|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EEA nationals from each country were (a) removed and (b) advised to leave the country because (i) they did not possess (A) a valid identity card and (B) a passport card on (ii) they were a cause of an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Damian Green [holding answer 12 July 2010]: No EEA nationals have been removed or advised to leave the UK for not possessing a valid identity card or passport, or for being an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will estimate the number of DNA matches made with the national DNA database since 4 December 2008 in respect of individuals whose DNA profiles would have been removed from the database under the provisions of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S and Marper. 
James Brokenshire: The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S and Marper did not specify a particular retention period for the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted of criminal offences.
Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the answer of 12 January 2010, Official Report, columns 850-2W, on entry clearance, what the equivalent figures are for (a) November and (b) December 2009. 
|(a) Tier one (general)||(b) Tier one (post study)||(d) Tier two (ICT)||(f) Tier four (General)||(f) Tier four (Child)||(g) Tier five youth mobility|
IC = In-country grants of leave to remain.
OOC = Out-of-country visas issued.
The table above is based on approved main applications only. These data are not provided under National Statistics protocols. They have been derived from local management information and are therefore provisional and subject to change.
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to ensure that offences under the Hunting Act 2004 are recorded correctly under the National Standard for Incident Reporting. 
James Brokenshire [holding answer 12 July 2010]: Offences under the Hunting Act 2004 are non-notifiable which means they are not required to be reported to the Home Office. Hunting is not a separate category within the national standard for incident reporting (NSIR). However the offences would be included under the 'Wildlife' category of the NSIR counting rules. The rules contain the following definition for the wildlife category:
Guy Opperman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many identity cards have been provided to people employed at (a) Manchester Airport other than direct employees of Manchester Airport Group, (b) London City Airport other than direct employees of London City Airport Group, (c) her Department other than its direct employees and (d) other Government departments other than their direct employees. 
Damian Green: None. The coalition Government are committed to scrapping the ID card scheme and the National Identity Register. We aim to achieve that at the least possible cost to the taxpayer. Those few people who bought an ID card did so voluntarily and were warned that the scheme may be scrapped. In these circumstances, it is not right that the taxpayer should pick up the bill.
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate her Department has made of the number of persons in the United Kingdom illegally resident in (a) Weaver Vale constituency, (b) Cheshire, (c) the North West and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. 
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many breaches of immigration rules have been committed by people entering the UK under the Chernobyl Children's Project in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. 
Damian Green: Records are not held on the number of breaches of immigration rules committed by people entering the UK under the Chernobyl Children's Project. Such information would only be possible by detailed examination of individual records at disproportionate cost.
The work permit scheme closed for new applications in November 2008 and was replaced by Tiers 2 and 5 of the Points Based System. Under these Tiers, licensed sponsors issue Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) not work permits. Sponsors pay UKBA a fee for each CoS they issue. In 2009, sponsors issued 54,630 Certificates of Sponsorship under Tier 2 and the total revenue was £11,429,100.
Mrs Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will encourage the use of (a) restorative justice and (b) psychological support programmes as an alternative to the imprisonment of children. 
Mr Blunt: The Government are conducting a comprehensive assessment of sentencing policy with a view to introducing more effective sentencing and rehabilitation policies which will include youth sentencing. We intend to bring forward proposals on sentencing and the rehabilitation of offenders in the autumn. We expect these to include proposals to increase the use of restorative justice in both adult and youth sentencing policy.
Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether he has made an estimate of the number of people who will be resident 15 or more miles away from their nearest magistrates court as a result of the closure of the Ammanford and Llandovery magistrates courts. 
Mr Djanogly: The impact of court closures on travelling distances and travelling time to courts will be evaluated fully during the consultation phase and the findings included in the full impact assessment that will be produced alongside the consultation responses.
I must stress that no decision has yet been taken to close Ammanford or Llandovery magistrates courts and I encourage responses to the public consultation that is ongoing and which closes on 15 September.
Mr Djanogly: Ammanford magistrates court is located within the Dinefwr local justice area (LJA) and is the only court within the LJA currently hearing cases. Data on the number of completed cases in the Dinefwr LJA in the last three years are provided in the following table.
|Civil and family||Criminal||Means enquiries||Grand total|
The other court in the Dinefwr LJA is Llandovery magistrates court, which is owned by the local authority and being used as a library. The formal closure of Llandovery is also being consulted on as part of the consultations on the provision of court services.
The data are not centrally available at LJA level before April 2007 and exclude Right to Representation Orders. The data come from an internal management system, are subject to our minimal levels of quality assurance and are based on the data currently available.
|Period||Operating cost (£)|
Mr Blunt: The administrative conviction data on animal cruelty offences and sexual offences against child victims are routinely collected and published as part of Ministry of Justice Criminal Statistics, however violent offences are not specified according to victim age. Further research is not currently planned on these topics.
Mr George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people who received a custodial sentence of six months or less in the last 12 months were convicted of (a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) burglary, (d) robbery, (e) theft and handling stolen goods, (f) fraud and forgery, (g) criminal damage, (h) drug offences, (i) motoring offences and (j) other offences; and how many people who received a community sentence in the last 12 months were convicted of each of those types of offence. 
Mr Blunt: The available information is in the following table. The most recent 12 months for which data are available is 2008, data for 2009 will become available when 'Sentencing Statistics 2009' is published later in the year.
|Community sentences and immediate custodial sentences of six months or less for ail offences, by offence type, 2008|
|Custodial sentences||Community sentences||Total sentenced|
1. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.
2. These data have been taken from the Ministry of Justice Court Proceedings database. These data are presented on the principal offence basis. Where an offender has been sentenced for more than one offence the principal offence is the one for which the heaviest sentence was imposed. Where the same sentence has been imposed for two or more offences the principal offence is the one for which the statutory maximum is most severe.
3. Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July, and August 2008.
Justice Statistics-Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice
Mr Djanogly: The courtroom utilisation rates for the last three years are provided in the following table. The information is not available centrally before April 2007. Courtroom utilisation is the time a courtroom is used, against the hours that a courtroom is available for use. Utilisation rates currently average 64% across the magistrates courts. The Government's aim is to increase courtroom utilisation in the magistrates courts to at least 80%.
Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 26 May 2010, Official Report, columns 2-3WS, on savings (2010-11), under what budgetary headings the £325 million of savings allocated to his Department will be made. 
|Heading||Description||Saving (£ million)|
Stopping capital projects, selling property assets and delivering the administrative estate and meeting prison capacity requirements more efficiently. This includes £25 million from stopping the project to build a dedicated juvenile prison on the Glen Parva site, and £37 million from deferring the new Birmingham magistrates court.
The scope of this question can potentially include a variety of compliance obligations-ranging from compliance with general employment law and environmental regulations to costs arising from negotiating, implementing, and day to day administration of instruments within the Department's own policy remit.
Work to comply with EU legislation is, in the main, conducted among all the other routine functions of my Department and it is not possible to disaggregate specifically all those costs associated directly with compliance with EU legislation. Where specific significant compliance costs from any EU legislation are anticipated for my Department or any other party affected by it then estimates of those are presented within an Impact Assessment and published on the Department's website. The Impact Assessments that accompany Explanatory Memoranda for Parliament are available in the Libraries of both Houses.
Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department has undertaken research into any link between the location of magistrates courts and defendants and witnesses not attending hearings. 
Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice has not carried out any such research. In 2004 the National Audit Office published a report: "Facing Justice-Tackling defendants' non-attendance at court" on the issues surrounding defendant non attendance.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make an estimate of the effects on the (a) cost and (b) duration of journeys between
Keighley police station and court of the merging of Bradford magistrates court and Bingley magistrates court. 
Mr Djanogly: An initial impact assessment has been produced for the consultations. The impacts, costs and benefits of the proposed court closures and bench mergers will be considered more fully during the consultation phase and a full impact assessment will be produced alongside the consultation responses.
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will hold discussions with Nottinghamshire police on the opportunity cost in police time of closing Worksop and Retford magistrates court. 
Mr Djanogly: The regional director for Her Majesty's Courts Service in the Midlands wrote to Nottinghamshire police on 23 June to inform them of the consultation proposals and extended an invitation to meet with him to discuss them. No meeting has yet taken place.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his most recent estimate is of the average annual
rate of non-attendance by (a) defendants and (b) witnesses in criminal cases in each magistrates court in Yorkshire and the Humber. 
Mr Djanogly: In the first quarter of 2010, there were 4,436 criminal trials recorded in the magistrates courts in the Humber and Yorkshire area. Of which 3% of recorded trials were ineffective or cracked due to non-attendance of defendants and 5% of recorded trials in were ineffective or cracked due to non-attendance of witnesses.
Table 1 as follows, shows the rate of ineffective or cracked trials due to non-attendance for defendants and witnesses in recorded criminal trials by each magistrate court in Yorkshire and the Humber, in the first quarter of 2010.
In November 2009, an estimated 12% of expected witnesses did not attend the magistrates courts hearings in Yorkshire and the Humber. This information is based on the witness monitoring survey, which is conducted on a biannual basis, over a two week period in June and November of each year. Estimates of non-attendance of witnesses for all criminal cases is not available at magistrate court level.
|Table 1. Non-attendance of defendants and witnesses in Criminal trials recorded in the magistrates courts, January 2010 to March 2010- The Humber and Yorkshire|
|HMCS||Number of recorded trials where the defendant is absent||Percentage of the trials listed where the defendant is absent||Number of recorded trails where the witness is absent||Percentage of the cases where the witness is absent||Total number of trials|
(1) The figures correspond to trials only and exclude all non-attendance when trials did not occur.
(2) The reasons for ineffective trial due to defendant being absent include the following reasons:
(a) Defendant absent-did not proceed in absence (judicial discretion)
(b) Defendant ill or otherwise unfit to proceed
(c) Defendant not produced by PECS
(d) Defendant absent-unable to proceed as Defendant not notified of place and time of hearing
(3) Witnesses is defined as both professional, police and other witnesses for both the defence and prosecution
Trials, HM courts service Performance Database (OPT)
Mr Djanogly: Magistrates courts have a national jurisdiction, but the guiding principle is that cases are heard at a magistrates court for the local justice area in which (i) the offence is alleged to have been committed or where the subject of complaint originated or (ii) the person charged with the offence resides or where the person subject of the complaint resides or has their principal place of business. Local justice areas were established by order made by the Lord Chancellor under section 8 of the Courts Act 2003.
On 23 June 2010, Official Report, columns 15-16WS, the Government announced proposals to modernise and improve the use of courts in England and Wales including proposals in respect of Humber and Yorkshire. The consultation which includes proposals for changes to some local justice areas will close on 15 September 2010.
Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his latest estimate is of the average annual number of (a) criminal cases, (b) individual hearings in criminal cases and (c) non-criminal cases handled by each magistrates court in Yorkshire and the Humber. 
Mr Djanogly: In the first quarter of 2010, there were 69,219 completed court proceedings in the magistrates courts in Yorkshire and the Humber. Of these cases 46,297 proceeding were criminal cases and 22,929 were non-criminal cases dealt with by the magistrates courts.
In March 2010, on average there was an estimated 2.01 hearings for defendants dealt with in Yorkshire and the Humber magistrates courts in criminal proceedings, excluding defendants committed or sent for trial at the Crown court.
|Table 1: Completed proceedings, Yorkshire and the Humber, Q1 2010|
|Magistrates courts||Criminal proceedings||Percentage of the criminal proceedings||Non-criminal proceedings( 1)||Percentage of the non-criminal proceedings||Total number of completed proceedings|
|(1) Non-criminal cases include civil and family, means inquiries, representation orders and special jurisdiction.|
(2) Non-criminal cases exclude special jurisdiction.
Completed Proceedings, Business Information Division, HM Court Service performance Database ('OPT')
Table 2 provides the average number of hearings for defendants dealt for each magistrates court. Estimates of average number of hearings are based on the Time Interval Survey data for March 2010. The margin of error is a measure of the precision of a result based on a sample survey. The true value of the average number of hearings is likely to fall within a range defined as plus or minus the margin of error.
|Table 2: Average number of hearings by court, Yorkshire and the Humber, March 2010|
|Magistrates court||Estimated average number of hearings per defendant||Margin of error (-/+ number of hearings( 1)|
|(1) The margin of error is a measure of the precision of a result based on a sample survey. The true value is likely to fall within the range of the sample result +/- the margin of error.|
1.The Time Intervals Survey is run in March, June, September and December of each year.
2. All defendants include all adults and youths.
The time Interval Survey
Mr Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 July 2010, Official Report, column 615W, on rape: Greater London, how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for offences related to (i) violence against the person, (ii) common assault, (iii) domestic violence and (iv) criminal damage there were in Greater London in each year since 2005. 
Mr Blunt: The Court Proceedings Database holds information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. However, the Court Proceedings Database does not include the circumstances of each case or hold specific information on offences beyond descriptions provided by the statutes under which proceedings are brought. It is not possible to separately identify domestic violence offences from other offences of assault and violence against the person.
Information on the number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts in the Greater London police force area, for offences of violence against the person, common
assault, and criminal damage, from 2005 to 2008 (latest available) is shown in the following table.
|Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts in the Greater London police force area( 1) for selected offences, from 2005 - 08( 2,)( )( 3)|
|Offence||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty||Proceeded against||Found guilty|
|(1) Includes the City of London and Metropolitan police force areas.|
(2) The figures given relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice
|SFO( 1)||NFA||T sol( 2)|
|(1) The year 2009-2010 is significantly higher due to a tactical capital investment to reinvigorate the SFO's case management system.|
(2) The data cover spend by the Treasury Solicitor's Department, Attorney-General's office and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (from mid 2001 onwards). The figures prior to 1998-99 are not retained on the Department's accounting system, and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
The following tables show the amounts for spent by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Service (RCPO)-who merged with the CPS on 1 January 2010. The data are taken from the financial management system and are only available for 2003-04 onwards. RCPO expenditure for 2009-10 is included in the CPS totals for that year. The figures also include equipment purchased that has been capitalised.
The Attorney-General: The expenditure on light bulbs by the Law Officer's Departments is not recorded separately from other maintenance spending and this information could therefore be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
|Financial year||Treasury Solicitors Department( 1)||Serious Fraud Office||National Fraud Authority( 2)||Crown Prosecution Service( 3)|
|(1) Tsol has financial responsibility for the Attorney-General's Office and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (from 2002). It is not possible to provide the information for the financial years 1996-97 and 1997-98 without incurring a disproportionate cost. (2) The NFA came into operation in 2008. (3) The CPS can provide financial data only from 2003-04 onwards. Expenditure information is taken from the CPS finance system and a comprehensive and full validation check of all transactions has not been undertaken.|
|SFO||CPS( 1)||Tsol( 2)|
|(1) The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not hold full central records of how much has been spent on security throughout the service for the years in question. The information sought could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. However, we are able to provide the costs of security systems for three CPS headquarters buildings and the security costs for the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Service (RCPO), who merged with CPS on the 1 January 2010.|
(2) The figures prior to 1998-99 are not retained on the Department's accounting system, and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. The data provided also cover the Attorney-Generals' office and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (from mid-2001).
|NFA( 1)||SFO||CPS( 2)||Tsol( 3)|
|(1) The increase in cost in 2009-10 is relative to increased staff numbers during the same period and full year impact of NFA operations.|
(2) The data figures from 05-06 include costs for the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Service (RCPO) who merged with the CPS on 1 January 2010. The data are taken from the Financial Management System and is only available for 2003-04 onwards. Data for earlier years could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. The data for 2009-10 are subject to audit checks.
(3) The data also include the Attorney-General's office and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (from mid 2001). The figures prior to 1998-99 are not retained on the Department's accounting system, and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will publish a table showing the cost per tonne of carbon emissions reduced by (a) cavity wall insulation, (b) technologies benefiting from feed-in tariffs and (c) technologies under consideration for the renewable heat incentive. 
Gregory Barker [holding answer 12 July 2010]: The analysis that underpins various Government policies to reduce carbon emissions includes an assessment of carbon cost-effectiveness(1). Carbon cost-effectiveness analysis provides an estimate of the net social cost per tonne of CO2 reduction resulting from a policy.
In the last Administration's March strategy on household energy management it was estimated that cavity wall insulation has a carbon cost of £48/tCO2 (it saves money rather than costs money). Further detail can be found in Annex 2 of the Initial Assessment of Impacts at:
For the recently introduced Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) scheme, the estimated average carbon cost is in the region of £460/tCO2, estimated over the period 2010-30. Further detail can be found on page 27 of the published Impact Assessment at:
The calculation of the "£/tCO2" metric needs to be caveated because it relies on forecasts of the specific mix of low carbon energy (technology type and scale) that will be incentivised under FITs and on projected technology costs through time which in reality will be uncertain.
Similarly the projected carbon costs effectiveness of renewable heat measures published in the Renewable Heat Incentive Consultation Impact Assessment is estimated at £57/tCO2 for measures installed in the traded sector and £75/tCO2 for measures in the non-traded sector. These values represent average lifetime (2010-45) cost effectiveness across different range of measures and fossil displacement assumptions. Further detail can be found on page 20 of the published Impact Assessment at:
It should be noted that the estimated carbon cost effectiveness values are not directly comparable due to methodological differences in the underlying calculation. However the values do highlight the general ranking/impact of the different options.
(1) Further detail on the use of the climate change policy cost-effectiveness indicator and methodology can be found at:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for what reasons the emissions factor applied to electricity under the
Standard Assessment Procedure rating system for dwellings assumes a projected level of decarbonisation of five years hence. 
Gregory Barker [holding answer 12 July 2010]: New versions of the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) are published to support planned amendments to Part L of the Building Regulations (Conservation of fuel and power) for England and Wales. In 2006 the amendment to Part L was expected to last for five years. As SAP is frozen for the period the amendment is in force it was, therefore, necessary to set the carbon dioxide emission factor for electricity based on a projected level of decarbonisation for five years. Government's decarbonisation projections, based on an average value, were used for this purpose. The same procedure was used to determine the factor listed in SAP 2009.
Gregory Barker: The final impact assessment on the CRC Energy Efficiency scheme published on 19 January 2010 by the previous Administration estimated the average annual cost for all participants to be £34 million. Separate estimations of the costs for business were published on a net present value basis and are set out in the impact assessment which can be found at:
Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether he plans to bring forward proposals to extend the criteria for steps taken by businesses to improve their energy efficiency to be recognised under the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme. 
Gregory Barker: We have no current plans to change the CRC Energy Efficiency scheme legislation enacted in the last Parliament. We are however keeping the operation of the scheme under active review to ensure that it incentivises energy efficiency improvements among participants and the level of regulation and incentives are proportionate.
Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the effects on numbers of jobs of participation by businesses in the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme. 
Gregory Barker: There are no estimates of the effects of participation by businesses in the CRC scheme on numbers of jobs. However, by 2020 we estimate that the scheme will save participants around £1 billion per year through cost effective energy efficiency measures. This money could be used to sustain or create jobs but that will be a decision for participants. In addition the increased demand for energy efficiency advice and installation of equipment together with wider Government energy efficiency measures will stimulate opportunities the energy efficiency sector.
Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change whether he has made an assessment of the effects of the requirements of the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme on small companies participating in that scheme. 
Gregory Barker: The final impact assessment on the CRC Energy Efficiency scheme published on 19( )January 2010 by the previous Administration contained a small firms impact test. The impact test concluded that, based on current energy prices, organisations with annual electricity bills below around £0.75 million were unlikely to meet the scheme's 6,000 MWh qualification threshold. As such, smaller organisations below this threshold are exempt from participation in the scheme.
There may be organisations with large energy bills and few employees which are subject the scheme. The impact assessment noted that these organisations are likely to benefit from participation in the scheme as they will save money on energy bills by implementing energy efficiency measures.
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what estimate his Department has made of the number of homes which would have to be retro-fitted with energy saving materials and equipment each year in order to meet the relevant targets set for 2050. 
Gregory Barker: While no targets have been set for household energy saving for 2050, it is clear that we will need wholesale and radical changes to the energy performance of our housing stock in future. The new Green Deal initiative will help us achieve, or exceed, the binding targets for carbon reductions set during the previous Administration and will set us on the path for the long-term changes that are needed.
Under the Green Deal we will introduce a new finance package to make it as easy and attractive as possible for householders to lag their lofts, fill wall cavities, and take further steps to reduce their use of energy in the home. Households will be able to install not only the basic cavity and loft insulation measures, but go further to provide comprehensive packages for households that can deliver real energy, money and carbon savings.
In addition, the extension to the carbon emissions reduction target (CERT), which was announced recently and is expected to deliver insulation to 3.5 million households between April 2011 and December 2012, will ensure a rapid and significant increase in the rate at which we insulate homes over the next couple of years.
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of 21 June 2010, Official Report, column 56W, on energy: subsidies, which official in his Department is responsible for global energy subsidy reform policy. 
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much (a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) its non-departmental public bodies spent on subsidies for solar power production in each year since 1997. 
Charles Hendry: The Department and its predecessors and its non-departmental public bodies have spent £102,528,791.00 on subsidies for solar power through the (i) Clear Skies (ii) Major PV Demonstration and (iii) Low Carbon Buildings programme (LCBP). The breakdown of this sum is shown in the following table:
|Clear Skies||Major PV Demo p rogramme||LCBP-1||LCBP-2||T otal|
"GB Gas Security of Supply & Options for Improvement" (March 2010);
"Security of Gas Supply: European Scenarios, Policy Drivers and Impact on GB" (June 2010);
"Global Gas and LNG Markets & GB's Security of Supply" (June 2010).
These paint a broadly benign picture of the outlook for security of gas supply into Great Britain in the years ahead. In a central scenario, with falling gas demand in the UK and where central assumptions on gas supply and demand in the rest of the world are met, GB's gas market is robust to a wide range of shocks. Many such scenarios would not require voluntary gas supply interruptions or lead to gas supply shortages.
demand levels for gas are important: whereas the GB gas market is robust to a wide range of shocks provided that gas demand is falling over time (largely driven by the promotion of energy efficiency), in circumstances where UK or EU gas demand is higher than expected, the GB gas market becomes more vulnerable;
while the risks of "voluntary" gas supply interruptions, and of gas supply shortages, are low, they are not negligible: there are potential scenarios, in the not-too-distant future, where voluntary interruptions would be required;
even in those scenarios where gas supply is fully maintained, i.e. without voluntary gas supply interruptions or gas supply shortages, the wholesale gas price in the GB market could reach very high levels: Pöyry identify circumstances where the wholesale price could increase to 90 - 220 p/therm.
It is important, in the interests of GB gas consumers, that, so far as feasible, these risks are managed. This reinforces the national need for additional gas supply infrastructure. There may also be a case for adjustment to the regulatory framework, to improve gas market operation.
The coalition agreement commits the Government to ensuring that our energy markets deliver security of supply. We shall take full account of the present reports in our current consideration of potential legislative measures for inclusion in the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill.
The Minister of State for Communities and Local Government my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clarke) has announced the Government's policy on planning reform, including completion of the process for making the energy national policy statements-29 June 2010, Official Report, columns 34-36WS. I shall take full account of the present reports, and of other evidence including consultation responses and the report on the draft National Policy Statements by the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, in preparing the Government's assessment of the national need for additional gas supply infrastructure.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will review whether the provisions of the Nuclear Installations (Excepted Matter) Regulations 1978 remain relevant; and what his policy is on undertaking such reviews of regulations covering civil nuclear installations. 
Charles Hendry: The Nuclear Installations (Excepted Matter) Regulations 1978 give effect to the exclusion of certain specified quantities and forms of nuclear substances (in particular, reprocessed uranium and small quantities of nuclear substances outside a nuclear installation) from the Paris convention on third party nuclear liability. The exclusions were adopted in 1977 by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Steering Committee under article 1(b) of the Paris convention in view of the small risks posed by the nuclear substances concerned.
Where changes are made in relation to the Paris convention my policy is to review the legislation giving effect to the convention. Significant changes to the Paris convention were agreed in 2004 and the exclusion for small quantities of nuclear substances outside a nuclear installation was updated in 2007. We are currently working on amendments to our legislation, in particular the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, to reflect these changes. We intend to consult on the proposed changes later this year.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|