
Government funding to the GLA and its other functional bodies for 2005–06 and beyond has not yet been announced.
Park Homes
Bob Spink: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what basis he proposes using general inflation to determine the annual increase in the maximum pitch fee for park homes. [192350]
Keith Hill: The standard written agreement, as used and endorsed by the main industry bodies, uses general inflation in calculating the pitch fee increase. This agreement is used by the majority of park home site owners in the country and after consideration it was felt unnecessary to change from this measure of inflation.
Regional Government
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times he has visited each of the regional assemblies over the last three years. [191262]
20 Oct 2004 : Column 784W
Mr. Raynsford: The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister meets regularly with Regional Chamber Chairs, members, and officers during his regional visits.
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement regarding the financing of regional assemblies, with specific reference to capital building programmes; [191263]
(2) what proportion of tax collected in 2002–03 was spent on regional assemblies. [191249]
Mr. Raynsford: The existing voluntary Regional Chambers (who style themselves Regional Assemblies) each receive an annual grant from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Grant conditions in the funding agreement letters determine permitted expenditure. These do not include capital building programmes.
In 2002–03 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister made grants totalling £5 million to the Regional Chambers.
Rescue Control Centres
Diana Organ: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what weight he will give to local knowledge of location and geography in delivering good response times in rescue services when deciding whether rescue control centres in the South West are merged into one regional centre. [192187]
Mr. Raynsford: The location of a fire and rescue control centre does not impact on response times. Service standards for the new regional control centres will at a minimum be equal to present best practice. Local knowledge has not been relied upon in fire service control rooms since the introduction of computerised gazetteers in the 1980s. The new centres will employ state-of-the-art technology which, along with comprehensive training, will provide effective support to control room staff for resource and incident management.
Diana Organ: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will ensure that each of the fire authorities of the South West will continue to set and maintain standards and service if the rescue control centres are merged into one regional control centre. [192188]
Mr. Raynsford: Each regional control centre will be accountable to its constituent authorities. There will be a consistent national standard established for the time taken to answer calls and mobilise to incidents. Proposals for a national standard for mobilisation, developed by the Chief Fire Officers Association, are currently being reviewed by fire and rescue authorities. As part of the Integrated Risk Management Plan, each Fire and Rescue Authority will set its own response standards based on risk to the local communities.
Revenue Support Grant
Mr. Salter: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the amount of revenue support grant awarded to (a) district councils, (b) metropolitan councils, (c) unitary authorities and (d) county councils in each year since 2001. [192299]
20 Oct 2004 : Column 785W
Mr. Raynsford: The following table provides the amount of revenue support grant (RSG) and redistributed business rates (NNDR) for each year since 2001–02, that has been allocated to:
(a) district councils in 2-tier shire areas;
(b) metropolitan district councils;
(c) shire unitary authorities; and
(d) county councils in 2-tier shire areas.
The sum of RSG plus NNDR is known as formula grant. In order to look at comparisons of the amount of grant provided year-on-year it is important to consider formula grant rather than RSG. The amount of RSG allocated each year depends on the amount of NNDR.
It is not possible to directly compare the data year-on-year due to changes in funding and function. Therefore also provided in the table is the adjusted formula grant to enable a like-for-like comparison year-on-year. The increases year-on-year have also been provided for convenience.
| Revenue support grant (£ million) | Redistributed business rates (£ million) | Formula grant (£ million) | Year-on-year change (£ million) | Year-on year percentage change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shire districts | |||||
| 2001–02 | 633.063 | 864.867 | 1,497.930 | — | — |
| 2001–02 adjusted | 578.971 | 894.303 | 1,473.274 | — | — |
| 2002–03 | 569.044 | 973.748 | 1,542.792 | 69.518 | 4.7 |
| 2002–03 adjusted | 529.857 | 973.748 | 1,503.606 | — | — |
| 2003–04 | 814.738 | 802.100 | 1,616.837 | 113.232 | 7.5 |
| 2003–04 adjusted | 629.519 | 802.100 | 1,431.618 | — | — |
| 2004–05 | 859.097 | 629.352 | 1,488.449 | 56.830 | 4.0 |
| Metropolitan districts | |||||
| 2001–02 | 5,344.186 | 3,026.190 | 8,370.376 | — | — |
| 2001–02 adjusted | 5,055.078 | 3,019.415 | 8,074.493 | — | — |
| 2002–03 | 5,152.774 | 3,307.286 | 8,460.061 | 385.568 | 4.8 |
| 2002–03 adjusted | 5,391.988 | 3,307.286 | 8,699.274 | — | — |
| 2003–04 | 6,166.724 | 3,168.304 | 9,335.028 | 635.753 | 7.3 |
| 2003–04 adjusted | 6,156.201 | 3,168.304 | 9,324.505 | — | — |
| 2004–05 | 6,811.468 | 3,039.384 | 9,850.852 | 526.347 | 5.6 |
| Shire unitary authorities | |||||
| 2001–02 | 3,207.264 | 2,333.455 | 5,540.719 | — | — |
| 2001–02 adjusted | 3,007.441 | 2,331.183 | 5,338.624 | — | — |
| 2002–03 | 3,053.562 | 2,559.144 | 5,612.706 | 274.082 | 5.1 |
| 2002–03 adjusted | 3,246.126 | 2,559.144 | 5,805.270 | — | — |
| 2003–04 | 3,699.087 | 2,478.129 | 6,177.216 | 371.947 | 6.4 |
| 2003–04 adjusted | 3,588.316 | 2,396.441 | 5,984.758 | — | — |
| 2004–05 | 4,034.018 | 2,297.257 | 6,331.275 | 346.517 | 5.8 |
| Shire counties | |||||
| 2001–02 | 5,908.980 | 5,614.625 | 11,523.605 | — | — |
| 2001–02 adjusted | 5,266.636 | 5,578.881 | 10,845.517 | — | — |
| 2002–03 | 5,358.952 | 6,152.949 | 11,511.901 | 666.384 | 6.1 |
| 2002–03 adjusted | 5,951.906 | 6,152.949 | 12,104.854 | — | — |
| 2003–04 | 6,631.993 | 6,161.584 | 12,793.577 | 688.723 | 5.7 |
| 2003–04 adjusted | 6,557.891 | 6,020.256 | 12,578.147 | — | — |
| 2004–05 | 7,488.462 | 5,913.293 | 13,401.755 | 823.608 | 6.5 |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |