(c) crown copyright
Catalogue Reference:CAB/24/195
Image Reference:0001
$toll
W "i
h.i
i3TY'3 GOVlRKMliBT.
3HIS JjOOUMOg 15. EBB PROPERTY OF HI3 BRITAHKIO MAJE8
Copy Ko
SECRET
cp"J86(S8.).
B
I
PC SALS PCJR REFORM IH LOCAL G O V E M M B M ' DRAFT MEMORANDUM.
PHCE
Memorandum by the Minister of Health.
I circulate for the approval of the Cabinet a draft.
1.
of the Memorandum on Local Government changes involved in the
scheme of Rating relief.
(Though technical in character and
necessarily somewhat lengthy the Memorandum is I think fairly
clear but I oall the attention of my colleagues to the following
points as they may have some political significance.
2,
It will be seen that the proposals in connection with
Poor Law Reform involve the abolition of the Guardians and the
transference of all their functions to County and County Boi^ough
Councils.
A careful study of the question showed that it was
impossible to maintain the modification proposed in 1927 by which
outdoor relief would still have been administered
by Guardians
(with some modification of their constitution) as this would
necessitate the charging of the cost of cut-relief on areas too
small to cope with its fluctuation after the derating scheme had
oome into operation.
3.
^
The transference of the responsibility for the
maintenance of scheduled roads from the District Councils to the
counties will rob the Rural District Councils of the bulk of the
work which now occupies them, end they may be expected
to resist
the change, pertinaciously, since they will see in it their own
death warrant.
Their opposition may perhaps be mitigated by
some concessions as foreshadowed In paragraph 14(iii).
The formula as stated appears complicated, but the only
thing which will matter to the Local Authorities is the effect it
will produce on the grant to be made in each individual case.
It 13 on the tables, rather than on the formula that attention
will be concentrated.
5.
On page 19 it is revealed that the various
adjustments proposed will in some cases lead to an aotual
increase in rate poundage, and It is proposed to give a guarantee
that this shall not in the case of non-county borough and
district councils, exceed 3d. in the pound.
Further
consideration is being given to this matter with a view to seeing
whether it would be possible to guarantee that no loss should
arise.
6.
Politically this would be a great advantage.
While the actual derating of agriculture and industry
will come into force on October 1st 1929 it will not be possible
to operate the block grant system until April 1st 1930.
Provision is made in paragraph 34 for s transitional grant to
cover deficiencies in the intervening half-year.
7,
In considering the tables relating to County Boroughs
it must be remembered that these do not take account of charges
due to the apportionment of Poor Law charges between the Borough
end other parts of an existing Union, where the boundaries of
the Union are not co-terminous with those of the Borough.
This
is explained in paragraph 35, where attention is called to the
anomalous and extremely difficult case of West Ham.
The best
solution would appear to be to convert the County Boroughs of
East and West Ham into Metropolitan Boroughs and the London
County Council will be consulted about this.
8.
It will be observed from paragraph 38 that the £3
millions originally proposed to be provided as new money to
help the scheme through has grown to £7-^ millions.
H. C.
th June, 19£8.
-i-tThis Document is the Property of Hia Britannic Majesty^ Government.]
CONFIDENTIAL.
Proposals
L o c a l
Copy No. - 2 -
for
R e f o r m
in
G o v e r n m e n t
and in the
FINANCIAL RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE EXCHEQUER AND
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Proposals for Reform in Local Government and in the
Financial Relations between the Exchequer and Local
Authorities.
1. As the result of a careful review of the difficulties of pro­
ductive industry the Government have, as Local Authorities are
aware, come to the conclusion that the basis of rating of agricul­
tural, industrial and transport properties needs to be revised; and
they have adopted a plan which they believe will not only place the
rating of these properties on a more rational basis, but will, more
than any other political action which could be taken, contribute to
the revival of agriculture and the basic industries. Their pro­
posals were outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening
the budget; and, as was then indicated, they involve"not only some
important changes in the machinery of local government, but a
considerable modification of the financial relations between the Local
Authorities and the Exchequer. In considering the effect of these
changes it must be realised that the rating relief and the changes
in the machinery and finance of local government are connected
parts of one single policy.
Legislation will be submitted to Parliament as early as possible
in the autumn session, to give effect to the administrative, and
financial adjustments of local government; and the object of this
memorandum is to inform Local Authorities in advance and in some
detail of the changes proposed to be embodied in the legislation. " It
is hoped that in this way their full co-operation may be secured and
that as a result of discussions between their representatives and the
Government, the legislation may be framed on practical lines so as
to be of the greatest permanent value to local government.
2. The first element in the Governments plan is the relief to
productive industry. The grounds for this proposal have been fully
stated in Parliament, and the Eating and Valuation (Apportion­
ment) Bill, which is the first piece of machinery required in connec­
tion with the whole scheme, ie now before Parliament. It is not
proposed, therefore, to recapitulate the grounds for the decision to
derate, or to discuss the details of the Eating and Valuation
(Apportionment) Bill.
But in order that the manner in which
Local Authorities will be directly affected by the relief given to
industrial and agricultural property may be appreciated, it may
be recalled that the effect of the derating proposals' is that, from the
1st October, 1 9 2 9 Agricultural land and agricultural buildings will cease to be
rated.
Industrial hereditaments will be rated on a rateable value which
is to be one-fourth of the net annual value, as defined by the
Eating and Valuation Act, 1925.*
* In London, one-fourth of t h e r a t e a b l e value as determined u n d e r t h e
Valuation (Metropolis) A c t , 1809, and t h e K a t i n g Valuation A c t , 1028.
Pk. 358 30 6/28 F.O.P. [17804]
2
H
Freight transport hereditaments will be rated at one-fourth of
what they would pay under the existing law.
(It will be remembered that the relief in respect of rates on.
railways is conditional on the equivalent of the reduction in
rates being used to reduce the freight charges on certain,
selected classes of goods.)
The hereditaments which are to be the subjects of derating are
denned in detail in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill,,
which- also provides the machinery for the preparation of a special
list of the values of the properties to be the subjects of derating, as
at 1st October, 1929, and for the permanent rating and valuation
provisions which will be applicable to those properties after that
date.
3. The magnitude of these rating changes must profoundly
affect both the general structure of local government and Local
Authorities individually. It is impossible to state with precision
the total loss of rates to Local Authorities which will be the result
of the derating until the preparation of the special lists to be made
under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill has been
completed. The.total for England and Wales may, however, be
estimated in round figures at £24,000,000 for the year 1926-27.
Obviously, if Local Authorities are to suffer so serious a loss of
rating power, some alternative source of revenue' must be provided,
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that he is
prepared, as part of the general scheme, to find moneys for this,
purpose from the Exchequer.
4. The receipts of Local Authorities from Government grants
in the year 1926-27 (which is the latest year for which complete
figures are available) were approximately £87,000,000, while the
total of rates collected was £159,500,000. If in that year the relief
now proposed had already been given to agricultural, industrial and
transport property, and the proportion of local expenditure to be
found under the present scheme from the Exchequer had
corresponded with the above estimate of £24,000,000, the relation
between grants and rates would have been—
' Grants
Rates
'.
...
:
...
£111,000,000
£135,500,000
It has seemed to the Government that so large an increase in the
Exchequer grants in aid of rates necessitates some reconsideration
of the grant system, and the more so because reforms in regard to
certain parts of that system have long been accepted as necessary.
In particular (and especially having in mind that the relief of
industry is a primary reason for undertaking a scheme of this
magnitude) it has seemed to the Government that no scheme of the
kind would be complete unless consideration were given to the
case of those districts which have been commonly called necessitous­
areas.
5. If the derating proposals are important in relation to the
whole fabric of local government, they are no less so in their
influence on individual Local Authorities. It must first be remarked
that no scheme for providing an alternative source of revenue for
Local Authorities can take the form of a grant varying from year
to year with the expenditure of individual authorities. Under such
a scheme, the Government would be committed to finding a material
proportion of every Local Authority's general expenditure without
any possibility of effective control, and the financial interest of
Local Authorities in their administration would be seriously
impaired.
6. The most important effect of the derating proposals on the
position of the individual Local Authority is clearly the narrowing
of the basis of taxation available to that Authority, which necessarily
involves a greater or less impairment of the capacity to meet the
considerable fluctuations in certain classes of expenditure inevitable
from time to time. This is a matter of less significance in the case
of larger Authorities, or of those whose resources are drawn from a
wide area, but is of the greatest importance in the case of smaller
and financially weaker Authorities who may be responsible for
services involving considerable - expenditure liable to periodic
fluctuations between wide limits.
An examination of returns rendered by Local Authorities
indicates that the loss of rates in rural areas due to the derating
proposals will vary from about 3 per cent, to about 57 per cent.
Thus in the extreme case the reduced assessable value on which
would be charged any future increase in the cost of the local services
would be little more than 40 per cent, of the present assessable
value: in other words, where the Local Authority at present would­
require to meet an increase of expenditure by an additional levy of
Is. in the £, it would in the future, in the absence of special
action, have to levy a rate of 2s. 6d. in the £.
7. The Government have accordingly come to the conclusion
that the necessary accompaniments of the derating schezne are
(a) some modification of the basis and method of Government contri­
bution to local services; (b) arrangements to meet the case of the
necessitous areas; (c) - arrangements to obviate the difficulties of
those Authorities whose finances are on too narrow a basis. If the
case of necessitous areas is to be met, a new method of distribution
of Government grants and re-organisation of administrative arrange­
ments are both requisite. Change in the areas or functions of some
authorities is the only way in which a remedy can properly be found
for the difficulties of those Authorities whose resources would be
inadequate to enable them to meet their needs under the new
conditions.
8. Such a change must necessarily proceed on the basis of
widening the area of charge, which is in the line of the development
of English local government for many generations and is fully
[17804]
BS
consistent with the principles on which local. government is
organised. The services for which there.is a clear case for modifica­
tion of this kind are the poor law and highway administration; and
in both cases it appears to the Government.that the duties should be
entrusted to Local Authorities of the first importance, and. that the
area of the charge should be as wide as is compatible with effective
local interest in the work to be undertaken. .-.'..POOE LAW REFORM.
9. When the parish was found too small to bear the responsi­
bility for poor law administration, the burden was eased by the
creation of the union arid the spreading of the charge over the wider
area thus formed.' To-day, the union itself is often in the same
position as that formerly occupied by the parish, and in times of
stress is weighed down by an excessive burden, while its neighbour
may escape with a comparatively light load, though parts of both
areas may be much alike. These inequalities of rate burden will be.
accentuated by the rating relief which it is proposed to give to
productive industry, since unions which are mainly industrial or
mainly agricultural will suffer a greater loss than those which are
mainly residential, but it is in the industrial class that unavoidable
increases of expenditure are most likely to occur. An increase in
the need for expenditure, which might be crippling if it had to be
met from the rate and grant resources of a particular district, may
be inconsiderable if spread over a much wider area.
In revising the financial relations between the Exchequer and
Local Authorities, and in providing such additional Exchequer
money as can be found for the purpose, the Government aim at
mitigating the existing inequalities of rate burden. That aim cannot
be attained within the limits of the Exchequer money available if
distribution is made over areas so small as many of the existing units
-of local government, but if the charges for so onerous a service as
the poor law were spread over the widest possible area compatible
with sound administration, a more equitable sharing of rate burden
would be secured, and such Exchequer assistance as could be given
would be used to the best advantage. The Government propose,
therefore, that the responsibility for poor law administration shall
be transferred to the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs.
They are satisfied that the conditions of their general scheme of
rating relief necessitate this change, and it appears to them that the
-change should also be made on general grounds.
The present Poor Law Unions were set up in 1834, and their
size was regulated, among other things, by reference to the means
of -access at that time available. Actually, the unions were based
upon the market towns; and each union was made solely responsible
for its poor, whether the assistance needed was medical or financial.
The result is that every rural union in the country has institutions
which, with the decline in rural areas in the number of persons
relieved institutionally, are seldom kept full, and as regards facilities
lor medical treatment cannot economically be brought up to date.
Meanwhile, other Authorities charged with the duty both of prevent­
ing disease and of treating the sick have been established, with the
result that their functions overlap those of Boards of Guardians.
The transfer of the poor law to County and County Borough Councils
would eliminate this overlapping, would make possible a better
classification of the sick, and' would lead to economies in the
provision of institutional treatment, the general demand for which
is everywhere steadily expanding."
It will be seen that the Government propose to revert to a scheme
of Poor Law Beform on the lines of that embodied in the Provisional
Proposals circulated in January 1926. In the later memorandum
circulated to the Associations of Local Authorities on the 8th June,
1927, that scheme was proposed to be modified bo the extent that
while all poor law functions were to be transferred to County
Boroughs, each of which became a single unit of local government
for all purposes, only responsibility for institutional treatment,
vagrancy and the provision of work tests for the able-bodied were
to be transferred to the County Councils; the rest of the poor law
functions and the financial burdens were to remain on the unions,
the areas of which were to be, reconsidered and adapted so as to
secure better units, subject to the general condition that union
boundaries should in no case overlap county or county borough
boundaries. The effect of the derating scheme on the finances of
unions, and the strong desire of the Government to mitigate existing
inequalities of rate burdens, have led the Government to the con­
ciusion that the proposals of 1927 will not now meet the needs of
the situation, and it will not escape the attention of Local Authorities
that under those proposals it would be impossible in the coming
negotiations to furnish them with information as to the financial
position in any area under the Budget scheme, since the areas for
poor law purposes would not be settled for a considerable time.
10. The main a^erations in the existing law and practice of
poor law administration which arise out of the transfer of the
functions of the present Boards of Guardians to the Councils of
Counties and County Boroughs may be outlined as follows :—
POOR LAW REFORM PROPOSALS.
(i) As from the 1st April, 1930, the functions of the present
poor law authorities will be transferred to the Councils of Counties
and County Boroughs. Each County and County Borough will be
a complete unit.
(ii) After the passing of the Act providing for the reform of
the Poor Law, the Council of every County and County Borough
wi ! be required to prepare in anticipation of the date of the Act
coming into operation a scheme of the administrative arrange­
merits which it will make for the discharge of its new functions.
It is contemplated that such schemes may include provision—
(a) For the delegation of any of the new functions (apart from
the power of raising a rate or of borrowing money)
[17804]
1
1
B
either to an existing committee of the Council or to a
committee specially constituted for the purpose.
(b) For the division of the County area into districts and for
the establishment therein of local sub-committees of
any committee (whether an existing or a new
committee), to which any of the transferred functions
are delegated.
