|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
John Healey: The Government commissioned Cambridge Econometrics to carry out an independent evaluation of the climate change levy. Copies of the evaluation, modelling the initial effects of the climate change levy" were published at Budget 2005, are available in the House of Commons Library and on www.hmrc.gov.uk. and its main findings are summarised in chapter 7 of the PBR 2005 report.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's assessment is of the impact of the climate change levy on carbon emissions; and how much of this impact it estimates is attributable to (a) the price effect and (b) other effects consequent upon its introduction. 
The Government commissioned Cambridge Econometrics to carry out an independent evaluation of the Climate Change Levy (CCL). This evaluation, Modelling
8 Feb 2006 : Column 1249W
the initial effects of the climate change levy", concluded that the levy is effective and should save over 3.5 million tonnes of carbon per annum by 2010. In particular, Cambridge Econometrics concluded that the announcement effect of CCL in Budget 1999 will, in combination with the price effect, have reduced energy demand in the commerce and public sector by 14.6 per cent. by 2010. Cambridge Econometrics attribute most of the emissions savings to the announcement effect. However, because these two effects interact in CE's model, it is not possible to apportion precise carbon savings to either effect in isolation.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the impact of a 10 per cent. change in the climate change levy on carbon emissions after (a) six months and (b) three years. 
John Healey: Based on historical price movement, it is estimated that an increase in CCL rates of 10 per cent. could reduce emissions by around 0.1 million tonnes of carbon per annum after three years. This excludes any announcement effect. No reliable estimates are available of the impact on carbon emissions after 6 months.
Mr. Harper: To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to paragraph 333 of Consolidated Budget Guidance 200607, what arrangements his Department has agreed with the Ministry of Defence for the control of non-cash to near-cash switches; and what definition of near-cash he uses. 
Mr. Des Browne: Near-cash in the MOD is defined in the same way as in other Departments except that it includes profit and loss on disposal and excludes the cash release from provisions. This definition was agreed at spending review. As part of the settlement, and to incentivise MOD to rationalise its asset base, MOD was provided with limited flexibility from 200607 to switch resources from non-cash to near-cash when non-cash savings are made which result from managed physical reductions in assets, or when non-cash savings result from management decisions to extend the life of an asset on value for money grounds.
Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the (a) net borrowing and (b) net taxes and national insurance contributions projections contained in the pre-Budget report make allowance for the forthcoming group litigation orders in the European Court of Justice on franked investment income tax rules. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis:
Consistent with the Code for Fiscal Stability, the PBR projections take into account the fiscal effects of all firm decisions announced in the PBR or since Budget 2005. Also consistent with the Code, the PBR projections do not take account of circumstances where the impact could not be quantified at the time with reasonable accuracy. The PBR document made it clear that the Government would continue to robustly defend the corporation tax system against legal challenges under EU law.
8 Feb 2006 : Column 1250W
Jon Cruddas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the 20 local authority areas with the highest male mesothelioma mortality levels in the last year for which figures are available; 
Mrs. McGuire: Mesothelioma mortality rates are not readily available for individual years. However, mortality rates for local and unitary authorities (UAs) relative to the rate for Great Britain as a whole are available for the period 19962000. Rates are not available for Northern Ireland.
Mesothelioma mortality rates for London boroughs relative to the rate for Great Britain as a whole for the period 19962000 for males and females are given in the following table. An area with a relative rate above 100 indicates a higher rate of mortality than for Great Britain as a whole; conversely an area with a rate below 100 has a lower rate than Great Britain as a whole.
|Number of deaths||Mortality rate relative to GB||Number of deaths||Mortality rate relative to GB|
|Westminster, City of||17||95||1||38|
|Hammersmith and Fulham||7||54||4||197|
|Kensington and Chelsea||4||28||4||181|
|City of London||1||119||0||0|
|Barking and Dagenham||44||266||9||332|
|Kingston Upon Thames||8||56||1||44|
|Richmond Upon Thames||10||57||4||140|
The number of mesothelioma deaths in Northern Ireland, hence the total for the UK, is not available by sex. There were 1,922 mesothelioma deaths in total in the UK in 2003 (the most recent year for which data are available). Of these, 1,874 deaths occurred in Great Britain, of which 1,591 were among males and 283 among females.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|