| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
British Steel
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has made to the United States Government to secure the withdrawal of the anti-dumping tariff imposed on British Steel on 30 November 1992. [2266]
Mrs. Roche: Exports to the United States of various British Steel products are subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duties. HM Government and the European Commission have made repeated representations to the US authorities on these cases. DTI has maintained close contact with British Steel on the cases, some of which are the subject of continuing legal action in the US courts. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be ready to make further representations if that is likely to help settle the matter.
Assisted Areas
Mr. Blizzard: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to review the allocation of assisted area status in Britain. [2476]
Mrs. Roche: The Government is considering whether a Review of the Assisted Area Map is necessary and will carry out a review as needed. I will announce the extent and nature of any review when we have looked at this issue.
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Cohen: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the restrictions on foreign ownership of shares in (a) British Aerospace and (b) Rolls-Royce. [2184]
Mr. Battle: At the time of the privatisations of British Aerospace (1985) and Rolls-Royce (1987), the Government imposed a foreign shareholding limit on both companies. Since 1989, that limit has been set at 29.5 per cent.
Mr. Cohen:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the payments by the United Kingdom Government to (a) British Aerospace and (b) Rolls-Royce in each of the last five years, indicating in each case the reasons for the payments. [2185]
11 Jun 1997 : Column: 468
Mr. Battle:
The payments made by my Department to British Aerospace and Rolls Royce in the last five years were as follows.
| BAe | RR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payments | Repayments | Payments | Repayments | |
| 1992-93 | 28,600 | 40,900 | 0 | 22,700 |
| 1993-94 | 0 | 29,400 | 0 | 16,600 |
| 1994-95 | 0 | 19,200 | 0 | 19,500 |
| 1995-96 | 0 | 29,300 | 0 | 13,200 |
| 1996-97 | 0 | 42,710 | 0 | 23,600 |
| BAe | RR | |
|---|---|---|
| 1992-93 | 1,749 | *4,352 |
| 1993-94 | 1,539 | *4,790 |
| 1994-95 | 1,361 | 5,402 |
| 1995-96 | 2,631 | 6,075 |
| 1996-97 | 2,224 | 4,609 |
| BAe | RR | |
|---|---|---|
| 1992-93 | 733 | 470 |
| 1993-94 | 436 | 442 |
| 1994-95 | 308 | 647 |
| 1995-96 | 271 | 307 |
| 1996-97 | 93 | 163 |
These programmes encourage UK firms to undertake research and development in collaboration with others, including European partners and academia.
Other Departments, including MoD, may have made payments to these companies; this information is not held by my Department.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her policy on the patenting of life forms. [2844]
Mr. Battle:
Apart from the exclusion of plant and animal varieties from patentability, current United Kingdom patent law permits the patenting of life forms.
11 Jun 1997 : Column: 469
Such inventions are considered against the same general criteria of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability applied to all fields of technology.
Mr. Baker:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to transfer the functions undertaken at the Royal Greenwich Observatory from their present location. [2570]
Mr. Battle:
The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) discussed the future of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Royal Observatory Edinburgh at its meeting on 21 May. I am now considering its advice with a view to an announcement as soon as possible.
Single Regeneration Budget
Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to invite bids for the next round of the Single Regeneration Budget. [1814]
Angela Eagle: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to his question on 22 May 1997, Official Report, column 152, which dealt with arrangements for Round 4 of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. We would like to see a more strategic approach to regeneration initiatives which encourages innovative local partnerships whilst directing resources to where they are needed most. Future arrangements for the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund will therefore be subject to the outcome of the comprehensive review of regeneration policies announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 3 June.
Challenge Funds
Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in respect of a review of the single regeneration budget challenge funds; and if he will make a statement. [2150]
Angela Eagle:
Many organisations involved in the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund have asked about the Government's future intentions towards this scheme. There is a clear desire for a more strategic approach to regeneration initiatives and for a system which responds to need whilst keeping the innovation that was the result of the competitive process. In addition, therefore, to the interim arrangements which we have already announced for Round 4, my right hon Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 3 June a comprehensive review of the Government's regeneration policies, which will include a review of the SRB Challenge Fund.
11 Jun 1997 : Column: 470
Mr. Dafis:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to restrict the use of the gas HFC-134. [2083]
Angela Eagle:
HFC-134a and other HFCs are greenhouse gases but do not damage the ozone layer. They have an important role to play in phasing out the use of ozone depleting substances controlled under the Montreal Protocol. The Government fully supports the concept of minimising emissions of HFCs and has voluntary agreements with the refrigeration, foam, fire, aerosols and vehicle air conditioning sectors to do so. Whilst the Government recognises that the responsible use of HFCs as replacements for ozone depleting substances can be justified, it is unlikely to be convinced that any new emissive applications of HFCs are necessary. Recent reports of plans to market self-chilling drinks cans, which would use and emit HFC-134a, are a very worrying development and the Government is urgently considering what action should be taken.
Mr. Martyn Jones:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to take to ensure that, in seeking to avoid hosepipe bans, water companies take account of the implications for aquifer resources; and if he will make a statement. [2788]
Angela Eagle:
Abstractions by water companies from aquifers and surface water sources have to comply with the maximum quantity and any other operational conditions specified in the licence for each abstraction. The Environment Agency has made plain that it will expect water companies to have in place a full range of demand management measures, including the imposition of hosepipe bans, before applying for variations in abstraction licence conditions under drought orders or permits.
The Government announced on 19 May 1997 its intention to review the water abstraction licensing system, and to introduce legislation requiring each water company to agree a detailed publicly available drought contingency plan with the Environment Agency.
Mr. Vaz:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of personal watercraft on wildlife and the marine environment; [2663]
Angela Eagle:
No assessment of the impact of personal watercraft on wildlife and the marine environment has been made by the Department.
Section 76 of the Public Health Act 1961 already provides for local authorities to make byelaws to regulate seaside pleasure boats for the prevention of danger, obstruction or annoyance to persons bathing in the sea or using the seashore. It is likely that personal watercraft can be regulated as pleasure boats under this Act, although a definitive interpretation is a matter for the courts.
11 Jun 1997 : Column: 471
(2) what plans he has to take action against personal watercraft. [2664]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |