---

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Export Credit Guarantees

Ms Walley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 7 April 1998, Official Report, column 159, and her letter of 7 May, if she will list the ECGD exposure which was not included in the original figure but included in the revised figure of £848 million. [43699]

Mrs. Roche: In my answer to my hon. Friend of 7 April I quoted a figure of £654 million as the level of ECGD's current exposure on Indonesia which is in respect of defence equipment. It subsequently emerged that this figure understated the actual total by £194 million as a result of an error in the computer programme which ECGD used when converting foreign currency liabilities into the total current exposure in sterling.

As soon as the error was identified, I wrote to my hon. Friend advising her that the correct total was, in fact, £848 million.

10 Jun 1998 : Column: 594

Export Licences

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been (a) granted and (b) refused since 1 May 1997 for the export of military goods to (1) Algeria, (2) Angola, (3) Bahrain, (4) Botswana, (5) Cambodia, (6) China, (7) Colombia, (8) Egypt, (9) Eritrea, (10) Ethiopia, (11) Georgia, (12) India, (13) Indonesia, (14) Jordan, (15) Kuwait, (16) Kenya, (17) Malaysia, (18) Mexico, (19) Morocco, (20) Mozambique, (21) Namibia, (22) Oman, (23) Pakistan, (24) Peru, (25) Qatar, (26) Saudi Arabia, (27) Singapore, (28) Sri Lanka, (29) Syria, (30) Turkey, (31) UAE, (32) Uganda, (33) Yemen, (34) Zambia and (35) Zimbabwe; and if she will specify the number of licences granted in each of the categories set out under Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. [44040]

Mrs. Roche [holding answer 3 June 1998]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the results are contained in tables which have been placed in the Library of the House.

Post Office

Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to give the Post Office the commercial freedoms enjoyed by the (a) German Post Office and (b) Dutch Post Office. [44676]

Mr. Ian McCartney: As announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 6 April 1998, Official Report, column 63, the current review of options that will best deliver greater commercial freedom for the Post Office is taking account of the ways in which overseas competitors and analogous organisations are facing, or being set up to face, the challenges of the changing market. We plan to present our proposals following the review in the Autumn; these will cover the extent and form of future commercial freedoms for the Post Office.

Dounreay

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will establish an inquiry into the workings of Dounreay with specific reference to the reported loss of highly enriched uranium; and if she will make a statement. [44873]

Mr. Battle [holding answer 9 June 1998]: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to this House on 3 June 1998, Official Report, column 365, there is no evidence to suggest that enriched uranium from Dounreay has been stolen or has fallen into the hands of terrorists. The Safeguards Office of my department are studying the UKAEA report "Dounreay Shaft Inventory" and if they see any reason for further investigation I will of course ensure that the necessary work is put in hand. Since 1973, nuclear material accountancy at Dounreay and other nuclear sites in the UK has been subject to independent oversight by the Euratom Safeguards Directorate. In

10 Jun 1998 : Column: 595

addition, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) are already conducting a review of safety at Dounreay and I expect their findings to be made public.

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current estimated cost of refurbishment of the reprocessing facility at Dounreay to be used to process the uranium fuel recently received from Georgia; when the plant is expected to be ready; and what further foreign customers she expects to use the plant. [40670]

Mr. Battle [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1998, c. 32]: I need to amend the information that I gave to my hon. Friend then that unirradiated fuel amounts to 80 per cent. of the uranium fuel in the consignment received from Georgia.

The correct percentage is 70. I have now been informed that the full details of the material from Georgia are as follows:

The precise quantity of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) is: 4.125 kg of unirradiated material (which contains 3.7052 kg of Uranium-235); and 0.6191 kg of irradiated material (which contains 0.5537 kg of Uranium-235).

The balance of the material is approximately 9.5 kg of low enriched uranium (LEU), which is not immediately weapons useable and therefore of less proliferation concern. The LEU

10 Jun 1998 : Column: 596

consists of 5.840kg of unirradiated material (which contains 0.584 kg of Uranium-235) and 3.7449 kg of irradiated material (which contains 0.3609 kg of Uranium-235).

In summary therefore, the total quantity of Uranium received from Georgia was 14.329 kg--made up of LEU of 9.5 kg and as previously stated HEU of 5.0 kg.

The irradiated material when it is eventually reprocessed will result in no more than two barrels of Intermediate Level Waste, again as previously stated.

Research Councils

Dr. Starkey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 14 May 1998, Official Report, columns 189-90, what percentage of applications from men, in relation to each of the research councils, was successful for (a) project grants, (b) programme grants, (c) special grants intended for new investigators, (d) studentships and (e) fellowships, in 1997 and in each of the two previous years. [44586]

Mr. Battle: The available data are shown in the table.

In answer to my hon. Friend's previous question on 14 May 1998, Official Report, columns 189-90, the figure for the percentage of applications from women who were successful for Medical Research Council fellowships for 1996 was wrongly stated. The figure should be 13 per cent., not 34 per cent.

10 Jun 1998 : Column: 595

Percentage

Research council and year	Project grants	Programme grants	Special grants	Studentships(6)	Fellowships
	Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
1995	27.9	23.1	26.3	55	n/a
1996	29.8	25.8	16.7	54	8.25
1997	31.3	30.1	24.5	50	8.55
	Engineering and Physical Sciences
1995	66.3	--	n/a	78.6	10.4
1996	46.0	--	n/a	78.4	9.5
1997	38.9	--	58.2	76.7	10.7
	Economic and Social
1995	n/a	n/a	n/a	26	n/a
1996	n/a	n/a	n/a	25	n/a
1997	17	n/a	n/a	28	n/a
	Medical
1995	37	61	n/a	46	20
1996	32	59	n/a	46	15
1997	26	57	n/a	43	16
	Natural Environment
1995	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	10
1996	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	16
1997	26	21	n/a	n/a	17
	Particle Physics and Astronomy
1995	59	--	n/a	79	9
1996	54	--	n/a	84	13
1997	67	--	n/a	85	9

(6) There are no data for the studentship applications because, with the exception of the ESRC research studentships, the Research Councils allocate studentships by quota to institutions which are responsible for the subsequent award. The figures given are therefore the percentage of studentships awarded to men, with the exception of the ESRC which shows the percentage of applications for research studentships by men which were successful

Notes:

1. The EPSRC and PPARC do not distinguish project from programme grants. In addition, the EPSRC figure for these grants and for the special grants is the percentage of applications by men in applications where the gender is known

2. NERC figures for project grants represent NERC non-thematic (responsive) grants, and for programme grants NERC thematic (directed) grants

3. The success rate for MRC programme grants relates to final applications rather than applications submitted

4. Some Councils do not run special grants intended for new investigators, or are in only the first year of doing so

10 Jun 1998 : Column: 597

Eureka Programme

Dr. Gibson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the impact of the Eureka programme on British industry. [44926]

Mr. Battle: Since 1985, 513 UK industrial organisations, 225 of them SMEs, have participated, or continue to participate, in 345 Eureka projects. DTI accepts the findings of the 1997 independent evaluation of Eureka, that 70 per cent. of industrial participants achieved new products or processes by the end of their projects.

Dr. Gibson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the financial contribution of the United Kingdom towards the Eureka programme. [44927]

Mr. Battle: DTI has so far made offers totalling £155.08 million towards projects involving UK participants since Eureka began in 1985. Spend to the end of Financial Year 1997-98 was £130.71 million.

Dr. Gibson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to revise the Eureka programme before the year 2000. [44925]

Mr. Battle: The UK will work with the other members of Eureka to adapt the initiative so that it continues to be relevant to all sectors of European industry. Any changes will take into account the increasing global nature of R&D, and the changed political and business environment since Eureka's inception. They will appear in the next Eureka Medium Term Plan in June 2000.

---