Local Government Reorganisation (Hansard, 16 May 1995)

§ Mr. Frank Cook
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which former county boroughs in existence immediately prior to the 1974 local government reorganisation will have their area divided between two or more unitary authorities as a result of proposals from the Local Government Commission. [23683]

§ Mr. Curry
The area which, between 1968 and 1974, comprised the county borough of Teesside will, from 1 April 1996, constitute parts of the unitary authorities of Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 30 March to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)Official Report, columns 731–33, what local government structure existed in the Stockton and Langbaurgh areas immediately prior to the local government reorganisation of 1974. [23685]

§ Mr. Curry
The present district of Stockton-on-Tees is made up of parts of the county borough of Teesside—the Billingham East, Billingham West, Grangefield, Hartburn, Mile House, North End, Norton, Stockton South, Thornaby East and Thornaby West wards—the administrative county of Durham, part of the rural district of Stockton and the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding, part of the rural district of Stokesley.
The present district of Langbaurgh-on-Tees is made up of parts of the county borough of Teesside—the Coatham, Eston Grange, Kirkleatham, Ormesby, Redcar and South Bank wards—and the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding—the urban districts of Guisborough, Loftus, Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea and Skelton and Brotton.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date and from whom he received a copy of the opinion of the Audit Commission on the Local Government Commission's review of the Cleveland and Durham area and if that opinion included the relevant appendices. [23687]

§ Mr. Curry
A copy of the opinion provided by the Audit Commission to the Local Government Commission in respect of the report containing the latter's draft recommendations for Cleveland and Durham was sent to my Department by the Local Government Commission in November 1993. It included three appendices.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 30 March to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike),Official Report, columns 731–33, when Middlesbrough ceased to be a county borough council; and what local government structure existed in that area between that date and the subsequent local government reorganisation of 1974. [23684]

§ Mr. Curry
The area of the county borough of Middlesbrough became part of the county borough of178W Teesside on 1 April 1968, and remained so until 1 April 1974.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps were taken to ensure that hon. Members were made fully aware, prior to the debate on the Cleveland Structural Change Order, of the view of the Audit Commission on the Local Government Commission's estimates of transitional costs which would result from the proposals for local government change in the Cleveland area. [23686]

§ Mr. Curry
The Local Government Commission has made available for public inspection all written opinions and other representations it received in response to its draft recommendations for Cleveland and Durham. It also summarised them in its final report for the area. There was no Audit Commission opinion submitted in relation to the estimates of transitional costs set out in that final report.

§ Mr. Frank Cook
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when he tabled the Cleveland Structural Change Order before the House, he was aware of the view of the Audit Commission on the Local Government Commission's estimates of transitional costs which would be incurred as a result of the order and the views of both the Local Government Commission itself and its financial advisers Ernst and Young on the relative costs of a unitary structure of the kind proposed in the order and the present two-tier local government structure. [23688]

§ Mr. Curry
When we took our decisions on local government structure in Cleveland, we had before us the estimates of costs and savings contained in the Local Government Commission's report on its draft recommendations for Cleveland and Durham, and the written opinion of the Audit Commission on those estimates. We also had the revised estimates contained in the Local Government Commission's final report for Cleveland and Durham, and the financial appraisal—based on the financial model developed by the Local Government Commission with Ernst and Young—on which those revised estimates were based.