| Previous Section | Home Page |
Agencies (Complaints)
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy, when dealing with letters of complaint about agencies within his responsibility, on passing the letters to the relevant agency for reply ;
Column 101
and how this policy was put into effect in respect of the letter of 10 December 1990 from the chairman of Coventry's environmental services committee.Mr. Trippier : The policy in regard to dealing with complaints about an executive agency is decided on its merits when drawing up the particular agency's policy and resources framework document. Generally we encourage direct contact with the chief executive on matters of day-to-day agency operation, but Ministers will deal with cases raising questions of policy direction or resource allocation and where a Member of Parliament specifically seeks a reply. However, the policy is not relevant to the handling of the letter of 10 December 1990 since HM inspectorate of pollution is not yet an agency.
Homefire Plant, Coventry
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations have been made to his Department about the Homefire plant in Coventry by local residents and Coventry city council ; and what response has been made ;
(2) whether he will visit the Homefire plant in Coventry to discuss pollution and its regulation.
Mr. Trippier : The Homefire plant at Coventry is regulated by HM inspectorate of pollution and is regularly visited by one of its inspectors. I therefore have no plans to visit the plant. The inspectorate is aware that emissions from the plant are a problem and has issued an improvement notice requiring improvements to be made by 30 June 1991.
A number of representations have been received, in particular that from Coventry city council on HMIP's recent extension to June 1991 of the deadline for compliance with the improvement notice. Detailed replies have been given, for example on the need to use equipment not readily available as off-the-shelf units and on the impact of a decision to abandon a proposal to utilise the chosen abatement system for electricity generation following changes in the electricity industry.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an internal inquiry into the handling of the case of the Homefire plant, Coventry by the Central Pollution Agency.
Local Government Finance
Mr. Nellist : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the allowance for losses in collection of non-domestic rates, referred to in note 1 of the letter referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) of 24 January, Official Report, column 267, was calculated ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Key : The allowances for losses in collection of non-domestic rates for 1990-91 were those used in the calculation of each authority's provisional contribution to the non-domestic rates pool. They were calculated as an appropriate percentage of net yield. These percentages were :
Column 102
|Per cent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Inner London boroughs and City of London |0.45
Outer London boroughs and Metropolitan districts |0.40
Shire districts and the Isles of Scilly |0.20
These percentages were agreed with the local authority associations and were based on an analysis of the proportion of total rate yield lost to absconders and bankruptcies, using data provided by CIPFA, over the period 1986-87 to 1988-89.
Mr. Nellist : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has as to which councils have sent poll tax demands to troops in the Gulf ; whether any of those demands have subsequently been withdrawn ; what further advice he has offered to the local authorities concerned ; and if he will make a statement ; (2) how many authorities have sought to enforce payment of outstanding poll tax against armed forces personnel and reservists serving in the Gulf prior to his advice issued to local authorities on 5 November 1990, and how many after ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Key : Information on actions taken by authorities in such cases is not held centrally. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 29 January, we propose shortly to issue further guidance to take account of developments since November.
Mr. Madden : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory provisions relating to the power of local authorities and/or community charge registrars to exempt from the poll tax those serving in British forces in the Gulf, or civilians who are supporting the military directly, whose main residence is in Britain ; and whether he has any plans to compensate authorities which make such exemptions.
Mr. Portillo [holding answer 31 January 1991] : The Government's policy is that no one posted to the Gulf should as a result be worse off financially. However, there are no specific powers to exempt these people from the community charge. Section 2 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 states that people will be liable to the personal community charge of the charging authority in whose area they have their sole or main residence. It is for community charge registration officers (CCROs), subject to appeal to the valuation and community charge tribunal, to determine whether a person who is posted to the Gulf has changed his sole or main residence and consequently whether his liability for the personal community charge should cease. We issued advice to community charge registration officers on 5 November 1990 on the treatment of such cases, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 29 January, we propose shortly to issue further guidance to take account of developments since November.
As for the financial consequences for authorities, the existing arrangements should be adequate to allow for the temporary absence of service men and the normal rotation of units. We are considering representations from a number of authorities which have been particularly affected in the present circumstances because of the large numbers of service men normally resident in their area.
Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list of the
Column 103
names of those local authorities which are refusing to use their discretion to give service men and service women on active service in the middle east exemption from the community charge for the period of that service.Mr. Key [holding answer 4 February 1991] : It is for every community charge registration officer (CCRO), subject to appeal to the valuation and community charge tribunal, to determine whether a service man, including an auxiliary or territorial, or a civilian who is posted to the Gulf has changed his sole or main residence and consequently whether his liability for the personal community charge should cease. Information on the decisions made by community charge registration officers in these cases is not held centrally.
Refuse-derived Fuel
Mr. Bellingham : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, in preparation of the Environment Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991, he will consider making refuse-derived fuel combustion a schedule B process in any boiler up to 50 MW ;
(2) what consideration he has given, or intends to give, to the categorisation of refuse-derived fuel combustion as a schedule B process in boilers using (a) 0 to 3 tonnes per hour and (b) 3 to 6 tonnes per hour.
Mr. Trippier : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 25 January at column 329 .
Mr. Colvin : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside on 21 January, Official Report , column 87 , he will list, specifically and separately, the types of derogation his Department currently intends to seek once the power to derogate for plant burning refuse-derived fuel has been included in regulations ; and if it is his intention to include specific derogations.
Mr. Baldry : As I said in my reply on 21 January at column 87 , regulations to implement the EC directive on municipal waste incineration will include powers to derogate for plant burning refuse-derived fuels which will be complemented by specific guidance from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. These are currently being considered and will be subject to consultation in due course.
Sport
Mr. Pendry : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the recommendations of the Minister for Sport's review group on sport and active recreation provision in the inner cities which required action by his Department setting out what action has been taken to implement each recommendation, and the reasons where they have not been implemented in full ; and what further action he intends to take.
Mr. Key : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.
Column 104
Environmental Protection Regulations
Mr. Lawrence : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has concluded the preparation of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991.
Mr. Trippier : Consultations on the draft regulations are now complete. My right hon. Friend will be making the regulations, taking into account the outcome of the consultations as soon as possible.
Essex Structure Plan
Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decision in respect of the Essex structure plan first alteration submitted to him in July 1987 ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Yeo : We expect to issue the final approval of the first alteration to the Essex structure plan in March this year.
Union Flag
Mr. Burns : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislative proposals to prevent all local authorities from banning the display of the union flag on local authority property, vehicles or businesses that operate under the issuing of a licence from a local authority ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Key : No : a local authority is answerable to its electors for such decisions. I am sure that the electors will take note of decisions of which they disapprove.
Council House Sales
Mr. Favell : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the results of the most recent survey of right-to-buy performance in London ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Yeo : The most recent survey of London's right-to-buy performance was carried out in September last year. The tables show that boroughs had failed to issue 4,356 notices (RTB2 and section 125) within the statutory time limits. This compares with a figure of 13,280 for September 1989.
In addition to this exercise for the whole of London, the Department has been receiving monthly reports from 12 boroughs which have been regularly monitored because their performance has, in the past, been exceptionally poor. Delays in notices in these boroughs have fallen by more than 75 per cent. since March 1989, but two boroughs, Lambeth and Hackney, now account for nearly two thirds of the 3,712 cases outstanding. Indeed, these two boroughs account for well over one half of all cases outstanding in London.
During the course of the September survey my Department also collected information on the working of the tenants' sanction measures introduced in March 1989, which allow tenants to have rent counted as advance payment towards the purchase of their home if sale is delayed. The reports of the use of sanctions show that 15 boroughs received no notices of delay, but that the sanctions are being used extensively in boroughs where the number of outstanding cases is high. In September 1990,
Column 105
202 notices were served, including 104 in Lambeth. There were 626 outstanding notices at the end of that month, 393 of which were in Hackney.I am pleased to see that fewer tenants are now experiencing unjustified delays when they apply to buy their homes. Because of the significant improvements in most monitored boroughs I have decided that monthly monitoring should provisionally cease for Brent, Camden, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. Monitoring will continue for Lambeth and Hackney and I shall also continue to look closely at the effect of tenants' sanctions on the performance of these boroughs.
Column 106
The scope of monitoring will be reviewed in September when the Department will again collect statistics for all London boroughs. I shall be looking carefully to see whether recent improvements in performance are being sustained, and I will if necessary consider re- introducing monthly monitoring for boroughs whose performance slips.In the meantime, I urge Lambeth and Hackney to take the measures that are urgently needed to improve their deplorable performance on right to buy, to safeguard the rights of their tenants and to avoid the costs that they will increasingly incur under tenant sanction provisions.
Column 105
Right to buy monitoring
Table A-RTB2 and section 125 defaults (total)
|March 1989 |September 1989|March 1990 |September 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitored boroughs
Brent |1,929 |1,263 |464 |172
Camden |2,616 |674 |352 |192
Hackney |2,370 |2,043 |1,064 |708
Haringey |254 |128 |133 |40
Hounslow |933 |909 |419 |92
Islington |501 |293 |244 |167
Lambeth |2,067 |2,984 |3,124 |1,739
Lewisham |1,293 |526 |173 |106
Newham |1,425 |720 |<3>249 |146
Richmond |n/a |35 |35 |49
Southwark |2,069 |1,462 |564 |295
Tower Hamlets |0 |0 |84 |6
|---- |---- |---- |----
Total |15,457 |11,037 |6,905 |3,712
Non-monitored boroughs
City |- |5 |- |1
Barking |- |11 |- |7
Barnet |- |13 |- |9
Bexley<2> |- |20 |- |6
Bromley |- |10 |- |4
Croydon |- |0 |- |1
Ealing<1> |- |391 |- |31
Enfield |- |52 |- |49
Greenwich |- |187 |- |163
Hammersmith and Fulham<1> |- |474 |- |91
Harrow |- |0 |- |31
Havering |- |0 |- |0
Hillingdon<1> |- |359 |- |98
Kensington and Chelsea |- |83 |- |12
Kingston |- |19 |- |11
Merton |- |n/a |- |0
Redbridge<2> |- |n/a |- |n/a
Sutton |- |141 |- |19
Waltham Forest<1> |- |429 |- |86
Wandsworth |- |4 |- |0
Westminster |- |45 |- |25
|---- |---- |---- |----
Total |- |2,243 |- |644
|---- |---- |---- |----
Grand total |- |13,280 |- |4,356
Notes:
(i)RTB2s are notices confirming or denying the tenants' Right to Buy. Section 125s are notices
providing the price at which the property can be purchased.
(ii)"Default" means that the local authority has failed in its statutory duty to provide the
relevant notice within the statutory period allowed.
(iii)Data for monitored boroughs has been collected on monthly basis since March 1989. For the
purposes of this table, only data for March and September months has been shown. Data for
non-monitored boroughs is collected each September.
<1> Ealing, Hammersmith, Hillingdon, Waltham Forest were temporarily monitored from February 1990 to
April 1990.
<2> Bexley and Redbridge sell properties under the General Consent rather than the Right to Buy
legislation.
<3> Estimate.
Column 107
Table B-RTB6 notices received and
outstanding for September
1990
|IN |O/S
--------------------------------------
Monitored Borough
Brent |1 |0
Camden |8 |39
Hackney |20 |202
Haringey |3 |7
Hounslow |0 |25
Islington |15 |22
Lambeth |65 |n/a
Lewisham |13 |87
Newham |3 |3
Richmond |1 |0
Southwark |14 |10
Tower Hamlets |2 |0
|----|----
Totals |145 |395
Non-Monitored Boroughs
City |0 |0
Barking |0 |0
Barnet |0 |0
Bexley |0 |0
Bromley |0 |0
Croydon |0 |0
Enfield |0 |0
Ealing |2 |0
Greenwich |9 |0
Hammersmith and Fulham |3 |0
Harrow |0 |0
Havering |0 |0
Hillingdon |0 |0
Kensington and Chelsea |0 |0
Kingston |2 |0
Merton |0 |0
Redbridge |n/a |n/a
Sutton |3 |0
Waltham Forest |0 |0
Wandsworth |0 |0
Westminster |0 |0
|----|----
Total |19 |0
|----|----
Grand Total |169 |395
Notes:
(i) This table shows the number of
RTB6 notices received (IN) during the
month and of those outstanding (O/S)
at the end of each month.
Table C-RTB8 notices received and
outstanding for
September 1990
|IN |O/S
--------------------------------------
Monitored boroughs
Brent |0 |0
Camden |1 |5
Hackney |9 |191
Haringey |1 |0
Hounslow |0 |7
Islington |1 |3
Lambeth |39 |n.a.
Lewisham |0 |20
Newham |1 |2
Richmond |0 |0
Southwark |5 |3
Tower Hamlets |0 |0
|-- |--
Totals |57 |231
Non-monitored boroughs
City |0 |0
Barking |0 |0
Barnet |0 |0
Bexley |0 |0
Bromley |0 |0
Croydon |0 |0
Enfield |0 |0
Ealing |2 |2
Greenwich |1 |1
Hammersmith and Fulham |0 |0
Harrow |0 |0
Havering |0 |0
Hillingdon |0 |0
Kensington and Chelsea |0 |0
Kingston |0 |0
Merton |0 |0
Redbridge |n.a.|n.a.
Sutton |0 |0
Waltham Forest |0 |0
Wandsworth |0 |0
Westminster |0 |0
|-- |--
Total |3 |3
|-- |--
Grand total |62 |236
n.a. Not available.
Note:
(i) This table shows the number of
RTB8 notices received (IN) during the
month and of those outstanding (O/S)
at the end of each month.
Heveningham Hall
Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement as to the connection of Ministers in his Department with Heveningham hall ;
(2) on what dates he or his predecessor met Mr. Abdul Al-Ghazzi ; in what circumstances ; and what matters were discussed ; (3) when he or his predecessor held discussions on matters relating to Heveningham hall with Mr. Abdul Al-Ghazzi.
Sir George Young [holding answer 4 February] : My right hon. Friend, when he was Secretary of State previously, met Mr. Al-Ghazzi towards the end of October 1980 to discuss the terms of the sale of Heveningham hall. With that one exception, no Ministers of the Department of the Environment, past or present, have since then had any dealings with Mr. Al-Ghazzi in their capacity as Ministers, other than by correspondence. At various times officials of the Department and of English Heritage have visited Heveningham hall, and had correspondence and discussions with Mr. Al-Ghazzi's representatives about the progress of the restoration work.
WALES
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of cases of BSE-affected cattle in the years ending 31 December 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 for (a) Dyfed, (b) Wales and (c) Britain.
Mr. David Hunt : The numbers of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Dyfed, Wales, and Great Britain during each of the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 were as set out in the following table. The 1990 figures are provisional.
F
|Dyfed |Wales |Great Britain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1986 |0 |0 |2
1987 |8 |8 |132
1988 |64 |131 |2,185
1989 |212 |459 |7,136
1990 |522 |976 |12,817
|--- |--- |---
Total<1> |806 |1,574 |22,272
<1>Number of cases at 31 December 1990.
Local Government Finance
Mr. Wigley : To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report, for each of the districts of Wales, those communities which will not receive any benefit under the community charge reduction scheme in 1991-92.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett : The information requested is contained in the following tables :
Community Charge Reduction Scheme----1991-92 Communities not benefiting--
Aberconwy
Betwys-y-Coed
Conwy
Henryd
Llandudno
Llansanffraid Glan Conwy
Penmaenmawr
Alyn and Deeside
Broughton and Bretton
Hawarden
Higher Kinnerton
Penyffordd
Arfon
All communities benefit
Blaenau Gwent
Llanelli
Brecknock
Brecon
Bronllys
Cilmery
Crickhowell
Gwernyfed
Hay
Llanddew
Llanfihangel Cwmdu with Bwlch
Llangattock
Llangors
Llangynidr
Llanigon
Talgarth
The Vale of Grwyney
Cardiff
Castle
Cyncoed
Heath
Lisvane
Llandaf
Llanishen
Pentwyn
Radyr
Rhiwbina
Roath
St. Fagans
St. Mellons
Whitchurch
Carmarthen
Carmarthen
Llangunnor
Pendine
Ceredigion
Aberaeron
Aberystwyth
Borth
Cardigan
| Next Section
| Home Page |