---

Office of Fair Trading

Mr. Congdon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to the cash or running costs limits to the Office of Fair Trading. [14217]

Mr. Lang: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 8 will be increased by £345,000 from £19,450,000 to £19,795,000. The increase, which is required to meet additional costs of litigation, will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Export Credits Guarantee Department

Mr. Congdon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an announcement on the level of ECGD cover. [14216]

Mr. Lang: I am pleased to announce that the amber zone budget, which controls the level of new commitments on markets where ECGD exposure is already concentrated or the risks are high, will be set at £3.8 billion in 1998-99.

Amber zone budget levels for 1996-97 and 1997-98--£3.2 billion and £3.5 billion respectively--were announced in the Chancellor's November 1994 Budget statement. This further confirmation of the rising trend serves to reaffirm this Government's continuing support for United Kingdom project exporters.

Departmental Cash and Running Cost Limits

Mr. Merchant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to his Department's cash and running costs limits and external financing limits for 1995-96. [14219]

Mr. Lang: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1--programmes and administration--will be increased by £44,811,000 from £1,233,341,000 to £1,278,152,000.

This net increase results from the provision of £52,900,000 in respect of UKAEA restructuring, £2,240,000 to reflect agreed changes to Nirex payments, £2,193,000 to meet the funding requirements of executive agencies, £227,000 to reflect the net effect of the transfer of gas and oil measurement branch to the Office of Gas Supply and transfers of £300,000 from Property Holdings in respect of the relocation of the Nottingham industrial tribunal office and £77,000 from the FCO in respect of international subscriptions. These increases are offset by reductions of £3,000,000 in energy programmes, £2,303,000 in support for business, £723,000 for laboratory privatisation and contractorisation, £1,100,000

6 Feb 1996 : Column: 145

in running costs and by the machinery of government transfer from the Department for Education and Employment--class V, vote 1--of running costs of £6 million which will be carried forward for use in 1996-97. The increase will be accounted for by a reduction in provision for the non-voted redundancy payments scheme of £19,900,000 with that remaining being charged to the reserve. As a result, there will be no increase to the planned total of public expenditure.

Within this total, the gross running cost limit for the Department of Trade and Industry is being reduced by £1,662,000 from £364,627,000 to £362,965,000. This change reflects machinery of government transfers from the former Employment Department--class V, vote 1--totalling £608,000 and the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service--class XVIII, vote 1--totalling £1,044,000, plus an agreed reclassification of £20,000 capital expenditure as running costs. This has been offset by a transfer to class XVIII, vote 1 of £434,000, by a transfer of £1,800,000 to class IV, vote 10 in respect of the transfer of the gas and oil measurement branch to the Office of Gas Supply, and by a reduction of £1,100,000 to offset earlier claims on the reserve.

Additionally, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 2--science--will be increased by £2,600,000 from £1,292,852,000 to £1,295,452,000 to enable the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to meet the cost of certain redundancies at Horticulture Research International. The increase is offset by a similar reduction in class III, vote 3 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The opportunity of the supplementary estimate is also being taken to switch resources between certain subheads of the vote.

A reduction of £2,300,000 is made in the external financing limit of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority from minus £10,300,000 to minus £12,600,000 to support the increased provision for UKAEA restructuring.

The EFL of Nuclear Electric is reduced by £15,000,000 to £272,000,000 to £257,000,000 resulting from agreed changes to provision of Nirex payments. Nuclear Electric's EFL is currently under review and may be changed at a later date.

Office of Gas Supply

Mr. Merchant: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to the cash limits and running costs limits for the Office of Gas Supply. [14218]

Mr. Lang: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV vote 10, Office of Gas Supply, will be increased by £1,000 from £6,540,000 to £6,541,000 and the gross running costs limit by £1,975,000 from £6,190,000 to £8,165,000.

The increase is required to cover the transfer of the gas measurement branch from the Department of Trade and Industry and other running costs associated with the introduction of competition into the gas supply market. The increase in running costs is offset by fees received by GMB.

6 Feb 1996 : Column: 146

Holidays

Mr. Meacher: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his most recent estimate of how many employees in the United Kingdom would receive an increase in their holiday entitlement in the event of the Government losing their case in the European Court against implementation of the European directive on working time. [13365]

Mr. John M. Taylor: The number would depend on the conditions of entitlement set by each member state. Many employees in Great Britain who are not entitled to the holiday periods specified in the directive are likely to have worked for their employers for less than a year.

Opposed Measures

Mr. David Porter: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of measures approved by Parliament since 1979 on the deregulation of the market economy, competition and the economic base of the country which were opposed (a) at Second or Third Reading, (b) in Committee and (c) on Report by Her Majesty's Opposition; and if he will make a statement. [13123]

Mr. Lang: I regret to say that the information as requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Porter: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of measures approved by Parliament since 1979 on industrial relations, labour market mobility and flexibility and the governance of trade unions which were opposed at (a) Second or Third Reading, (b) in Committee and (c) on Report by Her Majesty's Opposition; and if he will make a statement. [13119]

Mr. John M. Taylor: The information as requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Nuclear Power

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the advantages of extending the availability of public information and the provision of public document retrieval rooms in the nuclear power electricity generation industry. [13391]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: Considerable amounts of information about the nuclear power electricity generation industry are made available to the public, by the industry, by the Government in publications such as the 1995 White Paper "The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK" and by the industry's regulators. In addition, members of the public registering for the UK public offer will be sent information about British Energy, including an offer prospectus.

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations have taken place with the EC regarding the proposed privatisation of nuclear power generated electricity. [13390]

6 Feb 1996 : Column: 147

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: The Government advised the European Commission of their proposals for the nuclear power generation industry following the nuclear review and are keeping them informed of progress.

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the advantages for the privatised part of the nuclear power generation industry to have a segregated fund to meet obligations on decommissioning and waste disposal; and what guidelines on the amounts of such funds he has issued. [13285]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: The nuclear review, published in May last year, concluded that segregated funds are the best way of ensuring public confidence that the parts of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear to be privatised will meet their long-term decommissioning liabilities.

The Government have therefore indicated that as part of the privatisation a segregated fund will be established to cover British Energy's long-term decommissioning costs. A funding company will be established in Scotland, independent of the nuclear stations' owners. The funding company will be owned by an independent trust, and will enter into a contract with the privatised companies under which it will receive funds to meet long-term decommissioning costs. These arrangements will come into effect on privatisation. The final details, including the size of the fund, are under discussion.

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels plc; and what negotiations have taken place in respect of a segregated fund for the liabilities of the Magnox reactors following privatisation. [13287]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: The White Paper "The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK", Cm 2860, made it clear that the Government would not want to rule out privatisation on BNFL as an aim in the longer term. It also concluded that, while a nuclear generator was publicly owned, there was no practical benefit from a segregated fund to meet nuclear liabilities. Magnox reactors will remain in the public sector after privatisation.

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received alleging that privatisation of nuclear power generation will impact adversely on safety standards. [13288]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: Many submissions to the nuclear review raised the issue of safety and there is a continuing interest in safety issues. The advice of the independent Health and Safety Commission during the review was that the current regulatory system ensured a high level of safety and that there was no need to change it in any fundamental way on account of privatisation. In reaching the decision to privatise parts of the industry the Government considered the possible implications for safety very carefully. Safety is, and will remain, of paramount importance for both the Government and the nuclear industry.

6 Feb 1996 : Column: 148

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the advantage of increasing the numbers of staff employed in the nuclear installations inspectorate following nuclear privatisation; what representations he has received on the need to do this; if he will make a statement. [13289]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: Staffing levels within the nuclear installations inspectorate are a matter for the Health and Safety Executive which is the body responsible for making arrangements for the enforcement of safety legislation. HSE does not currently consider that extra resources will be necessary to ensure safety standards are maintained in a privatised industry. In their White Paper setting out the conclusions of the nuclear review the Government confirmed that they would ensure that the NII has all the resources necessary to do its job effectively.

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what comparative research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of other countries relating to (i) the statutory powers and (ii) the staff required to ensure safety in nuclear power generation. [13290]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: No such research has been commissioned or evaluated. Nuclear safety is a national responsibility and legal and administrative arrangements for regulating and managing the nuclear power industry and for ensuring its safe operation have developed from such widely differing legal bases in the countries with nuclear power plant that such comparison is unlikely to be productive.

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the work force of Nuclear Electric in each year since 1990; and what assessment his Department has made of efficiency savings that are possible without compromising safety. [13291]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: These matters are addressed in the annual report and accounts of Nuclear Electric's efficiency savings are a matter for the company. The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has confirmed that there is no inherent conflict between safety and efficiency and I am confident that Nuclear Electric's current high safety standards will be maintained.

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the licences that have been issued by the nuclear installations inspectorate since May 1975 to the (a) advanced gas-cooled reactor, (b) pressurised water reactor and (c) Magnox nuclear power generation sites; if he will list those licences that must still be issued; and if he will make a statement. [13361]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: The tables list all the current nuclear site licences for sites of AGR, PWR and Magnox nuclear power generation plants in the UK and give the date of issue of the most recent version of the site licence. As a result of restructuring of Nuclear Electric plc and Scottish Nuclear, new licences will be required for all those sites listed which are currently operated by them. Those sites listed which are operated by BNFL will not require new licences.

6 Feb 1996 : Column: 149

Nuclear site licences for sites of UK AGR, PWR and Magnox nuclear power installations

Licence number	Site	Reactor type on site	Date of issue
	Nuclear Electric plc
3E	Berkeley	Magnox	1 March 1990
4A	Bradwell	Magnox	1 March 1990
5D	Hinkley Point	Magnox	30 July 1993
6B	Trawsfynydd	Magnox	1 March 1990
8D	Dungeness	Magnox and AGR	1 March 1990
11B	Oldbury	Magnox	15 October 1993
12C	Sizewell	Magnox and PWR	1 March 1990
20C	Wylfa	Magnox	1 March 1990
25B	Hartlepool	AGR	1 March 1990
26D	Heysham	AGR	1 March 1990
Scottish Nuclear
SC1D	Hunterston	Magnox and AGR	1 March 1990
SC4B	Torness	AGR	1 March 1990
BNFL
31F	Sellafield (Calder Hall)	Magnox	30 March 1994
SC3C	Chapelcross	Magnox	28 September 1990

Mrs. Beckett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the safety record of nuclear power generation among OECD countries with (a) publicly owned and (b) privately owned nuclear industries. [13362]

Mr. Lang [holding answer 2 February 1996]: My Department does not have access to figures on other OECD countries which would enable the nuclear safety record of publicly or privately owned nuclear power generating industries to be compared. However, the World Association of Nuclear Operators has stated that it is aware of no evidence to suggest that the type of ownership has any bearing on the level of safety achieved.

---