§ Mr. Raymond Ellisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received that section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972 be amended to prevent parochial church councils from being able to divest themselves of responsibility for the maintenance of closed churchyards unless they have properly maintained them in the past; whether he proposes to take action upon those representations; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what representations he has received that the cost incurred by local authorities in repairing and maintaining closed churchyards should be specifically allowed for in local authorities' grant-related expenditures or should alternatively be the subject of a specific grant; whether he proposes to take action upon those representations; and if he will make a statement;
(3) in view of the fact that expenditure incurred by local authorities on repairing and maintaining closed churchyards, responsibility for which has been transferred to them from parochial church councils, is not specifically included within the indicators for arriving at a local authority's grant-related expenditure, if he will in future include such specific provision so as fully to reflect the 364W expenditure incurred by local authorities in complying with their statutory duties under section 215(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1972.
§ Mr. KingRepresentations in support of these proposals have been received from North East Derbyshire district council and 29 other district councils.
I do not propose to make radical changes to the long standing arrangements for transferring the maintenance of closed churchyards to the local secular authorities. But I hope that parochial church councils can be persuaded by the Church authorities to give councils longer notice of their wishes in this respect, and I do not rule out, in the final resort, the possibility of amending section 215 formally to provide that longer notice is given.
It would not be appropriate to incorporate a special provision in grant-related expenditures for the costs to authorities of maintaining such churchyards. The formula already incorporates extensive provisions to reflect the differing responsibilities and circumstances of authorities for larger items of their expenditure. To go into much greater detail to deal with small items of expenditure would not be justified.
Nor would it be appropriate to make such maintenance expenditure the subject of a specific grant. Within overall expenditure limits, the Government's policy is to leave local authorities with the greatest possible freedom to choose how they spend their revenue. I see no reason to earmark grant revenue to this particular category of expenditure.