| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clean Coal Technology
14. Mr. Tipping: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to promote the further development of clean coal technology. [5794]
Mr. Page: In the past 12 months, in partnership with United Kingdom industry and universities, we have initiated 51 clean coal technology research and development projects worth more than £16 million.
Mr. Tipping: Has the Minister seen estimates that, by the year 2003, more than half our electricity will be generated by gas? If that is correct, does it not imply, first, that the coal industry faces further difficulties and, secondly, that it is vital to invest in clean coal technology in the longer term to ensure security of supply?
Mr. Page: There are two aspects to my response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I believe that British industry can take advantage of a vast export market by using the types of technologies advanced through those research and development programmes. Secondly, the Government
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1035
believe that any demonstration of clean coal technology is best undertaken as part of the European Commission's development programme. The project could cost £300 million or £400 million. Officials took a group of industrialists to Brussels recently, and that is the best way to ensure that that sort of technology is introduced into the United Kingdom.
Mr. Beggs: In addition to the steps already taken, will the Minister make contact with the Environmental Engineering Concepts company in my constituency, which has produced a product that promotes almost 100 per cent. combustion and reduces noxious emissions and maintenance costs? That product would be invaluable in promoting clean coal technology.
Mr. Page: Since 1993, 43 United Kingdom companies have taken part in a host of projects that have produced the kind of product to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I could give the House a list of companies that have enjoyed extremely good export sales from technologies of that kind. I will ensure that my Department contacts that company to evaluate its position in the process.
Business Failures
15. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business failures there have been since April 1992. [5795]
Mr. Ian Taylor: Since the beginning of April 1992, there have been 80,780 company insolvencies, comprising 31,690 compulsory liquidations and 49,090 creditors' voluntary liquidations. In addition, there have been 119,509 bankruptcy orders.
In the most recent 12 months, company insolvencies accounted for 1.4 per cent. of the total number of companies registered, compared with 2.6 per cent. in 1992.
The overall number of company insolvencies has decreased by 43 per cent. since April 1992.
Mrs. Prentice:
Is the Minister saying that it is acceptable that more than 219,000 businesses have gone to the wall since the last election, including 10,000 in the last quarter? Does that not give the lie to the Minister's claims that Britain is the enterprise centre of Europe?
Mr. Taylor:
If the hon. Lady understood business, she would understand that it is the exact opposite, because she has forgotten that there are 400,000 business starts per annum, which shows that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in this country. Nobody is pleased when a company ceases to trade or goes into insolvency, but it is nevertheless an expression of the risk that one can take in this country. I repeat that company insolvencies accounted for 1.4 per cent. of the total number of companies registered in this country. There are 3.7 million companies registered in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady looks at the proportions, she will realise that the entrepreneurial spirit is very much alive and well and is doing exceptionally well in this country.
Mrs. Peacock:
How many more businesses are present in the United Kingdom, and how does that compare with the number that were here in 1979?
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1036
Mr. Taylor:
There are currently 3.7 million businesses in the United Kingdom, compared with about 2.9 million when we came to power in 1979. The Government's success in favouring the smaller business community--for example, by the measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend's the Chancellor in the Budget last week--shows just why, overall, business has profited very well from the Conservative Government.
16. Ms Lynne:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce further proposals to improve firework safety. [5796]
Mr. John M. Taylor:
I place a very high priority on improving controls on fireworks. Following the thorough review that I initiated earlier this year, I am considering a number of possible measures.
Ms Lynne:
Can the Minister at least guarantee that, by next 5 November, there will be stricter guidelines on the import of fireworks, especially from China, as those were most responsible for the horrific accidents? Will he also say whether there are any new proposals for tougher sentencing or tougher penalties on shopkeepers who sell fireworks to children?
Mr. Taylor:
I am excluding nothing from the review that we are carrying out. In particular, I am considering how aerial shells can be controlled. These are, generically, the kind of fireworks to which the hon. Lady referred. I am prepared to look at the import licensing regime, which was replaced in 1993, but I have to tell the House that the Health and Safety Executive says that the single authorisation scheme which replaced that regime in no way weakens safety controls. In fact, it makes them more flexible.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths:
Why does the Minister not listen to the British fireworks business when it tells him that the abolition of import controls on fireworks has caused three deaths from aerial shells and that the Government's deregulation of firework safety regulations has caused injuries to soar to record levels? Does he not realise that the number of fireworks sold is likely to rise before new year's day as people celebrate with fireworks on that day? Why does he not now invoke section 11(5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to take immediate action to ban aerial shells before more people are killed as a result of Government negligence in this matter?
Mr. Taylor:
I do not accept that assertion. I do not accept its attribution either. I am taking this matter extremely seriously. As far as I am concerned, one person injured is too many. There are serious issues here and I am determined to get this right. Time spent now will be well spent--I assure the House of that.
18. Mr. Burden:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation he intends to bring forward to implement the working time directive. [5798]
Mr. John M. Taylor:
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will issue a consultation document very shortly.
Mr. Burden:
Surely it is disingenuous of the Government to continue to insist that this is not a health
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1037
Mr. Taylor:
The United Kingdom observes the law, and we need to know what we can do about enforcement and derogation. This ground has already been covered. The Government think that this is not a health and safety matter at all but an employment matter and should be covered by the social chapter, in which case we would have the benefit of our opt-out. Those arguments will be carried whole-heartedly into the intergovernmental conference.
19. Mr. Olner:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage change in total Government spending on research and development since 1985. [5799]
Mr. Ian Taylor:
Estimated Government expenditure on research and development in 1996-97 is 36 per cent. higher than the cash expenditure in 1985-86.
Mr. Olner:
In precise terms, there has been a reduction of 16.5 per cent. since 1985 in Government-funded research and development. Is it any wonder that we are now 15th out of 22 in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league in terms of spending on this sort of research and development? We are a manufacturing nation and we cannot go forward with any strength in the future without research and development that is properly funded. Are there are any hidden cuts in the science budget that was decided yesterday?
Mr. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman forgets that his figures encompass defence expenditure, which has been declining. He also forgets the cessation of fast breeder reactor research and launch aid, so the statistics are naturally distorted. The science budget is up by 20 per cent. and the amount spent by universities and research councils is up by 12 per cent. over the period that we are discussing. That is very important for the long-term strength of our research and development base.
The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned that too many of our companies are not necessarily investing in research and development at the right intensity in relation to sales. I should like to see an improvement in that, given the dramatically increasing need for us to innovate and present new products which will compete in the wider world. There is certainly no lack of effort by the Government to ensure that the science base is strong.
Mr. Hoon:
In the light of that answer, how does the Minister explain the Government's figures published the "Forward Look of Government Funded Science and Technology 1996", which shows that the severe cuts in
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1038
Mr. Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman must have heard the earlier reply as I am sure that he normally pays great attention. There are various distorting factors in the total civil research budget. The figures that I gave for the science base, which include money for university infrastructure from the Higher Education Funding Councils and through the research councils, is up in real terms.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |