I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree with him, because the concept of Government offices was to provide a one-stop shop for the far-flung regions of the country to save them an unnecessary trip to the capital to engage with representatives of different Departments. That makes a lot of sense in places such as the north-west, the north-east and even where I hail from, the west midlands, but for London it is difficult to understand.
Furthermore, we learn that the Government are eager to install parish councils across the capital. There are already a host of thriving residents’ associations, properly constituted, and societies across London. They have rights to consultation with borough councils and are highly regarded by the communities they serve. Why do the Government want to bureaucratise and politicise those voluntary bodies? Is it because they are beyond the reach of the Standards Board? Alternatively, is it because, by going down the parish route, Londoners can be hit with a precept on their council tax, which is not currently the case? If so, Londoners will have to budget hard over the next few years if they are to meet the combined cost of a looming revaluation, a levy for the Olympics and now a precept for parishes.
Communities and Local Government/Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Proceeding contribution from
Caroline Spelman
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 20 November 2006.
It occurred during Queen's speech debate on Communities and Local Government/Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
453 c274 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:27:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_359666
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_359666
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_359666