Written question asked by Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative) on Thursday, 12 February 2004, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 8 March 2004. It was answered by Nick Raynsford (Labour) on Monday, 8 March 2004 on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
- Question
- To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what the budget overspend was for each metropolitan authority in each of the last three financial years; and what estimate he has made of budget overspends for the 2003-04 financial year. - Inc table. (Printed on 23.02.2004 in Bound Volume 418 c332-3W).
- Answer
-
Mr. Brady: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the budget overspend was for each metropolitan authority in each of the last three financial years; and what estimate he has made of budget overspends for the 2003-04 financial year. [155994] Mr. Raynsford: The amount by which metropolitan authority spend has exceeded their budget forecast for 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 is as tabled. A negative figure shows that the authority spent less than their budget estimate. No estimate has been made of the budget overspend for the 2003-04 financial year. £000 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Barnsley -7,888 -1,702 -9,628 Birmingham -9,905 -6,684 -20,046 Bolton 3,083 -2,094 1,286 Bradford -13,138 -10,875 -3,503 Bury -4,110 -1,352 -2,311 Calderdale -2,249 143 155 Coventry 34,985 11,743 14,953 Doncaster -8,866 -220 -296 Dudley 9 390 -1,836 Gateshead -8,374 14,273 11,780 Kirklees -3,420 -7,468 -4,359 Knowsley -996 -733 2,196 Leeds -5,266 742 -2,778 Liverpool 16,413 5,374 -17,949 Manchester -13,045 -13,071 -12,674 Newcastle upon Tyne -2,440 -1,468 -14,636 North Tyneside 7,410 4,188 4,185 Oldham 496 1,760 514 Rochdale 220 -389 -1,887 Rotherham 2,288 -2,270 276 Salford 666 -549 363 Sandwell -8,208 -7,744 1,179 Sefton -3,987 -2,270 983 Sheffield -3,864 -16,405 -19,471 Solihull -3,359 1,855 -2,353 South Tyneside -4,222 -5,943 -5,264 St. Helens -5,165 -6,956 -2,938 Stockport 1,606 -1,607 -4,647 Sunderland -57,687 -5,254 4,611 Tameside -3,695 -8,349 -819 Trafford -19,111 -2,197 454 Wakefield -8,581 -3,063 7,077 Walsall 919 -4,653 -2,226 Wigan -7,581 -5,575 -611 Wirral 1,223 -1,057 1,855 Wolverhampton -13,473 -9,636 -2,462 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Notes: The data are taken from the RA budget and RS outturn forms for each year. The large under spend figure for Sunderland for 2000-01 is mainly attributable to a revenue receipt of £53.9 million in March 2001 being included in their accounts for that year.
Secondary information
- Type
- Written question
- Reference
- 418 c1225-6W;418 (Not in Bound Volume); 155994
- Session
- 2003-04
- Subjects
- Local government finance Metropolitan districts
- Contains statistics
- Yes
- Link
- View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2013-11-25 20:55:35 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_954946
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_954946
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_954946