Previous Section Index Home Page

9 Jan 2006 : Column 265W—continued

Land Disposal (Hackney)

Mr. Hands: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what applications have been made for disposal of land for less than best consideration by the London borough of Hackney since 2000. [38571]


 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 266W
 

Yvette Cooper: The information requested is tabled as follows.
Less than best price applications by the London borough of Hackney 2000–05

Year/numberSite
2000
1.2–28 Belfast Road, London N16
2.Stonebridge Lock, Tottenham Marshes, London E8
3.Essex Filter Beds, Lea Bridge Road, London E8
4.Lee Valley Sports Centre, Eastway, Leyton
5.Shoreditch Town Hall, Annexe and car park, Old Street. EC1
6.Northgate/Hearn Street, London EC2
2001
7.2–10 Hertford Road, Hackney, London Nl
8.Shoreditch Town Hall, Annexe and car park, Old Street, EC1
2002
9.Betty Laywood School, Clissold Road, London N16
10.Park Lodges, Hackney
2003
11.9 Amhurst Park, Hackney N16
12.Land at Church Walk, 4–6 Clissold Road, N16

Local Authority Expenditure

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate the Government has made of the gross expenditure of local authorities on (a) allowances and (b) pensions in 2004–05. [39482]

Mr. Woolas: The estimated gross expenditure of English local authorities on pensions in 2004–05 was £5,815 million.

This figure has been estimated from the 2004–05 Subjective Analysis Return (SAR), part of the Revenue Outturn (RO) suite of forms collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) from local authorities. The SAR is a sample survey and collects information from 121 authorities in England. The data have been grossed up to provide estimates for England as a whole and are presented on a Financial Reporting Standard 17 (FRS17) basis.

Expenditure on staff allowances is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Kemp: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the single status national pay and conditions agreement for each (a) local authority and (b) region by 2007. [31553]

Mr. Woolas: No such detailed estimates have been made. The Government are committed to ensuring that local authorities can continue to deliver effective services without imposing excessive increases in council tax. We have established a work programme with the Local Government Association to analyze pay pressures including the Single Status Agreement.

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will rank shire counties in England by the (a) percentage increase and (b) cash increase in formula grant awarded
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 267W
 
in the Local Government Finance Settlement for (i)2006–07 and (ii) 2007–08. [38855]
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 268W
 

Mr. Woolas: The information requested is in the following table.
PQ 2761: Change in formula grant for 2006–07 and 2007–08

Local authorityChange in 2006–07
Net change in 2006–07
Change
Percentage change
Change
Percentage change
Shire counties£ millionRank%Rank£ millionRank%Rank
Bedfordshire1.62029/342.722/341.18832/342.030/34
Buckinghamshire1.67128/343.58/340.96434/342.024/34
Cambridgeshire1.93024/342.130/341.95920/342.118/34
Cheshire2.39822/342.819/341.70523/342.027/34
Cornwall3.51613/343.016/343.26610/342.810/34
Cumbria3.38014/343.313/343.06011/343.06/34
Derbyshire4.3457/343.410/343.7286/343.07/34
Devon2.96317/342.524/342.58314/342.213/34
Dorset1.80626/346.41/341.55128/345.51/34
Durham3.51712/342.723/343.4428/342.612/34
East Sussex1.56431/342.034/341.60825/342.120/34
Essex5.5133/342.820/343.9665/342.028/34
Gloucestershire2.68519/343.015/341.93921/342.216/34
Hampshire4.01511/343.59/342.36118/342.025/34
Hertfordshire4.01510/342.821/342.89912/342.029/34
Kent5.4914/342.525/344.4433/342.031/34
Lancashire6.6981/343.114/346.0472/342.89/34
Leicestershire2.22923/342.917/341.55727/342.026/34
Lincolnshire5.1965/343.94/344.0534/343.05/34
Norfolk6.5082/344.03/346.1691/343.82/34
North Yorkshire2.70718/343.77/342.54315/343.53/34
Northamptonshire2.58720/342.128/342.46417/342.032/34
Northumberland1.76827/342.226/341.62324/342.022/34
Nottinghamshire4.1688/343.411/343.3469/342.711/34
Oxfordshire1.88525/342.129/341.83922/342.121/34
Shropshire1.14634/342.227/341.11433/342.117/34
Somerset3.10416/343.86/342.65013/343.24/34
Staffordshire3.28015/342.918/342.48916/342.215/34
Suffolk4.1479/343.412/343.5927/342.98/34
Surrey5.0226/345.12/342.02819/342.119/34
Warwickshire1.52832/342.131/341.46229/342.033/34
West Sussex1.58630/342.033/341.57326/342.034/34
Wiltshire1.21533/342.132/341.29431/342.214/34
Worcestershire2.57121/343.85/341.36730/342.023/34

Local authorityChange in 2007–08
Change
Percentage change
Shire counties£ millionRank%Rank
Bedfordshire1.63232/342.732/34
Buckinghamshire1.31934/342.734/34
Cambridgeshire2.52822/342.724/34
Cheshire2.34125/342.726/34
Cornwall6.0688/345.09/34
Cumbria5.66710/345.47/34
Derbyshire7.5674/345.84/34
Devon4.44114/343.713/34
Dorset2.79420/349.31/34
Durham6.5225/344.910/34
East Sussex2.15227/342.728/34
Essex5.44211/342.719/34
Gloucestershire3.23019/343.516/34
Hampshire3.24118/342.722/34
Hertfordshire3.97716/342.720/34
Kent6.0737/342.718/34
Lancashire10.3792/344.712/34
Leicestershire2.12228/342.729/34
Lincolnshire7.6413/345.56/34
Norfolk11.9291/347.12/34
North Yorkshire4.53813/346.03/34
Northamptonshire3.37217/342.721/34
Northumberland2.45423/343.017/34
Nottinghamshire6.0339/344.711/34
Oxfordshire2.44824/342.725/34
Shropshire1.87531/343.515/34
Somerset4.94512/345.85/34
Staffordshire4.30615/343.714/34
Suffolk6.4086/345.08/34
Surrey2.78621/342.723/34
Warwickshire2.00529/342.730/34
West Sussex2.16026/342.727/34
Wiltshire1.61933/342.733/34
Worcestershire1.87730/342.731/34




Note:
Counties have been ranked in decreasing order, i.e. those with the lowest rank are the authorities with the highest increase.



Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 14 December 2005, Official Report, column 1962W, on local government finance, if he will break down by main budget heading (a) the £45 million of costs that will be of potential use in the future and (b) the £15 million of costs that cannot be recouped or redeployed. [39552]

Mr. Woolas: The £45 million will be of use in supporting the 1993 valuation lists and also for other
 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 269W
 
valuation work on domestic property which the VOA undertakes within its statutory remit. This sum includes:

The balance of £15 million relates to such matters as recruitment and training of staff, programme management and work on the design and specification of new systems and work processes.

Peter Luff: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average percentage change was in formula grant for each shire county (a) with and (b) without responsibility for the fire and rescue service in each of the 10 years to 2007–08. [40268]

Mr. Woolas: The following table shows the average percentage increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis over the period 1997–98 to 2007–08 for shire counties with fire responsibilities in 2006–07 and for shire counties without fire responsibilities in 2006–07. Please note that for the period 1997–98 to 2003–04, the combined shire fire authorities were levying bodies. For this period therefore the formula grant for authorities without fire responsibilities in 2006–07 included an amount for fire.

Shire counties with fire responsibilities
Shire counties without fire responsibilities
1998–990.51.1
1999–20005.05.0
2000–014.64.6
2001–024.94.6
2002–036.46.0
2003–045.85.6
2004–056.76.4
2005–065.95.9
2006–073.12.9
2007–084.23.7

Peter Luff: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average percentage change was in formula grant for (a) each West Midland metropolitan district council and (b) the city councils of (i) Birmingham, (ii) Coventry and (iii) Wolverhampton in each of the 10 years to 2007–08. [40269]

Mr. Woolas: The following table shows the average percentage increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis over the period 1997–98 to 2007–08 for all West Midland metropolitan district councils and the cities of Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton.
Percentage

West Midlands district councilsBirminghamCoventryWolverhampton
1998–994.14.34.54.8
1999–20004.73.64.65.4
2000–013.33.52.93.3
2001–023.73.53.24.1
2002–035.15.34.45.1
2003–048.18.18.48.2
2004–057.07.36.66.7
2005–066.66.76.36.3
2006–072.62.82.62.1
2007–084.24.73.82.7

 
9 Jan 2006 : Column 270W
 

Peter Luff: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account he took of the annual percentage change in the Retail Price Index over the 10 years to 2007–08 when setting formula grant levels. [40270]

Mr. Woolas: In 1998–99, Central Support Protection Grant was introduced for the first time. This grant protected authorities from cash decreases in their formula grant for the first time. In 2001–02, Floor Damping was introduced for authorities with education and social service responsibility. The following year, i.e.2002–03, this was introduced for all authorities.

Under the floor damping regime, the floor is self-financing within each of the authority groups covered by the scheme. This means that it is not possible to set the floor above the level of the average grant increase for that group on a like-for-like basis. When setting the level of the floor Ministers take into account a number of factors including the level of inflation expected for the period covered by the grant, the average grant increase for the group, and the scaling factor imposed on authorities above the floor. The measure of inflation used in deciding at what level the floor should be set is the GDP deflator, as this measure is forecast by Treasury, and hence is available for the period covered by the grant.


Next Section Index Home Page