| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Single Regeneration Budget
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the results of the latest round of bidding under the single regeneration budget. [3952]
Sir Paul Beresford: Before Christmas.
Statutory Instruments
Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many statutory instruments his Department sponsored in the last Session of Parliament; and how many of these (a) constituted a new rule or regulation, (b) were introduced to implement European Community directives and (c) amplify the minimum standards set out in an original European Community directive. [2464]
Mr. Clappison [holding answer 28 November 1995]: The Department of the Environment was responsible for 192 statutory instruments in the last Session of Parliament. It is not possible to give a precise number for those which constituted a new rule or regulation. However, the White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead", Cm 2867, presented to Parliament in May this year, referred at page 192 to seven categories of regulations made in 1994. The statutory instruments made during the last Session of Parliament for which the Department was responsible fell within those categories as follows:
- (i) EU and international obligations: 9
(ii) NHS Trusts: 0
(iii) Fees and local provisions: 43
(iv) Facilitating privatisation and competition: 12
(v) Repeals and more favourable regimes: 12
(vi) Other (with possible impact on business): 39
(vii) Other (with no impact on business): 80.
The totals do not exactly correspond with the total number of statutory instruments as a small number fall within more than one category.
In addition, nine statutory instruments have been made since the Health and Safety Executive became a non-departmental public body in connection with which the Department of the Environment has responsibilities.
Of these, three fell within the category of giving effect to EC and international obligations, one fell within the category of fees and local provisions, five fell within the category of repeals and more favourable regimes and six within the category of other instruments with a possible impact on business.
4 Dec 1995 : Column: 14
None of the instruments adopts measures which set higher standards than minimum standards explicitly laid down in an EC directive.
Mr. Macdonald:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a complete list of all radioactive waste dumped since 1965 west of the Hebrides showing (a) the date, (b) the amount, (c) the source and (d) the exact location. [3177]
Mr. Baldry:
I have been asked to reply.
No radioactive waste has been dumped since 1965 west of the Hebrides. The "Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the North East Atlantic" by Professor F. G. T. Holliday, which is in the House Library, lists all the locations where the United Kingdom has disposed of radioactive waste at sea.
Mr. Burden:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if regional electricity companies will be able to claim corporation tax relief or any other tax relief on any rebate given to domestic consumers arising out of the sale of the national grid; and what is his estimate of the expected value of any such tax relief to the regional electricity companies (a) per customer and (b) in total. [3391]
Mr. Jack:
The general tax rules apply to any business which reduces its charges to customers. The precise tax consequences will depend on the particular arrangements. If, for example, a business reduces its prices for future services, then, in general because the business is not entitled to the money, there would be no charge to tax-- a business would not be charged to tax on profits to which it was never entitled. If, however, the circumstances were such that a rebate was made out of sums which counted as taxable trading receipts, the rebate would be allowed only as a deduction in calculating the business's profits for tax purposes if the expenditure satisfied the general test that it was revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of earning the business's profit.
I cannot comment on the particular arrangements and tax affairs of individual taxpayers.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the tax on low sulphur motor vehicle diesel to eliminate the retail price difference. [3750]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
No. There are a number of new diesel products under development which will meet future environmental standards. I am not satisfied that any change in the duty structure would be justified.
4 Dec 1995 : Column: 15
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax expenditure of mortgage interest relief in each of the years since 1991-92. [3731]
Mr. Jack:
The total cost of mortgage interest relief in the years 1991-92 to 1994-95 is given in table 5.1 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1995", a copy of which is in the Library.
The estimated total cost of the relief in 1995-96 is about £2.8 billion. This is based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current average building society interest rate.
Mr. Matthew Banks:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing to increase public service pensions from April 1996. [4459]
Mr. Waldegrave:
Under the legislation governing public service pensions, they are increased annually by the same percentage as state earnings-related pensions-- additional pensions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 28 November, Official Report, column 618, that additional pensions will be increased by 3.9 per cent. in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index up to September. Public service pensions will therefore be increased by 3.9 per cent. from 8 April 1996. Pensions which have been in payment for less than a year will receive a pro rata increase.
Mr. Matthew Banks:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the future of the office of Her Majesty's Paymaster General. [4460]
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
In accordance with its framework document, a full prior options review of the office of Her Majesty's Paymaster General will now be conducted, covering all its activities. The terms of reference for the review will be as follows:
4 Dec 1995 : Column: 16
Contributions from interested parties are invited and should be addressed to:
Ms Ruddock:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the Finance Act 1995; [246]
(2) if the Finance Act 1995 was (a) subject to and (b) modified on account of an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", produced by the Department of the Environment; and if he will publish the appraisal; [244]
(3) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the Finance Act 1995 were considered in any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [245]
Mr. Jack
[holding answer 22 November 1995]: The main measure in the Finance Act 1995 relevant to the environment was the real terms increase in road fuel duties enacted in sections 6 and 7.
It was announced in the March 1993 Budget that the Government's policy would be to increase fuel duties by at least 3 per cent. on average in real terms in future Budgets in order to help to restrain carbon dioxide emissions. In the November 1993 Budget, this was raised to 5 per cent. Raising duties in this way will make a significant contribution to the UK programme for limiting CO2 emissions in line with our commitments under the UN convention on climate change.
Since the office of Her Majesty's Paymaster General became a next steps agency nearly three years ago, it has made significant improvements to its efficiency, competitiveness and quality of service. It has won substantial business in competition with public and private sector competitors. I believe that there is a prima facie case now for moving the work of the agency into the private sector, subject to the review revealing no obstacles to this. Privatisation could offer new opportunities for the agency, its staff and--most important--its customers. The review will, therefore, focus on feasible options for moving the agency into the private sector.
To carry out a full Prior Options Review of the Office of Her Majesty's Paymaster General (PAYMASTER), consulting interested parties. To consider the need for the functions of the Agency and for the Government's retaining responsibility for them; whether any need to remain in the Civil Service and if so, to recommend suitable arrangements and a mechanism for transferring the rest to the private sector.
They should be received before 26 February 1996. The results of the review will be announced in due course.
The Treasury Accountant
HM Treasury
19 Allington Street
London
SW1E 5EB
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |