|Previous Section||Home Page|
|£000 ---------------------- 1989-90 |19,589 1990-91 |25,059 1991-92 |17,086 1992-93 |31,441 1993-94 |29,930
In addition, Mozambique has benefited from United Kingdom assistance provided to the Southern Africa development community as follows:
|£000 -------------------- 1989-90 |2,935 1990-91 |5,903 1991-92 |6,900 1992-93 |3,340 1993-94 |1,398
Mr. Baldry [holding answer 20 February 1995]: We seek to promote growth and to reduce poverty through our aid programmes in order to eliminate the pressures which result in the commercial exploitation of children. The ODA is attempting to assist developing country Governments to recognise and address the needs and problems of economically active children by providing them with improved health, education and employment opportunities.
Mr. Baldry [holding answer 20 February 1995]: We continue to work with the international community and the Rwandan Government to rehabilitate Rwanda, to encourage the safe return of the refugees and to promote reconciliation between the parties. The significant donor response at the January round table of nearly $583 million underlines the serious efforts being made to improve conditions inside Rwanda and in the region.
Column 133membership costs of the OECD development centre for the United Kingdom over the past five years.
Mr. Baldry [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The United Kingdom has contributed about 6 per cent. of the total costs of the budget of the OECD development centre. Over the past five years this has been:
|£ ------------------------ 1990-91 |231,125 1991-92 |268,000 1992-93 |368,000 1993-94 |388,000 1994-95 |406,000
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the role of the OECD development centre in Paris, and what is its relationship with they United kingdom Government.
Mr. Baldry [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The OECD development centre is an autonomous research institute under OECD auspices. Its main activities are research, contacts with research and training institutions around the world and the organisation of informal meetings to discuss economic issues.
The United Kingdom Government contribute to the budget of the centre and are represented on its advisory board. We have announced our intention to withdraw from membership at the end of 1995.
Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision in respect of the planning application by the MFI chain to build a warehouse at Great Stukely, Huntingdonshire, on a site of specific scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the interim arrangements for the handling of wastes prior to the introduction of the super-compaction facility at Sellafield, referred to in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's response to the Greenpeace complaint regarding a perceived breach of the Drigg authorisation.
However, the interim arrangements referred to are briefly mentioned in BNF plc's application for a variation to the authorisation for the transfer of solid low-level waste from Sellafield to the Drigg disposal site. I will be placing a copy of this document in the Library of the House.
Mr. Morely: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long he will allow for consultation on his announcement of 20 January regarding the future of strategic planning in North Yorkshire and Humberside.
Sir Paul Beresford: The announcement on 20 January, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, about strategic planning for North Yorkshire and Humberside took account of representations already received from local authorities and other bodies following the announcement of his decision on 25 October about the future local government structure for the area. The draft North Yorkshire (District of York) (Structural Change) Order and the draft Humberside
Column 136(Structural Change) Order, both published and circulated to local authorities on 8 February, included provisions that reflected modifications made in light of representations received. Final comments on the orders were invited by 14 February.
Mr. Atkins: EC legislation concerning polluting emissions from waste incinerators is implemented by means of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and directions made under it. The 1990 Act gives the enforcing authorities strong enforcement powers and provides for transparency of compliance by requiring a range of information to be placed on the public register.
Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 18 January, Official Report, column 508, when he expects to publish the results of the survey of polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurens in soil in the vicinity of incinerators which is referred to in the November 1989 report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
Ms Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many incinerators have been closed because of dioxin emissions in each of the last five years, giving in each case the site of the plant and the level of dioxins being emitted.
Mr. Atkins: The Department does not have information about which if any incinerator closures in the last five years were the result of dioxin emissions. Many incinerators have ceased operating since the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into force because they were unable to meet the relevant BATNEEC--best available techniques not entailing excessive costs-- standards.
Ms Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the incinerators which have been investigated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution because of concerns over dioxin emissions giving in each case the site of the plant, the date and nature of the investigation and the outcome;
(2) if he will list in nanograms per cubic metre the level of dioxins being emitted from each waste incinerator in England and Wales;
(3) what action HMIP (a) has taken and (b) proposes to take to reduce levels of dioxin emissions.
Mr. Atkins: HMIP has issued authorisations under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, that require operators of incinerators to report, among other things, the release of dioxins to atmosphere. These are recorded on the public register. HMIP also routinely inspects the operation of incinerators against the terms of each authorisation and, from time to time, carries out its own measurements of the dioxin releases. HMIP carries out detailed investigations if it has reasons to believe there
Column 137has been a serious breach of the conditions of the authorisation. Thus, for example, HMIP has carried out an investigation of the operation of the incinerator owned by Coalite Ltd. and has subsequently instituted proceedings.
Through the authorisations it has issued, HMIP is requiring operators to improve operating conditions and the controls of particulates to reduce the release of dioxins. In addition, it is requiring by the 1 December
Column 1381996 that no incinerator shall operate unless the concentration of dioxin in its gaseous releases does not exceed 1 nanogram per cubic metre. This constitutes HMIP's view of what ought to be achievable using the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs, as required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The table shows all the available measurements of dioxin concentrations in the releases from all municipal and chemical waste incinerators regulated by HMIP.
Dioxin emissions from incinerators (HMIP) = Results by HMIP-all others by the operator HMIP region |Location |Type* |Each result ng/m<3> |Date of test ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ANG |Nottingham |MSW |5, 20, 71, 23 |January 1993 (HMIP) |26 |December 1993 |94.1, 50 |November 1994 ANG |Edmonton |MSW |5.1, 8.6 |January 1993 (HMIP) |7.1, 14 |March 1993 (HMIP) |11.2, 6, 9.9, 16.3 |January and March 1993 |January 1993 MID |Derby |MSW |12 |1992 MID |Malvern |MSW |46.4, 50, 73.6 |1994 (now closed) MID |Stoke on Trent |MSW (Two units) |No. 1=64, 118 |1993/94 |No. 2=208,306 MID |Tyseley-1 |MSW |19, 85 |April 1994 (HMIP) |Tyseley-2 |18, 87 |1993-94 MID |Wolverhampton |MSW |8, 10, 21, 17 |1993-94 MID |Coventry |MSW |25, 18.6 |1993-94 MID |Dudley |MSW |Closed MID |Killamarsh |Chemical |0.84 |November 1991 |1.05 |August 1993 |0.3 |September 1993 (HMIP) |0.53 |September 1993 (HMIP) |0.37 |March 1994 NE |Stockton on Tees |MSW |6.1, 2.3 |1994 NE |North Shields |MSW |Closed NE |Sheffield |MSW |4.1, 9.9 |March 1994 NE |Huddersfield |MSW |178, 182, 187, |May and |43, 39, 73 |September 1994 NE |Meltham |MSW |Now closed NW |Rochdale |MSW |6.8 |1993 NW |Bolton |MSW |5.8 |1993 NW |Ellesmere Port |Chemical |0.19, 0.17, 0.1, |August 1993 (HMIP) |0.12, 0.05, 0.28 |August 1993 (HMIP) |0.02 |August 1993 (HMIP) |0.023 |April-June 1994 |0.014 |July-September 1994 |October-December 1994 SW |Exeter |MSW |0.3 |1994 SW |Avonmouth |MSW |13.6 |1994 South |Havent |MSW |5.5, 13, 18, 36, |1991 |2.6 |1993 |April 1994 South |Basingstoke |MSW |51, 29, |1992 |99, |May 1993 |1.23 |April 1994 |0.3, 0.2 |August 1994 South |Winchester |MSW |210, 103, 58, |1992 |3 |May 1993 |April 1994 South |Marchwood |MSW |7.6, 4.5, 3.8, |1991 |4 |1.2, |May 1993 |1.7 |April 1994 |October 1994 South |SELCHP |MSW |Unit 1=0.4 |March 1994 |(Two units) |Unit 2=0.12 |March 1994 |Unit1=0.04 |December 1994 |Unit 2=0.03 |December 1994 South |MAFF Addlestone |Clinical |43, 32.6 |October 1993 South |Fareham |Sludge |0.12 |October 1993 |0.24 |August 1994 South |Fawley |Chemical |0.2 |June 1993 |0.19 |July 1993 |0.15 |September 1993 |0.08 |October 1993 |4.6 |November 1993 |0.64, 0.64 |January 1994 |0.71, 0.68, 0.67 |February 1994 |0.44 |February 1994 |0.65, 0.41 |March 1994 |0.7, 0.8 |May 1994 |0.4, 0.57 |June 1994 |0.8 |February 1994 (HMIP) |0.02 |March 1994 (HMIP) South |Grundon |Clinical |8.87 |January 1994 South |Southwick Park |Clinical (Two units) |Unit 1=2.63 |January 1994 |Unit 2=3.8 |January 1994 NE |Sheffield |Clinical |2.4 |June 1994 NE |York Water |Sludge |0.02 |November 1994 Wales |Pontypool |Chemical |1, 0.77 |July 1992 |0.35 |January 1994 |0.5 |March 1994 |0.61 |April 1994 |0.78 |May 1994 |0.39 |June 1994 |0.41 |July 1994 |0.6 |August 1994 |0.47 |September 1994 |0.41 |October 1994 *MSW = Municipal Waste Incinerator. 1 ng/m<3> = One billionth of a gram.
Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received from the Small Business Federation on the disregarding of crime prevention measures in the new rate revaluation; and if he will make a statement; (2) if he will make it his policy to amend regulations to take additional costs for protection of business premises
Column 140against crime out of the formula used for assessing new rateable values; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have received a number of representations from the Small Business Federation on the rating of certain security equipment. The Government agree with the recommendation of the Wood committee on the rating of plant and machinery that equipment installed to protect property from vandalism enhances the
Column 141value of that property and thus should attract rates. We have no plans to amend the regulations.
Column 142collected in Liverpool for each of the last five years; and how much the city has received back from this tax.
£000 |1990-91 |1991-92 |1992-93 |1993-94 |1994-95 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Receipts of non-domestic rates net of refunds |65,046 |79,114 |88,093 |58,961 |<1>50,548 Share of distributable amount |95,702 |117,961 |117,736 |100,968 |93,650 <1> Receipts of non-domestic rates collected from April 1994 to December 1994 only.
The figures for Liverpool's share of the distributable amount for the years 1990 91, 1991 92 and 1992 93--but not for subsequent years--include the amounts in respect of its preceptors, Merseyside police and Merseyside fire and civil defence authorities. The distributable amount includes rates paid by occupiers of property on the Crown and central rating lists, whereas the receipt figures are based only on amounts received from ratepayers on the local list. The figures are therefore not comparable.
Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost to the Exchequer of enterprise zones in the north-east region of England since 1979; and what has been the cost of each enterprise zone.
|Infrastructure |Rates forgone |EZ costs |£ million |£ million ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyneside |110,8 |16.4 Hartlepool |9.7 |1.0 Middlesbrough |10.2 |1.6 Sunderland |1.6 |7.2 Total |132.3 |26.2
The costs to the Exchequer of the accelerated capital allowances available on enterprise zones are estimated by an indirect method and are not reliable below national level. The estimated cost of these allowances for all enterprise zones in Great Britain up to October 1993 is £655 million.
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has now identified a single less-sensitive area high natural dispersion area for the River Humber for the purposes of the directive-- 91/271/EEC--on urban waste water treatment;
(2) if he has classified the waters to the east of the Humber bridge as coastal waters for the purposes of articles 6.2 and 8.5 of the directive-- 91/271/EEC--on urban waste water treatment;
(3) what plans he has to use the special procedure in article 8.5 of the directive--91/271/EEC--on urban waste
Column 142water treatment in respect of waste water discharges at any of the remaining locations referred to in his Department's announcement on 18 May 1994; if he will specify the locations where this will apply; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the waste water discharges at all such locations fall within the maximum permitted population equivalent levels for the purposes of article 6.2 of the directive;
(4) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the area identified as a less sensitive area for high natural dispersion area for the River Humber meets the criteria set out in annexe IIB of the directive-- 91/271/EEC;
(5) if he will make it his policy that in the event that the comprehensive studies currently being carried out in relation to waste water discharges from Hull into the River Humber demonstrate that advanced treatment will not produce any environmental benefit, question as to whether such advanced treatment should be provided as an exceptional circumstance will be referred to the European Commission under the special procedure in article 8.5 of the directive--91/271/EEC--on urban waste water treatment.
Mr. Atkins [holding answer 20 February 1995]: As I announced on 18 May last year, the Humber has been identified as a combined high natural dispersion area. The extent of the HNDA is as shown on the map in the Library of the House. The identification was made in the light of advice by the National Rivers Authority that the area qualifies as an HNDA in the context of the urban waste water treatment directive including in particular annexe IIB of the directive. The seaward boundary of the estuary has been drawn at the Humber bridge in accordance with the requirements of article 2, for the purposes of the whole of the urban waste water treatment directive.
The procedures set out in article 8.5 of the directive will be applied in respect of any discharge into an identified HNDA from an area with a population equivalent greater than 150,000, where a comprehensive study as required by article 6.2 indicates that the less stringent treatment provided for in that article will not adversely affect the environment. Comprehensive studies will have to be carried out before the relevant deadlines in the directive. If the comprehensive study being undertaken in relation to the discharge into the Humber at Hull indicate that more advanced treatment will not produce any environmental benefit, the Government will seek an article 8.5 derogation. If successful, this will ensure that the environment is protected while being of significant
Column 143benefit to water charge payers and to local trade effluent discharges.
Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer of 18 January, Official Report , column 508 , (1) when the further study of micropollutants including dioxins and furans in five towns and cities was completed;
(2) when he intends to publish the further study of micropollutants, including dioxins and furans, in five towns and cities, and if he will name the towns and cities involved.
Mr. Atkins [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The Department of the Environment set up its toxic micropollutants survey in 1991. When the study began, sites were located in London, Manchester, Cardiff and Stevenage. In 1992, the site at Stevenage was moved to Middlesborough and a new site was established at Hazelrigg in Lancashire. Since 1994, monitoring has continued at four sites in London, Manchester, Middlesborough and Hazelrigg.
Details of the study are given in laboratory reports, a copy of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Further copies of these can be obtained from the national environmental technology centre, Culham, Oxfordshire. Future reports from the study will be available from the Department's contractors.
In addition, a summary of the data from the study has been published in the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistic", which is also available in the Library.
Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the tonnages of marine aggregates he expects to be extracted from the North sea for road and house building until 2000; and if he will make a statement.
Sir Paul Beresford [holding answer 20 February 1995]: We have made no estimate of tonnages to be extracted. However, minerals planning guidance note 6, issued by the Department in April last year, contains the Government's guidance on aggregates provision in England up to 2006. It advises minerals planning authorities to assume that a total of 315 million tonnes of marine dredged aggregates will be contributed to construction industry needs, mainly in cement manufacture, over the period.
The extraction of marine aggregates is licensed by the Crown Estate and I understand that there are 57 current licences for dredging in the North sea, including the Thames estuary, permitting the extraction of up to 23.7 million tonnes per annum. The amount actually dredged depends of course on the market.
Column 144to local authorities of the arrival of a consignment of waste mercury for treatment and disposal; and if he will make a statement; (2) what notification is required to be given to local authorities prior to the arrival of a consignment of waste mercury for treatment; and if he will make a statement;
(3) what are the current licensing requirements for transportation of waste mercury in the United kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Atkins [holding answer 20 February 1995]: Mercury-bearing waste, depending on its concentration and chemical form, is normally a special waste and subject to the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, which apply to movements taking place wholly within the United kingdom. These require waste producers, before the waste is removed, to prenotify the waste regulation authority for the area in which the waste is to be disposed, using a consignment note. A copy is sent to the producer's waste regulation authority, if different, as soon as the waste is removed by the carrier. When the waste is received by the disposer, a copy is sent to the waste regulation authority in whose area the waste was produced. No licence is required for transporting waste but carriers, unless exempt, must be registered by a waste regulation authority.
Transfrontier shipments of waste for treatment and disposal must be notified in accordance with the provisions of the EC Waste Shipments Regulation--259/93--and the UK's Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994. Advance notification of an intended shipment must be made to the relevant authorities, using a consignment note. Within a prescribed period, the authorities must give their agreement or raise objections to the shipment. Shipments may take place only in the absence of objections and with the prior consent of the authorities concerned. Where consent has been given to a shipment, the person exporting the waste--the "notifier"-- must send a copy of the completed consignment note to the authorities concerned three days before the actual date of shipment. The consignee must send confirmation of receipt of the waste within three days of its arrival, again using the consignment note.
Transport, packaging and labelling, and health and safety legislation also apply in all cases.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what tonnage of waste mercury has been imported into the United Kingdom for treatment and disposal since 1979; what proportion has been treated and disposed of in Thurrock; and if he will make a statement.
Sir Paul Beresford [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The collation of statistics on transfrontier shipment of waste into and out of the United Kingdom began with the implementation of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. Statistics on transfrontier shipments before 1989 are not therefore available.
Imports of waste mercury into the UK for treatment and disposal between 1991 and 1994 are as follows:
Tonnes Year ------------------ 1991-92 |>0.5 1992-93 |0.0 1993-94 |20.4 <1> Figures may be subject to slight revision, as a result of validation exercises carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
Data showing imports of mercury wastes between 1989 and 1991, and relating specifically to sites in Thurrock, are not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly with further information.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider expanding the powers of the regulator to ensure the salary, share options and remuneration package of all chairmen and directors of privatised water companies are revealed at the time of their appointment.
Mr. Atkins: Remuneration of water company board members is a matter for each company and its shareholders, not for the Government or the regulator. Companies already publish information on directors' emoluments and share interests in their annual reports and accounts.
Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the relationship between capital and renovation grant programmes in relation to (a) local authority housing and (b) community care.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Local housing authorities are expected to formulate strategies and capital programmes to meet the housing needs of their areas, including those arising from community care, in conjunction with other interested parties locally. These plans cover expenditure on the authorities' own housing stock and on renovation grants to the private sector. The Government provide support for capital programmes through credit approvals and grants, including specified capital grants towards renovation grant costs. Authorities also finance expenditure from their own resources.
Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that training in housing management includes specific provision relating to (a) housing needs and (b) community care.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Department encourages local housing authorities to formulate comprehensive training strategies capable of developing the skill necessary to deliver an effective housing service. We would expect training provision to address issues such as housing needs and community care.
Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects work to begin on a comprehensive study of all mineral deposits in the Bristol channel; and what specific instructions will be given to those carrying out the study.
Column 146is in the Department's geological and minerals research programme. It is expected that work will start in 1995- 96. The specific aims of the project will be to make a comprehensive appraisal of the existing data to provide a clear indication of the physical processes, marine ecology and marine aggregate resources of the Bristol channel. This will provide essential information for the development of coastal protection policy and the determination of applications for marine aggregates extraction in the area.
(2) what (a) financial and (b) other support his Department has provided to the Packaging Standards Council in each of the last two years; and what support his Department intends to give in the future.
Mr. Atkins: The Packaging Standards Council is an advisory body set up by industry to promote good practice and seek continuous improvement in all aspects of the packaging offered to consumers. The Government welcome the valuable work done in this area by the council. In May 1994, the council approached the Government for support towards its operating costs. We took the view that a body of this type should be independent of the Government and that, in addressing consumer's concerns, its support is properly a matter for businesses in the packaging chain.
Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total public spending on the youth service by each local education authority in (a) cash terms and (b) as a proportion of the total local authority budget for each year since 1979; and what figures are projected for (a) 1994 95 and (b) 1995 96.
Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent in each year from 1979 80 to 1994 95; and what the planned spending is in 1995 96, in (a) Greater London (b) the metropolitan district areas and c) elsewhere, under (i) the revenue support grant (ii) the proceeds of the national non-domestic rate (iii) special grants and (iv) specific grants.
Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions have been reached by review of radioactive waste management policy about the siting of drystores for spent nuclear fuel.
Mr. Gummer: Consideration has now been given to the responses to the preliminary conclusions of the review, published in August, in relation to the siting of drystores for spent nuclear fuel. An appraisal of the implications of a multi-store strategy compared with the potential benefits of a single-store strategy has also been
Column 147carried out with particular regard to the question of safety. That appraisal does not point to conclusive benefits deriving from a central store or stores compared with one or more stores sited beside nuclear generating stations. The Government have therefore confirmed their preliminary conclusion that decisions on the siting of drystores for spent nuclear fuel should be a matter for the commercial judgment of the operators, subject to the necessary planning and regulatory requirements being satisfied.
Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what communications he had with the Irish Government prior to the Ireland- English football match regarding (a) the provision of tickets and (b) the arrangements in respect of English supporters; (2) which Minister in his Department was responsible for liaising with the Home Office on security matters affecting the
Ireland-England international football match.
(3) what discussions took place prior to the Ireland-England football match with the Football Association in relation to the attendance of English supporters.