| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Feb 2008 : Column 401W—continued
Sellafield
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how many completed MOX fuel assemblies were made in the Sellafield MOX plant in the last year for which figures are available; and what the production target was for that year. [184894]
Malcolm Wicks: The last full year for which production figures for the Sellafield MOX plant are available is the 2006-07 financial year, when the output was eight completed fuel assemblies against a target of 16. This information is contained in the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s annual report and accounts for 2006-07, which is available on their website at:
Solar Power: Standards
Dr. Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what progress he has made with the accreditation of low pressure solar PV panel manufacturers under the terms of the Low Carbon Building Programme. [174370]
Malcolm Wicks: The Low Carbon Buildings programme supports microgeneration installations only where approved products and installers are used. This is to ensure that Government grants support reliable and safe installations, which comply with building regulations.
Under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) products must meet specified requirements. Where possible, the product requirements are taken from the appropriate British or European standards (e.g. solar thermal collectors have to comply with BS EN 12975-1:2006 when tested in accordance with BS EN 12975-2:2006).
We assume that this question relates to solar thermal collectors. BS EN 12975 does include a pressure test (EN 12975-2:2006 Clause 5.2 Internal pressure test for absorbers). This test involves subjecting the solar collector to a pressure of 1.5 times the maximum solar collector operating pressure specified by the manufacturer. The 1.5 safety factor is normal for this type of test and since the pressure applied in the test is related to the manufacturer's specified maximum pressure, this test should be equally applicable to 'low pressure designs' as those that require higher pressures. This internal pressure test is not only limited to solar collectors incorporating evacuated tubes but also applied to flat plate solar collectors.
The internal pressure test does not, however, apply to solar PV panels. For solar PV panels (and solar thermal collectors) there are mechanical load tests (to demonstrate the ability to resist the loads caused by wind and snow etc.).
These types of tests are described in Clause 5.9 of EN 12975-2:2006 for solar thermal collectors and Clause 10.16 of EN 61215:2005 for PV modules.
South East England Development Agency
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform pursuant to the answer of 30 January 2008, Official Report, column 418W, on South East England Development Agency, how much the South East England Development Agency received from renting its facilities to (a) enterprise gateway projects and (b) enterprise hubs in each of the last five years. [185066]
Mr. McFadden [holding answer 6 February 2008]: SEEDA has not received rent from any Enterprise Gateway Projects or Enterprise Hubs.
South East England Development Agency: Property
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform which properties are owned by the South East England Development Agency; to whom each is leased; and on what terms. [181673]
Mr. McFadden: The properties owned by the South East England Development Agency are set out in the table. I have placed a copy in the Libraries of the House.
Telecommunications: EU Law
Derek Wyatt: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what steps his Department has taken to implement the EU Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive; what further steps he plans to take; and if he will make a statement. [185006]
Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 6 February 2008]: The RTTE directive was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 April 1999, and has applied since 8 April 2000. All transitional provisions ended on 8 April 2001.
The directive was transposed into UK law via The Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.730) which were published on 13 March 2000.
The regulations were amended by The Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 1903) which were published on 21 July 2003 and which took into account the coming into force of the EU communications directives on 25 July 2003.
The regulations were further amended by The Radio Equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (Amendment No 2) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No.3144) which were published on 5 December 2003 and which, among other things, added Ofcom as an enforcement authority as a consequence of it assuming the responsibilities of the former Radiocommunications Agency.
No further amendments are expected to be needed in the foreseeable future.
Telecommunications: Hearing Impaired
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform if he will review the definition of relay services for the deaf in the Government’s 2003 Universal Service Order to include newer technologies such as video and internet protocol relay; and if he will make a statement. [181095]
Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 22 January 2008]: The matter raised is the responsibility of the independent regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), which is accountable to Parliament rather than Ministers. Accordingly, I have asked the chief executive of Ofcom to reply directly to the right hon. Member. Copies of the chief executive’s letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Timesharing: Complaints
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how many consumer complaints his Department has received on timeshare sales in the latest period for which figures are available. [183069]
Mr. Thomas [holding answer 29 January 2008]: The Department’s central records do not contain the information to answer this question. Therefore, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform could answer this question only at disproportionate cost.
Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have met representatives of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation in each of the last three years. [178945]
Mr. McFadden: Ministers meet many people and organisations as part of the process of policy development. In addition, Ministers will meet their own party organisations from time to time. It is not normal practice to disclose details of such meetings.
Trade Unions
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what restrictions apply to trades unions making payments from their general funds to organisations other than political parties which engage in (a) campaigning for changes to legislation and (b) political campaigning. [186092]
Mr. McFadden: It is unlawful for trade unions to apply their general funds in furtherance of “political objects” as defined by section 72 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, either directly or indirectly via another trade union, association or other organisation.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what guidance his Department has issued on the permissible use of resources from trades unions’ general funds for campaign purposes. [186093]
Mr. McFadden: The BERR publication “Trade union political funds: a guide to trade unions, their members and others” refers to the use of general funds for expenditure on purposes which do not constitute political objects.
Tribunals: Employment
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what recent representations he has received on changes to the role of lay members sitting on employment tribunals. [184572]
Mr. McFadden [holding answer 5 February 2008]: The Government consultation, “Resolving Disputes in the Workplace”, published in March 2007, raised a range of issues relating to dispute resolution. Many respondents to that consultation commented on the role of lay members sitting on employment tribunals.
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what estimate he has made of the number of employment tribunals with (a) three members, (b) two members and (c) one member adjudicating which will sit each year should the provisions of the Employment (Simplification) Bill be enacted. [184573]
Mr. McFadden [holding answer 5 February 2008]: The Government acknowledge the valuable and important contribution which lay members make to the tribunal system. This was reaffirmed through responses to the Government consultation “Resolving disputes in the workplace” which issued in March 2007 and closed on 20 June 2007. Most respondents commented that the tripartite structure of the tribunal was a real strength which aided decision-making in cases where considerations of context and reasonableness were important.
There was also support in the consultation for chairs to sit alone in determining cases involving issues of a purely legal nature and in straightforward monetary cases, where the practical experience of the workplace that lay members bring to the tribunal's deliberations is
of less relevance. Additionally over 70 per cent. of respondents to the consultation supported the introduction of a new, swift approach to dealing with straightforward claims, where cases could be determined by an employment tribunal chair, with the consent of the parties, on the basis of the papers. Responding to these findings in the consultation process, the Government propose to develop further good practice which already exists within the tribunals by establishing a fast-track system for dealing with simple monetary claims. The fast-track system will involve five jurisdictions where claims potentially raise straightforward issues and therefore potentially could be determined without the need for tribunal hearing. The jurisdictions considered suitable for the fast-track are:
unlawful deductions from wages;
breach of contract;
redundancy pay;
holiday pay; and
the national minimum wage.
Claims falling within this narrow band that are combined with other jurisdictions outside the list will not be eligible for a fast-track determination.
The Government envisages that employment judges will make an early analysis of claims falling within these jurisdictions and form a view as to whether the case would be suitable for (a) determination based on the documents or (b) whether the issues raised are more suitable for a hearing, and if the latter, whether lay members need to be present. Where a case falls into category (a), the employment judge will write to the parties informing them that in his or her opinion the case could be determined on the basis of documents, but advising the parties that they have a right to a hearing. If the parties are content for the case to be determined without hearing, a written determination will be made. If one of the parties requests a hearing, the case will be heard either by an employment judge sitting alone or before a full tribunal. Where complex issues are raised, the case would be heard by a three-member tribunal.
The fast-track potentially benefits both parties by enabling them to resolve straightforward issues quickly and efficiently reducing unnecessary burdens on the parties’ time and, where they agree to a determination without hearing, saving them from costs associated with attendance or representation at tribunal hearings. We have estimated some 10 per cent. of tribunal claims will be potentially eligible for a fast-track determination.
The Government remain committed to the tripartite nature of tribunals and recognise the important role which lay members play. Provisions in the Employment Bill will not impact on these valuable and trusted arrangements other than as outlined above.
Chris McCafferty: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what recent assessment he has made of the role of lay members on employment tribunals; and if he will make a statement. [185071]
Mr. McFadden
[holding answer 7 February 2008]: The Government acknowledge the valuable and important contribution which lay members make to the
tribunal system. This was reaffirmed through responses to the Government consultation ‘Resolving disputes in the workplace’ which issued in March 2007 and closed on 20 June 2007. Most respondents commented that the tripartite structure of the tribunal was a real strength which aided decision-making in cases where considerations of context and reasonableness were important.
There was also support in the consultation for employment judges to sit alone in determining cases involving issues of a purely legal nature and in straightforward monetary cases, where the practical experience of the workplace that lay members bring to the tribunal’s deliberations is of less relevance. Additionally, over 70 per cent. of respondents to the consultation supported the introduction of a new, swift approach to dealing with straightforward claims, where cases could be determined by an employment judge, with the consent of the parties, on the basis of the papers.
Responding to these findings in the consultation process, the Government proposes to develop further the good practice which already exists within the tribunals by establishing a fast-track system for dealing with simple monetary claims. The fast-track system will involve five jurisdictions where claims potentially raise straightforward issues and therefore potentially could be determined without the need for a tribunal hearing. The jurisdictions considered suitable for the fast track are:
unlawful deductions from wages
breach of contract
redundancy pay
holiday pay
the national minimum wage
Claims falling within these jurisdictions that are combined with other jurisdictions outside the list will not be eligible for a fast-track determination.
The Government envisage that employment judges will make an early analysis of claims falling within these jurisdictions and form a view as to whether the case is suitable for (a) determination based on the documents, or (b) whether the issues raised are more suitable for a hearing, and if the latter, whether lay members need to be present. Where a case falls into category (a) the employment judge will write to the parties informing them that in his or her opinion the case could be determined on the basis of documents, but advising the parties that they have a right to a hearing. If the parties are content for the case to be determined without a hearing, a written determination will be made. If one of the parties requests a hearing, the case will be heard either by an employment judge sitting alone or before a full tribunal. Where complex issues are raised, the case would be heard by a three-member tribunal.
The fast-track potentially benefits both parties by enabling them to resolve straightforward issues quickly and efficiently, reducing unnecessary burdens on the parties’ time and, where they agree to a determination without a hearing, saving them from costs associated with attendance at or representation at tribunal hearings.
The Government remain committed to the tripartite nature of tribunals and recognise the important role which lay members play. Provisions in the Employment Bill will not impact on these valuable and trusted arrangements other than as outlined above.
UK Trade and Investment: Europe
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how many UK Trade and Investment staff there are at each UK embassy in Europe; how many posts at each embassy are to be discontinued; and what are the expected resulting cost savings. [180265]
Mr. Thomas: The number of people (full-time equivalents) engaged on UK Trade and Investment business at each embassy in Europe(1) is as follows:
(1) 27 EU member states
| Number | |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |