House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 10 Mar 2004 (pt 17)

10 Mar 2004 : Column 1548W—continued

Radioactive Waste

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what mechanisms she is evaluating to ensure that people hundreds of years hence are aware of (a) the presence and (b) the dangers of existing radioactive material which has a half-life extending beyond hundreds of years; [152619]

(a)

(b)

Mr. Morley: The safe operation of interim radioactive material and waste storage and eventual disposal facilities is a matter for regulatory control by the Health and Safety

10 Mar 2004 : Column 1549W

Executive and the environment agencies. Both Ministers and the regulatory bodies require safety cases submitted for the operation of such facilities to provide demonstration of adequate protection of the public and the environment both now and into the future. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has been set up under the "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" programme to provide recommendations to UK Government and the devolved Administrations on the best option, or combination of options, for safe long-term management of the UK's higher activity radioactive wastes, including all intermediate and high level waste, liable to arise in the foreseeable future.

Water Charges

Mrs. Calton: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the percentage change in charges to householders for water charges in the last five years, broken

10 Mar 2004 : Column 1550W

down by region; and what advice has been given to water providers with respect to such charges. [157372]

Mr. Morley: Water bills and sewerage bills are set separately by each water and sewerage company and water company in England and Wales. The boundaries of these companies do not conform to the boundaries between England and Wales nor to the boundaries between English regions. It has therefore not been possible to make assessments on the basis requested.

The Director General of Water Services (Ofwat) sets upper price limits for water and sewerage companies and approves companies' yearly charges schemes for customers. The Secretary of State issues guidance to Ofwat on Government policies affecting price limits and on the approval of charges schemes.

The average household water and sewerage bills for each company in England and Wales in each financial year since 1996–97 are set out in the following two tables.

Nominal average household sewerage bill (£)

1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 20000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04

Anglian 154 158 164 156 144 151 157 163

Dwr Cymru 136 146 158 166 140 147 152 155

North West 109 122 133 143 119 122 113 116

Northumbrian 113 118 126 141 110 112 96 101

Severn Trent 106 112 117 115 92 95 211 221

South West 202 213 229 237 205 203 152 159

Southern 131 141 152 162 148 153 93 95

Thames 93 98 102 104 92 95 122 127

Wessex 129 135 142 144 124 133 133 142

Yorkshire 113 115 118 123 109 112 112 117

England and Wales 117 123 131 134 116 119 121 125

Nominal average household water bill (£)

1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04

Anglian 128 126 124 116 107 110 113 116

Hartlepool 88 91 96 95 — — — —

Dwr Cymru 128 135 136 134 126 123 124 122

North West 93 99 101 103 103 107 109 118

Northumbrian 96 98 102 100 88 88 88 90

Essex and Suffolk 116 120 127 129 107 112 111 113

Severn Trent 88 97 105 113 106 108 108 112

South West 127 129 125 119 109 110 115 121

Southern 94 101 105 111 91 91 90 91

Thames 88 93 99 102 95 99 104 106

Wessex 114 118 124 124 107 112 113 119

Yorkshire 104 105 108 111 100 103 104 110

York 87 89 93 96 87 90 90 94

Bournemouth and West Hampshire 94 97 103 102 99 98 101 102

Bristol 100 104 108 111 101 105 106 107

Cambridge 103 106 106 98 86 87 90 94

Cholderton 126 130 151 136 130 141 153 143

Dee Valley — — — 120 107 106 104 106

Chester 106 108 108 — — — — —

Wrexham 130 129 129 — — — — —

Folkestone and Dover 114 118 116 117 118 125 125 135

Mid Kent 131 135 141 146 117 123 127 128

Portsmouth 72 72 73 74 74 75 75 76

Mid South East — — — — 118 114 121 126

South East 156 155 158 159 — — — —

Mid Southern 114 115 116 120 — — — —

South Staffs 75 78 81 85 84 86 86 89

Sutton and East Surrey 136 135 139 134 112 120 121 126

Tendring Hundred 149 150 152 151 137 142 146 153

Three Valleys 107 112 117 124 106 111 112 116

North Surrey 108 112 123 126 109 111 103 110

England and Wales 101 106 112 112 103 105 107 111

	1996–97	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	20000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04
Anglian	154	158	164	156	144	151	157	163
Dwr Cymru	136	146	158	166	140	147	152	155
North West	109	122	133	143	119	122	113	116
Northumbrian	113	118	126	141	110	112	96	101
Severn Trent	106	112	117	115	92	95	211	221
South West	202	213	229	237	205	203	152	159
Southern	131	141	152	162	148	153	93	95
Thames	93	98	102	104	92	95	122	127
Wessex	129	135	142	144	124	133	133	142
Yorkshire	113	115	118	123	109	112	112	117
England and Wales	117	123	131	134	116	119	121	125

	1996–97	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04
Anglian	128	126	124	116	107	110	113	116
Hartlepool	88	91	96	95	—	—	—	—
Dwr Cymru	128	135	136	134	126	123	124	122
North West	93	99	101	103	103	107	109	118
Northumbrian	96	98	102	100	88	88	88	90
Essex and Suffolk	116	120	127	129	107	112	111	113
Severn Trent	88	97	105	113	106	108	108	112
South West	127	129	125	119	109	110	115	121
Southern	94	101	105	111	91	91	90	91
Thames	88	93	99	102	95	99	104	106
Wessex	114	118	124	124	107	112	113	119
Yorkshire	104	105	108	111	100	103	104	110
York	87	89	93	96	87	90	90	94
Bournemouth and West Hampshire	94	97	103	102	99	98	101	102
Bristol	100	104	108	111	101	105	106	107
Cambridge	103	106	106	98	86	87	90	94
Cholderton	126	130	151	136	130	141	153	143
Dee Valley	—	—	—	120	107	106	104	106
Chester	106	108	108	—	—	—	—	—
Wrexham	130	129	129	—	—	—	—	—
Folkestone and Dover	114	118	116	117	118	125	125	135
Mid Kent	131	135	141	146	117	123	127	128
Portsmouth	72	72	73	74	74	75	75	76
Mid South East	—	—	—	—	118	114	121	126
South East	156	155	158	159	—	—	—	—
Mid Southern	114	115	116	120	—	—	—	—
South Staffs	75	78	81	85	84	86	86	89
Sutton and East Surrey	136	135	139	134	112	120	121	126
Tendring Hundred	149	150	152	151	137	142	146	153
Three Valleys	107	112	117	124	106	111	112	116
North Surrey	108	112	123	126	109	111	103	110
England and Wales	101	106	112	112	103	105	107	111

10 Mar 2004 : Column 1551W

TREASURY

Compliance Performance Targets

Mr. Gray: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answers of 26 January 2004, Official Report, column 110W, and 1 March 2004, Official Report, column 658W, on compliance performance targets, what the compliance performance estimate the for Inland Revenue was for 2003–04 as agreed as part of the planning process for the current year; and what the estimates for the compliance performance were in 2003–04 of (a) the Large Business Office and (b) International Division. [160099]

Dawn Primarolo: The Inland Revenue has not drawn up compliance performance estimates since 1999–2000, when a global estimate for the Department was given. As the Board's report for 2003 sets out, yield figures vary according to the number and tax effect of the complex enquiries brought to settlement in each year, and this is also affected by the consequences of litigation undertaken.

Project ASPIRE

Mr. Gray: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answer of 27 February 2004, Official Report, column 575W, on the Inland Revenue, which commissioners of the Inland Revenue had prior knowledge of the suppliers with whom the Inland Revenue team intended to meet as part of the market making exercise for Project ASPIRE. [160014]

Dawn Primarolo: As the Board member responsible for Business Services, Tim Flesher had prior knowledge of the suppliers with whom the Inland Revenue team intended to meet as part of the Market Making exercise for Project ASPIRE.

Mr. Gray: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who the board member referred to in paragraph 54 of the Minutes of Evidence of the Public Accounts Committee, HC 431-i, Session 1999–2000, as responsible for John Yard's division on 12 April 2000 was; on what date that board member started the planning for re-tendering the Inland Revenue's information technology service referred to in the Minutes of Evidence; and on what date it was decided to conduct the market making exercise referred to in the Minutes of Evidence. [160016]

Dawn Primarolo: As I stated in my answer of 6 February 2004, Official Report, column 1081W, the Board member responsible for Business Services on 12 April 2000 was Tim Flesher, who at that time was the Inland Revenue's Deputy Chairman. As I also stated in my answer of 16 December 2003, Official Report, column 803W, planning for the ASPIRE project began in January 2001. The Market making exercise was conceived by the Inland Revenue between August and October 2001, as stated in my answer of 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 141W.

Mr. Gray: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answer of 30 January 2004, Official Report, columns 569–70W, which commissioners were present at the meeting on 7 March 2002 on Project ASPIRE; whether the commissioners addressed the

10 Mar 2004 : Column 1552W

assembled suppliers; and whether the commissioners were informed in advance of those suppliers who had indicated that they would attend the meeting. [160015]

Dawn Primarolo: Sir Nicholas Montagu KCB, Chairman of the Inland Revenue, and Tim Flesher, the former Deputy Chairman of the Inland Revenue were present at the meeting on 7 March 2002. Both addressed the meeting and had been informed in advance about which suppliers would attend the meeting.

Next Section

Index

Home Page