| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Millennium Compliance (Emergency Calls)
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that the telephone network in Lancashire is millennium compliant, with particular reference to emergency calls. [66025]
Mr. Battle [holding answer 18 January 1999]: In Lancashire, as elsewhere in the UK, Oftel has responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of the core telecommunications network and has established a Year 2000 project to monitor and assess the telecommunications industry's preparations. Oftel has taken steps to ensure that telecoms services are not disrupted over the millennium. All the main network operators, who are co-operating with Oftel and the Home Office, are taking the issue seriously, and have outlined their plans to meet this challenge. The main network operators already have sophisticated systems in place to safeguard the provision of emergency services over their networks and their current work on the Millennium Bug is building on the resilience already built in to these companies' systems. Oftel is keeping the preparations of the network operators under review.
Action 2000 is working closely with Oftel to ensure rigorous assessment programmes are in place, and a peer review of the telecom operators is already being undertaken, permitting the industry's most technically able experts to collaborate in checking peer companies' systems. It is difficult to make a precise assessment of the likelihood of interruption. Oftel expects that the principal sectors of the industry will be Year 2000 compliant during the first half of 1999.
Miller Dywidag
Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the official trading status of Miller Dywidag Joint Venture. [66337]
Dr. Howells [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Companies House has no record of Miller Dywidag as having incorporated status.
Ministerial Appointments
Mr. Redwood:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was appointed; when he received his first red box; and when he first went to his departmental office. [65622]
19 Jan 1999 : Column: 439
Mr. Byers
[holding answer 14 January 1999]: The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was appointed on 28 July 1998. He first went to the Department on 29 July 1998 and received his first red box on 30 July 1998.
Mr. Redwood:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister for Science was appointed; when he received his first red box; and when he first went to his departmental office. [65621]
Mr. Byers
[holding answer 14 January 1999]: The Minister for Science was appointed on 28 July. He received his first Ministerial box on Tuesday 11 August and first went to his departmental office on 30 July.
Mr. Redwood:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was appointed; when he received his first red box; and when he first went to his departmental office. [65624]
Mr. Byers
[holding answer 14 January 1999]: The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was appointed on 4 January 1999. He has not received any red boxes to date, preferring to work from the Department. He first went into his departmental office on 5 January 1999.
Mr. Redwood:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was appointed; when he received his first red box; and when he first went to his departmental office. [65623]
Mr. Byers
[holding answer 14 January 1999]: I was appointed on 23 December 1998. I received my first red box on Christmas Eve, having been in my departmental office during the course of that day.
Mr. Keith Simpson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the proposed merger of BAe and GEC Marconi to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [65749]
Dr. Howells
[holding answer 18 January 1999]: In the event of such a proposal, it would be necessary to determine whether the merger fell for consideration by the Commission under the EC Merger Regulation, or by the UK authorities under the Fair Trading Act 1973. If a merger fell for consideration under the Fair Trading Act, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would decide whether or not to refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. Each case is considered on its own merits.
Mr. Wilkinson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the purposes of the proposed Competition Bill will include the creation and encouragement of competition in the United Kingdom in the defence industries. [66330]
Dr. Howells
[holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Competition Act will establish a more effective regime to deter and tackle anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant market position widely across the economy, including within the defence sector.
19 Jan 1999 : Column: 440
Mr. Wilkinson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the compatibility of EU policy on defence industrial company mergers with his approach to competition matters in the United Kingdom. [66331]
Dr. Howells
[holding answer 18 January 1999]: We share the European Commission's view of the importance of taking into account competition policy issues in considering restructuring in the defence industry. Any merger proposals will be considered on their merits by the relevant competition authorities.
Mr. Winnick:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 18 November regarding mineshafts. [66585]
Mr. Battle:
After having the issues raised in my hon. Friend's letter fully looked into, I replied on 14 January.
Mr. Winnick:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 14 December regarding trades union legislation. [66584]
Mr. Ian McCartney:
I will write very shortly.
Mr. Maples:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the term "average cost", with reference to flights by Ministers in his Department, refers to the average cost per passenger; [64721]
Ms Glenda Jackson
[holding answer 11 January 1999]: As my answer of 19 November 1998, Official Report, column 838, made clear, Ministers are required under the terms of the Ministerial Code always to make efficient and cost effective travel arrangements. The rules on travel for Ministers are the same as those that applied to the previous Administration. A comparison of travel by Ministers on RAF flights between the 16 month period between 2 May 1997 and 30 September 1998 is not directly comparable with the 12 months of the previous administration.
The average cost contained in my earlier reply referred to the cost per trip and not the individual cost per passenger. This Department was created from the former Departments of the Environment and Transport in June 1997 and also has the additional responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister. A direct comparison with previous years is not therefore possible. I am advised that the total cost of Ministerial flights provided by the RAF for the Departments of the Environment and Transport in the year to 1 May 1997 was £6,302. Cabinet Office was responsible for any expenditure incurred by the then Deputy Prime Minister.
19 Jan 1999 : Column: 441
Mr. Pike:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [65674]
Mr. Meacher:
My Department has received over 2,000 formal responses to our consultation paper, Access to the Open Countryside in England & Wales. In addition, since the closing date for responses to the consultation paper on 5 June, approximately 370 letters have been received from members of the public on this subject, and approximately 400 letters from Members of Parliament. Ministerial colleagues and I have held meetings with a number of organisations representing both landowners and recreational users.
Mr. Brake:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the public and private sewerage network is currently subject to (a) infiltration and (b) exfiltration. [65885]
Mr. Meale:
The Department does not collect this information. Under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991, sewerage undertakers are responsible for the effectual drainage of their areas and for maintaining their pipework. From meetings held with the water and sewerage industry last year, there appears to be no evidence that exfiltration or infiltration in public sewers is causing any major problems. I understand that Water UK will be carrying out research in this area later this year.
Mr. Brake:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the necessary change in investment in the sewerage system following the inclusion of the condition of sewerage assets in the new sustainable development indicators. [65886]
Mr. Meale:
Levels of investment in the public sewerage system are a matter for sewerage undertakers and the Director General of Water Services. In "Raising the Quality" (September 1998), we published guidance to the Director General of Water Services which covered sewer maintenance as well as investment in new assets. The Director General subsequently published his own forward look at the necessary investment programmes of water companies and their price implications in "Prospects for Prices" (October 1998).
Mr. Brake:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the water companies OFWAT has penalised for failing to meet their targets on flooding from sewers and collapses (a) between 1990 and 1995 and (b) from 1995 to date. [65887]
Mr. Meale:
Companies' performance is reported each year in the Director General of Water Services' annual Report on Levels of Service. The 1997-98 Report shows that the proportion of properties at risk from sewer flooding more than twice in every ten years has fallen substantially from 0.13 per cent. in 1990-91 to 0.06 per cent. in 1997-98.
19 Jan 1999 : Column: 442
The annual Report also explains regulatory action taken in respect of companies about whose performance the Director has concerns. Where the Director has concerns over levels of sewer flooding, he requires the company to take remedial action. The Director does not currently have powers to impose fines, but has indicated his intention to take sewer flooding and other aspects of companies' past performance into account when setting price limits.
(2) what was the total cumulative cost to his Department of ministerial use of RAF flights in the year to 1 May 1997. [64737]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |