| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
National Missile Defence System
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the implications for United Kingdom defence of agreeing to the use of facilities in the United Kingdom as part of the proposed national missile defence system. [116748]
Mr. Spellar: We have not received a request from the US regarding the use of facilities in the UK as part of the proposed US National Missile Defence system, nor would we expect any until after a US decision on whether or not to proceed with deployment of such a system. We would consider such a request carefully, taking account of any implications for UK defence.
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates on which he has met representatives of the US Administration in connection with United States plans for their national missile defence system. [116862]
Mr. Spellar: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has discussed the issue with representatives of the US Administration on a number of occasions, including during recent talks with US Defense Secretary Cohen and others in Washington between 24 and 27 January 2000, and with US Deputy Defense Secretary Hamre in London on 21 March 2000.
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what requests he has had from the US Government for the use of facilities in the United Kingdom as part of their proposed national missile defence system; [116747]
- (2) if the US Government have requested the upgrading of facilities at (a) Fylingdales, (b) Menwith and (c) other sites in the United Kingdom as part of proposals for their national missile defence system. [116749]
Mr. Spellar:
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 30 March 2000, Official Report, column 209W.
4 Apr 2000 : Column: 401W
Regulatory Reform
Mr. Cotter: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117425]
Jane Kennedy: I am the Minister responsible for regulatory reform in the Lord Chancellor's Department. I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Walter Monckton Papers
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Public Record Office held discussions with Oxford University with regard to the opening of the papers of Walter Monckton at the Bodleian Library on 1 March. [117072]
Mr. Lock: The Public Record Office held no discussions with Oxford University with regard to the opening of these papers. One inquiry has been received from Oxford University about the extent to which papers relating to the abdication of Edward VIII held by the PRO were open to the public.
Appeals Tribunals
Mr. Cox: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the procedure for appointing members of an appeals tribunal for the hearing of applications on the granting of an incapacity benefit. [117095]
Mr. Lock: Vacancies are advertised in the national press and professional journals. Appointment is on the basis of interview and of consultation with the relevant professional community. The Lord Chancellor appoints the candidates who best demonstrate that they meet the appropriate published criteria.
Asylum Seekers
Dr. Harris: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the cost of legal aid for asylum seekers and illegal immigrants in each of the last three years. [117048]
Mr. Lock: An estimate is not possible as the Legal Services Commission does not separately identify applications made for legal aid by asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. However, the amount paid out for Legal Advice and Assistance in respect of all Immigration and Nationality matters, over the last three years, was as follows:
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 1998-99 | 48.8 |
| 1997-98 | 35.2 |
| 1996-97 | 26.1 |
4 Apr 2000 : Column: 402W
SCOTLAND
Regulatory Reform
Mr. Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117417]
Mr. Wilson: I am the Minister with responsibility for regulatory reform within the Scotland Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Gas and Electricity Supplies
Mr. Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the financial difficulties caused to public utility ETM customers when extra emergency credit is given to them without advanced notification; and what is being done to safeguard their interests in the future. [114627]
Mrs. Liddell [holding answer 23 March 2000]: At the end of 1999 the Office of Gas and Electricity Management (Ofgem) asked energy suppliers to increase temporarily the amount of emergency credit (where this was available) to people using electronic token prepayment meters, so as to ensure that vulnerable customers would be protected from loss of gas or electricity supplies over the long Christmas/Millennium holiday period. For example, the amount of emergency credit available on Centrica (British Gas) after prepaid supplies had been used up was increased from £2 to £10. Ofgem decided that it would be unwise to publicise this measure--which would in some cases effectively increase consumers' level of debt because they would consume extra energy which would need to be repaid--and so the advance publicity before the holiday period merely encouraged customers to ensure that they had sufficient prepaid credit to get through the holiday, and advised them of the availability of charging points over the period.
In the event, a relatively small number of customers used a significant amount of emergency credit, such that some of the money they spent after the holiday to recharge payment cards was taken up in repaying this emergency credit rather than providing new supply. This may have come as a surprise to some customers--although the information displays on the meters would have warned them of the increased emergency credit level; and they were not obliged to use it.
The need to ensure continuing energy supplies to vulnerable consumers over the long Christmas 1999/ Millennium holiday period was very much a "one-off" problem, and the extension of emergency credit was designed to resolve any potential difficulties arising from it. The level of emergency credit has now reverted to the pre-holiday norm. Ofgem will ensure that if such a measure should be needed again, there will be a more proactive campaign of informing customers of the change.
4 Apr 2000 : Column: 403W
Mr. Kidney:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made in his review of the law and practice relating to insolvency. [116705]
Dr. Howells:
A consultation document setting out proposals to reform the law relating to personal insolvency will be published shortly. A report on the work of the joint DTI/Treasury Review of Company Rescue Mechanisms will be submitted to Ministers in April and there will be a further consultation on the subject as soon as possible after that.
Mr. Wigley:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with ice cream manufacturers, other than Birds Eye Walls, concerning the decision of his Department not to implement the Competition Commission's recommendations against direct distribution; and for what reasons he rejected this recommendation. [116829]
Dr. Howells:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 28 January that it was a drastic step to prevent a company from distributing its own products and he was not convinced that the Commission's remedy was necessary. He has not had discussions with any ice cream manufacturers concerning this decision.
Mr. Wigley:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the recommendations of the Competition Commission in relation to the Birds Eye Walls ice cream inquiry, which he (a) has rejected and (b) will only partially implement, indicating the reason in each case. [116755]
Dr. Howells:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has accepted undertakings from Birds Eye Walls in line with the interim measures recommended by the Competition Commission. No other final decisions have been taken with regard to the remedies recommended by the Competition Commission.
My right hon. Friend will announce his decisions as soon as possible.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |