8 Nov 1999 : Column: 377
Written Answers to Questions
Monday 8 November 1999
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Employee Consultation
Sir Richard Body: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current status of the draft Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees; and if a blocking minority currently shares the Government's position. [97565]
Mr. Alan Johnson: The draft directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees has not been discussed in the Council of Ministers since it was first proposed by the Commission in December 1998.
Working Time Directive
Mr. Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to extend the Working Time Directive to the transport industry. [97355]
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to propose amendments to the Working Time Regulations to specify working hours for the occupations of mobile workers, including roundsmen. [97252]
Mr. Alan Johnson: Proposals to extend the working time directive to workers (mobile and non-mobile) in the transport sector are currently being negotiated in Brussels. It is not expected that the Directive will be formally adopted before next year. After that, there will be consultation on implementation in the United Kingdom.
National Minimum Wage
Mr. Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of the people who have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [97579]
Mr. Alan Johnson: Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 700,000 more people were earning above national minimum wage rates in March-May 1999 than in the same period last year and almost two million who were earning below the national minimum wage will benefit when its full effects can be measured.
Defence and Security Goods (Exports)
Dr. Cable:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the defence and security goods that are currently prohibited from (a) use by UK security services, (b) sale within the UK and (c) sale abroad under export licence. [97481]
8 Nov 1999 : Column: 378
Dr. Howells:
I understand that specified weapons are prohibited from manufacture, sale, hire or importation by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Section 141 of the 1988 Act includes an exemption for the supply of such items to the Crown and visiting forces, but not the police service. I also understand that, under the Firearms Act 1968, weapons whose possession is prohibited without the express authority of the Secretary of State include fully automatic weapons, self-loading and pump action rifles, handguns, mortars, rocket launchers, weapons designed to discharge noxious substances and firearms disguised as something else. Ammunition regarded as particularly dangerous (such as that designed to explode or expand on impact, pierce armour or have an incendiary effect at the target) is also subject to prohibition.
The export of certain defence and security goods has been banned, and details are set out in the Summary of additional UK Restrictions on the Export of Strategic Goods, compiled by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; a copy of this document is in the Library of the House.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes to ensure that (a) retailers and (b) packer and fillers take an increased share of the recovery and recycling obligation contained in the UK Packaging Waste Regulations 1997. [97472]
Mr. Meacher:
I have been asked to reply.
The Advisory Committee on Packaging has proposed that the percentage obligation of packaging manufacturers should be reduced by two percentage points and that of packer/fillers and retailers be increased by one percentage point each. I expect to make a further announcement on this matter shortly.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the increased cost to United Kingdom packaging manufacturers following implementation of the UK Packaging Waste Regulations in 1997. [97471]
Mr. Meacher:
I have been asked to reply.
The recovery and recycling obligations under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 took effect in 1998. My Department estimates that the costs of complying with these obligations in 1998 was some £78,000,000 for the 4,011 obligated parties registered with the Environment Agency or Scottish Environment Protection Agency. We do not have a breakdown of figures specifically for packaging manufacturers, but these made up some 8 per cent. of the 4,011 registrations in 1998.
Dr. Kumar:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to provide direct support to manufacturing industry to improve energy efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [97632]
Mr. Meacher:
I have been asked to reply.
8 Nov 1999 : Column: 379
Since 1989, the Government have been providing impartial advice to business and commerce through the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme. This provides information, energy efficiency studies and research and development support to manufacturers and others in the non-domestic sector. The Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme has helped industry to save over £650 million per annum, to reduce emissions by over 3 million tonnes of carbon per annum and to improve energy efficiency.
In his Budget statement on 9 March 1999, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, as a part of the Government's proposal to introduce the Climate Change Levy, he intended to recycle the revenue from the levy, in full, to business. He indicated that the Government intended that some £50 million of revenue from the levy would be used to assist with funding of schemes to promote energy efficiency, including additional support for renewable sources of energy. The Government are considering how best to make use of the proposed additional funding to maximise the benefit to the non-domestic sector.
Dr. Kumar:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which the industrial sectors already with high energy efficiency will assist in achieving Kyoto targets; and if he will make a statement. [97641]
Mr. Meacher:
I have been asked to reply.
The Department commissions research which estimates the potential for cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in industry, commerce, the public sector and housing. This is done at a disaggregated level so that the scope in individual industrial sub-sectors is known. The information is being used in discussions with energy intensive sectors as a starting point for energy efficiency targets for negotiated agreements on the Climate Change Levy.
Mr. Gibb:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many types of duty there are on imported goods and services under the Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom. [96202]
Dawn Primarolo:
I have been asked to reply.
The Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom (The Tariff) provides for ten types of duty or other charges on imported goods.
Ms Oona King:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes will be made to his Department's departmental expenditure limit/running cost limit for 1999-2000. [98013]
Mr. Rooker:
Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XII Vote 2 and Class XII Vote 3, the Department of Social Security Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999-2000 will be
8 Nov 1999 : Column: 380
reduced by £111,836,000 from £3,377,638,000 to £3,265,802,000. This is the net effect of increased Voted provision of £130,974,000 and reduced non-Voted provision of £242,810,000.
The increase on Class XII Vote 3 is the net effect of additional Comprehensive Spending Review funding of £37,000,000 (running costs), a take up of £8,000,000 (running costs) from the Departmental Unallocated Provision (which will not change the gross running costs limit), an increase of £3,137,000 (running costs) in respect of the reform of all work test and active case management, an increase of £120,407,000 (running costs) under the end year flexibility scheme as announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, and an increase of £8,520,000 and £9,769,000 under the capital and other discretionary end year flexibility schemes respectively.
Other changes result from a reduction of £6,631,000 (running costs) arising from a number of small transfers offset by a corresponding increase on Class I Vote 3 (Employment Services), a reduction of £24,351,000 (running costs) arising from the continuing effects of the transfer of responsibility for Contributions Agency and Working Family Tax Credit to Inland Revenue, offset by a corresponding increase on Class XVI Vote 4, Inland Revenue: administration, a reduction of £1,670,000 (running costs) arising from the transfer of responsibility for the Womens Unit to the Cabinet Office, offset by a corresponding increase in Class XVII, Vote 1, a net reduction of £261,000 (running costs) and £998,000 (capital) arising from the continuing implications to DSS of the Scotland Bill, offset by a corresponding increase in the Scottish Executive and a reduction of £486,000 (running costs) towards increased Administration costs of Motability, offset by a corresponding increase on Class XII Vote 2. There is also an increase of £11,972,000 (running costs) associated with services provided to other Government Departments on a repayment basis, an increase of £160,000 to meet the costs of overseas medical examinations of War Pensioners, an increase of £37,997,000 (running costs) arising from increased payments of Value Added Tax on contracted out services. Also an increase of £13,814,000 resulting from the virement from capital expenditure to running costs. Appropriations in aid increase by £86,427,000.
Changes in the Welfare to Work provision arise from an increase of £755,000 in the administrative costs of measures to help people with a disability or long term illness move into or remain in work, an increase of £3,378,000 under the end year flexibility scheme as announced by the then the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393, an increase of £18,000 in costs associated with the unemployed project team offset by a corresponding reduction on Class I, Vote 1 Education and Employment, a reduction of £55,000 for costs associated with innovative schemes relating to the programme of measures to help people with a disability or long term illness move into or remain in work, offset by a corresponding increase on Class I Vote 3 Employment Service and a reduction of £80,000 in the Child Care disregard provision.
8 Nov 1999 : Column: 381
As a result of these changes the running cost limit of this Department will be increased by £141,119,000 from £2,868,735,000 to £3,009,854,000 and the running cost limit of the Welfare to Work programme will be increased by £4,016,000 from £6,952,000 to £10,968,000.
Changes to Class XII Vote 2 arise from the transfer of £486,000 for increased administrative costs of Motability offset by a corresponding reduction on Class XII, Vote 3 and an increase of £14,350,000 under the end year flexibility scheme as announced by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |