---

10 Mar 2003 : Column 112W—continued

Regional Government

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the results of his regional government soundings exercise broken down by English region. [101906]

10 Mar 2003 : Column 113W

Mr. Raynsford: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3 March 2003 on the level of regional interest in holding a referendum for an elected regional assembly. We are now evaluating the responses and will announce our decisions after the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill has received Royal Assent.

Schools Funding

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the interaction between changes in aggregate external finance to local authorities and passporting of schools funding; and what arrangements are in place to ensure that the latter is not undermined by the former. [102033]

Mr. Raynsford: Aggregate external finance is distributed by formula (Formula Spending Share or FSS) and is not ring-fenced. All authorities with education responsibilities receive at least 3.5 per cent. more formula grant for 2003–04 than they did for 2002–03, on a like-for-like basis. Setting budgets is a matter for local authorities. The Government encourage them to increase spending on schools by an amount equal to the increase in their education FSS. Authorities who have difficulty with this are encouraged to discuss with the Department for Education and Skills. Increases in education FSS were themselves constrained between 3.2 per cent. and 7 per cent. on a per pupil basis, by means of a formula floor and ceiling.

10 Mar 2003 : Column 114W

Social Housing Grant

Mr. Sanders: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact he estimates the abolition of Local Authority Social Housing Grant will have on Torbay UA; and if he will make a statement. [100250]

Mr. McNulty: LASHG was an unfair funding mechanism that did not allocate funds to areas of greatest need, consistently under-spent nationally, and gave unfair advantage to debt-free local authorities.

As part of the measures outlined in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future", The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has decided to abolish LASHG to allow a more strategic use of resources. The change is to take effect from 1 April 2003. I announced the transitional arrangements on 5 March 2003, Official Report, column 82WS.

Torbay UA has submitted information to the Government Office for the South West indicating that it has a total Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG) commitment of 2,181,500 for 2003–04 and 2004–05. Full details of the transitional arrangements have yet to be finalised.

Social Landlord Properties

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many (a) social and (b) regulated social landlord properties in each London borough were sold (i) to sitting tenants and (ii) on the open market in each of the last five years. [100273]

Mr. McNulty: Information reported by local authorities and registered social landlords is as follows:

Sales of stock by social landlords* to sitting tenants and others: London 1997–98 to 2001–02

	1997–98			1998–99
	LAs to			LAs to
Local authority	Sitting tenants	Others	RSLs to sitting tenants	Sitting tenants	Others	RSLs to sitting tenants	LAs to sitting tenants
Barking and Dagenham	433	n/a	0	393	0	0	762
Barnet	195	0	0	260	0	0	287
Bexley	183	0	0	0	0	2	0
Brent	214	n/a	3	184	n/a	1	265
Bromley	0	0	34	0	0	37	0
Camden	514	n/a	0	505	n/a	0	560
City of London	26	36	1	58	21	0	81
Croydon	164	n/a	1	156	n/a	1	181
Ealing	205	0	6	218	0	10	354
Enfield	172	0	1	163	0	0	327
Greenwich	392	0	2	373	0	0	515
Hackney	222	0	0	337	n/a	0	493
Hammersmith and Fulham	141	4	1	189	1	0	240
Haringey	262	0	0	284	0	1	442
Harrow	85	0	0	97	0	0	134
Havering	183	0	0	209	n/a	0	307
Hillingdon	231	0	3	287	0	0	266
Hounslow	192	0	14	290	0	5	335
Islington	339	0	0	393	0	0	325
Kensington and Chelsea	103	0	1	95	0	0	147
Kingston upon Thames	65	0	0	55	0	2	98
Lambeth	387	0	0	454	n/a	0	644
Lewisham	365	15	3	524	n/a	0	634
Merton	120	0	0	173	0	4	177
Newham	286	n/a	0	300	0	0	430
Redbridge	61	0	0	85	0	0	108
Richmond upon Thames	86	0	1	92	0	0	225
Southwark	344	n/a	0	439	0	0	653
Sutton	141	n/a	0	124	n/a	0	214
Tower Hamlets	465	n/a	0	641	n/a	0	815
Waltham Forest	192	0	0	190	0	0	289
Wandsworth	240	214	0	267	n/a	0	514
Westminster	164	n/a	0	270	0	0	403

10 Mar 2003 : Column 115W

		1999–2000				2000–01				2001–02
		RSLs to			RSLs to
Local authority	Others	Sitting tenants	Sitting tenants	LAs to others	Sitting tenants	Sitting tenants	LAs to others	RSLs to sitting tenants
Barking and Dagenham	0	0	527 (3)	n/a	0	374 (3)	n/a	0
Barnet	n/a	4	252	0	0	169	0	0
Bexley	0	74	0	0	6	0 (3)	n/a	1
Brent	0	0	156 (3)	n/a	1	159	0	0
Bromley	n/a	60	0	0	52	0 (2)	n/a	58
Camden	n/a	0	760	n/a	0	671	n/a	0
City of London	36	0	50	15	0	39	15	0
Croydon	0	0	249	0	0	259	0	0
Ealing	0	2	330	0	0	309	0	4
Enfield	0	0	216	0	0	210	0	0
Greenwich	n/a	0	518	0	2	470	0	0
Hackney	n/a	10	764	0	17	373 (3)	n/a	2
Hammersmith and Fulham	0	0	380	0	0	221	0	0
Haringey	0	0	239 (2)	n/a	0	n/a	n/a	0
Harrow	0	0	88	0	0	88	0	0
Havering	0	0	273	n/a	0	219	0	0
Hillingdon	n/a	1	231	n/a	0	163	0	1
Hounslow	0	16	283	0	4	142 (3)	n/a	1
Islington	n/a	4	n/a	n/a	0	844	0	0
Kensington and Chelsea	0	0	108	0	0	42	n/a	0
Kingston upon Thames	0	0	51	0	0	32	0	1
Lambeth	n/a	0	669 (3)	n/a	0	n/a	n/a	19
Lewisham	n/a	0	n/a	n/a	0	n/a	n/a	0
Merton	0	8	164 (3)	n/a	4	165	0	7
Newham	n/a	0	272 (2)	n/a	0	611	0	0
Redbridge	n/a	1	129	0	0	101	0	0
Richmond upon Thames	0	0	33 (2)	n/a	0	0 (2)	N/a	3
Southwark	0	0	819	0	0	943	0	0
Sutton	n/a	7	146	3	0	130	0	0
Tower Hamlets	n/a	71	1,074	0	18	1,007	2	41
Waltham Forest	0	0	244	0	0	188	1	0
Wandsworth	n/a	0	333	115	0	149 (3)	N/a	0
Westminster	8	0	449	6	1	220	2	0

* Local authorities (LAs) and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs).

Notes:

1. LA sales to sitting tenants include those under Right to Buy (RTB) and similar local schemes, plus Rent to Mortgage (RTM).

2. Other LA sales include all those to owner-occupiers under Built or Improved for Sale, but exclude transfers to RSLs and a small number of unspecified disposals.

3. Where reporting is incomplete, the bracketed figures indicate the number of quarters for which complete information was provided.

4. RSL sales to sitting tenants include RTB, RTM, Preserved RTB (in respect of ex-LA properties), Right to Acquire and Voluntary Purchase Grants.

5. Data on RSL open market stock disposals are not collected centrally at local authority level.

Sources:

1. DETR/DTLR/ODPM Housing Activity return P1B (quarterly); Housing Investment Programme returns (annual).

2. Housing Corporation Continuous Recording (CORE) returns.

Spending Formulae

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how, in establishing formula spending share, he measured sparsity in calculating (a) the 'older people' element of the social services formulas, (b) the police formula and (c) the EPCS formula; and in each

10 Mar 2003 : Column 116W

case (i) what proportion of the relevant aggregate FSS allocation was distributed on the basis of sparsity and (ii) if he will list the authorities which benefited from the sparsity measure in each allocation. [101548]

Mr. Raynsford: The sparsity indicator is calculated for each of the blocks as follows.

10 Mar 2003 : Column 117W

The sum of:
(i) Two multiplied by the resident population of those enumeration districts within the area of the authority at the 1991 Census with 0.5 or less residents per hectare, divided by the total resident population of the authority, calculated using information from the 1991 Census; and
(ii) The resident population of those enumeration districts within the area of the authority at the 1991 Census with more than 0.5 but less than or equal to four residents per hectare, divided by the total resident population of the authority, calculated using information from the 1991 Census.

For the 'older people' element of the social services formula 0.36 per cent. of the aggregate Formula Spending Share (FSS) allocation was distributed via the sparsity indicator; for police 0.15 per cent. was distributed via the sparsity indicator; and for the 'services provided predominantly by non-metropolitan district councils in non-metropolitan areas' element of the Environmental Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) formula 4.22 per cent. was distributed via the sparsity indicator.

Of the Personal Social Service authorities, only Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Southwark did not have at least one enumeration district within their

10 Mar 2003 : Column 118W

area at the 1991 Census with less than or equal to four residents per hectare; all other PSS authorities benefited from the sparsity indicator.

All police authorities have at least one enumeration district within their area at the 1991 Census with less than or equal to 4 residents per hectare, and hence all police authorities benefited.

Of the district-level EPCS authorities, only Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Southwark did not have at least one enumeration district within their area at the 1991 Census with less than or equal to four residents per hectare; all other district-level EPCS authorities benefited from the sparsity indicator.

---