- 85 -
capita criteria 4.2.2.3 to 4.2.2.7 and therefore not need separate
consideration.
4.3
Analysing the Diocesan Share
The next stage was to take the total sum of the share and separate
it into homogeneous units. For the immediate purpose it was found
convenient to do this on the basis of the 1976 accounts and the
initial grouping is shown in Figure 5. This provides four major,
six intermediate, and twenty-four minor divisions, although many of
the latter, while technically differentiable, are so small as to
hardly merit separate treatment. This is a shortcoming, since, as
will be shown in paragraph 4.6, some of the benefits of a formula
allocation can be derived only when that formula contains a reasonable
number of approximately equal parts. And the handicap was reinforced
when the discussion group fairly quickly decided that their preferred
division would be into only two parts: first the whole of that group
labelled 'Ministry' and totalling some 67 per cent of the gross share;
and second all the remainder, to be called 'Other' and accounting for
the remaining 33 per cent. That having been decided the final stage
was to adopt criteria appropriate to each division.
4.4
Allocating Criteria to Share Divisions
If consensus had been quickly and easily reached on the analysis
of the accounts it was to prove impossible to reach on the allocation
of criteria to those divisions. The divergent points of view whose
existence had been the reason for convening the group meetings are,
it would seem, not only wide, but deeper than had at first been
realised. There was a tendency to hanker after criteria which had
not passed all three tests - particularly some which had not been
brought forward from the last round not because they had actually
failed a test, but only because they had not achieved consensus. And
