| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Norris : As in any thorough investigation, the inspectors considered many aspects which subsequently proved not to be germane to the accident. It is therefore not practicable to list such matters.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence has been given in private or in public by the captain of the launch Hurlingham in respect of the collision between the Bowbelle and Marchioness ; and if he will place copies of that evidence in the Library.
Mr. Norris : Apart from any evidence which he may have given either in the coroner's or the magistrates courts, the captain of the launch Hurlingham gave evidence to the marine accident investigation branch inspectors in the form of a declaration under section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 ; such declarations are given in confidence and may not therefore be released.
A66-A1 Intersection
Mr. Milburn : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to providing a full four-way motorway intersection between the A66 (M) and the A1 (M) ; and when he will publish his conclusions.
Mr. Key : An assessment of this interchange has been undertaken as part of a study to provide information about the longer term requirements of the A1 (M) motorway in the Northern region. From the work undertaken the need has not been established for increased capacity at this junction.
Roads Programme
Mr. Rendel : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the results of the review of the roads programme.
Column 128
Mr. Key : The current review of the road programme is intended to increase efficiency and speed of delivery by establishing clear priorities. The results will be published in good time to provide instructions to the chief executive of the new Highways Agency, which is being launched at the beginning of the new financial year.
Marine Accident Investigation Branch
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what occasions since its inception he, or other Ministers of the Crown have visited the premises of his marine accident investigation branch at Southampton; and if he will list the occasions when any Minister in his Department has had formal meetings with the chief inspector of marine accidents since April 1992.
Mr Norris : Various Ministers with responsibility for shipping have visited MAIB. The most recent visit was by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Aviation and Shipping on 1 May 1992. The chief inspector meets the Secretary of State and Ministers as required.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reference numbers and headings of each vote in the estimates relating to expenditure incurred directly, or otherwise ascertainable, defraying the expenses of the marine accident investigation branch.
Mr. Norris : The MAIB provision is contained within the 1993-94 supply estimates, class VI, vote 2, part II (section A), (section B) and section B1(6).
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the nature and extent of the accommodation occupied by his marine accident investigation branch at 57 Brunswick place, Southampton and any other premises occupied by them elsewhere; if he will list the number and description of each category of persons employed within the Department; and what principal variations have been executed or planned since its inception.
Mr. Norris : The sole accommodation occupied by MAIB is situated at 5-7 Brunswick place, Southampton, which consists of office space on two floors. The staff complement is 11 professional officers from the three main maritime disciplines and 10 administrative, executive and support grade staff. There has never been any change made in the accommodation. The original complement was 15--nine professional officers and six administrative staff. However, at the branch's inception the full complement was not in post and at that time its staff numbered 11--five professional and six administrative. In April 1990 the complement was increased to the current number.
MAIB
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the titles and relevant dates of the printed reports of the marine accident investigation branch, together with the titles and expected dates of publication of any reports in hand, the number of each report printed, the cost to the general public and the method of distribution adopted by his Department.
Mr. Norris : The information on published reports will be found in appendix B of the periodic MAIB publication entitled "Summary of Investigations", a copy of which is
Column 129
in the Library. It is anticipated that the chief inspector's report, "Engine failure and subsequent grounding of the Motor Tanker Braer at Garths Ness, Shetland" will be published in the new year. Distribution of all priced publications is carried out by HMSO, which makes a commercial decision on the number of copies printed.Zeebrugge and Marchioness (Inquiries)
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the main differences in terms of procedure, public access, conduct and report adopted between the inquiries into the Zeebrugge and Marchioness disasters.
Column 130
Mr Norris : The capsize of the Herald of Free Enterprise off Zeebrugge was followed by a preliminary inquiry and a formal investigation both of which were held under section 55 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. The loss of the Marchioness was followed by an inspector's inquiry under section 33 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and regulation 6 of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989. A comparison between the three types of inquiry is set out in the table.
Column 129
|Preliminary inquiry |Formal investigation |Inspector's inquiry
|(PI) |(FI)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure |Ordered under S.55 of MSA |In 1987, as PI (now amend- |Ordered under regulation 6 of MS (accident investigation)
|1970 (now repealed). |ed to S.56 of MSA 1970). | regulations, made under S.33 of MSA 1988.
Public access |No provision. |(Usually)<1> held in |Public invitation to make representations. No other provisions
|public. |before report stage.
Conduct |Peripatetic. No rules of con- |Quasi-court procedures, laid |Peripatetic. Governed by MS (accident investigation) regulations.
|duct laid down. Inspector's |down in MS (formal inves- |Inspector's powers as for PI.
|powers set out in S.27 of |tigation) rules 1985.
|MSA 1979.
Report |No provisions laid down. |Report of court to Secretary |Report by chief inspector to Secretary of State, usually<1> published.
|Practice was for report to be |of State, usually<1> published. |Any parties who are criticised must see the report in draft and may
|regarded as confidential to |make representations to the chief inspector.
|Department.
<1> The usual procedure was followed with both the Zeebrugge and River Thames accidents.
Thames Collision Inquiry
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what inquiries, or reports concerning the seven collisions on the Thames involving the Bowbelle, were taken into account by the inspector conducting the inquiry into the collision of that vessel with the Marchioness following his answer of 21 January 1992, Official Report, column 157 ; by whom any such inquiry in respect of each collision was conducted ; to whom any report was sent ; and if it is publicly available.
Mr. Norris : As section 15 of the chief inspector's report shows, the inquiry considered past accidents generally, not exclusively those concerning Bowbelle. Particular regard was given to those having points of similarity with the collision with Marchioness, which included one incident involving Bowbelle when she was in collision with the Pride of Greenwich. That, and the other River Thames incidents described in the report, were investigated by a surveyor of the Department of Transport, whose report was sent to the marine directorate. Such reports were not published, but a summary report of the Bowbelle/Pride of Greenwich collision was released in 1991.
Mr. Dobson : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport further to the Minister for Roads and Traffic's reply to the Consolidated Fund debate on 14 December about the Marchioness disaster, whether the transcript of the "Dispatches" television programme on which he relied portrayed the computer graphics included in the broadcast.
Mr. Norris : No. I have, however, now seen the video of the complete broadcast and I can confirm that I do not believe it adds anything material to that which is already known and recorded.
Column 130
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration was given by the marine accident investigation branch inquiry into the Bowbelle-Marchioness collision as to the health and capability of the helmsman of the Bowbelle and official documentation related thereto.
Mr. Norris : The helmsman was interviewed by an inspector who was fully satisfied of his capability. He held a valid medical certificate.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the forward extent of deadwater viewed from the wheelhouse of the dredger Bowbelle by a person of average height when (a) loaded with a full cargo down to the marks at level trim, (b) unloaded with ballast tanks filled as per company practice for navigation above bridges on the Thames and (c) as ballasted to the extent it was at Southwark on the night of 20 August 1989; and what evidence was taken, and what tests were made, by the inspector conducting the inquiry into the collision.
Mr. Norris : A precise figure for the extent of deadwater cannot be given, irrespective of the state of loading, because it resulted not only from the vessel's trim but also from the presence of dredging gear, as is shown in the chief inspector's report: the effect of this is partly dependant on the observer's position. The significance of the poor visibility from the wheelhouse is given emphasis in the report; the inspector's opinion on this was based on close visual inspection including but not limited to a passage down river in conditions similar as far as possible to those on the night of the accident. As the report says, during this trial the launch taking the place of Marchioness could not be seen from the wheelhouse when she was in any position reasonably close ahead or on the starboard bow.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps were taken by his Marine Accident Investigation Branch to contact the survivors and witnesses
Column 131
of the Bowbelle collision with a view to its submission of written or oral evidence to the subsequent inquiry; and if lists of such persons were supplied to it by the Metropolitan police or other persons or bodies.Mr. Norris : Lists of survivors from Marchioness were supplied by the Metropolitan police. Copies of their statements and those of other witnesses were also provided; all were examined. When it appeared that the witness was in a position to provide evidence as to the circumstances of the accident, an attempt was made to contact them and invite them to meet an inspector. In addition, press advertisements were placed inviting anyone who so wished to contribute to the inquiry.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public evidence has been given, orally or in writing, by the captain of the Bowbelle concerning his seeking or obtaining permission to navigate or anchor subsequent to the collision with the Marchioness on 20 August 1989.
Mr. Norris : Evidence was given by the master in the form of a declaration before the inspector as required under the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, and therefore not in public. He said that he was given permission to anchor in Long Reach but then told to go to Gravesend, which was later amended to Gallions reach. This is confirmed by the VHF transcript.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what test had been made, and what information had been requested by or made available to the inspector conducting the inquiry into the Bowbelle collision of 20 August 1989, concerning the nature of that vessel's bow light when navigating with foremast lowered at night above bridges; what was the strength of such a light used whilst so navigating; what requests had been made by the owners of the vessel in respect of these or related matters; what rule or regulation prevented installation of a stronger than normal bow light for such passages; and what evidence was given to the inspector conducting the inquiry on this matter;
(2) what was the strength of the port and starboard navigation sidelights of the sand dredger Bowbelle on the night of 20 August 1989; what tests were made concerning the effect of any equipment carried on its deck or the trim of the vessel on forward visibility of such lights, particularly when viewed from near water level; and if the inspector conducting the inquiry into the collision took evidence on this matter.
Mr. Norris : Bowbelle carried approved port and starboard navigation lights, which have a luminous intensity of 12 candelas giving a range in ordinarily good visibility of least three miles. As explained in the chief inspector's report, she did not carry the usual forward masthead light being exempt from doing so under PLA bye-laws because the mast had to be lowered to pass under the bridges, but she carried in lieu of it a light about 4 feet above the deck forward, of similar characteristics : that is having a luminous intensity of at least 94 candelas giving a six-mile range. A trial passage down river in conditions similar as far as possible to those on the night of the accident permitted a subjective assessment of the effectiveness of the lights from near water level by the inspector on board the launch.
Column 132
As section 7 of the report says, the lights did not show up well : this, particularly in the case of the forward light, was due mainly to the effect of the background of shore lights.Representations were made by the owners of Bowbelle and other commercial craft regularly using the river above Tower bridge on the subject of distinguishing lights for their ships, both at meetings and in correspondence. The relevant papers were examined by the inspectors and are discussed in section 15 of the chief inspector's report. The various possibilities were rejected as the report says principally because the Department of Transport considered there would be conflict with the requirement of the International Collision Regulations.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence the inspector conducting the inquiry into the Bowbelle collision on the River Thames took concerning sets and turbulence in the water in the vicinity of Southwark bridge at the time of the collision there on 20 August 1989.
Mr. Norris : A research project was commissioned and evidence was taken from the Port of London Authority ; the subject is covered in section 6 of the chief inspector's report.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will name the vessel and person transmitting the radio messages, ascribed to an unknown vessel, contained in the radio-telephone transcript of the Port of London Authority Thames navigation service in the period immediately following the collision near Southwark bridge on 20 August 1989 ; if the name of that vessel and person were available to the inspector conducting the consequent inquiry ; and what reference is made to it in the publicised report into that collision.
Mr. Norris : The vessel was the Hurlingham and the person making the broadcast was her skipper. Reference is at section 3.10 of the chief inspector's report.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date advice from his Department was given to the then Prime Minister concerning the merits of establishing a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster of comparable scope to those conducted into disasters at King's Cross and Clapham.
Mr. Norris : The matter of a public inquiry was discussed on the day of the accident--20 August 1989. It was decided that the MAIB inquiry should proceed, with the option of a public inquiry--formal investigation-- left open.
86. Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what port or starboard effect the screw of the sand dredger Bowbelle unloaded with no, or little ballast had on its steering over the range of engine revolutions generally used and being used on the night of 20 August 1989 ; at what depths the boss and upper tip of its screw were below the surface when navigating King's reach that night ; and what evidence was taken, or test made, in this regard by the inspector conducting the inquiry into the subsequent collision.
Mr. Norris : No significant effect was experienced at normal ahead revolutions or observed during the trial carried out in the inspector's presence. On going astern, the crew would be expected to cant the vessel but no astern movements took place on passage before the collision. The depths were about 5 ft and rather less than 2 ft respectively.
Column 133
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) where, and at what time, any representative or member of the management of South Coast Shipping boarded the Bowbelle in the early hours of 20 August 1989 and for what purpose ; what such information was available to the inspector conducting the subsequent inquiry ; if such a visit was referred to or discussed in evidence given to that inquiry by any member of the crew or management of the Bowbelle ; and where it is referred to in the consequent report ;
(2) if he will describe the movements of the sand dredger Bowbelle subsequent to its collision on 20 August 1989 with the Marchioness prior to its mooring at Orchard wharf, Leamouth ; which persons representing which interests boarded or left the vessel over that period ; and if this information was known and considered by the inspector conducting the subsequent inquiry.
Mr. Norris : The movements of Bowbelle immediately after the collision are described in sections 3.11 and 17.1 of the chief inspector's report. Subsequently, she proceeded down river and on instruction from the Port of London Authority anchored in Gallions reach at 0325 hours. She weighed anchor at about 0445 hours and berthed at Orchard Wharf at 0540 hours.
While at Gallions reach she was boarded by the operations manager of South Coast Shipping and by two officers of the Metropolitan police. This information was known to the inspector conducting the inquiry ; it is not referred to in the report as it had no relevance to the accident.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what boats, lifebuoys, or other buoyant apparatus were thrown overboard, or otherwise used, after the Bowbelle-Marchioness collision on 20 August 1989 (a) from the Hurlingham and (b) from the Bowbelle ; if such information was secured by the inspector conducting the inquiry ; and whether it was referred to therein (a) in general or (b) in quantifiable terms.
Mr. Norris : Buoyant apparatus and life buoys were thrown into the water from Hurlingham, but none from Bowbelle. Evidence as to this was obtained by the inspectors ; section 12 of the chief inspector's report refers to that.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what test or qualification was obtained by any officer of the sand dredger Bowbelle in respect of exemption from pilotage requirements for operation above bridges in the Port of London ; for what period such exemption had been applied ; from what date such exemption had been operative ; and from what date it has not been necessary for a licensed Thames waterman to be in charge of sea-going vessels above Tower bridge.
Mr. Norris : As is explained in the chief inspector's report at section 9, there were at the time of the accident no requirements for pilotage in the Thames above London bridge ; therefore equally there were no requirements for pilotage exemption in that area, although both officers on the bridge of Bowbelle at the time of the accident held valid exemptions for pilotage in the lower reaches. Following recommendation 16 in the report, pilotage or the possession of an exemption is now required. So far as is known, it has never been a requirement for a licensed waterman to have charge of a vessel above Tower bridge.
Column 134
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what record was made of the proceeding of the inquiry, by an inspector of his marine accident investigation branch, into the collision between the Bowbelle and the Marchioness in August 1989 ; where it is now held and by whom ; how many copies have been made ; to whom it has been sent ; and if he will deposit a copy in the Library and make it publicly available.
Mr. Norris : The proceedings of the inquiry are recorded in the inspector's report the only copy of which was sent to, and continues to be held by, the chief inspector of the marine accident investigation branch. This procedure is in accordance with regulation 8(4) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989 ; there is no provision for an inspector's report to be released. However, regulation 9(1) provides for the publication of the chief inspector's report of the inspector's inquiry ; the chief inspector's report on the collision between Marchioness and MV Bowbelle was published on 15 August 1991.
Air and Maritime Disasters
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will summarise the salient distinctions and similarities in the procedures in respect of investigation and report into (a) air and (b) maritime disasters, including arrangements for (i) giving and receiving evidence, (ii) publicity or privacy of inquiry proceedings and (iii) publication of reports together with references to the relevant Acts and statutory instruments.
Mr. Norris : The procedures for investigation of major accidents by the air and marine accident investigation branches are, in respect of the matters referred to, as follows :
Inspectors of both branches have power amoung other things to require the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. Witnesses are required to answer the inspector's questions and sign a declaration of the truth of their answers. The full powers are set out in, respectively, the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents) Regulations 1989, regulation 9 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, section 27.
Under the Air Accident Regulations an inspector's investigation shall be held in private. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, a witness giving evidence may nominate a person to accompany him but no other person may be present except any person allowed by the inspector. The Air Accident Regulations (Reg 16) and the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989 (Reg 9) provide for the Secretary of State to publish a report, subject to specific requirements, unless in his opinion there is good reason not to do so. The report is that of, respectively, the inspector and the chief inspector.
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to further Her Majesty's Governments objectives of open government by amending the terms of statutory instruments governing the conduct of current inquiries into marine accidents.
Mr. Norris : None. The existing regulations give sufficient discretion to appointed inspectors ; adequately provides for those wishing to make representations ; satisfactorily provides for consultation with criticised
Column 135
parties ; and, subject to certain safeguards, makes provision for the publication of reports of serious or important accidents.River Safety
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings have taken place of the Thames district marine safety committee, established consequent to the recommendations of the Hayes report into river safety ; what area that committee covers ; who appoints, or recommends appointments to it ; and which of its members represents the interests of (a) registered craft plying between Teddington and the Thames barrier and (b) their passengers.
Mr. Norris : Marine safety matters relating to the River Thames are considered by a sub-committee of the south east of England district marine safety committee, which has held four meetings since publication of the Hayes' report and which covers the Thames between Teddington lock and the Thames barrier. Appointments to the sub-committee are made on the recommendation of the chairman of the south east of England district committee. The interests of vessel owners are represented by the Thames Passenger Ship Federation and some individual owners. The interests of passengers are represented by the Department of Transport, the Port of London Authority, the Metropolitan police and the Port Health Authority.
