| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Early-Day Motions
Mr. Baker: To ask the Prime Minister if hon. Members holding the office of PPS have been requested not to sign early-day Motions critical of the Government; and if he will make a statement. [18909]
The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 December 1997]: The principles which govern the behaviour of Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the House are set out in paragraph 46 of the Ministerial Code, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House in July 1997.
Cleaner Vehicles
Mr. Brake: To ask the Prime Minister what account he took of the publishing opinions of Mr. Keith Taylor, Chairman of ESSO, in appointing him to his task force on cleaner vehicles; what assessment he made of their consistency with the Government's policy on global warming; and what consultations he had with the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions prior to the appointment. [19152]
The Prime Minister
[holding answer 4 December 1997]: The Government have a clear commitment to addressing climate change. The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force aims to create a new partnership between Government and the private sector to promote environmentally friendly vehicles that people actually want to drive and buy. It will draw on a cross-section of industry, including the oil industry, and I welcome the participation of a wide range of interests. The members of the Task Force's steering group were nominated by the Minister for Transport, in close consultation with the Science, Energy and Industry Minister and officials from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry.
8 Dec 1997 : Column: 411
Mr. Fallon:
To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a ministerial committee to consider the future of the coal industry, with public membership and terms of reference. [19221]
The Prime Minister
[holding answer 4 December 1997]: No.
Mr. Jenkin:
To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 10 November 1997, from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Official Report, column 441, if he will list his e-mail address along with those of (a) his senior officials and (b) his political advisers. [15863]
The Prime Minister
[holding answer 13 November 1997]: No.10 Downing Street has a website on the Internet.
It is not the current practice to publish the e-mail addresses of my staff.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on overseas travel for (i) 1980-81, (ii) 1987-88, (iii) 1990-91, (iv) 1991-92, (v) 1992-93 (vi) 1993-94, (vii) 1994-95, (viii) 1995-96, (ix) 1996-97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997; and if he will provide a breakdown to show (1) air fares and (2) other expenditure relating to overseas travel. [15275]
The Prime Minister
[holding answer 11 November 1997]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 5 December 1997, Official Report, column 377.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the expenditure by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on official hospitality for (i) 1980-81, (ii) 1987-88, (iii) 1990-91, (iv) 1991-92, (v) 1992-93, (vi) 1993-94, (vii) 1994-95, (viii) 1995-96, (ix) 1996-97 and (x) 1 May to 30 September 1997. [15274]
The Prime Minister
[holding answer 11 November 1997]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 5 December 1997, Official Report, column 376-77.
8 Dec 1997 : Column: 412
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the total expenditure on all forms of publicity and advertising by (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993-94, (ii) 1994-95, (iii) 1995-96, (iv) 1996-97, (v) the 1997-98 year to date, (vi) the 1997-98, full year estimate and (vii) the 1998-99 planned expenditure.[15277]
The Prime Minister
[holding answer 11 November 1997]: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 5 December 1997, Official Report, column 377.
Mr. Cox:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions have taken place against employers for unsafe and dangerous working practices in the construction industry so far in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [18571]
Angela Eagle:
I regret that this question cannot be answered accurately in the form in which it has been asked. Between 1 January 1997 and 31 October 1997, there were 376 convictions obtained in proceedings instituted by HSE in the construction industry. These figures, which are only provisional, include all those prosecuted. Some offences may have been committed by the self-employed who by their actions put other workers, or members of the public, at risk. In addition, offences by those such as clients and designers, who may have had no direct control of working practices, but who may have failed to play their part in overall risk management and control, are included. To eliminate these cases from the figures and revise the reporting period would involve disproportionate cost.
The best guide to the pattern of recent prosecutions in the construction industry is provided by Table A1.26 of Health and Safety Statistics 1996-97, which was published recently. A copy of Page 170 of the publication is attached for information.
The protection of the health and safety of all those working in, or affected by, the construction industry is a high priority. The prosecution of those who breach health and safety law and the penalties the courts impose are important aspects of achieving this protection.
8 Dec 1997 : Column: 411
THE REGIONS
(1) = Provisional.
(2) Approximately 300 informations held over from 1995-96 have been transferred to the new computer system but have not yet been validated and, therefore, are not included in the provisional statistics but will be added when final data is released.
(3) Includes fine of £250,000 against Hickson and Welch and the fine of £100,000 against GEC Alsthorn Engineering Systems Ltd. The average fine without these convictions would be £2,383.
(4) Includes the fine of £150,000 against J. Murphy and Sons Ltd. The average fine without this conviction would be £3,030.
(5) Includes the fines of £250,000 against Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The average fine without this conviction would be £2,799.
(6) Includes the fines of £250,000 against Hickson and Welch and Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, the fine of £150,000 against J. Murphy and Sons Ltd. and the fine of £100,000 against GEC Alsthorn Engineering Systems Ltd. The average fine without these convictions would be £2,612.
(7) Includes the fine of £100,000 against The Balmoral Group. The average fine without this conviction would be £2,877.
(8) Includes the fine of £200,000 against BP Chemicals. The average fine without these convictions would be £2,677.
(9) Includes the fine of £200,000 against BP Chemicals and the fine of £100,000 against The Balmoral Group. The average fine without these convictions would be £2,677.
(10) Includes the fine of £500,000 against Lloyds Register of Shipping, the fine of £750,000 against Fartygsentreprenader AB (part of the Mattson Group), the fine of £250,000 against Fartygoskonstruktioner (part of the Mattson Group), the four fines of £100,000 against Pembroke Cracking Co. Ltd. and the £100,000 fine against Firth Vickers Centrispinning Ltd. The average fine without these convictions would be £3,324.
(11) Includes the fine of £100,000 against Cheetham Hill Construction Ltd. The average fine without this conviction would be £3,068.
(12) Includes the fine of £200,000 against Port Ramsgate Ltd. The average fine without this conviction would be £4,558.
(13) Includes the fines of £500,000 against Lloyds Register of Shipping, the fine of £750,000 against Fartygsentreprenader AB (part of the Mattson Group), the fine of £250,000 against Fartygskonstruktioner (part of the Mattson Group), the four fines of £100,000 against Pembroke Cracking Co. Ltd. the £100,000 fine against Firth Vickers Centrispinning Ltd. the fine of £100,000 against Cheetham Hill Construction Ltd. and the fine of £200,000 against Port Ramsgate Ltd. The average fine without these convictions would be £3,266.
8 Dec 1997 : Column: 413
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |