|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations are under way to investigate the loss of the Heather Bloom; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Norris [holding answer 20 January 1995]: An investigation is being carried out by the marine accident investigation branch; the only other known official investigation concerns an inquiry under section 61 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 into the cause of death.
Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 18 January, Official Report , column 485 , if he will list the year of introduction and the number of carriages currently in use on British Rail's Kent coastal services in each of the BR classes 415/1-5, 416/2 and 4, 416/3, 411, 413, 415/6-7 and any other mark I carriages; and when the last of each of these classes of carriages will have been replaced by new rolling stock.
Mr. Watts: The list of the carriages in use in December 1994 is as follows:
Class |Units (coaches)|Date built from ---------------------------------------------------------------- 411 |106 (424) |1959 414 |5 (10) |1951 421 |21 (84) |1964 423 |66 (264) |1967 207 |5 (10) |1962
The replacement of rolling stock, and the appropriate timing of an order, is a decision for BR. However, I understand that the last of the class 414 vehicles in the Kent Coast fleet will be withdrawn by 13 April 1995; the other classes of vehicles listed are considered by BR to have four years' serviceable life left, and in its view are likely to need replacing during 1999.
Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 18 January, Official Report, column 485, if he will give an undertaking that all carriages currently in use on British Rail's Kent coastal services in the BR classes 411, 413, 415, and 416 will either be strengthened immediately or replaced by new rolling stock within the time scale recommended by the Hidden report into the Clapham Junction railway accident; and how many of these mark I carriages he expects will still be in service in April 1999 given current rolling stock investment plans.
Mr. Watts: I understand that by 13 April 1995 all the mark I vehicles in classes 413, 415 and 416 will have been withdrawn and replaced by Networker class 465 and 466 trains.
Because class 411 vehicles are considered to have only four years' serviceable life left, it would not be reasonably practicable to carry out structural changes to these vehicles. I understand that they will need to be withdrawn from services during 1999.
Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide an assurance that in respect of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill neither Ruckholt road nor Dunedin road in Leyton will be used by construction traffic; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Watts: There will be a code of construction practice--a draft of which is being discussed with the affected local planning authorities-- which will cover the use of the public highway and traffic management matters. In the meantime, I understand that Union Railways is shortly to meet the London borough of Waltham Forest to discuss the issue of road accesses in the Temple Mills area.
Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), Official Report, columns 874 75, when making his visit to Newbury, what time he arrived and what time he left.
Dr. Mawhinney: I arrived at Newbury at about 11.30 am and left at about 2.45 pm.
Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why he gave the hon. Member a holding answer on 10 January, but was able to answer on 12 January, Official Report, column 198.
Dr. Mawhinney: Notification of this question was received while I was on an official visit to the Netherlands from 9 to 11 January inclusive.
Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what his reasons were for deciding to ask the Highways Agency to reconsider the options concerning the Newbury bypass; when he first made that decision; whom he told before his announcement of the decision; and when he first told anyone else he had made this decision;
(2) when he instructed the Highways Agency to review the alternative options designed to relieve traffic congestion on the A34; and what form this instruction took.
Dr. Mawhinney: I decided to look again at the plans for the Newbury bypass against the background of continuing public concern about the scheme and because I wanted to be sure that the proposed western bypass was the right solution. By instructions to the chief executive of the Highways Agency on the day of my public announcement, I asked him to review the options for relieving congestion in Newbury and to report back. I took the decision and shared the information only within Government shortly before making my announcement.
Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Newbury of 3 January asking him for a meeting to discuss the Newbury bypass.
Dr. Mawhinney: I have no record of receiving this letter.
Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which constituents of the hon. Member for Newbury he has met since his announcement in respect of the Newbury bypass to discuss his decision.
Dr. Mawhinney: Among those with whom I have discussed my decision on the A34 Newbury bypass, I believe four of them may be constituents of the hon. Member for Newbury.
Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which hon. Members have so far made representations to him concerning his announcement in respect of the Newbury bypass; and which he has met concerning those representations.
Dr. Mawhinney: I have received representations about my announcement on the Newbury bypass from the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) and the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Winchester (Mr. Malone). I have met none of these concerning his representations.
Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which (a) constituents of the hon. Member for Newbury and (b) other hon. Members he provided the information contained in his answer of 12 January, Official Report , column 198 , before he provided the hon, Member with the answer.
Dr. Mawhinney: I have not kept a record of conversations where I may have discussed details about who accompanied me on my visit to Newbury.
Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the absenteeism rate for the Natural Resources Institute in each year since 1991.
Mr. Baldry: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Mr. Anthony Beattie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Anthony Beattie to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 24 January 1995 :
Mr. Baldry has asked me to reply to your question about the absenteeism rates for the Natural Resources Institute in the years since 1991.
The figures for sick leave are being collated. I will write again when they are available.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much overseas aid has been given to (a) Pakistan, (b) India and (c) Bangladesh in each year since 1979.
Mr. Baldry: The gross United Kingdom bilateral aid given to Pakistan, India and Bangladesh since 1979 is given in the tables:
United Kingdom bilateral gross public expenditure to Bangladesh, India and Pakistan 1979-1993-94 (£000s) |Bangladesh|India |Pakistan ------------------------------------------------------- 1979 |33,632 |121,623 |21,797 1980 |66,190 |86,080 |22,245 1981 |33,383 |168,550 |24,613 1982 |23,537 |54,204 |18,738 1983 |24,728 |127,600 |16,612 1984 |35,656 |146,537 |18,016 1985 |41,173 |106,466 |16,569 1986 |38,321 |143,481 |20,715 1987 |31,634 |78,464 |22,475 1987-88 |31,265 |99,097 |22,599 1988-89 |48,161 |84,647 |28,183 1989-90 |55,827 |87,652 |34,894 1990-91 |51,602 |100,746 |45,467 1991-92 |59,231 |136,386 |41,823 1992-93 |65,717 |115,370 |38,483 1993-94 |56,258 |103,144 |48,202 Note: British Aid Statistics was published by financial year from 1992. Britain also provides aid to these countries through multilateral agencies.
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the agreements for the provision of British aid that he signed with the Pakistani Government during his recent visit to Pakistan.
Mr. Baldry: On 9 January, in Islamabad, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary exchanged letters in respect of two new aid projects in Pakistan. These were:
(i) a contribution of £3.6 million over five years to the second phase of the Dir district development project, managed by the United Nations Drug Control Programme. The project is designed to improve basic infrastructure and to provide alternative sources of income for people in the main opium poppy growing area of the North West Frontier Province in parallel with enforcement action by the Pakistan authorities.
(ii) a contribution of £12 million over three years in support of the Government of Pakistan's social action programme, which the World bank and other donors are also supporting. The programme seeks to improve primary education, health and reproductive health through a combination of sectoral policy reform and incremental budgetary support.
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there is any threat by the Rwandan Government to the continued presence of international
non-governmental organisations in Rwanda; and what representations he has been making.
Mr. Baldry: In order to avoid duplication of effort, and improve co- ordination, the Government of Rwanda have introduced a policy of NGO registration, but a number of NGOs have failed to meet the registration deadline of 9 January. The registration policy has not led to NGO expulsions. We will continue to monitor the situation.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the costs of compliance
Column 104in meeting water standards in upland and lowland England and Wales (a) in total and (b) by water authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available.
Mr. Atkins: Information is not available in the form requested. However, Ofwat has published information which shows that the compliance programme for drinking water resulted in expenditure in England and Wales of £620.5 million in 1991 92, £733.3 million in 1992 93, and £737.1 million in 1993 94.
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures have been implemented with regard to the conservation and reclamation of refrigerants; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Atkins: The EC Environment Council adopted in December a new EC regulation on ozone-depleting substances. This requires refrigerants contained in commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment and air conditioning equipment to be recovered if practicable for recycling, reclamation or destruction during service and maintenance of the equipment as well as before equipment dismantling or disposal. It also requires that all precautionary measures practicable are taken to prevent the leakage of ozone-depleting refrigerant from this equipment. This regulation is directly applicable in UK law.
In 1994 the refrigerant users group was set up, with Government support, by a number of refrigerant users and suppliers. The RUG was the first refrigerant bank in Europe. Its main aim is to ensure that the increasingly scarce supply of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants is conserved through recovery and efficient reuse within the UK.
Mr. Jopling: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list for each local authority for which he is responsible (a) the change in the capping limit in cash terms between 1993 94 and 1994 95, (b) this change in cash terms after the notional cost of pay increases at the current rate of inflation have been taken into account and (c) this change in cash terms after notional increases in pay and price increases at the current rate of inflation have been taken into account;
(2) what is the cash change and percentage change in the capping limit of each local authority for which he is responsible for 1994 95 compared to 1993 94; and if he will also express the change as a figure per head of population.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have arranged for a table showing the following for each local authority in England to be placed in the Library of the House:
(i) the cash change between the 1993 94 cap limit and the 1994 95 cap limit.
(ii) the cash change between the 1993 94 cap limit (in 1994 95 prices) and the 1994 95 cap limit.
(iii) the percentage change between the 1993 94 cap limit and the 1994 95 cap limit.
(iv) the change per head of population between the 1993 94 cap limit and the 1994 95 cap limit.
Information on cap limits after notional costs of pay increases at the current rate of inflation have been taken into account is not available.
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of carbon dioxide emissions for each year since 1980; and what efforts his Department has implemented to reduce these levels.
Mr. Atkins: Annual United Kingdom emissions of carbon dioxide since 1980 are as follows:
Estimated annual United Kingdom emissions for carbon dioxide, expressed in terms of weight of carbon ( million tonnes of carbon) Year |Amount --------------------- 1980 |164 1981 |157 1982 |154 1983 |152 1984 |148 1985 |154 1986 |158 1987 |159 1988 |159 1989 |156 1990 |158 1991 |159 1992 |155 1993 |<1>152 <1> latest provisional estimate.
In fulfilment of our commitment under the climate change convention, the UK climate change programme, published in January 1994, sets out in full the measures aimed at returning emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his most recent figures for annual CO2 emissions for the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of their consistency with the target set in "Climate Change: The UK Programme".
Mr. Atkins: I refer the hon. Member to my oral answer of Wednesday 18 January 1995, Official Report, column 706, to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) earlier today.
Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money the London Boroughs Grants Committee has (a) received from the London borough of Barnet and (b) given to organisations based in Barnet each year since its inception.
Sir Paul Beresford: The London Boroughs Grants Committee distributes grants to voluntary organisations in Greater London which either have a London-wide remit or cover a significant number of London boroughs. There is no direct relationship between contributions from the amounts awarded to voluntary organisations in particular boroughs. The London boroughs grants unit has supplied the following information:
The London borough of Barnet's contribution to the committee's annual expenditure Year |Contribution |£ 1986-87 |1,190,700 1987-88 |1,179,250 1988-89 |1,240,515 1989-90 |1,246,000 1990-91 |1,300,500 1991-92 |1,265,300 1992-93 |1,307,000 1993-94 |1,255,700 1994-95 |1,255,700
Amounts awarded to voluntary organisations based in the London borough of Barnet Year |Amount |£ ------------------------ 1986-87 |n/a 1987-88 |62,905 1988-89 |98,712 1989-90 |113,688 1990-91 |92,228 1991-92 |114,298 1992-93 |103,340 1993-94 |153,871 1994-95 |165,327
Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the London Boroughs Grants Committee has (a) received from each London borough and (b) paid to organisations based in each London borough during the last three years.
Sir Paul Beresford: There is no direct relationship between contributions from, and amounts awarded to, voluntary organisations in particular boroughs. The London boroughs grants unit has supplied the following information:
(a) Borough contributions received £ thousands |1992-93 |1993-94 |1994-95 ----------------------------------------------------------- Barking and Dagenham |622.1 |613.5 |607.8 Barnet |1,307.3 |1,255.7 |1,255.7 Bexley |928.9 |920.3 |911.7 Brent |1,078.0 |1,040.7 |1,026.35 Bromley |1,267.2 |1,235.6 |1,218.45 Camden |782.7 |748.3 |751.15 City of London |17.2 |17.2 |17.2 Croydon |1,347.5 |1,336.0 |1,330.25 Ealing |1,238.5 |1,181.2 |1,178.3 Enfield |1,115.2 |1,100.9 |1,089.45 Greenwich |911.7 |894.5 |891.6 Hackney |808.5 |774.1 |788.4 Hammersmith and Fulham |630.7 |639.3 |647.95 Haringey |814.2 |871.5 |877.3 Harrow |811.3 |854.3 |851.45 Havering |977.6 |974.8 |960.4 Hillingdon |994.8 |992.0 |986.2 Hounslow |831.4 |874.4 |857.2 Islington |731.1 |713.9 |725.35 Kensington and Chelsea |553.3 |596.3 |610.65 Kingston |587.7 |576.3 |573.4 Lambeth |980.5 |1,052.1 |1,075.1 Lewisham |954.7 |994.8 |994.8 Merton |696.7 |719.6 |716.75 Newham |880.1 |914.6 |928.9 Redbridge |992.0 |969.0 |963.3 Richmond |705.3 |688.1 |685.2 Southwark |951.8 |937.5 |943.2 Sutton |708.1 |716.7 |713.85 Tower Hamlets |705.3 |696.7 |699.55 Waltham Forest |900.2 |911.7 |905.95 Wandsworth |1,080.8 |1,089.4 |1,103.75 Westminster |756.9 |768.3 |782.7 Greater London Totals |28,669.3|28,669.3|28,669.3
(b) Amounts paid to or approved for voluntary organisations by borough base. £ thousands |1992-93 |1993-94 |1994-95 ----------------------------------------------------------- Barking and Dagenham |44.7 |44.6 |47.5 Barnet |103.3 |153.9 |163.3 Bexley |63.8 |65.7 |63.7 Brent |442.3 |341.9 |355.3 Bromley |68.2 |71.5 |76.4 Camden |5,035.3 |4,409.3 |4,210.4 City of London |156.1 |91.3 |81.5 Croydon |158.9 |198.6 |199.9 Ealing |258.1 |412.5 |436.6 Enfield |132.4 |146.6 |144.4 Greenwich |488.3 |479.7 |407.0 Hackney |1,491.2 |1,479.5 |1,519.7 Hammersmith and Fulham |811.5 |979.3 |993.4 Haringey |880.3 |655.8 |699.0 Harrow |23.6 |1.2 |- Havering |47.7 |50.5 |56.4 Hillingdon |172.1 |177.1 |161.5 Hounslow |246.4 |255.7 |268.0 Islington |3,391.9 |4,703.2 |4,728.8 Kensington and Chelsea |1,399.5 |1,302.0 |1,296.0 Kingston |69.8 |95.3 |109.8 Lambeth |2,248.9 |2,257.6 |2,260.3 Lewisham |465.8 |461.9 |487.7 Merton |251.7 |265.3 |259.2 Newham |368.2 |386.7 |413.4 Redbridge |86.3 |60.1 |67.1 Richmond |79.0 |76.8 |95.0 Southwark |2,314.8 |2,558.1 |2,425.2 Sutton |104.8 |75.2 |72.7 Tower Hamlets |1,961.7 |1,934.7 |1,832.9 Waltham Forest |73.1 |181.4 |148.9 Wandsworth |322.4 |327.3 |367.2 Westminster |3,128.4 |2,939.4 |3,055.7 Outside London |61.4 |70.2 |70.4 Totals |26,952.5|27,709.9|27,574.3
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation requiring the provision of (a) adequate heating systems and (b) insulation in domestic buildings.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Part L of the Building Regulations 1991 in England and Wales requires reasonable provision, including insulation and heating controls, to be made for the conservation of fuel and power in new buildings and extensions to existing ones. Revised regulations which come into force on 1 July this year strengthen the provisions of part L and in addition require all new and converted dwellings to be provided with an energy rating based on the standard assessment procedure. The Boiler Efficiency Regulations 1993 require that, when they are placed on the market, gas and oil-fired boilers achieve specified levels of efficiency. These regulations came into force on 1 January last year.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current combined heat
Column 108and power capacity in the United Kingdom; and what is his target for 2000.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Secretary of State for the Environment has set a target of 5,000 MW installed combined heat and power capacity by the year 2000. It is estimated that approximately 3,000 MW CHP is now in operation in the United Kingdom on around 1,100 sites.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made toward reaching his target for increased efficiency of domestic appliances by 2000; and what assessment he has made as to the consistency of such progress with reaching that target.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Government have not set specific targets to improve the energy efficiency of domestic appliances but are committed to achieve overall carbon dioxide targets by a variety of approaches including improving appliances. Joint voluntary initiatives with industry, the Energy Saving Trust and my Department's energy efficiency office have resulted in good progress in some sectors and I believe they can be emulated elsewhere. The Government are presently engaged in studies to assess the impact of energy labelling and other policies in each sector.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many grants have been made under the home energy efficiency scheme and of what average value in each year since its formation by local authority area.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The information is not available in the form requested. The total numbers of grants under the home energy efficiency scheme in Great Britain and their average values, for each financial year since the scheme began, are as follows:
|£ ---------------------------------------------------- 1990-91 (from January 1) |7,582 |154 1991-92 |167,849|137 1992-93 |204,130|150 1993-94 |270,148|153 1994-95 (until December 31) |330,751|168
Before 9 December 1993, a contribution from the householder, to a maximum of £16, was required in each case. Since then 100 per cent. grants have been available.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he carried out into the effectiveness of the advertising campaigns he has run in order to encourage greater energy efficiency in the home.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Two advertising campaigns have been run by my Department to promote energy efficiency in the home. The first of these campaigns, "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", now completed, was monitored through a series of interview surveys to track changes in public knowledge, attitudes and energy saving behaviour, over the course of the campaign. The second campaign, "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth", is currently under way and is subject to a similar programme of monitoring research.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in tightening building regulations since the publishing of "Climate Change: The UK Programme"; what assessment
Column 109he has made as to achieving the energy- saving target set out in the document; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Revised building regulations for the conservation of fuel and power were laid before Parliament last year. They come into force on 1 July. It is estimated that the improved provisions will save about 250,000 tonnes of carbon per year by the turn of the century, with significantly greater savings in the longer term.
Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the source of the uranium recently found in Northamptonshire; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Atkins: The scrap metal containing uranium found on land at Poplar farm, Caldecott, Northamptonshire, is of unknown origin. Investigations are continuing to trace the source of the material.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has that the misuse of equipment, as referred to in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's reply to Greenpeace's complaint regarding a perceived breach of paragraph 2 of the Drigg authorisation, was the sole cause of the high-surface activity levels recorded by the Greenpeace investigators.
Mr. Atkins: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution sought the advice of the National Radiological Protection Board regarding the environmental monitoring carried out by Greenpeace and depicted in its video of the Drigg site. The NRPB advised that an item which fully complies with the requirements of the Drigg disposal authorisation could give rise to the results determined by Greenpeace. This is because the instrument used by Greenpeace was not appropriate for use in the mixed radiation fields associated with the low-level wastes disposed of at Drigg. It is possible that there was no surface contamination present at all on the items monitored, and that the spurious surface contamination really was due to radiation emissions from radioactive material contained within the disposed items.
HMIP thoroughly investigated Greenpeace's complaint and concluded that there had been no breach of the Drigg site authorisation. A reply to this effect was sent by HMIP to Greenpeace on 16 December 1994.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what attempt has been made to locate and monitor the package reported to him by Greenpeace as containing
intermediate-level waste in its complaint regarding arrangements for the disposal of low-level waste at Drigg.
Mr. Atkins: Greenpeace entered Drigg illegally, in July 1994, but did not bring its complaint to the attention of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution until October 1994. In the intervening period, the item in question has been completely covered by material disposed of in the trench. Direct monitoring of the item would have been possible if Greenpeace had bothered to notify HMIP immediately of its concerns. An item, which from the Greenpeace video and report could have been mistaken for a glovebox that might have been thought to contain intermediate-level waste, has been identified from photographs provided by British Nuclear Fuels plc of the
Column 110tipping face at about the same time that Greenpeace entered Drigg. The disposal records and history of the item indicate that the disposal was carried out in full compliance with the requirements of the Drigg authorisation.
Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to make the introduction of a sprinkler system a mandatory requirement in single-storey buildings; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The provision of sprinklers in new buildings is a matter for building regulations. Whether such sprinklers should be required in large single storey buildings is under consideration at present and I hope to be able to make a statement within a few months.
Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require the compulsory registration of qualified fire engineers; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: We have no plans at present to require the compulsory registration of qualified fire engineers but will keep the situation under review.
Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are available to local authorities to control noise and nuisance at civil airports.
Mr. Atkins: Local authorities' powers to control noise at civil airports are those available under planning legislation, through which conditions may be attached, if appropriate, to planning permission. In addition, at all but the smallest airports, operators are required to consult nearby local authorities about matters concerning management and administration which may have a bearing on noise and nuisance.
Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consideration he has given to the funding of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory scheme beyond its initial two years; and if he will make a statement on the expected longer-term demand for the scheme and the necessary resources to ensure that it is able to respond appropriately;
(2) what proposals he has for further publicity to increase leaseholders' awareness of their rights under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993;
(3) what assessment he has made of the interim report of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have carefully studied the interim report of the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service and taken note of its conclusions about the way the new rights for leasehold enfranchisement and lease extension introduced by the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 have been exercised. I have been impressed with the start that the service has made and consequently I am able to announce that the