Search Results

1-20 of 406 results for primarymember:"Harold Elletson"

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

What plans he has to continue the trials of curfew orders with electronic monitoring after March 1997. - I have decided to continue the existing trials in Berkshire, Manchester and Norfolk until March 1998.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 March 1997

Reference

21671; 292 c856W

House

House of Commons

Attorney General

How Next Steps principles are being applied in the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office. - Inc ref to 264 c820W and management frameworks (in Library as DEP/3 4908).

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Attorney General

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 March 1997

Reference

21514; 292 c696W

House

House of Commons

Treasury

What has been the impact on the public finances of financing capital projects under the Private Finance Initiative rather than entirely from public funds.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Treasury

Oral questions - Lead

Status

Answered

Date

13 March 1997

Reference

292 c487; 18527

House

House of Commons

Treasury

1st supplementary on PFI Projects in the NHS.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Treasury

Oral questions - 1st Supplementary

Status

Answered

Date

13 March 1997

Reference

292 c487

House

House of Commons

Prime Minister

Supplementary on growing threat to children from drugs and making prevention of drug crime a priority.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Prime Minister

Prime Minister's questions - 1st Supplementary

Status

Answered

Date

13 February 1997

Reference

290 c461-2

House

House of Commons

Dept of the Environment

Statement on when and how he will use his powers under the Housing Act 1996 to help council leaseholders in difficulty with high service charges.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of the Environment

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

For answer on

4 February 1997

Answered on

4 February 1997

Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when and how he will use his powers under the Housing Act 1996 to help council leaseholders in difficulty with high service charges. [14460] Mr. Clappison: Research published in 1995 showed that, while the great majority of people who bought their council flat saw it as good value for money, a small proportion were in particular difficulties with service charges which were often much higher than they expected when they bought. Sometimes costly works were needed to maintain or repair large system-built blocks and leaseholders received little or no benefit from the work. In some cases, the landlord had received special assistance--for example, from the estate action programme--to carry out the works, but his leases still obliged him to charge leaseholders. Following public consultation, we have today introduced two measures which will come into force later this month. They will lead to reductions in some of the highest bills for maintenance, repair and improvement works. The first measure is the Social Landlords Discretionary Reduction of Service Charges (England) Directions 1997. This allows local authorities and other social landlords to reduce or waive service charges for past, current and future works of repair, maintenance or improvement carried out with assistance from estate action, city challenge, the single regeneration budget challenge fund or the estates renewal challenge fund, where the assistance was applied for before 25 February. It will also allow them to reduce or waive charges for works--even if they did not receive such special assistance--so that total service charges do not exceed £10,000 for the same property over any five year period. Landlords will be able to reduce bills, including those which have already been sent out, and they will be able to offer refunds. We have set out criteria that they will have to consider in deciding whether and by how much to reduce charges. The second measure is the Social Landlords Mandatory Reduction of Service Charges (England) Directions 1997. This requires social landlords to charge no more than £10,000 for the same property over any five-year period for repair, maintenance or improvement works carried out with assistance from the single regeneration challenge fund or the estates renewal challenge fund, where assistance is bid for on or after 25 February. They may only charge more if the benefit to the leaseholder from the works exceeds that amount. In some cases, they must charge less. The cost of complying with the mandatory directions can be included in the bid for assistance. The measures use our new powers in sections 219 and 220 of the Housing Act 1996. They will come into force on 25 February 1997. They are being sent to English local authorities and other social landlords, together with detailed guidance on how to comply. This will enable them to bring relief to some of their leaseholders who face difficulties with high bills.

Legislation

Housing Act 1996; Social Landlords Discretionary Reduction of Service Charges (England) Directions 1997; Social Landlords Mandatory Reduction of Service Charges (England) Directions 1997

Date

4 February 1997

Reference

14460; 289 c537-8W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Statement on farm incomes. - Inc fact that detailed estimates of the income, output and productivity of United Kingdom agriculture in 1996 were published this morning and have been placed in the Library.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

31 January 1997

Reference

14213; 289 c408W

House

House of Commons

Adjournment debate on government policy towards North Korea

Adjournment debate on government policy towards North Korea.

Lead member

Harold Elletson

Answering member

Jeremy Hanley

Department

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Type

Adjournment debates

Date

16 January 1997

Reference

288 c517-24

House

House of Commons

Treasury

To comment on the economy in the North West of England.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Treasury

Oral questions - Lead

Status

Answered

Date

16 January 1997

Reference

288 c441; 9519

House

House of Commons

Treasury

1st supplementary on same.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Treasury

Oral questions - 1st Supplementary

Status

Answered

Date

16 January 1997

Reference

288 c441

House

House of Commons

Welsh Office

What is the estimated cost to public funds of (a) completing the construction of the Cardiff Bay Barrage and (b) dismantling and removing the superstructure and foundations already in place and returning the site to the condition which obtained before construction commenced.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Welsh Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 January 1997

Reference

10723; 288 c293W

House

House of Commons

Welsh Office

What targets the Welsh Office has set for attracting inward investment and jobs to Cardiff by 2000; and what assessment he has made of the effect a failure to complete the construction of the Cardiff Bay Barrage would have on the ability of the region to meet those targets.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Welsh Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

15 January 1997

Reference

10722; 288 c293-4W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

Statement on the outcome of the consultation on further deregulation of the pools industry. - Inc fact that draft Deregulation (Football Pools) Order was laid.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

For answer on

14 January 1997

Answered on

14 January 1997

Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on further deregulation of the pools industry. [11055] Mr. Kirkhope: On 16 August last, I issued a consultation paper with proposals for further deregulation of the pools industry. The consultation period ended on 31 October 1996. I have carefully considered the views expressed in response to our consultation document and am now in a position to report our conclusions and the way forward. As a first step, I laid yesterday the draft Deregulation (Football Pools) Order to facilitate midweek football pools competitions. The order removes the requirement that football pools competitions retailed through premises must be based on forecasts of matches played on weekends and public holidays. The draft order is now subject to the scrutiny of the Deregulation Committees in both Houses. I also yesterday relaxed the rules on rollover of prizes in pool competitions. When rollover was first introduced in November 1994, rollover in the pools had to follow rollover in the national lottery. This restriction has now been removed. Rollover will now be subject only to the requirement that the top prize must not be rolled more than three weeks in succession and subject to an overall annual limit of nine rollovers in each series of pool competitions. I have placed a copy of the Direction in the Library. In addition, I am considering proposals to allow the payment of football pools winnings in retail outlets and plan to bring forward a further deregulation order as soon as possible. I have also reached conclusions on the wider proposals contained in the consultation document. The following proposals were put forward for consideration: relaxation of the restrictions on the types of sporting events for which pools competitions can be retailed through shops and other premises; and, as a consequence, reduction of the minimum age for participation in all pools competitions from 18 to 16 (16 is already the minimum age for participation in football pools competitions); removal of the restrictions on the timing of those events; allow payment of small pools winning in all premises; remove the requirement for promoters to notify their weekly profits and expenses percentage in advance to the local authority accountant. Concerns were expressed by the bookmakers, the racing bodies and a range of organisations at the impact of allowing unlimited competitions on horseracing and sporting events to be retailed through premises, particularly if this were to include payment of winnings in public houses. It was considered this could change the pools into a harder form of gambling with frequent opportunities to participate and chase losses. I have taken careful account of these views in deciding the extent to which further deregulation is appropriate. I have decided that it would not be appropriate to bring forward a measure to allow the retailing of pool competitions on horseraces in premises. In addition, competitions on events other than football should not be allowed in liquor licensed premises or clubs. Any further proposals to allow retailing of competitions on other sporting events would require further consultation with interested parties. I have discussed the way forward with the pools companies and interested parties and I am satisfied that this package of measures will help the industry to compete without undermining the regulatory framework or changing the nature of the pools as a soft form of gambling.

Legislation

Deregulation (Football Pools) Order 1997

Date

14 January 1997

Reference

11055; 288 c189-90W

House

House of Commons

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

When he last discussed the situation in North Korea with the United States Government.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 January 1997

Reference

9830; 288 c29W

House

House of Commons

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

When he last discussed the situation in North Korea with the Government of the Republic of South Korea.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 January 1997

Reference

9831; 288 c29W

House

House of Commons

Dept of the Environment

What funds he plans to make available to authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1st April 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1997-98. - Includes table.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of the Environment

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

For answer on

18 December 1996

Answered on

18 December 1996

Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds he plans to make available to authorities that have been or are to be reorganised on 1 April 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1997-98; and if he will make a statement. [10336] Mr. Curry: On 10 October, I invited authorities that have or are to be reorganised on or before 1 April 1998 to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1997-98. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the maximum amounts to allocate towards such costs in 1997-98. I have given priority to authorities to be reorganised in 1997 and 1998. The majority of authorities to be reorganised in 1998 asked for allocations in respect of redundancy to be deferred until the mid-year review in October 1997. Accordingly, the allocations listed for authorities reorganising in 1998 are not intended to cover redundancy costs. Maximum amounts: £000 rounded _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Authority 1997-98 1996 reorganisations Hartlepool Borough Council 1,200 Redcar and Cleveland Council 900 Middlesbrough Borough Council 1,300 Stockton on Tees Borough Council 800 Bristol City Council 900 North Somerset Council 800 Bath and North East Somerset Council 900 South Gloucestershire Council 1,000 Kingston upon Hull Council 700 East Riding of Yorkshire Council 2,500 North Lincolnshire Council 700 North East Lincolnshire Council 700 York City Council 800 1997 reorganisations Bedfordshire County Council 700 Luton Borough Council 3,300 Milton Keynes Borough Council 2,200 Derbyshire County Council 900 Derby City Council 2,600 Dorset County Council 400 Bournemouth Borough Council 2,700 Poole Borough Council 2,600 Durham County Council 400 Darlington Borough Council 1,660 East Sussex County Council 1,700 Brighton and Hove Council 4,000 Hampshire County Council 1,400 Portsmouth City Council 2,600 Southampton City Council 2,700 Leicestershire County Council 800 Leicester City Council 3,100 Rutland District Council 1,260 Staffordshire County Council 500 Stoke-on-Trent City Council 2,400 Wiltshire County Council 80 Thamesdown Borough Council 800 1998 reorganisations Berkshire County Council 1,100 Bracknell Forest Borough Council 2,100 Newbury District Council 2,400 Reading Borough Council 2,700 Slough Borough Council 1,900 Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 2,200 Wokingham District Council 2,900 Hereford and Worcester County Council 300 Hereford City Council 100 Leominster District Council 150 Malvern Hills District Council 200 South Herefordshire District Council 50 Devon County Council 1,000 Plymouth City Council 2,600 Torbay Borough Council 3,000 Essex County Council 500 Southend on Sea Borough Council 2,100 Thurrock Borough Council 2,400 Nottinghamshire County Council 400 Nottingham City Council 2,700 Cheshire County Council 500 Halton Borough Council 2,200 Warrington Borough Council 3,000 Shropshire County Council 300 The Wrekin District Council 2,400 Kent County Council 1,000 Gillingham Borough Council 200 Rochester City Council 400 Cambridgeshire County Council 400 Peterborough City Council 2,900 Lancashire County Council 800 Blackburn Borough Council 2,700 Blackpool Borough Council 2,700 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. The Isle of Wight and Buckinghamshire county council did not submit bids. Initial allocations will be made to the new shadow authorities of Herefordshire, Worcester, East Malvern and Tenbury, and Rochester and Gillingham shortly after they are established in May 1997.

Date

18 December 1996

Reference

10336; 287 c612-3W

House

House of Commons

Dept of the Environment

Statement on response to the recommendations from the Local Government Commission following its recent reviews of Blackburn, Blackpool, Halton, Medway Towns, Peterborough, The Wrekin, Thurrock and Warrington.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of the Environment

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

17 December 1996

Reference

9948; 287 c551-2W;287 c552W

House

House of Commons

Dept of the Environment

Statement to direct the Local Government Commission to review local government arrangements in Southport. - Copies of the direction, the guidance and the joint statement in Library as DEP/3 4244.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of the Environment

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

4 December 1996

Reference

7930; 286 c647-8W;286 c646W

House

House of Commons

Dept of the Environment

When he intends to publish the revision of Mineral Planning Guidance Note 7. - Document was published today. Copies available in both Houses.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of the Environment

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

29 November 1996

Reference

6735; 286 c407W;286 c405W

House

House of Commons

Dept of Social Security

Statement on review of National Insurance contributions for 1997-98. - Inc figs.

Asked by

Harold Elletson (Conservative)

Answering body

Department of Social Security

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

For answer on

26 November 1996

Answered on

26 November 1996

Mr. Elletson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has yet completed his review of national insurance contributions for 1997-98. [6584] Mr. Lilley: I have completed the annual review under section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. My proposals will take effect from 6 April 1997. As I announced last year I intend to reduce the main rate of contributions for employers by 0.2 per cent. This will save employers as a whole over £500 million a year. The additional Treasury grant necessary to make up for the shortfall in income to the national insurance fund will be met from the landfill tax announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in last year's Budget. There will be no change to the standard rate of contributions for employees which will remain at 10 per cent. Employers and employees In line with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the lower earnings limit for class 1 contributions is to be raised to £62 a week. It is set at the level of the basic retirement pension rate for a single person from April 1997, rounded down to the nearest pound. The upper earnings limit is to be raised to £465 a week which is slightly less than 7 1/2 times the new basic pension rate as provided by the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. These new earnings limits will replace the current ones of £61 and £455 respectively. Employees whose earnings reach the lower earnings limit will continue to pay an initial contribution of 2 per cent. of that limit and standard rate contributions of 10 per cent. on that portion of their earnings which exceeds the lower but not the upper earnings limit. For employers the three lower contribution rates remain unchanged at 3 per cent., 5 per cent. and 7 per cent., respectively. The earnings thresholds for these rates have tended to rise faster than inflation in recent years and will therefore also remain unchanged for the coming year. Non-contracted-out employees and their employers Neither employees nor employers will have to pay any contributions if earnings are less than £62 a week. Employees whose earnings do not exceed £455 (the former upper earnings limit) will pay 8 pence a week less in contributions than at present. This is because a further £1 of their weekly earnings will be subject to the 2 per cent. rate rather than 10 per cent. For employees with earnings above £455, the maximum possible increase will be 92 pence a week. All employers will pay less where earnings are £210 a week or more. There will be no change for employers where earnings are between £62 and £210 a week. Contracted-out employees and their employers In March this year I announced the new levels for the rebate on class 1 national insurance contributions for people contracted-out of the state earnings related pension scheme which will take effect from April 1997. The financial effect, combined with changes to the lower and upper earnings limits and the reduction in the main rate of contributions paid by employers, is as follows: Employees with earnings between £62 and £95 will pay slightly less. Those with earnings between £95 and £455--the former upper earnings limit--will pay between one penny and 72 pence a week more. For those who earn more than £455 the maximum possible increase will be £1.56 a week. Employers who operate a contracted-out salary-related scheme Where earnings are less than £210 most employers will pay 3 pence a week extra. This is due to the increase in the lower earnings limit which means that a further £1 of earnings is not subject to the contracted-out rebate. All employers will pay less where earnings are £210 a week or more. Employers who operate a contracted-out money purchase scheme A new system of age-related rebates applies from April 1997. A reduced flat rate rebate will be paid to employers, with a flat rate rebate to employees at the same rate as for COSRS, and a further age related payment made by the Contributions Agency direct to the pension scheme. All employers will pay more, ranging from a few pence where earnings just exceed the lower earnings limit to a maximum of £5.01 a week where earnings reach £455 (the old upper earnings limit), although their statutory requirement to make minimum payments to the pension scheme will be less at all relevant earnings levels. Self-employed people The flat rate class 2 contribution will be raised by 10p to £6.15 a week. There will be no change to the rate of class 4 contributions which will remain at 6 per cent. The annual limits of profits between which class 4 contributions are paid will be raised to £7,010 and £24,180 from £6,860 and £23,660 respectively. Self-employed people who pay only class 2 contributions will pay an extra £5.20 a year in 1997-98. For people with profits between £7,010 and £23,660-- the former upper profits limit--Class 4 contributions will be reduced by £9 a year assuming an unaltered level of profits. For those self-employed people with profits at or above the new upper profits limit the annual charge for Class 4 contributions will be £22.20 higher. Class 3 (voluntary) contributions The rate of class 3 contributions will be raised by 10p to £6.05 a week. National health service allocation The allocation to the national health service is unchanged at 1.05 per cent. from employees and 0.9 per cent. from employers. Treasury grant Although benefit expenditure from the national insurance fund will broadly match income--I need to ensure that the fund maintains a prudent working balance throughout the coming year and--in accordance with section 2(2) of the Social Security Act 1993, I propose to do so by means of a grant from the Treasury. I estimate that the grant required will be approximately £1.4 billion. As usual, I shall be laying a draft order before Parliament together with a report by the Government Actuary describing the effects of my proposals.

Date

26 November 1996

Reference

6584; 286 c205-7W

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher