| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Railway Lands (London)
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last valuation was made of the King's Cross railway lands; and what value was attached to the asset. [20305]
Mr. Watts: A valuation of the King's Cross railway lands was carried out for the British Rail Property Board in March 1995. Based on rental income derived from the lands, the existing use value was estimated to be £5.8 million. A valuation was carried out for my Department in November 1995 to assess the development value of those parts of the King's Cross railway lands not ultimately required for the channel tunnel rail link operational railway which indicated a development value of up to £10.6 million.
Mr. Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last valuation was made of the railway land at Stratford now transferred to London and Continental Railways; and what value was attached to it. [20306]
Mr. Watts: A valuation of the Stratford railway lands, including the land required for the channel tunnel rail link and Stratford international station, was carried out for the British Rail Property Board in March 1995. Based on rental income derived from the lands, the existing use value was estimated to be £15.2 million. A valuation was carried out for my Department in May 1995 to assess the development value of the lands excluding those parts required for the CTRL operational railway, which indicated a development value of up to £12.5 million.
14 Mar 1996 : Column: 721
Railway Costs
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the operating cost per mile including overheads, maintenance and security of (a) an InterCity train, (b) a Network SouthEast commuter train and (c) a North West Regional Railways train. [20308]
Mr. Watts: The 1994-95 operating expenses per train mile were:
InterCity: £27.67
Network SouthEast: £21.13
Regional Railways: £14.37
Royal Train
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 1996, Official Report, column 482, relating to the use of the royal train, what definition is used of a public duty. [20471]
Mr. Watts: The definition is a duty undertaken to mark a public event or occasion.
Marine Accidents (Pilots)
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels have run aground (a) with a pilot and (b) without a pilot on board in each year since 1987. [20521]
Mr. Norris: The statistics requested are not available.
Highways Agency
Ms Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the review of the organisation and staffing of the Highways Agency announced to staff in November 1995. [20782]
Mr. Watts: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Clare Short, dated 14 March 1996:
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the cost of the review of the organisation and staffing of the Highways Agency announced to staff in November 1995.
The internal review team estimate their costs at about £110,000. No external consultancy costs have been incurred.
"Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas"
Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those recommendations contained in Lord Donaldson's report, by reference to the particular chapter and paragraph, which (a) have been implemented in full, (b) are in the process of being implemented in full, (c) are planned to be only partially implemented and (d) will not be implemented. [20819]
Mr. Norris: Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", Cm 2560, contains 103 recommendations, which are listed in chapter 23. The Government have
14 Mar 1996 : Column: 722
accepted 91 of these, are considering a further eight, and have rejected four. The position on each recommendation is summarised in the table.
| Position | Recommendations (as number in chapter 23 of Lord Donaldson's report) |
|---|---|
| Accepted: | 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, |
| Implemented in full | 21, 22, 24, 26-29, 32, 37, 38, |
| 41, 46-48, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84 | |
| 88, 90, 91, 94, 99, 100 | |
| Accepted: | 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 18-20, 23, |
| Implementation on-going(4) | 25, 30, 31, 33-35, 39, 44, 45, 49, |
| 50-58, 61-69, 70-77, 80, 83, 86, | |
| 87, 89, 93, 97, 98, 101-103 | |
| Under consideration | 12, 40, 42, 59, 85, 92, 95, 96 |
| Rejected | 9, 36, 43, 60 |
(4) The final extent of implementation of some of these recommendations will depend on a number of factors.
Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to implement in full the recommendation contained paragraph 127 in chapter 20 of Lord Donaldson's report published in May 1994. [20817]
Mr. Norris: The Government have provided dedicated emergency tugs at Dover and Stornoway--two of the three key areas identified in paragraph 127--both last winter and this winter. In deciding future deployment, we will take into account experience of providing these tugs, of liaison arrangements with tug operators, and of any relevant findings of the investigations into the Sea Empress incident.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers exist to him to reject a scheme for the proposed Central Railway rail link from the channel tunnel to the midlands following a public inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [20598]
Mr. Watts: The relevant powers are contained in section 13 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make the order, with or without modifications, or not make the order. Where an application has been referred to Parliament as a scheme of national significance, the power to make the order is exercisable only if both Houses of Parliament have passed resolutions approving the proposals, but such resolutions would not affect his power not to make the order. He would make a decision only after having taken into account the inspector's conclusions and recommendation following a subsequent public inquiry.
Sea Empress
Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the full terms of reference given to the marine accident investigation branch into the Sea Empress disaster. [20818]
Mr. Norris: Individual marine accident investigation branch investigations do not have distinct terms of reference. The purpose of such investigations, as set out in regulations, is to determine the circumstances and causes of
14 Mar 1996 : Column: 723
accidents with the aim of improving the safety of life at sea and the avoidance of accidents in future. The regulations also provide that an investigation may extend to cover all events and circumstances preceding the accident which in the opinion of the inspector may have been relevant to its cause or outcome, and also to cover the consequences of the accident. I understand that the chief inspector intends that the Sea Empress investigation will be comprehensive and will cover, among other matters, the initial grounding, the availability of salvage tugs, the question of double hulls, the safety of port operations and the effects, if any, current salvage law may have had on the conduct of the salvage operation. Indeed, the inspector will consider all evidence and arguments submitted to him which have a bearing on the cause of the original grounding of the Sea Empress and the conduct of the salvage operation.
Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which recommendations were included in the interim findings of the marine accident investigation branch Sea Empress investigation. [20763]
Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the salvage tugs which were offered to those managing the Sea Empress salvage operation between Thursday 15 February and Wednesday 21 February and their individual maximum bollard pull; [20810]
- (2) if he will list each type of dispersant and the quantity used in aerial spraying to disperse oil from the Sea Empress; [20762]
(3) if he will list the products and techniques for cleaning up oil spillages on the shore which his Department has evaluated and tested in the last five years;[20807]
(4) if he will list the tugs used on the attempts to salvage the Sea Empress; and who owned them; [20816]
(5) which specialised vessels suitable for collecting spilled oil from the surface of the sea were offered to the marine pollution control unit on or after 15 February to assist with the Sea Empress operation; and which vessels were chartered; [20812]
(6) if he will list those products and techniques for cleaning oil from the shore, the development of which has been financially supported by his Department in the last five years. [20806]
Mr. Norris: I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 14 March 1996:
14 Mar 1996 : Column: 724
(5) Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies. In addition to those vessels offered, the MPCU chartered the Gordon Thomas, and hired three small oil recovery craft. Two specialised oil recovery vessels belonging to Milford Haven Port Authority were also used.
14 Mar 1996 : Column: 725
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about oil spill clean up and salvage tugs in the Sea Empress incident.
PQ 1460/95/96
The Coastguard Emergency Towing Vessel at Stornoway, SMIT LLOYD SAFE, 125 tonnes, was offered to the salvors. In addition the salvors considered a number of other tugs. Which tugs these were, and whether they were offered or sought, is now a matter for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch investigation to determine.
PQ 1463/95/96
The information is a s follows:
Tonnes
Finasol OSR-51 212
Slickgone LTSW 97
Slickgone NS 53
Dispolene 34S 31
Corexit 9500 8
Enersperse 1583 13.5
Superdispersant 25 31
Demulsifier (Surdyne mixed with Shell LA) 8
PO's 1467 and 1474/95/96
The MPCU has in recent years commissioned a number of research projects examining different techniques for dealing with oil pollution on different shoreline types. Initially sandy shorelines were examined (1986) and the methods used at Tenby and Saundersfoot during the recent Sea Empress incident were based on the findings of this project. Later MPCU projects examined and reviewed clean-up techniques for shingle (1989), rocky shorelines (1992) and mudflats and saltmarshes (1993). Within these projects, a number of clean-up tools and products were evaluated and tested, including vehicles, beach-cleaning machines, beach washing plant and cleaning agents. Beach load-bearing characteristics were also evaluated.
The results of much of this research have been disseminated to local authorities by way of MPCU residential training courses, MPCU Scientific, Technical and Operational Advice Notes (Stop Notices), and a technical manual entitled 'Oil Spill Clean-Up of the Coastline'.
MPCU has also funded an evaluation study (1993) into the use of sorbent products as a tool for clean-up (final polishing of shingle/pebble beaches) and it is intended to develop a protocol for testing sorbent use and effectiveness. Work has also been commissioned on bioremediation. A State of the Art Report (1994) has been produced and research is ongoing.
PQ 1469/95/96
Dalegarth Cory Towage Ltd.
Thorngath Milford Haven
Stackgarth
Tito Neri
Portgarth: Cory Towage Ltd., Avonmouth
Yewgarth Cory Towage Ltd., Liverpool
Eldergarth Cory Towage Ltd., Liverpool
Eskgarth: Irish Tugs Ltd.
Anglian Duke Klyne Tugs, Lowestoft
Anglian Earl Klyne Tugs, Lowestoft
Vanguard: Carmet Towing, Liverpool
Alfred: Howard Smith, Swansea
Arild Viking: Arild Viking AS; Viking Supply AS; Norway
De Yue: Fairmount, Rotterdam
Vikingbank Smit Tak, Rotterdam
Smit Orca Smit Tak, Rotterdam
PQ 1471/95/96
Seven vessels suitable for recovering spilled oil from the surface of the sea were offered to the Marine Pollution Control Unit, of which six were accepted. The remaining offer was not needed. The details are as follows:
Vessel Status Comment
Rijn Delta Accepted Dutch
Small AGT Accepted Dutch
Ailette Accepted French
Elan Accepted French
NOFO(5) oil recovery vessel Declined Not required
Forth Explorer Accepted UK
Sefton Supporter Accepted UK
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |