| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1249W—continued
Marine Protection
Richard Younger-Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been carried out on the cost of creating a series of marine parks around Great Britain. [186283]
Mr. Bradshaw: A meaningful assessment of the cost of creating a series of marine parks would depend on a variety of factors, including the number, scale and purpose of such areas, as well as the nature of any management, enforcement and monitoring.
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Intellectual Property Rights
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what type of intellectual property rights are owned by the Government. [187101]
Mr. Ingram: I have been asked to reply.
Intellectual property rights in the UK comprise:
statutory rights which are registered and granted through the Patent Office, comprising patents, registered trade marks, registered designs, plant breeders rights;
statutory, but unregistered rights, such as copyright and unregistered design rights.
In addition common law rights such as those relating to confidential information, trade secrets, and unregistered trademarks, and passing-off are often included within the wider definition of intellectual property.
Government Departments currently hold just over 1,200 live patents, 600 live trademarks and 20 live registered designs around the world. There is no record of any plant breeders rights.
The number of patents held has reduced considerably in recent times as a result of the establishment of QinetiQ Ltd. as a separate company. A substantial part of the Ministry of Defence's patent portfolio was vested in QinetiQ at its foundation.
The figures given above exclude patents held by various national health bodies.
No central records are held for copyright or unregistered designs, nor of common law rights. But all works (including computer software) made by Government servants are Crown Copyright, and the number of copyright materials held by Government Departments is, in consequence, immense.
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1250W
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Equatorial Guinea
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if he will list the projects (a) initiated, (b) funded (i) partially and (ii) fully and (c) run by his Department since 1997 in Equatorial Guinea; and if he will make a statement; [187266]
(2) how much (a) monetary aid and (b) aid in kind his Department has (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to Equatorial Guinea per annum since 1998; and if he will make a statement. [187265]
Mr. Gareth Thomas: DFID does not have a significant bilateral programme partnership with Equatorial Guinea, but does provide a Small Grants Scheme (SGS) fund co-ordinated at the British High Commission in Yaounde, Cameroon. This fund supports non-governmental and civil society organisation projects which are in line with DFID's development objectives.
The Small Grants Scheme has funded eight such projects in Equatorial Guinea since 1997, with a combined value of £53,372. Two projects supported community health centres; four projects provided water and sanitation and one assisted livelihoods work in palm oil production. The SGS also supported the studies of two students from Equatorial Guinea.
Of the official development assistance given to Equatorial Guinea through the European Community, the UK's share was £0.2 million in 1998, £0.1 million in 1999, £0.3 million in 2000, and £0.3 million in 2001. Figures for 2003–04 are currently unavailable.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the economic and political developments in Equatorial Guinea since 1998; and if he will make a statement. [187267]
Mr. Gareth Thomas: DFID has no significant development partnership with Equatorial Guinea and so makes no formal assessment of economic and political developments. However, DFID does support the EU Declaration of 17 June which states that the Government of Equatorial Guinea must adhere to democratic principles in an internationally accepted manner. HM Government continues to monitor the situation.
Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action he is taking to ensure that the Government fulfils the commitments it made in the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing. [186829]
Mr. Gareth Thomas:
A fundamental aim of the International Plan of Action is the eradication of poverty. DFID's aim is also the elimination of poverty in poorer countries. A key objective of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing is to ensure that issues relating to ageing are taken into account at all stages in both international and national development
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1251W
plans and policies. DFID's policy is to support developing countries' own development agendas, known as Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs). DFID seeks to ensure that groups representing the interests of older people are included in PRS consultations.
Older people are often among the poorest. The problems they face are therefore included in the policy analyses currently being carried out by DFID on chronic poverty and on social exclusion. DFID has also recently funded research at the Centre for Chronic Poverty and Development Policy at Manchester, in partnership with Help Age International, into older people living in poverty; at the University of Wales into migration of older people from South Asia and at Manchester University into non-contributory pensions and poverty prevention.
The Action Plan advocates the active participation of older people in society and development. DFID's approach recognises the human rights of poor people, including older people and seeks to ensure that they are consulted on policies and decisions that affect them. This increases understanding of how they perceive their rights and of the obstacles they face in obtaining their entitlements.
Examples of projects funded by DFID country programmes include support for the development of services for older people in the Kemerovo region of Russia and projects in the Overseas Territories of Montserrat and St. Helena to provide sheltered housing and other support for elderly people to live in the community.
DFID also has a Programme Partnership Agreement with Help Age International (HAI), under which we are providing funding of £2.46 million to HAI over three years. The purpose is to influence the development of policies and practices that promote rights and opportunities for older people and to maximise their contribution to society. HAI's work includes support for setting up effective groups of older citizens in developing countries; strengthening them to monitor how their governments carry out their commitments to reduce the poverty of older people, including the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing; encouraging dialogue between governments, civil society and older people to ensure that effective policies and programmes are developed to reduce poverty among older people; disseminating information about ageing; raising awareness of the impact of HIV/AIDS on older people and supporting work to inform older people of their rights.
TRANSPORT
A40/M40
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given to the Highways Agency on how to take account, in framing the A40/M40 management strategy, of (a) the environmental impact of the motorway on people living in South Buckinghamshire and (b) Wycombe district council's air quality management strategy. [187370]
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1252W
Mr. Jamieson: The Highways Agency follows a consistent approach for all route management strategies whereby the problems and issues of a route are grouped under five main categories, one of which is environment. Issues such as noise and air quality are considered within this category.
Wycombe district council's air quality management area is recorded in the M40/A40 draft route management strategy. Wycombe's air quality action plan includes a number of measures to improve air quality, two of which directly involve the Highways Agency. Layout changes to the Handy Cross junction are already in the targeted programme of improvements for the agency and the draft route management strategy contains possible options to reduce future traffic volumes on the M40.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of people who live up to (a) 50 metres, (b) 100 metres, (c) 250 metres and (d) 500 metres from the M40 between junctions 3 and 6. [187372]
Mr. Jamieson: The Highways Agency do not hold figures for the number of people who live within 50, 100, 250 and 500 metres of the M40 between junctions 3 and 6.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the accident rate per number of vehicles on the M40 between (a) junctions 3 and 4, (b) junctions 4 and 5 and (c) junctions 5 and 6. [187373]
Mr. Jamieson: The Highways Agency publishes accident rates per million vehicle kilometres travelled. On this basis the accident rates for the three sections of the M40 are as follows:
| Accident rate | |
|---|---|
| (a) Junctions 3 to 4 | 0.129 |
| (b) Junction 4 to 5 | 0.047 |
| (c) Junctions to 6 | 0.125 |
These rates have been calculated using accident data for the last five years.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there have been in each of the last five years on the M40 between (a) junctions 3 and 4, (b) junctions 4 and 5 and (c) junctions 5 and 6. [187374]
Mr. Jamieson: For each of the last five years, the following injury accidents have been recorded on the M40.
| 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Junction 3 to 4 | |||||
| Fatal | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Serious | 7 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 6 |
| Slight | 21 | 17 | 25 | 21 | 19 |
| Junction 4 to 5 | |||||
| Fatal | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Serious | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Slight | 17 | 15 | 21 | 20 | 10 |
| Junction 5 to 6 | |||||
| Fatal | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Serious | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Slight | 11 | 17 | 10 | 17 | 16 |
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1253W
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of the average daily flow of traffic on the M40 between junctions 3 and 6. [187375]
Mr. Jamieson: The latest annual average daily traffic flows for each section of the M40 motorway between junctions 3 and 6 were collected in 2003 and are shown in the following the table:
| Motorway section | Combined Northbound and Southbound traffic flows (vehicles) |
|---|---|
| Junctions 3 to 4 | 101,812 |
| Junctions 4 to 5 | 93,036 |
| Junctions 5 to 6 | 92,923 |
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in each of the last five years traffic has been diverted off the M40 at Junction 5 or 6 to travel along the A40 through Stokenchurch. [187381]
Mr. Jamieson: For the five-year period in question, no formal diversions have been implemented by the Highways Agency that required traffic to be diverted off the M40 at Junction 5 or 6 to travel along the A40 through Stokenchurch.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |