You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page

16 Jul 2003 : Column 380W—continued

Renewable Energy

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what target she has set for the percentage of renewable energy use by (a) 2010 and (b) 2020. [125584]

Mr. Timms: The information requested is as follows:

(a) The Renewables Obligation which the Government introduced in April 2002, places an obligation on all licensed electricity suppliers to supply a specified proportion of electricity from renewables. We have set a target for electricity generated from renewable sources to reach 10 per cent. by 2010.

(b) The Energy White Paper—Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy published in February 2003 reinforces the Government's commitment to renewable forms of energy. Our aspiration is that by 2020, 20 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs will be met from renewable sources.

Richard Roberts Ltd.

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when in October 2002 officials of the Department of Trade and Industry's Insolvency Department met the CEO of Richard Roberts Ltd. to discuss redundancy payments for the unemployed workers in Leicester; what the original amount was that the Department of Trade and Industry agreed to pay for the Richard Roberts Company's insolvency in the Leicester factory in October 2002; and by when the Department of Trade and Industry intends to pay the agreed amount. [125661]

Mr. Sutcliffe: My officials concerned with redundancy payments have held a number of meetings with the Finance Director of Richard Roberts Ltd. but have not met the Chief Executive Officer. The Redundancy Payments Office agreed to make payments to former employees of the company, initially of £750,000 and subsequently a further £1,250,000, a total of £2,000,000. The office has already made payments in excess of the agreed amount.

Trading Standards

Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Stop Now Orders have been issued since June 2000; and if she will make a statement. [125827]

Mr. Sutcliffe: Since June 2001 when the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations came into force, seven Stop Now Orders have been sought and obtained from the courts. Four of these were obtained by Trading Standards authorities and three by the Office of Fair Trading.

Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received alleging unfair contract terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 in each year since 1997; how many of these complaints have been open for more than two years; and how many successful prosecutions there have been in each year since 1997. [125825]

16 Jul 2003 : Column 381W

Mr. Sutcliffe: The Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) figures for complaints by calendar years are:


Figures for the last two financial years are:


At the end of the last financial year, 125 cases had been open for over two years.

OFT has no power to undertake prosecutions as such for the use of unfair terms. Its power is to seek injunctions to prevent the use of unfair terms. But OFT may accept undertakings not to use unfair terms in lieu of seeking injunctions and in nearly all cases it secures such improvements in standard contract terms in this way, through consultation and negotiation. Since 1995, OFT has secured some 900 undertakings from businesses not to use unfair terms. These undertakings govern the use of some 5,000 unfair terms. In only one case, that of 'Director General of Fair Trading v. First National Bank', has the OFT had to take legal action to stop the use of a term it considered unfair. In that case, the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and decided that the term in question was not unfair.

Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many undertakings she has received from businesses to desist from unfair trading; how many subsequent breaches of these undertakings there have been; and how many have been prosecuted for breach of undertaking; [125826]

Mr. Sutcliffe: Under the Stop Now Orders (EC Directive) Regulations 2001, there have been 26 undertakings (12 by the Office of Fair Trading and 14 by Trading Standards authorities) received against business breaching consumer protection legislation. The DTI do not receive undertakings from business under these Regulations.

As a result of breaches of the undertaking, seven cases gone to court and Stop Now Orders obtained. A breach of a Stop Now Order in one case resulted in the trader been found guilty of contempt of court.

Supermarkets

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment her Department has made of the effects of below-cost selling by supermarkets; [125683]

16 Jul 2003 : Column 382W

Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answers 14 July 2003]: The Competition Commission (CC) monopoly report 'Supermarkets: A Report on the Supply of Groceries from multiple stores in the United Kingdom' was published on 10 October 2000. The CC concluded that the practice of persistent below-cost selling when conducted by supermarkets with market power, operates against the public interest. However, the CC stated that remedies to prevent below cost selling would require monitoring and intervention that would be disproportionate to the adverse effects they were designed to remedy. Therefore the CC made no recommendations for remedial action.

Following the CC's report, the four supermarkets with a market share of 8 per cent. or over (Sainsbury, Asda Wal-Mart, Tesco and Safeway) gave legally binding undertakings to comply with a Code of Practice governing relations with their suppliers. The Code is intended to provide a framework for dealings between supermarkets and their suppliers. Terms of business must be transparent and available in writing.

Supermarkets will not be able to change agreed terms without giving the supplier notice or compensation. The Code also includes a provision for an independent mediator, paid for by the supermarkets, to resolve disputes about the Code if the parties cannot do so themselves.

The Office of Fair Trading is currently reviewing the Supermarket Code of Practice. They are expected to report later this summer. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will wait for the results of that review before deciding if any action is necessary.

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will take steps to replace the supermarket Code of Practice with a statutory requirement for suppliers to offer the same contractual terms to all grocery retailers; [125681]

Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answers 14 July 2003]: Under UK competition law it is the responsibility of the Office of Fair Trading to review undertakings which arise from adverse findings in a monopoly investigation. The OFT is currently reviewing the Supermarket Code of Practice. They are expected to report later this summer. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will wait for the results of that review before deciding if any action is necessary.

16 Jul 2003 : Column 383W

Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the companies and organisations that have made representations to her about the effect of the implementation of the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive on the printer ink and toner cartridge recycling industry. [125332]

Ms Hewitt [holding answer 11 July 2003]: Following a recent press article about these issues, my Department has received over fifty letters from the cartridge refilling industry and others, including a number from Cartridge World franchisees. My officials will be meeting the UK Cartridge Recycling Association later this month to discuss their concerns. They are also due to meet representatives of the larger cartridge manufacturers shortly.

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of the implementation of the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Directive on the printer ink and toner cartridge recycling industry. [125386]

Ms Hewitt [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Directive (the WEEE Directive) does not prevent the reuse or refilling of printer cartridges.

A number of printer ink and toner cartridge refill businesses have raised the concern, following a recent press article, that their operations may be put at risk if the scope of the Directive does not include these goods. My Department is looking at the points they have raised, bearing in mind our support for the reuse of printer cartridges and our desire to see this continue. My officials will shortly be meeting representatives of the cartridge recycling industry to explore their concerns.

The refill industry has raised with us concerns related to existing technology applied to some of the goods currently sold, which prevents reuse. However, the WEEE Directive does not affect this.

The European Commission has made clear that printer cartridges do not fall within the scope of the WEEE Directive, but considers that forthcoming EU legislation on eco-design may address the issues here. The Government agree with this assessment. In the meantime, if the spread of new technology specifically to prevent reuse begins to impinge significantly on the independent refill market, I would want to consider what additional action might be warranted.

Next Section Index Home Page