| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Feb 2003 : Column 168W—continued
Thames Flood Management Plan
Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress made in preparing the Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan. [95347]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 4 February 2003]: The Department is promoting the Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) initiative with the Environment Agency and has to date made funds available for five pilot studies. The Agency has developed a programme for delivery of CFMPs to cover the whole of England over the next five years.
The Thames Valley will be covered by eight plans; one for the River Thames itself and seven others on the major tributaries. The scoping phase of these plans has just started and is programmed to be complete by September.
Once the scoping work has been completed, subject to a satisfactory review of the five pilot plans, the main studies will begin. Currently, the eight plans for the Thames Valley are scheduled to be completed by December 2005.
United Nations Environment Programme
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual contribution to UNEP has been in each year since 1997; and what the anticipated contribution will be in the next financial year. [94972]
Mr. Meacher: The United Kingdom Government places a high value on the work of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and since 1997 has contributed 4.2 million annually to UNEP's Environment Fund. A decision has yet to be taken on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair's budget for UNEP for the next financial year.
Waste
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her assessment is of the cost per tonne of the environmental externalities associated with (a) landfill and (b) incineration. [89618]
Margaret Beckett: The most recent estimates published by the Government are contained in the Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales, Part 2, Appendix B. (Cm 4693–2) (http://defraweb/environment/waste/strategy/cm4693/index.htm). This contains the following information.
4 Feb 2003 : Column 169W
Several studies have been published which attempt to value the environmental costs and benefits of different waste management options. It is difficult to make comparison between these studies, as they adopt different assumptions about technology used, emissions factors, environmental impact of emissions and economic values of environmental impacts. They do not all have the same coverage of environmental impact and some emissions and impacts are omitted due to absent data. Some studies do not adequately report the uncertainty in their estimates of environmental costs, and these are likely to be significant.
Most of the work done so far looks at single waste management options (ETU 1996), single materials (BNMA 1995), or compares the environmental costs of incineration and landfill (CSERGE 1993). Only one major study (Coopers and Lybrand 1997) compares incineration, landfill and recycling the different fractions of MSW. The result of these studies generally support the view that recycling has net environmental benefits over incineration and landfill (with the possible exception of certain materials, such as plastic film). The results of the Coopers and Lybrand (1997) study are shown in the table (Table C4, options with negative external cost have net environmental benefits). However, these estimates seem to omit the costs of leachate from landfills, all disamenity costs and some of the environmental costs of processing for recycling.
| Waste management option | External cost estimate £ per tonne of waste,1999 prices |
|---|---|
| Landfill | 3 |
| Incineration (displacing average-mix electricity generation) | -17 |
| Recycling | -161 |
| Ferrous metal | -297 |
| Non-ferrous metal | -929 |
| Glass | -196 |
| Paper | -69 |
| Plastic film | 17 |
| Rigid plastic | -48 |
| Textiles | -66 |
Source:Adapted from Cooper and Lybrand (1997)
CSERGE (1993) suggests that existing rural landfill sites without energy recovery may have net external costs of between £1.09 and £10.90 per tonne (1999 prices). These estimates exclude disamenity costs which the study suggests could be significant. The same study suggests that urban incinerators with energy recovery may have net external benefits up to £15.20 per tonne, through to a net environmental cost £4.10 per tonne (1999 prices). However, this does not reflect potential disamenity impacts and it assumes that the electricity generated displaces in that of a coal-fired power station.
These estimates of external costs should be viewed with caution, due to the level of uncertainty in quantifying and valuing impacts, particularly those on human health. However they do provide an indication of the relative impacts of different waste management options—while recognising that the external costs per tonne of waste may vary according to location and the quantity of waste sent to each option.
4 Feb 2003 : Column 170W
DEFENCE
Aircraft Carriers
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious are in extended readiness and refit simultaneously. [94556]
Mr. Ingram: Neither HMS Invincible nor HMS Illustrious are currently in extended readiness.
HMS Invincible is nearing completion of her refit at Rosyth and, following sea trials, is planned to return to the Fleet in May 2003. HMS Illustrious commenced her refit at Rosyth in Mid November 2002. These refits are part of the planned maintenance cycle for aircraft carriers. The short overlap is operationally manageable.
Ammunition Stocks
Mr Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the level is of war stocks held in the UK; and what level of stocks are held of each ammunition type. [95116]
Mr. Ingram: Specific information relating to ammunition stock levels is withheld under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Infonnation. However, I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence has a stockpile of munitions held against the risk of short notice conflicts. Stockpile planning is subject to continuous review in order to ensure that it reflects as accurately as possible the likely nature of conflicts in which the United Kingdom Armed Forces could become involved.
Armed Forces (Inoculations)
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether armed forces personnel are obliged to sign legal waivers in advance of the administering of Chemical Biological Warfare inoculations. [93647]
Dr. Moonie: No. There is no requirement for Service personnel included in any vaccination programme to sign any waivers or disclaimers, whether they accept the vaccinations or not. Personnel may be asked to confirm that they have received the necessary briefings, and units may maintain administrative records of which personnel have received the necessary briefings, need to be re-offered vaccines, or receive boosters, so that the continuity of immunisation programmes can be maintained. However, none of these records constitutes a legal waiver or disclaimer, and none supplants the Ministry of Defence's responsibilities in respect of the health and safety of Service personnel.
Armoured Vehicles
Mr Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what levels of spares are being taken overseas for the (a) Challenger 2 tank and (b) Warrior fighting vehicle. [95117]
Mr. Ingram: All units deploy with their Unit Spares Accounts (USAs) stocked with 30 days of spares required to carry out level 1 and 2 repairs (repairs carried out by the user and unit attached Royal
4 Feb 2003 : Column 171W
Electrical and Mechanical Engineer tradesmen). Royal Eogistic Corps support units hold farther spares, reflecting anticipated usage rates derived using lessons learnt from Exercises such as SAIF SAREEA II.
Carlyle Group
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the departmental minute placed in the Library on 17 December 2002, if he will estimate the maximum potential value of the retained liabilities to which the taxpayer will be exposed as a consequence of the sale of a 33.8 per cent. shareholding in QinetiQ to Carlyle Group. [94952]
Dr. Moonie: As disclosed in the departmental minute of 17 December 2002, there is a group of warranties for which Ministry of Defence has a maximum liability equivalent to the cash proceeds received in relation to the transaction. The precise value of these proceeds will not be confirmed until after the completion accounts have been finalised, but is currently forecast to be £140 to £150 million. In setting MOD's maximum liability to the purchaser, we have deducted the £50 million already received as part of the PPP process, as this was a previous payment made directly to MOD by QinetiQ.
In addition, as set out in the departmental minute, MOD has given further indemnities for which the maximum possible exposure is as follows:
- compensation for the premature cancellation for the 25-year Long Term Partnering Agreement for Ranges and Test and Evaluation services (sliding scale from £40 million in year one to zero at the end of year three);
an actuarial adjustment to the QinetiQ pension fund (maximum £45 million);
certain specific provisions in QinetiQ's accounts (maximum £4.3 million); and
costs arising but not yet incurred related to vesting of QinetiQ (maximum £3 million).
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |