Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Feb 2007 : Column 886Wcontinued
Table 3 Priority 3c (CHP) projects recommended for funding | |||
Lead company | Project | Country | Award (£) |
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what process the Government would have to follow to ban British companies from investing in Burma. [118377]
Mr. McCartney: The Government have a long-standing policy of discouraging British firms from trading with or investing in Burma. We offer no commercial services to companies wishing to trade or invest there and British firms who inquire about trade with Burma are informed of the grave political situation and the regimes atrocious human rights record.
Very few UK companies choose to invest in Burma because of the regimes economic mismanagement and corrupt business climate. We believe that multilateral sanctions are more effective and for this reason we support the EU Common Position.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Government have the power to stop British companies providing goods and services to the (a) military regime in Burma, (b) state-owned companies in Burma and (c) companies owned or controlled by business people linked to the military regime in Burma. [118381]
Mr. McCartney: The Government have a long-standing policy of discouraging British firms from trading with or investing in Burma. We offer no commercial services to companies wishing to trade or invest there. British firms who inquire about trade with Burma are informed of the grave political situation and the regimes atrocious human rights record. We have consistently supported measures that target those responsible for the regimes policies.
Trade policy is the competence of the European Commission, and therefore any action would need to be taken at Community level.
Very few UK companies choose to invest in Burma because of the regimes economic mismanagement and corrupt business climate. We believe that multilateral sanctions are more effective and for this reason we support the EU Common Position.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Government have the power to ban the export of luxury items to Burma. [118380]
Mr. McCartney: Trade policy is the competence of the European Commission, and therefore any action would need to be taken at Community level.
Very few UK companies choose to invest in Burma because of the regimes economic mismanagement and corrupt business climate. We believe that multilateral sanctions are more effective and for this reason we support the EU Common Position.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent of British trade with Burma; and which British companies are the main exporters to Burma. [118356]
Mr. McCartney: The Government have a long-standing policy of not encouraging British firms to trade with or invest in Burma. We offer no commercial services or support to companies wishing to trade with or invest in Burma. British companies who enquire about trade with Burma are informed of the grave political situation, the regime's atrocious record on human rights and the country's dire economic prospects.
For the period January to November 2006, the UK's exports of goods to Burma amounted to £3.2 million. This is a fall of 66.9 per cent. over the same period in 2005 when UK exports were £9.7 million. We do not maintain details of British companies exports to overseas markets.
Very few UK companies choose to invest in Burma because of the regime's economic mismanagement and corrupt business climate. We believe that multilateral sanctions are more effective and for this reason we support the EU Common Position.
Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have started up on average per month in each region of the UK since January 1995. [118949]
Margaret Hodge:
Value added tax (VAT) registrations and de-registrations are the best official guide to the pattern of business start-ups and closures.
DTI data on the average number of VAT registrations per month in each region of the UK from 1995 to 2005 are shown in the table.
Average number of VAT registrations per month for each region in the UK, 1995 to 2005( 1) | |||||||||||
1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | |
(1 )Estimates of the average number of VAT registrations per month have been produced by dividing the number in each year by 12. Source: SBS Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994-2005, available from http://www.sbs.gov.uk/vat and the Library of the House. |
VAT registration data do not capture all business start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if their turnover falls below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. In the UK as a whole, only 1.8 million out of a total of 4.3 million enterprises (42 per cent.) were registered for VAT at the start of 2005.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the value of the contract with China to provide new nuclear plants for which BNFL was competing; and what steps his Department took to assist in attempts to win this contract for a British company. [112549]
Malcolm Wicks: None. The contract negotiations with the Chinese to provide reactors were a matter primarily for Westinghouse and new owners Toshiba. Negotiations were led by Westinghouse, initially under BNFL's ownership/governance and then Toshiba's.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 11 January 2007, Official Report, columns 730-31W, on compensation payments, what the nature was of the inefficiency of the person dismissed on those grounds; in what area the dismissed person worked; and if he will make a statement. [118866]
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am unable to provide any further details of the individual dismissed on the grounds of inefficiency, as it may be possible to identify the person concerned from the information provided. The release of such information could constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 11 January 2007, Official Report, columns 730-31W, on compensation payments, what property was involved in each case where a payment was made for loss or damage to personal property; and why the Department was liable in each case. [118894]
Jim Fitzpatrick: There were 26 compensation payments for loss or damage to personal property totalling £4,927.28. It would entail disproportionate cost to provide details of the property or damage in each individual case but the reasons are categorised as follows:
£ | |
Next Section | Index | Home Page |