| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Challenge Funding
Mr. Hargreaves: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish further details of the Government's proposals for the extension of challenge funding to local authority capital spending. [12981]
Mr. Gummer: The challenge funding concept has proved itself as one of the best approaches for funding elements of local authority spending. This is a chance to see how it might work when applied to the major areas of councils' capital expenditure.
Following my announcement on 30 November 1995, Official Report, column 1338, that the Government wish to build on the success of the challenge concept, I am today issuing to local authorities and other interested parties a consultation paper seeking views on one option for applying this approach to the funding of mainstream local authority capital expenditure.
Our proposals would give the more enthusiastic local authorities the opportunity to bid for a share of a capital challenge fund of up to £250 million and to supplement this with private sector cash. Local authorities will be able to decide their own priorities, so, for example, those who want to improve run down inner-city areas or enhance the rural environment will get more cash if they put their
30 Jan 1996 : Column: 654
backs into developing imaginative projects and partnerships. All have the chance to do this. The best projects will be targeted with the most resources, bringing with it all the benefits of value for money, and the chance to get local people and businesses involved in projects that ultimately use their money.
Our consultation paper sets out ideas for a challenge fund to support capital spending across all services. In particular, it invites comment on the option of proceeding with a pilot scheme to test a mechanism for distribution a proportion of total credit approvals for capital expenditure in the 1997-98 financial year. This pilot would build on the competitive approach already taken to funding elements of local authority capital expenditure, and would offer local authorities greater freedom to decide on their own spending priorities across the board.
We will consider carefully all comments made in response to the consultation paper before deciding how best to proceed. A pilot scheme, if undertaken, would inform decisions on how to build on the competitive element which is already part of the capital financial system to enhance local accountability and value for money.
Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House.
Mrs. Helen Jackson:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions of European law provide that an application for a drought order, where withdrawal of water from areas of sites of special scientific interest is being considered, is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment. [10853]
Mr. Clappison
[holding answer 23 January 1996]: Environmental impact assessment is required in accordance with directive 85/337/EEC for projects involving drilling for water supplies where groundwater abstraction is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. No drought orders made during the past 12 months have involved the construction of new boreholes. Environmental impact assessment is not required under the directive for surface water abstraction.
Mr. Gordon Prentice:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to prevent the incineration of toxic waste at sea; and if he will make a statement. [12383]
Mr. Baldry:
I have been asked to reply.
The incineration of toxic waste at sea has been prohibited since the start of 1991.
Mr. Llew Smith:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), of 27 November 1995, on military equipment embargoes,
30 Jan 1996 : Column: 655
Official Report, columns 426-27, if he will set out which parts and groups of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 apply in each case where an embargo has been imposed. [11051]
Mr. Oppenheim:
The UK interprets the embargoes on Argentina, Burma, Iraq, Liberia, Libya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, UNITA (Angola), former Yugoslavia and Zaire as including all goods in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.
In the case of Iran, the embargo also takes in goods or technology on the nuclear materials list in category 0 in annexe I to Council decision 94/942/CFSP on the control of exports of dual-use goods, the export of which is controlled by Council regulation (EC) 3381/94. There are two exceptions: the ban does not include equipment considered essential for the safety of civil aircraft and air traffic control systems, or radioactive material for medical equipment use, but the exceptions do not apply where there is knowledge or reason to suspect that the goods would go to a military end-user or be used for military purposes.
In the case of China, the scope of the EU ban has been left for national interpretation. We consider the following to be caught by the embargo: weapons and their specially designed components/ammunition, weapons platforms and any equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression. These categories fall under group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.
The voluntary embargoes on Armenia and Azerbaijan are in respect of arms and we interpret them as covering headings ML1, PL5002, PL5018, PL5021, ML2, ML3, ML4, PL5030, PL5006, ML5, ML6(a) and (b), ML7, ML8, ML9, ML10(a)-(f), ML16 (in respect of goods covered by headings ML1, ML2, ML3, ML4 and ML6(a) and (b), ML9, ML10(a)-(f), ML23 and ML26), PL520, ML23, ML24(a) and (b)2, and ML26 of group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994. However, any applications for other military equipment for these countries would receive close scrutiny.
Mr. Bell:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases remain pending within his Department under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [12207]
Mr. Oppenheim:
As at 31 December 1995, there were 1,610 cases before the courts under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 which had been commenced by the Department but which had not been concluded.
Mr. Gordon Prentice:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Office of Fair Trading has solicited the views of members of the travelling public in Burnley and Pendle concerning the proposed purchase by Stagecoach of Pendle council's 50 per cent. stake in Burnley and Pendle Transport. [12209]
30 Jan 1996 : Column: 656
Mr. John M. Taylor:
No. In the event that such a merger were announced, the Director General of Fair Trading would take account of all relevant factors, including the views of third parties.
Mr. Prentice:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Director General of Fair Trading consulted him before providing confidential guidance to the parties involved in the proposed sale of Pendle borough council's stake in Burnley and Pendle Transport. [12210]
Mr. Taylor:
It is not the practice of the Government or the Director General of Fair Trading to disclose whether confidential guidance has been sought or given in specific cases. In general, before giving confidential guidance, the director general will consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Ian McCartney:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people served on the boards of (a) British Gas, (b) British Telecom, (c) the Central Electricity Generating Board, (d) East Midlands electricity board, (e) Eastern electricity board, (f) London electricity board, (g) Manweb, (h) Midlands electricity board, (i) Northern electricity board, (j) Norweb, (k) South Wales electricity board, (l) South Western electricity board, (m) Southern electricity board and (n) Yorkshire electricity board in the final year before each was privatised. [12215]
Mr. Page:
The information requested, in relation to the organisations for which my Department has sponsorship responsibility, is as follows:
Note:
(11) The year in which the last Annual Report and accounts for the Central Electricity Generating Board as a whole was produced.
Sources:
Annual Reports and Accounts except Electricity Area Boards, where the Main Prospectus for the Regional Electricity Companies Share Offers was used.
30 Jan 1996 : Column: 657
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |