| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
British Coal
Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the competitiveness of British coal in (i) the European and (ii) the international market; and if he will make a statement. [89387]
Mr. Battle: The Government do not collect statistics on UK coal production costs. We understand that, on average, UK coal is produced at costs which are roughly a third of German production costs, and a quarter or less of Spanish costs. Unlike the German and Spanish coal industries, the UK coal industry receives no state aid.
Outside the European Union the picture is different. The delivered cost of UK deep-mined coal is currently reported to be around a quarter to a third higher than the delivered price of internationally traded coal, much of which also has a lower sulphur content than most British coal.
The competitiveness of the industry is not determined purely by its costs, but also depends on factors including location, security of supply and the precise characteristics of the coal required.
Caroline Flint:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to support and encourage the export of British coal. [89386]
Mr. Battle:
British Trade International, the new unified DTI/FCO operation, has lead responsibility within Government for trade promotion and development on behalf of British business and aims to help UK firms take full advantage of overseas business opportunities by providing support, information, advice and assistance throughout the exporting process.
The Government seek to ensure that there is an open and competitive market for coal and coal products across the EU, and to ensure that markets are not distorted by products which do not reflect their production and
5 Jul 1999 : Column: 340
transport costs. To this end we have encouraged the European Commission to take action against such marketing practices which are supported by unauthorised state aid where there is damage to the export prospects of British coal.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what exemptions are available to classic car owners from the European End of Life Vehicles Directive. [89436]
Dr. Howells
[holding answer 2 July 1999]: The proposed End of Life Vehicles Directive would provide for improved recycling and treatment standards for vehicles when they have become waste (as defined under existing legislation). In other words, it would apply only when the owners have decided to discard them. For this reason, no exemptions would be needed for classic cars, and the European Commission has therefore not proposed any such exemptions.
At the Environment Council on 24 June, it was decided to put back a decision on a Common Position on the Directive until the next Environment Council meeting, in recognition of the German Government's concerns over the approach adopted to producer responsibility.
Mr. Key:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1999, Official Report, column 382, on efficiency savings, when he will write to the hon. Member. [87586]
Mr. George Robertson:
The figures that the hon. Member has requested on savings measures are currently being validated for consideration by my Department's Ministerial Efficiency Steering Group. Once that exercise is complete, I shall write to the hon. Member. As my Department has supplied an illustrative list of efficiency measures for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, I am unable to make that information available to him until after the Committee have published the information in a Commons Daily Part. We expect that the Committee will make this information available to the House within the next week.
Mr. Alan Simpson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if United Kingdom involvement in the US National Ignition Facility replaces proposals to develop a high powered laser facility at AWE Aldermaston; [87694]
(3) if he will list the laser facilities in existence, under construction and proposed for the future at AWE Aldermaston, indicating their primary purpose and how they differ from the US National Ignition Facility. [87695]
5 Jul 1999 : Column: 341
Mr. George Robertson:
My Department has concluded that, as the cost of building a domestic laser of sufficient power would be unaffordable, we should, in the absence of nuclear testing, invest in the US National Ignition Facility, NIF, in order to make use of its facilities. The precise details of our investment in the NIF have yet to be formalised in a contract with the US. The information requested is, therefore, commercially sensitive. I can, however, say that the investment, to cover a shot rate enhancement programme and the design and construction of a UK target chamber, will be in the region of £100m. This represents an affordable and cost-effective way of discharging the undertaking we gave in the Strategic Defence Review that we would ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons.
No new laser facility is under construction or planned for AWE Aldermaston. The present laser at Aldermaston, generally known as Helen and opened in 1979, has been used to research the principle of techniques to underwrite the integrity of nuclear warheads in the absence of nuclear testing. It is based on older technology than the NIF which is 600 times more powerful. Helen will be retained until access to NIF is obtained.
Mr. Page:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has evaluated on the Russian ramjet propulsion system for a beyond visual range air to air missile. [88086]
Mr. George Robertson:
The MOD has been aware of the development of a Russian ramjet propulsion system for a beyond visual range air-to-air missile since 1993, when a model, designated RVV-AE-PD, was displayed at the Moscow Airshow. During this year's Paris Airshow, the weapon itself was displayed. Representatives stated that the missile, which is a privately funded programme, had completed testing including ground-launched firings against a target. Air-launched firings had not been carried out due to the high costs involved. They also confirmed that it was now ready to go into production although they had no customers, either in Russia or elsewhere.
We continue to assess the capabilities of this weapon, the development of its associated ramjet propulsion system and the scope for its deployment.
Mr. Alan Simpson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current status of the emergency dry-docking facility for Trident at Rosyth; and if he will make a statement. [88133]
Mr. George Robertson:
Construction work on the Trident contingency docking facility is complete and the facility is in good shape for contingency use to support a Trident docking.
Mr. Alan Simpson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on the Trawlerman IT project; for what reasons it was abandoned without use; and if he will make a statement. [88134]
5 Jul 1999 : Column: 342
Mr. Spellar:
A fixed price contract was let in July 1988 and ultimately the MOD spent £42 million on the Trawlerman IT project. The project experienced serious technical difficulties and delays such that, by the time it was delivered in May 1995, some 3½ years late, it was obsolete. The problems experienced by this project go back to the early 1990s. The Department subsequently acquired a replacement system at a fraction of the cost (£6 million), using a modern off-the-shelf design and applying the lessons learned from the experience of Trawlerman. Lessons have been learnt and procurement procedures have been improved with the introduction of the Smart Procurement Initiative launched earlier this year under the Strategic Defence Review. Further information is contained in the Eighteenth Report, Session 1988-99 of the Committee of Public Account on the Ministry of Defence: Appropriation Accounts 1997-98.
Mr. Alan Simpson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use is made of the plutonium recycling facilities at Sellafield for plutonium from old nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [88143]
Mr. Spellar:
No use is made of facilities at Sellafield for the recycling of plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons. The recovery of this material is undertaken at the Atomic Weapons Establishment.
Mr. Alan Simpson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the annual operating costs of the US Atomic Co-ordinating Offices in London and Washington; and how many staff are currently employed in each office. [88135]
(2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) of 9 June 1999, Official Report, columns 329-30, how much Britain has invested to date in the US National Ignition Facility; and what further investment is planned in each of the next five years; [87693]
| Staff | Number |
|---|---|
| Senior Executive Officer | (3)0.5 |
| Executive Officer | 1 |
| Administrative Officer | 1 |
| Administrative Assistants | 4 |
(3) This official has other duties in addition to his responsibilities as Head of Atomic Control Office, London
| Staff | Number |
|---|---|
| Unified Grade 6 | 1 |
| Unified Grade 7 | 1 |
| Executive Officer | 1 |
| Administrative Officer | 1 |
The annual running costs of the London and Washington offices are £122,000 and £263,000 respectively.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |