asked the Paymaster General why, in the light of the fact that the implications of the United Kingdom proposal contained in CON(LO) 1981–82 are not matters for formal consideration by the Fair Competition Committee, they are being formally discussed by that committee.
I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
asked the Paymaster General (1) if he will make a statement on the background to the case currently being heard by the Fair Competition Committee in Brussels which refers to the anti-competitive implications of the United Kingdom proposal contained in COL(LO)1981–82 which deals with the use of excavators as cranes;(2) if he will make a statement outlining the case which Her Majesty's Government will be putting forward in Brussels in support of condition 6 of CON(LO)1981–82 when the matter is considered by the fair competition committee.
[pursuant to the reply, 11 May 1987, c. 31]: I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend's previous reply requires correction. The correct text is as follows:
I refer my hon. Friend to the replies which my hon. Friend gave on 14 and 15 April 1986 at column 855.
The certificate of exemption No. CON(LO)1981–2 is not subject to the notification requirements imposed by EEC directive 83/189. It is therefore not a matter for formal consideration by the committee to which my hon. Friend refers. However, the matter is being informally discussed by that committee and with representatives of appropriate trade associations in this country.