| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BMARC
Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has anything to add to his answers of 19 June 1995, Official Report, column 59 and 14 July 1995, Official Report, column 797, about BMARC. [12681]
Mr. Oppenheim:
The work of licence recovery, examination and cataloguing undertaken since the start of the BMARC affair has led to the identification of a number of export licence applications whose existence was not known at the time of the answers given on 19 June 1995, Official Report, column 59, and 14 July 1995, Official Report, column 796.
26 Jan 1996 : Column: 426
The problem of retrieving export licence documentation is complicated by the large volumes of papers involved, and the fact that the archived papers are not stored by company name. In order to retrieve papers it is necessary first to use various databases to identify the individual applications made by any given company; then to establish the individual reference numbers relating to the applications concerned; and finally to use these to identify the relevant archive locations. It is only following these steps that the papers can be called back and inspected.
While verifying and cataloguing the new findings, an unrelated search of licence application papers carried out towards the end of last year showed some weaknesses in the systems used for indexing applications. A wider search was then put in hand, with the aim of seeing whether the identification and recovery of any of BMARC's licence applications might have been hindered by similar problems. This further work led to the discovery of an additional batch of applications.
| Year | Number |
|---|---|
| 1985 | 148 |
| 1986 | 133 |
| 1987 | 186 |
| 1988 | 134 |
| 1989 | 105 |
| 1990 | 174 |
| Total | 880 |
In addition, over the same period, a further five cases have been identified of index records apparently relating to BMARC export licence applications, but where the absence of any surviving documentation makes it impossible to confirm this.
I am bringing these new findings to the attention of the Trade and Industry Committee in view of its current inquiry into the granting licences to BMARC for the export of naval guns to Singapore.
Mr. Battle:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent by his Department on publicity and media relations for each year since 1990. [12482]
Mr. John M. Taylor:
Expenditure from centrally managed budgets on publicity and media relations, excluding staff costs, has been as follows:
26 Jan 1996 : Column: 427
1990-91: £16,413,000
1991-92: £10,918,000
1992-93: £10,633,000
1993-94: £9,377,000
1994-95: £8,931,000
Departmental Expenditure
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to (a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979-80, (ii) 1989-90, (iii) 1991-92 (iv) 1993-94, (v) 1994-95, (vi) 1995-96 and (vii) 1996-97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11390]
Mr. John M. Taylor [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Details of departmental telephone costs prior to 1991-92 are not readily available. Comparison of the figures for successive years must be treated with caution as they are affected by major accommodation moves and, for the DTI agencies and regional Government offices, only include the use of the Government telephone network, other charges being met from local budgets.
- 1991-92: £3.2 million
- 1992-93: £4.2 million
- 1993-94: £3.9 million
- 1994-95: £2.9 million
- 1995-96: £3.3 million (anticipated)
Internal telephone directories are available to staff in the Department and its agencies. Non-departmental public bodies are not listed in these but can receive copies.
Mr. Bruce:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95 and (f) 1995-96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996-97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations [11388]
Mr. Taylor
[holding answer 25 January 1996]: Total Departmental expenditure on publicity is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.
Total advertising expenditure from centrally managed budgets for the years in question is as follows:
Press and public relation costs, as reflected through the costs associated with the Department's press office, are as follows:
26 Jan 1996 : Column: 428
Member to answer given by my hon. Friend the then Minister for Energy on 2 June 1992, Official Report, column 492-93.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years (a) 1979-80, (b) 1989-90, (c) 1991-92, (d) 1993-94, (e) 1994-95 and (f) 1995-96. [11389]
Mr. John M. Taylor
[holding answer 25 January 1996]: The sickness absence database of the Occupational Health and Safety Agency shows the average number of days sick leave per employee for the Department is:
The budgets for 1995-96 and 1996-97 are not broken down by media.
1979-80: £1,554,000
1989-90: £10,492,000
1991-92: £966,000
1993-94: £784,000
1994-95: £561,000
1995-96: £530,000 (spend to end December 1995)
Budgets for 1995-96 and 1996-97 do not specifically separate out press and public relations costs. For the comparable expenditure in earlier years, I refer the hon.
1993-94: £1,987,000
1994-95: £1,766,000
1995-96: £1,212,000 (spend to end December 1995)
| Calendar years | Number |
|---|---|
| 1990 | 8.5 |
| 1991 | 8.4 |
| 1992 | 8.2 |
| 1993 | 8.9 |
| 1994 | 7.0 |
Comparable statistics are not available for earlier years. The 1995 figure is not expected to be published until August 1996.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Agriculture Council
Mr. Dunn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 22 and 23 January; and if he will make a statement. [11850]
Mr. Douglas Hogg: No decisions were taken at this short meeting. The only substantial item was a further discussion of the Commission's proposals for changes to the arrangements for bananas. The Commissioner expressed his intention of making some additional proposals with a view to securing agreement: but member states' views remain deeply divided. I underlined the need to protect the interests of the African, Caribbean and Pacific suppliers of bananas, in line with the Community's commitments.
The presidency held a dinner at which there was "informal" discussion of the use of hormones for fattening beef cattle, in the light of the scientific conference organised by the Commission last year.
During the Council, I took the opportunity to question the Commissioner about his promised proposals on the welfare of calves reared for veal. He said he expected to be able to table these very shortly.
Mr. Luff:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the conclusions of the review that the Government have been carrying out into oil dispersant policy; and if he will make a statement. [12065]
26 Jan 1996 : Column: 429
Mr. Baldry:
The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) announced to the House in April 1993 that the Government would conduct a review of oil dispersant policy. Two scientific reports were commissioned and published and we prepared a consultation paper setting out proposed improvements which was circulated to over 600 bodies. Sixty-four responses were received. We have responded on issues where suggestions were made; in general, there was broad agreement to our plans and we have now prepared a final report completing the review. We have concluded that it would be fully justified to retain oil dispersants as the UK's primary means of combating oil spills at sea in order to protect economic and environmental resources, although oil dispersants may not be appropriate in all instances. All products will continue to be required to pass efficacy and toxicity tests. These tests will, in future, incorporate some minor improvements designed further to protect the marine environment. I have initiated the development of protocols, in conjunction with the industry, that will enable bioremediation products to be licensed in the UK. These could, in due course, make an important contribution to clean-up operations. There will also be new arrangements for labelling products in line with our policies on openness. In carrying out the review, I have also managed to achieve modest deregulatory gains by enabling manufacturers to submit their own test results. Finally, I intend to publish a booklet explaining the approval process which will include a code of good spraying practice. A copy of the final report has been placed in the Library of both Houses.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |