§ Mr. AltonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the net gain or loss in Liverpool arising from its position on the social index; and what were the corresponding figures for Westminster and Wandsworth. [18943]
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesThe contributions of the combined economic and social indices to the 1995–96 standard spending assessments are:
- Liverpool: £12.411 million;
- Westminster: £20.290 million;
- Wandsworth: £10.305 million;
§ Mr. AltonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where Liverpool ranks on the social index; and what rankings are given to(a) Westminster, (b) Wandsworth, (c) Bath, (d) Brighton and (e) Norwich. [18942]
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesThe ranking for the combined economic an social indices in 1995–96 are
Liverpool 17
- a) Westminster 12
- b) Wandsworth 16
- c) Bath 86
- d) Brighton 29
- e) Norwich 47
§ Mr. AltonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how economic disadvantage is taken into account in the economic and social services standard spending assessment; what ranking Liverpool receives on1292W the social index; what ranking it receives on the index of local conditions; which of these is used to determine standard spending assessments; and what consideration he is giving to referring to both indexes in making the calculation. [18936]
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesThe SSAs for personal social services includes an other social services index; the all other services district level SSA includes an economic index and social index. These two indices should be considered together. The constituents of these indexes are set out in the Local Government Finance Report, England, 1995–96.
In the social index alone, Liverpool has a ranking of 81. Liverpool has a ranking of 17th for the combined economic and social indices, and second for the authorities outside London. Liverpool ranks sixth in the index of local conditions. The economic and social indices are not comparable with the index of local conditions which is designed for a different purpose.