| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fireworks
7. Ms Church: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the advantages of introducing the draft code of practice for fireworks being drawn up by trading standards officers. [36072]
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): The draft code of practice produced by the fireworks industry will be considered along with other comments I expect to receive in response to the forthcoming discussion document on firework controls.
Ms Church: I thank the Minister for that answer. As a former health and safety inspector and a mother of two young sons, I am horrified by the increase in firework accidents which has followed the Government's deregulation of import controls since 1994. What plans has the Minister to control specific dangerous fireworks, such as aerial shells, which have already claimed one life, before November this year?
Mr. Taylor: I am concerned about fireworks, especially imported ones, and I am especially concerned about the safety of young people. I am considering the draft industry code of practice and I am anxious to support trading standards officers. I will issue a discussion document shortly and will take account of all the responses, especially from trading standards officers. We will run a strong fireworks safety campaign this year.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I urge my hon. Friend not to be seduced by the sparkle of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church). Will my hon. Friend consider what real fireworks would be ignited if we imposed a national minimum wage and the social chapter and if we increased taxation and public expenditure under new Labour?
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but this question concerns fireworks. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) was not ingenious enough and we will move on.
Telephones (Fraudulent Charging)
8. Mr. Timms: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the level of fraudulent charging for international calls to premium rate telephone services available outside the United Kingdom. [36074]
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): International audiotext services are not billed in the distinctive manner of domestic premium rate services, and are not easily distinguishable by telecoms operators from other international services. I am therefore not aware of any assessments of the amount of fraud arising from international audiotext services.
Mr. Timms: Did the Minister read an article in the Scottish Sunday Mail a week ago, which documented a number of cases of people who had received large bills for calls to overseas premium rate services that they were adamant they had not made and no one else had access to their telephone lines to make? Does the Minister agree that British Telecom's approach--that those people are all lying or are grievously mistaken--is growing thin? Will the Minister use his influence with British Telecom, through the Office of Telecommunications, to ensure that the company takes seriously the increasing likelihood that serious fraud is being perpetrated?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised an article from the Scottish Sunday Mail in June. We have considered it and British Telecom was concerned about the matter. I am not sure that the problem is fraud so much as misuse. Those numbers have been misused because of the failure to use the facility of the bar in equipment in a person's property. We are concerned whether there is genuine abuse of international calls. I am delighted that the International Telemedia Association has been formed and I hope that it works with the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services, which is considering premium rate services in this country. If those two organisations compare notes, perhaps the surface operators can devise a set of standards that can be commonly applied.
Mr. Thomason: Notwithstanding that difficulty, can my hon. Friend confirm that British Telecom's price levels have fallen by more than 40 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, which was opposed by the Opposition?
Mr. Taylor: The Labour party sometimes tries to be "with it" on modern information and communication technology. It opposed liberalisation all the way through the 1980s and 1990s, but that is the basis on which we now deliver competitive services. Opposition Members may wish to note that we recently liberalised international telephony, and that has already provoked British Telecom and Mercury to reduce their international call charges.
We expect to license many other operators so that this country can be a genuine international hub for telephony and business.Emerging Technologies
10. Mr. Rendel: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to the research and development of emerging technologies in British industry. [36076]
Mr. Ian Taylor: My Department will continue to support innovation, including research and development, and to extol its benefits to British industry with the aim of encouraging investment in it. For this reason, we have conducted the foresight programme, and delivery programmes such as Link, the teaching company scheme, the crusade for biotechnology and the information society initiative, to encourage industry's investment in, and use of, new technologies.
Mr. Rendel: In general, the level of research and development in this country is below that in many of our competitors, including Japan, Germany and the United States. Given the importance of the emerging technologies for the future of our country--particularly in areas such as the Thames valley, where I come from--does the Minister feel that the current level of research and development is disappointing? Does he feel that it is time that the Government did more to help encourage research and development?
Mr. Taylor: Recently, the hon. Member for Newbury and I visited a company in his constituency that is at the forefront of technological development, thanks to the revolution that we have created in telecommunications. The Government are doing an enormous amount to stimulate British industry, and the best examples in this country can compare with any in the world.
As I said in the foreword to the recent "Research and Development Scoreboard", there is a long tail of laggards who are not putting enough into research and development. We are trying to get them closer to the science base in our universities and to stimulate them to increase their understanding that research and development and innovation will be crucial to their competitive edge as we go into the next century.
Mr. Batiste:
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the "Research and Development Scoreboard" is useful as the best evidence that is available at present, it is deficient in measuring all the research and development that takes place within the United Kingdom and in providing the basis for effective comparison with other countries? Will he and his Department make efforts to find a way to refine this information so that effective and accurate comparisons can be drawn in the future?
Mr. Taylor:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is a hugely complicated area on which to find figures. A lot of out-sourcing of research and development is sometimes not picked up in the figures, and some of the work that is done in our universities is more attributable to companies than to the universities, so it needs to be taken into account. However, overall, I am happy that there is
Mr. Ingram:
Does the Minister agree that the United Kingdom is the only major industrial country to reduce the proportion of gross domestic product it invested in research and development between 1991 and 1993? Does he agree with the view expressed by a civil servant in his Department's innovation unit who said that we have been outgunned two to one by our international competitors? Have not the Government created a culture of underfunding and under-investment in the bedrock of our economy: research and development? Instead of passing the blame on to industry for under-investment, will the Minister accept and recognise the failings of the Government in this area?
Mr. Taylor:
The proportion of GDP that the United Kingdom has invested in research and development has held up against all the other G7 countries, except France, since the last recession. I am criticising industry where it needs to be criticised. The hon. Gentleman should pay tribute where tribute is due. The Government have introduced a large number of schemes in an attempt to stimulate further interest in research and development.
The Department of Trade and Industry's work in this area is shown by its commitment to a cash-flat budget over the next few years, despite pressures elsewhere in government on budgetary constraints. Last weekend, I spoke with the German Minister--I know the difficulty that he has protecting his budget. He thinks that we are doing rather well, as do the inward investors coming into this country who are contributing to research and development. There is no doubt that the picture here is a good deal brighter than the hon. Gentleman is prepared to admit. By paying tribute to the British companies that are doing well, we may stimulate the others to do better.
Mr. Nigel Evans:
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to encourage private industry to invest more in research and development into emerging technologies, we must ensure that we do not heap extra bureaucracy on them, that we deregulate as much as possible and that we do not heap on them the social chapter, the minimum wage and the various other policies that new Labour would introduce? They would be new dangers to companies that are looking to invest more in research and development.
Mr. Taylor:
My hon. Friend puts his finger neatly on a key point. The Labour party is keen to introduce regulations, but the economic sectors that are necessary to the country's prosperity are fast-moving, high technology sectors, such as biotechnology, which need a stable regulatory environment and minimum Government intervention. We should not pile upon them social costs that are not necessary to their performance. The atmosphere that we have created in industry--particularly in high technology--through liberalisation has proved an enormous success and a benefit to this country. We want to keep it that way--and to keep the Opposition's hands off it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |