| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Highways Agency
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct the Highways Agency to co-operate with local authorities on preparing package submissions. [19769]
Mr. Watts: No such instruction is necessary--the Highways Agency already discusses trunk road aspects of package submissions with local authorities when requested.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 5 March, Official Report, column 150, if he (a) commissioned and (b) received valuations of the assets to be transferred to the successful bidder for the channel tunnel rail link. [19940]
Mr. Watts: The bidders in the CTRL competition made their own assessment of the value of these assets as part of the calculation to determine the amount of public sector support they required.
Mr. Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the consortia bidding for the CTRL contract were invited to consider in their submissions a direct link from the CTRL to the west coast main line. [20307]
Railway Bridge, Kidsgrove
Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans to demolish the unused railway bridge in Kidsgrove. [19947]
Mr. Watts: The British Rail Property Board is responsible for several disused railway bridges at Kidsgrove and several others have been sold to the local council. BR has no plans at present to demolish any of the bridges in its ownership.
Overseas Visits
Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including (a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17492]
Sir George Young: I am placing the information requested in the Library.
London Underground Penalty Fares
Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, (1) how many people have had penalty fares waived on appeal by London Underground on the ground
11 Mar 1996 : Column: 475
that they had a valid travelcard but had forgotten to take it with them on their journey; and what proportion of people appealing on those grounds this represents; [19508]
- (2) how much income has been received by London Underground from penalty fares on travellers who had valid travelcards but had forgotten to take their travelcard on their journey. [19507]
Mr. Norris: London Underground does not generally uphold appeals where the reason for issuing a penalty fare is that the customer has left his or her travelcard at home. This is because travelcard holders are required to carry their tickets with them as proof of their entitlement to travel. However, London Underground has made an exception in some 105 cases--just over 1 per cent. of people appealing on these grounds--where there were extenuating circumstances. London Underground estimates that it has received £37,600 to date in penalty fares from customers claiming that they had forgotten to take their travelcard with them.
Railtrack (Compensation Agreement)
Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the compensation agreement between Railtrack and (a) InterCity and (b) the west coast main line, stating the amount which is payable in compensation for each minute of delay. [19255]
Mr. Watts: This is commercially sensitive information between Railtrack and train operating companies.
Railways (Rolling Stock Maintenance)
Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the (a) specifications and (b) time intervals between maintenance overhauls of InterCity and regional railways engines and coaches; [19253]
- (2) what regular maintenance overhauls were carried out and what changes were made to the routine maintenance checks and to the regularity of those checks on the stock involved in (a) the Staffordshire and (b) the Longsight decoupling incidents in the last three years. [19254]
Mr. Watts: The stock involved in the Staffordshire and Longsight decoupling incidents consisted of InterCity west coast electrically hauled push-pull trains.
The specification for the maintenance and overhaul of Intercity west coast push-pull trains and electric locomotives are laid down in vehicle maintenance and overhaul instructions, originally issued by the InterCity fleet engineer.
A visual safety check of locomotives and coaching stock takes place each day.
For coaching stock, a more detailed safety examination is completed every three to four days, with progressively larger examinations at one, three, six and 12-monthly intervals.
The full vehicle overhaul is mileage based, but occurs approximately every two years.
11 Mar 1996 : Column: 476
For locomotives, a more detailed safety examination is completed every 120 hours in traffic equating to 10 to 14 days. There is a range of progressively larger examinations based on hours in traffic.
Locomotive overhaul is also based on hours in traffic, but the regime consists of three types of overhaul occurring approximately at two and three-quarter, five and a half and 11-year intervals respectively.
Similar specifications and frequencies apply to other engines and coaches. The contents of the vehicle maintenance and overhaul instructions are the subject of occasional review. However, British Rail has advised me that the periodicities have not been changed in the last three years.
Mr. Chisholm:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland currently receive (a) one-parent benefit without any means-tested benefit and (b) one-parent benefit with a means-tested benefit, broken down by each means-tested benefit. [17164]
Mr. Andrew Mitchell:
The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the following table:
| Number(29) of recipients | |
|---|---|
| Total number receiving one-parent benefit | 97,000 |
| Number receiving one-parent benefit with a means-tested benefit (by benefit)(30). | |
| Income support | 38,000 |
| Housing benefit | 45,000 |
| Council tax benefit | 36,000 |
1. In Scotland, 34,000 lone parents are in receipt of family credit. It is estimated that the vast majority are also receiving one-parent benefit; however, precise figures are not available.
(29)Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.
(30)It is not possible to provide a breakdown of one-parent benefit recipients between those with and without at least one means-tested benefit because a person can be in receipt of more than one means-tested benefit and not all of the overlaps between benefits can be identified.
Unemployment Benefit
Mr. Ian McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum duration of unemployment benefit that claimants will receive if their period of unemployment commences before 8 April and they otherwise meet the conditions of entitlement but are not in receipt of unemployment benefit on this date because they (a) are in receipt of a payment in lieu of notice, (b) are still within the three-day waiting period, (c) have informed the Employment Service of their unemployment before 8 April but are given an appointment with a new client adviser on, or after, this date or have not informed the Employment Service before 8 April of their unemployment but have a good cause for a delayed claim; and if she will make a statement. [17225]
11 Mar 1996 : Column: 477
Mr. Roger Evans: The unemployment benefit scheme will continue until it is replaced by jobseeker's allowance on 7 October 1996. Those who are unemployed, entitled to benefit based on their contributions and whose entitlement spans this date will receive days of contribution-based benefit comprising unemployment benefit and jobseeker's allowance.
If a claimant is in receipt of a payment in lieu of notice, or they are within the three-day period, the maximum duration of unemployment benefit they will receive will be 156 days.
There is a maximum of 312 days where unemployment benefit is payable for 6 or 7 April 1996, either because the claim is made before 8 April 1996 or because good cause is accepted for a claim made after that date but in respect of a period before it, and unemployment benefit is also payable for 5 or 6 October 1996. If both of these conditions do not apply the maximum number of days will be 156.
Mr. Chris Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the rules governing the payment of industrial injuries compensation to current or former Government employees who contracted asbestosis before 1987. [18303]
Mr. Roger Evans:
For the purposes of industrial injuries disablement benefit, crown employees, other than members of Her Majesty's forces, are treated under the same rules as all other employees. Asbestosis has been a prescribed disease since 4 July 1948.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |