| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Chief Nuclear Inspector
Mr. Llew Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the reason for the Chief Nuclear Inspector's recent visit to Japan; and what discussions he held about the purpose of his visit with departmental Ministers and Officials in advance of his visit. [109907]
17 Feb 2000 : Column: 642W
Mr. Meacher:
HM Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, Mr. Laurence Williams, visited Japan on 7-11 February to brief his opposite number on the conclusions of HSE's forthcoming report "An Investigation into the falsification of pellet diameter data in the MOX Demonstration Facility at the BNFL Sellafield site and the effect of this on the safety of MOX fuel in use". He was not part of the Department of Trade and Industry team visiting Japan at the same time.
My Department was briefed by HSE officials about the purpose of the visit. In view of her accountability to Parliament for nuclear safety, the Minister of State for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe met the Chief Inspector and HSE officials on 2 February, following which she wrote to the Chair of the Health and Safety Commission to stress the independence of the HSE. I am placing in the Library a copy of this letter, together with a letter to the Japanese Minister for International Trade and Industry on 26 January about the Chief Inspector's visit.
Mr. Cox:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cases were heard in 1999 against employers who had exposed their workforce to asbestos; how many employers were found guilty of this offence; and what fines were imposed. [109998]
Mr. Meacher:
Information for December 1999 is not yet available.
Between 1 January and 30 November 1999, 39 cases were heard for breaches of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 (as amended). This figure includes cases against both employers and the self-employed, and comprises 100 informations laid, or charges preferred (Scotland). It includes all breaches of the Regulations, not all of which may have been for permitting the exposure of employees to asbestos.
The provisional results, recorded so far, indicate that there were 31 guilty verdicts on individual informations laid or charges preferred. One case was referred to a higher court on indictment, 67 cases were adjourned, and a result of not guilty was found on one charge preferred.
The fines imposed as a result of the 31 guilty verdicts on individual informations laid or charges preferred were as follows:
17 Feb 2000 : Column: 643W
Mr. Cox:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average fine imposed in cases heard in 1999 against employers for health and safety offences involving their workforce; and if he will make a statement. [109999]
Mr. Meacher:
The average fine imposed on employers and others convicted in Health and Safety Executive cases heard in 1998-99 was £6,654, per defendant. The average fine in such cases, per individual offence, was £5,038. These are provisional figures. The average fine per individual offence following local authority prosecutions in health and safety at work cases was £2,224 in 1997-98. Providing a figure for the average fine in cases against employers for offences involving their workforce would entail disproportionate cost.
The general level of fines imposed by the courts for health and safety at work offences has been far too low to properly reflect their true seriousness. In November 1998, the Court of Appeal said in a judgment that health and safety fines were too low and set out factors which should guide future health and safety sentencing. I welcome the Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill introduced to Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) which is taking forward the Government's intention to raise the maximum penalties for health and safety offences, especially making imprisonment available for a wider range of these offences. I hope this measure will send a clear message to all employers that society will not tolerate failures to safeguard health and safety.
Mr. Dobbin:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of banning motor vehicles from UK cities for a period of one day as part of an experimental environmental awareness programme. [110000]
Mr. Hill:
Our view is that it is for local authorities to assess the case for banning motor vehicles, if they wish to, taking into account local circumstances. I understand that several UK local authorities are interested in taking part in the European Car Free Day on 22 September 2000.
Dr. Gibson:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Anglian region to meet the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Directive for primary and secondary sewage treatment. [109948]
Mr. Mullin:
Following our decision in September 1998 to reverse the previous Government's policy of seeking to apply primary treatment only, for coastal discharges into areas of high natural dispersion, water companies are required to install secondary treatment at all major discharges as soon as practicable. Wherever possible they are expected to meet the initial deadlines set out in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. The majority of large works in Anglian region already have secondary treatment and we expect these to be compliant at or before the end of December 2000. Seven coastal discharges, into areas previously designated as areas of high natural
17 Feb 2000 : Column: 644W
dispersion, will have secondary treatment installed at or before December 2001. Some of these works already have primary treatment. In other cases, primary treatment will be installed as part of the total scheme to deliver treatment to secondary level.
Secondary treatment for smaller works will be delivered as part of the investment programme for Anglian water provided for in the recent determination by OFWAT of price limits for the period 2000 to 2005. These schemes are scheduled to be delivered by the end of March 2005, within the timescale required by the Directive.
The Environment Agency has agreed completion dates for each of these schemes with Anglian water. We expect the Agency to make prompt use of its enforcement powers, if the dates are not met.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department gives to the UK newsprint industry to encourage newspaper recycling (a) at a local level and (b) at a national level. [110101]
Mr. Mullin:
At present, my Department gives no assistance to the UK newsprint industry.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the environmental implications of newspaper recycling. [110103]
Mr. Mullin:
I have taken into account a range of reports and investigations into the implications of newspaper recycling from a variety of sources. At this stage, there is no common agreement on the precise impacts of newspaper recycling in comparison with other end-of-life options.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will calculate the proportion of newsprint currently consisting of recycled material. [110105]
Mr. Mullin:
According to information supplied by the Newspaper Publishers Association, newspaper publishers in the UK use newsprint containing both virgin and recycled paper in varying proportions, and on average recycled paper made up 52.4 per cent. of the raw material for UK newspapers in 1998.
Mr. Livsey:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for further consultation on the European Union Directive 96/29 on Euratom. [110172]
Mr. Meacher:
I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on 14 February 2000, Official Report, columns 356-57W.
Dan Norris:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many recorded attacks there were upon public transport employees in each of the years from 1992 to date. [110239]
17 Feb 2000 : Column: 645W
Mr. Meacher:
The only statutory reporting system for attacks on employees in public sector transport is the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR), which came into effect on 1 April 1996. RIDDOR defined, for the first time, an "accident" as including
Reported assaults on employees in public transport sectors subject to RIDDOR are as follows:
1 fine of £100,000
2 fines of £60,000
3 fines of £6,000
5 fines of £5,000
2 fines of £4,000
3 fines of £3,500
3 fines of £2,500
2 fines of £2,000
1 fine of £1,500
4 fines of £1,000
1 fine amount unrecorded.
In addition three cases resulted in a Community Service order and one defendant was conditionally discharged.
"an act of non-consensual violence done to a person at work".
RIDDOR requires the reporting of all incidents which cause a fatality or major injury, or result in the employee being unable to work or to undertake the full range of their normal duties, for more than three days.
| Number | |
|---|---|
| 1996-97 | 522 |
| 1997-98 | 577 |
| 1998-99 | (7)651 |
(7) Provisional figure
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |