Previous Section Index Home Page


Education Expenditure, Derbyshire

Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been given to Derbyshire county council in respect of education for each year since the introduction of revenue support grant. [13754]

Mr. Raynsford: The table below shows the education SSA figures for Derbyshire county council, along with Derbyshire's share of the national total, since the introduction of revenue support grant in 1990-91.

YearEducation SSA for Derbyshire (£ million)Percentage of national total
1990-91271.7981.84
1991-92311.3131.82
1992-93329.8581.80
1993-94(16)296.0171.79
1994-95(16)302.6731.80
1995-96(16)302.8391.78
1996-97(16)319.9221.80
1997-98(16)(17)236.4311.33

(16) SSA figure is not comparable with that for the previous year as a result of changes to the Education SSA formula e.g. removal of further education in 1993-94 from local authority responsibility.

(17) SSA figure is much lower following reorganisation in Derbyshire on 1 April 1997. The total Education SSA of Derbyshire CC and the City of Derby is £320.622 million (1.80 per cent. of the national total).


4 Nov 1997 : Column: 142

Wood Dust and Formaldehyde

Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the research centres whose work has been evaluated by his Department in respect of research into (a) exposure to fine wood dust and (b) exposure to formaldehyde particles; what contact his Department has had with them; and what contact is planned in the future. [13866]

Angela Eagle: Comprehensive reviews of the international scientific literature were undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and considered by the Health and Safety Commission when advising on the setting of Maximum Exposure Limits for formaldehyde and softwood dusts under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

Studies have been carried out on formaldehyde for HSE by the Medical Research Council toxicology unit. HSE has also commissioned work on wood dust with the Health and Safety Laboratory. Future contact will depend on the nature of the new research commissioned and the findings that emerge.

Studies on non-occupational exposure have been carried out for my Department by the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environment and Health and by the Building Research Establishment, where long term studies are continuing. My Department will maintain contact with these research organisations.

Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the safety exposure limit, in parts per million, for formaldehyde emissions set by (a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) other EU member states; and what international figures his Department has evaluated. [13865]

Angela Eagle: Formaldehyde has a maximum exposure limit (MEL) of two parts per million for an eight-hour time weighted average and for a 15-minute reference period under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH).

The occupational exposure limits for other EU member states and worldwide, where information is available, is in the table below. Under COSHH, employers are required to control exposures to formaldehyde to a level as low as is reasonably practicable and in any case below the MEL. It is therefore misleading to compare the numerical value of the MEL with limits in other countries, where limits have different definitions and applications.

4 Nov 1997 : Column: 141

Occupational exposure limits and guidelines for formaldehyde

Country or YearConcentration Interpretation
region(mg/m(20))(ppm)
Australia19911.51.2 TWA; probable human carcinogen, sensitizer STEL
32.5
Austria19821.201.00TWA
Brazil19782.301.90TWA
Belgium19911.21TWA; probable human carcinogen
2.52STEL
Bulgaria19841.000.80TWA
Chile19832.402.00Ceiling
China19823.002.50TWA
Czech Republic19910.50.4TWA
10.8STEL
Denmark19910.400.30STEL; suspected carcinogen
Egypt19596.205.00TWA
Finland19931.301.00STEL, 15 min; significant absorption through skin
France19913.002.50STEL
Germany19930.600.50TWA; suspected carcinogenic potential; local irritant; sinsitizer
Hungary19910.600.50Ceiling; probable human carcinogen; irritant; sensitizer
India19833.002.50Ceiling
Indonesia19786.005.00Ceiling
Italy19781.201.00TWA
Japan19910.610.50TWA; suspected carcinogenic potential
Mexico19833.002.50TWA
Netherlands19861.51.2TWA
32.5Ceiling, 15 min
Norway19900.60.5TWA; allergen; suspected carcinogen
1.21Ceiling
Poland19912.001.60TWA
Romania19754.003.00MAX
Russian Federation19910.500.40STEL; significant absorption through skin; allergen
Sweden19910.60.5TWA; sensitizer
1.21Ceiling
Switzerland19910.60.5TWA; sensitizer
1.21Ceiling
Taiwan19816.005.00TWA; significant absorption through skin;
United Kingdom19922.52TWA; maximum exposure limit
2.52STEL, 15 min
USA
ACGIH(18)19930.370.3Ceiling; suspected human carcinogen
0.020.01TWA; potential human carcinogen
NIOSH(19)19920.120.1Ceiling, 15 min
0.90.75TWA
OSHA(20)19932.52.0STEL

Key

(18) ACGIH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists--This is a non statutory body and the limits they prescribe are only a recommendation.

(19) NIOSH: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health: A research institute whose limits are only advisory.

(20) OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration: The statutory agency whose limits apply by law.

MEL: Maximum exposure limit. MELs have a particular status under COSHH. Under the Regulations, there is a duty to control exposure to substances with a MEL to a level as low as is reasonably practicable, and in any case below the MEL. This duty to reduce exposures thus does not stop once the MEL level has been achieved, but continues until all that is reasonably practicable has been done. This special status of MELs means that it is misleading simply to compare the numerical value of a MEL with a limit that applies in another country, where limits have different definitions and applications.

TWA: Time weighted average. Both the long-term and the short-term exposure limits are expressed as airborne concentrations averaged over a specified period of time. The period for the long-term limit is usually eight hours; the short-term exposure limit (STEL) in the UK is 15 minutes but may be different elsewhere.


4 Nov 1997 : Column: 143

4 Nov 1997 : Column: 143

Fibreboard

Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the health risks associated with medium density fibreboard. [13867]

Angela Eagle: The Health and Safety Executive is conducting a literature review into the health effects of medium density fibreboard (MDF). My Department has commissioned the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environment and Health to carry out a preliminary assessment of the potential risks from the domestic use of MDF. Both those studies complement earlier extensive research and reviews on the possible health risks to which MDF could give rise. Machining of MDF can result in exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust.

4 Nov 1997 : Column: 144

Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the health risks associated with medium density fibreboard; and if he will publish these. [13868]

Angela Eagle: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has recently received many enquiries about the use of medium density fibreboard from employers, employees, the self-employed, members of the public, trade associations, trade unions and the press.

Two representations have also been received by HSE, one from an individual and another from a trade union. Such representations are normally treated in confidence

4 Nov 1997 : Column: 145

and HSE will disclose them only with the prior consent of those who made them. These will, however, be taken into account in any future action that may be proposed.

Local Authority Housing

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority homes have been transferred since the inception of the stock transfer policy; what capital receipts have been received as a result of the stock transfer policy; if he will make a statement on the impact of stock transfer policy since 1988; and how much private finance has been attracted to the stock transfer policy. [13977]

Mr. Raynsford: Since 1988, 58 local authorities have completed 63 large scale voluntary transfers of all or part of their housing stock. These transfers have led to the transfer of over 252,000 dwellings, many of the tenants have benefited as a result of increased investment in their homes. So far, transfers have generated over £2.4 billion in capital receipts and raised over £4 billion in private finance for the acquisition, repair and maintenance, and management of the properties.

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of (a) the capital repair backlog to council housing in each London borough and (b) the capital spending approved for the current year. [13495]

Mr. Raynsford [holding answer 3 November 1997]: Authorities' estimates of the cost of the capital work required to their housing stock on 1 April 1996 and the allocations made to local authorities in London for the current financial year under the housing improvement programme are listed in the table.

£ thousands
Column 1Column 2Column 3
Estimated need for capital work to council housing in LondonTotal capital work required at 1 April 1996Housing annual capital guideline 1997-98
Barking and Dagenham(21)130,8483,944
Barnet37,5533,704
Bexley24,2261,485
Brent49,0138,002
Bromley(22)--1,329
Camden(23)--9,924
City of London18,164342
Croydon92,3857,118
Ealing70,6425,689
Enfield46,2413,266
Greenwich99,0698,459
Hackney495,00012,451
Hammersmith and Fulham78,4577,325
Haringey38,9628,692
Harrow40,9811,613
Havering91,3942,144
Hillingdon(21)75,7504,431
Hounslow74,3833,879
Islington216,7689,255
Kensington and Chelsea35,0295,519
Kingston upon Thames21,9991,570
Lambeth938,44312,308
Lewisham164,74410,086
Merton21,5232,322
Newham207,56210,394
Redbridge23,9932,335
Richmond upon Thames91,7422,059
Southwark(23)--11,540
Sutton(21)60,1552,058
Tower Hamlets162,6058,608
Waltham Forest158,0805,435
Wandsworth77,9807,429
Westminster77,3779,619

Local housing authorities are required to submit returns from which the data in column 2 is collected. Local authorities use different methods to produce their estimates. The figures in column 3 are net of allocations for renewal of private sector stock and for disabled facilities grants.

(21) Indicates that authorities were unable to provide precise information, but they were able to provide their best estimates of the need for capital work to their stock.

(22) Indicates that authorities have transferred their entire council housing stock to a registered social landlord and are no longer required to submit the return from which this data is collected.

(23) Indicates that authorities were unable to supply an estimate of the need for capital work to their stock.


4 Nov 1997 : Column: 146

The Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill provides the legislative framework for the Capital Receipts Initiative, under which the Government expects to provide additional resources to support local authorities' capital expenditure on housing. The Government plans in the current financial year to make available £174 million under the Initiative to local authorities in England.

Local authority housing benefits from resources provided under other programmes such as the single regeneration budget challenge fund and the estates renewal challenge fund. Local authorities can also use their own resources to support capital expenditure on housing.


Next Section Index Home Page