(c) Subject to the maintenance of a majority of elected
members, for the co-option to any such committee or
local sub-committee, of persons who are not members
of the Council, including persons, such as former
members of poor law authorities, experienced in the
matters delegated to the committees or sub-committees,
and members of other Local Authorities.
It will be a definite requirement, where a County or County
Borough Council decides to provide in its scheme for co-option,
that the scheme shall provide for the co-option of women as well
as men. Provision will be made for the publication of any scheme
and for the representations of Local Authorities and persons
interested to be considered. Every scheme will be subject to the
approval of the Ministry of Health.
It will be seen that it will be open to County or County
Borough Councils to delegate poor law functions transferred to
them to existing committees : for example—
Where assistance to mothers and children under five years
of age is required, the consideration of the application might
be a matter for the Maternity and Child Welfare Committee
of the Council. The education of "Poor Law" children can
also appropriately be dealt with by the Education Committee
of the Council. The maintenance of children in institutions
can be undertaken by that committee, but the cost will not
attract an education grant from the Exchequer.
But it is intended to give the widest latitude for the making of
arrangements suited to local conditions.
(iii) Where the Council of a County District is a local education
authority or an authority for maternity and child welfare, the
County Council will have power, and it is expected that they will
normally find it convenient to exercise it, to delegate to the Council
of the County District the local handling of questions relating to the
education of poor law children and assistance to mothers and
children under the age of 5 years, subject to such conditions as may
be agreed upon between the two Authorities.
(iv) Provision will be made for the transfer of existing assets
and liabilities of poor law authorities, subject to adjustments which
will safeguard the interests of the ratepayers of the existing union
areas, or when an existing union extends into more than one County
or County Borough, of the divided parts of the union area.
It is not intended, however, to provide for adjustments for future
burdens. One main object of the proposed transfer of powers is
that future burdens shall be equalised by enlarging the present
areas of charge. Any adjustment in respect of future burdens would
be quite incompatible with this object.
(v) The area of settlement (or irremovability) of the chargeable
poor will be the County or County Borough in lieu of the Parish
or Union.
(vi) Existing Poor Law Officers will be transferred to the new
authorities, and proper provision for compensation, where necessary,
will be included in the Bill.
LONDON.
The foregoing paragraphs will apply to London, subject to any
modifications resulting from the different arrangements in London,
for education and maternity and child welfare.
As a natural consequence of the transfer of Poor Law functions,
the Metropolitan Asylum Board will cease to exist and the London
County Council will become responsible for the services at present
maintained by the Board. The Metropolitan Common Poor Fund
will also cease to exist as the cost of the relief of the poor will
be spread over the County through the County Bate.
REFOBM IN HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION.
11. The revolution in road transport which has taken place in
recent years has inevitably led to a large expenditure on highways.
Great efforts have been made by local authorities throughout the
country to improve and maintain their roads to the standard
required by modern vehicles, but the cost to the authorities, in spite
of the large sums which have been available from the Boad Fund,
is undoubtedly a serious burden, and, further, is a burden which,
under the existing system, of highway administration, it has been
impossible to distribute equitably as between the various authorities
concerned.
When road traffic was horse-drawn, not only was the cost of
highway maintenance much lower, but the great bulk of the traffic,
owing to its small radius of action, was a matter far more local in
its interest and importance than it is to-day.
There has, of course, always been an element of through traffic,
which was formerly carried on the turnpike roads, which were the
predecessors of the present main roads. In 1878 it was provided by
the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act that any road
which had been disturnpiked after 1870, or should be disturnpiked
in future, should be deemed to be a main road, and that one half
of the cost of maintenance of such roads should be defrayed out of
the county rate. Since the institution of county councils in 1888,
main roads have been maintained and repaired wholly at their costBy thus vesting in the largest administrative units in the system
of local government, the financial responsibility of maintaining
through communications, the legislature recognised the principle
that the smaller authorities should not pay the whole of the costs
occasioned by traffic which, while passing over.the through roads in
their area, in many cases brought them no benefit.
But the
subsidiary systems of communications branching from ,the trunk
roads were used in the days of horse-drawn vehicles almost entirely
by purely local traffic, and their maintenance was justly regarded as
a proper charge on the urban or rural district in which they were
situated. Urban streets still serve local purposes,almost exclusively,
but the use of rural highways has fundamentally changed in
-character. At the present time they form part of a large and
expanding system of transport of goods by roads in which individual
organisations often cover an area of many -counties. In addition,
the rural areas are penetrated by a large and increasing volume of
pleasure traffic, which includes a considerable proportion of heavy
vehicles. The effect of these changes Is-accentuated by the wide
differences which exist both in: the resources of-individual rural
authorities and in the mileage of roads' for which they are
responsible. Some rural districts in which.a penny rate produces
less than. £50, are responsible for the upkeep of important links in
the highway system..: One district has a quarter of a mile of public
highway.to maintain, while others embraee within their boundaries
a considerable mileage of important roads.
12. In these circumstances it is not surprising that many
rural authorities complain that the maintenance of. their highways
to an adequate standard demands an expenditure which it is
difficult, if not impossible, for them to meet. In the case of a poor
rural authority for instance, the cost' of reconstruction of one road
in order to make it suitable for carrying a service of motor omnibuses
may cause an appreciable increase for many years in the rates,
which are, moreover, liable to sharp fluctuations due to necessary
periodic works of highway maintenance. In many cases rural
authorities are unable to afford an adequate supervisory personnel
for their roads or to carry out works of reconstruction which, while
costly in themselves, would lead to substantial ultimate economies.
These difficulties have been recognised by the Government and
considerable sums have been allocated from the Eoad Fund for
the purpose of meeting them, but the main function of this Fund
is the maintenance and improvement of through communications
and special assistance from this source for rural authorities can be
regarded only as a palliative. A solution which will contain the
elements of equity and permanence demands a reform in the
system of highway administration with the two-fold object of
effecting a substantial reduction in the number of independent
highway authorities and of distributing the cost of maintenance of
the more important highways over the largest administrative units of
local government.
13. The Government proposals for certain redistributions in
the functions of local authorities afford a valuable opportunity for
such a reform, which, urgent as it is in existing circumstances, both
on grounds of equity and of efficiency, will become essential when
the resources of rural authorities are diminished by the relief of
agriculture from rates. But the method of assisting the finances
of local authorities by means of block grants, outlined elsewhere
in this Memorandum, is not applicable in its entirety to the upkeep
of highways. The arguments for increasing the measure of
autonomy of local authorities, which would be one of the effects
of the block grant system, lose much of their force when applied to'
through communications, which cannot be regarded as the sole,
or even in some cases the main, concern of an individual area
oven so large as a single county. It is accordingly proposed to retain
the present system of percentage grants in respect of all Class I
and Class II Eoads throughout the country except in regard to the
short sections of such roads in London and the county boroughs.
The Class I and Class II Eoads in these large towns are their most
important streets and business centres, and their proper main­
tenance is a matter of the greatest local importance. On these
grounds there is no reason for excluding the cost of maintenance and
ordinary improvement of these roads from the scope of the block
grant. Even in their case, however, works in the nature of major
improvements of Class I and Class II Roads as through communica­
tions would continue, to receive assistance through special grants
from the Eoad Fund on a percentage basis as heretofore.
14. The modifications proposed in the existing system of
highway administration may be briefly summarised as follows :—
(i) The counties will assume complete responsibility for the
maintenance of all roads in rural districts and the
substantial existing differences in the highway rates
payable in individual rural districts in the same
county will disappear.
(ii) The responsibility resting upon the counties for the
maintenance of through communications will be
extended by the transference to them of the financial
charges in respect of all Class I and Class II Eoads
in boroughs and urban districts outside the county
boroughs.
(iii) The counties will become highway authorities in respect
of all roads transferred to them, but consideration
will be given to the question whether certain of the
other authorities should not carry out the actual work
on their Class I and Class II Eoads and other
" m a i n " roads, where it is clear that such a course
is justified by considerations of efficiency and
economy.
(iv) Boroughs and urban district councils will continue to be
responsible for the maintenance of the roads in their
areas (mainly residential "streets") which are not
already maintainable by the county or which would
not be transferred to the county as classified roads
under paragraph (ii).
(v) County Boroughs and metropolitan boroughs will retain
their existing responsibility in respect to all the roads
in their areas.
(vi) Where the responsibilities of existing highway authorities
are extinguished a transference to the county of
stores, plant and other property- for the upkeep of
highways will be necessary. Provision will be made
to protect the interests of the ratepayers of such
highway authorities. .
(vii) Officers employed in connection with the maintenance of
roads which will be transferred to the counties under
the new scheme will; no doubt, in the majority of
cases be required by. the counties. - Proper provision
for compensation where necessary will be included in
the Bill. .
-.
.
(viii) The - financial aspect of these changes in highway
administration will be affected both by the relief to
be afforded to agriculture and productive industry,
and by the modifications, by means of block grants,
in the methods of assisting the finances of local
authorities outlined elsewhere in this Memorandum.
Included for distribution by means of the '' block
grant'' will be a contribution from the Road Fund,
representing—
(a) in county areas the assistance now given to the
maintenance of '' scheduled '' unclassified roads;
(b) in London and county boroughs the assistance now
-. - given to the maintenance'and ordinary improve­
ment of Class I and Class II Roads, usually
known as " classification; grants.''
(ix) Assistance through percentage grants from the Road
Fund will be given as at present in respect of all
Class I and Class II Roads outside London and the
county boroughs and in respect of major improve­
ments to Class I and Class II Roads within London
and the county boroughs.
:
FINANCIAL PROPOSALS.
15. The grants from imperial sources to local services which
it is proposed to review in connection with the derating proposals,
and the provision of a new source of revenue for Local Authorities,
are as follows :—
(i) Assigned Revenue Grants.
(ii) Grants under the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 and 1923.
(iii) The percentage grants in aid of health services :—*
Tuberculosis.
Maternity and Child Welfare.
Welfare of the Blind.
Venereal Diseases.
Mental Deficiency. .
* T h e g r a n t s in aid of p o r t sanitary iservices and of t r a i n i n g of undwives
and health visitors will be c o n t i n u e d on t h e present basis.
(iv) The classification grants for Glass I and Class II roads in
London and County Boroughs, and the grants for the
maintenance of scheduled roads in County Districts.
Exchequer grants other than the above-named will not be affected
by the scheme.
16. The Government propose to widen materially the scope of
the "Exchequer grants to make up the deficiency due. to derating.
They have considered how the principles which, in their view, should
regulate a proper system of Exchequer grants, can be applied so as
to remedy the defects in the existing methods of payment:—­
(i) The assigned revenues are related neither to the needs nor
even to the expenditure of the Local Authorities;
(ii) The grants under the Agricultural Bates Acts again are not
related to the need for public services, but only to
expenditure;
(iii) and (iv) The percentage grants for health services, and the
maintenance of roads, require close supervision by the
Central Department of the work of the Local Authorities
to whom they are paid. Moreover, as they are not related
closely to needs but to expenditure, their effect is that
those areas which are poorest, and can least afford to
maintain an adequate standard, are just those which
receive the least assistance from national funds.
A system which is complicated by the payment of grants on such
varying bases, and which, while requiring particular supervision of
the services provided by Local Authorities on which direct grants
are paid, leaves the State with an unlimited liability under the
Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, to pay its proportion of whatever the
Local Authority chooses to spend, cannot be defended. In the
Governments view a proper system should—
(a) recognise that a fair contribution should be made from the
Exchequer towards the cost of local services;
(b) ensure that Local Authorities have complete financial
interest in their administration;
(c) be adapted in its working to the needs of the areas as
indicated by their general characteristics;
(d) permit the greatest freedom of local administration and
initiative;
(e) provide for sufficient general control and advice from the
Central Departments to ensure a reasonable standard of
performance :
Accordingly, it is proposed to abolish as from the 1st April, 1930,
the existing Exchequer grants referred to in paragraph 15.
17. The portions of the Assigned Revenue Grants at present
applied to education and police services, amounting to about
^£3,800,000, are, under present arrangements, treated as part of
and deducted from the grants which would otherwise be payable
by the Board of Education and Home Office in aid of education
and police services, and, on the abolition of the Assigned Revenues,
it is proposed that the equivalent of the grants applied to these
services should be paid by these Departments out of voted monies.
18. The Local Taxation Licence duties levied by the councils,
of counties and county boroughs which do not pass through the'
Local Taxation Account,* amounting to about £1,400,000, will
remain leviable by these authorities and will be retained by them.
19, The loss to the local authorities under the scheme will,
therefore, be the rates on the rateable value lost under the derating
proposals and the grants specified in paragraph 15, other than the
parts of the assigned revenues referred to in paragraphs 17 and 18.
In place of the rate and grant revenue so lost by local authorities,
it is proposed to substitute a new source of revenue—an annual
Exchequer grant in aid—fixed in total and for each authority for a
period of 5 years, and revised both in total and for each authority
every five years.
20. The total sum to be distributed annually as the new grant
in aid.of revenue for the first quinquennial period will be made
up of—
(i) the estimated loss of rates due to derating which would have
been incurred by all local authorities in the year 1928-29
(taken for the purposes of the scheme as " the standard
year ") on the assumption that the proposed local govern­
ment changes had been in operation in that year, and
that the Valuation List in force on the 1st October, 1929,
had been in force in that year;
(ii) the assigned revenue grants payable for the standard year
other than the grants specifically applied to education
and police services and the Local Taxation Licence Duties
not passing through the Local Taxation Account;
(iii) the Agricultural Rates. Acts Grants payable for the standard
. .
year;
(iv) the Health Percentage Grants payable for the standard
year; .;.
(v) the classification grants for Class I and Class II roads in
. - London and county boroughs, and the maintenance grants
for scheduled roads in county districts payable for the
standard year;
(vi) an additional sum of new Road Fund and Exchequer
money amounting to 5 million pounds for England and
Wales.
The actual total sum to be distributed will not be known until the
loss of rateable value has been ascertained and the figures for
the standard year are available. The new money to be included in
* Licences to deal in game, licences to kill game, licences for dogs, guns^
armorial bearings and male s e r v a n t s .
15
2
1/ the grant will, however, not depend in any way on the other figures,
but will be fixed in advance.
21. It is- proposed that ultimately the whole of the new grant
in aid should be distributed according to a formula based on general
characteristics independent of actual expenditure. In deciding
what characteristics should be adopted and what weight should be
given to each, the aim has been so to adjust the distribution of
this new revenue as to make the assistance vary with the need
for local Government services in any area in relation to the ability
of the area to meet the cost. After a careful examination of a
wide range of possible factors, a combination of population, the
^
, A
proportion^ of children under five and the rateable value per h e a d ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ p ^ f - ^
of population has been taken as the main framework of the formula.
To this have been added, in the case of the County and County J*
Borough authorities on whom the cost of the onerous highway and
poor law services will in future fall, two further factors to allow
for the considerable variations in local burdens arising from
unemployment and the differing density of the population.
For
the first purpose the - proportion of unemployed insured men to
total population according to Ministry of Labour returns has been
adopted, and for the second, the population per mile of public
road as determined by the Ministry of Transport.
22. These factors are combined in the proposed formula so as
to arrive at a " weighted population '' for each area, and, when the
scheme is in full operation, the total sum available will first be
allotted to the county boroughs and the administrative counties at
a uniform rate of X pence per head of weighted population.
Out of the total amount so allotted to each administrative county,
a grant will be made to each, non-county borough and urban
district council equal to its own weighted population multiplied by
one-half of the uniform rate, and to each rural district council equal
to its own weighted population multiplied by one-eighth of the
uniform rate. The aggregate of the grants to the Borough, urban
and rural district councils will then be deducted from the grant
appropriate to the administrative county as a whole, and the
balance will be the grant payable to the county council in aid of
the general county rate.
23. Owing, however, to the very irregular distribution of the
existing revenues to be replaced by the formula grant, it is con­
sidered that too great a disturbance in local finance would be caused
by introducing the new scheme of distribution at one step. It is
accordingly proposed, during the early years of the scheme, to base
the grant partly on the present distribution of these revenues and
partly on the formula. For the first quinquennial period the fixed
annual grant will be made up of two parts. The first part will be
equivalent to 75 per cent, of the loss of rates and grants in the
standard year calculated as explained in paragraphs 30 and 31
below; the second part, which in total will comprise the equivalent
of 25 per cent, of the loss of rates and grants and the whole of
the new Exchequer money, together roughly one-third of the whole
grant, will be distributed according to the formula. On each
subsequent revision it is proposed that more and more of the total
grant should be distributed on formula until by 1945 the whole
would be distributed entirely on this basis.
24. The full formula proposed is as follows :—
(1) For each local authority's area a figure of weighted
population is arrived at by increasing the population
in the standard year as estimated by the BegistrarGeneral—
(a) by the percentage by which, at the last Census, the
number of children under 5 years of age per
1,000 of the population of the area exceeded 50,
and
(fe) by the percentage by which, according to the
Valuation List in force on the 1st October, 1929,
the rateable value per head of -estimated popu­
lation of the area is below £10.
In the case of the county councils, the population so
increased is weighted by two further factors, and, in
the case of county borough councils, by the first of
these factors—
(c) for unemployment; the number of unemployed
insured men is expressed as a percentage of total
estimated population, and where this percentage^
averaged over three years, exceeds 1^ per cent.,
the adjusted population is increased by a
percentage equal to ten times the excess;
(d) for low density of population; where the estimated
population per mile of roads is less than 100
persons, by the percentage by which the estimated
population per mile of roads is less than 200
persons, and, where the estimated population per
mile of roads is 100 persons or more, by the
percentage which 50 persons bears to the estimated
population per mile of roads.
(2) The total amount of the formula grant to each county
borough and for each administrative county will be
x pence multiplied by its weighted population.
(The
money factor x pence will be determined by the total
sum for England and Wales available for distribution
on the formula basis).
As regards the elements of the formula :—
(a) The number of children under 5 per 1,000 of the
population varied from 48 to 135 at the last
Census, and 50 has been taken roughly as the.
lowest;
(b) It is estimated that, save in very few exceptional
areas, the reduced rateable value per head of
population will be less than £10;
(c) The datum figure (1£ per cent.) taken for the
unemployment loading is considerably below the
average for the country at the present time
(2-2 per cent.), and in the area of heaviest
unemployment the weighting factor on the
average of the last three years (excluding the
period of the coal stoppage) would amount to
82 per cent.
The heavy loading proposed for unemployment
of ten times the percentage above the datum figure
is due to the fact that in the first quinquennial
period only about one-third of the total grant will
be distributed under the formula. It is proposed
that at each quinquennial revision, when a larger­
proportion of the total grant will be distributed
under the formula, the basis of the loading for
unemployment should be revised in relation to
the total formula grant.
(d) The basis adopted for the density loading would
result in some loading being applied in all
counties outside London.
The addition in the
most sparsely-populated county would amount to
66 per cent., and in 30 English counties the
F
addition would exceed 25 PJAC-cent,
,N
25. For the first quinquennial period grant will be paid direct
to each county borough council and county council, and to each
borough and district council in the county :—
(a) A county borough council will receive a grant equivalent
to 75 per cent, of the loss of rates and grants in the
standard year, together with the formula grant appro­
priate to the weighted population of the county
borough.
(b) Each borough and urban district council within an adminis­
trative county will receive a grant equivalent to 75 per
cent, of its loss of rates and grants in the standard year,
together with the formula grant at the full rate on its
own weighted population.
(c) Each rural district council will receive a grant equivalent to­
75 per cent, of its loss of rates and grants in the standard
year, together with a formula grant at one-quarter of the
full rate on its weighted population.
(d) Each county council will, subject to certain minor deductions
referred to in paragraph 32, receive a grant equivalent
to 75 per cent, of its loss of rates and grants in the
standard year, together with the formula, grant at the
full rate on the weighted population of the county, less
the aggregate of the formula grants payable to the
borough and district councils within the county. The
0
PeoPa&sics,
TH-e.
Ft / C & 7
­
grant payable to a.county council will be applied in aid
of the general county rate, after deduction of the part
equivalent to 75 per cent, of the loss of special county
rates, which will be applied in aid of the special county
,
rate. -i^:.:-..
The foregoing proposals in regard to the distribution of the grant
within each administrative county have been framed with special
reference to the very considerable changes in the incidence of rates
within the county involved in the transfer of poor law and certain
highways to the county councils. In the great majority of cases
rural districts generally would, on balance, obtain a large measure
of relief from this widening of the area of charge at the expense of
boroughs and urban district councils, who would not only be required
to bear their rateable share of the heavy rural expenditure on roads
transferred to the county, but would also remain responsible for
their own unclassified streets. The calculation of the grant to the
rural districts at one-quarter only of the rate applicable to urban
districts is considered to provide a reasonable and equitable balance
in this matter between urban and rural interests. The grant payable
to borough and district councils under the distribution will ordinarily
be in excess of the actual loss of district rates due to derating, and
will be applied by them in aid of the total rates required to be levied
in their areas.- At each revision of grant, when a larger proportion
of the total grant will be distributed on a formula basis, the formula
grant to the borough and district councils will be calculated at a
gradually reducing proportion only of the full uniform rate until,
when the whole grant is distributed on a formula basis, the grant
to the boroughs and urban districts will be at one-half of the full
uniform rate, and the grant to the rural districts at one-eighth of
the full uniform rate, as explained in paragraph 22.
26. It is also proposed that in the case of any county borough
or administrative county (as a whole), in which the new grant in
aid does not exceed the loss of rates and grants in the standard
year by a sum equivalent to 1/- per head of actual population of
the area, the new grant shall be increased, by such a sum as will
bring the net gain up to the equivalent of 1/- per head of the
population.
As regards the borough and district councils within the
administrative county, it would, in view of. the wide variation in
the present poundage of rates in any one county, be impossible to
guarantee that in no area should there be any increase of rates
consequent on the introduction of the scheme.
Clearly, with
equalisation of certain charges throughout the county, some areas
will gain and others will lose, but it. is desired to avoid as far as
possible extreme increases of rate poundage.
It 'is, therefore,
proposed that a guarantee should be given, that, if the calculated
increase of rate poundage in the standard year in any county area
resulting from the scheme as a whole exceeds 3d., a separate special
grant should be given to the area of the money equivalent of the
excess. This special grant will be reduced by l/15th each year so
that it will have entirely disappeared by the time the formula basis
is applied to the whole of the money available. For the purpose
of the special grant calculations will be made for each area
showing :—
(1) the total rate which would have been required for the
expenditure of the standard year, if in that year the
scheme had been in force and the rate had been levied
on the basis of the reduced values shown in the Valuation
List of the 1st October, 1929; and
(2) the total rate which would have been required if in that year
the rate had been levied on the basis of the unreduced
values shown in the Valuation List of the 1st October,
1929, under the arrangements existing prior to the scheme
coming into force.
The rates to which the scheme applies are the rates levied by
Eating Authorities only, and do not include water rates or land
drainage rates.
27. In the case of a rural district, the general scheme will apply
to all rates except those raised for purely parochial purposes. As.
regards the special i-ates, it is proposed that for the first
quinquennial period rural district councils should receive an
Exchequer Grant equivalent bo 75 per cent, of the loss arising in
the standard year from the derating of certain of the properties on
which those rates are levied, and that the remaining 25 per cent,
shall be paid by the county council. With a view to providing for
the development of the services the cost of which is charged upon
special rates, it is also proposed that county councils shall be given
a general power to contribute towards such cost.
28. As regards Joint Boards for Water, Sewerage, Hospitals, &c,
it is not proposed that any Exchequer grant should be- paid to the
Boards. Provision will be made for a suitable revision of the basis
of the contributions of the constituent authorities after October 1929
60 as to enable the grant payable to the constituent authorities to be
taken into account in the calculation of the contributions.
29. The total annual grant ascertained for any area in the
manner explained at the inception of the scheme will be fixed for
5 years as from the let April, 1930, except for any alterations of
area or authority during the period. If any such alterations take
place, suitable adjustments of the grants payable to the areas
affected will be made. At the end of the first period of 5 years
the total grant will be revised and the grant for each area will
be re-calculated. The non-formula part of the grant to each area,
i.e., the part directly proportional to the loss of rates and grants in
the first standard year, will be reduced by one-third and the formula
part to each area will be increased. The total formula grant will
then consist of the total amount of the previous formula grant,
increased by the total amount taken horn the non-formula grant,
and by any new money which may be added. The allocation of
the formula grants to each area will, of course, be made on the
particulars of the area in a second standard year, probably 1934,
the general basis of the formula remaining unchanged except that
the unemployment weighting, as already explained, will require to
be revised in relation to the total sum distributed under the
formula.
As regards the total sum to be distributed as grant in aid for
the second quinquennial period (apart from the special grant given
under the guarantee referred to in paragraph 26), it is proposed
that the total grant in aid should be increased at least in proportion
to the increase of weighted population.
It is, in any case, not
intended that there should be any net reduction in the total grant
in aid to be distributed under the scheme however much the
conditions of employment may have changed; and it is also
proposed that as far as possible the ratio of total ' Exchequer
assistance in aid of local government (apart from the special grant)
to the total rate-borne expenditure of the country at the beginning
of the scheme should at least be maintained, so that if there is any
marked reduction in this ratio at the end of the first quinquennial
period not due to temporary abnormal causes, further Exchequer
money will be added to the total annual sum available for distribu­
tion during the second quinquennial period to enable the ratio to
be restored.
As regards subsequent revisions of grant, similar
arrangements would apply. For the third quinquennial period
there would be a further transfer from the non-formula part of
\ the grant to the formula part and for the fourth period the whole
IJ/V \ *
S
would be distributed on the formula basis.
I—" 60. The loss of rates m the" standard year for the purpose of
*
D&TA*£-M h] gghgmg y j b calculated as follows :—
(a) There will be ascertained the net rate-borne expenditure
which would have been incurred by each spending
authority (county council, county borough council,
borough council, urban district council and rural district
council) in the year 1928-29, on the assumption that the
expenditure of the" Guardians had been incurred by
county councils and county borough councils and that the
expenditure on the highways to be transferred to the
county had been incurred by the county council and not
by the borough and district councils. Where any union
is only partly within a county or county borough, the
expenditure of the guardians in the standard year will,
for the purpose of this ascertainment, be apportioned
between the parts within and without the county or county
: -' '
borough on the basis of the number of persons relieved
as ascertained at quarterly intervals during the year.
(b) The loss of rates in the standard year for each authority
will be such proportion of the net expenditure so
ascertained as the loss of rateable value due to derating,
as shown in the special list of derated properties in the
Valuation List in force on the 1st October, 1929, bears
to the total rateable value which, apart from the scheme,
would have stood in the Valuation List. In the case of
a county, the aggregates of the corresponding values in
the Valuation Lists of all the rating authorities in the
T H f l / X 5
*
\
A l c l /
AOJ
o f
0
t
n
e
r a n t
U
1
ie
w
e
county will be taken for the purpose of ascertaining the
appropriate proportion.
81. The loss of grants in the standard year will be the actual
grants (for which the: new scheme of grants is to be substituted),
payable to each authority for the year 1928-29, subject to the
following adjustments : ­
(1) The Agricultural Eates Acts Grants applicable to expendi­
ture on the services to be transferred to the county
will be treated as grant payable to the county council.
(2) All Health Grants and Eoad Grants payable to authorities
and to voluntary associations within an administrative
county,; will be treated as grants, payable to the county
council.
(3) Health Grants payable to voluntary associations in county
boroughs will be treated as grants payable to the county
borough council.
(4) The grants to voluntary associations in aid of the welfare
of the Blind will be apportioned among county councils
and county borough councils according to the residence
of the beneficiaries and treated as grants payable to
these bodies.
(5) The Tuberculosis Grants to the Welsh National Memorial
Association will be apportioned among the county council
and county borough councils of Wales according to
rateable value and treated as grants payable to the
councils. ' ' ' .
32. Although all health grants payable to authorities and to
voluntary agencies within a county will be treated for the purpose
of ascertaining loss of grants under the scheme as if they were
grants payable to the county council, it is not intended to interfere
with the existing arrangements under which certain borough and
district councils administer the Maternity and Child Welfare
service for their area. It is proposed that a scheme for each
county should be prepared by the Ministry in consultation with
the county council showing the grants which will be payable by
the Ministry to the borough and district councils who continue
to administer the Maternity and Child Welfare service. These
grants will be fixed in amount for five years and will be deducted
from the grant in aid. otherwise payable to the county. The
scheme will also show the basis of the necessary county rate
adjustment to be made between the county council and the
separate maternity and child welfare districts.
As regards Maternity' and Child Welfare services carried out
by voluntary associations, the county council or county borough
council in whose area the associations function will be responsible
for the work of these bodies and for the contributions to be made
to them out of the grant in aid. It is proposed that each county
and county borough council should submit for the Minister's
approval a statement of the contributions proposed to be made
to the voluntary associations in their area and of the conditions
for securing the efficient administration of the service subject to
which the grants will be made.
County Councils and county borough councils will also be­
required to make contributions to the voluntary associations for the
Blind. It is proposed that these contributions should, as at present,,
be made on a capitation basis in accordance with a scheme to be
made by the Minister.
It is also proposed that the grants. to the Welsh National
Memorial Association should be made by the county and county
borough councils of Wales in accordance with a scheme to be made
by the Minister.
Contributions by. county councils and borough and district
councils in respect of medical officers of health and sanitary
inspectors, will continue to be made on the present basis, and,
similarly, county and county borough councils will be responsible
for the payments to public vaccinators hitherto made by boards of
guardians.
33. Any grants under the existing scheme in respect of any
period prior to the 1st April, 1930, unpaid at that date, will be paid.
The grants payable under the new scheme will be ascertained, so far
as- they depend on local assessments and rates, from returns which
will be furnished by local authorities and certified by the district
auditors, and will be paid in 6 instalments during the financial year.
It will probably be necessary to withhold some small part of the
grant pending certification, but the part withheld will not ordinarily
exceed the remanet grant under the old scheme oustanding on the
1st April, 1930, so that local authorities will receive a' full year's
grant revenue under the new scheme each year. The only con­
ditions attaching to the grant will be the compliance with the general
requirements of the new scheme and the efficient administration of
the local services. Provision will be made for withholding some part
of the grant in the event of a reasonable standard of efficiency not
being maintained.
34. The new general grant scheme will not come into force
until the 1st April, 1930, but the derating provisions will operate
as from the 1st October, 1929. It will be necessary, therefore, to
make transitional arrangements for the compensation of authorities
for the loss of rates in the period the 1st October, 1929, to the 31st
March, 1930. It is proposed that every County Council, county
borough council, borough and district council, and board of
guardians, should, for that period, receive a grant equivalent to the
full loss of rates calculated for the second half of the standard year.
The calculation will be made as explained in paragraph 30 above,
except that as the local government changes will not have been made
there will be no transfer or apportionment of expenditure on poor
law and highway services. The grant will be payable in 3 instal­
ments during the half-year, and, as there will probably be some delay
in the ascertainment of the grant payable, payment on account will
be made on the closest estimates available.
35. As an illustration of the approximate effect of the scheme,
calculations have been made showing, on certain assumptions what
would have been the effect in certain areas if the scheme had been
in operation, in these areas in theyeax 1926-27 : the grants to be
withdrawn and the losses of rates . are contrasted with the new
grants under the scheme.
For - the, purpose of this illustration the loss of rates has been
roughly estimated from returns recently furnished by Eating
Authorities, and the grants which would have been payable under
the scheme have been.calculated on a.money factor of 31-S5d. per
head of weighted population for the year 1926.
It is estimated that-the aggregate -of the formula grants for
counties and county boroughs on this basis would amount to nearly
£15 million, which is roughly equivalent to 25 per cent, of the loss
of rates and grants, together with £5 million new Exchequer money.
The results of these calculations are shown in the Tables at. the
end of this memorandum for each .of the 82 county boroughs in
existence in 1926-27 and for. 12 of the administrative counties.
In the case of the administrative counties, figures are shown of
the estimated increase or decrease of the rate poundage which would
have been caused by the eperation of the scheme for each of the
boroughs and districts (443 in number) within those counties.,.
The twelve counties have been selected as being typical, and it is
believed that the working of the financial scheme in counties
generally is adequately illustrated by the Tables,
The illustration is, of course, not intended to do more than give a
rough picture of the position.
The new Valuation Lists which,
under the Eating and Valuation Act, 1925, come into force in April,
1928 or April, 1929, may affect the' calculations to a considerable
extent, altering, as they will, not only the proportion which the
value of productive properties bears to other properties, but also
the rateable value per head of population; and many . sharp
differences in the poundage of the rates levied in the same union for
poor law purposes in 1926-27 have already disappeared under the
precepting reforms effected by the Eating and Valuation Act of 1925,
while the fluctuation in the poundage of the rates levied for county
purposes arising from the difference between the county rate basis
and the poor rate valuation list will disappear when the first
valuation list under the Act of 1925 comes into operation.
Further, where a union is situated partly in one county or
county borough and partly in another, the rate-borne expenditure
has been apportioned, for the purpose of the illustration, between
the various parts on the basis of assessable value, and not on the
basis which will be adopted when the scheme is in operation. As
already explained, that basis will be the number of persons in
receipt of relief normally resident in or chargeable to each part.
Particulars showing the numbers of persons at present in receipt
of relief have, however, been obtained for 12 unions each of which
is situate in more than one county or, county borough and the
expenditure of these unions for the year 1926-27 has been
reapportioned on the basis of these numbers. It is found that in
8 cases (excluding West Ham) this reapportionment standing alone'
would have resulted in rate increases in the county boroughs ranging­
from l^d. in the £ to 1/5-J in the £ and in three cases there would
have been rate decreases in the County Boroughs ranging from
2fd. in the £ to 1/2-i in the £.
In 6 of the 8 cases in which there would have been rate increases
the net gain of grant under the scheme more than counterbalances­
the estimated rate increase.
The case of the West Ham Union is quite exceptional. If the­
expenditure of the Union were apportioned between the County
Borough of West Ham, the County Borough of East Ham and
the County of Essex according to the number of persons in receipt
of relief in each part the equivalent rates for 1926-27 would have
been 12/5-Jd. in West Ham, 6/Q\d. in East Ham and 5/8-^. in
the part of the Union in the County of Essex, as compared with
a rate of 8/8fd. for the Union as a whole. Special arrangements
will require to be made to meet the difficulties which will arise
on the transfer of the poor law functions to the County Borough
of West Ham, and proposals for this purpose are under
consideration.
36. On the assumptions on which the illustration is based it
will be seen that of the 82 county boroughs only five would have lost
(two less than.6cL per head of population, two between 1/- and 2/­
and 1 more than 2/-), while 77 would have gained (6 less than
1/- per head of population; 17 between 1/- and 2/-; 16 between
2/- and 3 / - ; 19 between 3/- and 4/-; 5 between 4/- and 5/-;.
and 14 over 5/-).
As regards the 12 selected counties, in each case the total grant
shown for the county as a whole is in excess of the loss. The
illustration shows that the general effect of the scheme of distribu­
tion will be not only to mitigate very considerably the changes in
the incidence of rates due to the widening of the area of charge­
for poor law and highways, but also to reduce the rate poundage in
most districts,. especially in rural districts. The year 1926-27 is,
of course, an unfavourable year to take for illustrating the work of
any scheme so far as the mining areas are concerned and it may be
expected that in a more normal year the divergencies in the
poundage of rates would be considerably less than those shown
in the tables for these areas.
LONDON.
37. Certain modifications of the financial scheme will be
required to meet the special circumstances of London. Boor Law
will be transferred to the County Council; but not highways.
The classification grants for Class I and Class II roads will,
however, be discontinued and their place taken by the general
grant.
In view of the large measure of rate equalisation which is
involved in the local government changes under the scheme, it
is proposed that the present Equalisation Fund in London should
be abolished as from the 1st April, 1930.
f.6
The proposals as regards grants are as follows : The County Council and each borough council will receive
75 per cent, of the loss of rates and grants for the standard year.
The County Council will receive two-thirds of the formula grant
appropriate to the weighted population of the County and each
Borough Council will receive one-third of the formula grant
appropriate to its own weighted population.
If the total grant payable to the County Council and the
Borough Councils does not exceed the aggregate loss of rates and
grants in the standard year by a sum equivalent to 1/- per head
of actual population, the grant to the County Council will be
increased by such sum as will bring the net aggregate gain up to
the equivalent of 1/- per head of population.
In the' ascertainment of the loss of rates for the standard
year­
(1) the rates raised for the purpose of the Equalisation Fund
and the grants received from the Fund will be excluded
from the calculations, and
(2) the highway and health grants of the Borough Councils
will not be treated as grants payable to the County Council
as in the case of Counties outside London, but will be
included in Borough Councils calculations. The grant
in aid payable to the Borough Councils ascertained as
explained will be in substitution for all highway and
health grants.
The proposed Local Government changes will involve
considerable alterations in the incidence of rates in London, and
it is proposed that, as in the case of the Counties outside London,
special Exchequer assistance should be given in aid of the
increases,in rate poundage. Where the increase of rate poundage
calculated for the standard year in any Borough with a rateable
value per head of population of less than £10 exceeds 3d. or in
any Borough with a rateable value per head of population of
£10 or more exceeds 6d., a special grant of the excess will be
paid. The special grant will, as in other cases, be reducible by
l/15th each year.
A Table is appended showing the approximate effect of the
scheme for the year 1926/27.
38. It is estimated that with the guarantees which it is
proposed should be given the total additional cost of the scheme to
the Exchequer over and above the equivalent of the loss of rates
and grants on the calculations of 1926-27 would amount to nearly
£7^ millions for England and Wales, including London.
COUNTY
Distribution of new Grant-in-Aid as compared with the loss of existing Grants to be withdrawn and the
loss of Kates due to the Derating of certain Properties.
.3
4
Pence.
148
196
...
128
148 ,
232
220
92
...
248
336
96
292
...
104
70,760
70,760
70,420 .
69,000
158,000
934,600
.124,400
.124,400
88,640
88,640
177,000
177,000
84,580
90,100
288,700
140,000
So
105
108
64
101
92
69
59
79
106
58
68
71
o
7
'8
9
10;
Pence.
Pence.
108-1
112-9
52-7
89-4
77-2
64-8
37-0
71-7
108-2
36-1
56-9
54-1
Pence.
219-1
259-9
148-7
200-4
251-2
229-8
106-0
257-7
360-2
108-1
275-9
132-1
Percentage.
25
35
12
. . 7
':
;
P.3
6
10
11
34
11
\
88
2a
IU 11
O-H
- 147
in
96
111
174
165
69
186
252
72
219
78
Gain or loss under
£Scheme per £ of
reduced rateable
value..
H I
Gain.
: 5
£ :
3-45
4-9
6-05
4-95
5-4
5-1
12^.05
5-15
5-45
11-3
7-3
6-95
ON
G-rant in penct3 per net
of actual populatic
equivalent to' a grant
31'35 pence per head
weighted popialation.
Number of chil
per 1,000 of th
2
bar .
O*
- o.g
Total grant in
head of actu
tion.
Barnsley
Barnsle y
...
Barrow
Bath
...
Birkenhead
Birmingham
Blackburn
Blackpool
Bolton ...
. . . I ...
Bootle . . .
Bournemouth:
Bradford
Brighton
...
...
Estimated
Estimated population
population (1
1
Estimated loss
pressed in pe
' population:
Authority.
1
unemploy-
ictual popu­
peration.
A
75 per cent. ­
rates and gran
IS
O)
Gain or loss under
Scheme in pence per
head of actual
population.
(Col. 9-col. 2.)
Grant under the Scheme.
Percentage wedghting
ment,
*P
CN
03 CD
Rateable value per head
lation after derating is
03 W
years of age
nd rates ex­
.d of actual
ESTIMATED
BOROUGHS.
k
Pence.
71-1
63-9
20-7
; 52-4
19-2
9-8
14-0
9-7
. 24-2
12-1
28-1
Loss.
Gain.
Loss.
11
12
13
Pence.
20-6
13-0
3-4
10-6
3-5
1-9
1-2
1-9
4-4
1-1
1-1
Pence.
Pence.
I Pence.
1616-1
1
4-0
22-2
2
BRISTOL ...
Burnley
Burton-on-Trent
Bury
...
Canterbury
Carlisle...
Chester...
Coventry
Croydon
Darlington
Derby ...
Dewsbury
Dudley ...
East H a m
Eastbourne
Exeter ...
Gateshead
Gloucester
Great Yarmouth
Grimsby
Halifax
Hastings
Huddersfield ..
Ipswich
Kingston-upon- Hull
Leeds
Leicester
Lincoln...
Liverpool
Manchester
Middlesbrough
Newcastle
NORTHAMPTON ..
Norwich
Nottingham
Oldham...
Oxford
Plymouth
..
140
212
412
228
144
164
136
188
84
176
216
280
176
160
76
164
156
140
168
144
340
128
264
156
240
216
172
184
248
200
208
188
156
220
144
240
124
148
383,600
99,600
48,660
57,040
24,450
56,320
41,710
127,800
205,900
70,700
136,800
53,630
58,930
146,600
56,060
60,990
127,700
53,050
57,760
88,580
96,300
61,340
111,900
84,140
294,600
473,400
241,700
65,980
862,600
752,000
133,600
285,400
93,740
124,100
268,000
143,000
56,800
202,700
83
5-3
74
5-15
86
4-4
67
5-25
79
5-35
87
5-1
87
5-6 92
4-2
76
7-2
91
5-7
85
4-8 ;
- 84
4-25
110
3-25
88
3-9 :
48
10-15 72
6-95
112
3-3
87
5-55
89 - . 4.6
98
3-7
68
5-3
64
8-8
68
6-1
86
5-05
95
4-85
79
5-7
78
5-3
89
4-4
102
7-05
86
8-4
111
4-05
100
7-5
78
4-65
81
4-5
84
5-7
74
- 4-5 66
8-45
85 .
5-25-
ii
'7
ios
159
-'8
-6
9
3
­
23
—
11
33
6.
—
71
14
16
19
' 7
-10
7
18
12
"—
16
34
13
42
44 .
,1
9
10
13
—
17 .
;
73-8
66-1
309
72-2
171
61-6
108
64-6
123
74-5
102
74-6
141
78-3
63
57-0
132
86-4
162
69-3
210
79-1
132
120-6
120
78-6
57
31-3
123
55-1
117 i
156-0
105
77-9
126
84-8 108
97-2
255
61-0
96
43-7
198
60-6
117
74-7
180
89-7
162
.70-8
129
63-6
138
84-8
186
98-0
150
66-5
156
125-4
141
102-6
117
67-2 ..
74-6
165
108
73-1
180- - 71-9 93
46-1
80-0
111
;
178-8
38-8
225-1
13-1
381-2
30-8
30-8
232-6
4-6
172-6
28-6
197-5
33-5
176-6
40-6
219-3
31-3
120-0
36-0
218-4
42-4
231-3
15-3
289-1
9-1
252-6
76-6
198-6
38-6
88-3
12-'3
178-1
14-1
273-0
117-0
182-9
42-9
210-8 - 42-8
205-2
61-2
316-0
24-0
139-7
11-7
258-6
5-4
191-7
35-7
269-7
29-7
232-8
16-8
192-6
20-6
222-8
38-8
284-0
36-0
216-5
16-5
281-4
73-4
243-6
55-6
184-2
28-2
239-6
19-6
181-1
37-1
-251-9
-11-9- g
139-1
15-1
191-0
43-0
7-3
2-5
0-9 .
5-3
6-7
7-2
7-5
5-0
7-4
3-2
2-1
23-6
9-9
1-2
2-0
35-5
'7-7
9-3
16-5
1-3
7-1
6-1
2-9
3-9
8-8
5-1
2-0
18-1
7-4
6-1
. 4-4
6-5
2-6 ­
1-8
8-2
77-00
to
4-55
4-9
i1
0
f t
"ad
s?
imate
*o 0
iraate
essed
x-3
2
m
3
S. ft
4
M
246,900
124,200
93,290
91,510
70,080
110,000
247,400
523,400
76,940
169,300
104,300
77,970
123,900
125,400
275,600
163,800
94
82
80
70
108
110
92
96
99
91
75
62
114
76
106
113
4-8
4-25
5-35
5-05
3-85
3-15
4-5
3-9
3-45
5-7
8-95
9-4
4-1
5-15
3-25
3-9
S)8
s is
is
a
H 0)
1
Portsmouth
Preston
Reading
Rochdale
Rotherham
St. Helens
... '
Salford
Sheffield
Smethwick
Southampton
Southend
Southport
South Shields
Stoekport
Stoke-on-Trent
...
Sunderland ...
...
Pence.
...
...
128
164
164
296
308
200
260
236
228
144
'52
84
196
192
240
160
5
£
w
8
B. (M
6
Percentage.
3
10
—
16
23
17
11
27
20
—
—
—
51
7
21
40
in ^
1
Pence.
96
123
123
222
231
150
195
177
171
108
39
63
147
144
180
120
q ftp,
0
* m 8
fts^8
O g 0*
St"S ftg
.53
Gain.
Loss.
Gain.
Loss.
9
10
11
12
13
Pence.
Pence.
Pence.
Pence.
Pence.
4-6
' x­
n
a
p
S
be
E"'3
0 8
Pence.
Gain or loss under
Scheme per £ of
reduced rateable
value.
pence per
al popula­
e per head
population
a grant of
er aead of
illation.
ft
P.
-O
of loss of
itB in;ool. 2.
n
bo
ofl
^w
;*j be
Gain or loss under
Scheme in pence per
head of actual
population.
(Col. 9-col. 2.)
Grant under the Scheme.
per '
tes an
tP*
si
eable
;ion a
Authority.
i
ft­
ftH
eighting foi' unemploy­
Si
BOROUGHS-continued.
centa
ent.
r/.
Cu
dren under ii years of age
e population
- s
ilation (1926)
ind rates ex­
id of actual
COUNTY
P
Ci
CM
sis
B
77-3
173-3
76-3
199-3
64-6
187-6
69-4
291-4
107-5
338-5
106-7
256-7
83-3 , 278-3
101-4
278-4
100-3
271-3
70-3
178-3
50-3
89-3
40-8
103-8
136-3
283-3
67-6
211-6
106-3
286-3
126-3
246-3
45-3
35-3
23-6
30-5
56-7
18-3
42-4
43-3
34-3
37:3
19-8
87-3
19-6
46-3
86-3
9-4
8-3
4-4
7-9
18-0
4-1
10-9
12-6
6-0
4-2
2-1
21-3
3-8
14-2
22-1
-9
j
Xvnemouth
Wakefield
Wallasey
Walsall
Warrington ...
West Broinwich
West Ham
West Hartlepool
Wigan.
Wolverhampton
Worcester
York
66,560
53,830
105
4-1
5-35
50
93,050
102,100
77,280
79,920
315,900
71,060
88,620
130,350
50,660
86,290
82
75
105
101
108
106
107
101
98
79
79
2
-2
-15
-95
-45
-65
3-95
4-8
5-1
4-5
12
12
28
14
20
27
52
44
22
11
7
225,700
80,690
96,620
163,200
89
105
99
94
6-35
2-6
5-6
4-5
2482
25
147
150
127-6
274-6
78-6
99
114
198
123
237
135
99
123
120
105
74-5
62-7
111-9
93-1
108-3
111-0
132-8
119-7
95-0
72-2
71-6
224-5
161-7
225-9
291-1
231-3
348-0
267-8
218-7
218-0
192-2
176-6
24-5
29-7
73-9
27-1
67-3
32-0
87-8
86-7
54-0
32-2
36-6
132
153
135
174
83-0
163-4
95-0
99-3
215-0
316-4
230-0
273-3
39-0
112-4
50-0
41-3
19-2
4-6
4-1
23-1
6-5
22-8
9-3
24-1
21-9
11-2
6-3
8-1
WALES.
Cardiff
Merthyr Tydfil
Newport ,
Swansea
6-1
43-2
8-9
9-2
to
o
ADMINISTRATIVE
COUNTY
OF
DORSET.
E S T I M A T E D d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e l o s s of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s a n d t h e a g g r e g a t e l o s s of r a t e s
of all l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y d u e t o . t h e - d e r a t i n g of';
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t is
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
Estimated
Population
(1926).
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d
r a t e s (in pence per
h e a d of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
Total G r a n t in aid
(in pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n of
the County).'
1.
2.
3.
Gain t o the
C o u n t y under
t h e scheme (in
p e n c e per head
of population
of t h e County),
' 4.
..
'
C o u n t y Council 237-9 75 p e r cent, of
t o t a l ' iii
Column 2
...
191-1
Borough
and
Urban District
Councils
... 12-7 F o r m u l a G r a n t —
On p o p u l a t i o n
Rural District
w e i g h t e d for
children and
Councils
... 4-1
r a t e a b l e value
65-8
232,500
Total
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ...
33-5
F o r unemploy­
m e n t weight­
ing
­
...254-7
Borough o
District.
Total
for 1 9 2 6 - 2 7 if
99-3
35-7
290-4
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
r-ounaage
of r a t e s
for
...
-
the
I n c r e a s e . Decrease.
scheme h a d been
in force.
1926-27.
9.
7.
Boroughs
Blandford F o r u m
Bridport
Dorchester—
All Saints No.
District
All Saints No.
District
St.
Peter No.
District
St.
Peter "No.
District
1
s. a.
9 10
12 6
s: d.
10 H i
13 0i
12
3
13
12
2
12
12
1
13
2*
1
2
3
13
2i
2
13
If.
-
d.
li
6f
3i
2
1
s.
1
0i
11
11*
*
I n the case of the rural districts the poundage covers the whole of the
rates levied in 1926-27, with the exception of those t h e n levied' to meet
purely parochial charges. The excluded parochial rates ranged in. different
parishes from about 2%d. to about 4s. 2d.
Borough or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
Boroughs (contd.)-Lyme Begis ...
Poole ...
Shaftesbury ...
Wareham.
Weymoufch and Mel­
combe Regis
Urban
Districts—
Portland
Sherborne
Swanage
Wimborne Minster ...
Rural
DistrictsBeaminster
Blandford
Brklport
Ceme
Dorchester
Poole
Shaftesbury ...
Sherborne
Sturminster ...
Wareham and P u r ­
beck
Weymouth
Wimborne and Cran­
borne
s.
14
14
10
11
13
d.
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
i n force.
7.
Increase. Decrease.
8.
7
2
2
s. d.
15
14 71 .'
11 4 4
11
s.
1
0
14
1
5
1-i
13 5
14 4
11 8
10 10
13 64
14 3
12 1 0 i
12 31
10 l i
9
12
9 91
9 9i
10 74
10 10i
11 10
9 0
8 10i
8 9
8 lOf
8 6i
8 n
8 8f
8 6f
8 5i
8 91
11 4 i
9 us
8
8
61
10
8
7A
4
.i
8
1
9.
d.
s.
d.
54
Oi
2 4
2 4
1 4
1
1
1
2 i
51
1
6
4
3i
lOf
3
4
1 3
1 5
1 10J
2 3f
3
4
21
2 10
54
0
2
4
ESTIMATED d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e l o s s of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s a n d t h e a g g r e g a t e loss of r a t e s
of all l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y d u e t o t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t is
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 -35 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
Estimated
Population
(1926).
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d
r a t e s (in pence p e r
head of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
Total G r a n t in aid
(in pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
G a i n to t h e
C o u n t y under
t h e scheme (in
pence per head
of population
of t h e County).
1.
2.
3.
4.
County Council 291-0
Borough
and
Urban D i s t r i c t
Councils
... 33-2
Rural District
Councils
... 10-3
1
75 p e r cent, of
total
in
Column 2
...
250-9
Formula Grant—
On p o p u l a t i o n
w e i g h t e d for
children and
r a t e a b l e value 92-9
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ... 10-5
F o r unemploy­
m e n t weight­
ing
34-4
996,700
Total
Borough or
District.
5.
Boroughs—
Durham
. ...
Hartlepool
J arrow
Stockton-on-Tees—
No. 1 Area
No. 2 Area
...334-5
Total
...
388-7
"Poundage
of r a t e s
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
6.
scheme h a d been
in force.
7.
for 1926-27.
for 1926-27 if
137-8
the
54-2
I n c r e a s e . Decrease.
8.
9.
s. d.
23 6
18 8
19 11
s.
21
21
21
d.
8
2
2i
, s.
d.
2
1
6
3i
18 10
17 10
22
21
3i
31
3
' 3
5i
5i
s. d.
1 10
I n the case of the rural districts the poundage covers the whole of the
rates levied in 1926-27, with the exception of those t h e n levied to meet
purely parochial charges. The excluded parochial rates ranged in different
parishes from about 2$d. to about 8s. 5d.
Borough or
PH^-^pj.
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
Urban
Increase. Decrease
8.
9.
Districts—
Annfield Plain—
Kyo
Collierley and Pon­
s.
23
d:
2
t o p
24 8
Greencroft W i t h i n
23 1 0
Barnard Castle
13 8
Benfieldside
24 0
Billingliam
13 0
25 0
Bishop Auckland
Bl aydon—
Chopwell
28 0
Winlaton
27 8
27 4
Stella
Brandon
and
By­
shottles
25 8
Chester-le-Street
29 8
23 0
Consett
Crook
26 1
Felling
24 8.
Hebburn
2 0
5
Hetton
2 1
4
21 1 0
Houghton-le-Spring ...
Leadgate
24 4
Eyton ...
...
...
24 4
Seaham H a r b o u r
23 1 0
ShildonShildon
24 0
E. Thickley
24 2
19 8
Southwick-on-Wear ...
S p ennym o o r —
26 2
Whitworth
27 0
Mornington L a n e . . .
26 4
Low Spennyloor ...
26 8
Tudhoe
15 0
Stanhope
Stanley—
No. 1 District
. 23 0
No. 2 District
22 8
Tanfield
23 6
Tow Law—14 4
Tow L a w ...
South Cornsay
... ' 2 0
8
Washington—
21 1 1
Barnston
Washington
27 2
Usworth
27 8
Whickham
...
...
23 8
Wellington—Willington ...
22 - 8
Stockley
22 8
[ 1 7 8 0 4 ]
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
7. ­
s.
d.
s.
7
6i
4
1 1
2 0
8 S
1
5
2 0
M:
2 1
2 1
2 0
3J
' oj
18
18
d.
h
i
2 1
24
18
I
7-J­
2 1
0
2 1
6
2 0
18
7i
1 0 *
2 0
Of
Si,
2 1
I S
2 1
19
if!
l
19
18
19
0i
9i
6i
15
15
5ir
2 0
19
19
0 3 ­
5*
4
1 1
6J
8i
3S
4
2 i
0 1
n
ii
31
4
7 3
1 1
1 *
5
4
5
1 3
2 2
18
20
20
n
4
4
0 i
0 i
8
6i
i
3
3
3
1
i
2 i
7
4
4
5
1 : ;
H
23
2
i
2 1
2 0
9
2
19
23
1 1
2
H
2 0
4
4
5
3J­
9S
2 0
31 0 4
3 7i
3 29
3 53
5 lOf
5 61
5 41
2 2
22
21
8.
i*
5
3
6
6
3
2
3
C
us
lot
us
2 *
7
3
9
11
111
O S
i .
Borough or
District.
!
Estimated
P o u n d a g e ! p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
of r a t e s j for 1926-27 if t h e
for 1926-27.; scheme h a d been
i n force.
5.
Rural Districts—­
Auckland
Barnard Castle
Chester-Ie-Street
Darlington
...
...
Durham
Easington
Hartlepool
...
Houghton-le-Spring
Lanchester
—
Sedgefield
...
...
South
Sout h Shields
Shield s
Stockton
Sunderland
Weardale
i
6.
s. d.
21 lQi
1 4
22
12
23
19
1 4
4 1
l O f
O f
3S
81
19
22 l O f
18
17 li
13
16 10
13 H
m
Increase. Decrease.
8.
7.
s.
16
16
18
16
17
18
16
17
17
17
17
16
17
17
A.
7
s.
9.
a.
8J
2 "31
o-i
n
4
9
3*
VI
7
1 11
s.
4
5 54
04
1
21
1
31
6*
5 3*
n
H
101
l
81
84
d.
5 34
2 iu
10J
4
1
13
Estimated
P o u n d a g e p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
I n c r ease. Deei ease.
of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
for 1926-27. scheme h a d Sheen
*
i n force.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
s. d.
s. d.
8. d.
Urban
Districts—
s. d.
1 21
Barking Town
17 8
18 10*
13 9
15 P i .
1 3i
Braintree
- ...
12 2
12 10*.
Brent wood
8*
Brightlingsea
14 8
15 5 j
91
Buckhurst Hill
11 2
13 H
1 Hi
Burnh am-on-Crouch
14 4 1
15 6
1 1*
13 8
15 9
2 1
Oanvey Island
Chingford
11 5
10 51
Hi
Claeton
13 3
15 21
1 11:1
Dagenham
13 0
14 4 i
1 4i
Epping
13 0
14 21
1 21
Frinton-on-Sea
12 8
15 3
2 7
Grays Thurrock
15 2
17 0
1 10
15 8
16 1*.
Halstead
5*.
Hornchurch ...
13 0
14 5*.
1 5*.
Lough ton
12 0
13 9f
1 91
Romford
14 10
15 81
101
11 6
13 4
1 10
Shoeburyness
Tilbury
...
- ...
15 8
17 0 i
1 4*.
W a l t h a m Holy Cross
16 6
15 3 *
1 2*
Walthamstow*
25 3
18 9
6 6"
Walton - on-the-Naz e
14 10
2 7
17 5
Wanstead*
... '
18 4
13 1i
4 84
16 10
1 10
West Mersea
15 0
Witham
15 4
15 4 i
0i
Wivenhoe
15 2
15 101
81
Woodford*
19 4
13 31
6 Oi
Rural
Districts—
3 Hi
Belchamp
12 1 1 *
9 0
Billericay
9 9i
9 2i
Braintree
12 61
9 6£
3 Oi
Bumpstead
12 9*
9 21
3 61
Chelms
Chelmsff ord
or d
12 51
9 2
3 31
A a
Dunrnow
Dunrno
w
...
.. .
...
.. .
1o
1A 7
9 H
3 2.1:
9 H
9 31
2
Epping
Halstead
12
9 4*.
3 4
Lexden and Winstree
10 H i
9 2*
1 81
12 0* .
2 7
Maldon
9 5*
Ongar
11 10
9 71
2 2i
9 7*
10 01
Orsett
"5i.
Bochford
12 8 i
10 5.
2 3i
9 3*
2 1
Romford
11 H
Saffron Walden—
Saffron
Walden
Union
10 5
8 11*
1 5i
Linton Union
11 31
8 11*
2 31
Stansted
9 5i
9 3i
2
Tendring
10
9 li
1 li
* The expenditure of the West H a m Union, of which these areas arc
part, has been apportioned between the County Borough of West H a m , the
County Borough of E a s t H a m , and the County of Essex on the basis.of the
number of persons in receipt of relief in each part (vide paragraph 35 of the
memorandum).
Borough or
District.
n
n
ESTIMATED d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e l o s s of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s a n d t h e a g g r e g a t e l o s s of r a t e s
of all l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y d u e t o t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t is
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
Estimated
Population
(1926).
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d
r a t e s (in pence p e r
h e a d of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
Total G r a n t in aid
(in p e n c e p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
2.
3.
1.
1 G a i n to t h e
County under
t h e scheme (in
pence per h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
4.
C o u n t y Council 164-8 75 p e r cent, of
total
in
Borough
and
Column 2
...
186-4
Urban District
Councils
... 82-0 F o r m u l a G r a n t : —
On p o p u l a t i o n
Rural District
w e i g h t e d for
c h i l d r e n and
Councils
...
1-7
r a t e a b l e v a l u e 67-4
1,789,700
Total
... 248-5
Boroug
Boroughh o r
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
Boroughs—
Accrington
....
Ashton-under-Lyne
Bacup ...
Chorley
Clitheroe
Colne ...
Darwen
Eccles
Haslingden
Heywood
...
Lancaster
Leigh ...
...
...
...
s.
11
12
14
12
12
15
11
13
12
13
11
12
d.
0
8
8
8
6
0
8
0
4
3
2
6
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ...
8-6
F o r TJnemploy­
m e n t weight­
ing
1-3
Total
...
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
7.
s.
11
12
15
13
13
15
11
13
13
14
12
13
d.
84
81
5
4*
41
94
4i
5
2£
6i
2
0
77-3
263-7
-
15-2
15- 2
Increase.
Decrease.
8.
9.
s.
d.
Sh
I
9
8*
10f
04
a.
d.
34
5
10i
1 U
1 0
6
I n the case of t h e rural districts the poundage covers t h e whole of the
vates levied in 1926-27, with t h e exception of those then levied to meet purely
parochial charges. The excluded parochial rates ranged in different parishes
from about Ud. to about 3s. 3d.
[17804]
.
D
Borough or
District.
-
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
Boroughs (contd.)—
L y t h a m St. Annes ...
Middleton
Morecambe
Mossley—
Mossley
Micklehurst
Nelson
Rawtenstall—
Central W a r d
Eemainder ...
Widnes
Urban Districts:—
Abram ...
Adlington
Ashton-in-Makerfield
Aspull ...
Atherton
Audenshaw
Barrowford
...
Billinge & Winstanley
Blackrod
Brierfield
Carnforth
Chadderton
Church
Clayton-le-Moors
Crompton
Croston
Dalton-in-Furness
Den ton
Droylesden
Failsworfch
Earn worth
Fleetwood
Formby
Fulwood
...
Golborne
Grange
Gt. Crosby
Gt. Harwood
Haydock
Heysham
Hindley
Horwich
Hurst
Huyton-with-Roby ...
Ince-in-Makerfield ...
Irlam
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
7.
s.
9
15
13
ci.
6
0
9
S'.
d.
11
15 10J
15 o j
10
8
13
9
0
0
10
8
13
is
9
12
12
14
4
2
4
13
13
13
24
04
1
14
11
13
13
11
12
12
12
13
9
10
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
15
13
13
9
11
10
11
11
12
11
15
11
15
13
6
0
6
8
2
0
0
8
9
10
0
6
2
2
2
9
0
11
6
8
12
10
11
9
11
12
12
10
11
10
10
18
10
11
13
12
10
12
15
12
.12
11
12
11
10
12
10
11
8
.12
12
13
24
9J
5*
7194
21
2*
7
Oi
Of"
7*
8
64
3
Of
li
11
14
9
4
4
8
n
'
4
8
2
0
9
4
4
8
6
4
0
4
:
Increase. Decrease.
8.
9.
s. d.
104
104
11 Of
11 11
10 9
3
1
2
4
9f
2J
0*
04
2
2
1
8i
74
24
2i-
1
2f
7l
2
7j
11
lO
lOff
1
7*
84
1
14
54
9-V
1
14
1
9f
1 74
1 44
1- 0
n
6i
H
8
11*
9*
1
1
21
If
9
11
4f
2f
6f
H
d.
3f
10J
1 8f
H
61
0
7f
(i.
2
lOf
1
7-J-
10"
6 10"
2
2
1 "l
2*
3
31
5
2 dt
Borough or
District.
5.
Urban Districts
Estimated
P o u n d a g e p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
for 1926-27. scheme h a d been
in force.
6.
7.
(contd.) —
Kearsley
Kirkliam
Lathom and Burs­
cough
...
...
Lees ...
...
...
Leyland
Litherland
Littleborough
Little Crosby ...
Little Hulton...
Little Lever ...
...
LongridgeDilworth ...
...
Alston'
Milnrow
...
...
Newton-in-Makerfield
Norden
... * ...
Ormskirk
Orrell
Oswaldtwistle
Padiham
Poulton-le-Fylde
Preesall
Prescbt
Prestwich
...
...
Badoliffe
Rainford
Hamsbottom—Central Ward
Remainder ...
Risbton
...
...
Royton
Skelmersdale
Standish - with - Lang­
tree
Stretford
Swinton . and Pendle­
bury—
Swinton St. Peter
Swinton Remainder
Pendlebury
Thornton Oleveleys ...
Tottington
Trawden
Turton
Tyldesley - with - Sha­
kerley
...
...
Ulverston
Upholland
Urmston
s.
d.
1 0
1 1
d.
6 -
9
8
0
1 2
2
1 0
4
1 2
7
li
li
3
1 1
0 i
1 0
9 i
1 0
13
1 0
9
1 1
6
1 1
13
5
1 2
9
0
8
1 2
1 2
1 1
4
6
4 6
6
8
9
13
1 1
2
1 2
. 2
1 0
9
1 0
4
1 1
2
1 1
8
" I ;
1 0
5
9
1 2
8
li
Hi
1 1
5 i
8
1 1
1 2
0
1 2
14
8
8
9
1 2
1 0
1 2
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
1 2
1 2
0
1 2
2
1 1
1 0
4
1 2
0
14
1 0
8
0
6
7*
31
3*
9i
5 *
ol
"lj
1 1
;t
4
4*
1
1 0 *
' 1
3 3
1
3
9 i
2
31
1-i
li
li
6
1
1
0
6i
OA
2
9
1 1
1
2
41
1 1
2
" 9 3
41
5 3
0 3
2 3
3i
1
%
2 i
1
*
1 *
1 0
3
9-i
1 0 *
1 0 *
1 2
4*
1
0
1 0
5i
3
2
i
9 Hi
8
6
1 1
5 3
5 3
8 3
1 0
1 0
n
1 1
d.
63
1 1 3
6*
4
1 0
s.
" 6 3
1 0 *
1 1
1 1
1 2
0
1 1
1 0
9
9
1 2
1 1
1 0
1 2
0
1 2
d.
"33
1
1 2
9
13
s.
1
8
6
3
8
8
1 1
9.
8.
1 0
8
9
s.
Increase. Decrease.
1
1
8
2
6*
3
2
0 *
7*
1 Hi
?i
1 0
5 * .
8 *
1 0
3i
1 1
2 i
s
9f
1 2
31
3*
1 1
1
9 *
t)
.
,
B o r o u g h or
Poundage
^
r
o f
district.
f o r
5.
Urban Districts) (eontd.)Walton-le-Dale
Wardle
Waterloo - with - Sea ­
forthWaterloo
Seaforth
Westhoughton
Whitefield
Whitworth
Withnell
Worsley
Rural
Districts—
Barton-upon-Irwell ...
Blackburn
Burnley
Bury
Ohorley
Clitheroe
Flyde
Garstang
... '
Lancaster
Leigh ...
Limehurst
Lunesdale
...
...
Preston
Sefton
Ulverston
Warringten
...
W e s t Lancashire
Whiston
Wigan
-
1
926-27.
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme had been
in force.
7.
Increase. Decrea
8.
9.
6.
S'. a.
10 0
10 4
s. d.
10 Of
10 1*
12
12
13
12
11
12
10
711
4
6:
4
10
0
10 4
10 8
12 1*
13 7 i
11 6
12 6f
10 H i
7 7*
8 9*
8 i
7 6i
8 6
8 34
7
8 5
8 li
8 5
8 4-!9 0
8 0i
10 10
9 3
10 H8 1
9 5
10
7
7^ 5 i
T If
7 4
7 5
7 31
7 3i
7 3
7 4
7 $
7 i
7 4
7 6i
7 71
7 3S
7 2*
7 44
7 9
7 4
8
n
s.
d.
6f
s
d
2
2 3
2 3
1 2
1 "li
2
3-,
"iii
4i
5
* ' *' !
:
1 4:
1 6J
2^
1 1
lli
1
1 2
91
HJ
11
1 8
5?
3 2J
1 ii-i
3 il
84
1 8
2 101
ADMINISTRATIVE
PARTS
COUNTY
OF
OF
LINCOLN-
LINDSEY.
ESTIMATED d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e l o s s of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s a n d t h e a g g r e g a t e loss of r a t e s
of all l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s -within t h e C o u n t y d u e to- t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t i s
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
Estimated
Copulation
(1926).
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s and
r a t e s (in pence per
head of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
T o t a l G r a n t i n aid
(in pence p e r head
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
1.
2.
3.
G a i n to t h e
County under
t h e scheme (in
pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
4.
C o u n t y Council 385-5 75 p e r cent, of
total
in
Column 2
...
310-4
Borough
and
Urban District
Councils
... 20-6 F o r m u l a G r a n t : —
On p o p u l a t i o n
w e i g h t e d for
Rural District
children and
Councils
...
7-7
r a t e a b l e value 80-9
Total
2(51,600
2(51,600
... 413-8
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ...
49-8
-For Unemploy­
ment weight­
ing
­
441-1
Total
B o r o u g h or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
scheme h a d been
i n force.
7.
Borough—
LouthUrban
Districts—
Alford
Barton-upon-Humber
Brigg
Cleethorpes ...
Crowle ...
Gainsborough...
Horncastle
for 1926-27 if t h e
s. d.
13 0
s.
15
14
15 6f
9 lOf
13 7*
16
J
13 74
1
1 3f
15 0
13
1
2
4
6
/17 6
\ 1 5 Of
17 4
13 3
13 8
1
1
130-7
0
1
0
1
27-3
27- 3
Increase.
Decrease.
8.
9.
d.
2
1
s.
2
d.
2
1
4f
s.
Si
2"
4
1
1
1
d.
"9
3
0
6
54
5j
j
I n t h e case of t h e r u r a l d i s t r i c t s t h e p o u n d a g e covers t h e whole of t h e
rates levied in 1926-27, w i t h t h e exception of those t h e n levied to m e e t p u r e l y
parochial charges. The excluded p a r o c h i a l r a t e s r a n g e d in different p a r i s h e s
from a b o u t 3d. to a b o u t 4s. 0 4 d .
Borough or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
6.
Estimated,
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
7.
Decrease.
Urban
Districts
(contd.)—
Mabletliorpe
Suttoii
and
Market Rasen
Roxby-cum-Risby ...
Scunthorpe
and
Frodingham
Skegness
Winterton
Woodhall Spa
Rural
DistrictsCaistor
Gainsborough...
Glanford B r i g g
Grinisby
Horncastle
Isle of Axholme
Louth
Sibsey
Spilsby
Welton...
'. s.
fl2
15
114
L19
12
10
d.
.8
2
0
0
2
10
8.
13
16
15
17
13
12
d.
Hi
5i
3*
Hi
6*
6i
12 0
16 0
ri4 4
1155 Q
11
12 6
13
19
11
12
13
3
1
Oi
2i
2i
9
9
9
10
9
8
8
9
9
9
9
3
4i
6i
0i
7
Hi
Hi
5f
1
9i
6i
12
11
2 12
13
10
flO
\13
9
12
10
14
Si
9f
4
24
111
9J
3
7
7i
2
111
/ s. d.
1 34
1 34
1 34
s. cl.
1
l"
, 1
1
3
04
3 3f
3 31
2i
5i
8i
2
4J
1 10i
4 3f
li
3 6i
1?
5
54
ADMINISTRATIVE
COUNTY
OF
NOTTINGHAM.
ESTIMATED d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e l o s s of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s a n d , t h e a g g r e g a t e l o s s of r a t e s
of all l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y , d u e t o t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t is
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d
Estimated : r a t e s (in pence p e r
Population i b e a d of p o p u l a t i o n
(1926).
of t h e County.)
i
1.
G a i n to t h e
County under
t h e scheme (in
pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
4.
Total G r a n t in aid
(in pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County.)
2.
3.
C o u n t y Council 195-2 75 per cent, of
total
in
Column 2
173-3
Borough
and
Urban District
Councils
... 31-2 F o r m u l a G r a n t —
On p o p u l a t i o n
w e i g h t e d for
Rural District
Councils
... 4-7
children and
r a t e a b l e v a l u e . . . 80-6
For
density
weighting
... 19-6
F o r unemploy­
m e n t weight­
ing
398,900
Total
...231-1
­
Total
100-2
273-5
42-4
B o r o u g h or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926^27.
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme b a d been
i n force.
Decrease.
5.
6.
7.
9.
Borpughs—
ICast Retford
M ansfield
Newark
s. d.
12 4 .
15 2
11 11
s.
14
14
14
Urban Districts-—
Arnold
Beeston
...
Carl tori
Eastwood
Hucknall
Tluthwaite
...
- ...
Kirkby-in-Ashfield ...
17 10
16 3
16 0
13 10
18 10
14 0
14 2
15 7
14 91
14 3
12 4
16 l i
13 l i
12 3 *
d.
s. d.
1 11
3
9i
01-
s.
d.
4i
-
...
...
2
1
1
1
2
3
5i
9
6
8i
101
1 10i
I n the case of the rural districts the poundage covers the whole of t h e
rates levied in 1926-27, with the exception of those then levied to meet purely
parochial charges. The excluded parochial rates ranged in different parishes
from about l i d . to about 5s. O^d.'
against the French view, which may be described as "total tonnage " ; but, while
supporting the principle, the United States did not commit themselves for or against
the precise classification proposed by us. Before the adjournment of the Preparatory
Commission in March 1927, the French went some way towards meeting the AngloAmerican thesis, by agreeing that there should be four classes, as against the nine
favoured by us. We were unable to accept this compromise as sufficient, the
Americans did not commit themselves one way or the other, while the Italians, who
had supported the original French proposal for total tonnage, expressed
dissatisfaction with the French compromise.
Under these circumstances, the
Preparatory Commission adjourned without accomplishing anything.
6. Then, a few months later, the Three-Power Conference was held, and
then, for the first time, the British Admiralty proposed to enlarge the system of
classification by sub-dividing cruisers into two classes: (a) Those of 10,000 tons,
armed with 8-inch guns; and (&). those of 7,500 tons, or under, armed with 6-inch
guns. This proposal seems to have surprised the Americans, who opposed it, though
not, so far as I can understand, on principle, since it did not infringe the principle
of Parity for which they were contending. Indeed, the principle of sub-division of
cruisers was accepted conditionally at the Conference both by Admiral Jones in the
Technical Committee, and by Mr. Gibson in the final Plenary Session. The ground
on which their objections were based was that our classification of cruisers precluded
the 8-inch gun on the smaller type of vessel, while the latter was too small for what
they deemed to be their requirements.
7. So the matter rested when the Assembly met in the autumn of 1927. I n
order to avoid having to acknowledge complete failure in the matter of Disarmament,
a Sub-Committee, called the Security Committee, was set up, the real though
unavowed purpose of which was to put off the evil day. This Security Committee
(which was practically identical with the Preparatory Committee) met last December
and again last March, and adopted a series of resolutions, model treaties, and so
forth, which, whether useful or not, have done nothing to assist the Preparatory
Commission towards agreement on Disarmament. The Preparatory Commission
itself also met last March, when my instructions were to obtain, if possible, a further
postponement of the whole question. . This was successfully accomplished mainly
because the French delegate and myself announced that, conversations had taken
place between our two Governments which might lead to some arrangement if time
were allowed for the purpose. The Committee was accordingly adjourned until
such time as the Chairman should have reason to believe that it could meet with the
prospect of useful results; but while giving this discretion to the Chairman, the
Committee expressed the hope that he would summon the Committee at all events
before the next Assembly, which will be early in September.
8. I t is important to note what were the conversations referred to in the last
paragraph. They took place in Paris in March between representatives of the British
and French Admiralties, and also (which is more important) between Sir Austen
Chamberlain and M. Briand in March and again in the present month.
The
proposals which the Foreign Secretary made to M. Briand are set out in column 4,
Table A, of the Admiralty Memorandum ( C P . 190 (28)), and these proposals, I
understand, the French would be willing to accept, only that M. Briand has
introduced a further formula for determining cruiser strength based upon the length
of communications between the home country and her Colonies and Dependencies.
This formula, which the F ench desire iii order to give them an advantage over Italy,
would, I think, clearly b unacceptable to the United States, since it would be
entirely at variance with the principle of Parity, and would, I think, therefore be a
dangerous one for us eithefr to propose or to support. The question, therefore, for
the present moment is whether we can persuade the French to accept the classification
contained in column 4 of the Admiralty table without reference to lines of
communication.
9. But, at this point, there is another question of very great importance which
is worth consideration. I n column 6 of the Table annexed to the Admiralty
Memorandum are set out " proposals for discussion with the United States." If
these proposals could be put forward, it would be seen how narrow has become the
difference between America and ourselves. We still propose two classes of cruisers,
but the smaller ship is now raised to 8,000 tons, and these smaller vessels may be
armed with 8-inch guns. This would seem to dispose of the main objection urged
NOTTINGHAM-(continued).
.'' ' Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
1
Borough or
District.
5.
6.
Urban Districts (contd.)Mansfield Woodhouse
Suttoii-in-Ashfield ...
Warsop
...
....
W e s t Bridgeford
Worksop
...
...
Rural
Districts— .
Basford
...
...
Bingham—
1. B i n g h a m Union
2. Melton Mowbray
Union
E a s t Retford—
l i Doncaster Union
2. E a s t
Retford
Union
Leake
Misterton
Newark
Skegby
Southwell
Stapleford
Worksop
7.
d.
0
15
15
11
14
20
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
Increase. Be crease.
8.
19.
s. d.
13 2
14 61
10 10J
.13 10
18 73
d.
10
I,
7
H
:
10 11 -
. 9
8
Si
9
It
74
9
l-i
9
n
04
11
64
7
9
1
1
8
7
14
- 9
7
2
&i .
m
1
7i
5J
1
8 10*
8 10i
8
8 10
8
m
8
8
9
9
9
10
n
n
ii
51
41
2i
6
1
9
2
81
3
5i
f
2i
4f
"'4ii
"ss
1 7
3 1H
d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e loss of e x i s t i n g ' g r a n t s a n d t h e a g g r e g a t e l o s s of r a t e s
of all l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y d u e to' t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t is
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
ESTIMATED
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d
r a t e s (in pence p e r
h e a d of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County.)
Gain t o t h e
County under
t h e scheme (in
pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
Total G r a n t in aid'
(in pence per h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
1
C o u n t y Council 267-1 75 p e r cent, of
total
in
Borough
and
Column 2
...
208-0
Urban District
Councils
7-1 F o r m u l a Grant:-—
On p o p u l a t i o n
w e i g h t e d for
Rural District
children and
Councils
3-1
r a t e a b l e value 72-6
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ... 42-1
F o r unemploy­
m e n t weight­
ing
Total
B o r o u g h or
District.
5.
Boroughs—
Bury St. E d m u n d s . . .
Sudbury—
St. Peter, &c.
Ballingdon
cum
Brandon
... 277-3
Total
114-7
322-7
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
Poundage
for 1926-27 if t h e
of r a t e s
scheme h a d been
for 1926-27.
in force.
6.
7.
8. d.
12 9
s.
12
d.
6£
20
3
19
7f
18 10
18
5j
45-4
I n c r e a s e . Decrease.
8.
s.
9.
d.
s,
d.
n
Urban
Districts—
3 8f
15 7
11 10i
Glemsford
Ha-dleigh—
No. 1 District
16 4
13 94
2 &i
No. 2 District
17 8
15 14
2 64
16 8
10
Haverhill
17 6
I n t h e case of t h e rural districts the poundage covers t h e whole of t h e
rates levied in 1926-27, with t h e exception of those then levied t o meet
purely parochial charges. The excluded parochial rates ranged in different
parishes from about id. to about 4s, Id.
[17804]
E
WEST
Estimated
Poundage
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
of r a t e s . for 1926-27 if t h e
for 1926-27. scheme had been
in force.
6.
7.
Borough or
District.
5.
Urban Districts
Newmarket—
Exning
Newmarket
Saints
S U F F O L K - (continued).
Increase. Decrease.
'
, ;
"8. '
9.
r
(contd.)—
All
Rural
Districts—
Brandon
Clare
Cosford
Melford
Mildenhall
Moulton
Thedwastre ...
Thingoe
15
8
17
15
0
16 l l f
12
14
13
13
8
14
16
13
Of
11
Of
2f
1
4*
4i
71
10
10
11
10
10
11
11
10
8f
10i
lOf
l
11*
8*
9i­
6
9f
2
Of
1 llf
1 9*
3 2
2 10
li
4
2
2
5f
:
2 3f
4 10*
2 6J
ESTIMATED d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e l o s s of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s , a n d t h e a g g r e g a t e l o s s of r a t e s
of A I R l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y d u e t o t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain p r o p e r t i e s .
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t i s
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
1
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d
r a t e s (in pence p e r
head of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
T o t a l G r a n t in a i d ]
(in pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
Gain to t h e
County under
t h e scheme (in
pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
2.
3.
4.
C o u n t y Council 90-41 75 p e r cent, of
in
total
Column 2
84-43
Borough
and
Urban District
Councils
20-65 F o r m u l a G r a n t : —
On p o p u l a t i o n
Rural District
w e i g h t e d for
children and
Councils
... 1 51
r a t e a b l e v a l u e 50-47
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ...
7-68
F o r unemploy­
ment weight­
ing
Total
112-57
58-15
Total
B o r o u g h or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
5.
6.
7.
Boroughs—
Godalming
Guildford
...
" ...
Kingston ­ upon Thames
....
Reigate
...
Richmond—
Kew
North Sheen
Petersham '
....
Richmond
Wimbledon
s.
d.
12
s.
1
2
8
1
1
11
2
. 1 0
1 0
1 0
1
9 4
9 3
9 7
8- 1
11
2
o
9
1
9.
d.
s.
-
I S
4
1 0
" " 2 3
7i
I I I
0
0
d. .
oj
:
3 '
S llj
1 1
s.
d.
0i
9.J
oj
I I
1
I n c r e a s e . Decrease.
8.
0
1
30-01
.. 142-58
4
7.1.
' 4
8
1 0 4
IS
0 i
In the case of t h e rural districts t h e poundage covers the whole of t h e
rates levied in 1926-27, with t h e exception of those then levied to meet purely
parochial charges. The excluded parochial rates ranged in different parishes
from about 2$d. to about 8s. 7$d.
­
[17804]
E2
Borough or
District.
Urban
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
Districts—'
Barnes —
Barnes
...
Mortlake
Beddington and
Wallington—
Beddington
Wallington
Carshalton
Caterham
Chertsey—
No. 1 Ward
No. 2 Ward
No. 3 Ward
Coulsdon and Purley—
Coulsdon
Sanderstead
Dorking
...
E a s t and W e s t Mole­
seyE a s t Molesey
West Molesey
...
Egham
Epsom
Esher and T h e DitEsher
tons—
Long Ditton
Thames Ditton
Famham
Frimley—
North Ward
South W a r d
Ham
Haslemere
Leatherhead
Merton and Morden—
Merton
Morden
Mitcham
Surbiton—
Hook
Surbiton
Tol worth ...
Sutton
The Maidens and
Coombe—
Coombe Maiden
New Maiden
Walton-upon-Thames
d.
s.
-
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
d.
s.
10
10
6
4
11
11
4i
1J
10
10
9
10
4
6
5
3
10
10
31
9
113
10
OS
13 7
12 11
11 11
12
12
11
9
10
9
10
10
Increase.
d.
s.
Decrease.
d.
s.
10-k
5
1
2i
10
10
10
1
1
1
3
8
9
6
11
11 0
12 2
12 2
9 11
11
12
11
10
10
6i
91"
6i
83
6i
34
'""*4
6f
OA
0
9
114
10 8
10 2
12 0
10
10
11
84
6
2f
9 5
9 4
10 5
11 7
9 3
9
9
11 10
12 6
14 9
H
114
3j
,
4
n
11
12
11
64
0a
"n
11
11
11 7
11 10
10 11
10 2
10 .93
H 0i
10 2 *
10 10a
11
9
1
3
11 0
11 0
11 0
8
6
6
21
2i
23
2i
21
5
i
i
53
83
9 llf
14
*
3
113
14
4
4
10
12
l
23
11
...
...
...
91
93
81
8i
Borough or
District.
5.
Estimated
P o u n d a g e p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
of r a t e s
scheme h a d been
for 1926-27.
i n force.
7.
6.
Urban Districts (contd.)— s. d.
9 8
Weybridge
Windlesham ...
11 10
Woking— .
Horsell
9 0
10 2
Woking
...
...
Rural
DistrictsOliertsey
Dorking
Epsom—
Epsom Union
Croydon Union
Farnham
Godstone
Guildford
Hambledon ;
Reigate
7 74
7 Hi
8 -2*
10 9 i
8 5f
7 8
8, 4f
:
Decrease.
8.
9.
s. d.
10 Oft
11 2
s.
9
10
:
6
6
N
Increase.
92.
92 .
3
3J
N
6 41
6 4-J
6 71
6 6i
5 111
6 0*
6 4$
d.
4
s.
i
d.
8
9:;
1
2
1
6
9i
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
3
6*
61
21
6
0
ESTIMATED d i s t r i b u t i o n of new- g r a n t in a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e l o s s of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s a n d . t h e a g g r e g a t e loss of r a t e s
of all; l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n ' t h e C o u n t y d u e t o t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t is
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
Estimated
Population
[(1926).
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d r a t e s (in pence p e r
h e a d of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
T o t a l G r a n t in aid
(in pence p e r head
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
1.
2.
3.
Gain to t i e
County under
t h e scheme (in
pence per head
of population
of t h e County).
4.
C o u n t y Council 239-10 75 p e r cent, of
total
in
Borough
and
Column 2
...
200-19
Urban District
Councils
...20-05 F o r m u l a G r a n t : —
On p o p u l a t i o n
w e i g h t e d for
Rural District
c h i l d r e n and
Council
..... 7-78
r a t e a b l e value 76-18
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ... 25-06
F o r unemploy­
ment weight­
ing
370-700
Total
...266-93
Total
­
...
101-24
301-43
34-50
*
B o r o u g h or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
Boroughs—
Leamington
Nuneaton
Stratford-on-Avon—
Neveston
Old Stratford
Within
Stratford-on-Avon ...
Sutton Coldfield
Warwick
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme had been
in force.
7.
s.
12
19
d.
8
6
if. 3.
13 Hi
16 lOf
13
2
14
12 0
12 6
10 8
13 4
13
13
12
14
Increase.
Decrease.
8.
9.
s.
1
d,
Si
3$
1
H
li
6
0i
6i
1
1
1
1
H
s.
d.
2
74
0
44
H
I n the case of the rural districts t h e poundage covers t h e whole of the
rates levied in 1926-27, with t h e exception of those then levied to m e e t purely
parochial charges. The excluded parochial rates ranged in different parishes
from about 2d. to about 6s. Oid.
Borough or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
Urban
Bulkington
Kenilworth
Bugby
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
i n force.
7.
Increase.
Decrease.
8.
9.
Districts-
Rural
Districts—
Aleester
Atherstone
...
Brailes—
Norton
Chipping
Union
Shipston on ­ Stour
Union
Coventry
Farnborough ...
Foleshill
Meriden
Monks Kirby
Nuneaton
Bugby
Solihull
Southam
Stratford-on-Avon
Tamworth (part)
Warwick
13
14
84
74
11
XI 71
9 9'i
9
9
01
12
8
15
1
2
1
2
1 2
2
1
0
1
9f
0-i
0
9
2
3
8
5
i
1 1
0 i
11
1
8 111
1 2
1 1 *
9
1
9
1
6
6f
3*
1 0
1
11
4 4
0
51
1
2
94
0
3
1 0
8 1 0
8 7
8 81
8 HI
9 6
8 1 0 4
8 84
8 10.1
9 11
8 1 1
9 74
8 9 4
1 0
2
' 114
l sj
0 3
1
1
2
1
4
6*
5i
0i
7
14
3
5
2
4 4
1
81
84­
1
0 4
distribution of new grant in aid as compared with the
aggregate loss of existing grants and the aggregate loss of rates
of all local authorities within the County due to the derating of
certain properties. The formula portion of the new grant is
calculated at 3 1 - 3 5 pence per head of weighted population.
ESTIMATED
Estimated
population
(1926).
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d
r a t e s (in pence per
h e a d of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
Total G r a n t in aid
(in pence p e r head
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
1.
2.
3.
C o u n t y Council 264-5
Borough
and
Urban District
Councils
... 29-6
Rural District
Councils
...
5-4
75 p e r cent., of
total
in
Column 2
Gain to the
County under
t h e scheme (in
pence per head
of population
of t h e County).
4.
224-6
Formula G r a n t On p o p u l a t i o n
weighted for.
children and
r a t e a b l e value 68-9
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ... 37-5
F o r ' unemploy­
ment weight-106-4
310,600
Total
Borough or
District.
299-5
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
Boroughs—
Calne
Chippenham—
Langley
Burrell
(Within)
Chippenham
(Within)
Devizes—
'St. J a m e s and T h e
Blessed
Virgin
Mary
Bawde Within
St.
John
the
Baptist
14
Total
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
4
14
12 10
13
13
4
a.
51
31-5
Increase. Decrease.
d
3b
d.
71,
13 11
12
11
11 11
11 6
11
-ateJlevLdln M V ^ S t h
mrely p a r o o h a l c h a r t s '
Th
331-0
8
11
P
8b
\ ? ^ I ^ s
the whole of the
exoeption f. those then levied t o meet
T
H
Borough or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
boroughs (contd.)—
JIalrnesbury—
St. Mary Westport
and T h e Abbey...
St. Paul ( W i t h i n )
Marlborough
Salisbury—
Old City
Added Area
Swindon
Wilton
Urban
Districts—
Bradford ion-Avon
...
Melksham
Trowbridge ...
...
Warminster ...
...
^estbury
12 10
13 0
14 4
12 0
12 7
Rural Districts—
Amesbury
Bradford-on-Avon
Cahie
Chippenham :..
.r.
Cricklade and Woot­
ton Bassett
Devizes
Highworth
Malmesbury ... *
Maiiborough ...
Melksham
Mere
Pewsey
Ramsbury
Salisbury
...
...
Tetbury
Tisbury
Warminster
Westbury and Whor­
wellsdown ...
Wilton
s.
d.
11
11
13
4
8
4
11
10
14
12
N
8
9
1 0
9
9
5 4
0 4
8
1 0
9
5
9 4
2 f
1 1
41
1 1
4 4
- 1 0
0 4
8 Hl
1 0
9
8
7 4
1 0 4
3f
6
9.
s.
d.
a", d.
44
2*
5 4
54
5
2
94
LI
5f
9f
7*
0 4
li
If
91
0*
1
2
8
8
8
8
2
8
(8
8
8
8
2
8.
8 1
8 1
8 2f
-8 Of
8
0 4
Increase. Decrease.
11
4
11 10-114 7*
12
13
14
12
13
1 4
5 4
d.
11 64
11 3£
15 1
12 11
9
1 0
1 0
8
8
9
1 1
9
s.
1
li
li
3f
1 1
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
in force.
7.
2f
5f
If
4
2f
8*
If
4
2
0
1
1
04­
8
24
11*
1 0 4
74
2
4
64
3f
7 4
1 lOf
4
2
10
'5i
2
11
8
8
8
1
3
8
8
6f
5£
4
1
l
0
1 0 4
2
44
1
34
4
ESTIMATED d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e loss of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s a n d t h e a g g r e g a t e l o s s of r a t e s
of all l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y d u e t o t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t is
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
Estimated
Population
(1926). ,
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s and
r a t e s (in pence per
h e a d of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
T o t a l G r a n t in a i d
(in pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
1.
2.
3.
C o u n t y Council 196-7
Borough
and
Urban District
Councils
... 15-0
Rural District
Councils
...
2-5
Gain to the
County under
t h e scheme (in
pence per heai
of population
of t h e County)
4.
75 p e r cent, of
total
in
Column 2
...
160-6
Formula Grant:—
On p o p u l a t i o n
w e i g h t e d for
children and
r a t e a b l e v a l u e 64-1
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ... 34-3
For unemploy­
ment weight­
ing
119,810
Total
...
214-2
Total
...
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
5.
6.
Boroughs—
Bangor...
C a e r n a r v o n ...
Conway—
P a r i s h of Conway...
P a r i s h of Gyffin ...
P a r i s h of L l a n r h o s
Pwllheli
s. d.
17 6
17 10
s. d.
15 8 i "
13 7J ­
12 9
13 7
13 0
15 4
13 11* .
14 74
14 5
14 l l f
15 0
11 5
14 10
11 4
11 34
11 61
13 7 i
13 7
98-4
44-8
259-0
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
i n force.
7.
B o r o u g h or
District.
Urban
Districts—
Bethesda
Bettws-y-coed
Criccieth '
...
Llandudno
­
I.
I n c r e a s e . Deere ase
9.
8.
s.
d.
1
1
1
2*
04
5"
0"'"lf
2"3
s. d.
1 9f
4 24
0
4i
3
84
1
2f
I n t h e case of t h e r u r a l d i s t r i c t s t h e p o u n d a g e covers t h e whole of the
r a t e s levied in 1926-27, with t h e exception of those t h e n levied to meet
p u r e l y p a r o c h i a l charges. The excluded p a r o c h i a l r a t e s r a n g e d in different
p a r i s h e s from a b o u t id. to a b o u t 3s. 8Jd.
B o r o u g h or
District.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
6.
Urban Districts (contd.)— 4-. d.
Llanfairfechan
...
16 10
Penmaenmawr
...
15 4
Portmadoc
14 10
liural
Districts—
Conway
Geirionydd ...
...
Glaslyn...
Gwyrfai
Lleyn
...
Ogwen
9 2J
9 5
9 10J
13 4f
10 4&
10 9f
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
i n force.
' I
Increase.
Decrease.
.7..V '
s. d.
14 11
17
li
13 2
8 7i
8 2f
8 41
7 11
7 lOf
8 3
i.
d.
l"'9l
d.
1 11
SI
7
2i
6
51
5f
61
ADMINISTRATIVE
COUNTY
OF
MONMOUTH.
ESTIMATED d i s t r i b u t i o n of n e w g r a n t i n a i d a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e
a g g r e g a t e loss of e x i s t i n g g r a n t s a n d t h e a g g r e g a t e l o s s of r a t e s
of a l l l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h i n t h e C o u n t y d u e t o t h e d e r a t i n g of
certain properties.
T h e f o r m u l a p o r t i o n of t h e n e w g r a n t is
c a l c u l a t e d a t 3 1 - 3 5 p e n c e p e r h e a d of w e i g h t e d p o p u l a t i o n .
Estimated
Population
(1926).
Estimated aggregate
loss of g r a n t s a n d
r a t e s (in pence p e r
h e a d of p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e County).
T o t a l G r a n t in aid
(in pence p e r h e a d
of p o p u l a t i o n of
t h e County).
1.
2. .
3.
C o u n t y Council 189-0
Borough
and
Urban District
Councils
... 54-4
Rural District
Councils
...
1-4
75 per cent, of
total
in
Column 2
...
G a i n to the
C o u n t y under
t h e scheme (in
pence per head
of population
of t h e County).
4.
183-6
Formula Grant—
On p o p u l a t i o n
w e i g h t e d for
children and
r a t e a b l e value 92 - 3
For
density
w e i g h t i n g ... 20-4
For unemploy­
ment weight­
ing
26-9
372,410
372,410
Total
B o r o u g h or
District.
...244-8
Urban
Districts—
Abercarn
Abersychan
Abertillery—
Abertillery
L l a n h i l l e t h ...
Bedwas a n d Machen—
Bedwas
Machen, U p p e r
...
ated
P o u n d a g e p o u nEdsatgi m
e of r a t e s
of r a t e s
1926-27 if t h e
for 1926-27. for
scheme h a d been
i n force.
5.
Boroughs—
Abergavenny
Monmouth
Total
6.
''
:
7.
139-6
78-4
78- 4
323-2
Increase.
Decrease.
8.
9.
d.
4
8
s. d.
14 2 i
14 ?
15
15
6
9
14
12
51
1
3
0i
li
20
20
0
4
17
18
9
2
1
8J
7
19
21
8
18
19
3i
1 4f
1 10i
s
-
4
5
n
3i
51
s.
d.
s. d.
l
u
2 21
15
16
I n t h e case of t h e r u r a l d i s t r i c t s t h e p o u n d a g e covers t h e whole of t h e
r a t e s levied in 1826-27, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of those t h e n levied to m e e t purely
p a r o c h i a l charges. The excluded p a r o c h i a l r a t e s r a n g e d in different parishes
from a b o u t 2Jd. t o a b o u t 3s. l i d .
B o r o u g h or
District.
5.
Boroughs (contd.)­
Bcdwellty—
Rhymney Valley ...
Sirhowy Valley
...
Blaenavon
Caerleon
Chepstow
Ebbw V a l e ­
Ebbw V a l e
Beaufort
Rassa
...
llanfrechfa U p p e r ...
Llantarnam—
Inner D i s t r i c t
Outer District
Mynyddislwyn
Nantyglo a n d B l a i n a
PantegPanteg and
Griffithstown
Llanvihangel—
Pontymael
Pontypool
Rhymney—
Llechryd
Rhymney
Risca
Tredegar—
Dukestown
Tredegar
Usk
Rural
Districts—
Abergavenny ...
Chepstow
1
Magor
Monmouth
Pontypool
St. Mellons
Estimated
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
i n force.
- 7.
Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
6 .
s.
a.
s.
22 3
20 1
16 6
10 11
14 4
6
11
11
19
14
12 H i
11
15
5J
2
20 0
19 0
17 10
10
12
16
5f
04
94
21 0
17 2
9 4
15 I f
13 H i
10 14
21
1
1
1 1
2
2 7
1 8
2
4
1
f 9
9
9
9
9
8i
94
94
5f
9
1 0
0 4
2i
4
114
2 Of
2 Of
1
9f
4
6
4
5
5
3
24
0
7
0
2
1 0
5i
12
15
0
8 4
5 4
13
1 1
9.
d.
14 7f
14 8f
11 10f
13 6
13 6
21 0
18 6
9
8.
19 64
17 44
14 4"
10 1 "
15 14
*14 8
19 10
20 0
13 10
1
I n c r e a s e . Decrease.
3
114
6t
9 6i
6 114
1
04
5
3
f
2
3
1
1
1
5
li
11
If
1
2
2
0
24
* Ebbw V a l e , Col. 6.—This r a t e a p p e a r s to h a v e been seriously deficient,
and consequently t h e r a t e u n d e r t h e scheme c a n n o t be s t a t e d .
i
i
58
ADMINISTRATIVE
ESTIMATED
Estimated
population
(middle of
1926).
COUNTY
LONDON.
distribution of grant in aid as compared with the
estimated loss of grants and rates for 1926- 27.
Rateable v a l u e
per head of
; E s t i m a t e d a g g r e g a t e loss of
population of
grants a n d rates (in p e n c e
t h e County
per h e a d of population of
after derating
t h e County).
is i n operation.
1.
OF
2.
Total grant in aid (in pence
per head of population
oF t h e County).
3.
Gain to the
County under
t h e scheme
(in pence per
head of
population oi
t h e County).
5.
i.
C o u n t y Council 143*6 C o u n t y Council
75 p e r cent, of
loss
...
...107-7
F o r m u l a g r a n t . . . 35-8
B o r o u g h Councils 62*4 B o r o u g h Councils
75 p e r cent, of
loss
46-8
F o r m u l a g r a n t . . . 20-8
4,615,400
211-1
206-0
£11-3
Metropolitan
Borough.
! Poundage
of r a t e s
for 1926-27.
Estimated '
p o u n d a g e of r a t e s
for 1926-27 if t h e
scheme h a d been
i n force.
6.
7.
8.
Battersea
B e r m o n d s e y ...
Bethnal Green
Camberwell
Chelsea ...
Deptford
Finsbury
Fulham
Greenwich
Hackney
Hammersmith
Hampstead
Holborn
Islington
Kensington
Lambeth
Lewisham
Paddington
Poplar
S t . Marylebone
St. Pancras
Shoreditch
Southwark
Stepney
Stoke Newington
W a n d s w o r t h ...
W e s t m i n s t e r ...
Woolwich
C i t y of L o n d o n
.. av.
.. av.
.. av.
.. av.
.. .
.. av.
s.
13
18
22
13
10
15
10
10
13
11
11
10
10
10
10
11
11
10
25
9
10
14
15
19
11
11
9
13
9
d.
4
7
0 .
4
6
0
5
8
11
11
11
10
0i
9
1
5
8
10
0
9
10
0
6i
0i
7
7
6
6
2
av.
av.
av.
av.
av.
s.
14
15
15
12
11
13
11
11
12
12
12
11
10
11
10
11
11
11
17
10
11
13
12
14
11
12
10
13
9
:
d.
li
l
Oi
3
Of
2i
0i
2f
Of
4
3i
7i
41
Hi
Hi
10J
9i
3J
7
5
5i
6i
2i
Hi
lOi
0
li
0i
9f
. . ;
- 5-1
Increase. Decrease.
9.
s.
d.
9i
"'6f
.
"74
6f
"5.
4i.
9i
4i
1 2i
10J
5i
if
5f
"8
7i
"'3i
5
"7a
10.
s.
d.
3 6
6 Hi
1 1
1
9f
1 10i
7
5
3
4
5*
4
1
5f