---

Atlantic Telecom

Mr. Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had regarding the collapse of Atlantic Telecom; and if she will make a statement. [18279]

Mr. Alexander: I met with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on 19 November and with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on 21 November. From these meetings, and those which the Scottish Executive Minister held at the same time, we were clear about the difficulties facing Atlantic's business customers in particular.

I then had discussions with the Director General of Telecommunications on 20 November expressing my resolve that everything possible should be done to smooth the transfer of customers from Atlantic to other operators. I then met the Chief Executive of BT, Sir Peter Bonfield, and the Group Commercial Director, Colin Green, on 22 November where I sought BT's assistance to ensure that they would expedite the connection of ex-Atlantic customers. BT assured me it would do all it could to help facilitate a quick transfer of customers.

As a result of further intensive discussions, we therefore announced on 24 November, along with the Scottish Executive Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, a £0.5 million joint rescue package, extending the operation of fixed wireless telephone services to allow customers to switch to an alternative telecoms supplier. The extended operation will end on 2 January 2002 at the latest.

Miners' Pensions

Mr. Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the pension rights of miners dismissed during the 1984–85 strikes. [22728]

Mr. Wilson: Following the consultation process last year, I am persuaded that a number of miners dismissed in connection with the 1984–85 strike, and not subsequently re-employed by British Coal, were harshly treated.

11 Dec 2001 : Column: 760W

I have concluded that the most appropriate way forward would be to enhance the pensions of these miners in recognition of the years of further service they lost as a result of British Coal's decision not to re-employ them. The costs of this will be met from the residual assets of British Coal. I would emphasise that those whose offences involved serious acts of violence or intimidation or actions which jeopardised the safety of others will not qualify for this enhancement of pension.

I will shortly be writing to interested parties with details of how this will be put into effect.

Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government received from mining pension fund surpluses in 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [18719]

Mr. Wilson [holding answer 6 December 2001]: In 2000–01 the Government received £425.3 million from the mining pension fund surpluses. This included £114.4 million that was held over from the previous year.

TREASURY

RenewCo

Mrs. May: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Treasury (a) provided new information to the Office for National Statistics on the structure of RenewCo; and (b) subsequently requested confirmation of the classification of RenewCo. [22070]

Ruth Kelly: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 10 December 2001:

As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what date the Treasury provided new information to the Office for National Statistics on the structure of Renewco and subsequently requested confirmation of the classification of Renewco (22070).

On 14 September 2001 the Treasury provided new information on Rewnewco to the Office for National Statistics and requested advice on its classification within National Accounts. The Office for National Statistics requested further detailed information, which arrived on 24 September 2001.

Railtrack

Mrs. May: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice the Treasury has received from the office for national statistics on the treatment of Government loans to Railtrack while in administration in the national accounts. [22065]

Ruth Kelly: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 10 December 2001:

As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what advice the Treasury has received from the Office for National Statistics on the treatment of government loans to Railtrack while in administration in the national accounts (22065).

11 Dec 2001 : Column: 761W

The Treasury did not seek advice on the national accounts treatment of these loans and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) did not provide any. Once ONS had decided on the national accounts classification of Railtrack while in administration, the classification of government loans to it is straightforward. These are classified as central government loans to the private non-financial corporations sector. This treatment has been reflected in the National Statistics public sector finances release, which is based on national accounts definitions and jointly published by ONS and the Treasury.

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effect on risk premium which will have to be budgeted for in future partnerships with the private sector, following the events surrounding Railtrack going into administration. [8445]

Mr. Andrew Smith: We do not anticipate that there will be any long-term impact on the risk premium for PPPs as a result of Railtrack administration. In its report of 23 October, credit rating agency Standard and Poors said:

"the Railtrack situation has no direct credit implications for rated PFI projects".

PPPs are fundamentally different from the regime under which Railtrack operated. Whereas PPPs involve output focused bilateral contracts which provide a clear allocation of risks, Railtrack was privatised under a broadly standard utility-style regulatory structure; although, unlike any other privatised utility, some two thirds of its revenue came from Government.

Public Sector Net Investment

Mr. Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of public sector net investment was as a share of GDP in (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; what estimates were made by his Department in the Budgets of (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000; and if he will make a statement. [20342]

Mr. Andrew Smith: The table sets out public sector net investment (PSNI) as a proportion of GDP in the years requested, together with the projections made in the Budgets between 1997 and 2000.

	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02
Pre-Budget report 2001	0.7	0.5	0.7	1.3
Budget 2000	0.6	0.6	0.9	1.2
Budget 1999	0.4	0.6	0.8	1.0
Budget 1998	0.8	n/a	n/a	n/a
Budget 1997	0.9	n/a	n/a	n/a

PSNI figures are regularly revised by the Office for National Statistics, and can be affected by revisions to depreciation, as well as actual public sector capital spend. In particular, the Office for National Statistics made very significant revisions in the summer of 1998, which makes the figures before and after Budget 1998 difficult to compare.

Mr. Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the level of public sector investment as a share of gross domestic product in each year from 1978–79 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [20214]

11 Dec 2001 : Column: 762W

Mr. Andrew Smith: The level of public sector net investment, as a proportion of GDP, between 1978–79 and 2000–01 is set out in table B23 of the pre-Budget report. Projections for this year, and future years, are set out in table B6 of the same report.

Departmental Expenditure Limits

Mr. Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the growth of current expenditure in the total departmental expenditure limit, in real terms, for the period 1998–99 to 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [20303]

Mr. Andrew Smith: The annual average real growth in current expenditure within departmental expenditure limits between 1998–99 and 2003–04 is 4.1 per cent.

Savings Gateway and Child Trust Fund

Mr. Flight: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the cost of consultation on the (a) Savings Gateway and (b) Child Trust Fund; [21022]

(2) what he expects to be the cost of (a) the Savings Gateway pilot projects and (b) the follow-up report, "Delivering Saving and Assets"; and when he expects each of them to be completed; [21023]

(3) what his current target date is for the introduction of (a) the Savings Gateway and (b) the Child Trust Fund. [20995]

Ruth Kelly: Consultation on proposals for the Savings Gateway and Child Trust Fund, including publishing the follow-up consultation document "Delivering Saving and Assets", has been conducted at negligible cost and within Departmental Expenditure Limits.

The costs of the Savings Gateway pilot schemes and further consultation on the Savings Gateway and Child Trust Fund will also be contained within existing spending plans. Detailed proposals of the pilot schemes remain to be decided, but based on the proposed size and scope of the pilot projects it is anticipated that the costs of operating them might be up to about £1.5 million. Proposals for both the Savings Gateway and the Child Trust Fund will continue to be developed through the process of consultation, as well as being considered as part of Spending Review 2002. It will be important to get the design of these new proposals right and no fixed deadline has been set for the introduction of either initiative.

---