Mr. Robert AinsworthTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list(a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of residents of non-self contained accommodation as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution, (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;
(2) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of housing benefit claimants as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;
(3) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of residents at non-self contained or non-permanent accommodation as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;
(4) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of households living in rented purpose built flats as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;
(5) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of elderly living in rented accommodation as an indicator for the purposes of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;
(6) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most from the use of children in rented accommodation proportionate to population as an indicator for the purposes of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment.
869W
§ Mr. BaldryThe information is provided in the tables. However, there are some important technical points relating to the interpretation of the figures provided.
In a simple arithmetic sense, it is possible to say how much of an authority's standard spending assessment arises from a particular indicator. In most cases, it is simply a matter of multiplying the value of the indicator in that particular authority by the weighting, and scaling factor, attached to it in "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1994–95 [HC 179]". This is the basis for the figures in the tables.
But there are two important qualifications to the results of those calculations. One is general. The other applies specifically to four indexes reflecting social and economic conditions: the social index, the other social services index, the economic index and the children in need index.
The general qualification is that the simple arithmetic calculation does not show how much better off or worse off the authority is as a result of that particular indicator being included in the formula. It would do so only if the rest of the formula remained unchanged when that indicator was removed. But it would not remain unchanged, because that would normally lead to a reduction in the national total of SSAs. To maintain the national total, there would have to be other compensating changes in the SSA formula. This would not be a simple scaling up of the factors; it would be usual to draw on statistical analyses to determine the weights on the remaining indicators. The weights would be likely to change differentially, to make good, as far as possible, the effect of the indicator which had been left out. In practice, if one indicator was left out of the analysis, it might well be appropriate to bring in some other similar indicator in its place.
In other words, to find out how much an authority is advantaged or disadvantaged by a particular indicator would require the production of a hypothetical SSA in which that indicator had been omitted, but in which other compensating changes had been made. There is no basis on which such a hypothetical SSA formula could be defined conclusively. Consequently, there is no basis for saying conclusively how much an authority gained or lost by the adoption of an indicator in the actual SSA formula.
The specific qualification relates to the indicators which are within the indexes reflecting social and economic conditions. All the general qualifications apply equally to the components of these indexes. But, in addition, the indexes are unlike other indicators in that they are not intended to reflect the total amount in SSAs attributable to social and economic conditions, but are only the amount by which the relevant part of an authority's SSA is increased or decreased from a national average because of those conditions.
The figures in the tables have been calculated by applying the weighting and scaling factor for each indicator to the data for that indicator for the authority mentioned. The figures exclude any area cost adjustment. In each case, the amount for Coventry is shown for comparison.
870W
Table 1 The proportion of household residents living in accommodation which is not self-contained Ranking and Local authority Contribution per head to SSA(£) Coventry 2 1 Islington 44 2 Hackney 39 3 Lambeth 38 4 Haringey 38 5 Camden 35 6 Hammersmith and Fulham 32 7 Kensington and Chelsea 28 8 Brent 25 9 Westminster 23 10 Lewisham 21
Table 2 The proportion of households living in rented purpose-built flats in residential buildings Ranking and Local authority Contribution per head to SSA (£) Coventry 0 1 City of London 236 2 Tower Hamlets 38 3 Southwark 29 4 Westminster 27 5 Hackney 26 6 Islington 23 7 Camden 21 8 Lambeth 18 9 Greenwich 12 10 Hammersmith and Fulham 11
Table 3 The proportion of household residents living in accommodation which is not self-contained or is non-permanent Ranking and heal authority Contribution per head to SSA (£) Coventry -3 1 Kensington and Chelsea 29 2 Westminster 29 3 Camden 25 4 Hammersmith and Fulham 20 5 Islington 19 6 Haringey 19 7 Brent 15 8 Lambeth 14 9 Runnymede 14 10 Hackney 13
871W
Table 4 The average number of Housing Benefit claimants Ranking and local authority Contribution per head to SSA(£) Coventry 1 1 City of London 152 2 Manchester 9 3 Tower Hamlets 8 4 Camden 8 5 Hackney 8
Ranking and local authority Contribution per head to SSA(£) 6 Haringey 7 7 Islington 6 8 Southwark 5 9 Newham 5 10 Salford 5
Table 5 The proportion of household residents under 16 years of age living in rented accommodation Ranking and Local authority Contribution per head to SSA(£) Coventry 0 1 Tower Hamlets 10 2 Southwark 7 3 Hackney 6 4 Islington 6 5 Lambeth 5 6 Isles of Scilly 5 7 Manchester 4 8 Camden 4 9 Greenwich 4 10 Westminster 4
Table 6 The proportion of household residents of pensionable age living in rented accommodation Ranking and Local authority Contribution per head to SSA(£) Coventry 12 1 Camden 32 2 Westminster 31 3 Tower Hamlets 31 4 Islington 30 5 Southwark 30 6 Sheffield 29 7 Hackney 29 8 South Tyneside 28 9 Newcastle upon Tyne 27 10 Manchester 27