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
11 May 2004 : Column 252W—continued

North Sea Oil

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of North Sea oil reserves; and if she will make a statement. [169794]

Mr. Timms: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19 April 2004, Official Report, column 317W.
 
11 May 2004 : Column 253W
 

NPL, Teddington

Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the original estimated (a) cost and (b) completion date for the PFI project for the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington was; and what the   current estimated (i) cost and (ii) completion date is. [169815]

Ms Hewitt [holding answer 30 April 2004]: The original estimated cost for the construction of new facilities at the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington under the 1998 contract with the PFI contractor and its Design and Building Contractor was £82,012,200. The Availability Fee paid by my Department is based on this sum. We do not know the current estimated cost of construction. Since this is a PFI contract, the risk on cost overruns rests with the PFI and Design and Building contractors.

The original completion date for the PFI project was 24 September 2001, and the PFI contractor currently estimates that the final completion date will be June 2006. Fifteen of the 16 modules in the new facilities have been handed over, but additional work is still needed by the PFI Contractor to bring modules into line with the Output Specifications; and, as a result of the delay, changes are needed to some of the new facilities to enable them to meet the current needs of NPL's scientific programmes. The contractor's estimated final completion date of June 2006 provides for the demolition of existing buildings at NPL, the construction of car parking space, and landscaping.

Nuclear Materials

Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 14 January 2004, Official Report, column 788W, on nuclear energy, what the Department's acceptable weight limits are concerning nuclear material unaccounted for; when these limits were adopted; and when they are due to be reviewed. [172094]

Nigel Griffiths: Nuclear material unaccounted for (MUF) is a recognised feature of accounting for nuclear material and is caused primarily by the uncertainties inherent in the techniques used to measure nuclear material. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) describes standards for the measurement uncertainty expected for closing a nuclear material balance in its Safeguards Glossary, and it publishes International Target Values (ITV) for uncertainties on measurements performed on nuclear material. These are used to determine whether a facility's measurement system meets international standards and are periodically updated by international experts to reflect currently achievable measurement capabilities and to incorporate newly developed measurement techniques and instruments. The values currently used were set in 2000 and were published by the IAEA in April 2001 as a Safeguards Technical Report (STR-327). This report is available from the IAEA in hardcopy only. However,
 
11 May 2004 : Column 254W
 
most sections of the report can also be found at www.inmm.org/topics/contents/JNMMPaperITV.pdf. The values will be reviewed when international experts conclude a change is needed.

All civil nuclear material in the UK is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement. The European Commission's report on the operation of Euratom Safeguards in 2002, the most recent published, concluded that no evidence for the diversion of nuclear materials was found by the systematic evaluation of MUF reported by nuclear installations.

Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list nuclear materials unaccounted for at sites operated by (a) BNFL, (b) the UK Atomic Energy Authority and (c) URENCO since 1997; and if she will make a statement on Government oversight of private civilian nuclear facilities. [172093]

Nigel Griffiths: Material unaccounted for (MUF) figures are published annually by the nuclear industry. Copies of the figures published since 1997 were placed in the Libraries of the House on 21 January 2004, Official Report, columns 1233–34W in response to a written question.

All civil nuclear material in the UK, irrespective of ownership, is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement. The Safeguards Office of DTI is responsible for overseeing these international obligations.

Post Office

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1)what research she has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the change in numbers of jobs, and the areas involved, which are likely to result from the proposal by Royal Mail to change its pricing structure from weight based charging to size based charging in (i) the photo finishing industry and (ii) other industries; [172516]

(2) what recent discussions she has had with (a) Royal Mail, (b) the Post Regulator, (c) representatives of the photo finishing industry and (d) other business representatives on Royal Mail's proposals to change its pricing structure from weight based charging to size based charging. [172517]

Mr. Timms: The proposal by Royal Mail to introduce size-based pricing is a matter for the postal services regulator, Postcomm. Royal Mail's proposal is currently the subject of a full public consultation which runs until 27 July 2004. The consultation can be accessed on the Postcomm website www.postcomm.gov.uk

As well as seeking views of other interested parties, a significant part of the consultation is to gather information from customers likely to be affected by size-based pricing. Following this consultation, Postcomm will produce a Regulatory Impact Assessment taking account of the comments received from customers, including the photo finishing industry.

Regional Development Agency Funding (Lancashire)

Geraldine Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for
 
11 May 2004 : Column 255W
 
Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Regional Development Agency funding for Carnforth under the Market Towns Initiative. [170232]

Jacqui Smith [holding answer 10 May 2004]: I have been advised by the Northwest Development Agency that it has issued guidance to Market Town Partnerships in the North West, including Carnforth, indicating that it is prepared to directly invest up to £1 million in each town.

Geraldine Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding the Regional Development Agency has spent or allocated to projects in Lancashire since the agency was created; and if she will list the (a) funding and (b) projects by constituency in order of amount of funding. [170233]

Jacqui Smith [holding answer 10 May 2004]: I have been advised by the Northwest Development Agency that since its creation, NWDA has not collated data by sub-region or parliamentary constituency. Spend has been monitored by programme and/or activity, and many of the Agency's projects and schemes span several constituencies and local authority areas.

As of April 2004, the Agency now has a three year investment strategy which will monitor budgeted expenditure by sub region.

The NWDA has provided funding of over £500,000 to support the following projects in Lancashire:


 
11 May 2004 : Column 256W
 

Geraldine Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the current position is regarding Regional Development Agency funding for the Midland Hotel and Central Regeneration Project in Morecambe; and when she expects the project will begin. [170234]

Jacqui Smith [holding answer 10 May 2004]: I have been advised by the Northwest Development Agency that the Midland Hotel re-development project has been identified in the Agency's three year investment plan for 2004–07. Discussions are about to begin with the owner and developer, Urban Splash, about Agency funding support during that period. The Agency understand that Urban Splash intend to start work in the summer of this year.

Next Section Index Home Page