|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
13 Jan 2004 : Column 694Wcontinued
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which unrecovered claims outstanding with the Export Credits Guarantee Department her Department has established as unrecoverable; who the debtor is in each case; what the amount of outstanding debt is in each case; and what the project type is. 
Mike O'Brien: It would not be possible to provide the majority of this information except at disproportionate cost. Some of the information could not be disclosed in any event, as to do so could prejudice negotiations ECGD is having or will have about recovering debt. Furthermore, it is only possible to say with confidence what is unrecoverable once recovery action is complete.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The requirement for Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) negotiations is set out in the EU/ACP Cotonou Agreement. No EPA has yet been agreed between the EU and an ACP region. Phase 1 of the negotiations began in September 2002. The EU announced the launch of EPA negotiations with the Western and Central African regionsCEMAC (Central African Economic and Monetary Community) and ECOWAS (Economic Community of Western African States) in October 2003. Launches of negotiations between the EU and other ACP regions are expected to take place later this year. EPAs are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2008.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of the economic partnership agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on the economies of the (a) ACP countries and (b) European Union members. 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: My officials regularly seek progress updates from EU (European Union) officials on the required Sustainable Impact Assessments on the effect of the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states.
13 Jan 2004 : Column 695W
The first phase of this work is currently being finalised by the EU and is expected to be published on the EU's website later this month. My officials will liaise with the EU on issues arising from this assessment work.
Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implications of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive for (a) manufacturers and (b) retailers. 
Mr. Timms: The implications of the EU directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) for local authorities, manufacturers, retailers and others are set out in a consultation paper which the Government published on 25 November 2003. This is available at or may be downloaded from the Department's website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/weee/index.htm. Copies are available in the House Library.
This consultation paper invites views on the Government's preferred approach to implementing the directive. It includes proposals for implementation of the directive's provisions on producer responsibility and retailer take-back.
The WEEE directive places no obligations on local authorities. The Government have made clear that there will be no new unfinanced burdens on local authorities as a result of the directive. However, the Government aim to encourage increased separate collection of WEEE in line with the directive's objectives and, in this context, it makes sense to build on existing collection activity at civic amenity sites. The Government wish to encourage local authorities to consider upgrading and/or introducing WEEE collection facilities at their amenity sites. It is proposed that money will be made available, via a fund, into which local authorities may bid to finance improved or greater separate collection of WEEE at their civic amenity sites.
The consultation suggests that this fund would be provided through a retailer take-back compliance scheme. The Government propose that the retailer scheme should provide funding initially of at least £5 million for civic amenity site upgrades in each of the five financial years between 200510, with an interim review in 2008, when the directive is expected to be revised. It is expected that most of the early expenditure would relate to capital costs and any initial operating costs.
The Government have included in its consultation package a report by consultants Network Recycling on the scope for upgrading and expanding WEEE collection at civic amenity sites around the UK. In summary, this report indicates that over half of civic amenity sites currently collect some WEEE and that there is significant scope for expanding this on the basis of site space available. It suggests that the baseline costs of such upgrades are in the region of £612 million, depending on the approach taken; and that on-going staffing and training costs could be in the region of £49 million per annum.
13 Jan 2004 : Column 696W
Mr. Timms: Data on EU and worldwide energy consumption are collated annually by the International Energy Agency. The final consumption data for all EU countries relating to 2001, are shown in the table. Final consumption excludes energy used for transformation into other forms of energy.
|Country||Final consumption of energy per person, in tonnes of oil equivalent during 2001|
|Average for all EU countries||2.82|
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much energy efficiency has improved in (a) the UK, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales in each year since 1997. 
|Improvement on previous year (percentage)|
The figures fluctuate considerably from year to year, but no more than historically, with the average annual improvement over this particular period very similar to that for the whole period from 1990, around 1.7 per cent. pa.
13 Jan 2004 : Column 697W
Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on research, demonstration and development, since July 2001, on (a) active solar power, (b) passive solar power, (c) wave power, (d) tidal power, (e) geothermal powers, (f) onshore wind powers, (g) offshore wind powers, (h) biomass energy, (i) hydrogen conversion technologies, (j) fuel cells, (k) nuclear fission, (l) nuclear fusion, (m) clean coal,
13 Jan 2004 : Column 698W
(n) combined heat and power and (o) combined-cycle gas by (i) the Department and (ii) relevant publicly owned utilities in each year since 1991; and what payments have been made to (A) Euratom, (B) the European Commission's joint research centres and (C) the International Atomic Energy Agency in each year since 1991. 
|SolarActive (including PV)||0.1||0.3||0.1||0.9||0.7||0.6||0.7||0.9||1.7||1.7||2.0||5.3|
|Nuclear (see Note 2)||93.6||85.5||76.9||28.4||21.7||21.4||17.6||14.2||16.8||16.8||16.4||16.7|
|Combined Heat and Power||0.3||9.3||0.4||0.5||0.5||0.7||1.0||1.3||1.9||2.5||2.8||3.0|
1. Separate research programmes do not yet exist for hydrogen conversion technologies or combined-cycle gas.
2. Of DTI's total spend on nuclear R&D given above, about £15 million annually is on fusion research; there is. also some additional expenditure in support of Meteorological Office emergency response arrangements which currently accounts for approximately £2.1 million. Fusion expenditure for 200304 is £15.6 million. The Research Councils expenditure on fission was ca 300k pa in 20012 and 20023. In addition, £5 million has also been earmarked for fission research but has not yet been awarded.
3. The table sets out identified Government spend and excludes, for example, spending by Research Councils. Spending by relevant publicly owned utilities could not be separated in the manner requested without disproportionate cost.
4. DTI's sustainable energy R&D programme also includes support for activitieswhich are not technology specific, for example, export, commercialisation, marketing and international activities.
5. For combined heat and power, Govewrnment expenditure is through DEFRA.
1. EC budget payments to Euratom began in 1995.
2. Euratom spending. Figures are based on payment appropriations in the available EC budget documents for 20012003 and reflect spending on the specific programme (Euratom) for research and training in the field of nuclear energy.
3. The main Euratom activities fall under budget titles 6 (Energy and Transport) and 8 (Research), as well as some external actions lines. The figures presented are based on payments made.
4. Nuclear expenditure currently accounts for approximately 28 per cent. of the JRC's budget.
|1995||Regular Budget Subscription||8.0|
|Technical Co-operation Fund||1.9|
|1996||Regular Budget Subscription||9.1|
|Technical Co-operation Fund||2.2|
|1997||Regular Budget Subscription||7.7|
|Technical Co-operation Fund||2.3|
|1998||Regular Budget Subscription||6.0|
|Technical Co-operation Fund||2.5|
|1999||Regular Budget Subscription||6.1|
|Technical Co-operation Fund||2.3|
|2000||Regular Budget Subscription||6.3|
|Technical Co-operation Fund||2.4|
|2001||Regular Budget Subscription||6.6|
|Technical Co-operation Fund||2.6|
|2002||Regular Budget Subscription||(19)7.5|
|Technical Co-operation Fund||2.5|
|2003||Regular Budget Subscription||8.0|
|2004||Regular Budget Subscription||(20)7.6|
|Technicial Co-operation Fund||(20)2.3|
(18) Comparable figures for years before 1995 are unavailable.
(19) Corrected figure from that stated in Hansard 16 January 2003: column 792W.
13 Jan 2004 : Column 699W
(21) Comparable figures for years before 1999 are unavailable.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|