§ Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his policy on the inclusion of indicators of need in calculation of grant-related expenditure; why certain indicators of need such a s unemployment, lack of car ownership, low educational attainment and homelessness are omitted; and why proxy measures of need are used, for example total population, when actual measurements relating directly to service levels are readily available, for example birth and death rates and numbers of children in receipt of free school meals.
(2) why the daily non-work inflow of people, high costs of land, labour and transport, additional wear and tear on infrastructure and the regional role in education and cultural services and other similar factors connected with the role and responsibilities of urban regional centres are not recognised by the grant-related expenditure assessment.
(3) why no account is taken of the daily inflow of commuters in the assessment of planning, implementation and employment generation expenditure;
(4) if he will publish an explanation for the inclusion of each weighting factor included in appendix 3 to annex J of the rate support grant report 1980; and how the total allocations between each grant-related expenditure service heading are derived.
§ Mr. KingFor a description of the indicators chosen for use in the grant-related expenditure assessments and the reasoning underlying those choices I refer the hon. Member to the publication "Grant Related Expenditure: How the Expenditure Needs of Local Authorities are Assessed in the New Block Grant". The hon. Member may also find it helpful to refer to the further publication "Grant Related Expenditure: Components of Grant Related Expenditure for English Authorities 1981–82". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.