§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why he has not asked management consultants to consider the Government's proposed new structure for local government in London;
(2) why Her Majesty's Government do not propose to carry out any value-for-money studies on their proposed new structure for local government in London in the event of the abolition of the Greater London council.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI do not need to employ consultants to tell me that removing an unnecessary tier of local government is bound to result in better value for money.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much of the Government's estimates of savings in the event of the abolition of the Greater London council and metropolitan councils in cash and percentage terms, is accounted for by (a) assumptions about the relative levels of provision of services before and after abolition, (b) assumptions about the relative level of efficiency- in the provision of services before and after abolition and (c) assumptions about the relative economics of scale in the provision of services before and after abolition;
(2) what account he has taken in assessing the costs and savings arising from abolition of the Greater London council of the costs arising from changes required in the communications between London boroughs consequent on the functions which would be transferred on abolition.
§ Mr. WaldegraveI refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25 October at column704.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds have been available to grant-aid the restoration of historic buildings in Greater London through town schemes over the past four years; and whether steps will be taken to ensure the effective continuation of such schemes if the Greater London council is abolished.
§ Sir George YoungThere are currently six town schemes in Greater London. The local authority 935W contribution was matched by my Department until 1 April 1984, when the Historic Buildings and Monuments
Department of the Environment Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission 1981–82 £ 1982–83 £ 1983–84 £ 1984–85 £ Borough of Camden Charlotte Street — 15,000 15,000 15,000 Fitzroy Square — 5,000 5,000 5,000 Rugby Estate — — — 100,000 Borough of Greenwich Greenwich 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Borough of Haringey North Tottenham — 20,000 20,000 20,000 Borough of Tower Hamlets Spitalfields 25,000 45,000 45,000 55,000 On the abolition of the Greater London council I would expect the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to continue to support these schemes in cooperation with the London boroughs.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following the abolition of the Greater London council, he will impose an obligation on the Lee Valley regional park authority to consult representatives of London's industrial and commercial ratepayers before setting its precept.
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe London boroughs who will contribute to the financing of the Lee Valley regional park will themselves be subject to the duty to consult their industrial and commercial ratepayers about their expenditure.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set down the way in which he proposes to treat the rate-capped expenditure of the Greater London council once it is transferred to successor bodies if the Greater London council is abolished.
§ Mr. WaldegraveDetails of the financial arrangements for transfer of functions from the Greater London council to successor bodies are currently the subject of discussions between officials in my Department and representatives of the local authority associations. The designation of the Greater London council under the Rates Act 1984 for limitation of its precept in 1985–86 is not relevant to these discussions.
§ Mr. Tony Banksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any information as to whether the London boroughs propose to continue the London marathon, South Bank weekend, the Greater London horse show and the Easter parade should the Greater London council be abolished.
§ Mr. Macfarlane[pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1984, c. 746]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary answering in respect of the Arts, on 27 July at column 856.
In the case of the London marathon, it will be for the marathon's independent organising committee to seek the continued co-operation of the boroughs concerned. My
936WCommission took over this responsibility. The amount contributed by my Department or by the Commission is as follows:
Department will continue to offer whatever help is needed to the organising committee so that London can continue to enjoy this successful and popular event.