|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
30 Jan 2003 : Column 1017Wcontinued
Mr. Chope: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultations have been carried out in determining the objective data from which the Government has derived the high demand indicator for the purposes of reducing maximum right to buy discounts. 
Mr. McNulty: None. Two measures were used: homelessness and house prices. The sources of the homelessness data were statistical surveys of local authority housing departments, routinely conducted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister:
Quarterly Housing Activity Return (PIE).
Mr. McNulty: The report of the research by Heriot-Watt University into the scale, nature and impact of exploitation of the Right to Buy policy will be published shortly. It did not find any exploitation in the borough of Christchurch, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is minded to reduce the maximum Right to Buy discount in this area because it is under great housing pressure as evidenced by a high local incidence of homelessness and high local house prices.
30 Jan 2003 : Column 1018W
Mr. McNulty: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister wrote on 22 January 2003 to all the local authorities affected by our announcement that day on Right to Buy discounts, giving them the opportunity to present a case for their areas to be excluded. All views and comments on the announcement received on or before 5 February 2003 will be given careful consideration.
Mr. McNulty: Letters informing Christchurch Borough Council and Twynham Housing Association of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement about reducing right to buy discounts, and seeking their views, were despatched during the afternoon of Wednesday 22 January 2003.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to receive the National Audit Office report on council stock transfers; and whether his review of council housing finances will be published before he has received the report. 
Mr. Burnett: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual Government funding to the Housing Corporation was in each year since 199192; what the projected annual Government funding for the Housing Corporation is for (a) 200203, (b) 200304 and (c) 200405; and what has been and will be the allocation of these moneys for these years for the South West Region. 
|ADP||Of which South West ADP|
1. These figures exclude expenditure on all Housing Corporation revenue programme and administration and other capital programmes including Rough Sleepers Initiative, Major Repairs Initiative, Estate Renewal Challenge Fund.
2. Figures for South West Region prior to 199596 are not available. Prior to this date the South West region was not a separate entity within the Housing Corporation regional structure.
30 Jan 2003 : Column 1019W
Mr. Beith: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will (a) list and (b) quantify those factors in the local government finance formula which determined the increase proposed for (i) Berwick-on-Tweed Borough and (ii) Teesdale District. 
Mr. Raynsford: Berwick-on-Tweed received an increase of 5.6 per cent. in Formula Spending Share (FSS) in the provisional settlement compared to 200203, to £135 per head. For Teesdale, these figures were 15.6 per cent. and £136 respectively. After their ability to raise council tax is taken into account, this gives grant increases for Berwick of 3 per cent. (the floor) and Teesdale 12.5 per cent. (the ceiling).
Teesdale gains significantly and Berwick loses from the formula no longer taking account of overnight visitors. Both districts lose FSS from the removal of the old housing deprivation indictors (less so for Teesdale) and the lower sparsity weighting. Teesdale gains from the lower weighting for numbers on income support, but loses slightly due to an estimated population decline after the 2001 Census.
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many representations he has received from (a) individuals and (b) organisations in (i) East Sussex and (ii) Eastbourne relating to changes to grant distribution. 
|Formal response to the Formula Grant Review||Formal response to the provisional local government finance settlement 200304||Other|
|East Sussex County Council||2||2|||
|Eastbourne Borough Council||1|||||
|Hastings Borough Council||1||1|||
|Lewes District Council||1|||||
|Rother Borough Council||||1|||
|Wealden Borough Council||1|||||
|East Sussex Fire Brigade||1||2|||
|Sussex Police Authority||1||1|||
|From MPs on behalf of East Sussex||24||4||14|
|From MPs on behalf of Eastbourne||||||2|
|From members of public in East Sussex||||||76|
|From members of public in Eastbourne||||||9|
30 Jan 2003 : Column 1020W
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list by local authority the funding per head of population for social services departments under the terms of the provisional settlement for 200304. 
Mr. Raynsford : A table showing the Personal Social Services Formula Spending Share (PSS FSS), the mid-2001 population estimate and the PSS FSS per head by local authority has been placed in the Library of the House.
The FSS amounts are not cash. Instead they are used in the distribution of formula grant to local authorities. Formula grant is unhypothecated. FSSs are not spending targets, authorities are free to set their own budgets subject to local spending priorities.
Mr. Ben Chapman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will issue guidelines to local authorities on the closure of public lavatories; and if he will commission research into the change in the number of public lavatories over the last five years. 
Mr. Leslie: Local authorities are free to determine the provision of public toilets according to local circumstances. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to introduce guidelines on the closure of public toilets or commission research on their provision.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|