| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Key [holding answer 14 February 1992] : This information is not available.
Leigh Barton
Mr. Steen : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many workmen have been involved in the repair work preventing the historic monument Leigh Barton from being opened to the public since 1986, in each of the last five years ; and in what crafts there is a shortage of skilled workmen to complete the repairs.
Mr. Yeo : A team of four general craftsmen have been working at Leigh Barton since 1986. There is no shortage of skilled workmen to complete the repairs.
Road System, Leicester
Mr. Vaz : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a full environmental impact assessment has been carried out for the various suggested alternatives for the Leicester eastern district distributor road.
Mr. Yeo : I am advised that Leicestershire county council as the highway authority responsible is taking environmental considerations into account in examining a
Column 67
number of alternatives for this road. When the route is finalised the county council, as planning authority, will consider the need for an environmental statement.Gulf War (Marine Pollution)
Mr. Flynn : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the effect upon the breeding and feeding grounds for the Penaid shrimp in the Tanajib Manifa embayment system of oil spilled during the Gulf war ;
(2) what steps have been taken to restore the ecology for the wader and inter-tidal invertebrates in the Gulf following the Gulf war.
Mr. Baldry : The primary responsibility for such questions rests with other Governments. My reply to the hon. Member of 15 January Official Report, column 573, sets out the contribution that the United Kingdom has made.
Urban Programme
Mr. Frank Field : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the level of grant per head of population for Blackburn, Burnley, Knowsley, Liverpool, Manchester, Preston, Rochdale, Salford, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Coventry, Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Nottingham, Bradford and Kingston upon Hull, respectively in the financial years 1980-81, 1983-84, 1986-87 and 1989-90, for the urban programme category of central Government revenue funding of local authorities ;
(2) if he will list the level of grant per head of population for each of the standard economic regions and in Greater London in the financial years 1980-81, 1983-84, 1986-87 and 1989-90 for the urban programme category of central Government revenue funding of local authorities ;
(3) if he will list the level of grant per head of population for Brent, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth, respectively in the financial years 1980-81, 1983-84, 1986-87 and 1989-90, for the urban programme category of central Government revenue funding of local authorities.
Mr. Key [holding answer 7 February 1992] : The tables provide total capital and revenue outturn figures for the urban programme for 1980- 81, 1983-84, 1986-87 and 1989-90.
Separate revenue figures are not readily available before 1988-89. Urban programme expenditure is targeted on the most deprived inner city areas within the local authorities' boundaries : population figures for these areas are not readily available.
UP outturn by standard economic region and Greater London £ million Region |1980-81|1983-84|1986-87|1989-90 ------------------------------------------------------ Northern |22.970 |37.900 |37.450 |40.628 North West<1> |22.930 |36.000 |37.470 |41.296 Merseyside<1> |20.420 |29.500 |30.500 |27.812 West Midlands |21.200 |34.800 |39.880 |42.837 East Midlands |7.240 |11.900 |10.020 |10.212 Yorkshire & Humberside |12.950 |20.300 |17.500 |27.210 South West |- |- |- |2.431 London |55.110 |48.100 |47.600 |43.539 Notes: <1> These two UP regions form one standard north-west region. None of the other standard regions received UP grant in these years. The number of UP authorities in the standard regions changed during the period covered.
UP outturn by non-London UP authority £ million Authority |1980-81 |1983-84 |1986-87 |1989-90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Blackburn |0.340 |1.600 |3.700 |4.093 Burnley |- |- |- |1.954 Knowsley |0.150 |1.000 |3.610 |3.575 Liverpool |17.600 |25.000 |22.590 |16.473 Manchester/Salford<1> |17.500 |23.500 |22.660 |19.312 Preston |- |- |- |2.577 Rochdale |0.550 |2.100 |3.620 |3.659 Middlesbrough |2.710 |5.600 |5.350 |5.073 Birmingham |17.300 |24.200 |25.940 |24.478 Coventry |0.140 |1.700 |3.750 |5.031 Sandwell |0.830 |3.100 |4.540 |4.689 Wolverhampton |2.930 |5.800 |5.650 |4.733 Leicester |3.830 |6.500 |4.710 |4.561 Nottingham |3.410 |5.400 |5.310 |4.522 Bradford |3.330 |5.900 |3.470 |4.502 Kingston-upon-Hull |2.620 |5.300 |4.530 |4.544 <1> Partnership authority.
UP outturn by London UP authority £ million Authority |1980-81 |1983-84 |1986-87 |1989-90 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brent |0.350 |1.400 |3.800 |2.413 Greenwich |- |- |- |0.998 Hackney |<1>15.400|12.500 |10.550 |4.491 Hammersmith & Fulham |3.330 |5.600 |4.520 |2.871 Haringey |- |- |- |2.252 Islington |<1>- |9.900 |9.270 |7.782 Kensington & Chelsea |- |- |- |1.720 Lambeth |9.000 |10.900 |11.320 |8.271 Lewisham |- |- |- |1.450 Newham |- |- |- |2.690 Southwark |- |- |- |2.113 Tower Hamlets |0.350 |1.300 |3.910 |3.693 Wandsworth |0.480 |1.700 |4.230 |2.795 Notes: <1> Combined Hackney/Islington figure.
Hong Kong (Ministerial Visit)
Mr. Dobson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in December 1988, the then Secretary of State took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.
Mr. Heseltine [holding answer 13 February 1992] : I understand that my right hon. Friend undertook only official duties during his brief visit which came at the end of a visit to China to discuss environmental matters.
Business Rates
Mr. Beith : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the cost of cancelling the increase in the national non- domestic rate poundage for England in 1992-93 which he announced in his answer to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) of 6 November 1991 Official Report, column 158 ; and what would be the cost of reducing that increase to (a) 3 per cent., (b) 2 per cent. and (c) 1 per cent.
Mr. Portillo : I estimate that the cost of cancelling the increase of just over 4 per cent. on the 1991-92 uniform
Column 69
business rate multiplier would be approximately £500 million. Under-indexing would cost approximately £125 million for each percentage point.Mr. Beith : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of increasing the thresholds at which businesses are elegible for the small business category of uniform business rate transitional relief from a rateable value of £10,000 to £15,000 outside London, and from a rateable value of £15,000 to £25, 000 within London for the financial year 1992-93.
Mr. Portillo : I estimate that the cost in England would be about £25 million.
Mr. Beith : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost in 1992-93 of extending the transitional relief scheme for the uniform business rate in England so that all losses are suspended in the coming financial year, while all gains continue to be phased in according to the transitional arrangements.
Column 70
Mr. Portillo : I estimate that the cost of freezing rate increases in real terms, for 1992-93, for ratepayers subject to transitional arrangements would be around £300 million.
Mr. Beith : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the cost of lowering the maximum permissible annual increase in uniform business rate bills in (a) nominal and (b) real terms, (i) for small businesses, from 15 to 10 per cent. and (ii) for larger businesses, from 20 to 15 per cent. in 1992-93.
Mr. Portillo : I estimate that the cost in 1992-93 of confining the maximum annual transitional increase to 10 per cent. for small properties and 15 per cent. for large ones would be about £140 million. The cost of confining the maximum increase to the same limits in real terms would be about £70 million.
|
| Home Page |