HC Deb 20 January 1995 vol 252 cc702-6W
Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the value of his standard spending assessment assessments and (b) the total grants after the area cost adjustment as a per capita figure for the counties of (i) Humberside, (ii) Derbyshire (c) Buckinghamshire and (iv) Surrey for each financial year from 1990–91.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

The standard spending assessment, national non-domestic rate and revenue support grant figures for the named county area from 1990–91 to 1995–96 are set out in the tables.

The SSA figures are those for the year in question and have not been adjusted to a comparable basis for year-on-year comparisons.

The 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 figures for Surrey do not include any SSA, NNDR or RSG element to the receiver for the Metropolitan police district in respect of police services provided by the Metropolitan police in parts of Surrey. The 1995–96 figures for Buckinghamshire do not include any element to the Thames Valley police authority in respect of police services throughout Buckinghamshire.

The 1995–96 figures are those issued in the provisional local government finance settlement 1995–96, announced on 1 December 1994.

SSA £ million SSA/Head £ NNDR £ million NNDR/Head £ RSG £ million RSG/Head £
Humberside 667.1 776 224.5 261 277.0 322
Derbyshire 637.6 683 245.2 263 211.5 227
Buckinghamshire 474.3 741 160.3 250 195.8 306
Surrey 656.6 656 264.6 264 223.4 223

SSA £ million SSA/Head £ NNDR £ million NNDR/Head £ RSG £ million RSG/Head £
Humberside 641.1 733 210.3 240 305.1 349
Derbyshire 609.7 649 226.0 240 238.5 254
Buckinghamshire 466.2 728 153.9 240 190.3 297
Surrey 614.0 594 243.3 235 162.4 157

SSA £ million SSA/Head £ NNDR £ million NNDR/Head £ RSG £ million RSG/Head £
Humberside 659.5 748 194.7 221 329.2 373
Derbyshire 639.4 675 209.3 221 211.7 328
Buckinghamshire 487.0 754 142.6 221 211.7 328
Surrey 650.7 629 223.6 216 202.3 196

SSA £ million SSA/Head £ NNDR £ million NNDR/Head £ RSG £ million RSG/Head £
Humberside 674.5 763 206.9 234 325.7 368
Derbyshire 653.3 687 222.4 234 268.4 282
Buckinghamshire 453.9 698 139.9 215 185.5 285
Surrey 674.3 651 237.3 229 190.3 184

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the percentage increase of grant-related expenditure assessment between 1984–85 and 1989–90 and in the standard spending assessment between 1989–90 and 1994–95 for(a) Yorkshire and Humberside and (b) the south-east; and to what factors he attributes the variation resulting from the formula of needs distribution.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

[holding answer 16 January 1995]: The percentage increases in grant-related expenditure between 1984–85 and 1989–90 were 38.6 per cent. for the Yorkshire and Humberside region and 36.9 per cent. for the south east region including London.

Grant-related expenditure assessments and standard spending assessments are not fully comparable so comparisons between the GREA for 1989–90 and the SSA for 1994–95 are not given. The percentage increases in standard spending assessments between 1990–91 and 1994–95 were 27.7 per cent. for the Yorkshire and Humberside region and 29.7 per cent. for the south-east region, including London.

These variations are attributable to updating data, changing methodology and changing national aggregates. The figures quoted also make no adjustment for any changes in functions or responsibilities.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received, and from which local government organizations and authorities, (a) for and (b) against the area cost adjustment.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

We have identified 76 recent representations from local government organisations and authorities about the area cost adjustment, and these are listed. A number of representations cannot be categorised conclusively as "for" or "against" the area cost adjustment, but the majority of representations from authorities outside London and the south east argue for abolishing or reducing the size of the area cost adjustment or making substantial changes to the methodology for its calculation.

  • Association of County Councils
  • Association of London Authorities
  • Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  • London Boroughs Association
  • Abbotskerwell parish council
  • Bedfordshire county council
  • Bedfordshire police authorit
  • Berkshire county council
  • Bradford metropolitan borough council
  • Calderdale metropolitan borough council
  • Chelmsford district council
  • Christchurch district council
  • Cleveland county council
  • Copeland district council
  • Coventry city council
  • Cumbria county council
  • Derbyshire county council
  • 705
  • Derbyshire police authority
  • Devon county council
  • Dudley metropolitan borough council
  • Durham county council
  • East Lindsey district council
  • East Midlands county councils
  • Gateshead metropolitan borough council
  • Gateshead metropolitan borough council (on behalf of the metropolitan authorities outside London)
  • Glanford district council
  • Hereford and Worcester county council
  • High Peak district council
  • Humberside county council
  • Isles of Scilly council
  • Isle of Wight council
  • Kent county council
  • Kirklees metropolitan borough council
  • Knowsley metropolitan borough council
  • Lancashire county council Lincolnshire county council
  • Lincolnshire police authority
  • Liverpool city council
  • London borough of Brent
  • London borough of Ealing
  • London borough of Enfield
  • London borough of Havering
  • London borough of Hillingdon
  • London borough of Hounslow
  • London borough of Kingston upon Thames
  • London borough of Merton
  • London borough of Richmond upon Thames
  • London borough of Sutton
  • London borough of Westminster
  • Newark and Sherwood district council
  • Norfolk county council
  • North Yorkshire county council
  • Northamptonshire county council
  • Northamptonshire police authority
  • Northumberland county council
  • Nottinghamshire county council
  • Oxfordshire county council
  • Reading district council
  • Rushmoor district council
  • Sheffield city council
  • Shropshire county council
  • Slough borough council
  • Staffordshire county council
  • Stevenage district council
  • St. Helens metropolitan borough council
  • Suffolk county council
  • Surrey county council
  • Tameside metropolitan borough council
  • Tandridge district council
  • Thurrock district council
  • Tonbridge and Mailing district council
  • Warwickshire county council
  • West Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority
  • West Sussex county council
  • Wokingham district council
  • Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council

Mr. Allen

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department plans to remedy inequities in the area cost adjustment.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

The Government consider that the existing area cost adjustment is well justified, but remain willing to consider arguments for improvements in the way in which the standard spending assessments sallow for the higher costs in some parts of the country.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of the amount of transfer of grant to(a) London and (b) the south-east under the area cost adjustment for each year since it was introduced together with the comparative figures for Humberside, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

The table shows the total contribution of the area cost adjustment to standard spending assessments for(a) London and (b) the rest of the south-east, for each year since SSAs were first introduced in 1990–91. The area cost adjustment is not applied to shire counties outside the south-east.

Contribution of area cost adjustment to SSAs (£ million)
Year London Area of the receiver for the Metropolitan Police South-east (outside London)
1990–91 562.2 274.0
1991–92 778.0 373.5
1992–93 855.0 458.8
1993–94 842.7 489.0
1994–95 960.1 575.6
1995–96 (proposed) 1002.8 116.1 556.7


The area of the Receiver for the Metropolitan police excludes the City of London and includes parts of the south-east outside London. Before 1995–96, the SSA for the receiver was based on his budget, as approved by the Home Secretary, which included those extra costs which, from 1995–96, are reflected in the area cost adjustment.

Forward to