M5
Mr. Luff : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from, or on behalf of, the residents of Whittington and Norton, adjacent to junction 7 of the M5, about noise levels following the widening of the motorway ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Key : Four representations have been received about noise levels on this stretch of motorway, including two via my hon. Friend. I am having the levels investigated and will write to him further.
M1/A1 Link
Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the M1/A1 link will be open for traffic for its full length.
Mr. Key : The final section of the M1/A1 link between the M1 at Catthorpe and Rothwell is expected to open to traffic in June 1994.
Motorway Lighting
Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost per mile of motorway lighting.
Mr. Key : The cost of installing lighting varies from one stretch of motorway to another, depending on such factors as the number of junctions and the costs of electrical cabling work at particular sites. A representative average figure at present is about £115,000 per mile.
Rail Privatisation
Ms Quin : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance his Department has given to OPRAF on rail closures under privatisation.
Column 136
Mr. Freeman : The franchising director's role in closure cases is set out in sections 37 to 50 of the Railways Act 1993. We have not issued any guidance on closures to the franchising director.
Mrs. Dunwoody : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total net cost to public funds of rail privatisation so far.
Mr. Freeman : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her on 13 December 1993 at column 466. At this stage there are no savings or benefits to net off the total expenditure fugure.
Mrs. Dunwoody : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much of the consultancy costs for railway privatisation were spent on lawyers' fees in 1991-92 and 1992-93 ; and how much of the expected expenditure is expected to go to lawyers in 1993-94 ;
(2) if he will give a detailed breakdown of his Department's expenditure on consultancy costs for rail privatisation.
Mr. Freeman : The breakdown of the Department's expenditure and estimated expenditure on consultancy costs for rail privatisation for 1991- 92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 is as follows :
£ million
Financial year
|1991-92 |1992-93 |<1>1993-94
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal issues |0.0 |1.6 |4.0
Merchant banking |0.1 |0.3 |2.0
Accountancy and actuarial |0.0 |1.7 |2.3
Access and access charges |0.4 |1.1 |0.9
Property matters |0.0 |0.1 |0.3
Marketing |0.0 |0.0 |0.9
Freight and franchising |0.0 |0.6 |0.7
Information systems |0.0 |0.0 |0.7
Insurance |0.0 |0.0 |0.1
Research |0.0 |0.0 |0.1
Recruitment |0.0 |0.1 |0.0
<1>Estimate.
M62
Mr. Lewis : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what origin, and destination surveys have been carried out of traffic using the M62 west of the M63/M602 junction, and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Key : No recent origin and destination surveys have been carried out on this particular stretch of motorway. However, other surveys have been carried out to provide a comprehensive assessment of traffic movements along the M62 through the Greater Manchester conurbation.
M6
Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to light that section of the M6 between junctions 1 and 2.
Mr. Key : There are no plans at present to light the M6 between junctions 1 and 2, but we will continue to keep the matter under review.
Column 137
M45
Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the M45 will be illuminated.
Mr. Key : We do not have any plans to provide road lighting on the M45 motorway.
M1
Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the motorway widening works at the southern end of the M1 will be finished.
Mr. Key : We expect completion of the widening between junctions 9 and 10 in mid-January.
Quangos
Mr. Meale : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the names of all former hon. Members who since 1979 have been appointed to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment ;
(2) if he will list the names of all former British representative members in the European Parliament who since 1979 have been appointed to quasi- autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment ;
(3) if he will list the names of all individuals who are or were members of the House of Lords who since 1979 have been appointed to any quasi- autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment.
Mr. Norris : Detailed information on past and present appointees to non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs--formerly known as quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations--is not held in the Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, from such limited information as is available on present members of NDPBs, there is no evidence that any of them falls within any of the categories specified, apart from one member of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee who is a former Labour Member of Parliament, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones. He was reappointed as a member of the committee in December 1992 for a three-year period to December 1995. Committee members are not paid a salary but the Department meets their travel and subsistence costs.
Noise
Mr. Butterfill : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for noise insulation for commercial premises in respect of noise from new railways ; and what consideration he gave to including such premises or problems arising from ground-borne noise in the draft noise insulation regulations upon which consultation is now taking place.
Mr. Freeman : The purpose of the proposed regulations is to provide, for new railways, arrangements which relate
Column 138
equitably to those already applicable to the insulation of dwellings near new roads ; commercial premises were not therefore considered for inclusion. The regulations provide for sound insulation ; this would not be effective against ground-borne noise, which involves different technical factors and is therefore specifically excluded.Roads
Mr. Robert Banks : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of money provided by the Government for capital road expenditure schemes for North Yorkshire in each of the last 10 years.
| Next Section
| Home Page |