§ 4. Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to publish any further analysis of the responses he has received to Cmnd. 9063, "Streamlining the Cities".
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinNo.
§ 12. Mr. Patchettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans any further changes in the proposed arrangements to replace the metropolitan county councils announced since publication of Cmnd. 9063.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinI announced a number of decisions on 11 April and 4 May following consultation on the White Paper. Further announcements on some other matters will be made in due course.
§ 41. Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish, in advance of any further legislative proposals, updated and detailed estimates of the costs or savings for public expenditure of his proposal to implement Cmnd. 9063.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI refer the hon. Member to the undertaking I gave during the Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill on 11 April, at column 414, to keep Parliament fully informed on this aspect of our proposals.
§ 45. Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to discuss the proposals contained in Cmnd. 9063, "Streamlining the Cities".
§ Mr. WaldegraveI met representatives of the council on 4 May.
§ 46. Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if there has been any recent change in the number of officials in his Department engaged in considering and evaluating the financial costs or savings for public expenditure of his proposals to implement Cmnd. 9063, "Streamlining the Cities".
§ Mr. WaldegraveNo.
§ 50. Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has replied to the submission by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on White Paper, Cmnd. 9063 and to its request for a detailed breakdown of savings which would be made in the event of the implementation of that White Paper.
§ Mr. WaldegraveMy right hon. Friend met the association on 11 May and explained that detailed estimates of savings from abolition must await decisions by the successor authorities on precisely how they will discharge their new responsibilities.
493W
§ 54. Mr. Snapeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many deputations he has met in connection with his proposals to abolish the metropolitan county councils.
§ Mr. WaldegraveMy ministerial colleagues in my Department and I have met several deputations to discuss various aspects of our abolition proposals and other local government issues.
§ 59. Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to decide whether to commission an independent report before bringing the Bill to abolish the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils before the House.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI remain of the view that such a report is unnecessary.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the London borough councils counted as being in favour of the proposal and those counted as being against the proposal in table 4 (Housing) of part II of the report of the consultation on "Streamlining the Cities", Cmnd. 9063.
§ Sir George Young[pursuant to the reply, 7 June 1984,c. 248]: Six boroughs commented favourably on the specific proposal:
Enfield, Havering, Hillingdon, Kingston, Redbridge, Wandsworth.Nine boroughs recorded that they were opposed to this specific proposal:
Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark.Tower Hamlets commented but did not express an overall view.
In addition, 12 boroughs commented on particular housing issues and indicated their general views on abolition as follows:
- 10 boroughs in favour—
- Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Kensington and Chelsea, Merton, Sutton, Westminster.
- Two boroughs against—
- Richmond, Waltham Forest.
I am arranging for the figures in table 4 to be corrected.