|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what controls exist on the use to which local authorities may put planning gain money and on the geographical area in which it may be spent; and if he will make a statement.
Sir Paul Beresford: The use to which local planning authorities put money received in connection with agreements under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the geographical area in which such money may be spent, will largely depend on the precise terms of the agreement, which will be registered as a local land charge.
Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations he proposes to bear in mind in formulating an approach to legislation to increase the recovery and recycling of packaging waste.
Mr. Atkins: Clauses 76 to 78 of the Environment Bill, which is currently before Parliament, empower the Secretary of State, subject to certain conditions, to make regulations placing on particular industry sectors a producer responsibility obligation in relation to the waste which arises from their products, and the packaging around them. Individual companies may choose to discharge the obligation by acting alone or by joining an "exemption scheme" which will organise recovery and recycling operations on their behalf.
The Government propose to legislate using these powers to provide a framework for an industry-led approach to increase the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. This is in response to requests from industry to overcome the potential problem of "free-riders" who might seek to avoid their share of the responsibility to act. The legislative framework will serve to deliver our recovery and recycling obligations under the EC directive on packaging and packaging waste. It will build on the work of the former producer
Column 763responsibility group and the working representative advisory group, which has now been formed with the backing of some 50 major companies.
The proposed powers are wide in scope and allow a variety of different approaches to suit the circumstances of different waste streams, should legislation be necessary or appropriate. In reaching a conclusion on the best approach for packaging waste, we propose to bear in mind the following considerations:
(i) the need to be confident that the available options can ensure that the targets set by the packaging directive will be met; (ii) the practicality, cost-effectiveness, potential benefits as against the likely costs, taking account of environmental and economic considerations, and fairness of the available options; (iii) the desirability of minimising regulatory burdens on business;
(iv) the desirability of business choice in the manner in which the obligation is satisfied, both in terms of the provision of an individual compliance route which is reasonable and practicable, and the potential for multiple exemption schemes to co-exist;
(v) the compatibility of the available options with existing EC and domestic law, for example to ensure that they do not create a barrier to trade with other member states in the Community; (vi) the need to take account of competition policy, for example to ensure that the regulations do not have the effect of distorting competition unnecessarily;
(vii) the desirability of business freedom and flexibility to control and administer collaborative schemes run on its behalf and of minimising the role of the public sector agencies, compatible with effective enforcement;
(vii) the desirability of targeting as closely as possible those responsible for determining the content, nature and amount of packaging used for a particular product.
In drawing up the statutory obligation for individual businesses, consistent with these considerations, the main issues concern the coverage and nature of the obligation. On the coverage of the obligation, there are options encompassing all those businesses which are involved in some way with packaging or packaged products; or a narrower obligation, perhaps on those who make use of packaging for products which they manufacture or control; or some combination of the two. In reaching a view, we will take into account market characteristics, the nature of the recovery and recycling operations, and evidence of the willingness of different business sectors to work together, as well as the need to minimise the extent of the legislative burden placed on industry. In the event that the regulations were found not to work there would, however, be scope for changing the obligation.
The second main issue concerns the nature of the legal obligation. Value from packaging waste is recovered in a variety of ways. Detailed involvement by an enforcement agency in monitoring a large number of processes for those businesses involved in packaging would require significant resources and is likely to prove expensive for the businesses concerned. We will therefore seek to define the producer responsibility obligation in a simple and straightforward way which:
(a) is intended to achieve our obligations under the packaging directive;
(b) allows wide discretion to industry as to how to respond;
Column 764(c) is amenable to external auditing. The scope for independent certification is an important objective in minimising the burdens of the regulatory approach.
Officials from my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are continuing discussions with a wide range of interested parties in the packaging industry. Once we have formulated a set of proposals, we will bring forward a consultation paper on these issues.
Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to announce that we have been able to increase the provision for the home energy efficiency scheme by £8.85 million, bringing the total available for grants in 1994 95 to about £77 million. This is a welcome boost to a successful and high quality scheme.
Mr. Gummer: The Housing Corporation non-voted cash limit, covering grants and capital expenditure financed by the Housing Corporation in England, will be increased by £5,832,000 to £1,484,540,000. The increase will allow additional expenditure of £2,177,000 on city challenge projects, and of £3,655,000 on the corporation's approved development programme.
The regeneration initiatives non-voted cash limit will be increased by £2,612,000 from £292,853,000 to £1,295,465,000. The changes reflect a transfer of £2,177,000 to the Housing Corporation cash limit to cover additional expenditure on city challenge projects; a transfer of £715,000 from the regeneration initiative cash limit to allow increased payments on urban programme loan charges within class VII, vote 3, regeneration initiatives; and an increase of £5,504,000 to allow the issue of an all--purpose supplementary credit approval in respect of East Manchester regeneration programme expenditure. The increase is covered in full by take-up of part of the entitlement to capital end year flexibility announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report , columns 729 34 . The cash limit for class VII, vote 5--central environmental services and so on--will be reduced by £2,500,000 from £439,645,000 to £437,145,000. This change reflects a reduced requirement for grant in aid by the National Rivers Authority. The savings will be transferred to the Housing Corporation cash limit to cover increased expenditure on the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.
The cash limit for class VII, vote 6--property holdings and other services to Government--will be increased by £1,000 to £3,000. This reflects the token supplementary
Column 765estimate for this vote. Property holdings gross running costs limit will be increased by £135,000 to £19,976,000.
The cash limit for class VII, vote 7--administration--will be reduced by £612,000 from £227,347,000 to £226,735,000. This reflects the net position after a number of small transfers, the most significant being transfers to the Department of National Heritage of £184,000 in respect of the conservation unit, and of £255,000 to the Housing Corporation cash limit to cover increased expenditure on the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. The Department of the Environment's gross running costs limit will be reduced by £2,316,000 from £227,465,000 to £225,149,000. In the main, this reduction is due to savings made to enable the Department to capitalise early retirement costs.
The cash limit for class VII, vote 8--revenue support grant, payments of non-domestic rates, Valuation Office services, and so on, England--will be reduced by £900,000 from £29,634,332,000 to £29,633, 432,000 to reflect savings in expenditure by, and on behalf of, the Valuation Tribunals. The savings will be transferred to the Housing Corporation cash limit to cover increased expenditure on the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.
The local government reorganisation non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £9,540,000 from £54,200,000 to £44,660,000. This reduction consists of £9,440,000 for deemed debt supplementary credit approvals and £100,000 for local government residuary body borrowing provision.
The running costs limit for the Office of Water Services--class VII, vote 9 --will be increased by £254,000 from £9,106,000 to £9,360,000 under end-year flexibility arrangements for running costs announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report , columns 729 34 . This will be offset by reductions on capital expenditure so no overall increase in the cash limit is required.
The cash limit for class VII, vote 11--PSA Services--will be reduced by £40,000 from £98,661,000 to £98,621,000. This reflects a transfer to Property Holdings to cover senior staff costs. The net running cost limit on this vote will also be reduced by £40,000 from £98,261, 000 to £98,221,000.
All increases will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
(2) how many employment agencies provided domiciliary care staff for each of the last five years.
Column 766employment agencies which had indicated that their field of activity might include domiciliary or social care work.
I also refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State on 30 November 1992, Official Report , column 55 .
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has of the cost of market testing the careers service; and if he will detail (a) the transaction costs and (b) the tendering costs.
I have no information on the costs of compiling bids; they were met by the bidders. The costs to the Employment Department were about £300,000, which were found from existing resources. They included £220,000 on staff and associated costs for a small team of administrators--1994 95--and £74,000 on a prospectus and publicity for tendering in 1994 95. In addition, some staff from the 10 Government offices were involved. Further figures could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list which of the careers services that have gone out for tender have (a) remained in-house, (b) been won by the private sector and (c) are still outstanding.
Mr. Paice: This information is not yet available. No contracts have been awarded. Preferred bidders have been selected for post-tender negotiation and the contracts will be announced after negotiations are complete.
1. The cost per output point for youth training and youth credits;
2. The number of national vocational qualifications per 100 leavers for youth training and youth credits;
3. The cost per output point for training for work;
4. The number of NVQs per 100 leavers for TfW;
Column 7675. The number of positive outcomes per 100 leavers for TfW; 6. The percentage achievement against the investors in people commitments target;
7. The performance of the TEC in relation to the Government's YT guarantee.
Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the rules for approving spending projects by the training and enterprise councils to spend surpluses earned in contracts with his Department.
Mr. Paice: Training and enterprise councils are required to agree annual business plans and three-year corporate plans with the Department. Where an operating surplus occurs, a TEC is contractually required to use it solely on activities agreed with the Department to further the objectives of its corporate plan and business plan. Where projects have been specifically identified in an agreed business plan, a TEC may carry them out without further agreement. Separate approval is required for the use of surpluses on projects not specifically identified in the business plan, although meeting the plan's objectives. For such a project, the Department needs to be satisfied that it is in accordance with the aims of the plan and represents value for money. The TEC also needs to show that it has the authority to implement the project under its memorandum and articles of association, that the project is financially viable and that it is not in conflict with other parts of the TEC operating agreement or with Government policy. TECs are under a general contractual obligation to provide value for money on the expenditure of all funds which derive from the Government.
Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the principal elements of the debenture held against each of the training and enterprise councils at the commencement of each financial year.
Mr. Paice: The Department agreed the same debenture arrangements with all training and enterprise councils when they were first set up. The debenture gives the Department a charge over all of a TEC's fixed and floating assets. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.
Mr. Paice: Training and enterprise councils contract with training providers for the delivery of training for work. It is a matter for TECs to decide with whom they will contract according to the scale and nature of the training required locally. Government regional offices are currently negotiating with TECs for 1995 96 contracts.
Ms Harman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list for (a) Islwyn, (b) Wales and (c) Great Britain the number of persons and percentage of persons in (i) full-time work and (ii) part-time work earning (1) less than £1.50 an hour, (2) between £1.50 and £2.50 an hour and (3) between £2.50 and £3.50 an hour breaking these figures down by gender;
(2) what is the (a) mean hourly rate of pay, (b) median hourly rate of pay and (c) modal hourly rate of pay for (i) full-time work and (ii) part-time work in Islwyn;
(3) if he will list the current average hourly pay rate in Islwyn for full- time work in (a) hairdressing, (b) retail trade, (c) clothing manufacturing and (d) hotel and catering sectors.
Employees whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence-distribution of gross hourly earnings showing numbers and percentages. April 1994 Below £1.50 £1.50 to £2.50 £2.50 to £3.50 |Number |Per cent.|Number |Per cent.|Number |Per cent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Full-time males Wales |0 |0 |4,741 |1.1 |18,964 |4.4 Great Britain |9,000 |0.1 |66,000 |0.7 |292,000 |3.1 Full-time females Wales |0 |0.1 |2,000 |0.7 |24,000 |9.9 Great Britain |6,000 |0.1 |50,000 |0.9 |427,000 |7.7 Part-time males Wales |0 |0.9 |3,000 |5.4 |15,000 |29.5 Great Britain |17,000 |1.5 |48,000 |4.3 |269,000 |23.9 Part-time females Wales |9,000 |3.8 |5,000 |2.1 |57,000 |24.1 Great Britain |43,000 |0.9 |116,000 |2.4 |1,099,000|22.8 Note: Estimates of numbers of employees are rounded to the nearest thousand.
Ms Harman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of persons in Islwyn in full-time work in (a) hairdressing, (b) the retail trade, (c) clothing manufacturing and (d) hotel and
Column 768catering sectors in the last five years, also expressing these numbers as a percentage of the work force.
Column 769The information for hairdressing and clothing manufacturing, is confidential under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947.
Number of full-time jobs in the retail trade<1> in Islwyn, September of each year Year |Number |Per cent. ---------------------------------------- 1987 |700 |5.3 1989 |400 |3.3 1991 |700 |5.8 <1> Class 64/65 of the standard industrial classification 1980. 1. Percentages are of total number of employees rather than the total work force.
Number of full-time jobs in the hotel and catering sectors<1> in Islwyn, September of each year Year |Number |Per cent. ---------------------------------------- 1987 |200 |(1.4) 1989 |200 |(1.6) 1991 |100 |(1.0) <1> Class 66 of the standard industrial classification 1980. 1. Percentage are of total number of employees rather than the total work force.
(a) the cash limit for class V, vote 1, Department of Employment: programmes and central services, will be increased by £14,414,000 from £2,302,056,000 to £2,316,470,000. The increase in the cash limit arises from additional Employment Department group restructuring costs, training and enterprise councils' administrative costs and Skills Training Agency costs of £36,514,000 offset by programme underspends of £15,300,000 and running costs underspends of £6,800, 000;
(b) the cash limit for class V, vote 2, Department of Employment: Employment Service, will be reduced by £15,300,000 from £738,529,000 to £723,229,000;
(c) the single running costs limit for class V, vote 1, Department of Employment: programmes and central services, and class V, vote 2, Department of Employment: Employment Service, will also be increased by £14,414,000 from £1,437,932,000 to £1,452,346,000. The increase reflects the take-up of £12,614,000 in respect of end-year flexibility arrangements for running costs expenditure, as announced by my right hon. Friend, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729 34, and a transfer of £1,800,000 from class V, vote 3, Health and Safety Executive; (d) the cash limit on class V, vote 3, Health and Safety Executive and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, will be reduced £1,800,000 from £212,779,000 to £210,979,000 as a result of a transfer to class V, vote 1, Department of Employment: programmes and central services;
(e) the Health and Safety Executive running costs limit will be reduced by £1,800,000 from £179,124,000 to £177,324,000 as a result of a transfer to class V, vote 1, Department of Employment: programmes and central services.
Column 770The increases will be offset by savings, transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the actual or estimated level of funding from the Overseas Development Administration budget to Palestinian non- governmental organisations in each of the years 1991 to 1995; and if he will list the organisations funded.
Mr. Baldry: We fund the programmes of a number of British non- governmental organisations which provide assistance to Palestinians. The majority of these work with Palestinian partner organisations. We estimate that since 1991 92, our expenditure through such agencies operating in the occupied territories has been:
Year |£ -------------------------------------- 1991-92 |953,000 1992-93 |1,271,000 1993-94 |1,280,000 1994-95 (to date) |845,000
In addition, Palestinians have benefited from assistance provided through non-governmental organisations working in the Lebanon.
For the calendar year 1993, total payments on aid from EC budget, as set out in the draft EC general budget for 1995, were:
C |mecu ------------------------------------------------------------------- Food aid and humanitarian aid |774.7 Asia and Latin America |354.0 Mediterranean |351.5 Eastern and central europe |719.5 Other co-operation measures (includes co-operation with NGOs and aid to South Africa) |338.3 Total |2,538.0
The cost to the United Kingdom of this expenditure was as shown in the table, based on an average exchange rate for 1993 of £1 = ecu 1.2829, and a United Kingdom share of the EC budget for 1993 of 16.52 per cent.
|£ million -------------------------------------------------- Food aid and humanitarian aid |99.8 Asia and Latin America |45.6 Mediterranean |45.3 Eastern and central europe |92.7 Other co-operation measures |43.6 Total |327.0
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms exist for the Government to review the value for money of contributions to the World Health Organisation for its work in the developing world.
Mr. Baldry: The United Kingdom has been active in seeking reforms necessary to ensure that its assessed and voluntary contributions to the World Health Organisation achieve the optimum value for money. For instance, the United Kingdom has chaired the committee of the WHO executive board set up to review the role of WHO. In addition, the United Kingdom targets its voluntary contributions to specific WHO-managed programmes on those that tackle priority problems in developing countries and has established a set of procedures by which to assess their effectiveness.
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was given to the International Atomic Energy Authority out of the overseas aid budget in 1993 94; and on what grounds.
Mr. Baldry: In 1993 94, the Overseas Development Administration gave the IAEA an accountable grant of £500,000 to cover the cost of selected projects, aimed at sustainable development, in developing countries who are signatories of the non proliferation treaty. This grant was paid as part of the £2.5 million pledged by the UK over five years commencing 1991 92 to encourage countries who are signatories of the non- proliferation treaty in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which 10 countries have received most out of the bilateral emergency aid budget in the last 10 years; and what amounts they have received.
Mr. Baldry: It is not possible to provide comparable country- specific information on the bilateral emergency aid programme for years before 1987 88. The top 10 bilateral emergency aid recipients between 1987 88 and 1993 94 are given in the table.
Top 10 ODA bilateral emergency aid recipients 1987-88 to 1993-94 |Expenditure Country |(£ million) ------------------------------------------------ Ethiopia |100.8 States of ex-Yugoslavia |89.9 Sudan |78.0 Mozambique |59.3 Iraq |47.3 Pakistan |30.2 Malawi |29.3 Somalia |25.5 Bangladesh |21.1 Angola |17.8 Note:There is no United Kingdom aid to the Government of Iraq. The amounts recorded as emergency aid to Iraq are provided through UN agencies and NGOs for Iraqi citizens.
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which 10 countries have received most out of the aid and trade provision of the overseas aid budget in the last 10 years; and what amounts they have received.
|Expenditure Country |(£ million) ------------------------------------ China |117.6 Malaysia |82.2 Indonesia |44.5 Turkey |43.2 Zimbabwe |40.9 Kenya |31.4 India |30.9 Philippines |25.0 Morocco |21.9 Ghana |19.7
Mr. Baldry: At the time of the annulment of democratic elections in June 1993, British aid to Nigeria was supporting projects in education, agriculture, forestry, health, energy and public administration. There was also residual expenditure from balance of payments agreements signed in 1989 and 1990. Since June 1993, new aid has been confined to projects bringing direct benefits to poor Nigerians in the health/water, education and natural resources sectors. This accords with EU guidelines agreed last year. We have also met outstanding commitments to projects already under way in June 1993.
Mr. Baldry: For the calendar year 1993, total payments from the European Development Fund--most of the beneficiaries of which are in sub- Saharan Africa--were 1,337 million ecu or £1,042 million . A country by country breakdown of cumulative expenditure from successive European development funds is available in the
Column 773Commission report "EU-ACP Co-operation", a copy of which has been placed in the library.'
United Kingdom contributions to the European Development Fund totalled £172 million in the UK financial year 1993 94.
Expenditure from the European Community budget in 1993 on the "Programme of positive measures regarding South Africa" amounted to 60.4 million ecu or £47.1 million.
At an average exchange rate for the year of £1 = 1.2829 ecu.
Mr. Baldry: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on the external assistance vote- class II, vote 5--will be reduced overall by £24,176,000 from £1, 923,943,000 to £1,899,767,000. The overall reduction is the net effect of a decrease of £30,500,000 due to overspend on European Community budgetary spending on aid for developing countries in 1993; a decrease of £2,700,000 under roll-over arrangements in respect of the Commonwealth Development Corporation's excess cash holding at the end of 1993 94; an increase of £8,964,000 in respect of new provision for certain aid and trade provision projects which are no longer being financed under the authority of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980; and an increase of £59,000 in respect of the eventual transfer of the Crown Agents to an independent foundation. Pending parliamentary approval of the new provision for certain aid and trade provision projects, urgent expenditure, estimated at £4,627,000, will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.
Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give figures for each of the last five years, including current expenditure plans, for balance of payments support for Zambia and Zimbabwe paid for from (a) the overseas aid budget and (b) any other source.