§ Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the Audit Commission report 1984 on Basildon district council; what was the cost to public funds; and how this compared with the scale fee prescribed for an assignment of this size and nature.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe report was carried out by the commission at the invitation of the district council, and its cost is a matter for the bodies concerned. I understand that, since it was a pilot study, the report's staff costs were borne by the commission, and the council met only expenses and publication costs. The prescribed scale fees relate to statutory audits of local authority accounts, not to special studies of this nature.
§ Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the conclusions of the Audit Commission in its 1984 report on Basildon district council as to the efficiency of the administration of the council and as to its spending in purely discretionary areas; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe main conclusions of the report are that whereas Basildon's service provision is in general rather more efficient than the average, the council also spends much more than the average because it provides a much higher level of certain services that the average district, and provides some services that shire districts do not normally provide at all. It also has much higher administrative and overhead costs in some areas than the average. I conclude that Basildon council, which is budgeting this year to overspend its grant-related expenditure assessment by 70 per cent. and the Government's expenditure guidance by 17 per cent., has ample scope to make the savings required by rate limitation without affecting essential services.