|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 21 April 2008, Official Report, columns 1371-2W, which (a) special areas of conservation with marine components and (b) special protection areas with marine components in UK inshore waters listed on the Joint Nature Conservation Council website are not included on the European Commission's equivalent lists; and for what reasons in each case. 
Jonathan Shaw: Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) together form a network of Natura 2000 sites to protect habitats and species of European importance. SACs are designated under the EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) and SPAs are designated under the EC Wild Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds).
Sites in the UK that meet the qualifying criteria under the relevant directive are identified by the Joint Nature Conservation Council (JNCC) and are recommended to the Government for submission to the EC for adoption as SACs or SPAs respectively. The lists of Marine SACs and SPAs which appear on the JNCC website therefore correspond with those held on the EC's equivalent lists.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research his Department and its agencies have commissioned, funded or utilised on the social impact of charging for the collection of household waste. 
Joan Ruddock: The final report to DEFRA by Eunomia Consulting entitled Modelling the Impact of Household Charging for Waste in England reviewed a range of research including on the social impacts of charging for the collection of household waste.
The Government's Impact Assessment for powers to pilot local authority incentives for household waste minimisation and recycling also drew on a range of research on amounts of waste produced by households of different sizes, and income data for households of different sizes.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many individuals have been issued with fixed penalty notices for breaching (a) no side and (b) closed lid waste collection policies since such notices were introduced. 
Joan Ruddock: Powers for local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices for offences relating to waste receptacles were introduced in April 2006. In 2006-07 local authorities in England issued 988 fixed penalty notices for offences of this nature. Data for 2007-08 will be available later this year. DEFRA does not collect information that would enable a breakdown of these figures to identify the numbers of fixed penalty notices issued specifically for breaches of side waste or closed lid collection policies.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initial assessment he has made of the effects of site waste management plans on waste management practices. 
Joan Ruddock: Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) were first introduced as a voluntary code of practice in July 2004. The latest assessment of their effects was produced by DEFRA by the Building Research Establishment. This was published on the Construction Waste page of DEFRAs website in February 2008.
New regulations became effective on 6 April 2008 and make SWMPs mandatory for construction projects exceeding a £300,000 project cost. An assessment of their effects will be made within three years of this date.
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions the Prime Minister had with the Prime Minister of Iceland on 24 April on the resumption of commercial whaling by Iceland; and if he will make a statement. 
[holding answer 12 May 2008]: I did not attend the meeting on 24 April. However, at this meeting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reiterated
the UKs strong opposition to whaling. The Prime Minister of Iceland was left in no doubt as to the strength of feeling in the UK on the issue.
Roger Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what meetings (a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have had with legal representatives of BAE Systems since 10 April 2008. 
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what consideration he has given to options for future uses of the former Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories site, Gloucestershire; and which organisations have been commissioned by his Department to undertake evaluation of those options. 
Malcolm Wicks: I understand the question to refer to the Berkeley Centre, which is a de-licensed part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authoritys Berkeley site. The NDA have appointed King Sturge to market the Berkeley Centre site.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform under what legislation construction industry cartels are prohibited; what prosecutions have been undertaken in cases where legal proceedings have been completed against (a) individuals and (b) companies for acting as a cartel in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Thomas: Cartels are prohibited under the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 allows for prosecutions against individuals involved in cases acting in a cartel. There have been no prosecutions of individuals in the last five years, however three individuals have recently been charged and are awaiting a court hearing in respect of a cartel involving marine hoses and ancillary equipment. As the criminal cartel offence applies only to individuals, no company has been prosecuted. However, 13 decisions in civil proceedings have been made against 166 companies in relation to breaches of the Chapter 1 prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 (anti-competitive agreements) since 2003.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what his policy is on offering rewards to members of the public for information about alleged illegal cartels in the construction industry; what legislation governs this; how many calls the cartels hotline has received; and how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions resulted from information provided in such calls in each year since the hotline's inception. 
Mr. Thomas: On 29 February 2008, the OFT announced a policy under which it will pay financial rewards of up to £100,000 in return for information which helps it to identify and take action against illegal cartels. Rewards will be paid only where information is accurate, verifiable and proves to be useful in the OFT's anti-cartel enforcement work. Any reward is calculated according to a set formula and not subject to negotiation. This policy will run for an initial period of 18 months, after which a decision will be made whether this should be a permanent arrangement. This is an extra-statutory policy and applies to all industries, including but not limited to the construction industry. The OFT announcement can be found a the following web link:
The OFT has recorded 227 calls on its cartel hotline since 2001. To date none of these calls have resulted in a prosecution or conviction, although the material of some calls is the subject of on going investigations.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how many construction firms were (a) investigated and (b) prosecuted for (i) bid rigging and (ii) cover pricing in each of the last 10 years for which information is available. 
Mr. Thomas: 31 roofing contractors were investigated and fined by the OFT for bid rigging, which also included the practice of cover pricing. A further 112 construction firms are the subject of a current OFT investigation into bid rigging including the practice of cover pricing. No infringement decisions or fines have yet been issued as each firm under investigation has recently been issued with a Statement of Objection which sets out the OFT's formal allegations and evidence. Each firm has been given the opportunity to respond to the Statement.
The OFT received evidence of cover pricing implicating many more companies on thousands of tender processes, but has focused its investigation on approximately 240 alleged infringements which are being pursued in the Statement of Objections. The OFT has used objective selection criteria in order to focus the investigation, based on evidence received up to the point when it closed the door to further leniency applications, including the number of times a company was discovered allegedly to have infringed the Competition Act 1998.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what legislation regulates competitive tendering in the construction industry; what changes have been made to it since enactment; and if he will make a statement. 
There is no legislation which specifically regulates competitive tendering in the construction industry. Construction is covered by generic procurement and competition legislation. In terms of procurement, construction is regulated by the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (Statutory Instrument 2006 No 5) which implements the EU public procurement directive. A further set of rules (Utilities Contracts Regulations
2006SI 2006 No 6) applies to relevant operators (both public and private) in the utilities sector when they wish to procure works or services. For projects above certain financial thresholds, these set out procedures to be followed in setting out specifications, selection of candidates and the award of the contract. They are intended to enforce the EC treaty principles of transparency and free movement of goods and services.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on which occasions the Office of Fair Trading imposed penalties on construction companies in each of the last five years; what penalty was imposed; on which company each was imposed; for what reasons each was imposed; to what purpose the fines received have been put; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Thomas: 31 roofing contractors have been fined in respect of bid rigging, in breach of Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998. The following table shows those companies concerned and the specific level of fine imposed. The level of fines imposed include any reduction for leniency, in accordance with the OFT's penalties guidance whereby reductions, or in certain circumstances complete immunity from fines are available in return for significant cooperation with the OFT's investigation. Total fines imposed amounted to £2,555,547 and were paid into the Consolidated Fund for use by HM Treasury to their own policy objectives.
|Party||Total fine (£)|
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what the budgeted operating cost for Consumer Direct will be in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) 2011-12. 
Mr. Curry: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how many people were serving on the boards of the non-departmental public bodies which his Department sponsors at the latest date for which figures are available. 
Mr. Thomas [holding answer 7 May 2008]: The Cabinet Office publication Public bodies 2007 lists the number of people serving on the boards of public bodies as at 31 March 2007. These figures are broken down by individual Departments. The figure for the Department is 864. Public bodies 2007 can be downloaded from
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|