Previous Section Index Home Page

4 July 2006 : Column 908W—continued


The UK's Regular Budget and Technical Cooperation Fund payments are fixed by reference to slightly modified standardised UN contribution rates. The modification arises because the state membership of the IAEA is not identical to that of the UN, and developing countries were initially “shielded” from paying the full costs of the safeguards component of the Regular Budget. The UK accordingly, this year, paid 6.137 per cent. of the total Regular Budget. The future level of the annual UK contribution to the IAEA will be determined by UN contribution rates at the time.

In addition, the UK has made a number of voluntary contributions to the IAEA since 1997, including contributions totalling £2.6 million to support the Agency's safeguards work, £2 million to the IAEA's Nuclear Security Fund, and £500,000 to support IAEA work to improve internal management processes. Additional non-financial “in-kind” support to help the Agency deliver its safeguards and other activities is provided through the UK nuclear industry, however the financial value of this could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

The UK remains committed to our contribution to the IAEA and the only review of the UK contribution we would seek is to manage down the budget through the achievement of organisational efficiencies.

The UK's contribution to the European Atomic Energy Agency (EAEA) is paid through the UK's general contribution to the European Commission's budget. The EAEA's share of the UK contribution could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

Business Reviews

Susan Kramer: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures will be put in place to ensure that the business reviews proposed in the Company Law Reform Bill [Lords] will be comparable (a) over successive years and (b) between companies. [80373]

Margaret Hodge [holding answer 26 June 2006]: As clause 399 subsection (2) of the Company Law Reform Bill sets out, the purpose of the Business Review is to inform members of the company and help them assess how the directors have performed their duty under section 158, which requires a director, in performing his duty to promote the success of the company, to have regard (among other matters) to: (a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term, (b) the interests of the company’s employees, (c) the need to
4 July 2006 : Column 909W
foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, (d) the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment, (e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and (f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company. Subsection (4) of clause 399 requires that the Review is a balanced and comprehensive analysis of (a) the development and performance of the company’s business during the financial year, and (b) the position of the company’s business at the end of that year, consistent with the size and complexity of the business. The statutory provisions therefore set out the framework of the Business Review, but it is for directors of each company to determine its content according to the circumstances of the particular company. As subsection (6) requires, to the extent necessary for an understanding of the development, performance and position of the company’s business, the review must include analysis using key performance indicators. Such indicators will make it easier for members to assess the development, performance and position of the company from year to year.

Compensation Claims

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many (a) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, (b) vibration white finger and (c) hearing loss claims have been registered by his Department without further particulars of claim subsequently being submitted. [81040]

Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 29 June 2006]: As at 26 June 2006, the Department has 18,203 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claims and 1,043 vibration white finger claims with insufficient information to enable them to be progressed. This situation does not arise for hearing loss claims which do not have to be registered in the same way as they are not schemed.

Energy Use

Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the energy models his Department uses (a) to calculate the geographic and sectoral distribution of UK energy usage and (b) to project future energy usage are made available to independent energy analysts on request. [82094]

Malcolm Wicks: The information is as follows:


4 July 2006 : Column 910W

Environmental Regulations

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulatory simplification proposals his Department has received in relation to environmental regulations since the start of the initiative; which stakeholders have been consulted on each proposal; and if he will make a statement. [81030]

Malcolm Wicks: The Department has received two proposals in relation to environmental regulations under the [email protected] system. These were in relation to the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and the restriction of hazardous substances directive. In the first instance, since the request was received, I initiated a wide-ranging review of all elements of WEEE policy. Following this review my Department conducted an informal consultation in which a large number of stakeholders were consulted. In the second instance, the suggestion received was examined and found to be untenable as it would have undermined the purpose of the directive.

Nuclear Power

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what annual fees have been recovered from (a) publicly owned nuclear companies, (b) non-departmental public bodies dealing with nuclear issues and (c) privately owned nuclear companies for the security-related service provided to them by his Department’s Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) in each year since the OCNS has had semi-autonomous status. [81071]

Malcolm Wicks: The information is as follows:

OCNS fees
£
Financial year
Category 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

(a) Publicly owned

813,531

1,047,561

1,317,639

1,405,489

1,339,775

(b) NDPB

328,271

503,378

370,532

423,792

495,647

(c) Privately owned

186,265

168,060

105,000

375,234

524,288

Total fees

1,328,067

1,718,999

1,793,171

2,204,515

2,359,710


4 July 2006 : Column 911W

A breakdown of fees for the period 1 October 2000 (when OCNS became part of DTI) and 31 March 2001 is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

Waste Strategy

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which organisations were consulted during the waste strategy consultation; and if he will make a statement. [80928]

Mr. Bradshaw: I have been asked to reply.

The consultation on the review of England's waste strategy was open to the public and anyone was welcome to respond. More than 2,500 invitations were sent out to stakeholders including environmental non-Government organisations, central Government, local government, universities, waste and recycling industry, media, consultancies, voluntary and community organisations, trade associations and other interested parties. A full list of the organisations invited to respond is available on the Defra website:

Defence

Defence Training Review

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the forecast date is for financial close of the two packages of the Defence Training Review public finance initiative programme. [81605]

Mr. Watson: The current forecast date for financial close of the two packages of the Defence Training Review is end 2007. This date, however, is subject to a satisfactory conclusion to the evaluation and approval process, the Preferred Bidders selected and future analysis currently being conducted on the management of risks related to the delivery of the solutions.

Helicopters

Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Apache Mk1 helicopters have been grounded since entering service. [81131]

Mr. Ingram: The term “grounded” has a particular meaning for the Ministry of Defence and refers to an aircraft which is awaiting the resolution of a specific technical query where the answer may affect airworthiness.

Since entering service in January 2001 no Apache Mkl helicopters have been grounded.

Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times Lynx (a) Mk7 and (b) Mk9 helicopters have been grounded because of mechanical problems in the last 12 months. [81137]

Mr. Ingram: The term “grounded” has a particular meaning for the Ministry of Defence and refers to an aircraft which is awaiting the resolution of a specific technical query where the answer may affect airworthiness.

No Lynx Mk7 or Mk9 helicopter has been grounded for any reason in the last 12 months.


4 July 2006 : Column 912W

Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force (a) Chinook, (b) Merlin, (c) Sea King and (d) Puma helicopters are (i) in service and (ii) fit for purpose. [81132]

Mr. Ingram: “In service aircraft” are those located at front line and training units. An aircraft described as “fit for purpose” is available, reliable, airworthy and capable of carrying out its planned mission on a given date. The numbers of “fit for purpose” aircraft will vary; the following figures are the average for May 2006.

In service Fit for purpose

Chinook Mk2/Mk2a

28

16

Merlin Mk3

14

8

Sea King

17

9

Puma

26

18


Iraq/Afghanistan Visits

Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which occasions (a) he and (b) his Ministers have visited (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan since January 2005. [81966]

Des Browne: Defence Ministers make frequent visits to all theatres of operation where United Kingdom forces are serving. Since I became the Secretary of State for Defence I have visited Iraq on two occasions and Afghanistan once. Information about these and other visits made by Defence Ministers since 1 January 2005 is in the following table.

Countries visited

Secretary of State for Defence

16 to 18 May 2005

Iraq

20 September to 3 October 2005

Afghanistan

2 to 3 December 2005

Iraq

17 to 20 March 2006

Iraq

23 to 26 April 2006

Afghanistan

16 to 18 May 2006

Iraq

11 to 14 June 2006

Afghanistan

18 to 22 June 2006

Iraq

Minister for the Armed Forces

6 to 9 March 2005

Iraq

14 to 18 July 2005

Afghanistan

Minister for Defence Procurement

6 to 8 July 2005

Iraq


Military Vehicles

Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank, (b) Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle, (c) Saxon Armoured Personnel Carrier and (d) (i) Sabre, (ii) Spartan, (iii) Scimitar, (iv) Striker, (v) Samson, (vi) Samaritan and (vii) Sultan armoured vehicles are (A) in service and (B) operationally deployable. [81130]


4 July 2006 : Column 913W

Mr. Ingram: The following table details the numbers of armoured vehicles currently in service and operationally deployable as at 21 April 2006:

Equipment Fleet size Operationally deployable

Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (CR2 MET)

385

327

Saxon

622

579

Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (all variants)

794

735

Spartan

478

452

Scimitar

328

303

Striker

48

47

Samson

50

48

Samaritan

50

46

Sultan

205

196


Next Section Index Home Page