Üjf199ÝWritten evidenceÌÜjf165ÝÌÜxpCommunities and Local Government CommitteeËÜapÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝMemorandum by Communities and Local Government (DAR (07^08)01)ÌÜjf31ÝIntroductionÌÜjf4Ý1.This memorandum sets out the Department's response to questions raised by the Committee by correspondence of 15 July, 7 August and 11 September (which corrected and expanded on earlier questions on the European Regional Development Fund).ËÜjf165ÝÜjf31ÝPerformance and DeliveryÌÜjf30ÝWhat were the reasons for the reorganisation of the Department? Did the Department undertake any internal consultation or receive any external advice before undertaking the reorganisation?ÌÜjf4Ý2.The Communities Board keeps the organisation of the Department under review to ensure that the Departmental structure remains appropriate to delivery of key Ministerial priorities. On this basis:ËÜjf10Ý_	a review of portfolios was carried out in summer 2007 informed by discussions across the Department's Senior Civil Service and supported by an external consultant; and ËÜjf10Ý_	subsequently, further changes were made to enable a closer departmental focus on Thames Gateway delivery.ËÜjf4Ý3.The structure set out in the Annual Report reflects the combined outcome of these changes.ËÜjf4Ý4.In addition, we announced on 8 September the creation of a new Communities Group. This brings together the existing Cohesion and Resilience Group with responsibilities for community empowerment (which move from the Local Government and Regeneration Group) to provide a closer focus on delivery of PSA 21_leading across Whitehall on building more cohesive, empowered and active communities.ËÜjf30ÝIn 2007, 27% of staff are described as being in the Governance and Communications group. In 2008, there is no equivalent. What group are these staff now part of, and how has their role changed with the new structure?ÌË[and]ËÜjf30ÝThe restructuring in the department has resulted in changes to the descriptions of the roles of a number of the Directors General. How has the role of the Director General of Cohesion and Resilience changed from that of the Director General of Equalities? What additional responsibilities has the Director General taken on to replace those responsibilities which have passed to the Government Equalities Office? Which Director General is now responsible for Governance and Communication?ÌÜjf4Ý5.As previously, governance and communications staff remain within Chris Wormald's group, although this was renamed as Local Government and Regeneration group as part of the summer 2007 portfolio review. Their roles have not changed.ËÜjf4Ý6.Prior to the restructure undertaken on 8 September, the Director General for Cohesion and Resilience was responsible for:ËÜjf10Ý_	community cohesion, tackling prejudice and extremism, and delivering race equality (each of which were also responsibilities for the Director General for Equalities);ËÜjf10Ý_	the Fire and Rescue Service, national and regional resilience and the Department's role in post-incident recovery (each of which transferred from the previous Governance and Communications Group as part of the portfolio changes made in summer 2007, as described above);ËÜjf10Ý_	European policies and programmes (which transferred from the Regions and Communities Group, as referred to above); andËÜjf10Ý_	the Department's cross-cutting interests in migration.ËÜjf30ÝAs part of the reorganisation you have established a Delivery Sub-Committee, Programme Boards and a Delivery Unit. What has been the impact of these new bodies and what impacts are you hoping they will have?ÌÜjf4Ý7.The new delivery bodies identified were established to provide a stronger departmental focus on delivery. They each play an important role in driving progress and managing risk:ËÜjf10Ý_	Programme Boards take responsibility for delivering key outcomes and monitoring progress and performance;ËÜjf10Ý_	the Delivery Sub-Committee is responsible for scrutinising the delivery of our key, high risk programmes, intervening where necessary to provide additional support and resolve problems which may threaten progress; andËÜjf10Ý_	the Delivery Unit supports delivery of the Department's key priorities and assists the Delivery Sub-Committee in its assurance and scrutiny role. It also provides a central point in the Department to ensure that consistent progress is made towards delivering the Department's key priorities and works closely alongside Programme Boards and programme teams to identify and manage risks, providing a flexible resource to tackle problems and challenge progress.ËÜjf4Ý8.Together, these bodies: ËÜjf10Ý_	ensure consistency and robustness of the Department's performance and risk management process;ËÜjf10Ý_	make use of wider independent assurance and peer review on our key programmes and projects;ËÜjf10Ý_	establish robust arrangements for leading and contributing to the new cross-government PSA set and to our departmental strategic objectives; and ËÜjf10Ý_	increase the focus on evidence and analysis and up-skilling staff on programme and project management (PPM). ËÜjf4Ý9.This activity should continue to build our capacity to improve and deliver, and further embed our departmental values. We would expect to see their impact reflected in future assessments of performance and governance.ËÜjf30ÝThe Department issued 48 public consultations during the period. What were their subjects, how many responses were received, and in how many and in which cases were proposals modified as a result of the consultation? How does this compare with the amount of public consultation undertaken by other Departments, and what are the reasons for any significant differences in volume?ÌÜjf4Ý10.Details of the Department's consultations are provided on its website. The Department aims to publish responses to public consultations within two months of the consultation ending, and these will normally include information on the number of replies received and a summary of how these responses have helped to shape the Department's policy. For ease of reference, a table setting out the links to each consultation response alongside the number of replies received is attached at Annex A. In summary, the Department received around 72,000 responses to its 48 consultations in the 2007 calendar year.ËÜjf4Ý11.We do not keep a record of consultations undertaken by other departments and do not, therefore, have a comparator against which to judge this performance.ËÜjf30ÝPerformance against the PSA targets is currently mixed, with only two On course", five reporting Slippage" and two already Not met". How does the Department assess its overall performance to date? What discussions have been held with HM Treasury regarding the Department's performance against its PSA targets and what has been the outcome of those discussions?ÌÜjf4Ý12.Our reported performance against the headline SR04 PSA targets reflects the approach set out in the technical notes, the Committee's recommendations in past reports and the NAO's performance brief supporting last year's inquiry on the 2007 report. ËÜjf4Ý13.Progress has been made across the Department's priority areas. Whilst only two PSAs are rated overall as on course", 65% of the Department's sub-targets and indicators are either ahead", met" or on course". ËÜjf4Ý14.For example, overall progress against the PSA 1 Neighbourhood Renewal target is assessed as slippage despite five out of six sub-targets being either ahead or on course. Similarly, the Planning PSA requires eight sub targets to be met for success. As such, the overall `not met' status masks success against 50% of the sub targets so far.ËÜjf4Ý15.This shows there are complexities in assessing progress for each PSA overall. The Department does not make an overall assessment of progress across all of the PSAs, but regularly updates HM Treasury on performance and jointly agrees the ongoing programme of work undertaken to support progress towards the targets.ËÜjf30ÝIn the 2007 report, the assessment of each PSA included a specific assessment of data systems as Good, Average or Poor, which has been replaced in the 2008 report by an overall assessment of progress against the PSA. What are the current assessments of data quality for each PSA and on what basis are they assessed?ÌÜjf4Ý16.The quality of data systems is formally assessed (ie as good, average or poor) once in each Comprehensive Spending Review cycle. However, the Department continually monitors the quality of its data systems, and commentary was provided after each PSA assessment in the Department's Annual Report on the quality of the data underpinning our assessments.ËÜjf30ÝThe Annual Report notes that performance indicators for DSOs will be kept under review to ensure that they continue to provide the Department and our partners with the right information to assess progress". (DAR p 179) Does this mean that they can be altered, added to, subtracted from or otherwise amended during the period to 2010? If so, what will be the process under which changes are made?ÌÜjf4Ý17.It is important that the DSO framework is fit for purpose and has the flexibility to reflect changing circumstances if necessary. ËÜjf4Ý18.In particular, we have already made clear our intention to further shape DSO 5 by developing indicators which cover users' perceptions of the planning process and the quality of design. In addition, we expect updates in due course to the relevant indicators in DSO 1 and 6 following the introduction of the Comprehensive Area Assessment in 2009.ËÜjf4Ý19.However, as a rule, and as made clear in HM Treasury's guidance on the publication of the 2008 Autumn Performance Reports, amendments will be made in exceptional circumstances and require agreement from HM Treasury.ËÜjf30ÝYou have given information on the relationship between the Strategic Priorities (SPs) and SR04 PSAs as well as between the SR04 PSAs and the DSOs. What is the direct relationship between the current SPs and the DSOs? How do the new CSR07 PSAs relate to the DSOs and their objectives?ÌÜjf4Ý20.The Department's current Strategic Priorities are now termed Departmental Strategic Objectives. There is not a direct relationship between the SR04 Strategic Priorities and DSOs. The DSOs represent a fresh perspective for CSR07 and reflect changes in the Department's focus following machinery of government changes since SR04. However, as you would expect, there remain strong connections between the SR04 Strategic Priorities and DSOs. Broadly speaking: ËÜjf48ÝÜcf2ÝStrategic Priorities 1 (tackling disadvantage) and 2 (development of the English regions)Ücf1Ý are reflected in DSO 3 (supporting local government that empowers individuals and communities and delivers high quality services efficiently);ËÜjf48ÝÜcf2ÝStrategic Priority 3 (delivering better services)Ücf1Ý is reflected in DSOs 1 (supporting local government that empowers individuals and communities and delivers high quality services efficiently) and 6 (ensuring safer communities by providing the framework for the Fire and Rescue Service and other agencies to prevent and respond to emergencies);ËÜjf48ÝÜcf2ÝStrategic Priority 4 (housing supply and demand)Ücf1Ý is covered by DSOs 2 (improving the supply, environmental performance and quality of housing that is more responsive to the needs of individuals, communities and the economy) and 5 (providing a more efficient, effective and transparent planning system that supports and facilitates sustainable development, including the Government's objectives in relation to housing growth, infrastructure delivery, economic development and climate change);ËÜjf48ÝÜcf2ÝStrategic Priority 5 (decent places to live)Ücf1Ý is covered by DSO 2; andËÜjf48ÝÜcf2ÝStrategic Priority 6 (reducing inequalities and building community cohesion)Ücf1Ý is covered by DSO 4 (creating communities that are cohesive, active and resilient to extremism).ËÜjf4Ý21.The new CSR07 PSAs represent the government's top priorities for the spending period and focus in particular on areas where cross departmental working will have the most benefit. PSA indicators are also DSO indicators in their own right, creating a clear line of sight between cross-governmental priorities and the business of individual departments. The Department leads on PSA 20 (increasing long term housing supply and affordability) and PSA 21 (building more cohesive, empowered and active communities).ËÜjf4Ý22.PSA 20 will be achieved by successful delivery of DSOs 2 and 5_specifically the following indicators:ËÜjf10Ý_	2.1_Number of net additional homes provided;ËÜjf10Ý_	2.2_Trends in affordability: the ratio of lower quartile house prices to lower quartile earnings (housing affordability); ËÜjf10Ý_	2.3_Number of affordable homes delivered (gross); ËÜjf10Ý_	2.4_Number of households living in temporary accommodation; ËÜjf10Ý_	2.5_Average energy rating for new homes (SAP_Standard Assessment Procedure for the energy rating of dwellings); and ËÜjf10Ý_	5.2_Local Planning Authorities to have adopted the necessary Development Plan Documents, in accordance with milestones set out in their Local Development Schemes, to bring forward sufficient developable land for housing in line with PPS3.ËÜjf4Ý23.PSA 21 will be achieved by successful delivery of DSOs 1 and 4_specifically the following indicators:ËÜjf10Ý_	1.2_Percentage of people who feel that they can influence decisions in their locality; ËÜjf10Ý_	4.1_Percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area; ËÜjf10Ý_	4.2_Percentage of people who have meaningful interactions with people from different backgrounds; and ËÜjf10Ý_	4.3_Percentage of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood (together with indicators from the Cabinet Office and DCMS DSO indicator sets, as set out in the PSA Delivery Agreement).Ümr1ÝËÜjf30ÝWhere elements of one SP have been incorporated in two DSOs or elements of two SPs have been combined into one DSO, what was the rationale for these elements being separated or joined respectively? And why have the priority areas for the Department altered? For example why was it felt that the Fire and Rescue Service should become a DSO distinct from supporting local government? Why does Tackling deprivation (SP1) and Regional economic performance (SP2) merit only a single DSO (DSO 3)?ÌÜjf4Ý24.The DSOs are designed to better reflect Government and Ministerial priorities for the Department as we enter the CSR07 period.ËÜjf4Ý25.The amalgamation of Strategic Priorities 1 and 2 into DSO 3 reflects the transfer of responsibility for regional economic productivity (ie Strategic Priority 2) to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.ËÜjf4Ý26.Strategic Priorities 4 and 5 are covered by two DSOs, which are designed to provide clarity across the Department's ambitions for both housing and planning. ËÜjf4Ý27.The inclusion of a specific DSO on fire (DSO 6), confirms the importance we place on our work in this area. Significant infrastructure improvement projects (New Dimension, Firelink and FiReControl) are underway in this area and the work underpins the Government's wider strategy for preventing and being prepared for emergencies.ËÜjf30ÝWhich of the ongoing targets and indicators currently included in the CLG's set of nine PSAs is not included as an indicator in CLG's lead PSAs for 2008^11 or in the Department's DSOs and so will continue to be reported on separately in the 2008 APR?ÌÜjf4Ý28.We will set out which SR04 PSA targets on which we will continue to report in the Autumn Performance Report.ËÜjf30ÝDoes the Department intend to produce a technical note, or its equivalent, for its new PSAs and DSOs (including their indicators) to outline what the targets are, how the indicators will be measured, over what timescale they will be measured and what constitutes achievement, at both a high level (DSOs and PSAs) and a the individual indicator level?ÌÜjf4Ý29.The Department has made measurement details for its DSOs available on its website.Ümr2Ý This includes an explanation as to what constitutes achievement" for each indicator. Assessment at a high level (DSOs and PSAs) will be made according to the guidelines set by HM treasury in its updated guidance for Autumn Performance Reports and Departmental Annual Reports during the CSR period.ËÜjf30ÝWhat mechanisms does CLG have in place to ensure that it has the capability to effectively interact with and influence the other government departments which are part of the PSAs it is involved with?ÌÜjf4Ý30.The Department leads on PSA 20 and PSA 21. As with all PSAs, the Department manages, influences and holds other departments to account for delivery through two cross-departmental PSA Delivery Boards focusing on each PSA.ËÜjf4Ý31.The Department also sits on a number of other PSA Delivery Boards which oversee PSAs with a Communities contribution or interest. In addition, stocktake meetings can be arranged if the lead department deems it necessary, bringing together senior officials to review contributions across Government to the PSA set_managing the input the Department has and ensuring we are maximising the opportunities these links provide.ËÜjf4Ý32.We also have a strong role in ensuring that Local Area Agreements support delivery of PSAs across government by acting as an effective tool to manage performance at a local level. An ad hoc, cross-government Director General group has been established to support this work.ËÜjf31ÝHousing and PlanningÌÜjf30ÝThe first performance indicator which is part of PSA 5 relates to Low Demand. In the 2007 DAR, its assessment was Slippage". In the 2008 DAR, the assessment was On course". It consists of two parts, neither of which appear to be in a substantially different position in 2008 to 2007. Why has the assessment of the Low Demand indicator changed when progress against its constituent parts appears not to have changed?ÌÜjf4Ý33.As indicated in the assessment section for PSA 5 in the Annual Report, although no overall measure of success for this PSA was set out in the SR04 Technical Note, we will consider the headline target to be met if all three elements_low demand, high demand and homelessness_are met. ËÜjf4Ý34.The low demand element comprises two specific indicators: one measures reductions in the long-term rate of vacant dwellings in three regions; the other measures reduction in the number of local authorities with 15th percentile house prices less than 70% of the national level. The assessment of progress for this element therefore takes account of performance against both of those indicators. ËÜjf4Ý35.For the first low demand indicator (long-term vacancy rates), in two of the three regions covered (Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East), performance is broadly on trajectory, with this trend having been in place for some time. In the North West, vacancy rates initially rose above trajectory but this trend has reversed since 2004. At the time of the 2007 Annual Report, there were two years of available data showing this reversal in the trend. We now have another year of data that confirms this trend in the North West. This suggests that performance is now on course to meet the long-term, 2016 target in all three regions. ËÜjf4Ý36.Performance against the second low demand indicator (15th percentile prices) significantly exceeds the target and this trend has continued for some time. The downward trend has continued for latest available data at Q4 2007, used in the 2008 Annual Report, showing that the number of local authorities falling within the threshold has reduced to 20, from 22 at the time of the 2007 Annual Report.ËÜjf4Ý37.Therefore, performance can now be seen to be broadly on course for the first indicator and significantly exceeding target for the second indicator, resulting in our assessment of the target as on course".ËÜjf30ÝThe green belt indicator in PSA 6 has changed from On course" in the 2007 Annual Report to Slippage" in the APR and Not met" in the 2008 Annual Report. Has this indicator been continued into the DSOs? How is the Department going to address the decreasing green belt in some regions over the CSR 07 period?ÌÜjf4Ý38.Our DSO indicator 5.7 uses net change in the area of Green Belt". The aim will be to sustain the level of Green Belt nationally, measured by region, over the period 2008^11".ËÜjf4Ý39.This reflects national planning policy on Green Belts as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), which makes clear that a key characteristic of Green Belt, once established through Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Plans, is its permanence over time.ËÜjf4Ý40.Future measurement of Green Belt for this indicator will be on a national basis (though we will continue to collect and publish figures for Green Belt area in each region). Again, this measure better reflects the Government's role in setting national policy on Green Belts. ËÜjf4Ý41.It should be borne in mind that a reported reduction in Green Belt does not necessarily mean that Green Belt land has truly been lost. Most of the apparent change in each region has come about because local authorities are employing improved measurement tools, especially digital mapping techniques. ËÜjf4Ý42.After improved measurement has been taken into account, since 1997, the amount of Green Belt land nationally has in fact grown by around 33,000 hectares (80,000 acres), making up around 13% of the land mass of England. This increase has been driven by the success of the protection afforded by PPG2, and through the creation of entirely new Green Belt, for example, in Wansbeck (950 hectares) and Blyth Valley (150 hectares).ËÜjf4Ý43.Changes to a Green Belt, once it has been established, can happen only in exceptional circumstances. If any alteration is proposed, the Secretary of State would seek satisfaction that the local authority has considered opportunities for development in urban areas contained by and beyond the Green Belt. Detailed boundaries should not be altered or development allowed merely because land has become derelict.ËÜjf4Ý44.The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and Local Development Framework (LDF) processes involve widespread public consultation and independent examination of the proposed policies. The Secretary of State will continue to monitor emerging RSSs and LDFs to ensure they continue to apply the strong policy protection to Green Belt set out in PPG2. Government Offices in the regions will scrutinise draft proposals, working closely with the regional planning body and Local Planning Authorities in each region, and will make representations to the independent examiners. Ultimately the Secretary of State has powers to direct that changes be made to RSSs or LDFs. However, those powers are intended as a last resort.ËÜjf30ÝThe Ministerial planning casework indicator has been altered from On Course" in the 2007 Annual Report to Slippage" in the APR to Not met" in the 2008 Annual Report. This is due to an over run of one day in one case in 2006^07. Why was this indicator not classified as Not met" immediately that this delay happened but rather as Slippage" in the 2007 APR? Has this indicator been taken forward into the CSR07 period? If so, how has it been adjusted to give a more useful representation of Ministerial casework?ÌÜjf4Ý45.A reporting error was made both in the 2007 Annual Report and the 2007 Autumn Performance Report, for which we apologise. Each should have classified the measure as not met". However, we consider that 99.5% in year (and 100% in other years) represents a good level of performance. ËÜjf4Ý46.This indicator has not been taken forward into the CSR07 period. However, in compliance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Secretary of State is required to make a separate report to Parliament (by way of an Act Paper at the end of each financial year) on performance in meeting the timetables set for Ministerial casework.ËÜjf30ÝIn Table 10.1, summarising expenditure against each PSA, PSA 6 is the only one for which spending falls consistently over the period? Why is the spending on that PSA decreasing? Has that decrease been one cause of the PSA not being met?ÌÜjf4Ý47.The reason for the decline in Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) over the period was twofold. First, it was front loaded to allow local authorities to deal with the impact of the new planning system introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; second, additional resources for local planning authorities were provided through a significant (25%) increase in fees from 2005.ËÜjf4Ý48.There are two elements of the PSA that were not met where PDG was being used to incentivise performance. The first was development control performance where the target of 100% of local authorities meeting the 13 week standard was not met. However, performance did improve from 20% of local authorities to over 80% meeting the standard. As noted in the Annual Report, we have now changed the target to measure the number of decisions made in the timescale rather than the number of local authorities as this is considered to be a better measure of performance. ËÜjf4Ý49.The second element was delivery of Local Development Frameworks. We believe that the main reason for delay has been the complexity of the process and lack of understanding and capacity, senior leadership and commitment. These are now being addressed through the changes we have made to the process and the capacity building work through the Planning Advisory Service and others. ËÜjf4Ý50.In particular, we have introduced new regulations and revised guidance in the form of PPS12 and the online LDF manual. The regulations simplified the process by giving local authorities greater flexibility, with the previous issues and options" and preferred options" stages replaced by a single requirement to consult and engage. In addition, the submission date to the Planning Inspectorate was moved back to allow problems to be fixed if they emerged in the final consultation on the proposed plan. The new PPS stripped out much of the guidance on process but was much clearer on the objectives and the tests of soundness while the manual makes use of real examples of best practice.ËÜjf30ÝOn PSA 7, the Department continues to assess Slippage" against the target for non-decent social sector dwellings. What improvements has the Department made over last year, when it was also assessed as Slippage" and what does the Department intend to do to address this continued under-performance? To what extent is the achievement of this target out of the Department's control?ÌÜjf4Ý51.We first reported slippage in the 2005 departmental Autumn Performance Report. In the Departmental Annual Report for 2007 we reported that local authority and RSL data showed that at April 2006 we had achieved an estimated reduction of 41%, leaving 980,000 non-decent social homes. In our last Annual Report we reported that by April 2007 a 52% reduction had been achieved leaving 858,000 non-decent homes.ËÜjf4Ý52.In June 2006 the then Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, announced that we would be willing to extend the original target date for landlords who wanted to undertake more radical transformation programmes that would be a mixture of demolition, rebuilding and refurbishment and additional market or intermediate housing, which would take time to deliver. Since that date we have acknowledged that we will not deliver 100% decency by 2010.ËÜjf4Ý53.In line with the reporting requirements of the PSAs the trajectory against which we are measuring delivery is fixed. Therefore, if slippage occurs for reasons from which we cannot recover then we will always report slippage against the trajectory unless the trajectory is adjusted in line with revised circumstances.ËÜjf4Ý54.Of the four reasons why slippage has occurred, only one will show improvement as we approach 2010. This is the impact of elemental works. Over half the decent homes programmes are carried out on this basis whereby works are carried out over a number of years on an element by element basis (eg bathrooms, kitchens, windows) across an estate. This introduces a significant lag in the reduction in the number of non-decent homes because a home cannot be counted as decent until the last element is improved. We expect an increase in the rate of reduction on non-decent homes as these programmes begin to complete. ËÜjf4Ý55.The remaining reasons, however, will always result in a level of slippage against the set trajectory but we have put actions in place to mitigate the impact. These reasons and mitigation are follows:ËÜjf10Ý_	Ücf2ÝWe have agreed to extend some completion timetables:Ücf1Ý as reported in the Department's 2006 autumn performance report the then Secretary of State announced that the 2010 target would be extended for those local authorities and RSLs engaged in or wishing to pursue major transformations of their estates, where extending the programme beyond 2010 could deliver value for money or deliver better outcomes for local communities. It was judged to be preferable that landlords delivered sustainable solutions for their tenants over a longer timescale rather than refurbishing homes that were judged to be unsustainable in the long term. ËÜjf48ÝThe majority of landlords with an extended timescale have new delivery dates and departmental officials with the support of colleagues in Government Offices and the Housing Corporation are monitoring progress to ensure that delivery to revised timescales remains on track. We are negotiating new delivery dates with the remaining three authorities (Brighton and Hove, Ellesmere Port and Neston and Waverley). ËÜjf10Ý_	Ücf2ÝLonger than anticipated development time for schemes:Ücf1Ý where Decent Homes investment programmes are coming on stream slower than previously anticipated. Due to the consequences of failing an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) inspection, ALMOs can be cautious about setting their inspection date, and have been putting back their initial inspection dates, taking longer to prepare for inspection so that they can be as sure as possible of passing inspection at the first time of applying. Others who have failed their first inspection are working hard to improve performance and wish to ensure that risk of a second failure is as low as possible.ËÜjf48ÝThe ALMO support network is in place to help ALMOs improve their performance. The Audit Commission often provides support to help ALMOs improve through its Advice and Assistance powers. In addition, departmental officials work closely with the local authority and their ALMO to help deliver improvements. Where an ALMO has really struggled to deliver services to the standard required the Department has part funded additional support from the Audit Commission to help the ALMO develop strategies and processes to implement service improvements to meet the required inspection standards. ËÜjf10Ý_	Ücf2ÝDecent homes delivery routes needing revision:Ücf1Ý where the original delivery route was not successful. A number of local authorities have had to revise their delivery options where their original route was not successful. Primarily this has followed a failed tenant ballot. Revised delivery routes have added to the timescale in which the LA can deliver.ËÜjf48ÝWith the support of the Government Office and the Department some local authorities have opted for retention but with an extended timescale. Others have been successful in revisiting the transfer route. For the more difficult cases we are working with Government Office officials to find a solution using some of the opportunities set out in the Housing Green Paper such as Special Purpose Vehicles. ËÜjf48ÝThe Department and Government Offices have been very active in working with those local authorities that have struggled with delivery. We still expect that the majority of social landlords will ensure all homes are decent by 2010 and that overall 95% of all social sector homes will be decent by this date, although there are continued risks to the achievement of 95% decency. To maintain the drive towards delivery we have negotiated the inclusion of the decent homes indicator (NI158) as part of the set against which performance will be measured in the Local Area Agreements for those LAs where delivery of decent homes still presents a challenge. 24 local authorities have an indicator in their main set of indicators and an additional 19 local authorities have included decent homes as a local indicator. ËÜjf4Ý56.We are conscious of the long term sustainability of the tremendous achievement of the Decent Homes programme, and the Review of Council Housing Finance, launched by the Minister for Housing in March, will consider how we can take this forward. Responsibility for delivery of decent homes programmes will transfer to the Homes and Communities Agency when it is established on 1 December. The Agency will continue to actively monitor and manage the programme and any risks identified, and will report progress to the Department.ËÜjf30ÝThe largest area of proposed efficiencies in the VfMDA is New Affordable Housing Supply (#734 million out of #887 million). How it is expected that the housing market issues and the current difficulties in the construction industry (including significant staff cuts at Bovis, Redrow, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Barratt) will affect the achievement of these efficiencies? What effect will this have upon the Department's objectives for the provision of affordable housing?ÌÜjf4Ý57.Vfm savings in new affordable housing supply will be measured by comparing the level of grant needed to supply a home within the 2008^11 Affordable Housing Programme to the level of grant needed to provide an equivalent home in the baseline programme (the 2006^08 programme). To ensure the comparison of like-with-like, the home will be standardised in terms of size, location, inflation and policy innovations. ËÜjf4Ý58.The current housing market provides a challenging environment for the delivery of our affordable housing targets. There are a number of factors which put upward pressure on grant rates and so reduce vfm: increased RSL borrowing costs and the availability of bank finance to RSLs; the loss of subsidy through S106 contributions; and the loss of cross-subsidy from low cost home ownership sales, staircasing" (subsequent equity sales), and speculative housing built for outright sales. In the future we anticipate there to be a number of factors which could counteract this pressure including opportunities to acquire stock from developers and reduction in land values. However, it is important to note that construction costs continue to rise.ËÜjf4Ý59.The recent announcements have been designed to respond to current conditions in the housing market and to increase confidence and help ensure stability. ËÜjf4Ý60.In May we agreed that the Housing Corporation could use flexibilities available to them in their current programme to fund purchases where they represented good value for money. We agreed that the Housing Corporation should set aside #200m to fund the acquisition of completed homes from housebuilders. As confirmed in July, this is not a cap. If properties at the right price and in the right locations and offering good standards are available the Corporation will fund more to support delivery.ËÜjf4Ý61.At the beginning of September, we gave the Housing Corporation limited flexibility to exceed the efficiency targets that were set through the Spending Review to achieve continued delivery of new housing schemes. Scheme bidding will continue to be undertaken within the Corporation's competitive framework and this will continue to be a strong driver of value for money, with those bids which meet the Housing Corporation's assessment criteria and offering best value for money being prioritised for funding. The increased flexibility will allow the Housing Corporation to fund good schemes which in the current market require a higher level of grant funding.ËÜjf4Ý62.The Government remains committed to a substantial increase in affordable housing. It is too early given the current uncertainty to predict outputs. In the long term we are confident that the Housing Corporation, the new HCA and RSLs are well placed to continue to maintain good levels of affordable housing delivery. ËÜjf30ÝWhy has Resource DEL for DSO 5, Planning, more than doubled over the CSR period (#149.6 million to #311.6 million)?ÌÜjf4Ý63.The main reason for the increase in resource DEL is Housing and Planning Delivery Grant (HPDG) which grows from #67 million in 2008^09 to #221 million in 2010^11. In addition HPDG contains a capital element of #33 million/#29 million/#29 million which is not recorded in this table. HPDG came out of the recommendation in Kate Barker's 2004 review of housing supply where she recommended that Government should incentivise local authorities to meet housing growth targets. ËÜjf4Ý64.The Grant is also used to incentivise planning performance in a similar way to Planning Delivery Grant (which it replaces) on the grounds that this will support housing supply as well. The specific outcomes that are rewarded are additional houses built, local development plan documents delivered to time, establishing a five year housing land supply and joint working between local authorities on plans. It is included under the table for DSO 5 (planning) because it cannot be easily split between planning and housing supply objectives. ËÜjf4Ý65.Another much smaller increase of #10.5 million is to build capacity in local authority planning departments.ËÜjf30ÝNote 1.5.2 states that the Department invested #10 million in 2004^05 in a capital venture fund, the Coalfield Enterprise Fund (CEF) to invest in former coalfield areas. It states that the fund is less than the initial investment, but is expected to recover in the medium to long term." Note 15 on page 58 show the fund is valued at #8.7 million following a write down this year of #1.0 million. Why has such a substantial fall in the value occurred? What effect has this had on the ability of the fund to operate? Why does the Department believe the fund will recover in the medium to long term?ÌÜjf4Ý66.The Coalfield Enterprise Fund (CEF) provides venture capital supporting new and growing smaller businesses located in or near to the English coalfields, addressing the equity gap in these areas. It provides investment to growing and sustainable businesses which have exhausted traditional" sources of finance. The Department provided #10 million to the Fund in 2004 which, with match funding and recycling of receipts, will ultimately bring about #25 million investment in the former coalfields areas. ËÜjf4Ý67.The drop in the value of the Fund from #10 million to #8.7 million results from net provisions of #1.090 million having been made against four of the investments made, which were considered as under-performing, offset by an uplift in the valuation of a fifth. Whilst these businesses continue to trade, it was considered prudent to recognise their under-performance in the valuation of the investments. The remaining investments were held at cost. The drop in the value of the fund is low given that it invests risk capital. The rate of loss_ie. from companies failing_is much lower than industry average. The Fund is currently investing in 21 companies comprising higher risk start-up and early stage businesses through to more mature and lower risk companies. Receipts from early investments are now starting to flow back to the fund and there have been some notable successes. ËÜjf4Ý68.For example, H2O Networks Limited designs and installs fibre optic systems using the sewer network. The Coalfield Enterprise Fund has invested around #500k to support the development of the business. From a position of having four employees, the company now employs around 30 and its management is now proposing to buy back the Fund's investment for around #1 million. Continuing receipts from successful investments have ensured that the Fund is operating in line with its business plan and, at the present time, has around #5 million available for new investments. ËÜjf31ÝFire and Rescue ServicesÌÜjf30ÝPSA 3 is assessed as Slippage" overall due to the slippage against sub-target 1. Eight out of 47 authorities are stated to have had a fatality rate from accidental fires in the home more than 1.25 times the national average. You state the national average is 4.23. What were the fatality rates for the eight authorities that were above the target?ÌÜjf4Ý69.As per our letter to the Committee clerks of [25] September, the figures for sub-target 1 published in the Department's 2008 Annual Report were incorrect. Five and not eight FRAs as reported were above sub-target 1. ËÜjf4Ý70.The miscalculation was the result of raw numbers of deaths being compared, rather than deaths figures adjusted for 100,000 of each FRA's population size as required in the PSA3 technical notes. This occurred following a change in key staff. ËÜjf4Ý71.This miscalculation also affected the National Average. The correct average (when expressed per 100,000 of the national population) is 0.49 and not 4.23 as given in the Annual Report. We apologise for this error, which does not affect the overall assessment of slippage" for either the sub-target or for PSA 3 as a whole.ËÜjf4Ý72.The five FRAs which had a rate more than 1.25 times the national average are:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 1ÌÜcc35p6ÝÜdt8p0g,11p0,0p6g,8p0mÝÊÜbtÜcf2ÝAreaÜntCurrent average fatality rate based onÊ2002^03_2006^07 dataÜetÊÜbtÜcf1ÝEngland averageÜnt0.49ÜetÜbtRate 1.25* the national averageÜnt0.61ÜetÜbtLancashireÜnt0.87ÜetÜbtGreater ManchesterÜnt0.74ÜetÜbtWest YorkshireÜnt0.66ÜetÜbtDurhamÜnt0.64ÜetÜbtSouth Yorkshire*Ünt0.61ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf2Ý*Note South Yorkshire exceeds the floor target when average rates are taken to 3 decimal places.ÜetÊÜjf4Ý73.Please note that the figures used in the table above for 2006^07 are provisional.ËÜjf30ÝGiven that PSA 3 sub-target 1 was known to be not robust" when the Department gave the Committee oral evidence in 2007 on last year's Annual Report, why was it not dropped or altered for 2008? Was there no mechanism by which a no-longer meaningful PSA target or sub-target could be amended once its lack of utility became obvious?ÌÜjf4Ý74.It would have been possible in principle to agree with HM Treasury not to continue to track performance against this sub-target on the basis that it was felt to no longer be a meaningful measure of progress (as was done, for example, for indicator c under PSA 4). However, whilst imperfect, the measure has provided a helpful way to ensure the Department and the Fire and Rescue Service are focused on reducing accidental fire-related deaths. Therefore, we chose to continue to pursue it while recognising the issues around its robustness. ËÜjf4Ý75.We have reviewed and changed the performance measures for the Fire and Rescue Service through the CSR07 process. This is reflected in the new performance framework through National Indicator 49 (number of primary fires and related fatalities and non-fatal casualties per 100,000 of the population) and DSO 6 (to ensure safer communities by providing the framework for the Fire and Rescue Service and other agencies to prevent and respond to emergencies). ËÜjf4Ý76.National Indicator 49 is a more statically robust measurement as it reviews the total number of primary fires and associated fatalities and the number of non-fatal casualties (excluding precautionary checks) per 100,000 of the population. By contrast, PSA 3 sub-target 1 (accidental fire-related deaths in the home) assessed performance against a single, low incidence indicator_which resulted in widely-fluctuating results, eg one or two deaths in a small fire and rescue authority could mean it exceeds sub-target 1.ËÜjf30ÝThe Government's Response to the Committee's last inquiry into the Departmental Annual Report noted that a research project on fire response times would report in April 2008 (Para 19, Cm 7335). May the Committee see the outcome of that project?ÌÜjf4Ý77.The research project on Fire and Rescue Service response times has taken longer than originally planned as we requested some additional work be done. It has now been completed and the report is currently being finalised for publication during autumn 2008. ËÜjf4Ý78.The provisional conclusions of the research are that response times to primary fires in England increased from 1999 mainly due to increased traffic levels. However, an analysis of nine FRAs' response times to road traffic collisions (RTCs) presented less clear results. Whilst some FRAs showed increased response times, others showed no change. Limited data availability and inconsistent reporting by FRAs on these types of incidents make it difficult to draw solid conclusions. The shortcomings in the data available will be addressed by the new electronic Incident Recording System which will improve data collection on all types of incidents, including road traffic collisions.ËÜjf4Ý79.The research also indicates that increased response times may contribute to around 13 additional fatalities in dwelling and other building fires each year. However, annual dwelling fire fatalities fell by 142 between 1996 and 2006, suggesting that the impact of increased response times on dwelling fire deaths has been more than offset by other factors such as community fire safety work over this period.ËÜjf4Ý80.The increases in response times started around four years before the introduction of Integrated Risk Management Plans and the increased focus on community fire safety. A qualitative review of changes in operational practices, such as donning Personal Protective Equipment before entering appliances, indicated that these would not account for the observed increasing trend in response times.ËÜjf4Ý81.Given that traffic levels are still rising, we are encouraging FRAs to consider, where appropriate, further means to counter the effect of traffic and to reduce reliance on emergency response, for instance by further increased fire prevention.ËÜjf30ÝYou state that the fatality rate from accidental fires indicator for PSA 3 is not a robust measure of performance as one fatal incident can be sufficient to cause an authority to fail this indicator. You state a similar indicator has been used in the local government national indicator set. Has this indicator been included in the new PSAs or DSOs? If so, how has it been adjusted to provide a robust measure of performance?ÌÜjf4Ý82.Performance on fire deaths will continue to be monitored through the Department's DSO 6. This DSO and the National Performance Framework both contain National Indicator 49 (number of primary fires and related fatalities and non-fatal casualties) and, together with the other DSO 6 indicators, this indicator provides a more robust statistical framework than PSA 3. ËÜjf4Ý83.National Indicator 49 was specifically devised to overcome the volatility of the PSA 3 floor-target 1. By including all fires and fire casualties, rather than focussing on accidental fire-related deaths in the home, National Indicator 49 provides a broader and more statistically valid basis to relate outcomes to performance by not focussing on the relatively rare accidental dwelling fire deaths (sub-target 1). It also enables citizens and communities to assess the fire safety support provided by their local Fire and Rescue Authority and will be assessed formally by the Audit Commission as part of the Comprehensive Area Assessment. ËÜjf31ÝLocal Government and the RegionsÌÜjf30ÝPSA 1 shows slippage against its education target. You state that this was a stretching and aspirational" target. Why is it not on course? What impact could CLG have to bring it back on course? What is CLG planning to do to achieve the target?ÌÜjf4Ý84.To lift all NRF secondary schools above the floor target in all three subjects (English, mathematics and science) was always a substantial challenge. However, there has been considerable progress in these areas_in 2007 there were 199 schools achieving below 50%, compared with 399 in 2003, with many of the remaining schools achieving positive change towards the floor target. Others have had a considerable way to travel to achieve the target, and progress has slowed. ËÜjf4Ý85.The PSA 1 education indicator has essentially finished as the 2008 Key Stage 3 (KS3) exams, which will be reported on in 2009, were sat earlier this year. However, the PSA 1 indicators were linked with other government department PSAsÜmr3Ý to ensure that the drive to improve outcomes in deprived areas became embedded and sustained in mainstream policy delivery across Government.ËÜjf4Ý86.We have monitored and supported policy development and implementation plans, project planning and the way in which education funding is targeted, working locally with DCSF and the Government Offices, to influence the Local Area Agreement (LAA) process and maintain the schools focus in LAAs. There has been a strong take-up of education-related indicators and we will continue to monitor the gap in education between schools in deprived areas and the rest, and to develop analysis and research into deprivation more generally.ËÜjf4Ý87.As part of this relationship, the DCSF and the Department have been working closely together to understand and address the slower than expected progress in meeting the PSA 1 education indicator to inform future activity. The substantial investment in personalisation combined with changes to the KS3 curriculum provide a strong platform for securing further improvements. But we recognise there needs to be a more concerted focus on the hardest to reach schools and that this should include a greater consideration of how to better link supporting activity in local communities with educational and parental interventions. ËÜjf30ÝAs part of the section on progress against PSA 4 you also state that the changes to the CPA have made it difficult to develop a target for component (c). What has been agreed with Treasury in respect of this target? Will failure to assess this indicator lead to the PSA not being met? Does the Department have any plans to attempt further to develop a target?ÌÜjf4Ý88.PSA 4 component (c) of the target relates to the performance of district council performance. As set out in the Annual Report, HM Treasury recognises the difficulty of setting a meaningful and quantifiable target for this, given that the performance of district councils is not now measured in a way that enables a comparable annual update. HM Treasury has agreed with the approach adopted by the Department of not attempting to assess the target on the basis of the partial information available.ËÜjf4Ý89.The other five components of this PSA target are on course or ahead of trajectory. And the information that is available under CPA about district council performance indicates positive progress in qualitative terms, even though it is not possible to set a meaningful quantifiable target for component c) as it was envisaged when the PSA was agreed. ËÜjf4Ý90.The Audit Commission continues to broadly assess all 238 district councils' performance and improvement annually by making judgements about their use of resources and direction of travel, and through assessment of a core set of performance indicators. As set out in the Annual Report, since the publication of the 2003-04 district CPA scores the Audit Commission has carried out re-categorisation assessments for 39 district councils. 38 of these councils improved their CPA score as a result and the other remained the same. The Commission did not judge that there was sufficient evidence of a change in other district councils' performance to require further assessment for re-categorisation.ËÜjf4Ý91.There are no plans to attempt to develop a target for component target c) since nothing in the CPA framework will change further that would make it any more possible to devise a meaningful quantifiable measure. The Department will, however, continue to monitor the performance of district councils against PSA 4 component target a) (no authorities, including districts, rated poor in December 2004 to remain in the lowest CPA category by 31 March 2008). ËÜjf4Ý92.CPA itself will be replaced by the new Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) from April 2009, with the final judgements of council performance under CPA being published by the Audit Commission in February 2009. CAA will include reporting of organisational assessments for district councils as well as single tier and county councils. The Audit Commission and other inspectorates, who have been tasked by Government to develop a methodology for CAA, are currently consulting on detailed proposals for carrying out and reporting their assessments.ËÜpbÜjf30ÝResource DEL against DSO 2 (improving the supply and quality of housing) is forecast to decrease from #2,098 million in 2008^09 to #509 million in 2009^10 in Annex B Table 1 of the Annual Report. It is explained that this is due to #1.7 billion for Supporting People which brought together funding from a number of other funding streams including some from other Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions." Why has this expenditure been moved from DSO 2 to Area Based Grant? Will this reduction in expenditure shown against DSO 2 (75% reduction in Resource DEL) have any effect on delivering the DSO? Is the responsibility for delivering on the DSO being devolved to local authorities?ÌÜpbÜjf4Ý93.The Local Government White Paper set out a new approach to allocating funding. There are three routes:ËÜpbÜjf10Ý_	preferably, through non-ringfenced general grant (made up of Revenue Support Grant and national non-domestic rates); ËÜjf10Ý_	through non-ringfenced Area Based Grant_a general grant providing additional revenue funding to areas according to specific policy criteria; and ËÜjf10Ý_	through ringfenced or non-ringfenced specific grants where this can be justified_the Government's presumption is against this approach.ËÜjf4Ý94.The Supporting People grant of #1.7bn is currently paid as a specific ring-fenced grant to local authorities. The Department aims to include the Supporting People programme grant in the Area Based Grant from 2009^10, subject to the satisfactory outcome of pilots in 2008^09.ËÜjf4Ý95.Area Based Grant enables local authorities, working with partners, to decide where best to invest their resources, using the most effective and efficient routes to delivering local priorities. It meets the White Paper commitment to increase local flexibility over the use of resources whilst further reducing onerous reporting requirements.ËÜjf4Ý96.There is no reduction in resources for achieving DSO 2. The reduction shown reflects the fact that it is not possible to now separate out elements of the new unhypothecated Area Based Grant, which has been introduced in 2008^09, between the different DSOs. Area Based Grant, Formula Grant and other grant funding for local government will fund the delivery of the single set of performance indicators including the improvement of the supply and quality of housing.ËÜjf4Ý97.The Department remains accountable and responsible for ensuring delivery of its DSO. This accountability cannot be devolved. However, we continue to work with local authority partners to ensure delivery of the DSO and agree objectives and targets. Local authorities and their partners will be responsible for working towards delivering against the National Indicator Set and their Local Area Agreement targets, some of which are also in the DSO. The new Performance Framework provides a robust assessment regime to scrutinise progress against priorities, as well as how effectively authorities use their resources. Local authorities will continue to be assessed on their `Use of Resources' as part of the new Comprehensive Area Assessment. This will make assessments along a similar basis of the existing Comprehensive Performance Assessment arrangements.ËÜjf30ÝThe Government issued a second response to our Report on Coastal Towns on 26 October 2007. In it the Department made a commitment to establishing a cross-departmental working group on issues affecting coastal towns. How many times has the working group met and what issues is it working on?ÌÜjf4Ý98.The cross-departmental working group on coastal towns has met twice so far, on 6 February and 23 July 2008. The next meeting is scheduled for November 2008. ËÜjf4Ý99.In partnership with the RDA-led Coastal Towns Network, the group is working across government to improve the evidence base on the challenges and opportunities facing coastal towns, and its knowledge of the effectiveness of existing policy approaches and mechanisms in addressing them. It is involved in setting up at least two sub-groups to help progress this work. One will explore the scope of Local Area Agreements (LAAs), and possibly Multi-Area Agreements (MAAs), as strategic mechanisms for improving coastal town regeneration outcomes. The other sub-group will look at options for raising employment and skill levels in coastal locations. ËÜjf4Ý100.The working group will also provide a mechanism for engaging with other government departments on issues relating to coastal erosion and flood risks and the regeneration of coastal areas. ËÜjf30ÝWhen will the Department publish Professor Fothergill's benchmark study on coastal towns?ÌÜjf4Ý101.We aim to publish the final report in October, following consultation on the draft with the cross-departmental working group on coastal towns. We will provide the Committee with a copy of the report once it is available.ËÜjf30ÝHow many times has the RDA-led network on coastal towns met, and what issues are being worked on?ÌÜjf4Ý102.The RDA-led Coastal Towns Network has met once, in Brighton, on 26 June 2008. The next meeting, in Skegness, is planned for 3 October. The network will meet approximately three to four times a year.ËÜjf4Ý103.A draft work plan for 2008^09 has been prepared, which complements the work of the cross-departmental working group. The underlying aim of the Network is to promote the sharing of learning, knowledge and expertise on coastal town regeneration and economic development across and within regions. As set out above, two proposed sub groups, looking at the role of strategic mechanisms like LAAs and MAAs in delivering coastal town regeneration, and options for raising employment and skills levels in coastal areas, will provide a key focus for the Network's activities. A further sub group, looking at how to encourage business and enterprise growth in coastal towns, is being considered. Further discussions are taking place to agree priorities and actions for the sub groups in preparation for the October meeting.ËÜjf31ÝHuman Resources and TransformationÌÜjf30ÝWhy has the Department exceeded its workforce reduction targets by so much (910 FTEs to date against a target of 400)?ÌÜjf4Ý104.The Department achieved an overall reduction of more than 1100 FTEs against the target of 400. This included a reduction of 600 civil servants from the central department and the Government Offices together. These reductions are part of a planned process to change the shape of the Department as we move towards a smaller, more strategic role for the Department in the future, with delivery focused through our partner organisations such as the new Homes and Communities Agency, and a new strategic relationship with local authorities, including Fire and Rescue Authorities. There has been significant restructuring within the Department, with headcount reduction facilitated through measures such as a more rigorous approach to recruitment and voluntary exit schemes. Major change programmes within the Government Office network and the Audit Commission have also contributed substantially to the overall reduction. We have in parallel continued to invest in staff development, to ensure that our overall capability is maintained. ËÜjf30ÝThe figures in Table 6 of Annex B of the Annual Report indicate that staff numbers will continue to fall substantially in 2008^09. How far is the number of staff expected to fall? Will it begin to increase in the near future (within the CSR period)?ÌÜjf4Ý105.Our workforce planning assumptions are built on the premise of a further reduction in posts of at least 100 a year this year and in each of the next two years. We do not expect overall staff numbers to increase within the CSR period although certain areas of the Department may require additional staff resources to help them meet business priorities.ËÜjf30ÝHow does the Department ensure that the quality of its outputs does not fall when the number of staff available to undertake the work is falling so rapidly?ÌÜjf4Ý106.As noted above, our strategy has been to focus our efforts on those areas where the Department can add most value, and secure best value for money. We have done so by forging new relationships with our key partners, for example through Local Area Agreements; building new and powerful delivery agents, such as the Homes and Communities Agency; streamlining our own organisation, seeking synergies and economies wherever we can; and working to maximise the contribution both of our senior leaders and of our staff as a whole. We believe that taken together these measures are enabling us to maintain and improve the quality of the outcomes that we seek to secure for the public, within the framework of the available resources. ËÜjf30ÝThe Capability Review one year update found that progress has been made across the board... but there is still some way to go". In the section entitled Transforming our capability" the Department provides information on what it has done but little on what it will do to continue progress. The committee would like further details on what the Department believes needs to be achieved to address the issues raised in the Capability Review and the one year update and details of how it intends to achieve this before the next full review in December 2008.ÌÜjf4Ý107.We are currently undertaking a self assessment of our performance and our improvement priorities and are gathering a range of evidence to share with the Cabinet Office ahead of our next review, which is due to take place in November 2008. ËÜjf31ÝCorporate PerformanceÌÜjf30ÝHow many public appointments did the Department make in the Annual Reporting period to April 2008? How many of those appointed were men? How many were women? Is the Department meeting its targets in respect of public appointments and gender balance?ÌÜjf4Ý108.The target for public appointments is expressed in terms of OCPA-regulated posts. The Department made 37 new appointments and 38 reappointments to OCPA-regulated, ministerially appointed posts in the year to 31 March 2008. Of these, 47 (63%) were men and 28 (37%) were women. The Department's target for 2007^09 is that 38% of appointments should be women.ËÜjf4Ý109.It is worth noting that the transfer of responsibility for equalities to the Government Equalities Office in October 2007, led to the loss of responsibility for a further 37 OCPA regulated posts. At the time of this transfer 24 (65%) of these posts were held by women.ËÜjf4Ý110.The Department also made 1,196 appointments not regulated via the OCPA to various tribunal bodies including Rent Assessment Panels and Valuations Tribunals. The figures for these were:ËÈÜcc35p6ÝÜdt11p0g,9p0,0p6g,4p0wÝÊÜbtÜcf2ÝÜds2ÝRent Assessment Panels and Residential Property Tribunal ServicesÜetÊÜbtÜcf1ÝMaleÜnt257 (71%)ÜetÜbtFemaleÜnt105 (29%)ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝOf whom:Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtBMEÜnt31 (9%)ÜetÜbtDeclaring a disabilityÜnt7 (2%)ÜetÊÜbtÜcf2ÝValuation TribunalsÜcf1ÝÜetÊÜbtÜcf1ÝMaleÜnt655 (79%)ÜetÜbtFemale 179 (21%)ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝOf whom:Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtBMEÜnt60 (7%)ÜetÜbtDeclaring a disabilityÜnt78 (9%)ÜetÊÜjf30ÝAccording to the Environmental Audit Committee, Overall performance by Government departments and agencies in tackling carbon emissions has remained extremely poor, with progress lagging far behind the trajectory required to meet the 2010^11 target (reducing carbon emissions from Government offices by 12.5% from 1999^2000 levels)." What assessment has been made of CLG's performance in this respect, and what action is to follow over the period to April 2009?ÌÜjf4Ý111.The Department has made progress over the last 18 months towards delivering the Government Estate sustainability targets and was ranked second out of 21 Government departments in the Sustainable Development Commission's 2007 Annual Report. Recent analysis indicates that the Department has already exceeded the majority of its 2010^11 targets and is on course to meet the remaining target deadlines.ËÜjf4Ý112.The Department's carbon emissions from offices baseline comprises emissions from electricity and gas use on the central CLG estate, its office based executive agencies and selected NDPBs. In 2006^07, the Department was 7% above its baseline but early analysis indicates that emissions reduced to 2% above baseline in 2007^08. The Department's current trajectory is now aligned with the reduction required to meet the 2010^11 target deadline. ËÜjf4Ý113.We are particularly focused on reducing carbon emissions in our buildings. We have adopted a harder test_against the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method's definition of excellence"_for all major refurbishments and new builds. All decisions on the Department's estate consider the potential impact on carbon emissions such as reduced plant operating times, installation of more efficient lighting and better control of heating, ventilation and cooling provision.ËÜjf4Ý114.This work has already had an impact. In 2007^08, the Department reduced its electricity and gas consumption in Eland House by 22% and 37% respectively. We aim to make further progress in the next year.ËÜjf31ÝEfficienciesÌÜjf30ÝCan the Department provide an analysis showing what element of the reported efficiency savings have been classified by each of the OGC categories as provisional", interim" and final"?ÌÜjf4Ý115.In our quarterly reporting to HM Treasury we are required to classify efficiency savings as Preliminary", Interim" and Finalised". We reported delivery of #1,086 million efficiency gains at December 2007, of which #898 million (82.7%) had been classified as finalised", #177 million (16.3%) as interim" and #11 million (1%) as preliminary". ËÜjf30ÝIn the 2007 Annual Report, you stated that over 70% of efficiency gains delivered had been validated by the Department's internal audit team. The 2008 annual report does not include a comparable figure. What percentage of efficiency gains delivered to date have been validated by the Department's internal audit team?ÌÜjf4Ý116.Over 80% of the efficiency gains delivered as at December 2007 (#1,086 million) have been validated by the Department's internal audit team. We will be reporting final figures on the efficiency savings we have delivered over the course of the programme to HMT in October, and expect the total to be over #1.3 million. These include further efficiencies delivered by March 2008 that are currently being audited by the Department's internal audit team.ËÜjf30ÝWas the reduction in efficiency gains for Administration from #8.6 million at the end of September 2007 to #5.4 million at the end of December 2007 due solely to the adjustments described in paragraph 9.7? Why were these adjustments made?ÌÜjf4Ý117.As stated in paragraph 9.7 of the Annual Report, the adjustment in the administration efficiency savings total claimed at the end of December 2007 was made on the basis of advice from internal auditors that certain savings previously claimed did not meet the sustainability criteria according to the strict Office of Government Commerce (OGC) definition.ËÜjf4Ý118.The adjustment primarily affected savings claimed in relation to commodities procurement. Although savings of approximately #6m across the two years were indeed made during 2005^06 and 2006^07 (and claimed following receipt of quarterly status reports from OGC Buying Solutions), they were not deemed as sustainable against the OGC definition and therefore not allowable to contribute towards achieving the Departmental #25 million target. Only 2007^08 savings for commodities procurement were deemed sustainable according to the OGC definition. Changes were also made to the forecast figures for the anticipated estates management savings, whereby in-year savings for 2005^06 and 2006^07 (a combined total of approximately #3 million) were similarly viewed as unsustainable against the OGC efficiency savings criteria.ËÜjf4Ý119.The #5.4 million figure for gains reported as delivered at end December 2007 therefore excluded the commodities procurement savings from 2005^06 and 2006^07, although it did reflect the procurement savings from the first two quarters of 2007^08 (as supported by the respective letters from OGC Buying Solutions), as well as savings validated by the internal auditors relating to the Department's Finance Shared Services Division.  ËÜjf30ÝHow do you expect to achieve an increase in administrative efficiency savings of over #10 million to #16.2 million by March 2008? Are you satisfied that these gains will be sustainable according to OGC definitions? Why are these gains only being achieved so close to the end of the SR04 period?ÌÜjf4Ý120.Throughout the SR04 efficiency programme, the Department has erred on the side of caution in officially claiming savings and has only declared savings once they had been independently validated. (In relation to the commodities procurement savings for 2005^06 and 2006^07 which have since been disallowed, we had assumed that the OGC Buying Solutions letters_an annual statement from the OGC of savings made in the Department's procurement activity in each year by using OGC Buying Solutions_were satisfactory validation).ËÜjf4Ý121.This approach has meant that although those managing individual work streams indicated that savings had indeed been made, it was felt better to delay the official" claim until validation had been received, primarily from the Department's internal auditors. This had the inevitable result that a large proportion of the anticipated savings have not been claimed until late in the SR04 period. Furthermore, for a number of work streams, the advice from the internal auditors that only the 2007^08 savings would be deemed sustainable against the OGC savings definition has meant that we have had to wait for the 2007^08 Departmental accounts to be closed before we know the precise level of savings that should be claimed.ËÜjf4Ý122.As at 31 March 2008, the total administration savings claimed and notified to HM Treasury had risen to #8.67 million. As at 31 July 2008, an additional #3.99 million is ready to be claimed, bringing the current total to #12.66 million. Savings claimed in 2007^08 have yet to be validated by the internal auditors, but we are confident the amounts claimed are consistent with the interpretations from previous validation management letters from the internal auditors, and therefore the OGC savings definition.ËÜjf4Ý123.In addition, savings relating to two workstreams are still to be finalised (Integrated Facilities Management and outsourcing of IT services). It is anticipated that approximately #2.3 million savings will be realised from these two workstreams, thereby giving a final administration savings total in the region of #15 million.ËÜjf4Ý124.The anticipated final savings figure has reduced from the #16.2 million as stated in the Departmental Annual Report due to forecast adjustments on commodities procurement, estates management and outsourcing of IT services work streams.ËÜjf30ÝThe VfMDA includes an initiative to reduce Administration costs by #43 million by 2011. Given the difficulty which the Department has had in achieving their targeted efficiencies of #25 million over the SR04 period, why does the Department believe it will be possible to achieve the far harder task of making efficiencies of #43 million in CSR07?ÌÜjf4Ý125.The administration Value for Money (VfM) gains, which the Department has agreed to deliver over the three year CSR07 settlement period will reflect gains realised across the whole Department (again including the Government Offices). The Department will look to achieve value for money by maintaining outputs and ensuring that its resources are deployed in support of its priorities, achieving the necessary cash reductions through a combination of bearing down on low impact and low priority work, and establishing a group corporate services strategy to improve delivery of corporate services across the wider family (including NDPBs), as well as further reducing and better utilising its estate.ËÜjf4Ý126.The then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister efficiency delivery plan (2004) for administration costs was based on anticipated savings across the SR04 period from a relatively small number of pre-identified corporate services workstreams. Whilst administrative savings have been made in other areas, the fact that these were not included in the initial remit, and did not have established baselines precluded their later inclusion. Some of the assumptions made in the ODPM delivery plan also proved to be incorrect or unachievable. ËÜjf4Ý127.OGC's strict definition of sustainable savings meant that significant in-year savings which the Department had anticipated as secure in meeting its #25 million administration savings target were no longer allowable (particularly for commodities procurement, #6 million, and estates management, #3 million). Additionally, the HR shared services review, led by Cabinet Office, was not pursued which meant that anticipated savings for ODPM in the region of #1 million were also lost. Had the total originally anticipated savings for commodities procurement and estates management been allowed and the savings for HR shared services been realised, the Department would have met the #25 million target.ËÜjf4Ý128.The Department's Value for Money agreement (including for administration costs) has received endorsement from HM Treasury. Further detailed methodologies for achieving the vfm gains will be submitted to Treasury in the near future.ËÜjf30ÝThe VfMDA includes savings of #43 million against administration spending. The total departmental spending (Annex B_Table 1) on Central Administration is forecast to increase from #180.6 million in 2007^08 to #216.1 million in 2010^11 peaking at #228.5 million in 2008^09. How will this #43 million in savings be achieved against this increase in budget?ÌÜjf4Ý129.The central administration line within Table 1 records not only resource costs and plans which are included in the administration budget (as given in Table 5), but also other resource costs and plans outside the Departmental Admin Cost Limit (administration other current costs, administration capital costs and departmental and Government Offices restructuring costs).ËÜjf4Ý130.Planned expenditure on other resource costs outside the Admin Cost Limit varies significantly from year to year, whereas the Admin Cost Limit is subject to the 5% real annual reduction as prescribed by the Department's CSR07 settlement. The vfm gains target will be measured against the reducing funding envelope of the Departmental Admin Cost Limit. ËÜjf31ÝFinanceÌÜjf30ÝFigure 10.1 shows a significant variance in the spending on each of the Strategic Priorities (SPs). Does this allocation of spending reflect the importance the department puts on each of its SPs? Has the translation of SPs to DSOs led to spending being more evenly or less evenly balanced between objectives?ÌÜjf4Ý131.Our planned expenditure reflects a range of factors including, for example, the extent to which activities require direct Government investment and the relative costs of those investment (so that, for example, unit costs of investment in social housing or decent homes will be higher that those of investing in local initiatives to support community cohesion and resilience to extremism without those cost differentials indicating any relative differences in importance). ËÜjf4Ý132.Annex B, Table 1 of the Annual Report (pp 163) which sets out spend by DSO under the total departmental spend heading, therefore reflects how our actual expenditure maps to those DSOs, and should not be taken to imply that the DSOs are the starting point for how those budgets were allocated. ËÜjf30ÝWhy is the Resource AME against DSO 2 in Annex B Table 1 of the Annual Report negative from 2008 to 2011? Why has the Resource AME for Local and Regional Government been forecast to decrease so much in 2008^09? What is the reason for the high figure in 2006^07 and 2007^08?ÌÜjf4Ý133.Items are generally included in AME because they are difficult to forecast accurately, are volatile and/or would be difficult to manage within fixed three year DEL budgets. The income received by local authorities for social housing rent is pooled on a national basis, redistributing assumed surpluses from some authorities and using them to fund assumed deficits in other authorities. Where the system generates an overall surplus over and above the amount redistributed between authorities, that resource goes to the Treasury. ËÜjf4Ý134.In recent years the system has been in deficit nationally with HM Treasury making positive contributions to make up the shortfall. From the current financial year it is expected to move into surplus nationally. This means that resource will go to the HM Treasury rather than be disbursed by them, and for this reason the figures are shown as negative subsidy.ËÜjf4Ý135.All the figures for the years 2008^09 to 2010^11 are estimates of the levels of resource that could go to HM Treasury, and are provided as part of the Department's regular returns to them. Actual outturn figures in any one year will be dependent on factors such as the dwelling stock remaining in local authority (LA) ownership, inflation, and costs of servicing LA housing debt. Table 1 shows our estimates for potential surpluses at the time, with #185 million in 2008-09. This figure is likely to change later in the year as LAs submit more precise claims.ËÜjf4Ý136.Beyond 2008^09, the figures are more tentative, with our forecasts dependent on decisions yet to be taken by Ministers on the annual Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination. However, even when decisions on the determination have been taken, actual outturn figures for future years will change for the reasons given above.ËÜjf4Ý137.The forecast of #463 million for Local and Regional Government resource AME in 2008^09 relates solely to the Non Domestic Rate Outturn Adjustment programme. The Outturn for this national programme is difficult to forecast in advance because of its volatility. This is reflected in the annual outturn which has varied from #169 million in 2002^03 through to #707 million in 2006^07and #453 million in 2007^08. The latest forecast for 2008^09 is for an outturn of #600 million. Additional provision to cover this will also be sought in the forthcoming Winter Supplementary Estimate.ËÜjf4Ý138.In 2006^07 and 2007^08 (and 2005^06) the resource AME total for Local and Regional Government also included funding for LABGI. (Local Authority Business Growth Incentive scheme). This programme's budget was #935 million over three years ending in 2007^08. Since the data in the Annual Report was prepared, however, the unspent funds from 2007^08 of #103 million are now planned to be brought forward at the forthcoming Winter Supplementary Estimate to add to the 2008^09 budget. ËÜjf30ÝWhat is the rationale for the level of the Departmental Unallocated Provision for Resource and Capital DEL? What possible future expenditures are these figures based on?ÌÜjf4Ý139.With fixed Departmental Expenditure Limits covering a period of three years it is prudent to keep a small reserve to cope with unforeseen pressures as Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP). In each case the amounts currently in the DUP amount to less than 0.5% of total budget. Indeed, HM Treasury's consolidated budgeting guidance encourages departments not to allocate their DELs fully against their programmes at the start of a financial year but to hold some provision back to deal with unforeseen pressures that emerge subsequently.ËÜjf30ÝAnnex B Table 4 of the Annual Report (Capital employed) shows reductions from 2007^08 to 2008^09 in Plant and machinery, owned" from #20.4 million to #7.4 million and Transport equipment, owned" from #52.2 million to #5.2 million. At the same time, Information technology, owned" is to increase from #35.2 million to #80.5 million. What are the reasons for these significant changes? Why are NDPB net assets forecast to increase by over #850 million from 2008^09 to 2009^10?ÌÜjf4Ý140.The planned large reductions are for transfers out from the Department of New Dimension Civil Resilience equipment and vehicles to the local Fire and Rescue Authorities. The New Dimension kit was purchased initially by the Department to ensure it fulfilled a specification that could deliver nationwide interoperability and helped secure economies of scale. However, it has always been planned by Ministers, as agreed by the LGA and CFOA, that assets purchased under the programme would later be transferred to the brigades themselves, to unite asset use and ownership. Now that roll-out of the kit is essentially complete, we have commenced discussion on asset transfer with FRAs, CFOA and LGA.ËÜjf4Ý141.The planned large increases are for IT investments in the Fire Control Room and Firelink programmes to support local Fire and Rescue Authorities. These are new, additional assets for the Department, not asset replacements, so appear as step changes in capital employed for the central Department.ËÜjf4Ý142.The planned large increase in NDPB net assets relates to English Partnerships land regeneration stocks. These are forecast to require a valuation change when the new Homes and Communities Agency is created in 2009. The change from historic cost to market value is forecast to increase stock values from #1,002 million to #1,845 million.ËÜjf30ÝAnnex B Table 5 shows different figures to Table 1 for Central and Government Office Administration costs. Could you explain the differences between the figures and explain which will be used for assessing efficiency measures?ÌÜjf4Ý143.The central administration line within Table 1 records not only resource costs and plans which are included in the Administration budget (as given in Table 5), but also other resource costs and plans outside the Departmental Admin Cost Limit (administration other current costs, administration capital costs and CLG and Government Offices restructuring costs).ËÜjf4Ý144.The Department's assessment of vfm gains will be based on outturn against the administration budget (ie Table 5 figures, thus excluding resource costs outside the Admin Cost Limit). The methodology, agreed with HM Treasury, will use 2007^08 near cash administration cost outturn (as reported in the Departmental Resource Accounts) as a baseline. The Department will then calculate its vfm gains by comparing the level of spend outturned in each year of the CSR07 period against the baseline and making adjustments to take account of inflation. The vfm gains will be offset by the total cost of any investment initiatives. ËÜjf30ÝAnnex B Tables 7 and 8 show three regions (East Midlands, Eastern and South Eastern) where the expenditure on services and the expenditure on services per head is approximately doubling over the CSR period. What is the explanation for the significant increases in these specific areas?ÌÜjf4Ý145.Estimates of the regional split of planned expenditure can be based on a number of factors, and particularly, directly, after a Spending Review, can be only rough estimations of future spending patterns_for instance based on those elements of the budget which have already been identified on a regional basis, on relevant indicators or on extrapolations of past spending. Each programme is assessed individually.ËÜjf4Ý146.In the case of one programme_Housing Revenue Account Subsidy (HRAS)_we have identified that the changes going forward were inaccurate. These projections were not, and were never intended to, influence the actual amounts to be paid, once known, and hence no authorities have been paid incorrectly as a result. The projections for HRAS were calculated through taking past regional shares of the overall subsidy total. However, because on this occasion proportions derived from a past positive total were applied to negative totals for future years, this produced the undesired effect in this particular case of large negative values being attributed for future years to regions with large positive values, and vice versa. We have reviewed the calculations and have produced some revised estimates incorporating figures which better reflect likely proportions for HRAS for the future and which are shown below. The figures however remain very much estimates at this stage.ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝRevised Table 7ÌÜcc35p6ÝÜdt9p3g,3p0,0p6g,3p0w,0p6g,3p0w,0p6g,3p0w,0p6g,3p0wÝÊÜbtÜcf2ÝÜnt2007^08Ünt2008^09Ünt2009^10Ünt2010^11ÜetÊÜbtÜcf1ÝNEÜnt349.1Ünt335.3Ünt347.9Ünt334.7ÜetÜbtNWÜnt733.5Ünt731.7Ünt779.5Ünt867.6ÜetÜbtYHÜnt491.4Ünt462.9Ünt499.9Ünt476.0ÜetÜbtEMÜnt260.1Ünt278.6Ünt331.5Ünt434.2ÜetÜbtWMÜnt400.9Ünt415.4Ünt491.9Ünt600.0ÜetÜbtEÜnt326.9Ünt352.6Ünt428.0Ünt493.5ÜetÜbtLÜnt1,940.4Ünt2,110.0Ünt2,126.9Ünt2,140.5ÜetÜbtSEÜnt466.8Ünt549.5Ünt662.7Ünt741.9ÜetÜbtSWÜnt387.0Ünt430.8Ünt500.5Ünt522.9ÜetÜbtEnglandÜnt5,356.1Ünt5,666.8Ünt6,168.8Ünt6,611.2ÜetÊÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝRevised Table 8ÌÜcc35p6ÝÜdt9p3g,3p0,0p6g,3p0w,0p6g,3p0w,0p6g,3p0w,0p6g,3p0wÝÊÜbtÜcf2ÝÜnt2007^08Ünt2008^09Ünt2009^10Ünt2010^11ÜetÊÜbtÜcf1ÝNEÜnt137.0Ünt131.2Ünt135.7Ünt130.2ÜetÜbtNWÜnt106.3Ünt105.5Ünt111.7Ünt123.7ÜetÜbtYHÜnt95.1Ünt88.9Ünt95.2Ünt90.0ÜetÜbtEMÜnt59.2Ünt62.8Ünt74.1Ünt96.1ÜetÜbtWMÜnt74.4Ünt76.6Ünt90.2Ünt109.4ÜetÜbtEÜnt57.8Ünt61.7Ünt74.1Ünt84.6ÜetÜbtLÜnt256.1Ünt276.3Ünt276.2Ünt275.6ÜetÜbtSEÜnt56.3Ünt65.7Ünt78.7Ünt87.4ÜetÜbtSWÜnt74.8Ünt82.5Ünt94.9Ünt98.2ÜetÊÜjf4Ý147.We will be looking at how we can produce better figures going forward, and ensure that the inaccuracies which did occur are not repeated.ËÜjf4Ý148.Within the revised figures there remains an overall increase reflecting the increases agreed in the last Spending Review, which impacts across all regions. In addition there are some specific factors, for instance specific projects by English Partnerships in certain regions more than others. These include, for instance, in the East Midlands, a #40 million increase in direct project spend in areas such as Meden Valley, The Waterside project in Leicester and significant spend on former Coalfield sites such as Avenue Cokeworks and Gelding Colliery; and for Eastern regions, a #15 million increase in direct project spend due to a Land Stabilisation Programme in the area. However, overall the revised figures show far less marked changes than those which were published.ËÜjf30ÝIn the Operating Cost Statement, staff costs of the core department for RfR 1 have shown a significant increase of around 60%. This appears to be due to #11 million which has transferred from admin staff costs to programme staff costs. What is the reason for this transfer? Have the individuals being paid changed jobs or was the classification in 2006^07 incorrect?ÌÜjf4Ý149.The two figures are not linked. The reduction in admin staff costs largely arises from a reduction in staff numbers_see staff numbers table in Note 8 to the Resource Accounts_whereas the increase of programme costs arises largely from an increase in temporary staff costs on programme activities.ËÜjf30ÝIn the OCS, income for RfR 2 has increased from a negligible amount in 2006^07 to over #31 million in 2007^08. What is this income stream and why has it increased so markedly from last year?ÌÜjf4Ý150.This #31 million is the return of capital grants in respect of the LG PSA programme for pump priming grant. Originally issued as capital, agreement was reached to allow local authorities to repay up to #32.5 million in 2007^08 in exchange for resource grant. There is a corresponding increase in resource grants going out from Section G3 of RfR2_so the amounts balance in the accounts. A similar amount of income is expected in 2008^09.ËÜjf30ÝIn paragraph 3.53 on page 17 it is stated that the negative Taxpayer's Equity reflects the inclusion of liabilities falling due in future years, which are to be financed by drawings from the Consolidated Fund." Liabilities falling due after more than one year total (#454 million). Taxpayer's Equity is (#1,593 million). The remaining #1,139 billion must be from liabilities falling due within the year. Can you provide the committee with further information on the expected payment profile of the liabilities falling due in under a year?ÌÜjf4Ý151.The adoption of commercial accounting in government leads to some anomalies, one of which is that the balance sheet can be negative, ie liabilities exceed assets. (A commercial company could not survive in these circumstances). The comment under Going Concern" therefore explains that this is acceptable because future Parliamentary Supply is assured (in a commercial company this is the equivalent of a further injection of equity). ËÜjf4Ý152.The amounts in the question are incorrect. The correct figures are broken down in the balance sheet on page 36 of the accounts. Details of the make up of the General Fund_which at #1,599 million is broadly equal to Taxpayers Equity of #1,593 million_are in Note 21 on page 63. The balance sheet shows liabilities falling due after one year at #347 million and this sum represents deposits received from the EC against future payments of ERDF grants. Details of provisions (#197 million) are given in Note 20 and these are largely for early retirements and ERDF related (see Note 1.20). The remaining figure of #1,139 million (not #1,139 billion as posed in the question above) represents Total Assets less Current Liabilities. Within this Current Liabilities are #2,562 million and a breakdown of this sum is given in note 19. ËÜjf4Ý153.The expected payment profile of these items is as follows:ËÜjf10Ý_	other taxation and social security_this balance is made up of items associated with payroll which are paid over in the month after the payroll;ËÜjf10Ý_	creditors_the Department's policy is to pay valid invoices within 30 days;ËÜjf10Ý_	Accruals and Deferred Income_these items are mainly grant related and would be expected to be cleared within the first period of the New Year;ËÜjf10Ý_	Consolidated Fund creditor_this item becomes deemed Supply in 2008^09; andËÜjf10Ý_	CFERs etc_these items are paid over in the first quarter of the New Year.ËÜjf30ÝCurrent liabilities have increased by just under #1 billion from 2006^07 to 2007^08. Note 19 shows that the main source of these liabilities is accruals and deferred income. Can you explain why this line has increased by this amount in 2007^08?ÌÜjf4Ý154.The bulk of this results from a #934m increase in accrued grant expense. In 2006^07 all Overhanging Debt repayments were made by 31 March. However, in 2007^08 there was a delay in the cash payment of Overhanging Debt (#755.6 million) of which #735 million related to Liverpool City Council (on which we sent you a separate explanation in response to your questions on the Spring Supplementary Estimates). This meant there was an increase in liabilities on the balance sheet of this amount for a short time, covering the end of 2007^08 and beginning of 2008^09, between the recognition of the expenditure and the actual cash payment.  There were also increases in accruals for LA Business Growth Incentive grant, Housing Market Renewal Fund, LA Homelessness grant, LG Other Growth Areas grant and Gap Funding.ËÜjf4Ý155.There was also a reduction in accruals for the following programme spending: Local PSA Performance Fund, Online Grant Payments, New Deal for Communities and Capacity Building.ËÜjf30ÝThe remuneration report shows a rise in salary for the Permanent Secretary of around #20k. The remainder of the board do not show equivalent increases. What is the reason for the increase? Was a bonus paid in 2006^07 and 2007^08 and if so, how much were the bonuses?ÌÜjf4Ý156.The incorrect salary bracket (#170,000^175,000) was quoted in the 2006^07 Resource Accounts, and we thank the Committee for bringing this to our attention. We have lodged a correction in the Parliamentary record and on our website. In 2006^07, the Permanent Secretary's pay should have been placed in the #180,000^185,000 band. The correct band of #190,000^195,000 has been provided for this year's report. The difference is therefore less than stated in the question.ËÜjf4Ý157.Bonuses were paid in both years, amounting to #9,000 in 2006^07 and #14,500 in 2007^08.ËÜjf31ÝEuropean Regional Development FundÌÜjf30ÝIn the Annual Report, the Department refers to impositions of financial corrections" on the ERDF programme. It also states that this will not impact on the grant recipients in the North West. Have any fines been levied as a result of the issues surrounding these payments? If it will not impact on the grant recipients, from where will the money to fund the correction" be taken? How much have the Commission proposed as additional financial corrections in respect of the 1997^99 programmes?ÌÜjf4Ý158.The Commission has levied the é25 million financial correction and the costs were accrued in the Department's resource accounts for 2007^08. The Department accepted full liability for the financial correction as these arose from shortcomings at programme management level in 2000^05. The costs were met from the overall Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for programme near-cash. Where irregularities are detected at project level there is a well established procedure to pursue recovery of the affected amounts. Write-off is agreed as a last resort only once all recovery measures had been considered or exhausted.ËÜjf4Ý159.To give some context to this financial correction the ERDF 2000^06 programme round is valued at #3.4 billion and ERDF grant is delivered through 20 programmes comprising over 5,700 individual projects. The liability we accepted reflected the particular circumstances of the management of two ERDF programmes in the NW in 2000^05.We took extensive and rapid action in 2006 and 2007 to respond to EC general concerns about the extent of financial monitoring of ERDF programmes in England. Action which the EC has described as exemplary". As a result we were able to satisfy the EC about what we doing in 18 of the 20 programmes. In the event the correction was imposed on two programmes in respect of 11 of the 33 intermediaries operating in the NW and amounted to less than 5% of the value of the grant paid from the start of the programme in 2000 to the end of 2006. ËÜjf4Ý160.Following successful hearings at the Commission in June and July 2008, the additional financial corrections in respect of the 1997^99 programmes were reduced immediately from #109 million to #48 million. This figure is now subject to the result of further analysis by the EC of the substantial evidence and argument we have presented. The Department is confident that this analysis will lead to further reductions in the amount of the proposed correction.ËÜjf30ÝThere is a total of #81 million of ERDF payments that are at risk and have been accrued and provided for. Have these payments already been made to the recipients? If so, does the Department intend to recover these amounts from the grant recipients or is it covering these payments itself?ÌÜjf4Ý161.These payments have already been made to the recipients. The total amount relates to programmes in the 1997^99 and 2000^06 ERDF rounds and other programmes such as Business Links and Interreg. The irregularities were identified by audits carried out by the Commission. The total includes irregularities identified on a sample of ERDF projects with the established error rate on these projects then being extrapolated across the whole programme in that region. Where financial correction is based on extrapolation recovery is not possible as it does not relate to specific recipients. The costs of such financial corrections will be met from the overall Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for programme near-cash.ËÜjf30ÝIn note 1.20.10 it is stated that A number of unsupported balances were identified which were caused by accounting errors in earlier years. These balances have been written back." What is the total value of these write-backs in 2007^08. Could you provide a breakdown of the two figures related to ERDF in note 10 (ERDF write-offs & disallowances and ERDF exchange losses)? Can you explain how the figures are constituted from elements of the financial correction (1.20.5), the potential disallowances (note1.20.6-1.20.9) and the accounting errors (1.20.10)?ÌÜjf4Ý162.Whilst expenditure and income were reported correctly, ERDF items on the balance sheet were not managed effectively and errors were not identified and resolved. The main cause of the errors was incomplete reconciliation between the Department's main accounting system and the systems used for grant management in the 2003^04 financial year. These problems were exacerbated by a system interface failure at that time which resulted in the recording of some transactions being incomplete. The resolution of these issues resulted in a write back to the Operating Cost Statement of #61 million.ËÜjf4Ý163.The ERDF write-off and disallowances" figure of #30.389 million includes the financial correction already levied_#19.8 million (note 1.20.5) and the sums accrued_#7.979 million (notes 1.20.7 and 1.20.8). The remaining sum_#2.61 million_arises from the write-off of disallowed expenditure which it is not possible to recover from grant recipients because, for example, the body has been put into liquidation. ËÜjf4Ý164.ERDF exchange losses in 2007^08 arose largely because of the need to restate the balances held as ERDF deposits. Note 19 shows deposits held rising from #262.795 million in 2006^07 to #346.972 million in 2007^08. This increase reflected the receipt of #47.329 million as 2% deposit on the 2007^13 ERDF programme and #36.848 million from translation of the balance at the balance sheet date to reflect the #/é exchange rate change. As an increase in a creditor this is recorded as an expense in the operating cost statement.ËÜjf30ÝNote 1.20.11 states that the management of the ERDF component of the 2007^13 structural funds will be assigned to the RDAs rather than the GOs. In responses to previous Committee questions you discussed the activities to improve controls over ERDF funding through RDAs. Has an assessment been done of how successful those control changes have been? Was the responsibility removed from the GOs due to their failures in adequately managing the previous rounds?ÌÜjf4Ý165.The transfer of ERDF work from GOs to the RDAs should be seen in the context of Government's policy for enhancing the effectiveness of sub-national economic development and regeneration. The Review of Government Offices in 2006 set out a more streamlined, strategic role for the GOs network in shaping national policy through local and regional expertise, and coordinating sub-national work across departmental boundaries. This value-adding shift in focus was assisted with reduction in workload related to administration of grants such as ERDF. Following the conclusion of the Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration (SNR) in July 2007 as part of CSR07 the Government gave RDAs executive responsibility for drawing up a single regional strategy for their region and supporting achievement of the economic growth parts of the regional strategy through deployment of their single programme budgets aligned together with the ERDF. ËÜjf4Ý166.At present no amounts from the 2007^13 ERDF programmes have been identified to be at risk as RDAs are currently finalising funding agreement for their projects. Risk assessment is an essential part of the Managing Authority functions discharged by the Department. Working closely with the RDAs and others the Department has put in place a number of systems and procedures to ensure compliance with EC and national regulations and manage risks. A hierarchical corporate governance structure has been set up through Boards and Implementation Groups with clear remits which bring together all key stakeholders to allow early identification of issues, and provide a forum for discussion and problem solving. Issues can be escalated to the Department's Board as and when necessary. A central risk register has been created to identify and address threats and opportunities related to the successful delivery of ERDF programmes and to help avoid or minimise the chances of financial correction or de-commitment by the Commission. ËÜjf4Ý167.Risk assessment is also an essential component of the audit strategy that the Audit Authority is pursuing to verify the effective functioning of the management and control systems of the ERDF operational programmes and for conducting audits of an appropriate sample of projects that receive funding. ËÜjf4Ý168.The Audit Authority is in the process of completing a review of the controls in place in RDAs and the central bodies that comprise the Managing and Certifying Authorities. There is no means of compelling RDAs to take a common approach and whilst not ideal, work was ongoing to minimise the inherent risks so the purpose of this review is to provide a formal assessment of the effectiveness of the controls in place, which will be presented to the EC. The assessment is planned to be completed in December.ËÜjf30ÝYou have previously said in the Annual Report that the financial correction will not affect grant recipients as it will be deducted form claims already made to the Commission". Had this correction not had to be deducted from claims already made, would the money that had been claimed from the EU have been available to CLG to spend, or would it have had to pay that money to Treasury?ÌÜjf4Ý169.The Department was able to top-up ERDF grants on the back of the benefit of foreign exchange rates; a strong pound against the Euro. Regulations regarding ERDF are clear. In such circumstances any benefit derived must be re-invested into ERDF programmes and, as such, would not be available to the Department to spend elsewhere and nor would we have been obliged to pay the money to Treasury. ËÜjf30ÝJohn Healey's letter to the Chair of the Committee of 19 March stated that there would be no adverse budgetary impact as a result of the Commission's financial correction due to the appreciation of the Euro against the Pound. Similarly to the question above, if the department had benefited from favourable exchange rates but had not had to pay the penalties, would the Department be free to spend those monies on other programmes, or would it have been returned to the Treasury?ÌÜjf4Ý170.Claims for ERDF are made in Euros and are converted from sterling at the time the claim is made. Receipts from the EC are in Euros and are converted into sterling at the rate prevailing when the receipt enters UK Government accounts. The delay between submission of the claim and payment does give rise to exchange rate gains or losses. ËÜjf4Ý171.If the exchange rate moves so that sterling strengthens against the Euro, the Department would have to cover any loss from its own resources in accordance with HM Treasury rules on management of EC funds. ËÜjf4Ý172.Similarly, and true in recent times, where the movement has been in the other direction we have made a gain on expenditure defrayed. This has helped the Department to meet the cost of corrections. Because payment of claims was suspended by the EC for a period from late 2006, during which time the pound depreciated significantly against the Euro, the (cumulative) exchange rate gains were greater than they would have been if payments had not been suspended. The benefit of this was used to enable CLG to meet the cost of the NW financial correction without the need to reduce expenditure elsewhere.ËÜjf30ÝNote 29 discloses a contingent liability for possible administrative irregularities (Article 4 and 10 checks) in respect of the European Regional Development Fund programme". The committee would like more information on the nature of this liability? Why was this liability not included with the other ERDF liabilities in note 1.20?ÌÜjf4Ý173.Article 4 checks are carried out to verify the delivery of the products and services co-financed from ERDF funding, the reality of expenditure claimed by projects, and compliance with EU regulations. Article 10 checks are carried out on an appropriate sample basis of projects to verify the effectiveness of the management and control systems in place and to verify selectively, on the basis of risk analysis, declaration of expenditure made. Separate teams within Government Offices carry out Article 4 and 10 checks. Where irregularities are found as a result of these checks there is a well established procedure for Government Offices to pursue recovery of the affected amounts. Write-off is agreed by the Department as a last resort only once all recovery measures had been considered or exhausted. Expenditure on this was about #2.4 million in 2007^08, compared with the contingent liability reported in the 2006^07 Accounts of #4.9 million. In effect this is routine programme management activity and so was not included in the explanations in Note 1 to the Accounts which provided explanations for the exceptional ERDF items affecting the 2007^08 accounts.ËÜjf30ÝIn note 17(a), other debtors has increased by #418 million from 2006^07. Prepayments and accrued income has decreased by #412 million year on year. Are these differences due to a reclassification of debtors? If so, what has been reclassified and why? If not, could you explain the changes?ÌÜjf4Ý174.The movements described above reflect the impact of routine accounting for ERDF grants, impacted by claims for ERDF grant being made to and accepted by the Department. A posting is made to reflect the related ERDF income expected from the EC. This posting is to Accrued Income. When a declaration is made to the EC for grant an EU debtor is created in Other Debtors and Accrued Income reduced. The changes between Other Debtors and Prepayments and Accrued Income reflect changes in the timing of claims to the EC and, more significantly, improved more rigorous accounting for these ERDF transactions. ËÜjf31ÝOrdnance SurveyÌÜjf30ÝNote 12 breaks down net operating cost by spending body. In 2006^07, Trading Funds and Public Corporations contributed a net cost of #412k. In 2007^08, the estimate was #3.8 million income but the outturn was an income of #927k. Note 2 shows that this is due to a net cost of Ordnance Survey of #209k against an estimate of #2.28 million income. This is due to an increase in grant from #1.32 million in the main supply estimates to #3,839. Why did this grant increase?ÌÜjf4Ý175.The figures in the grant column represent the cost of capital charge incurred by the Department on Ordnance Survey's average capital employed. In 2007^08 the actual figure, which is based on the Ordnance Survey's preliminary accounts, was higher than anticipated resulting in an increase in the grant.ËÜjf30ÝThe 2008^09 main supply estimates also show a provision for other current" expenditure of #39.46 million. What is this expenditure and why has it been included in 2008^09 and not 2007^08? Ordnance Survey is a trading fund and therefore expected to recover its costs. Why is it expected to cost the Department net #14.5 million in 2008^09?ÌÜjf4Ý176.The Department has two distinct relationships with Ordnance Survey. The first is as shareholder" in the trading fund; the second is as customer for geographical information on behalf of central government. The Department maintains separate relationships with Ordnance Survey at both Ministerial and official level. However, both of these relationships are presented in the same line in the estimates for the first time in 2008^09.ËÜjf4Ý177.A similar forecast was included in the main estimate in 2007^08 but was incorrectly reported under the Central Administration" heading in 2007^08. ËÜjf4Ý178.The #39.46 million covers outgoings anticipated on the Department's geographical programmes. The figure includes the expenditure anticipated on the Pan-Government Agreement (PGA) for the provision of mapping data. CLG manages the PGA, including the financial arrangements, on behalf of more than 100 central government bodies. While the majority of the PGA is with Ordnance Survey, from 1 April 2008 payments are also made to Next Perspectives for height and aerial photography data products. ËÜjf4Ý179.The #14.5 million is the Department's own forecast expenditure on its geographical programmes. We pay our PGA licence fees from this money. The licence fees are not a subsidy to Ordnance Survey but rather payment for the services which CLG receives. The Ordnance Survey trading fund does cover its expenditure from receipts and provides an annual dividend to the Department. For 2007^08, this was #3.7 million.ËÜjf4Ý180.We intend during the winter supplementary process to re-classify the expenditure we incur in our role as customer for geographic information to more clearly set out the financial relationship with Ordnance Survey.ËÜemËÜpg0r,cwmem1ÝÜcc59p6ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝCLG Consultations January_December 2007ÌÜmp10ÝÜcc59p6ÝÜdt1p6,0p6g,19p6,0p6g,34p0,0p6g,3p0wÝÊÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝConsultationÜntLinkÜntNo of responseÜetÊÜbtÜcf1Ý1ÜntGetting Equal: Proposals to outlaw sexual orientation, discrimination, in the provision of goods and servicesÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/565856.pdfÜnt2,747ÜetÜbt2ÜntConsultation_Allocation of Accommodation: Choice Based Lettings: Code of Guidance for Local Housing AuthoritiesÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/cblresponsecode.pdfÜnt83ÜetÜbt3ÜntDisabled Facilities Grant Programme_the Governments proposals to improve programme delivery_consultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/dfgprogrammeresponse.pdfÜnt253ÜetÜbt4ÜntAmendments to the Model Code of Conduct for Local Authority Members_ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/320632.pdfÜnt906ÜetÜbt5ÜntHome Information Pack Update: Towards 1 JuneÜnthttp://www.hipsco.co.uk/downloads/hipsresponse.pdfÜnt280ÜetÜbt6ÜntConsultation on revised planning guidance in relation to Travelling ShowpeopleÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/439243.pdfÜnt60ÜetÜbt7ÜntDevelopment and Flood Risk: A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25 Living Draft"_A Consultation PaperÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/pps25summaryresponses.pdfÜnt63ÜetÜbt8ÜntProposed Marine Minerals Dredging Regulations: Supplementary Consultation on Revised Application FeesÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/324072.pdfÜnt5ÜetÜbt9ÜntLandlord and Tenant Act 1954: Section 57_Consultation PaperÜntÜnt18ÜetÜbt10ÜntAmendment to the Temporary Stop Notice Regulations: ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/amendmenttemporaryresponses.pdfÜnt27ÜetÜbt11ÜntLocal Authority Registers of Building Control Information Consultation_A Consultation PaperÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/laregistersbuildingcontrol.pdfÜnt143ÜetÜbt12ÜntProposals for Future Unitary Structures: Stakeholder ConsultationÜnthttp://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/publications/550387Ünt55,000ÜetÜbt13ÜntChanges to Permitted Development: Consultation Paper 1_Permitted Development Rights for Householder MicrogenerationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/565952.pdfÜnt262ÜetÜbt14ÜntRevision of Local Government (Best Value Authorities) (Power to Trade) (England) (Amendment) Order 2004_A consultation documentÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/revisionlocalgovernment.pdfÜnt35ÜetÜbt15ÜntDelivering Property Searches: Good practice guidance for Local Authorities and personal searchesÜntÜnt315ÜetÜbtÜcf1Ý16ÜntDraft Guidance on the design of sites for Gypsies and Travellers_A Consultation PaperÜntÜnt39ÜetÜbt17ÜntChanges to Permitted Development: Consultation Paper 2_Permitted Development Rights for HouseholdersÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/householderpermittedÈhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/changesdevelopmentconsultationÜnt459ÜetÜbt18ÜntPlanning Performance Agreements: a new way to manage large scale major planning applications_ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/566310.pdfÜnt204ÜetÜbt19ÜntImproving the Appeal Process in the Planning System: Making it proportionate, customer focused, efficient and well resourced_ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/improvingappealresponse.pdfÜnt291ÜetÜbt20ÜntPlanning Fees in England: Proposals for Change_ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningfeesÜnt251ÜetÜbt21ÜntPlanning for a Sustainable Future: White PaperÜntÜcf2ÝPlanning for a Sustainable Future Analysis of Consultation Responses Background Report BÜcf1ÝÜnt500ÜetÜbt22ÜntUpdating the English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Stage Two Blueprint" Consultation Report_Summary of ResponsesÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/indicesdeprivationresponsesÜnt103ÜetÜbt23ÜntProposals for Future Unitary Structures: Means of Prioritising Proposals_ConsultationÜntRelated consultations and responses:ÈÈStakeholder Consultation:Èhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/proposalsfutureÈhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/unitarystructureresponsesÈÈBedfordshire Stakeholder Consultation:Èhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/bedfordshireconsultationÈhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/unitarystructurebedfordshireÜnt64ÜetÜbt24ÜntDiscrimination Law Review: A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain_A consultation paperÜnthttp://www.equalities.gov.uk/publications/GovernmentÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3ÝResponseÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3ÝtoÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3ÝtheÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýconsultation.pdfÜnt4,226ÜetÜbt25ÜntDelivering Housing and Regeneration: Communities England and the future of social housing regulation_Consultation_Summary of ResponsesÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/635017.pdfÜnt187ÜetÜbt26ÜntTenant Empowerment_A consultation paperÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/Summaryofresponses.pdfÜnt76ÜetÜbt27ÜntModernising Empty Property Relief_Summary of consultation replies and Government responseÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/emptypropertyrelief.pdfÜnt175ÜetÜbt28ÜntLocal Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution: Consultation PaperÜnthttp://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/0809/sumcon/analrep.pdfÜnt316ÜetÜbt29ÜntShared Ownership and Leasehold Enfranchisement_ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/sharedownershipleasehold.pdfÜnt53ÜetÜbt30ÜntThe future of the Code for Sustainable Homes_Making a rating mandatoryÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/549499.pdfÜnt109ÜetÜbt31ÜntHomes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable_Housing Green PaperÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/greenpaperresponse.pdfÜnt521ÜetÜbt32ÜntProposed amendments to the Central List Regulations: National Non-Domestic Rates and Local Loop UnbundlingÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/647459.pdfÜnt22ÜetÜbt33ÜntCommonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002: A Consultation Paper on Regular Statements of Account and Designated Client AccountsÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/regularstatementresponseÜnt99ÜetÜbt34ÜntLonger time limits for prosecution of breaches of Building Regulations_ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/longertimeÜnt85ÜetÜbt35ÜntTransfer of Planning Appeals to Inspectors: ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/transferappealsresponseÜnt34ÜetÜbt36ÜntOverriding Easements and Other Rights: Possible Amendment to Section 237 Town and Country Planning Act 1990Ünthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/overridingeasementsresponse.pdfÜnt69ÜetÜbt37ÜntMechanism for setting Guideline Rents in Housing Revenue Account subsidy 2008^09 and 2009^10: ConsultationÜntÜnt95ÜetÜbt38ÜntTolerated trespassers_ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/toleratedtrespassersresponse.pdf76ÜetÜbt39ÜntClarifying the Right to Buy rules: ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/rightobuyrules.pdfÜnt62ÜetÜbt40ÜntCouncils' Proposals for Unitary Local Government: An Approach to Implementation (Discussion Document)ÜntAn Approach to Implementation was not strictly a formal consultation exercise in the true sense. The exercise was used to inform the content of the Structural Change Orders, for areas implementing unitary local government structures.Ünt158ÜetÜbtÜntÜntIn response to this document, we received representations from 158 stakeholders involved/affected by the local government restructuring. We did not publish any formal response to this document as such. But the exercise was use to inform the content of the individual Structural Change Order and those Order can be found on OPSI website at the following locations:ÈÈStatutory Instrument No 490_The Wiltshire (Structural Change) Order 2008Èhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksiÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080490Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÈÈStatutory Instrument No 491_The Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008Èhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksiÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080491Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÈÈStatutory Instrument No 492_The Shropshire (Structural Change) Order 2008Èhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksiÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080492Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÜetÜbtÜntÜntStatutory Instrument No 493_The County Durham (Structural Change) Order 2008Èhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksiÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080493Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÈÈStatutory Instrument No 494_The Northumberland (Structural Change) Order 2008Èhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksiÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080494Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÈÈStatutory Instrument No 634_The Cheshire (Structural Change) Order 2008Èhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksiÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080634Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÈhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/em/uksiemÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080634Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÈÈStatutory Instrument No 907_The Bedfordshire (Structural Change) Order 2008Èhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/pdf/uksiÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080907Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÈhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/em/uksiemÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ý20080907Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýen.pdfÜnt158ÜetÜbt41ÜntImplementation of European Directive 2005/36/EC for ArchitectsÜntÜnt6ÜetÜbt42ÜntEnabling Electronic Communication of Building Control Documents_Consultation PaperÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/enablingelectronicsummary.pdfÜnt33ÜetÜbt43ÜntTown and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2007ÜntÜnt33ÜetÜbt44ÜntHousing and Planning Delivery Grant (HPDG): Consultation on allocation mechanismÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/523099.pdfÜnt217ÜetÜbt45ÜntA Centre of Excellence for the Fire and Rescue Service_Consultation PaperÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/doc/fsc21-2008cvg.docÜnt76ÜetÜbt46ÜntNational Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships: Handbook of definitions_Draft for ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/735215.pdfÜnt583ÜetÜbt47ÜntFire and Rescue Service Equality and Diversity Strategy: 2008^18Ünthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/equalityanddiversitystrategy.pdfÜnt58ÜetÜbt48ÜntFire and Rescue Service National Framework 2008^11 ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/nationalframeworkresponse.pdfÜnt47ÜetÜbt49ÜntCreating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities Statutory Guidance: Draft for ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/887903.pdfÜnt167ÜetÜbt50ÜntPrinciples of representation: A framework for effective third sector representation in Local Strategic PartnershipsÜntÜnt58ÜetÜbt51ÜntChanges to the Capital Finance System: Capital Finance Amendment Regulations Minimum Revenue Provision GuidanceÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/739218.pdfÜnt107ÜetÜnpÜbt52ÜntGLA Act 2007: consultation on the draft Mayor of London Order and GOL Circular: Strategic planning in LondonÜnthttp://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Planning/624901/Ünt36ÜetÜbt53ÜntDraft Housing Revenue Account (Item 8) and Draft Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determinations 2008^09Ünthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/LettertoCFO.pdfÜnt59ÜetÜbt54ÜntTree Preservation Orders: Improving Procedures_Consultation PaperÜntÜnt105ÜetÜbt55ÜntStreamlining Local Development Frameworks: ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/ldfsummaryresponses.pdfÜnt241ÜetÜbt56ÜntLocal Government Finance Settlement 2008^09 and Provisional 2009^10 and 2010^11 SettlementsÜntThis is not a full public consultation and therefore does not fall under the Cabinet Office guidelines. We do not publish the analysis of consultation responses.Ünt323ÜetÜbt57ÜntEnergy Performance Certificates for Private Marketed Sales of Dwellings: Validity Period of CertificatesÜntÜnt23ÜetÜbt58ÜntThe New Place Survey: ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/880186.pdfÜnt435ÜetÜbt59ÜntFace-to-Face and Side-by-Side": A framework for inter faith dialogue and social action_ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/898791.pdfÜnt186ÜetÜbt60ÜntConsultation Paper on new Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic DevelopmentÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/921761.pdfÜnt219ÜetÜbt61ÜntProposals for future unitary structures in Bedfordshire: Stakeholder ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/787812.pdfÜnt26ÜetÜbt62ÜntLocal petitions and Calls for Action: ConsultationÜnthttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/906801.pdfÜnt202ÜetÜmp40ÝÊÜjf22ÝÜpg0ÝÜmc2ÝËÜmo1Ýhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/E/9/pbrÜmv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýcsr07Ümv3Ý^Ümv-3Ýpsa21.pdfËËÜmo2Ýhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/about/howwework/publicserviceagreements/departmentalstrategicobjectives/ËËÜmo3ÝDCSF's SR04 PSA 7.ËÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf165ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝSupplementary memorandum by Communities and Local Government (DAR (07^08) 02)ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝERRORS IN THE 2008 ANNUAL REPORT AND RESOURCE ACCOUNTSÌÜjf4ÝIn advance of the hearings on the Department's 2008 Annual Report and Resource Accounts, I thought I should advise you of some issues that have come to our attention following a review of the information in the Annual Report. ËÜjf4ÝThe main issue relates to some data errors which have led to an incorrect reporting of the number of FRAs failing to meet sub-target 1 of PSA 3 (Fire). There are also some data issues on PSA 8 (Liveability) and an error in the Resource Accounts dealing with Central Administration which gives inaccurate information on the reasons for an underspend. I am pleased to confirm that none of these affect the performance assessment made for each, and that no errors have been identified for our other PSAs. ËÜjf4ÝI provide a detailed account at Annex A of the main points and the Department's plans for ensuring greater accuracy in the future. ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝAnnex AÉÌÜjf31ÝPSA 3: FireÌÜjf4ÝThere are a number of separate amendments required to our reporting of performance against the fire PSA, both on the headline target and the sub-targets. None of these errors impacts upon either our assessments for the individual targets or our overall assessment of progress as slippage".ËÜjf30ÝHeadline targetÌÜjf4ÝAccording to the technical note for this PSA, the headline target on fire deaths should use a baseline of March 1999 when there were 350,280 deaths from accidental dwelling fires. However, the 2008 Annual Report uses April 2000 and 349,279 deaths. This results in a small over-reporting of performance against this PSA: there were 16 fewer deaths rather than 23 against the planned trajectory. ËÜjf30ÝSub-target 1ÌÜjf4ÝSub-target 1 relates to the number of Fire and Rescue Authorities (FRAs) where the average fatality rate per 100,000 population from accidental dwelling fires is greater than 1.25 times the national average. We stated in the Annual Report that there were eight FRAs with fatality rates above the national average. However, this is based on the use of raw numbers rather than average numbers of deaths per hundred thousand against which the target should be measured. The revised figures show five FRAs (Lancashire, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Durham and South Yorkshire) above the average, as at 31 March 2008. This correction also impacts upon the national average stated, which should be 0.49 deaths per 100,000 rather than 4.23 as reported.ËÜjf30ÝSub-target 2ÌÜjf4ÝAccording to the technical note for this PSA, the baseline for numbers of deliberate fires against which reductions are measured should be 94,000, rather than 94,050 as used in the Annual Report. This has lead to a small over-reporting of the reduction against the baseline of 60% instead of the actual reduction of 58%.ËÜjf4ÝThese errors occurred during a period of staff turnover, when a key post was vacant. Additional quality assurance processes have now been put in place.ËÜjf31ÝPSA 8: LiveabilityÌÜjf4ÝFurther data corrections are also required for our reporting on the Liveability PSA.ËÜjf4ÝOn the safer streets" indicator (f), the technical note sets a baseline for numbers of abandoned cars nationally of 310,000. In the Annual Report, we therefore give a target for a reduction of 25% to 233,000. However, the national baseline was revised downwards after publication of the technical note to 291,710 in 2002/03. The target should therefore be quoted as 219,000 (to the nearest thousand). Our performance remains significantly ahead" at 81,650 abandoned vehicles nationally in 2006^07.ËÜnpÜjf4ÝOn the same indicator, we also measure progress against abandoned vehicles in Neighbourhood Renewal Fund areas. In the Annual Report we quote a baseline 138,000 in NRF areas in 2002^03. This was again revised downwards. We have reviewed the baseline to ensure that all NRF areas were included in the data supplied by DEFRA. The revised baseline should have been given as 124,414. To the nearest thousand, this would give a target of 93,000. Our performance against this target was 41,848 abandoned vehicles and not 39,000 as originally stated, because the original calculations did not include the correct NRF areas. Despite this error, we remain ahead against this indicator.ËÜjf4ÝOur overall rating of progress on PSA 8 remains as slippage".ËÜjf31ÝResource AccountsÌÜjf4ÝNote 47 to the Resource Accounts attributes the underspend on Central Administration to efficiency savings. Whilst savings have been made, they do not fall within the strict definition of efficiencies set out by the OGC. The notes should have given the following breakdown: ËÜjf10Ý_	Ücf2Ý#8.6 million near cash underspendÜcf1Ý_all the End Year Flexibility was drawn down to cover forecast overspends which, due to improved monitoring and control, did not materialise;ËÜjf10Ý_	Ücf2Ý#17.6 million non cash underspendÜcf1Ý_this is due to the level of the cost of capital credit over which we have no control;ËÜjf10Ý_	Ücf2Ý#8.9 million other current" resourceÜcf1Ý_we had to draw down resource cover for the Thurmaston compensation payment but were not able to settle the case in year as we were still awaiting formal claim from the Co-op. (You received a separate note on the Thurmaston Planning Case in response to the Committee's questions on the Spring Supplementary Estimates on 21 April 2008); andËÜjf10Ý_	Ücf2Ý#9.5 million relates to the Pan-Government AgreementÜcf1Ý_a collective purchasing agreement managed by the Department which gives 100 central government members access to a range of digital mapping datasets and support services, which was also mapped to the Central Administration estimate line. ËÜjf22ÝÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝFurther supplementary memorandum by CLG (DAR (07^08) 04)ÌÜjf4Ý1.This note provides supplementary information further to the hearing held on 27 October with the Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP, the Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP and the Rt Hon John Healey MP, and subsequent correspondence from the Department on 28 October and 3 November dealing with flooding response and recovery and delays to Select Committee responses. Copies of this correspondence are at annexes A and B for ease of reference.ËÜjf31ÝLocal Authority InvestmentsÌÜjf30ÝReviewing the Audit Commission's investment decisions (Q121)ÌÜjf4Ý2.The Comptroller and Auditor General (National Audit Office_NAO) is named in statute as the auditor of the Audit Commission. The NAO inspects and certifies the Commission's accounts each year.ËÜjf4Ý3.We understand that the Audit Commission is currently undertaking an internal review of its procedures relating to its deposits in Icelandic banks. Once this review has been completed, the findings will be shared with the NAO. It will be for the NAO to decide how to take forward its response to the information provided.ËÜjf30ÝGuidance on local authority investment decisions (Q125)ÌÜjf4Ý4.The Department's guidance on local authority investment is available on our website.Ümr4Ý (We have arranged for hardcopies to be provided to your office).ËÜjf31ÝHousingÌÜjf30ÝHow might Regional Assemblies test a range of houses" put forward by the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (Q141)ÌÜjf4Ý5.In the Housing Green Paper (2007), the Government committed to early reviews of regional spatial strategies (RSSs), where necessary, to reflect plans for some 240,000 homes per year from 2016. We also committed to strengthen the evidence base to inform these reviews by issuing formal guidance at the beginning of RSS preparations, based on independent advice from the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit (NHPAU).ËÜjf4Ý6.Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing states that Regional Assemblies must take evidence provided by the NHPAU into account in determining housing levels. Stage 2 of the RSS revision process requires the Regional Planning Body to identify and test different strategic options in relation to the policy area which is being revised_in this case housing_and we expect regions to test options that include housing numbers within the NHPAU range. Where a preferred option is identified which falls outside the NHPAU range, the Regional Planning Body, working with the councils and authorities identified in section 4(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, must provide the Examination in Public, with sufficient evidence to illustrate the spatial implications of delivering a level of growth within the NHPAU range.ËÜjf4Ý7.Following receipt of the NHPAU advice, on 16 July 2008 the then Housing Minister Caroline Flint MP wrote to the chairs and chief executives of the Regional Assemblies setting out how this advice should be used to inform future RSS reviews. A copy of the advice provided to the East of England is attached for information. ËÜjf30ÝQ147_what are local authorities being asked to do, re the housing situation?ÌÜjf4Ý8.Local authorities have not been asked to draw up or submit plans for funding to buy up empty homes nor to build new homes, although it is hoped that they will continue to work closely with the Housing Corporation and Homes and Communities Agency on the development and implementation of local housing strategies. However, the Department announced in September that it would invite local authorities to seek funding from the Homes and Communities Agency for new social housing.ËÜjf4Ý9.The Department also continues to work closely with all English local authorities to ensure that advice and assistance is available to all households where homelessness is threatened. Since July all English local authorities have reviewed and published their Homelessness Strategies, including greater emphasis on landlord and lender repossessions to reflect changing market conditions.ËÜjf4Ý10.Briefings on court processes and mortgage repossession prevention have also been circulated to every English housing authority and the Department has held Regional Summits in all Government Office regions to brief local authorities on repossessions and to explain their role in delivering the Government's mortgage rescue scheme. Local Authorities will act as a gateway to the scheme by assessing households' eligibility before negotiating with an applicant's lender to halt repossession action and referring successful applicants to money advice agencies.ËÜjf4Ý11.Local authorities also have a key role in the Surplus Public Sector Land programme, currently managed by English Partnership (EP), which is working closely with public sector bodies including local authorities to identify potential sites for development. ËÜjf4Ý12.The programme includes the development of Local Housing Companies to help local authorities to bring forward additional homes on surplus land. We are working with 14 local authorities to establish a pilot programme to develop this model. They have the potential to make a significant contribution to our target of delivering 60,000 homes on surplus sector land.ËÜjf31ÝSmart MeteringÌÜjf30ÝLead department and current progress (Q184)ÌÜjf4Ý13.Smart meters allow energy suppliers to communicate directly with their customers, removing the need for meter readings and ensuring entirely accurate bills with no estimates. They can tell people about their energy use through either linked display units or other ways, such as through the internet or television. Among other potential benefits, they could offer gas and electricity customers accurate bills and provide information that could help them use less energy and encourage energy efficiency.ËÜjf4Ý14.This is not an area of policy on which Communities and Local Government leads, although we make a strong contribution to the Government's wider work on climate change. Following Machinery of Government changes, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) took on policy responsibility for Smart Meters from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Subsequent to the hearing on 27 October, the Government announced (28 October) that smart meters would be rolled out to all domestic consumers and the indicative timetable for this.ËÜjf4Ý15.We understand that DECC currently anticipate that is will take around two years to design and establish the full details of the roll-out, followed by a ten-year roll-out period resulting in an indicative completion date towards the end of 2020.ËÜjf4Ý16.For business customers, Government is proceeding with a roll-out of advanced metering to larger businesses, where there is a clear economic case. The current target is to roll-out smart metering in this sector over five years from January 2009. ËÜjf4Ý17.The decision to announce the planned roll-out reflects Government's belief in the potential benefits of smart metering. Smart meters will benefit customer service and contribute to a competitive market by, for example, improving the accuracy of billing and allowing rapid, problem-free switching from one energy supplier to another. ËÜjf4Ý18.There will also be environmental benefits through reduced energy demand and carbon emissions from better customer information, targeted energy efficiency advice and activity and the facilitation of micro-generation.ËÜjf4Ý19.Finally, smart meters will offer security of supply and a more resilient network through improving the capacity for dynamic demand management and the facilitation of distributed generation and smart grids.ËÈÜcf2ÝNovember 2008Ücf1ÝËÜjf22ÝËÜmo4Ýhttp://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/capital/data/lginvest2.pdfËÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝLetter from Rt Hon John Healey MP, Minister for Local Government, to Phyllis Starkey MP,ÊChair of CLG Select Committee (DAR 07)ÌÜjf31ÝEuropean Regional Development Fund: Suspension of Payments in the North West Objective 2 and Urban ProgrammesÌÜjf4ÝI am writing to confirm that the European Commission has now delivered its judgement in respect of its decision to suspend payments to ERDF programmes in the North West.ËÜjf4ÝThe Commission suspended ERDF payments in six regions last year due to concerns about record keeping. There was no question of fraud or misuse of funds. We have undertaken a considerable amount of work to satisfy the Commission's concerns and our decisive action has seen suspension lifted in five out of the six regions. Commissioner Hubner also praised the significant effort by the UK authorities to deal with the questions raised by the Commission.ËÜjf4ÝHowever, notification was received from the Commission last week, which confirmed its decision to impose a financial correction of just under é25 million on the North West Objective 2 and Urban programme.ËÜjf4ÝWe are disappointed that despite significant action to address Commission concerns, it still felt it necessary to impose a financial correction. However, the correction is less than half the amount initially proposed and is small compared to the #3.7 billion the UK receives through this funding. I can also confirm that no projects will lose out as any costs would be met by central government.ËÜjf4ÝThe financial correction of é25 million will be deducted from claims already made to the EC. The amounts payable for ERDF are denominated in euros. During the suspension of payments period the value of the euro has significantly appreciated against the GB pound. As a result and despite the financial correction, CLG will now receive more in GB pound terms than the original value of its claim and there will be no adverse budgetary impact as Parliamentary Estimates are in GB pounds.ËÜjf4ÝOf course where grant recipients of ERDF have made claims for ineligible expenditure, they would be expected to repay these amounts.ËÈÜcf2Ý18 March 2008Ücf1ÝËÜjf22ÝÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝMemorandum by CLG on the Winter Supplementary Estimates 2007^08 (EST 04)ÌÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝUnder the Changes sought which do not increase public expenditure, taken across government", a number of items do not have any monetary value attributed to them. It is unclear which of these items contribute to the totals in Table 1, Summary of the Net Changes". If these figures in the Table are not linked to the changes delineated in the Summary, it minimises the effectiveness and worth of both. The Committee requests that, to enhance clarity, the movements in the list of changes sought are linked to the totals in the Table.ËÜjf48ÝWe agree that it would help to link the bullet points directly to the numbers and headings in the table, and to state the figures in the text. We will ensure that in future we do this. ËÜjf48ÝFor the committee's information a revised version of the relevant sections from the explanatory memorandum is attached as Annex A. The changes are highlighted there by bold underlining.ËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝThere does not appear to be a clear link between the amounts for draw-down of EYF as set out in the Detailed explanation of changes" (Section B) and the EYF table (Section E). The former has a breakdown of #158 million EYF (some Capital, and some Resource) and a further #282,000 capital EYF. However, it is difficult to discern a link between these figures and the total of #286 million total EYF (#50 million Resource and #236 million Capital) drawn-down in the supplementary estimate. The Committee requests a reconciliation between these figures, to facilitate transparency of these items.ËÜjf4ÝThe differences in the figures for draw down of EYF arise for the following reasons:ËÜjf10Ý_	Section B relates to voted DEL expenditure only, whereas Section E relates to both voted and non-voted DEL. Non-voted DEL includes the budgets of the Department's NDPBs (this accounts for most of the difference, around #158 million);ËÜjf10Ý_	There is a #5 million error in the table at Section E. The draw down of capital EYF at Winter Supplementary Estimates for main DEL should read #241 million, not #236 million (total EYF drawn down #291 million not #286 million)). We apologise for this error, which will be shown correctly in the Spring Supplementary Estimate explanatory memorandum. The figures were correctly stated in the Winter Supplementary Estimate DEL statement and the Estimate. ËÜjf4ÝA reconciliation between the two figures is as follows:ËÜjf31ÝMain DELËÜjf30ÝAll figures in # millionÌÈÜcc35p6ÝÜdt9p9g,4p6,0p6g,3p0w,0p6g,4p0w,1p0g,3p0wÝÊÜbtÜcf2ÝEYF Drawn DownÜntVotedÜntNon VotedÜntTotalÜetÊÜbtÜcf1ÝResourceÜnt#43.394Ünt#6.500Ünt#49.894ÜetÜbtCapitalÜnt#114.562Ünt#126.733Ünt#241.295ÜetÜbtTotalÜnt#157.956Ünt#133.233Ünt#291.189ÜetÊÜjf4ÝDetails of the drawn down of EYF, both voted and non-voted were given in the Winter Supplementary Estimates DEL statement.ËÜjf4ÝFor the committee's information the non-voted EYF drawdown related to the following items:ËÜjf30ÝResourceÌÜjf10Ý_	#6.500 million for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and included in amounts transferred to the Government Equalities Office.ËÜjf30ÝCapitalÌÜjf10Ý_	#80.451 million for infrastructure work in preparation for the Olympics, transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.ËÜjf10Ý_	#39 million for Arms Length Management Organisations (Local authority Supported Capital Expenditure (revenue)). ËÜjf10Ý_	#7 million capital for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and included in amounts transferred to the Government Equalities Office.ËÜjf10Ý_	#0.282 million for ERDF Voted capital.ËÜjf4ÝFor greater clarity, with effect from the Spring Supplementary Estimates memorandum, we are also adding Estimates totals" alongside DEL totals" to the detailed explanations of changes to show where the impact of changes is different in Estimates to DEL. ËÜjf31ÝRecommendations for Future Estimates MemorandaÌÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝThe Committee recommends that future estimates memoranda continue to improve clarity to enable the reader to understand the links between different figures in supplementary estimates. This is needed to ensure that the increased detail of explanation does not have a detrimental effect upon the comprehensibility of the memorandum.ËÜjf4ÝWe welcome the Committee's continued advice and will seek to further improve our memoranda and other information to Parliament. Previously, in response to the Committee's recommendations, we have shared memoranda in draft with the Committee clerks and have been grateful for the benefits of their views on clarity and format. We would wish to continue this arrangement if the Committee is agreeable. ËÜjf4ÝGenerally, we work to guidance issued by the Scrutiny Unit of the House of Commons and the Treasury's new Estimates Manual". However, we will continue to provide extra information where that would help make memoranda clearer.ËÜjf31ÝFurther Questions arising from the Winter Supplementary Estimates 2007^08ÌÜjf4ÝÜcf2Ý#80 million is being drawn-down from Capital EYF as gap funding for the Decent Homes programme. The memorandum states that the annual use of EYF is an arrangement agreed with Treasury, whereby EYF was topped up following the reclassification of costs... several years ago". During oral evidence on this year's Departmental Annual Report, Richard McCarthy told the Committee that the Department had used money from under-spends on the Decent Homes programme to support other programmes (so that the Department could have it back the following year: Q53). The Committee requests that the Department provide an explanation of the connection, if any, between the draw-down of #80 million gap funding" and the use of the programme's money for other projects. Furthermore, the Committee would like to know what effect this method of funding has on the department's efficiency savings under the Spending Review 2004 and CSR07 targets.ËÜjf4ÝThe Decent Homes programme includes both support to RSLs for gap funding" arrangements associated with housing stock transfers, and capital expenditure allowances for ALMOs. ËÜjf4ÝGap funding is paid to RSLs where negatively valued housing stock is transferred to them from a local authority. The gap funding supports the investment needed to meet decency standards and so counts towards the Decent Homes Programme.  Any draw down of capital EYF for gap funding is used exclusively for gap funding purposes and there is no connection between the draw-down of #80 million gap funding and the use of Decent Homes money for other projects.ËÜjf4ÝSupport to ALMOs also counts towards the Decent Homes Programme and the movement of capital resources out of and into the Decent Homes ALMO programme since 2005^06 is as follows.ËÜjf4ÝIn 2005^06, #24.7 million was switched from the decent homes budget to other programmes (Procurement Efficiencies in Social Housing, Housing Market Renewal, Other Growth Areas) to take up some of the under spend on the ALMOs programme. ËÜjf4ÝIn 2006^07 #109 million was lent to the Housing Corporation affordable housing programme on the understanding that this would be repaid in full to the decent homes programmes in future years. Additionally, #15 million was transferred to the Olympics programme and #8.4 million was repaid to the decent homes programme.ËÜjf4ÝAt the end of 2006^07 there was #63 million under spend on the ALMO programme which we expect to be available to the programme, subject to decisions on End of Year Flexibility, over 2008^11. ËÜjf4ÝIn 2007^08 #55 million was repaid to the programme including #39 million from Housing Corporation, and a further #14 million was transferred to the Olympics.ËÜjf4ÝOf the #162.7 million transferred out of the ALMO programme to date #63.4 million has been repaid and in the period 2008^11 we expect the Housing Corporation to repay the remaining #70 million loan. The #63 million under spend is available subject to decisions on End of Year Flexibility. ËÈÜcc35p6ÝÜdt4p0,0p6g,6p0w,0p6g,6p0w,0p6g,6p0wÝÜtqcÝÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf2ÝYearÜntMoney in/Éanticipated (#m)ÜntMoney OutÉ(includingÉOlympics) (#m)ÜntUnder spendÉpending decisionsÉabout End YearÉFlexibility (#m)ÜetÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf1Ý2005^06ÜntÜnt#24.7ÜetÜbt2006^07Ünt#8.4Ünt#124Ünt#63ÜetÜbt2007^08Ünt#55Ünt#14ÜetÜbt2008^11Ünt#70ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf3ÝTotalÜnt#133.4Ünt#162.7Ünt#63Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetÜjf4ÝThe draw-down of EYF has had no bearing on efficiency savings claimed during the Spending Review 2004 period or the development of the Department's targets for the next period. Borrowing from and repayment to the Decent Homes programme may impact on the timing when savings are achieved but should not affect overall savings. The methodology for calculating efficiency savings in social housing in the current period (both in new supply and through Registered Social Landlords) is set out in detail in our efficiency technical note and the movement of funds in this way would not affect the efficiency gains claimed.ËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝThere is a #300 million change to the Net Cash Requirement (NCR) as a result of the European Union suspending payments of development funds to the UK last year. At the time of the laying of the Supplementary Estimate, the Committee understands that the suspension had been lifted from all regions except for the North West, but there is a possibility that not all the funding will be received by the year end. The Committee requests further information on why the funds were originally suspended, why the North West region is still under suspension, and whether all other regions will be able to obtain the monies from the ERDF even if the North West region is still under suspension. ËÜjf4ÝThe #300 million addition to the Net Cash Requirement is not the cost of any financial correction that the Commission may apply, but a precautionary increase in cash taken to cover the possibility that suspended payments would not be released by the Commission in the current financial year.ËÜjf4ÝIn April 2007 the European Commission suspended ERDF payments to five English regions, and Peterborough, while corrective action was carried out. This was because of the Commission's view that the UK Government had not yet been able to demonstrate that sufficient action had been taken to address programme monitoring concerns raised at EC audits in some Government Offices. ËÜjf4ÝFollowing significant work by the Department and the relevant Government Offices, the Commission has lifted suspension, for Yorkshire and the Humber, North East, Peterborough, North West Merseyside, and the West Midlands. Payment of claims has restarted for all these programmes. It has since confirmed that it will also be lifting the suspension in London.  This simply leaves the remaining programmes in the North West outstanding.ËÜjf4ÝThe programmes managed by Manchester office of the Government Office of the North West, where a more complex approach has been adopted involving the use of local Accountable Bodies for the programme management of Objective 2 and Urban Funding, are subject to a final decision by the Commission. Further work has been carried out by the Department, Government Office and local Accountable (intermediary) Bodies leading to a strengthened position. A final decision on the suspension and any financial correction is expected before 31 March 2008.ËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝThe Committee would also like to know what steps have been taken to resolve the problems which resulted in the suspension of payments; and whether there is a risk that this situation could be repeated with other sources of European funding in the future.ËÜjf4ÝExtensive action to increase the levels of programme monitoring and to improve the management of risk has been taken to address concerns raised by the Commission and the Departments internal auditors. The success of these actions has resulted in the lifting of the suspension in all areas other than the Manchester Office in the North West.ËÜjf4ÝWork on the new round of ERDF programmes, 2007^13, is transferring to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) from the end of January 2008. We have been working very closely with the RDAs and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to identify and improve systems to, as far as possible, eliminate risks of a similar situation arising with the new programmes. Arrangements and processes, including for monitoring, claiming, auditing, and budgeting and accountancy, have been reviewed and revised and full guidance is close to being put in place. Our management and control systems will also be agreed with the European Commission.  ËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝApproximately #102 million of transfers have been made between the Thames Gateway capital grants and local authorities, from non-voted budgets for Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs), in relation to the delivery of Thames Gateway projects. The memorandum explains that these transfers have come about as a result of decisions on the allocation of budgets under the programme. The Committee would like further information on what these decisions were, why they were made and how they will affect the practical details and delivery of the various Thames Gateway projects.ËÜjf4ÝThe transfer of #102.4 million capital from the Thames Gateway direct budget was to cover the 2007^08 expenditure of the Gateway's two Urban Development Corporations (London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) and Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation (TTGDC)) and also to cover grant payments to a number of NDPBs made for projects they are undertaking in the Thames Gateway.ËÜjf4ÝThe transfers in no way affect the practical details and delivery of projects. The transfers are only made in each year, once the allocation of monies has been decided.ËÜcp9.5,10.5ÝÜcc35p6ÝÜdt5p0,0p6g,30p0ÝÊÜbtÜcf2Ý# millionsÜetÊÜbtÜcf1Ý49.0ÜntÜcf2ÝLTGDC Capital ProgrammeÜcf1Ý_primarily Innogy site acquisition (#22 million), Canning buy backs, demolitions and temporary community facilities (#15 million), industrial estate improvements and vacant possession of Carpet Right site in Rainham (#3 million), upgrade of Prescot Lock on the river Lea (#2.2 million), Barking town buy backs (#2.5 million), Wildspace Conservation Park visitors' centre (#2.2 million)ÜetÜel3ÝÜbt24.1ÜntÜcf2ÝTTGDC Capital ProgrammeÜcf1Ý covering land purchases for the PRIDe project (#5.5 million), Botany Way acquisition and remediation (#10 million), Vopak site acquisition (#5 million), Grays Territorial Army Centre site acquisition (#2 million)ÜetÜel3ÝÜbt4.0ÜntÜcf2ÝEYF Granted to TTGDCÜcf1Ý for a land purchase that was meant to take place in 2006^07 but fell through at the last minuteÜetÜel3ÝÜbt10.7ÜntÜcf2ÝEnglish PartnershipsÜcf1Ý_to cover a land purchase in Craylands in Essex.ÜetÜbt2.1ÜntÜcf2ÝHousing CorporationÜcf1Ý_contributions to housing construction at Burford Wharf and Pepys Estate, Lewisham.ÜetÜel3ÝÜbt6.8ÜntÜcf2ÝSEEDAÜcf1Ý: contributions to a number of projects in North Kent, primarily the A249 Rushenden Relief Road (#6.3 milllion in 2007^08)ÜetÜel3ÝÜbt1.7ÜntÜcf2ÝEEDAÜcf1Ý: contributions to a number of projects primarily Canvey Island regeneration (#0.75 million) and South Essex Green Grid (#0.5 million)ÜetÜel3ÝÜbt4.0ÜntÜcf2ÝLDAÜcf1Ý: to cover contributions to a number of projects primarily the #1.15 million for Digital Works Manufacturing Centre, #2 million for Ravensbourne College, #0.55 million for power for Leamouth.ÜetÊÜjf165ÝÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝThere are #37 million of resource transfers required to meet the increased cost of PFI schemes which, according to the memorandum, are due to less slippage in amounts being claimed by local authorities". The memorandum also explains that the budget for the year was set with no buffer for possible overspends and that payments are now due earlier than expected. The Committee requests explanation of why no buffer was included, whether it is normal practice to have such a buffer and, if so, why this was not done, why the payments are due earlier, and to what such payments relate.ËÜjf4ÝPFI grant is paid in respect of local authority PFI projects which central government has agreed to support (with the exception of Housing Revenue Account housing). Grant starts to be paid once the project becomes operational (eg a building becomes available for occupation) and is paid for the duration of the contract (often 25 years or so). Grant is paid to support roughly 220 projects.ËÜjf4ÝWhen forecasting the level of grant which is needed, there are two components. The first is that needed to continue paying projects which are already operational. This is a known amount and is by far the largest element. The second, which is smaller but much more volatile, is an estimate of projects which are likely to become operational in the next year. The figure used is based on forecasts provided to us by the relevant departments who, in turn, use information provided by local authorities planning PFI projects. ËÜjf4ÝPast years have shown that forecasts have consistently been optimistic in estimating how quickly new projects will become operational. If the forecasts were taken at face value there would therefore be large underspends which, in turn, would result in reductions in general support to local authorities. This department therefore needs to take a view on how far it can reduce the forecasts it receives, whilst still avoiding an overspend (the result is the slippage" assumption referred to previously). ËÜjf4ÝWith the introduction of multi-year settlements this exercise had to be undertaken in September 2005 for both the 2006^07 and 2007^08 budgets. In 2006^07 the programme budget had to be increased by #44 million at spring Supplementary Estimates. This was the result of a combination of:ËÜjf10Ý_	slippage being less than assumed (about 35% rather than 50% by number of projects);ËÜjf10Ý_	three projects requiring payment significantly earlier than forecast; andËÜjf10Ý_	six projects emerging which were not included in forecasts at all.ËÜjf4ÝThe same projects referred to in the latter two causes noted are also the cause of the overspend in 2007-08. The impact of the projects not included in the forecasts at all will be felt in both years. Projects which were expected but which started a year early will result in a full year's payment in the following year, rather than a part year payment as forecast. ËÜjf4ÝIn fact, the additional funds of #37 million required in 2007-08 are expected to be less than the #44 million needed in 2006^07. The reason for this is that the level of slippage on additional projects starting in 2007^08 now seems likely to be greater than the original 50% assumption, and no further unexpected projects have emerged.ËÜjf4ÝLearning from the lessons of 2006^07, considerably more effort has been put into ensuring that all projects which potentially could start in 2008^09 have been identified, and much more cautious slippage assumptions have been used.ËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝThere is an #81.6 million increase in AME relating to a need to fund costs arising from a court judgement over one element of the basis on which grant for the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme (LABGIS) was calculated. The Committee is aware that the court judgement arose from proceedings brought by Corby and Selby Borough Councils against changes to the scheme announced in September 2006. The Committee is also aware that subsequent announcements have significantly reduced the amount of money available to local authorities through LABGIS in future years. The Committee requests further details of the reasons why Corby and Selby Borough Councils were able successfully to bring judicial review proceedings against the Department, and the extent to which the adverse judgement and the resulting increase in costs to CLG set out in the WSE affected the decisions on the future of the scheme.ËÜjf4ÝThe Local Authority Business Growth Incentives scheme (LABGI) rewards local authorities for increasing their business rateable value base by paying grant to authorities where business growth exceeds a certain level. The Chancellor allocated up to #1 billion through the scheme for local authorities in England and Wales over the three years 2005^06, 2006^07 and 2007^08. ËÜjf4ÝIn the scheme's first and second years (2005^06 and 2006^07), #126.6 million and #316 million was initially awarded to local authorities in England. ËÜjf4ÝHowever, the scheme was challenged through Judicial Review by Corby and Slough Borough Councils. The local authorities challenged the Government's decision in Year 1 of the scheme (2005^06) to exclude from the calculation of business growth in each local authority area growth reflected in the physical expansion of existing premises.  ËÜjf4ÝAs a result of that successful challenge, the Department awarded an additional #92.2 million to English authorities for Years 1 and 2 of the scheme in September 2007. However, this does not affect the fact that the Government remains committed to allocating up to #935 million across England over the three years of the scheme_it merely meant that #92.2 million was paid out earlier than anticipated. The #81.6 million increase in AME quoted by the Committee was an in-year addition to bring the balance of funding over three years up to #935 million.ËÜjf4ÝThe final year of the original LABGI scheme is 2007-08. However, the Government published an issues paper in October, which sought the views on reform of LABGI for subsequent years. Reforms should help deliver the Government's objectives to:ËÜjf10Ý_	empower every council to take a lead role in encouraging economic development by strengthening the link between growth in a local area and its local business tax base;ËÜjf10Ý_	strengthen the fairness of the incentive so that all authorities_particularly the most deprived_make a greater contribution to the local economic wellbeing by sharpening the link between financial rewards and local growth, recognising the scale of the challenge in low-income areas and delivering opportunity for all;ËÜjf10Ý_	support the plans each authority makes for the future of its local area by delivering greater certainty, simplicity and transparency in the value of LABGI; andËÜjf10Ý_	deliver long-lasting reform by creating a permanent incentive to reward economic development that is fully integrated with the local government finance system.ËÜjf4ÝThe Government has said that it will develop detailed proposals for formal consultation in the spring in the light of responses to the issues paper. Payments under the reformed scheme will be made from 2009^10. #50 million of funding will be provided under LABGI in England in 2009^10. This will double to #100 million in 2010^11. ËÜjf4ÝThe Government is not taking money away from local government and the level of funding available in future has not been affected by Judicial Review. This money is additional to Revenue Support Grant, and should be seen as pilot for a new approach that will enable the Government to embed incentives for economic growth permanently within the local government finance system from the next spending review period. ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝAnnex AÉÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM (REVISED VERSION OF CERTAIN TABLES)ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝWINTER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2007^08ÌÜjf31ÝIntroductionÌÜjf4Ý1.The changes to Departmental Expenditure Limits which are referred to below were announced by the Secretary of State on 15 November 2007. Changes to Departmental Expenditure Limits, of which the department has two (Main Programmes and Local Government), are not always identical to the changes to the Estimates described below. This is because: ËÜjf10Ý_	some expenditure within Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) is non-Voted, while some Voted expenditure is outside Departmental Expenditure Limits; andËÜjf10Ý_	the Departmental Expenditure Limits consolidate expenditure of the Department with that of the Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) which the Department sponsors. The Estimate records expenditure by the Department and its executive agencies only, which includes grant in aid to NDPBs, but not NDPB expenditure itself.ËÜjf30ÝEnd Year FlexibilityÌÜjf4Ý2.The End of Year Flexibility (EYF) entitlements were included in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper 2006^07 (Cm 7156) which was presented to Parliament by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in July 2007.ËÜjf31ÝSection A: Summary of Changes Sought in EstimateÌÜjf4Ý3.The Department for Communities and Local Government's Winter Supplementary Estimate requests additional net resource provision above Main Estimates totals of:ËÜjf10Ý_	RFR1          #121,663,000ËÜjf10Ý_	RFR2          #140,731,000ËÜjf4Ý4.There is also an increase of #557,904,000 to the Net Cash Requirement being sought, resulting from these changes to the RFRs, and forecast outstanding cash receipts from the European Union.ËÜjf4Ý5.Details of DEL impacts of the changes are set out in section D of this memorandum.ËÜjf4Ý6.The increases in provision sought in this Supplementary Estimate relate to:ËÜjf10Ý_	Draw down of End Year Flexibility (#158 million);ËÜjf10Ý_	Increases in Annually Managed Expenditure (#147 million);ËÜjf10Ý_	Transfers of equalities functions to the Government Equalities Office (¸#60 million to the estimate, but neutral in public expenditure terms); andËÜjf10Ý_	switches within the RFR, across RFRs, within the DEL or across Government as a whole (#17 million to the estimate, but neutral in public expenditure terms).ËÜjf4Ý7.These changes can be divided into those which increase public expenditure overall, and those which reallocate within the existing public expenditure totals.ËÜjf30ÝChanges sought which increase public expenditureÌÜjf4Ý8.These are as follows:ËÜjf10Ý_	Increases totalling #158.0 million (item 1, table 1) funded from the Department's draw down of entitlement to End Year Flexibility (EYF) and being used:ËÜjf48Ýa.ÜixTo provide #80 million for planned gap funding for Large Scale Voluntary Transfers of housing stock (#80 million), allowing payments to Registered Social Landlords to fund capital investment in housing stock to achieve decency standards. The annual draw down of capital EYF is necessary because when the programme was reclassified as DEL several years ago, previous underspends were added to the Department's EYF rather than as an increase in DEL baselines, meaning funding could not be drawn down until winter supplementaries each year.ËÜjf48Ýb.ÜixTo provide #7 million funding towards the #20 million recovery package following the summer floods.ËÜjf48Ýc.ÜixTo provide #9.8 million for proposed staff early exits in the Department and Government Offices to reduce staff numbers.ËÜjf48Ýd.ÜixThe remaining #60.8 million is distributed between a dozen or so other programmes (notably New Deal for Communities and those channelled through Local Area Agreements) and results largely from slippage. Specific explanations for the use of EYF are given in the detailed section (B) below.ËÜjf10Ý_	Increases to Annually Managed Expenditure totalling #147 million (item 2, table 1) for:ËÜjf48Ýa.ÜixNational Non-Domestic Rates outturn adjustments, following audit (#65 million); andËÜjf48Ýb.Üixexpenditure on Public Service Agreement performance (#82 million), brought forward from last year.ËÜjf30ÝChanges sought which do not increase public expenditure, taken across governmentÌÜjf4Ý9.These are as follows:ËÜjf48Ýa.ÜixDecreases totalling #60.3 million resulting from machinery of government changes, moving equalities functions to the Government Equalities Office:ËÜjf48Ý		_	Üix#27.4 million (item 3, table 1) relates to DEL transfers to the Government Equalities Office to cover equalities programmes; andËÜjf48Ý		_	Üix#32.9 million (item 12, table 1) relates to non-DEL grant in aid to NDPBs (the former Commission for Racial Equality and Equal Opportunities Commission, and the new Commission for Equalities and Human Rights).ËÜjf48Ýb.ÜixIncreases totalling #6.8 million (item 6, table 1) resulting from net transfers from other Government Departments to CLG of a number of small amounts to fund costs of services provided by Government Offices and the Department.ËÜjf48Ýc.ÜixDecreases totalling #0.9 million (items 5, 10 and 11, table 1) resulting from net transfers from the RFRs to non voted budgets and voted capital. In most cases transfers to non-voted budgets relate to NDPBs, and are largely offset, on the Estimate, by the additional grant in aid needed to pay those NDPBS to support the expenditure.ËÜjf48Ýd.ÜixIncreases totalling #7.4 million (item 4, table 1) resulting from net transfers from non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) to RFR1 to cover non-cash pressures (generally cost of capital and depreciation) for a number of programmes where this was not previously budgeted for.ËÜjf48Ýe.ÜixSwitches between budgets (net effect zero, item 9, table 1) and sections within RFRs resulting from decisions taken to redeploy budgets, deal with pressures and priorities or reclassify spend, or to reflect more accurate information on the recipients of funding, for instance whether funding is channelled through NDPBs, local authorities or direct to the private or voluntary sector.ËÜjf48Ýf.ÜixIncreases to expected receipts (net effect zero, item 13, table 1) appropriated in aid, along with matching expenditure, largely as a result of other government departments making higher levels of payments to this Department in support of higher levels of grant payment through Local Area Agreements, rather than other departments making these payments direct to local authorities themselves.ËÜjf48Ýg.ÜixSwitches between the two RFRs (net effect zero, item 8, table 1) mainly relating to the floods recovery package- so that the spending is all held on one RFR. There is also a related transfer of #5 million from non voted LG DEL to voted Main DEL (increase of #5 million in estimate, item 7, table1).ËÜjf48Ýh.ÜixA change to the net cash requirement of #300 million over and above the Resource Requirement. This is a result of the European Union suspending payments to the UK of ERDF last year, while compliance checks were carried out. While the suspension has now been lifted for all regions apart from the North West, there is several hundred million yet to be invoiced and received from the EU. The additional request is to ensure that if not all is received by year end, sufficient cash will be available to meet outstanding ERDF claims this year. The cash requirement will only be used if required, and if it is required, it should reduce the cash which would otherwise have been required in 2008^09.ËÜjf4Ý10.A summary of the net changes is below:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 1ÌÈÜdt17p0,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0wÝÜtqcÝÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf2Ýall figures in # millionÜntRFR1ÜntRFR2ÜntTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝChanges which increase public expenditureÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetÜbt1)End Year FlexibilityÜnt158.0Ünt158.0ÜetÜbt2)Changes in Annually Managed ExpenditureÜnt0.0Ünt146.6Ünt146.6ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝChanges which do not increase public expenditure, taken across GovernmentÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbt3)Machinery of government changesÜnt¸27.4ÜntÜnt¸27.4ÜetÜbt4)Take up of Departmental Unallocated ProvisionÜnt7.4ÜntÜnt7.4ÜetÜbt5)Transfers from resource to voted capitalÜnt¸0.1ÜntÜnt¸0.1ÜetÜbt6)Transfers to/from other government departmentsÜnt6.8ÜntÜnt6.8ÜetÜbt7)Other changes in DEL spending (transfer from non-voted LG DEL to voted Main DEL)Ünt5.0ÜntÜnt5.0ÜetÜbt8)Transfers to other RFRsÜnt6.3Ünt¸6.3Ünt0.0ÜetÜbt9)Transfers within the RFRsÜnt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt0.0ÜetÜbt10)Transfers to non-voted spendingÜnt¸127.7ÜntÜnt¸127.7ÜetÜbt11)Changes in non-budget spending (except machinery of government)Ünt126.5Ünt0.4Ünt126.9ÜetÜbt12)Changes in non-budget spending (machinery of government)Ünt¸32.9ÜntÜnt¸32.9ÜetÜbt13)Changes in A in A, offset by spendingÜnt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt0.0ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf3Ý121.7Ünt140.7Ünt262.4Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetËÜjf22ÝËÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝCommunities and Local Government response to the CLG Committee's supplementary questions on the Winter Supplementary Estimates 2007^08 (EST 07)ÌÜjf4Ý1.This memorandum provides Communities and Local Government's response to the questions set out by the Committee on its Winter Supplementary Estimates by correspondence on 26 February. The Committee asked the Department to:ËÜjf10Ý_	to confirm that #29 million has been transferred from the Decent Homes ALMO programme to the Olympics, and that this money will not be paid back into the programme;ËÜjf10Ý_	to explain why the decision was taken to reduce the money available to the Decent Homes programme in this way, and whether that #29m could, if it had not been transferred to the Olympics, have been used by ALMOs to fund the decent homes programme; andËÜjf10Ý_	to set out what comparable examples there are either in CLG or in other Government Departments_apart from the well-known Lottery funding examples_of money being transferred out of existing programmes to pay for the Olympics.ËÜjf4Ý2.The Olympics will provide a unique contribution to Communities and Local Government's policy objectives, by delivering legacy liveability, housing and employment benefits in one of the most deprived parts of the country. It will transform commercial interest, and the potential scale of investment in new jobs and homes, in the Thames Gateway which is a national priority for regeneration. Following the decision to award the 2012 Olympics to London, Ministers therefore decided to make a capital contribution from Departmental budgets to the Olympics.ËÜjf4Ý3.A funding package of #405 million from the Department was agreed for infrastructure and regeneration costs associated with the Olympics. This required changes to proposed levels of capital funding across six programmes, compared to previous spending plans in the SR04 period. The full analysis for this Department's contributions in the SR04 period is at Annex A_we are unable to comment on the funding contributions of other Department's or the National Lottery. For CSR07 we created a separate spending line for the Olympics prior to the settlement being made.ËÜjf4Ý4.Information on the transfer of our funding to DCMS has been notified to Parliament in the DEL statements accompanying the relevant supplementary estimate where it has taken place in-year.ËÜjf4Ý5.Of the total #405 million, the ALMO programme contributed #29 million over two years, less than 2% of the ALMO budget for this period. This contribution was fixed during the latter half of 2005 during the preparations for the submission of the Department's Main Estimate for 2006^07 when there was a clear expectation that the ALMO programme would be unlikely to utilise all the capital resources available to it over the next two financial years, 2006^07 and 2007^08. That proved to be the case: the budgets for each of these two years were then adjusted downwards by #15 million and #14 million respectively. This issue is materially different to questions over the treatment and protection of in-year underspends in the Decent Homes programme which were answered at the evidence session. ËÜjf4Ý6.It remains that no ALMO that was spending from the ALMO programme in each of 2006^07 and 2007^08 should have had to reduce its planned total spend as a result of the transfer to the Olympics. The ALMO programme as a whole has been subject to some slippage over 2006^08, and we do not believe that any ALMO's investment programme will have been affected by this transfer. It is our intention to ensure through future Spending Reviews that all established ALMOs will be able to deliver their Decent Homes programmes on the basis of spending plans they agree with the Department.ËÈÜcf2ÝMarch 2008Ücf1ÝËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝAnnex AÉÌËÜjf31ÝSR04_Profile of #405 million Savings to BudgetsÌÜcc35p6ÝÜdt18p0,1p6g,3p0w,1p3g,3p0w,1p3g,3p0w,1p0g,3p0wÝÊÜbtÜcf2Ý# millionsÜnt2005^06Ünt2006^07Ünt2007^08ÜntTotalsÜetÊÜbtÜcf1ÝOther Growth AreasÜntÜntÜnt10Ünt10ÜetÜbtHousing Corporation ADP/Regional Housing PotÜnt6Ünt30Ünt52Ünt88ÜetÜbtRegional Housing Pot/local authority allocationsÜntn/aÜnt10Ünt19Ünt29ÜetÜbtALMOsÜntÜnt15Ünt14Ünt29ÜetÜbtThames GatewayÜnt30Ünt70Ünt35Ünt135ÜetÜbtEnglish PartnershipsÜntÜnt30Ünt30Ünt60ÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝTotalÜnt36Ünt155Ünt160Ünt351ÜetÜbtÜcf1ÝEnd Year FlexibilityÜntÜnt11Ünt43Ünt54ÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝOverall TotalÜnt36Ünt166Ünt203Ünt405Ücf1ÝÜetÊÜjf31ÝTransfers to DCMS as set out in Supplementary EstimatesÌÜcc35p6ÝÜdt18p0,1p6g,3p0w,1p3g,3p0w,1p3g,3p0w,1p0g,3p0wÝÊÜbtÜcf2Ý# millionsÜnt2005^06Ünt2006^07Ünt2007^08ÜntTotalsÜetÊÜbtÜcf1ÝPre main estimatesÜntÜnt77.000Ünt175.000ÜetÜbtWinter SupplementariesÜnt30.000Ünt24.300Ünt80.451ÜetÜbtSpring SupplementariesÜnt6.000Ünt12.249ÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝTotalÜnt36.000Ünt113.549Ünt255.451Ünt405.000Ücf1ÝÜetÊÜjf22ÝÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝExplanatory memorandum for the Winter Supplementary Estimate 2008^09 (WSUP 01)ÌÜjf31ÝIntroductionÌÜjf4Ý1.The changes to Departmental Expenditure Limits which are referred to below were announced by the Secretary of State on 25 November 2008. Changes to Departmental Expenditure Limits, of which the department has two (Main Programmes and Local Government), are not always identical to the changes to the Estimates described below. This is because:ËÜjf10Ý_	some expenditure within Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) is non-Voted, while some Voted expenditure is outside Departmental Expenditure Limits; andËÜjf10Ý_	the Departmental Expenditure Limits consolidate expenditure of the Department with that of the Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) which the Department sponsors. The Estimate records expenditure by the Department and its executive agencies only, which includes grant in aid to NDPBs, but not NDPB expenditure itself.ËÜjf30ÝEnd Year FlexibilityÌÜjf4Ý2.The End of Year Flexibility (EYF) entitlements were included in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper 2007^08 (Cm 7419) which was presented to Parliament by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in July 2008.ËÜjf31ÝSection A: Summary of Changes Sought in EstimateÌÜjf4Ý3.The Department for Communities and Local Government Winter Supplementary Estimate requests additional net resource provision, above Main Estimate totals, of:ËÈÜdt1p6g,10p0,2p6g,10p0ÝÜbt_	RFR1Ünt#284.568 millionÜetÜbt_	RFR2Ünt#320.825 millionÜetÜjf4ÝAnd reduction in provision for:ËÈÜbt_	Voted CapitalÜnt#16.993 millionÜetÜjf4Ý4.The Department also seeks an increase of #1,342.375 million to the Net Cash Requirement, resulting from these changes to the RFRs and a cash to accrual adjustment for Overhanging Debt.ËÜjf4Ý5.The main policy reasons for taking a Winter Supplementary Estimate are to:ËÜjf10Ý_	reallocate resources within the Departmental Expenditure Limits, with corresponding adjustments to non budget grant in aid, particularly to reflect the establishment of the new Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) with effect from 1 December 2008 (see Annex A);ËÜjf10Ý_	bring forward funding from 2010^11 to 2008^09 in respect of the package of housing measures announced on 2 September 2008_a non-voted DEL increase supported by voted non-budget grant in aid to the HCA (see Annexes A and B);ËÜjf10Ý_	increase Annually Managed Expenditure forecasts for national non domestic rates outturn adjustments, Local Authority Business Growth Initiative schemes and fire service superannuation;ËÜjf10Ý_	draw down funding for the Restoration Fund in relation to the flooding in 2007;ËÜjf10Ý_	draw down end year flexibility for the local government public service agreement programme and for departmental administration;ËÜjf10Ý_	increase provision for appropriations in aid and associated expenditure;ËÜjf10Ý_	give effect to some small transfers to and from other Departments, and between this Department's two Requests for Resources;ËÜjf10Ý_	adjust the Net Cash Requirement to reflect cash paid in 2008^09 for expenditure incurred in 2007^08.ËÜjf4Ý6.A summary of the DEL impacts of the changes is set out in section D below.ËÜjf4Ý7.The net increases in provision sought in this Supplementary Estimate relate to:ËÜjf10Ý_	Increases outside public expenditure (#620.2 million).ËÜjf10Ý_	Increases in Annually Managed Expenditure (#261.3 million).ËÜjf10Ý_	Draw down of End Year Flexibility (#90.6 million).ËÜjf10Ý_	Draw down of funds from HM Treasury (#30.6 million).ËÜjf10Ý_	A switch of #17.0 million within the Estimate from Capital to Resource.ËÜjf10Ý_	Switches within the RFR, across RFRs, within the DEL or across Government as a whole (¸#0.2 million to the estimate, but neutral in public expenditure terms).ËÜjf4Ýoffset against:ËÜjf10Ý_	A movement of #414.1 million from the voted to non voted programmes (but neutral in overall public expenditure terms) including #299.8 million of budget transfers to the new Homes and Communities Agency.ËÜjf4Ý8.These changes can be divided into those which increase public expenditure overall, and those which reallocate within the existing public expenditure totals or are outside public expenditure totals altogether.  As can be seen from the above, it is the increases which are outside public expenditure which make the biggest contribution to the changes in this Supplementary Estimate.ËÜjf4Ý9.These are as follows:ËÜjf10Ý_	Increases in DEL totalling #90.6 million funded from the Department's draw down of entitlement to End Year Flexibility (EYF) (see table 1, item 1) and being used:ËÜjf48Ýa.ÜixTo provide #8.6 million for central administration costs to cover early exits, increased costs of administering ERDF in internal audit and the Government Offices and restructuring costs.ËÜjf48Ýb.ÜixTo provide #82.0 million for Local Government Public Service Agreements to cover planned spending over the amount provided in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007.ËÜjf10Ý_	Increase in DEL of #30.6 million funded by draw down from HM Treasury for the Restoration Fund for flood recovery (table 1, item 2). This is part of the European funding paid to the UK Exchequer following the flooding in 2007 and has been made available to the Department to distribute to English local authorities.ËÜjf10Ý_	Increases in Annually Managed Expenditure totalling #261.3 million (table 1, item 3) for:ËÜjf10Ý_	Fire Service Superannuation (#22.6 million) to adjust the forecast for fire fighters pensions.ËÜjf10Ý_	National Non Domestic Rates outturn adjustments (#137.0 million) to reflect a higher than estimated level of adjustments to prior year NNDR contributions.ËÜjf10Ý_	Local Authority Business Growth Incentive schemes (#101.7 million) representing the balance of agreed three year funding.ËÜjf30ÝChanges sought which do not increase public expenditure, taken across governmentÌÜjf4Ý10.These are as follows:ËÜjf10Ýa. Increases to non budget spending totalling #620.2 million. (table 1, item 9) These relate to payments which the Department makes but which do not score in public expenditure because they are simply movements of money within Government. The largest element is a net increase of #499.8 million in grant in aid to the new Homes and Communities Agency (see Annex A). The remainder relates to grant in aid increases for regeneration and other programmes for which funding has been transferred from voted to non voted spending and to repayment of loan charges to local authorities.ËÜjf10Ýb. Decreases totalling #414.1 million resulting from net transfers of DEL from the RFRs to non voted budgets (table 1, item 8). #299.8 million relates to payments to the Homes and Communities Agency, #88.7 million is for Thames Gateway programmes and #22.2 million for West Northants Urban Development Corporation. These transfers are largely offset on the Estimate by the non budget grant in aid to support the expenditure.ËÜjf10Ýc. Smaller transfers within DEL. Other changes which are relatively small in value and which lead to no change in total DEL are:ËÜjf48Ý_	ÜixTransfers from voted capital to resource within the Estimate: decrease of #17.0 million in voted capital, increase of #17.0 million in resource (capital grants), mainly to credit back amounts transferred to Fire Control in the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2007^08 (table 1, item 4).ËÜjf48Ý_	ÜixNet transfers of #0.2 million to other Government departments (table 1, item 5).ËÜjf48Ý_	ÜixNet transfers of #1.0 million from RfR1 to RfR2 (table 1, item 6), principally for Audit Commission work on fire and rescue authorities.ËÜjf48Ý_	ÜixChanges that net out within the Estimate, involving either switches between lines or increases in Appropriations in Aid funding additional expenditure (table 1, items 7 and 10).ËÜjf10Ýd. A change to the net cash requirement of #737.0 million over and above the Resource Requirement. This is as a result of an accrual for housing Overhanging Debt. There was an accrual of #735 million for Overhanging Debt at the end of the last financial year and the related cash payment did not occur until early April 2008.ËÜjf4Ý11.A summary of these resource changes is at table 1 below:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 1ÌÈÜdt19p9,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝRFR1ÜntRFR2ÜntTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝChanges which increase public expenditureÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt1)End Year FlexibilityÜnt8.6Ünt82.0Ünt90.6ÜetÜbt2)Draw down from HM TreasuryÜnt30.6Ünt0.0Ünt30.6ÜetÜbt3)Changes in Annually Managed ExpenditureÜnt22.6Ünt238.7Ünt261.3ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝChanges which do not increase public expenditure, taken across GovernmentÜcf1ÝÜntÜntÜntÜetÜbt4)Transfers to voted resource from voted capitalÜnt17.0Ünt0.0Ünt17.0ÜetÜbt5)Transfers to/from other government departmentsÜnt0.8Ünt¸1.0Ünt¸0.2ÜetÜbt6)Transfers between the RFRsÜnt¸1.0Ünt1.0Ünt0.0ÜetÜbt7)Transfers within the RFRsÜnt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt0.0ÜetÜbt8)Transfers to/from non-voted spendingÜnt¸414.4Ünt0.3Ünt¸414.1ÜetÜbt9)Changes in non-budget spendingÜnt620.3Ünt¸0.1Ünt620.2ÜetÜbt10)Changes in A in A, offset by spendingÜnt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt0.0ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf3Ý284.5Ünt320.9Ünt605.4Ücf1ÝÜetËËÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf31ÝSection B: Detailed Explanation of Changes (Amounts are in #s)ÌÜjf30ÝChanges to RFR1: Improving the quality of life by creating thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities in all regionsÌÜjf4Ý12.The changes to RfR1, and their implications for DEL and AME budgets, are as follows:ËÜjf4ÝÜcf2Ý(DEL budget changes are indicated by an asterisk in the right hand column)ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝEnd Year FlexibilityÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜcf2ÝDELÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜbt#8,644,000ÜntDraw down of resource EYF for Central Administration costs to fund staff redundancies and early retirement, additional transitional demands on internal audit and Government Offices arising from European Regional Development Fund work and resources to cover organisational change and restructuring programmes (RFR1, Section G, administration costs)Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#8,644,000ÜntTotal change to Main Resource DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#8,644,000ÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#8,644,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝOther changes in DEL spendingÜcf1ÝÌÈÜbt#30,627,000ÜntDraw down from HM Treasury for the Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund (RFR1, Section R, grants). This is a scheme established under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 to support the work of local authorities, including fire and police authorities, in helping recovery from the widespread and exceptional flooding of summer 2007.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtAdministration: #12,551,000ËOther current: ¸#12,551,000ÜntReclassification of near cash from other current to administration to fund the surrender of the lease on Ashdown House (Victoria). (RfR1, Section G). (Note: This is offset by an equal and opposite transfer of non-cash from administration to programme_see Transfers from voted to non-voted spending below_so that the effect on both the administration budget and near cash within DEL is neutral).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtAdministration: ¸#480,000ËOther current:Ë#480,000ÜntTransfer and reclassification of near cash from Central Administration (RfR1, Section G, administration) to the Fire and Rescue Services Improvement Programme (RfR1, Section F, other current) to fund the Crown Premises Inspection Group, whose expenditure now scores outside the administration budget.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#30,627,000ÜntTotal change to Main Resource DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#30,627,000ÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#30,627,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝChanges in Annually Managed ExpenditureÜcf1ÝÌÈÜbt#22,557,000ÜntIncrease in AME for Fire Superannuation (RFR1 Section W, grants) to reflect a revised forecast of fire fighters pensions top up grants.ÜetËÜpbÜbt#44,000ÜntIncrease in AME for Fire Superannuation (RFR1 Section AB, grants) to reflect the unwinding discount (#123,000) on fire fighters' pensions, partly offset by a reduction in the cost of capital (¸#79,000).ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#22,601,000ÜntTotal change to Main Resource AMEÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#22,601,000ÜntTotal change to Main AMEÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#22,601,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTransfers to Resource spending (capital grants) from/to Capital spendingÜcf1ÝÌÈÜbt#16,000,000ÜntTransfer of savings from Fire Control (RFR1, Section F, capital) to increase provision for Gypsy Traveller's Unit (RFR1 Section N, capital grants) (#5,000,000) and New Deal for Communities (RFR1, Section O, capital grants) (#11,000,000). These offset amounts transferred to Fire Control from these programmes in 2007^08, as set out in the explanatory memorandum to the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2007^08.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#1,250,000ÜntTransfer within Fire Services from capital expenditure (RFR1, Section F, capital) to support for local authorities (RFR1, Section R, capital grants) for the CBRN protective clothing project. This is funded from receipts on disposal of Green Goddesses (#821,000) and savings on research (#429,000).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#257,000ÜntTransfer of savings within Fire Services Statistics from (RFR1, Section F, capital grants) to Fire Services (RfR1, Section F, capital) to support the maintenance of the Incident Reporting System.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main Capital DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROË+#16,993,000 resourceË-#16,993,000ËcapitalÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTransfers of budgetary cover to/from other Government DepartmentsÜcf1ÝÌÈÜbt#725,000ÜntTransfer from the Cabinet Office to the Government Office administration budget (RFR1, Section H, administration costs) for the Office of the Third SectorÜnt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#620,000ÜntTransfer from the Cabinet Office to the central administration budget (RFR1, Section G, administration costs) for the costs of work by Parliamentary Counsel.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#500,000ÜntTransfer to the Office of National Statistics from Safer and Stronger Communities and New Ventures Fund (RFR1, Section C, Other Current) as a contribution to improving migration statistics workÜnt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#45,000ÜntTransfer to HM Treasury/Office of Government Commerce from Central Administration (RFR1, Section G, administration costs) for sustainable procurement.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#36,000ÜntTransfer to the Department for Transport from the Government Office administration budget (RFR1, Section H, administration costs) for traffic signage in respect of the Road and Vehicle Safety Standards programme.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#764,000ÜntTotal change to Main Resource DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#764,000ÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#764,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝResource transfers to /from another Request for ResourcesÜcf1ÝÌÈÜbt#129,000ÜntTransfer of research funding from local government research (RfR2, section C, other current) to contribute to the establishment of a new strategic research budget (RFR1, Section C, other current).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#1,000,000ÜntTransfer of uncommitted funds from Fire and Rescue Services Improvement programme (RFR1 Section F, other current) to support Audit Commission Comprehensive Performance Assessment work on fire and rescue authorities (RFR2, Section B, other current).Ünt*ÜetËÜnpÜpbÜbt¸#125,000ÜntTransfer from E-Planning (RFR1 Section E, other current) to Local Government on Line (RfR2, section G, grants) to cover the costs of the National Process Improvement Project as part of the Transformational Planning Project.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ݸ#996,000ÜntTotal change to Main Resource DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ݸ#996,000ÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROË(-#996,000 RFR1Ë+#996,000 RFR2)ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝResource transfers within Request for ResourcesÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbt#33,000,000ÜntTransfer from Community Infrastructure Fund (RFR1, Section B, grants) to Growth Areas (RfR1, Section N, grants) to fund the additional schemes necessary to complete the Growth Areas programme.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#22,300,000ÜntIncrease in resources for European Regional Development Fund (RFR1, Section K, grants) to cover ERDF financial corrections in respect of old programmes. This has been funded by transferring uncommitted resources from other programmes, as follows: #5,500,000 from voted provision for the Homes and Communities Agency and #2,000,000 from Thames Gateway (both RfR1, Section B), #2,000,000 from research and #1,000,000 from Sustainable Communities (both RfR1, Section C), #4,000,000 from the Fire Improvement Programme (RfR1, Section F), #5,000,000 from mapping services (RfR1, Section L) and #2,800,000 from the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Agency (RfR1, Section M).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#20,107,000ÜntTransfer of resources for Thames Gateway from the private sector grants stream (RFR1, Section B, grants) to local authority grants (RfR1, Section N, grants) to correct a misallocation in the Main Estimate.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#11,335,000ÜntTransfers of #10,000,000 from the Settled Homes Initiative and #1,335,000 from the Homelessness and Housing Reform programme (both RfR1, Section B, capital grants) to the Places of Change Programme (RfR1, Section N, capital grants) to increase the impact of this programme, for which the bidding round was greatly oversubscribed, on tackling rough sleeping.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#8,750,000ÜntTransfer of resources from Central Administration (RfR1, Section G, administration) to Government Office Administration (RFR1 Section H, administration) comprising #6,323,000 to cover core work, #977,000 to cover work on Local Area Agreements/Local Public Service Agreements and #1,450,000 to cover additional work on the European Regional Development Fund.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#5,602,000ÜntTransfer of resources from the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (RfR1, Section O, grants) to Area Based Grants (RFR1 Section S, grants) to correct an error in the Main Estimate.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#4,100,000ÜntTransfer of uncommitted resources from New Deal for Communities (RfR1, Section O, grants) to voted provision for the Homes and Communities Agency_remuneration and pension programme (RFR1 Section B, grants) to help cover the pension deficit of the Housing Corporation. This is an historic deficit calculated by City of Westminster actuaries and, to avoid one-off crystallisation of more than #75 million, annual contributions are likely to be agreed.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#2,400,000ÜntIncrease in funding for Sustainable Communities Communications (RFR1 Section C, other current) to facilitate consultation on and communication of the objectives of the eco-towns programme in multiple locations across England. Funded by transferring uncommitted resources of #2,150,000 from Implementing Planning Reform (RfR1, Section E, other current) and #250,000 from Building Regulations (RfR1, Section B, other current).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#1,552,000ÜntTransfer of resources from Central Administration (RfR1, Section G, other current) to Government Office Administration (RFR1 Section H, Other Current) for staff early exit costs.Ünt*ÜetËÜnpÜpbÜbt#1,250,000ÜntTransfer of resources within the Fire and Rescue Services Improvement Programme from central government spending (RFR1 Section F, other current) to local authority grants (RfR1, Section R, grants) to support safety and security expenditure by London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and Dorset Fire Authority arising from the 2012 Olympics.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#1,200,000ÜntTransfer of resources from Implementing Planning Reform (RfR1, Section E, other current) to Home Buying and Selling (RFR1, Section B, other current) to facilitate the publicity campaign to reinforce the benefits of Home Information Packs.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#650,000ÜntIncrease in funding for Zero Carbon Buildings (RFR1, Section B, other current) to support the establishment and operation of the zero carbon delivery hub. This is a non-profit company whose activities support industry in building zero carbon homes and non domestic buildings. Funded by transfer of uncommitted resources from Implementing Planning Reform (RfR1, Section E, other current).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#644,000ÜntEstablishment of a Strategic Research Budget (RFR1 Section C, other current) by transferring resources from other budgets as follows: #374,000 from Building Regulations (RfR1, Section B, other current), #169,000 from Cohesion and Race Equality (RfR1, Section D, grants) and #101,000 from Fire Services (RfR1, Section F, other current).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#100,000ÜntIncrease in funding for Housing Corporation_remuneration and pension programme (RFR1 Section B, other current) to cover pay rises, National Insurance and other increased staff costs. Funded by a transfer of funds from Implementing Planning Reform (RfR1, Section E, other current)Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#112,990,000ÜntReductions in budgets to meet increases, as detailed for individual items above.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main Resource DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main Capital DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTransfers from voted to non-voted spendingÜcf1ÝÌÈÜbt¸#299,770,000ÜntTo transfer resources from various voted programmes to non voted Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to reflect the financial implications of the establishment of the HCA on 1 December, and the wind up of the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships. This comprises transfers from RfR 1, Section B (other current #1,160,000; grants #150,000, capital grants #99,722,000), Section C (other current #18,000; grants #4,214,000), Section E (other current #1,250,000), Section G (administration non-cash #12,551,000) and Section N (grants #13,745,000; capital grants #166,960,000). This contributes to the requirement for additional, non-budget, grant in aid under RFR1, Section X to support this non-voted DEL expenditure. (See Annex A for further information).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#88,700,000ÜntTransfer of DEL cover from voted Thames Gateway budget in RFR1, Section B (other current non-cash #3,000,000; grants #12,000,000; capital grants #73,700,000) to non voted budgets for NDPBs delivering Thames Gateway projects_London Urban Development Corporation (#47,515,000), Thurrock Urban Development Corporation (#36,285,000) and the South East of England Development Agency (#4,900,000)_following decisions on the allocation of budgets under the programme. This gives rise to the requirement for additional non-budget grant in aid under RFR1, Section X to support the near cash element (#85,700,000) of this non voted expenditure.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#21,219,000ÜntTo transfer resources from voted New Growth Points in RFR1, Section B (grants #4,460,000; capital grants #16,759,000) to non-voted DEL cover for expenditure by West Northants Urban Development Corporation as agreed in their 2008^09 Corporate Plan. There is a requirement for additional non-budget grant in aid under RFR1, Section X to support this non-voted DEL expenditure.Ünt*ÜetËÜnpÜpbÜbt12,650,000ÜntTo transfer resources from the non voted New Burdens on Local Authorities programme to Area Based Grants (RfR1, Section S, grants) comprising #7,650,000 for the costs estimated in an Impact Assessment associated with local planning authorities implementing new national planning policy on climate change, and #5,000,000 for compliance with the Habitats Directive following a court case in the European Court of Justice in 2005.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#9,000,000ÜntTo transfer funding from the voted Implementing EU Performance of Building Directives (EPBD) programme (RFR1 Section B, grants) to non-voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP). This transfer reduces voted EPBD DEL cover to reflect the movement of activity from EPBD to Housing Revenue Account Subsidy (HRAS) in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME). It replenishes DUP, from which DEL cover was given up after the RfR tables for the Main Estimate had been finalised.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#6,300,000ÜntTransfer from non voted New Burdens on Local Authorities to voted provision for the Homes and Communities Agency (RfR1, Section B, other current), to help cover a pension deficit in respect of Housing Corporation staff. (See also transfer of #4.1 million within RfR1, above).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#4,353,000ÜntTo transfer resources from the Fire and Rescue Services Improvement programme (RFR1, Section F, grants) to non-voted Firebuy to cover their cash flow and the Integrated Clothing Project litigation costs.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#4,000,000ÜntTransfer from voted provision for the Homes and Communities Agency (RfR1, Section B, other current) to the non voted English Partnerships to fund HCA set up costs (see Annex A).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#3,700,000ÜntTransfer from voted provision for the Homes and Communities Agency (RfR1, Section B, other current) to the non voted Housing Corporation to fund HCA set up costs (see Annex A).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#2,500,000ÜntTo transfer resources from Implementing Planning Reform (RFR1, Section E, grants) to non-voted English Partnerships to fund the ATLAS programme hosted by them.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#1,500,000ÜntTo transfer resources from the non-voted Housing Corporation budget to Disabled Facilities Grant (RfR1 Section N, capital grants), to reflect the decision that the Housing Corporation would no longer fund adaptations and instead direct Registered Social Landlords to local authorities for assistance. The resources are required to help local authorities meet their statutory responsibilities for providing grants for adaptation works to help disabled people live more independently in their homes.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#1,500,000ÜntTo transfer resources from voted Community Empowerment (RFR1, Section D, grants) to non-voted Community Development Foundation in line with funding decisions taken in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007. This gives rise to a requirement for non budget grant in aid under RfR1, section X.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#1,350,000ÜntTo transfer resources from the non voted New Burdens on Local Authorities programme to Regional Assemblies (RfR1, Section E, grants) to fund the estimated costs to regional planning bodies associated with implementing the Planning Policy Statement on climate change.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#800,000ÜntTo transfer within Growth Areas from voted provision (RFR1, Section B, grants) to non-voted DEL cover for the Department's contribution towards the running costs of Milton Keynes Partnerships. This leads to a requirement for additional non-budget grant in aid under RFR1, Section X to support this non-voted DEL expenditure.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#500,000ÜntTo transfer resources from Implementing Planning Reform (RfR1, Section E, other current) to the non-voted Housing Corporation budget to fund extra work undertaken in connection with the establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#165,000ÜntTo transfer non-cash resources from the Planning Inspectorate (RfR1, Section E, other current) to non voted West Northants Urban Development Corporation to cover depreciation charges on work undertaken within the Growth Areas remit.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main Resource DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main Capital DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ݸ#414,407,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝChanges in non budget spendingÜcf1ÝÌÈÜbt#2,047,160,000ÜntGrant in aid allocation to non voted Homes and Communities Agency (HCA)_including #930,000 for repayment of an advance from the Contingencies Fund_to reflect the financial implications of the establishment of the HCA on 1 December (see Annex A),ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#1,449,390,000ÜntReduction in grant in aid to the Housing Corporation in relation to the establishment of the HCA (RfR1, Section X, grants) (see Annex A).ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#98,000,000ÜntReduction in grant in aid to English Partnerships in relation to the establishment of the HCA (RfR1, Section X, grants) (see Annex A).ÜetËÜpbÜbt#85,700,000ÜntGrant in aid to support non voted budget allocations to NDPBs under the Thames Gateway programme, as follows: #46,200,000 for London Urban Development Corporation, #35,800,000 for Thurrock Urban Development Corporation and #3,700,000 for the South East of England Development Agency. (See transfers to/from non voted spending, above). (RfR1, Section X, grants).ÜetËÜpbÜbt#22,019,000ÜntGrant in aid allocation to support non voted budget allocations for Growth Areas comprising #21,219,000 for West Northants Development Corporation and #800,000 for the Milton Keynes Partnerships project. (See transfers to/from non voted spending, above). (RfR1, Section X, grants).ÜetËÜpbÜbt#7,000,000ÜntDraw down of funding to cover loan charges. This funding covers repayments to local authorities for monies they paid out in respect of the Defective Housing scheme between 1984 and 1989 for the repurchase or repair of properties (RfR1, Section X, grants).ÜetËÜpbÜbt#4,353,000ÜntGrant in aid to support non voted budget allocation to Firebuy (see transfers to/from non voted spending, above). (RfR1, Section AA, grants).ÜetËÜpbÜbt#1,500,000ÜntGrant in aid to support non voted budget allocation to the Community Development Foundation (see transfers to/from non voted spending, above). (RfR1, Section AA, grants).ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3Ý#620,342,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝChanges in Appropriations in Aid fully offset by changes in spendingÜcf1ÝÌÈÜbtSpend:Ë#21,830,000,ËReceipts:˸#21,830,000Ë(net change zero)ÜntChanges to budget reflecting an increase in receipts from sponsor Departments for work undertaken by Government Offices on their behalf, and for which they are invoiced, and associated expenditure (RFR1, Section H).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtSpend:Ë#11,010,000ËReceipts:˸#11,010,000Ë(net change zero)ÜntChanges to budget reflecting the increase in receipts for Planning Inspectorate (RFR1, Section E) from Local Development Framework and other appeals and enquiries, and funds from other government departments as agreed in the CSR07.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtSpend:˸#7,755,000ËReceipts:Ë#7,755,000Ë(net change zero)ÜntChanges to budget reflecting a decrease in expenditure and income for central administration (RFR1, Section G) following the surrender of the Ashdown House lease.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtSpend:Ë#2,800,000ËReceipts:˸#2,800,000Ë(net change zero)ÜntChanges to budget reflecting the exceptional dividend from Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre (RFR1, Section M), to reduce their cash balance to an appropriate level. This increase in receipts is fully offset by an increase in budget, which has been transferred to cover additional expenditure on ERDF for financial corrections (RFR1, Section K)Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtSpend:Ë#1,097,000ËReceipts:˸#1,097,000Ë(net change zero)ÜntChanges to budget reflecting increases in receipts for Fire and Rescue Services Improvements (RFR1 Section F) and expenditure they support against the programme. These receipts comprise #386,000 for interest payments from the Fire Service College; #270,000 from agent selling Green Goddesses and #441,000 from fire and rescue services to cover the costs of providing Boards of Medical Referees.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtSpend:Ë#1,000,000ËReceipts:˸#1,000,000Ë(net change zero)ÜntChanges in budgets to take account of an expected #1,000,000 cash receipt from the Office of Third Sector as a contribution to the Community Builders Fund and the expenditure it supports against the Community Empowerment programme (RFR1, Section D).Ünt*ÜetËÜnpÜpbÜbtSpend:Ë#1,000,000ËReceipts:˸#1,000,000Ë(net change zero)ÜntChanges reflecting the increase in receipts for English Partnerships (RFR1, Section X), from claw back of Derelict Land Grant, and the expenditure they support.ÜetËÜpbÜbtSpend:Ë#821,000ËReceipts:˸#821,000ÜntChanges to budgets reflecting increases in capital receipts (non-operating appropriations in aid) for Fire and Rescue Services Improvements (RfR1, section F, capital) and the expenditure they support. The receipts comprise #790,000 from disposal of Green Goddesses and #31,000 from Fire Service College capital loan repayments. The expenditure budget increase is transferred to capital grants to local authorities (RfR1, Section R) in support of the CBRN protective clothing project.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtSpend:Ë#648,000ËReceipts:˸#648,000Ë(net change zero)ÜntChanges to budget reflecting a repayment of capital grants for Growth Areas (RFR1, Section N), due to project slippage.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtSpend:Ë#410,000ËReceipts:˸#410,000Ë(Net change zero)ÜntChanges in budgets reflecting receipts from the Department of Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice for the Communities and Local Government project on Homelessness and Housing Reform (RFR1, Section B) and the expenditure they support (RFR1, Section N).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbÜjf4ÝThe changes in capital (related to RFR1) and their implications for DEL and AME budgets are as follows:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTransfers from Capital spending to/from other resource (capital grants)Ücf1ÝÌÈÜbt¸#16,000,000ÜntTransfer of savings from Fire Control (RFR1, Section F, capital) to increase provision for Gypsy Traveller's Unit (RFR1 Section N, capital grants) (#5,000,000) and New Deal for Communities (RFR1, Section O, capital grants) (#11,000,000). These offset amounts transferred to Fire Control from these programmes in 2007^08.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt¸#1,250,000ÜntTransfer within Fire Services from capital expenditure (RFR1, Section F, capital) to support for local authorities (RFR1, Section R, capital grants) for the CBRN protective clothing project. This is funded from receipts on disposal of Green Goddesses (#821,000) and savings on research (#429,000).Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbt#257,000ÜntTransfer of savings from Fire Services Statistics (RFR1, Section F, capital grants) to Fire Services (RfR1, Section F, capital) to support the maintenance of the Incident Reporting System.Ünt*ÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main Capital DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Main DELÜetËÜpbÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROË-#16,993,000 capitalË+#16,993,000ËresourceÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetËÜpbËÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf30ÝChanges to RFR2: Providing for effective devolved decision making within a national frameworkÌÜjf4Ý13.The changes to RfR2, and their implications for DEL and AME budgets, are as follows:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTake up of End year FlexibilityÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbt#82,000,000ÜntDraw down of End Year Flexibility for the Local Government Public Service Agreements performance fund (RFR2, Section G, capital grants) to cover planned spending in excess of the amount provided in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007.Ünt*ÜetÜbtÜcf3Ý#82,000,000ÜntTotal change to Local Government capital DELÜetÜbtÜcf3Ý#82,000,000ÜntTotal change to Local Government DELÜetÜbtÜcf3Ý#82,000,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝChanges in Annually Managed ExpenditureÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbt#137,000,000ÜntIncrease in AME for National Non Domestic Rates outturn adjustments to reflect the latest forecast spend (RFR2, Section H). Estimated additional funding to pay local authorities additional amounts owed following the audit of NNDR claims from previous years. The amount of NNDR contributions which billing authorities must pay the Department is estimated at the beginning of the financial year and paid in instalments during the year. At the end of the year a final assessment is made and an outturn adjustment is made. The amount of these adjustments is not known until well into the new financial year, hence the need for a supplementary estimate at this time. This is a regular request.ÜetÜbt#101,709,000ÜntIncrease in AME for Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Schemes (LABGI) (RFR2, Section H, grants). This is the balance of the agreed three year funding worth #935,000,000 overall. Originally budgeted for last year_it was held back pending the outcome of a court ruling.ÜetÜbtÜcf3Ý#238,709,000ÜntTotal change to Local Government Resource AMEÜetÜbtÜcf3Ý#238,709,000ÜntTotal change to Local Government AMEÜetÜbtÜcf3Ý#238,709,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTransfers of budgetary cover to/from other Government DepartmentsÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbt¸#1,000,000ÜntThis money is transferred from Local Government on Line (RFR2 Section G, capital grants) to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to facilitate more efficient electronic transfer of data between DWP, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) and local authoritiesÜnt*ÜetÜbtÜcf3ݸ#1,000,000ÜntTotal change to Local Government Capital DELÜetÜbtÜcf3ݸ#1,000,000ÜntTotal change to Local Government DELÜetÜbtÜcf3ݸ#1,000,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝResource transfers to/from another Request for ResourcesÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbt#1,000,000ÜntTransfer of uncommitted funds from the Fire and Rescue Services Improvement programme (RFR1 Section F, other current) to RFR2 to support Audit Commission Comprehensive Performance Assessment work on fire and rescue authorities (RFR2, Section B, other current).Ünt*ÜetÜbt#125,000ÜntTransfer from E-Planning (RFR1 Section E, other current) to Local Government on Line (RfR2, section G, grants) to cover the costs of the National Process Improvement Project as part of the Transformational Planning Project.Ünt*ÜetÜbt¸#129,000ÜntTransfer of research funding from local government research (RfR2, section C, other current) to contribute to a new strategic research budget (RFR1, Section C, other current).Ünt*ÜetÜbtÜcf3Ý#996,000ÜntTotal Change to Local Government Resource DELÜetÜbt#996,000ÜntTotal change to Local Government DELÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROË(+ #996,000 RFR2Ë-#996,000 RFR1)ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTransfers from non-voted spendingÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbt#267,000ÜntFinal repayment of Valuation Tribunal Service (Non Voted) DEL overspend from a previous year to the Bellwin scheme (RFR2, Section G, grants)Ünt*ÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Local Government Resource DELÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Local Government DELÜetÜbtÜcf3Ý#267,000ÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝResource transfers within the Request for ResourcesÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbt#1,200,000ÜntTo transfer resources to the Council Tax Flood Discount programme (RFR2, Section G, grants) from Valuation Services (RfR2, section A, other current) to compensate local authorities for flood related discounts on Council Tax.Ünt*ÜetÜbt¸#1,200,000ÜntTransfer to fund an increase for Council Tax Flood Discount programme as shown above.Ünt*ÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Local Government Resource DELÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Local Government DELÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝChanges in non budget spendingÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbt¸#147,000ÜntReduction in grant in aid for Valuation Tribunal Services (RFR2, Section I) to reflect reduced level of near cash DEL cover.ÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Local Government DELÜetÜbtÜcf3ݸ#147,000ÜntTotal change to EstimatesÜcf1ÝÜetÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝChanges in operating Appropriations in Aid fully offset by changes in spendingÜcf1ÝÌÈÜdt6p0,0p6g,24p6,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbtSpend:Ë#32,000,000ËReceipts:˸#32,000,000Ë(Net change zero)ÜntChanges to budget reflecting receipts for Local Government Public Service Agreements (RFR2 Section G), arising from repayment of capital grants by local authorities, and the expenditure they support.Ünt*ÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to Local Government DELÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝZEROÜntTotal change to EstimateÜcf1ÝÜetÜjf31ÝSection C: Impact on the Department's Strategic ObjectivesÌÜjf4Ý14.DEL expenditure against the Department's Strategic Objectives will change as set out in the following table:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 2ÌÈÜdt10p0,0p3g,4p0w,0p3g,4p0w,0p3g,4p0w,0p3g,4p0w,0p3g,4p0w,0p3g,4p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝDepartmental Strategic ObjectiveÜntDEL atÉMainÉEstimatesÜntEYF /ÉFundsÉfromÉHMT/ÉBroughtÉforwardÉfundsÜntTransfersÉto/fromÉDUPÜntTransfersÉto/fromÉOGDsÜntTransfersÉbetweenÉDSOsÜntNew DELÉBudgets atÉWinterÉSuppsÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbt1.Supporting local governmentÜnt24,816.3Ünt82.0Ünt0.0Ünt¸1.0Ünt1.0Ünt24,898.3ÜetÜbt2.Improving the supply and quality of housingÜnt7,201.5Ünt209.8Ünt¸3.7Ünt0.0Ünt30.4Ünt7,438.0ÜetÜbt3.Building prosperous communities, promoting regeneration and tackling deprivationÜnt2,501.1Ünt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt¸0.5Ünt¸1.3Ünt2,499.3ÜetÜbt4.Developing communities that are cohesive, active and resilient to extremismÜnt41.4Ünt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt¸1.7Ünt39.7ÜetÜbt5.Providing a more efficient and transparent planning systemÜnt194.3Ünt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt¸27.6Ünt166.7ÜetÜbt6.Ensuring safer communities by providing the framework to prevent and respond to emergenciesÜnt297.0Ünt30.6Ünt0.0Ünt0.0Ünt¸20.6Ünt307.0ÜetÜbtNot assigned to a DSO (see note iii below), including administration and other costsÜnt1,042.4Ünt8.6Ünt3.7Ünt1.3Ünt19.7Ünt1,075.7ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf3ÝTotal Main and Local Government DEL change (before depreciation)Ünt36,094.0Ünt331.1Ünt0.0Ünt¸0.2Ünt0.0Ünt36,424.8Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtLess administration costs (before depreciation)Ünt280.3Ünt8.6Ünt0.0Ünt1.3Ünt¸0.5Ünt289.7ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf3ÝTotal change (excluding administration costs)Ünt35,813.7Ünt322.4Ünt0.0Ünt¸1.5Ünt0.5Ünt36,135.1Ücf1ÝÜetËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝNotes:Ücf1ÝËÜjf4Ýi.Amounts may not sum exactly due to rounding.ËÜjf4Ýii.The Local Government DEL contributes entirely to DSO 1 (Supporting local government).ËÜjf4Ýiii.The not assigned" section of the table comprises Area Based Grant, European Regional Development Fund, departmental unallocated provision, central administration costs, Government Offices administration costs and CLG re-structuring, payments for Ordnance Survey mapping data and services and the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre.ËÜjf4Ý15.The main budget changes which lead to increases to 2008^09 DEL expenditure against DSOs are:ËÜjf10Ý_	a draw down of end year flexibility for DSO1, increasing provision for the Local Government PSA performance fund (#82.0 million);ËÜjf10Ý_	an increase in budget for DSO2 as a result of the Housing Package announced over the summer (#200.0 million) and the establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency (#9.8 million);ËÜjf10Ý_	a draw down of funds from HM Treasury against DSO6 for the flood Restoration Fund (#.30.6 million); andËÜjf10Ý_	a draw down of end year flexibility in the unassigned" section for central administration (#8.6 million).ËÜjf4Ý16.With the exception of the drawdown for the flood Restoration Fund, additional resources have been provided mainly through using EYF and bringing forward funding from future years. This is largely pre-planned use of funding and is not increasing the planned spend to deliver targets above what was expected over the Comprehensive Spending Review years.ËÜjf4Ý17.Further detail of changes by DSO is set out below. Changes relate to DEL and may not therefore match the totals shown in Estimates_some funding will relate to non voted expenditure. Full details of changes to budgets are given in Section B above.ËÜjf30ÝDSO1_Supporting local governmentÌÜjf29ÝDrawdown of End Year FlexibilityÌÜjf10Ý_	#82,000,000 for the Local Government PSA performance fund.ËÜjf29ÝTransfers to/from other Government DepartmentsÌÜjf10Ý_	#1,000,000 to the Department for Work and Pensions for improved electronic data transfer between DWP, CLG, DCSF and local authorities.ËÜjf29ÝTransfers between DSOsÌÜjf4ÝThere is a net increase of #996,000 comprising increases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#1,000,000 from Fire and Rescue Services Improvement (DSO6) to Best Value Inspection for Audit Commission work on fire and rescue authorities;ËÜjf10Ý_	#125,000 from E-Planning (DSO5) to Local Government on Line for the National Process Improvement project;ËÜjf4Ýoffset against a decrease of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#129,000 from local government research to DSO3 for a new strategic research budget.ËÜjf30ÝDSO 2_Improving the supply and quality of housingÌÜjf29ÝDrawdown of End Year Flexibility and Funds Brought ForwardÌÜjf4ÝThere is an increase of #209,800,000 comprising:ËÜjf10Ý_	#200,000,000 brought forward from future years spend as a result of the Housing Package announced on 2 September 2008 (see Annex B);ËÜjf10Ý_	#9,800,000 for the Homes and Communities Agency reflecting adjustments to the Department's near cash DEL to ensure budget neutrality over the Comprehensive Spending Review years in the transition to the new Agency (see Annex A).ËÜjf29ÝTransfers to/from Departmental Unallocated ProvisionÌÜjf4ÝThere is a net decrease of #3,695,000 comprising increases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#3,555,000 from non voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) (not assigned to a DSO) for non voted Thames Gateway (#3,370,000 for Thurrock Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and #185,000 for non voted London UDC to cover non cash costs that will be incurred this financial year; andËÜjf10Ý_	#1,750,000 from non voted DUP to non voted Housing Corporation to cover the costs of taking on second charges on properties under HomeBuy Direct and to fund capitalisation on existing assets;ËÜjf4Ýoffset against a decrease of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#9,000,000 to non voted DUP to adjust DEL cover for the voted Implementing EU Energy Performance of Building Directives programme (further details are in Section B).ËÜjf29ÝTransfers between DSOsÌÜjf4ÝThere is a net increase of #30,424,000 comprising increases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#1,200,000 from DSO5 for Home Buying and Selling to facilitate a publicity campaign to reinforce the benefits of Home Information Packs;ËÜjf10Ý_	#650,000 from DSO5 for Zero Carbon Building to support the establishment and operation of the zero carbon delivery hub;ËÜjf10Ý_	#15,882,000 from DSO3 (#8,332,000) and DSO5 (#7,550,000) for the Homes and Communities Agency, of which #10,400,000 is to help cover the historic pension deficit of the Housing Corporation and the remainder is part of the budget for the new Agency;ËÜjf10Ý_	#600,000 from DSO5 for the Housing Corporation comprising #100,000 to cover remuneration and pension costs; and #500,000 to fund extra work undertaken in connection with the establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency;ËÜjf10Ý_	#5,000,000 for the Gypsy Travellers Unit from Fire Control (DSO6), offsetting an amount transferred to that programme in 2007^08;ËÜjf10Ý_	#15,051,000 to English Partnerships comprising #2,500,000 from DSO5 to fund the ATLAS programme and #12,551,000 from central administration (not assigned to a DSO) to cover the increased cost of capital charges resulting from a revaluation of assets associated with the establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency; andËÜjf10Ý_	#165,000 from DSO5 for West Northants Urban Development Corporation to cover depreciation charges on work undertaken within the Growth Areas remit.ËÜjf4Ýoffset against decreases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#374,000 from Building Regulations to DSO3 for a new Strategic Research Budget;ËÜjf10Ý_	#7,500,000 to European Regional Development Fund (not assigned to a DSO) to cover financial corrections on old ERDF programmes;ËÜjf10Ý_	#250,000 from Building Regulations to Sustainable Communities Communications (DSO3) for consultation on and communication of the objectives of the eco-towns programme.ËÜjf30ÝDSO 3_Building prosperous communities, promoting regeneration and tackling deprivationÌÜjf29ÝTransfers to/from other Government DepartmentsÌÜjf10Ý_	#500,000 to the Office of National Statistics as part of the Department's contribution to improving Migration Statistics work.ËÜjf29ÝTransfers between DSOsÌÜjf4ÝThere is a net decrease of #1,261,000 comprising increases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#2,400,000 for Sustainable Communities Communications, comprising #2,150,000 from DSO5 and #250,000 from DSO2, to facilitate consultation on and communication of the objectives of the eco-towns programme in multiple locations across England;ËÜjf10Ý_	#644,000 from DSO1 (#129,000), DSO2 (#374,000), DSO4 (#169,000) and DSO6 (#101,000) for a new Strategic Research Budget;ËÜjf10Ý_	#11,000,000 for the New Deal for Communities from Fire Control (DSO6), offsetting an amount transferred to that programme in 2007^08; andËÜjf10Ý_	#1,500,000 from Community Empowerment (DSO4) to the Community Development Foundation to reflect decisions taken in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007;ËÜjf4Ýoffset against decreases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#8,332,000 to the Homes and Communities Agency (DSO2) comprising #4,100,000 to cover the pension deficits from the Housing Corporation and the remainder as part of the budget for the new Agency;ËÜjf10Ý_	#3,000,000 for the European Regional Development Fund (not assigned to a DSO) to cover financial corrections on old ERDF programmes; andËÜjf10Ý_	#5,602,000 to Area Based Grant (not assigned to a DSO) to correct an error in the Main Estimate.ËÜjf30ÝDSO 4_Developing communities that are cohesive, active and resilient to extremismÌÜjf29ÝTransfers between DSOsÌÜjf4ÝThere is a reduction of #1,669,000 comprising:ËÜjf10Ý_	#1,500,000 to the Community Development Foundation (DSO3) from Community Empowerment to reflect decisions taken in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007; andËÜjf10Ý_	#169,000 to DSO3 for a new Strategic Research Budget.ËÜjf30ÝDSO 5_Providing a more efficient and transparent planning systemÌÜjf29ÝTransfers between DSOsÌÜjf4ÝThere is a decrease of #27,590,000, comprising:ËÜjf10Ý_	#18,950,000 from New Burdens on Local Authorities_#12,650,000 to Area Based Grants (not assigned to a DSO), of which #7,650,000 is for the costs estimated in an Impact Assessment associated with local planning authorities implementing new national planning policy on climate change and #5,000,000 is for compliance with the Habitats Directive following a court case in the European Court of Justice; and #6,300,000 to the Homes and Communities Agency (DSO2) to help cover the pension deficit in respect of Housing Corporation staff;ËÜjf10Ý_	#8,350,000 from Implementing Planning Reform comprising #2,500,000 to DSO2 to fund the ATLAS programme hosted by English Partnerships, #2,150,000 to DSO3 to facilitate consultation on and communication of the objectives of the eco-towns programme, #1,750,000 to DSO2 to contribute to the budget of the Homes and Communities Agency, #1,200,000 to DSO2 for the publicity campaign to reinforce the benefits of Home Information Packs, #650,000 to DSO3 to support the establishment and operation of the zero carbon delivery hub and #100,000 to DSO2 for Housing Corporation remuneration and pension costs;ËÜjf10Ý_	#165,000 from the Planning Inspectorate to cover depreciation charges on work undertaken by West Northants UDC within the Growth Areas remit (DSO3); andËÜjf10Ý_	#125,000 from E-Planning to Local Government on Line (DSO1) to cover the costs of the National Process Improvement Project as part of the Transformational Planning Project.ËÜjf30ÝDSO 6_Ensuring safer communities by providing the framework to prevent and respond to emergenciesÌÜjf4ÝDraw down of funds:ËÜjf10Ý_	#30,627,000 from HM Treasury for the Restoration Fund for flood recovery. This is part of the European funding paid to the UK Exchequer following the flooding in 2007 and has been made available to this Department to distribute to English local authorities.ËÜjf29ÝTransfers between DSOsÌÜjf4ÝThere is a net decrease of #19,721,000 comprising an increase of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#480,000 from central administration (not assigned to a DSO) to Fire Services for the Crown Premises Inspection Group programme. This expenditure is to be categorised as programme expenditure in the future;ËÜjf4Ýoffset against decreases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#16,000,000 from Control Rooms comprising #5,000,000 to the Gypsy Travellers Unit (DSO2) and #11,000,000 to New Deal for Communities (DSO3), offsetting amounts transferred to Fire Control from these programmes in 2007^08;ËÜjf10Ý_	#5,101,000 from Fire Services comprising #4,000,000 to European Regional Development Fund (not assigned to a DSO) to cover financial corrections of old ERDF programmes, #1,000,000 to Best Value Inspection (DSO1) to fund Audit Commission work on fire and rescue authorities and #101,000 to DSO3 for the new Strategic Research Budget.ËÜjf30ÝNot assigned to a DSOÌÜjf29ÝDraw down of End Year FlexibilityÌÜjf10Ý_	#8,644,000 increase for Central Administration costs to cover early exits, increased costs of administering ERDF in internal audit and the Government Offices and restructuring costs.ËÜjf29ÝTransfers to/from Departmental Unallocated ProvisionÌÜjf4ÝThere is a net increase of #3,695,000 comprising an increase of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#9,000,000 to non voted Departmental Unallocated Provision (not assigned to a DSO) to reduce voted Implementing EU Energy Performance of Building Directives DEL cover (DSO2);ËÜjf4Ýoffset against decreases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#3,555,000 from DUP for non voted Thames Gateway (#3,370,000 for Thurrock UDC and #185,000 for London UDC) to cover non cash costs that will be incurred this financial year (DSO2); andËÜjf10Ý_	#1,750,000 from DUP for non voted Housing Corporation (DSO2) to cover the costs of taking on second charges on properties under HomeBuy Direct and to fund capitalisation on existing assets.ËÜjf29ÝTransfers to/from Other Government DepartmentsÌÜjf4ÝThere is a net increase of #1,264,000 comprising increases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#725,000 from the Cabinet Office for work by the Government Offices for the Office of the Third Sector; andËÜjf10Ý_	#620,000 from the Cabinet Office for the costs of work by Parliamentary Counsel;ËÜjf4Ýoffset against decreases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#45,000 to HM Treasury/Office of Government Commerce for sustainable procurement; andËÜjf10Ý_	#36,000 to the Department for Transport for traffic signage in respect of the Road and Vehicle Safety Standards programme.ËÜjf29ÝTransfers between DSOsÌÜjf4ÝThere is a net increase of #19,721,000 comprising increases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#18,252,000 to Area Based Grants comprising #12,650,000 from New Burdens on Local Authorities (DSO5), in respect of implementing planning policy on climate change and compliance with the Habitats Directive, and #5,602,000 from the Working Neighbourhood Fund (DSO3) to correct an error in the Main Estimate; andËÜjf10Ý_	#14,500,000 from DSO2 (#7,500,000), DSO3 (#3,000,000) and DSO6 (#4,000,000) to European Regional Development Fund to cover financial corrections on old programmes;ËÜjf4Ýoffset against decreases of:ËÜjf10Ý_	#12,551,000 to English Partnerships (DSO2) from central administration to cover the increased cost of capital charges resulting from a revaluation of assets associated with the establishment of the Homes and Communities Agency; andËÜjf10Ý_	#480,000 to Fire Services (DSO6) from central administration for the Crown Premises Inspection Group. This expenditure is to be categorised as programme expenditure in the future.ËÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf31ÝSection D: Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) and Annually Managed Expenditure (AME)ÌÜjf4Ý18.Departmental Expenditure Limits_which are set in Spending Reviews_represent a share of total public expenditure which Departments are expected to manage. They cover a wider boundary than the RFRs, as they include NDPB expenditure and supported capital expenditure of local authorities. Increases can only be sought in RFRs if extra DEL is available_transferred from elsewhere (non voted or another Department) or drawn down as EYF_or if a particular budget is outside the DEL.ËÜjf4Ý19.Annually Managed Expenditure covers a few specific programme areas where spend is more difficult to control and forecast. For AME programmes, increases may be made in year and between Spending Reviews, with Treasury agreement. AME is within overall public expenditure.ËÜjf4Ý20.The following is a summary of DEL and AME changes consistent with the RFR changes sought. The Department has two DELs_Main and Local Government_which broadly mirror the programme areas of RFR1 and RFR2 respectively.ËÜjf30ÝMain DELÌÜjf4Ý21.The changes to the key budgetary figures for Main DEL are:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 3Ücf1ÝÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝMAIN DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE LIMITÌÈÜdt25p6,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtResource DEL increases byÜnt48.839ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝOf whichÜcf1ÝÜetÜel6ÝÜbtNear cashÜnt48.839ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtAdministrationÜnt9.428ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtThe increase in Resource DEL is the effect of:ÜetÜbtÜds3Ý_	ÜixVoted increases comprising a drawdown of #8.644 million EYF for central administration, #30.627 million additional funding for the flood Restoration Fund and a net transfer of #0.764 million from Other Government Departments, partly offset by a net transfer of #0.996 million to the Local Government DEL. Details of these voted changes are given in section B above.ÜetÜbtÜds3Ý_	ÜixA non voted increase of #9.800 million arising from a draw down of additional funding from HM Treasury for the Homes and Communities Agency. This comprises #4.600 million for value added tax and #5.200 million for interest earned on cash balances relating to the Commission for New Towns, and is designed to ensure budget neutrality over the Comprehensive Spending Review years in the transition to the new Agency (see Annex A).ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtCapital DEL increases byÜnt200.000ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtÜds3ÝThe increase is as a result of the package of housing measures announced on 2 September 2008. More information is in Annex B.ÜetËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 4Ücf1ÝÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝCHANGES TO THE DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE LIMIT IN 2008^09ÌÈÜdt19p0,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝVotedÜntNon votedÜntTotal DELÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝResourceÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbt1 AprilÜnt4,046Ünt280Ünt4,327ÜetÜbtChange announced with winter supplementary estimateÜnt¸20Ünt69Ünt49ÜetÜbtTotal resource Departmental Expenditure LimitÜnt4,026Ünt349Ünt4,376ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝCapitalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt1 AprilÜnt2,837Ünt4,138Ünt6,975ÜetÜbtChange announced with winter supplementary estimateÜnt¸356Ünt556Ünt200ÜetÜbtTotal capital Departmental Expenditure LimitÜnt2,481Ünt4,694Ünt7,175ÜetÜbtLess depreciation at the start of the yearÜnt¸38Ünt¸13Ünt¸51ÜetÜbtLess change in depreciation at winter supplementary estimateÜnt1Ünt¸1Ünt0ÜetÜbtTotal depreciationÜnt¸37Ünt¸14Ünt¸51ÜetÜbtTotal Departmental Expenditure LimitÜnt6,471Ünt5,029Ünt11,499ÜetËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝA reconciliation from CSR07 to the 1 April DEL position is set out in table 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Main Estimate 2008^09.ËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝAmounts may not sum exactly due to rounding.ËÜjf4Ý22.The expenditure against Main DEL for this Department and its predecessors for the financial years since 2005^06 is set out in the table below:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 5Ücf1ÝÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝPREVIOUS YEARS' EXPENDITURE AGAINST DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE LIMITSÌÈÜcc35p6ÝÜcp9.5,10.5ÝÈÜdt5p0,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,4p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝYearÜntVotedÜntNon votedÜntTotal DELÜntOutturnÜntVarianceÜnt%Ücf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝResourceÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt2005^06Ünt4,139.9Ünt1,815.9Ünt5,955.8Ünt5,856.2Ünt¸99.6Ünt¸1.7%ÜetÜbt2006^07Ünt3,544.7Ünt120.9Ünt3,665.6Ünt3,503.6Ünt¸162.0Ünt¸4.4%ÜetÜbt2007^08Ünt4,118.2Ünt218.4Ünt4,336.6Ünt4,323.7Ünt¸12.9Ünt¸0.3%ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝCapitalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt2005^06Ünt1,312.8Ünt2,242.2Ünt3,555.0Ünt3,450.4Ünt¸104.6Ünt¸2.9%ÜetÜbt2006^07Ünt2,208.0Ünt3,587.9Ünt5,795.9Ünt5,634.7Ünt¸161.2Ünt¸2.8%ÜetÜbt2007^08Ünt2,444.5Ünt3,624.3Ünt6,068.8Ünt6,070.7Ünt1.9Ünt0.0%ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt2005^06Ünt5,452.7Ünt4,058.1Ünt9,510.8Ünt9,306.6Ünt¸204.2Ünt¸2.1%ÜetÜbt2006^07Ünt5,752.7Ünt3,708.8Ünt9,461.5Ünt9,138.3Ünt¸323.2Ünt¸3.4%ÜetÜbt2007^08Ünt6,562.7Ünt3,842.7Ünt10,405.4Ünt10,394.4Ünt¸11.0Ünt¸0.1%ÜetËÜjf165ÝÜjf30ÝAnnually Managed Expenditure (Main Programmes)ÌÜjf4Ý23.The increase of #22.6 million in Main Programmes AME reflects revised forecasts of fire fighters pension top up grants, the unwinding discount on fire fighters pensions and a reduction in cost of capital (see section B above).ËÜjf30ÝLocal Government DELÌÜjf4Ý24.The changes to the key budgetary figures for Local Government DEL are:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 6ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝLOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE LIMITÌÈÜdt25p6,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,4p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtResource DEL increases byÜnt0.966ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝOf whichÜcf1ÝÜetÜel6ÝÜbtNear cashÜnt0.996ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtÜds3ÝThe increase in Resource DEL is funded by a transfer from the Main DEL. Details are set out in section B above.ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtCapital DEL increases byÜnt81.000ÜetÜel6ÝÜbtÜds3ÝThe increase in Capital DEL is the net effect of a draw down of #82.000 million EYF for Local Government PSAs and a transfer of #1.000 million to DWP for Government Connect. Details are given in section B above.ÜetËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 7ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝCHANGES TO THE DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE LIMIT IN 2008^09ÌÈÜdt19p0,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝVotedÜntNon votedÜntTotal DELÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝResourceÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt1 AprilÜnt24,602Ünt103Ünt24,705ÜetÜbtChange announced with winter supplementary estimateÜnt1Ünt0Ünt1ÜetÜbtTotal resource Departmental Expenditure LimitÜnt24,603Ünt103Ünt24,706ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝCapitalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt1 AprilÜnt86Ünt1Ünt87ÜetÜbtChange announced with winter supplementary estimateÜnt81Ünt0Ünt81ÜetÜbtTotal capital Departmental Expenditure LimitÜnt167Ünt1Ünt168ÜetÜbtLess depreciation at the start of the yearÜnt0Ünt0Ünt0ÜetÜbtLess change in depreciation at winter supplementary estimateÜnt0Ünt0Ünt0ÜetÜbtTotal depreciationÜnt0Ünt0Ünt0ÜetÜbtTotal Departmental Expenditure LimitÜnt24,770Ünt104Ünt24,876ÜetËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝA reconciliation from CSR07 to the 1 April DEL position is set out in table 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Main Estimate 2008^09.ËÜjf4ÝÜcf2ÝAmounts may not sum exactly due to rounding.ËÜjf4Ý25.The expenditure for the Local Government DEL for this Department and its predecessors for the financial years since 2005^06 is set out in the table below:ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 8ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝPREVIOUS YEARS' EXPENDITURE AGAINST DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE LIMITSÌÈÜdt5p0,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,4p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝYearÜntVotedÜntNon-votedÜntTotal DELÜntOutturnÜntVarianceÜnt%Ücf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝResourceÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt2005^06Ünt46,187Ünt106Ünt46,293Ünt46,244Ünt¸49Ünt¸0.1%ÜetÜbt2006^07Ünt22,460Ünt106Ünt22,566Ünt22,551Ünt¸15Ünt¸0.1%ÜetÜbt2007^08Ünt22,711Ünt104Ünt22,815Ünt22,755Ünt¸60Ünt¸0.3%ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝCapitalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt2005^06379Ünt9Ünt388Ünt316Ünt¸72Ünt¸18.6%ÜetÜbt2006^07Ünt260Ünt6Ünt265Ünt223Ünt¸42Ünt¸15.9%ÜetÜbt2007^08Ünt126Ünt4Ünt130Ünt34Ünt¸96Ünt¸74%ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbt2005^06Ünt46,566Ünt115Ünt46,681Ünt46,560Ünt¸121Ünt¸0.3%ÜetÜbt2006^07Ünt22,720Ünt112Ünt22,831Ünt22,774Ünt¸57Ünt¸0.3%ÜetÜbt2007^08Ünt22,838Ünt107Ünt22,945Ünt22,789Ünt156Ünt0.7%ÜetËÜjf4ÝNote: from 2006^07, there was a large change in funding mechanisms for education, reducing grant paid by this Department and increasing that paid by the Department for Children, Schools and Families.ËÜjf30ÝAnnually Managed Expenditure (Local Government Programmes)ÌÜjf4Ý26.The increases in Local Government AME forecasts relate to National Non Domestic Rate outturn adjustments (#137.0 million), and the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme (#101.7 million). Further information is given in section B above.ËÜjf31ÝSection E: End Year Flexibility (EYF)ÌÜjf30ÝMain DEL (RFR1 and non voted)ÌÜjf4Ý27.The Department's EYF has been accumulated by underspends in previous years. The department uses its EYF to fund ongoing programmes where slippage has occurred and for the management of unbudgeted pressures which arise.ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 9Ücf1ÝÌÜcp8,9ÝÜdt12p0,0p3g,4p3w,0p3g,3p3w,0p3g,3p3w,0p3g,2p9wq2,0p3g,2p9wq2,0p3g,2p9w,0p3g,2p9wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝÜds5Ý			ResourceÊÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2ÝCapitalÜntTOTALÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝAdministrationÜntOtherÉResourceÜntTotalÉResourceÜntÜds2Ý			of which:ÊÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2ÝNearÉcashÜntNonÉcashÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtEYF entitlement set out in Public Expenditure: Provisional Outturn, July 2007 (table 6_Cm 7156)Ünt60Ünt85Ünt145Ünt90Ünt55Ünt604Ünt749ÜetÜbtAmount drawn down in 2007^08Ünt¸12Ünt¸56Ünt¸68Ünt¸65Ünt¸3Ünt¸241Ünt¸309ÜetÜbtBalance of accumulated EYF at 31 March 2008Ünt48Ünt29Ünt77Ünt25Ünt52Ünt363Ünt440ÜetÜbtEYF entitlement from unused resources in 2007^08Ünt+26Ünt+112Ünt+138Ünt+106Ünt+32Ünt0Ünt+138ÜetÜbtAdjustments to 2006^07 outturnÜnt¸5Ünt¸1Ünt¸6Ünt+13Ünt¸19Ünt+14Ünt+8ÜetÜbtAdjustment to remove underspend on Reserve claim for Housing Market Renewal in 2007^08Ünt0Ünt¸25Ünt¸25Ünt0Ünt¸25Ünt0Ünt¸25ÜetÜbtAdjustment for Community Infrastructure FundÜnt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt+20*Ünt+20ÜetÜbtEntitlement set out in Public Expenditure: Provisional Outturn, July 2008 (table 6_Cm 7419)Ünt69Ünt115Ünt184Ünt144Ünt40Ünt397Ünt581ÜetÜbtEYF drawn down in winter supplementary estimates (see section B)Ünt¸9Ünt0Ünt¸9Ünt¸9Ünt0Ünt0Ünt¸9ÜetÜbtBalance of accumulated end year flexibilityÜnt60Ünt115Ünt175Ünt135Ünt40Ünt397Ünt572ÜetÈÜbtÜds8Ý* Capital EYF was increased by #19.7 million by HM Treasury to reflect the transfer of programme responsibility for the Community Infrastructure Fund from the Department for Transport to CLG between SR04 and CSR07.ÜetÜrsÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 10ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝALLOCATION OF ACCUMULATED END YEAR FLEXIBILITYÌÈÜdt19p0,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝResourceÜntCapitalÜntTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtCentral department (Programme & Administration)Ünt175Ünt397Ünt572ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2Ýof which Ring-fenced*Ücf1ÝÜnt3Ünt9Ünt12ÜetÈÜbtÜds4Ý*Ring-fencing for Regional Development AgenciesÜetÜjf30ÝLocal Government DEL (RFR2 and non voted)ÌÜjf4Ý28.The Department's EYF has been accumulated by underspends. The Department uses its EYF to fund ongoing programmes where slippage has occurred and for the management of unbudgeted pressures which arise.ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 11Ücf1ÝÌÈÜcp8,9ÝÜdt12p0,0p3g,4p3w,0p3g,3p3w,0p3g,3p3w,0p3g,2p9wq2,0p3g,2p9wq2,0p3g,2p9w,0p3g,2p9wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntÜds5ÝÜcf2Ý			ResourceÊÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2ÝCapitalÜntTOTALÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝAdministrationÜntOtherÉResourceÜntTotalÉResourceÜntÜds2Ý			of which:Ücf1ÝÊÜetÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2ÝNearÉcashÜntNonÉcashÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtEYF entitlement set out in Public Expenditure: Provisional Outturn, July 2007 (table 6_Cm 7156)Ünt0Ünt57Ünt57Ünt57Ünt0Ünt322Ünt379ÜetÜbtAmount drawn down in 2007^08Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0ÜetÜbtBalance of accumulated EYF at 31 March 2008Ünt0Ünt57Ünt57Ünt57Ünt0Ünt322Ünt379ÜetÜbtEYF entitlement from unused resources in 2007^08Ünt0Ünt50Ünt50*Ünt50Ünt0Ünt96Ünt146ÜetÜbtEntitlement set out in Public Expenditure: Provisional Outturn, July 2008 (table 6_Cm 7419)Ünt0Ünt107Ünt107Ünt107Ünt0Ünt418Ünt525ÜetÜbtEYF drawn down in winter supplementary estimates (see section B)Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt¸82Ünt¸82ÜetÜbtBalance of accumulated end year flexibilityÜnt0Ünt107Ünt107Ünt107Ünt0Ünt336Ünt443ÜetÈÜbtÜds8Ý* Resource EYF entitlement from 2007^08 understated by #10 million due to error in published version of PEOWP.ÜetÜrsÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 12ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝALLOCATION OF ACCUMULATED END YEAR FLEXIBILITYÌÈÜdt19p0,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝResourceÜntCapitalÜntTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtRfR2 (Local Government Programmes)Ünt107Ünt336Ünt443ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2Ýof which Ring-fenced*Ücf1ÝÜnt81Ünt301Ünt382ÜetÈÜbtÜds4Ý* The majority of this ring-fencing (#76 million resource; #301 million capital) is for PSA Reward Grant.ÜetÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf31ÝSection F: Administration BudgetÌÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 13ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝCHANGES TO THE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET IN 2008^09ÌÈÜdt20p0,0p6g,5p0wÝÜtqcÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜetÜbtÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÜtqcÝÜbtÜds2ÝËËÜetÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝLimitÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds2ÝËËÜetÜbt1 AprilÜnt280.3ÜetÜbtChange announcement with winter supplementary estimateÜnt9.4ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtAdministration BudgetÜnt289.7ÜetÜbtÜds2ÝËËÜetÜjf4Ý29.The changes to the overall Administration Budget in the Winter Supplementary Estimate are the draw down of End Year Flexibility (#8.644 million), net transfers from other Government Departments (#1.264 million) and reclassification of funding for the Crown Premises Inspection Group (¸#0.480 million), which are explained in section B above.ËÜjf4Ý30.The Administration Budget and outturn for the financial years since 2005^06 are set out in the table below:ËÜjf30ÝAdministration Budget (previous years)ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 14Ücf1ÝÌÈÜdt5p0,0p6g,4p0w,0p6g,4p0w,0p6g,4p0w,0p6g,4p0wÝÜtqcÝÜbtÜds5ÝÜetÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÜtqcÝÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf2ÝYearÜntBudgetÜntOutturnÜntVarianceÜnt%Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbt2005^06Ünt336Ünt311Ünt¸25Ünt¸7.5%ÜetÜbt2006^07Ünt324Ünt298Ünt¸26Ünt¸8.1%ÜetÜbt2007^08Ünt304Ünt278Ünt¸26Ünt¸8.6%ÜetÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜjf31ÝSection G: Provisions and Contingent LiabilitiesÌÜjf30ÝProvisionsÌÜjf4Ý31.The department provides for legal or constructive obligations, which are of uncertain timing, or amount, at the balance sheet date on the basis of the best estimate of the expenditure required in settling the obligation. The following table sets out the provisions made at the start of 2008^09 and the use that has been made of them. Below the table is an explanation of the provisions which have been made.ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 16Ücf1ÝÌÈÜdt14p0,0p6g,6p0w,0p6g,5p0w,0p6g,5p0wÝÜtqcÝÜbtÜds4ÝÜetÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÜtqcÝÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf2ÝPosition from 1 April 2008ÜntEarly DepartureÜntOtherÜntTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetÜbtOpening Balance at 1 April 2008Ünt¸20.857Ünt¸85.004Ünt¸105.861ÜetÜbtProvided in yearÜnt¸0.023Ünt¸1.500Ünt¸1.523ÜetÜbtProvisions not required written backÜnt0Ünt0Ünt0ÜetÜbtProvisions used in yearÜnt2.738Ünt0.963Ünt3.701ÜetÜbtPre-fundingÜnt0.027Ünt0Ünt0.027ÜetÜbtUnwinding of discountÜnt¸0.173Ünt0Ünt¸0.173ÜetÜbtClosing Balance at 30 September 2008Ünt¸18.288Ünt¸85.541Ünt¸103.829ÜetÜbtÜds4ÝËËÜetÜjf29ÝEarly Departure CostsÌÜjf4ÝThe department meets the additional costs of benefits beyond the normal Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) benefits in respect of employees who retire early, by paying the required amounts annually to the PCSPS over the period between early departure and normal retirement date. The department and its agency provide for this in full when the early retirement programme becomes binding by establishing a provision for the estimated payments discounted by the Treasury discount rate of 2.2% in real terms. In past years the department paid in advance some of its liability for early retirement by making a payment to the Paymaster General's Account at the Bank of England for the credit of the Civil Service Superannuation Vote. The balance remaining is treated as a prepayment.ËÜjf29ÝOther CostsÌÜjf29ÝEuropean Regional Development Fund Correction (#72.9 million)ÌÜjf4ÝThe European Commission have concerns relating to some specific projects within the 1997^99 and 2000^06 tranches of programmes and they have extrapolated across the whole programme to reach a total potential disallowance ineligible for grant payments. Following consideration of potential ineligible grant payments the Department has raised provisions totalling #72.9 million. It is expected that half of these cases may be settled in this financial year. None of this provision has been drawn down so far in 2008^09.ËÜjf29ÝCompensation Payments (#4.2 million)ÌÜjf4ÝThese relate to claims made by staff and third parties against the department. The majority represent claims by ex Property Services Agency employees who have contracted lung disease due to industrial exposure. It is expected that a third of these cases may be settled during this financial year with the remainder settled in the following two years. #0.9 million of provision has been drawn down so far in 2008^09.ËÜjf29ÝDilapidations (#6.2 million)ÌÜjf4ÝThe provision relates to complying with lease clauses for buildings which are occupied by the Government Offices. None of this provision has been drawn down so far in 2008^09.ËÜjf29ÝFirefighters' Pensions (#2.2 million)ÌÜjf4ÝThe Firefighters' Pension Scheme is a small scheme that has similar conditions to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme that was inherited from the Home Department for 17 former firefighters and their widows. The Treasury real rate for this pension scheme is 2.8%. #0.1 million of this provision has been drawn down so far in 2008^09.ËÜjf30ÝContingent liabilitiesÌÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 17Ücf1ÝÌÈÜcc35p6ÝÜcp9.5,10.5ÝÈÜdt27p0,0p6g,8p0wÝÜbtÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜcf2ÝStatutoryÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtFire Service Act 1947 s17 and the Fire Service (Discipline Regulations) 1985. Liability to litigation by Fire Authorities resulting from delays in processing appeals to the Secretary of State.Ünt0.2ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtPayments under the Housing Defects Act 1984 (now part XVI of the Housing Act 1985) to Local Authorities.Ünt0.8^1.0ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtHousing Association Act 1987, s84. Indemnity of building society mortgages for shared ownership schemes.Ünt0.2ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtIndemnity given for the Land Stabilisation Project to proceed in Northwich under Section 1 of the Derelict Land Act 1982Ünt25.0ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝNon-StatutoryÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtPossible administrative irregularities (Article 4 and 10 checks) in respect of the European Regional Development Fund programme, where approximately 50% of the total irregularities value would not be recovered due to insolvency occurring.Ünt5.0ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtThree Local Authorities (Corby, Slough and Cannock Chase) have launched legal action against the Department for underpayment of the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme grant. There is a chance that the court will rule in favour of the Local Authorities. This would result in an additional payment to Local Authorities.Ünt200.9ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtPossible obligations from Employment Tribunal decision including asbestos claims against the Department.ÜntUnquantifiableÜetÜel3ÝÜbtPotential payments under the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy (HRAS) scheme relating to outstanding claims.ÜntUnquantifiableÜetÜel3ÝÜbtLiability to pay grant in future years relating to annual gap-funding agreements for negative values transfers of council housing stocksÜnt373.1ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtEx-gratia payments which may possibly be made to appellants or other appeal parties who have incurred abortive costs following an error made by the Planning Inspectorate.Ünt0.1ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtPossible ex-gratia payments in relation to Housing and PlanningÜntUnquantifiableÜetÜel3ÝÜbtPossible obligations from Employment Tribunal decisions.ÜntUnquantifiableÜetÜel3ÝÜbtOther Employment Tribunal decisions.Ünt0.2ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtCharging of VAT on building rentalÜnt0.2ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtIndemnity given to the Nationwide Building Society as lender for claims relating to the treatment or removal of asbestos in connection with housing stock transfersÜntUnquantifiableÜetÜel3ÝÜbtIndemnity given to the Fire and Rescue Services in respect of possible incidents as a result of mass decontamination.ÜntUnquantifiableÜetÜel3ÝÜbtWhere bodies outside boundary (see Note 33 of resource accounts) are unable to meet their own liabilities, then there is no reason to believe that the department's future sponsorship and future Parliamentary approval will not be forthcoming.ÜntUnquantifiableÜetËÜjf31ÝSection H: Approval of MemorandumÌÜjf4Ý32.This Memorandum has been prepared with reference to guidance in the Estimates Manual provided by Treasury and that found on the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit website. The information in this Memorandum has been approved by the Departmental Accounting Officer.ËËÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝAnnex AÉÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝTHE MOVEMENT OF BUDGETS IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOMES AND COMMUNITIES AGENCY (HCA)ÌÜjf4Ý1.Following a housing and regeneration review in 2006 the Government decided to create a new agency which would be better empowered to meet the housing and regeneration needs of England and a new regulator for social housing to take over the regulatory role of the Housing Corporation.ËÜjf4Ý2.These new bodies are called the Homes and Communities Agency and the Tenant Services Authority and provisions establishing these bodies took effect from 8 September 2008.ËÜjf4Ý3.The Homes and Communities Agency has been established so as to combine the delivery of both housing and regeneration. The policy objective is that the Homes and Communities Agency will bring together, in one place, the regeneration functions of Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for the New Towns, housing investment functions from the Housing Corporation, and some related work carried out by the Department for Communities and Local Government.ËÜjf4Ý4.Given that the vesting date for the new agency is 1 December 2008, a series of budget changes have been necessary through the Winter Supplementary Estimate in order to ensure that it has the resources it requires to meet its objectives in this and in future years.ËÜjf4Ý5.The budget for the new Homes and Communities Agency will be #2,089,523,000 comprising a transfer of #299,770,000 from within various voted DEL programmes; #1,779,953,000 from existing non voted programmes and #9,800,000 from HM Treasury reflecting adjustments to the Department's near cash DEL to ensure budget neutrality over the Comprehensive Spending Review years in the transition to the new Agency. As a result of this, grant in aid has increased by #2,047,160,000 to support this non voted budget allocation.ËÜjf4Ý6.The table below sets out the movements of various budget changes for the new Homes and Communities Agency.ËÜemËÜpg0r,cwmem1ÝÜcc57p6ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 18ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝESTIMATE AND BUDGET CHANGES DUE TO ESTABLISHMENT OF HCAÌÈÜmp10ÝÜcc57p6ÝÜdt5p0,0p3g,25p0,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,5p0w,0p3g,11p0wÝÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntÜntÜcf2ÝDELÜntÜds3ÝTypes of ExpenditureÊÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2ÝÜntÜntÜntNear CashÜntNon CashÜntCapitalÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜds2ÝDEL reductionsÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf2Ýfrom RFR1Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝCentral government expenditureÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtSection BÜntThames Gateway (direct funding)Ünt¸62.7ÜntÜntÜnt¸62.7ÜetÜbtÜntGap funding for large scale voluntary transfersÜnt¸20.0ÜntÜntÜnt20.0ÜetÜbtÜntCommunity Infrastructure FundÜnt¸17.0ÜntÜntÜnt¸17.0ÜetÜbtÜntHousing Corporation Board_Remuneration & pensionsÜnt¸0.1Ünt¸0.1ÜetÜbtÜntHomes and Communities Agency (set up costs)Ünt¸8.8Ünt¸8.8ÜetÜbtÜntGrowth Areas, New Growth Points & Eco-townsÜnt¸0.2Ünt¸0.2ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtSection CÜntAcademy for Sustaintable CommunitiesÜnt¸4.2Ünt¸4.2ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtSection EÜntImplementing planning reformsÜnt¸1.3Ünt¸1.3ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtSection GÜntCentral AdministrationÜnt¸12.6ÜntÜnt¸12.6ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝSupport for local authoritiesÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtSection NÜntHousing Market Renewal FundÜnt¸161.6Ünt¸10.6ÜntÜnt¸151.0ÜetÜbtÜntHomelessness & Housing ReformÜnt¸11.0ÜntÜntÜnt¸11.0ÜetÜbtÜntGrowth Areas, New Growth Points & Eco-TownsÜnt¸8.2Ünt¸3.2ÜntÜnt¸5.0ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf3ÝTotal voted DEL reductionsÜntÜntÜnt¸307.5Ünt¸28.3Ünt¸12.6Ünt¸266.7Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf2Ýfrom existing non vote programmesÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntHousing CorporationÜnt¸1,661.2Ünt¸17.2Ünt¸0.7Ünt¸1,643.4ÜetÜbtÜntEnglish Partnerships Urban Regeneration AgencyÜnt¸95.6Ünt¸16.2Ünt¸19.5Ünt¸59.9ÜetÜbtÜntEnglish Partnerships Commission for New TownsÜnt¸13.5Ünt¸2.5Ünt¸7.8Ünt¸3.2ÜetÜbtÜntNew Burdens on Local AuthoritiesÜnt¸2.0Ünt¸2.0ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf3ÝTotal non voted DEL reductionsÜntÜntÜnt¸1,772.3Ünt¸37.9Ünt¸27.9Ünt¸1,706.5Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf3ÝGrand Total DEL reductionÜntÜntÜnt¸2,079.8Ünt¸66.2Ünt¸40.5Ünt¸1,973.2Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝDEL increases (non voted)ÜetÜnpÜbtÜds2ÝNew HCA budget (non voted)ÜetÜbtÜntHomes and Communities AgencyÜnt1,794.9Ünt47.9Ünt40.5Ünt1,706.5ÜetÜbtÜntHousing Market RenewalÜnt161.6Ünt10.6ÜntÜnt151.0ÜetÜbtÜntThames Gateway (direct funding)Ünt62.7ÜntÜntÜnt62.7ÜetÜbtÜntGap funding for large scale voluntary transfersÜnt20.0ÜntÜntÜnt20.0ÜetÜbtÜntCommunity Infrastructure FundÜnt17.0ÜntÜntÜnt17.0ÜetÜbtÜntHomeslessness & Housing ReformÜnt11.0ÜntÜntÜnt11.0ÜetÜbtÜntGrowth Areas, New Growth Points & Eco-TownsÜnt8.4Ünt3.4ÜntÜnt5.0ÜetÜbtÜntAcademy for Sustaintable CommunitiesÜnt4.2Ünt4.2ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf3ÝTotal non voted DEL increases (HCA budget)ÜntÜntÜnt2,079.8Ünt66.1Ünt40.5Ünt1,973.2Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝNet change to DELÜntÜntÜntÜcf3ÝZEROÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds2ÝNet change to VoteÜntÜntÜntÜcf3ݸ307.5Ücf1ÝÜntÜcf2Ýof which:Ünt¸299.8Üntto HCA (incl 1.1m set up costs)Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2ݸ4.0Üntto EP (HCA set up costs)*Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2ݸ3.7Üntto HC (HCA set up costs)*Ücf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜds2ÝVoted Non budget changesÜetÜbtÜds2ÝreductionsÜetÜbtRFR1ÜetÜbtSection XÜntHousing CorporationÜnt¸1,449.4ÜetÜbtÜntEnglish PartnershipsÜnt¸98.0ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf3ÝÜds2ÝTotal Voted Non Budget reductionsÜntÜntÜntÜcf2ݸ1,547.4Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtincreasesÜetÜbtSection XÜntHomes and Communities AgencyÜnt2,046.2ÜetÜbtÜntRepayment of Contingencies Fund advanceÜnt0.9ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf3ÝTotal Voted Non Budget increases (HCA gia)ÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý2,047.2Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝNet change to DELÜntÜntÜntZEROÜetÜbtÜds2ÝNet change to VoteÜntÜntÜnt499.8ÜntÜcf2Ýof which:Ünt200.0ÜntSept 2008 Housing PackageÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý299.8ÜntTransfers from RfR1Ücf1ÝÜetÜmp40ÝÈÜnpÈÜbtResultÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝVoted grant in aid to HCA (Ücf2Ýincl repayment of contingencies fund advanceÜcf1Ý)ÜntÜntÜnt2,047.2ÜetÜbtÜds2ÝNon Voted DEL HCA BudgetÜntÜntÜnt2,089.6ÜntÜcf2ÝÜds3Ý(incl #9.8m non voted drawdown from HMT_see below)ÈÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf3ÝBefore Winter Supplementary EstimateÜntÜntÜntDELÜntVoteÜntvote sectionÜntproportion of year budget coversÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝCentral government spendingÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntThames Gateway (direct funding)Ünt177.0Ünt177.0ÜntBÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntGap funding for large scale voluntary transfersÜnt80.0Ünt80.0ÜntBÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntCommunity Infrastructure FundÜnt50.0Ünt50.0ÜntBÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntGrowth Areas, New Growth Points & Eco-TownsÜnt47.4Ünt47.4ÜntBÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHomes and Communities Agency (set up costs)Ünt13.0Ünt13.0ÜntBÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHC_Board RemunerationÜnt0.2Ünt0.2ÜntBÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntAcademy for Sustainable CommunitiesÜnt5.5Ünt5.5ÜntCÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntImplementing planning reformsÜnt26.3Ünt26.3ÜntEÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntCentral Administration (non cash)Ünt12.0Ünt12.0ÜntGÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝSupport for local authoritiesÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHousing Market Renerwal FundÜnt381.0Ünt381.0ÜntNÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntGrowth Areas, New Growth Points & Eco-TownsÜnt210.6Ünt210.6ÜntNÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHomelessness and Housing ReformÜnt78.9Ünt78.9ÜntNÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝNon voted programmesÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHousing CorporationÜnt2,616.8Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntEnglish Partnerships_URAÜnt276.3Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntEnglish Partnerships_CNTÜnt11.4Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntNew Burdens on Local AuthoritiesÜnt23.4Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜntÜcf2Ý12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf3ÝTotal before WSEÜnt4,009.7Ünt1,081.9Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds4ÝÜcf3ÝAfter Winter Supplementary Estimate (figures only take account of HCA changes to budgets)ÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntÜntproportion of year budget coversÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝCentral government spendingÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntThames Gateway (direct funding)Ünt114.3Ünt114.3ÜntBÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntGap funding for large scale voluntary transfersÜnt60.0Ünt60.0ÜntBÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntCommunity Infrastructure FundÜnt33.0Ünt33.0ÜntBÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntGrowth Areas, New Growth Points & Eco-TownsÜnt47.2Ünt47.2ÜntBÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHomes and Communities Agency (set up costs)**Ünt4.2Ünt4.2ÜntBÜnt12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHC_Board RemunerationÜnt0.1Ünt0.1ÜntBÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntAcademy for Sustainable CommunitiesÜnt1.3Ünt1.3ÜntCÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntImplementing planning reformsÜnt265.0Ünt25.0ÜntEÜnt12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntCentral Administration (non cash)Ünt¸0.6Ünt¸0.6ÜntGÜnt12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝSupport for local authoritiesÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHousing Market Renerwal FundÜnt219.4Ünt219.4ÜntNÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜmp40ÝÈÜnpÈÜbtÜds2ÝÜcf2ÝÜntÜntÜntDELÜntVoteÜntvote sectionÜntproportion of year budget coversÜcf1ÝÜetÈÜbtÜntGrowth Areas, New Growth Points & Eco-TownsÜnt202.4Ünt202.4ÜntNÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHomelessness and Housing ReformÜnt67.9Ünt67.9ÜntNÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf2ÝNon voted programmesÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntHousing CorporationÜnt955.6Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntEnglish Partnerships_URAÜnt180.7Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntEnglish Partnerships_CNTÜnt¸2.1Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt8 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜntNew Burdens on Local AuthoritiesÜnt21.4Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt12 monthsÜcf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntHomes and Communities AgencyÜnt1,804.8Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt4 monthsÜetÜbtÜntHCA (former HMRF)Ünt161.6Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt4 monthsÜetÜbtÜntHCA (former Thames Gateway programmes)Ünt62.7Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt4 monthsÜetÜbtÜntHCA (former Gap funding programmes)Ünt20.0Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt4 monthsÜetÜbtÜntHCA (former Community Infrastructure Fund)Ünt17.0Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt4 monthsÜetÜbtÜntHCA (former Homelessness and Housing Reform programmes)Ünt11.0Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt4 monthsÜetÜbtÜntHCA (former Growth Areas, New Growth Points & Eco-Towns programmes)Ünt8.4Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt4 monthsÜetÜbtÜntHCA (former Academy for Sustainable Communities programmes)Ünt4.2Ünt0.0Üntnon votedÜnt4 monthsÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf3ÝTotal after WSEÜnt4,019.6Ünt774.3Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜcf3ÝDifferenceÜnt9.8Ünt¸307.6Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntReason for DEL increaseÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜntÜds5Ý#9.8 million is a draw down from HM Treasury to HCA to ensure budget neutrality over the Comprehensive Spending Review years in the transition to the new Agency. I relates to value added tax (#4.6 million) and interest earned on CNT cash balances (#5.2 million)ÜetÈÜbtÜds6Ý* Note: #4.0 million and #3.7 million have been transferred to English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, respectively, from RfR1, section B, to reimburse costs incurred by them in relation to the set up of the Homes and Communities Agency (see section B of the Memorandum).ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds6Ý** Transfers relating to historic Housing Corporation pensions deficit, which crystallise on the winding up of the Corporation, have not been taken into account (see section B of the Memorandum for details)ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜds2ÝFigures may not sum due to roundingÜetÜpg0ÝÜmc2ÝËÜjf165ÝÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝAnnex BÉÌÜjf31ÝHousing PackageÌÜjf4Ý1.Ministers announced a #1 billion package of housing measures on 2 September 2008. Treasury have agreed that this can be funded within CLG's CSR07 settlement, largely by bringing forward CLG expenditure from 2010^11 to 2008^09 and 2009^10.ËÜjf4Ý2.The measures to support the housing market in England include:ËÜjf10Ý_	offering 10,000 first time buyers currently frozen out of the mortgage market the chance to get onto the property ladder through a new #300 million shared equity scheme;ËÜjf10Ý_	supporting up to 6,000 of the most vulnerable homeowners facing repossession to remain in their home through a #200 million mortgage rescue scheme;ËÜjf10Ý_	#100 million for reform of Income Support for Mortgage Interest which could help prevent a further 10,000 repossessions;ËÜjf10Ý_	a #400 million boost in spending power for social housing providers, including registered social landlords and councils, to deliver 5,500 more social houses over the next 18 months by bringing funding forward; andËÜjf10Ý_	working with Regional Development Agencies to support the most critical regeneration schemes with the most potential to transform their communities.ËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝTable 19ÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝSEPTEMBER HOUSING PACKAGE PROFILESÌÈÜdt10p0,0p3g,4p0w,0p3g,4p0w,0p3g,4p0w,0p3g,4p0wq3ÝÜtqcÝÜbtÜds5ÝÜetÜbtÜntÜntÜntÜntÜcf2Ý#MÜcf1ÝÜetÜtqcÝÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf2ÝHousing Package_SpendingÜnt2008^09Ünt2009^10Ünt2010^11ÜntÜcf2ÝTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbtSMIÜnt0Ünt40Ünt55Ünt95ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf3ÝTotal ResourceÜnt0Ünt40Ünt55Ünt95Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtMortgage RescueÜnt50Ünt100Ünt55Ünt205ÜetÜbtHomebuy directÜnt50Ünt250Ünt0Ünt300ÜetÜbtSocial Rented HousingÜnt100Ünt300Ünt0Ünt400ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf3ÝTotal CapitalÜnt200Ünt650Ünt55Ünt905Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÈÜtqcÝÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf2ÝHousing Package_FundingÜnt2008^09Ünt2009^10Ünt2010^11ÜntÜcf2ÝTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝTotal ResourceÜnt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0Ücf1ÝÜetÜel3ÝÜbtRDAsÜnt0Ünt¸25Ünt¸275Ünt¸300ÜetÜbtOther capitalÜnt0Ünt0Ünt¸300Ünt¸300ÜetÜbtSocial Rented HousingÜnt0Ünt0Ünt¸400Ünt¸400ÜetÜel3ÝÜbtÜcf3ÝTotal CapitalÜnt0Ünt¸25Ünt¸975Ünt¸1,000Ücf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÈÜtqcÝÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf2ÝHousing Package_BudgetsÜnt2008^09Ünt2009^10Ünt2010^11ÜntÜcf2ÝTotalÜcf1ÝÜetÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbtCLG re-profiled CDELÜnt200Ünt625Ünt¸920Ünt¸95ÜetÜbtCLG re-profiled RDELÜnt0Ünt0Ünt0Ünt0ÜetÜbtÜds5ÝËËÜetÜbtÜcf3ÝTotal reprofilingÜnt200Ünt665Ünt¸865Ücf1ÝÜetËÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝAnnex CÉÌÜjf27ÝÜcf1ÝEXPLANATION OF KEY TERMS AND GLOSSARYÌÜjf31ÝDEL_Departmental Expenditure LimitÌÜjf4ÝThis is spending within the department's direct control, which can be planned over a Spending Review period and includes programme and administration expenditure. The Department for Communities and Local Government has two DELs_Main DEL, which covers main programme spending, and Local Government DEL, which covers local government programmes.ËÜjf31ÝRfR_Request for ResourcesÌÜjf4ÝThese are the resource element of the Departmental Estimates. The department has two RfRs:ËÜjf48ÝRfR 1:	ÜixImproving the quality of life by creating thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities in all regions.ËÜjf48ÝRfR 2:	ÜixProviding for effective devolved decision making within a national framework.ËÜjf4ÝThe RFR covers the central Department and the Government Offices, and unlike the DEL does not consolidate NDPB spend, showing instead payments of grant in aid to the NDPBs.ËÜjf31ÝDUP_Departmental Unallocated ProvisionÌÜjf4ÝThe department's (non voted) contingency reserve, which can be accessed to meet pressures or to deal with in year management of resources by means of Main and Supplementary Estimates.ËÜjf31ÝEYF_End Year FlexibilityÌÜjf4ÝThis enables the department to plan the use of resources over a Spending Review period as it allows the carry forward of unspent DEL resources into future years. The department allows the carry forward of EYF for specific ring-fenced programmes. The remainder is used as a central resource to meet pressures arising in year.ËÜjf31ÝVoted and Non-Voted ExpenditureÌÜjf4ÝVoted expenditure is that expenditure which has been approved in Main or Supplementary Estimates. Non-voted expenditure has not been through this Parliamentary process. Examples of non-voted are the resource and capital expenditure by NDPBs. NDPBs' grant-in-aid is voted.ËÜjf31ÝSpending ReviewÌÜjf4ÝA fundamental look at resources by the Treasury which (usually) takes place every two years and normally covers a three year period. The current budgets are a result of CSR07, which covered the years 2008^09, 2009^10 and 2010^11.ËÜjf31ÝOther AbbreviationsÌËCNT_Commission for New TownsËCSR07_Comprehensive spending review 2007ËDCSF_Department for Children, Schools and FamiliesËDWP_Department for Work and PensionsËEP_English PartnershipsËERDF_European Regional Development FundËHC_Housing CorporationËHCA_Homes and Communities AgencyËHMRF_Housing Market Renewal FundËHRAS_Housing Revenue Account SubsidyËNDPB_Non Departmental Public BodyËNNDR_National Non-Domestic RatesËOGA_Other Growth AreasËOGD_Other Government DepartmentËPFI_Private Finance InitiativeËPSA_Public Service AgreementËRSG_Revenue Support GrantËSR04_Spending review 2004ËURA_Urban Regeneration AgencyËVAT_Value Added TaxËÜjf22ÝÜteÜjf199ÝÜjf27ÝÜcf3ÝFurther memorandum Winter Supplementary Estimates 2008^09_European Regional Development Fund: Financial Corrections (WSUP 2)ÌÜjf4Ý1.The Committee asked for a short memorandum in response to its specific question on the treatment of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the Winter Supplementary Estimates. It asked:ËÜjf48ÝThe Winter Supplementary Estimate includes an additional #22.3 million for ERDF corrections. To what extent is this additional cost already covered in the #73 million ERDF provision that was charged in the 2007^08 Resource Accounts, and to what extent is it already covered in the #149 million ERDF contingent liability in those accounts? To which ERDF programmes_1997^99, 2000^06, Interreg or other_does the #22.3 million correction relate?ËÜjf4Ý2.As the Department has previously advised the Committee, the European Commission has audited the closure of the 1997^99 round of ERDF programmes and certain programmes within the 2000^06 round. Following consideration of potential ineligible grant payments that may result from these audits, the Department raised provisions totalling #72.9 million and contingent liabilities totalling #149 million in its 2007^08 resource accounts.ËÜjf4Ý3.The 2008^09 Winter Supplementary Estimate for Communities and Local Government includes, in section K (European Structural Funds_Communities and Local Government), #22.3 million in respect of such financial corrections.ËÜjf4Ý4.The resources sought in the Winter Supplementary Estimate for financial corrections to ERDF programmes relate to the 1997^99 tranche of programmes.ËÜjf4Ý5.The Department expects the European Commission to announce the final figure for financial correction for the 1997^99 round early in 2009. In accounting terms the full impact of this was covered either by a near cash accrual (#6.979 million) or a non-cash provision (#25.7 million, within the total ERDF provision of #72.9 million) in the Department's 2007^08 Resource Accounts, both of which scored against the 2007^08 Estimate.ËÜjf4Ý6.The #22.3 million included in the Winter Supplementary Estimate 2008^09 is to provide DEL cover for the near cash utilisation cost associated with the provision.ËÜjf4Ý7.On further review, the Department realises that to avoid double counting with the setting up of the provision in 2007^08, this sum should have been outside the Estimate, and be offset with a reduction in the non-cash budget. We will take steps to correct this in the Spring Supplementary Estimate and apologise for the error in the Winter Supplementary Estimate.ËÈÜcf2ÝJanuary 2009Ücf1ÝËÜjf22ÝÜte