| Home Page |
Column 1
Written Answers to Questions
Monday 1 February 1993
TRANSPORT
Harbours Act 1964
Ms. Walley : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he plans to bring into force the amendments to the Harbours Act 1964 made by schedule 3 to the Transport and Works Act 1992 ;
(2) what consultation he will be carrying out with organisations representing users of public rights of way on the implementation of the new provisions for enabling harbour revision orders to be made which will divert or extinguish public rights of way.
Mr. Norris : The amendments to the Harbours Act 1964 made by schedule 3 to the Transport and Works Act 1992 were brought into force on 15 July 1992 by the Transport and Works Act 1992 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1992 (Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 1347 (c.45)). We shall ensure that, when application is made for a harbour revision order which would divert or extinguish a public right of way, the applicant notifies user organisations of the application so that, if they so wish, they may make objection to it.
Braer Disaster
Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the departmental investigation into the causes of the Braer disaster in Shetland will include consideration of the nature and duration of insurance arrangements for the vessel, and the arrangements which were in hand for any extensions to the period of insurance cover.
Mr. Norris : It has already been established that the Braer complied with the requirements to have compulsory insurance cover in respect of any pollution damage she may have caused up to the owner's liability under the 1969 civil liability convention on oil pollution. Other forms of insurance on the ship--for example, in respect of her hull or cargo--are not compulsory and are matters for the owner or cargo interests.
The purpose of the marine accident investigation branch investigation is to establish the cause of the accident and consider measures to prevent a recurrence. It will not look further into the insurance arrangements unless there is good reason to believe that they are directly related to the accident. The general issue of insurance is within the remit of the inquiry which has been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson to advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping.
Light Dues
Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies had been made of the effect of the channel tunnel on the income from light dues.
Column 2
Mr. Norris : The light dues income from vessels using ports adjacent to the tunnel is estimated to have been £650,000 out of a total light dues income of £45 million in 1991-92. The effect of the opening of the channel tunnel on income from light dues is therefore likely to be minimal.
English Channel (Traffic Separation)
Mr. Stephen : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 January, Official Report, column 270, what action is taken at the time to prevent a collision if a vessel is observed to be contravening the traffic separation schemes in the English channel.
Mr. Norris : An identified vessel observed contravening the traffic separation scheme will be contacted and a warning broadcast made to all other traffic using the scheme. In addition, this information will be included in the routine broadcasts transmitted.
London Underground
Mr. Cox : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of money planned by London Underground to be spent on the Northern line during 1993 ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Norris : London Transport has not yet finalised its spending plans for 1993-94.
Royal Train
Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are under his proposals for the railways for the services provided by the royal train to be put out to private tender.
Mr. Freeman : We shall consider arrangements for the royal train in due course.
Ipswich-Lowestoft Railway Line
Mr. Cann : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the closure of the Ipswich to Lowestoft railway line.
Mr. Freeman : None. It would be for British Rail to bring forward proposals to close passenger lines or stations. I am not aware of any such proposals concerning the Ipswich-Lowestoft line. Under our privatisation plans a full statutory procedure will continue to apply to closure proposals.
Rail Privatisation
Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications of the collapse of Charterail for his Department's franchising arrangements for British Rail and the proposed use of charging policy to freight companies for track use.
Mr. Freeman : The collapse of Charterail has no implications for the franchising of British Rail services, nor for the access charging regime for rail freight operators.
Column 3
Council of Ministers
Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the issues discussed and decisions taken at the joint Environment/Transport European Council meeting in Brussels on 25 January.
Mr. Norris : I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on 28 January, Official Report, column 796.
West Coast Main Line
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he received, following his White Paper on rail privatisation, from (a) the passenger transport executives and (b) British Rail about the restrictions on capacity and train paths which exist on the Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham section of track over which the west coast main InterCity route operates.
Mr. Freeman : We are aware from general discussions with BR that this is a very heavily used section of the network.
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what advice he received following his White Paper on rail privatisation in respect of the reduction in train paths that would be a consequence of the required or planned renewal of track and infrastructure forming the InterCity west coast main line route ; (2) what advice he has received following his White Paper on rail privatisation on the scope for allocating adequate maintenance periods on that track and infrastructure vested in InterCity west coast main line between Crewe and Carlisle.
Mr. Freeman : None. Decisions on maintenance and train paths will primarily be a matter for Railtrack.
Railways (Disclosure of Information)
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the regulator, franchising authority and Railtrack will have to demand disclosure of information concerning customer numbers using routes, and other matters which would normally be deemed as commercially confidential.
Mr. Freeman : The rail regulator will have the power to require relevant information from operators under the conditions of the licences that he will issue to train operators ; the franchising director will be able to require information under the conditions of franchise agreements ; and such powers for Railtrack are considered unnecessary.
Rail Safety
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which body will be responsible for certifying that a locomotive or rolling stock which has been the subject of a train failure is safe to move following the vesting of Railtrack.
Mr. Freeman : The train service operator will have primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of his
Column 4
locomotives and rolling stock in line with the arrangements contained in his railway safety case validated by Railtrack.Rail Incidents
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who he intends shall be responsible for marshalling and providing customer action teams and increasing at short notice the staffing levels both in the retail and operational management area following either a major delay, incident or rail crash.
Mr. Freeman : It will be for franchisees and other passenger operators to decide their own arrangements for the care of passengers.
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his intention on how diversionary routes shall be charged or costed out following the vesting day of Railtrack ;
(2) which body shall be responsible for deciding the apportionment of costs, charges or damages relating to delay or loss of customers due to a train failure where more than one operator had use of the track or train path, following the vesting day of Railtrack.
Mr. Freeman : These are matters for access agreements.
Rail Privatisation
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whom he proposes shall be authorised to instigate diversionary routes, and the alteration of operators' timetables as train paths, where a train failure, crash or repair work impedes a particular route, following the vesting day of Railtrack ;
(2) who would be authorised to provide the appropriate staff when it becomes necessary for emergency hand signalling to be instituted, following the vesting day of Railtrack ;
(3) which body shall be responsible for managing the flow of train services around a train failure, following the vesting day of Railtrack ;
(4) whose responsibility it will be to remove debris and clear and restore the track and site when an operator's train has damaged or destroyed track or equipment, following the vesting day of Railtrack ;
(5) if the franchising authority would prepare the national timetabling through an iterative process ; and by what criteria or basis the route which is first on the graph would be determined ; (6) which body shall be responsible for organising repair, line clearance and restoration of equipment when more than one train operator was involved in an incident which resulted in the route or train path being blocked, following the vesting day of Railtrack ; (7) which body would determine priority services and re-write the timetables of the various operators on those occasions when an engineering possession has been made to a section of track over which more than one franchise or operator of a service exists ; (8) whose responsibility it will be, following the vesting day of Railtrack, to minimise delay in clearing the track following a train failure ; and who will be expected to provide the rescue locomotive.
Column 5
Mr. Freeman : Railtrack would have the lead responsibility for these matters, subject to the legislation currently before Parliament.
Rail Ticketing
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures he proposes for ensuring inter-availability of tickets following a train failure, or major interruption or delay in a particular service or route after Railtrack's vesting day or the introduction of franchising over one or more routes.
Mr. Freeman : Arrangements for the inter-availability of tickets will be a matter for operators, subject to any requirements imposed by the regulator or franchising director.
Euston Station
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from British Rail about additional train paths, junction layouts and platform capacity that may be available at Euston station for prospective franchisers to expand services operating from that terminus during peak travel times.
Mr. Freeman : I have received no such advice.
Rail Timetables
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to indemnify or exempt the franchising authority, or operators, from charges of collusive or anti-competitive behaviour when determining the national timetable and connecting services where there exist competing operators and demands for connections of services, train paths, track and related facilities.
Mr. Freeman : There will be no need to grant such indemnities. Railtrack will allocate access to the network and prepare the operating timetable, subject to the oversight of the rail regulator, who will be responsible for authorising access agreements. The regulator will have duties to promote competition and to protect the passenger's interests, and will have to take these into account when deciding whether to authorise access agreements. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 will not apply to the provision of railway services. The regulator will also have the power to refer matters related to the provision of licensed railway services to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate whether they operate against the public interest.
M3-A303-A30
Sir Peter Emery : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date the M3-A303-A30 southern route to the west country between London and Exeter will be entirely dual carriageway.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : We intend to provide dual carriageways to replace all the remaining single carriageway sections of this route. The timetable for completing this programme of improvements depends on satisfactory progress through the statutory procedures, including public inquiries where necessary, and the continuing availability of funds.
Column 6
Dual Carriageways
Sir Peter Emery : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the stretches of road and the distances involved of the carriageway between Andover and Exeter along the A303-A30 which are not dual carriageway ; and by what dates it is intended they will be developed to become dual carriageways.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : I refer my right hon. Friend to my answer to his earlier question today. The Department's schemes to replace the remaining single carriageway sections of the A303-A30 between Andover and Exeter are as follows :
Scheme |Next key stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A303 Amesbury-Berwick Down |Public consultation, spring 1993
A303 Wylye-Stockton Wood |Public draft orders, late 1993
A303 Chicklade Bottom-Mere |Public consultation, spring 1993
A303 Sparkford-Ilchester |Publish draft orders, spring 1993
A303 Ilminister bypass dualling |Preferred route announcement,
|spring 1993
A303 Ilminister-Marsh |Publish draft orders, summer
|1993
A303-A30 Marsh-Honiton |Re-publish draft orders, spring
|1993, for public inquiry later in
|year
A30 Honiton-Exeter |Decision following public in-
|quiry, autumn 1993
Railtrack
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which body shall be responsible for surveying any crash, or incident involving damage to track, locomotive or rolling stock, with a view to assisting in the apportioning of costs, charges or damages, following the vesting day of Railtrack.
Mr. Freeman : Railtrack and train service operators.
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what form of regulation or arbitration he proposes in order to deal with incident costs when the charges that have been identified and attributed to a company or operator are disputed, following the vesting day of Railtrack.
Mr. Freeman : The form of regulation or arbitration to deal with disputes over the attribution of costs after an incident will be a matter for access agreements which will be subject to the approval of the rail regulator.
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will impose minimum response times on those charged with clearing routes, track or train paths, as well as subsequent safety inspections, in the event of train failure, crash or derailment, following the vesting day of Railtrack.
Mr. Freeman : This will be the responsibility of Railtrack, as it now is of British Rail. Any related contractual obligations would be covered in access agreements.
Rail Franchising
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the franchising authority will be required to prepare a national timetable, and to seek franchises in response to bids by public or commercial bodies to operate existing or suggested services or routes.
Column 7
Mr. Freeman : Railtrack, as the track authority, will plan and produce a working timetable for the rail network and will be required to ensure that a national timetable is published. The Railways Bill places a duty on the franchising director to designate
services--whether existing or new--as eligible for provision under franchise agreements. It further provides that public sector operators may not be franchisees.
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to maintain rail services in the immediate period following a franchiser or operator arbitrarily or unilaterally vacating a train path or service due to breach of contract or company failure.
Mr. Freeman : The franchising director will be able to step in and provide for continuity of service through the terms of the franchise agreement and the special railway administration procedures as set out in the Railways Bill.
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has received from British Rail of the increase in the total number of drivers that would be required by InterCity to have its own dedicated train crews following franchising or privatisation.
Mr. Freeman : We have received no such specific estimate from British Rail. Following franchising it will be for franchisees to determine total staffing requirements in the light of their obligations to provide the services specified in their franchise contracts, and comply with the terms of their licence and their validated railway safety case.
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his approach to deciding the conflicting bids for train paths, track, platforms and related facilities between the InterCity executive type services and those of the passenger transport executives where currently InterCity services are given priority in their planning and allocation.
Mr. Freeman : This is a matter for British Rail.
Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that InterCity should maintain its existing rights to priority on train paths over those sections of track where it currently enjoys the status of lead business, following the vesting day of Railtrack and the introduction of franchising.
Mr. Freeman : Our intention is that the initial pattern of franchised services should be based on the services provided by BR immediately before franchising.
East London River Crossing
Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public access there will be to the land offered in exchange for land compulsorily purchased along the route of the east London river crossing under compulsory purchase orders 10 and 11, 19 November 1991 ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Norris : We propose to plant 89 per cent. of the exchange land and protect it until the woodland becomes established. Access to these areas will be via the "Green Chain Walk" and an extensive system of subsidiary footpaths. The remaining areas of exchange land will be fully accessible for public use.
Column 8
Road Freight
Mrs. Ann Winterton : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the total tonnage miles of freight carried by railways in the United Kingdom in each of the last 15 years for which figures are available ; and what were the comparable actual and percentage figures for road freight transport in each of those years.
Mr. Freeman : Comparative data for Great Britain can be found in table 9.3 of Transport Statistics Great Britain 1993, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Table 1.9 contains percentage figures for the years 1981-1991 ; comparable data for earlier years may be found in previous annual reports. Equivalent data for Northern ireland are not available.
Search and Rescue
Mr. Ainger : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the key factors in determining the currently used United Kingdom search and rescue helicopter response criteria as laid down by the helicopter coverage group.
Mr. Norris : I am replying as the Helicopter Coverage Group was established under the aegis of the Department of Transport. The key factors affecting the need for SAR helicopter coverage were :
1. The usage by merchant shipping of UK waterways
2. The increase in ferry traffic around UK waters
3. Changing fishing patterns and the effects of EEC quota regulations on fishing vessels movements
4. The increasing popularity of maritime recreational pursuits
Bridges, London
Mr. Bowis : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take responsibility for the co-ordination of works on the bridges of London between Hampton Court and the sea.
Mr. Norris [holding answer 29 January 1993] : I am currently considering whether any changes are necessary to the arrangements currently in place for managing the bridges concerned. I am not currently satisfied that any change would do other than add an additional layer of bureaucracy.
Air Traffic Controllers
Mr. Day : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Civil Aviation Authority is taking to introduce emergency training for new air traffic controllers on their initial training courses and for ongoing emergency continuation training for experienced operational controllers as recommended by the air accidents investigation branch.
Mr. Norris : The Civil Aviation Authority's safety regulation group (SRG) intends to consult industry shortly on proposals for additional requirements for emergency training to be undertaken in all courses for trainee controllers, and as part of the continuation training for qualified operational controllers. In the meantime, National Air Traffic Services has already implemented additional emergency training which will meet these proposals.
Column 9
ENVIRONMENT
Derelict Land Grant
Mrs. Helen Jackson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the derelict land grant projects funded in each of the last three years and the amount of funding allocation.
Mr. Robin Squire : This information is not available in the form requested. However, the following table shows,
Column 10
by region, the expenditure on land reclamation incurred by local authorities which has attracted derelict land grant over the last three years. About 95 per cent. of this expenditure was supported by grant at 100 per cent.Column 9
Derelict land grant expenditure
1989-90 to 1992-93
Local authority |1989-90 |1990-91 |1991-92 |<1>1992-93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern
Alnwick |0 |0 |350 |0
Blyth Valley |0 |0 |36,100 |100,000
Chester le Street |12,000 |0 |0 |0
Cleveland county council |24,174 |35,401 |15,463 |120,000
Darlington |563,164 |668,018 |370,164 |714,000
Derwentside |180,005 |475,920 |15,000 |135,000
Durham county council |2,024,497 |980,666 |553,286 |1,500,000
Durham city |3,142 |2,035 |10,145 |10,000
Easington |406,866 |125,113 |149,290 |325,000
Gateshead |1,035,454 |1,303,606 |1,558,246 |1,700,000
Hartlepool |80,556 |256,776 |11,575 |500,000
Langbaurgh |202,313 |251,102 |27,809 |250,000
Middlesbrough |11,875 |50,284 |296,874 |550,000
North Tyneside |485,303 |773,567 |508,513 |750,000
Newcastle upon Tyne |194,298 |104,810 |538,561 |450,000
Northumberland county council |758,493 |1,429,134 |800,706 |2,055,000
South Tyneside |299,088 |341,907 |297,004 |200,000
Sedgefield |6,650 |10,169 |124,360 |160,000
Stockton on Tees |75,698 |34,885 |155,178 |500,000
Sunderland |1,239,592 |1,403,637 |1,593,509 |1,700,000
Teesdale |0 |0 |6,418 |0
Tyne and Wear MCC |0 |0 |0 |0
Wear Valley |129,549 |39,896 |429,818 |350,000
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |7,603,168 |8,247,030 |7,068,551 |12,069,000
North West
Allerdale |1,331,491 |1,571,074 |312,648 |0
Barrow in Furness |0 |0 |3,000,000 |2,000,000
Blackburn |64,847 |370,811 |374,415 |200,000
Blackpool |21,179 |23,992 |0 |18,000
Bolton |9,318 |493,239 |221,066 |660,000
Burnley |26,257 |47,573 |81,182 |200,000
Bury |97,966 |156,165 |697,395 |660,000
Carlisle |0 |0 |216,043 |900,000
Cheshire county council |494,361 |1,070,145 |1,434,597 |1,500,000
Chester |0 |0 |0 |80,000
Chorley |1,876 |160,956 |228,034 |200,000
Congleton |151,707 |231,624 |47,564 |100,000
Copeland |0 |0 |163,190 |900,000
Crewe and Nantwich |42,870 |3,828 |30,538 |50,000
Cumbria county council |3,509,500 |2,117,590 |2,991,360 |0
Eden |0 |0 |0 |130,000
Hyndburn |205,085 |174,072 |115,890 |200,000
Lancashire county council |459,762 |740,240 |528,947 |300,000
Lancaster |58,000 |203,071 |421,906 |500,000
Macclesfield |42,691 |101,358 |74,661 |150,000
Manchester |32,820 |0 |372,930 |1,200,000
Oldham |324,247 |724,291 |676,265 |1,250,000
Pendle |27,159 |219,486 |0 |200,000
Preston |1,606,987 |19,240 |436,405 |300,000
Ribble Valley |6,522 |575,532 |249,009 |200,000
Rochdale |24,194 |34,444 |0 |310,000
Rossendale |601,336 |149,385 |120,095 |200,000
South Lakeland |0 |10,350 |0 |100,000
Salford |3,120,025 |563,947 |820,103 |2,680,000
South Ribble |0 |0 |41,876 |0
Stockport |0 |72,448 |13,931 |500,000
Tameside |272,665 |64,487 |1,263,999 |1,200,000
Trafford |12,316 |7,200 |19,688 |150,000
Vale Royal |123,000 |59,045 |134,157 |200,000
West Lancashire |6,454 |0 |59,709 |200,000
Warrington |223,227 |313,164 |90,022 |200,000
Wigan |1,229,353 |691,342 |1,754,456 |1,500,000
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |14,125,215 |10,970,099 |16,992,081 |19,118,000
Merseyside task force
Cheshire |208,000 |744,142 |101,794 |500,000
Ellesmere Port and Neston |2,099,000 |2,185,766 |1,503,996 |1,650,000
Halton |1,334,000 |1,312,617 |914,466 |1,275,000
Knowsley |498,000 |378,728 |634,424 |650,000
Liverpool |403,000 |1,746,514 |3,047,190 |2,270,000
Merseyside MCC/RB |7,000 |0 |0 |0
Sefton |185,000 |605,741 |408,728 |1,200,000
St. Helens |646,000 |416,148 |1,368,914 |1,358,000
Wirral |175,000 |371,641 |351,419 |400,000
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |5,555,000 |7,761,497 |8,330,931 |9,303,000
Yorkshire and Humberside
Barnsley |2,086,627 |1,685,189 |877,713 |1,646,964
Boothferry |710,025 |773,560 |839,673 |140,000
Bradford |385,728 |780,617 |494,522 |396,000
Calderdale |381,416 |51,104 |2,970,946 |2,000,000
Cleethorpes |48,166 |10,900 |949 |0
Doncaster |501,180 |1,371,837 |702,420 |2,150,783
Glanford |1,935,770 |2,494,436 |3,612,119 |3,000,000
Grimsby |6,107 |99 |37,200 |106,383
Holderness |3,472 |115,612 |0 |0
Humberside county council |44,429 |0 |0 |0
Kingston-upon-Hull |92,274 |38,856 |139,811 |62,386
Kirklees |766,500 |957,389 |1,054,334 |980,000
Leeds |227,886 |849,775 |770,696 |250,000
North Yorkshire |0 |0 |0 |10,000
Richmondshire |0 |0 |21,621 |51,000
Rotherham |2,637,550 |3,876,401 |4,585,974 |5,149,396
Ryedale |57,725 |12,125 |0 |0
Scarborough |0 |45,157 |0 |0
Scunthorpe |0 |0 |0 |0
Selby |12,039 |21,729 |2,581 |0
Sheffield |53,470 |133,873 |635,888 |559,929
Wakefield |517,207 |944,341 |1,160,250 |1,498,000
York |0 |0 |0 |10,000
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |10,447,571 |14,163,000 |17,905,897
West Midlands
Birmingham |652,750 |281,537 |893,446 |1,224,000
Cannock Chase |39,505 |280,030 |152,138 |511,000
Coventry |2,161 |0 |0 |25,000
Dudley |3,656,203 |3,997,461 |4,887,623 |2,780,000
Lichfield |73,889 |215,464 |1,000 |103,000
North Warwickshire |0 |0 |0 |0
Newcastle-under-Lyme |257,670 |1,239,612 |691,486 |1,614,000
Nuneaton and Bedworth |1,557 |170,744 |50,554 |0
Oswestry |0 |0 |33,250 |50,000
Redditch |0 |0 |0 |0
South Staffordshire |21,000 |6,074 |2,945 |1,000
Sandwell |1,321,731 |1,865,409 |1,023,621 |1,425,000
Shropshire county council |596,203 |1,458,615 |615,850 |1,291,000
Staffordshire county council |231,527 |275,262 |1,387,127 |601,000
Staffordshire Moorlands |0 |0 |6,000 |51,000
Stoke-on-Trent |610,374 |256,706 |763,752 |695,000
Tamworth |0 |0 |0 |6,000
Walsall |3,778,999 |2,738,123 |4,222,623 |3,838,000
Warwickshire |116,269 |157,345 |36,760 |29,000
Wolverhampton |585,000 |447,375 |1,676,043 |1,981,000
Wrekin |693,189 |336,154 |672,755 |773,000
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |12,638,027 |14,725,911 |17,116,973 |16,998,000
East Midlands
Amber Valley |15,889 |71,415 |0 |235,000
Ashfield |99,404 |54,773 |65,944 |24,000
Bolsover |0 |68,967 |33,549 |80,000
Chesterfield |0 |2,497 |864,493 |122,000
Corby |2,410,386 |1,374,391 |1,914,953 |1,927,000
Daventry |0 |0 |0 |50,000
Derby |0 |0 |180,000 |25,000
Derbyshire county council |1,727,580 |2,958,839 |2,672,151 |2,597,000
Derbyshire dales |0 |0 |16,737 |260,000
Erewash |296,504 |308,066 |555,234 |1,000,000
East Lindsey |317 |0 |0 |0
Gedling |0 |0 |124,982 |27,000
Hinkley and Bosworth |11,719 |0 |0 |0
Kettering |0 |0 |6,875 |0
Leicester |0 |0 |4,000 |106,000
Leicestershire county council |569,656 |697,283 |367,717 |877,000
Lincoln city |0 |1,425,107 |694,932 |1,010,000
Mansfield |93,703 |249,176 |823,915 |1,168,000
Melton |0 |0 |0 |0
North West Leicestershire |655,749 |899,602 |5,618 |9,000
Newark and Sherwood |361,936 |0 |0 |77,000
Nottingham |8,753 |12,820 |176,280 |600,000
Nottinghamshire county council |1,888,648 |1,631,835 |2,638,540 |2,631,000
North East Derbyshire |2,727 |2,727 |43,669 |204,000
Ruchcliffe |0 |0 |0 |25,000
South Derbyshire |202,743 |467,923 |297,485 |7,000
Wellingborough |0 |0 |0 |0
West Derbyshire |2,661 |42,550 |0 |0
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |8,348,375 |10,267,971 |11,487,074 |13,061,000
London
Barking |148,333 |74,166 |0 |-
Bexley |38,197 |0 |0 |-
Camden |30,000 |15,000 |15,000 |-
Croydon |0 |0 |0 |-
Enfield |0 |6,358 |38,843 |-
Greenwich |86,585 |182,044 |81,884 |-
Harrow |0 |0 |0 |-
Havering |0 |17,640 |0 |-
Merton |118,000 |0 |20,521 |-
Newham |440,606 |0 |0 |-
Richmond upon Thames |16,800 |8,400 |- |-
Tower Hamlets |54,535 |364,026 |1,963,775 |-
Total |933,056 |667,634 |2,120,023 |2,193,000
South West
Bath |0 |0 |139,755 |603,000
Bristol |0 |84,161 |138,741 |55,000
Caradon |0 |0 |0 |100,000
Carrick |0 |670,113 |0 |250,000
Cheltenham |0 |0 |0 |0
Cornwall county council |31,340 |25,289 |288,851 |432,000
Devon county council |43,954 |57,387 |94,053 |50,000
East Devon |0 |0 |0 |0
Forest of Dean |0 |3,204 |142,417 |0
Cloucester |29,000 |3,684 |3,684 |0
Kerrier |389,100 |93,286 |1,728,293 |1,420,000
Kingswood |1,286 |1,286 |0 |0
North Cornwall |95,997 |16,596 |18,345 |20,000
Penwith |56 |0 |0 |60,000
Plymouth |67,887 |55,823 |82,000 |100,000
Portland |0 |30,882 |0 |0
Restormel |0 |0 |31,298 |250,000
Sedgemoor |0 |10,590 |0 |0
Teignbridge |687 |5,154 |5,354 |1,000
Thamesdown |96,927 |455,680 |33,659 |47,000
Torbay |4,715 |7,695 |0 |8,000
Woodspring |4,454 |1,919 |1,000 |2,200
West Devon |0 |0 |47,666 |15,000
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |765,403 |1,522,749 |2,755,116 |3,413,200
South East
Chichester |0 |43,315 |941 |-
Gravesham |0 |0 |1,800 |-
Guildford |0 |0 |0 |-
Hastings |0 |0 |0 |-
Isle of Wight |62,181 |49,704 |0 |-
Kent county council |0 |11,747 |120,728 |-
Portsmouth |0 |0 |16,814 |-
Reading |0 |0 |10,279 |-
Reigate and Banstead |0 |3,777 |0 |-
Rochester |75,918 |0 |39,857 |-
Swale |0 |138,405 |0 |-
Test Valley |0 |0 |8,760 |-
Thanet |0 |0 |12,807 |-
Wealden |0 |0 |2,500 |-
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |138,099 |246,948 |214,486 |898,500
Eastern
Bedfordshire |0 |0 |29,583 |-
Braintree |0 |7,753 |0 |-
Breckland district council |0 |0 |3,156 |-
Broadland |229,781 |45,837 |0 |-
Hertfordshire county council |22,540 |0 |15,000 |-
Ipswich |0 |0 |11,812 |-
Kings Lynn and Norfolk |0 |0 |0 |-
Luton |0 |0 |77,257 |-
Mid Suffolk |0 |0 |593 |-
Norwich |109,987 |126,408 |71,000 |-
Norwich |0 |0 |81,074 |-
South Cambridgeshire |0 |335,229 |142,039 |-
Thurrock |0 |0 |8,177 |-
|------- |------- |------- |-------
Total |362,308 |515,227 |439,691 |972,000
Grand Total |60,916,222 |69,088,066 |84,430,823 |96,036,541
<1>Forecast expenditure.
Homelessness
Mr. Simpson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people applying to councils in each standard region were (a) accepted and (b) not accepted as officially homeless under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in each of the last three years.
Mr Baldry : Full information for regions is available only from April 1991. Estimates for the first complete year are as follows :
Households, 1991-92
Region |Accepted as homeless|Not accepted as
|homeless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North |9,010 |10,460
Yorkshire and Humberside |12,930 |21,020
East Midlands |10,530 |10,920
East Anglia |3,610 |3,670
South East |58,090 |61,740
South West |9,010 |10,100
West Midlands |18,550 |19,790
North West |23,100 |20,170
|------- |-------
England |144,830 |157,870
Those households counted as not accepted as homeless represent the sum of those whose applications resulted in a section 64 decision being issued during the year and who were found not to be homeless, or in priority need but intentionally homeless, or not to be in a priority need category and were not accepted for rehousing. In the quarter ended September 1992, local authorities accepted 35, 520 households and 43,060 decisions of non- acceptance were issued. Regional estimates of acceptances for earlier years are published but these do not take account of the change in definition from April 1991 when intentionally homeless
Column 16
people were no longer counted as accepted. Consistent information on non-acceptances is not available for earlier years.Figures for acceptances (including intentionally homeless provided only with temporary accommodation) for each quarter appear in table 1 of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act : England, Results for Quarter 19 , Supplementary Tables" and from the third quarter of 1990 in table 1 of "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act : England, Statistics for the Quarter 19 ." Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.
Hedgerows
Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring forward Government legislation on hedgerows.
Mr. Maclean : The Government continue to support the Hedgerows Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth). It is too soon to anticipate that my hon. Friend's Bill will fail in this session.
| Next Section
| Home Page |