| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Regulations
Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which (a) have been repealed or amended, and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995-96 parliamentary Session; and if she will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23653]
Mr. Sproat: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
TRANSPORT
Transport Research Laboratory
Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory. [24543]
Mr. Norris: The sale of the Transport Research Laboratory to the Transport Research Foundation for some £6 million was completed on 31 March.
Thameslink 2000
Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 February, Official Report, columns 723-24, in what ways Thameslink 2000 will enhance access to airports. [24758]
2 Apr 1996 : Column: 129
Sir George Young: The statement on 27 February, Official Report, columns 723-24, indicated that Thameslink 2000 would enhance access to Stansted and Gatwick airports.
Thameslink 2000 is a project to enhance existing infrastructure and expand the current Thameslink network. The benefits include a significant increase in capacity, a substantial reduction in journey times, the provision of direct access to the City of London from a great number of destinations north and south of London, an interchange with channel tunnel rail link services and with the services of seven train operators and eight London Underground lines, including the Jubilee line extension.
Gatwick airport and Luton airport are both on the Thameslink route and thus are well placed to benefit from the increased opportunities Thameslink 2000 provides. However, access to Stansted airport will not, as the statement suggested, be enhanced by the project. Direct links to Stansted, and to Heathrow, would require additional infrastructure, electrification and junction changes. These are not part of current Thameslink 2000 plans. It would be a matter for Railtrack, its customers and the franchising director to examine the case for such enhancements, and to take worthwhile proposals forward.
Mr. Devlin:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on the provision of subsidy for socially necessary passenger railway services. [24759]
Sir George Young:
The Government remain firmly committed to providing the subsidy needed to support socially necessary passenger railway services at broadly the present level of service provision. In my instructions to the franchising director, I have made it clear that, when setting passenger service requirements for services being franchised for the first time, he should take as his starting point the service being provided at the time. The passenger service requirements which will be incorporated in franchise agreements will set out the services which franchisees will be contractually committed to operate. The Government are committed to providing support for at least those levels of service.
Mr. Barry Field:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on light dues. [24786]
Mr. Norris:
I am pleased to announce that light dues for 1996-97 will remain at the level set in April 1993 for the third year in succession. Accordingly, no changes to the light dues regulations are needed.
Once again, I commend the general lighthouse authorities for their continuing commitment to the achievement of greater efficiency in their work.
Dr. Twinn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the crossrail project. [24760]
2 Apr 1996 : Column: 130
Sir George Young:
I believe that crossrail has the potential to bring worthwhile benefits to London's transport system. As I indicated in my recent statement to the House on Thameslink 2000, Official Report, columns 723-24, I expect crossrail to come after the Jubilee line extension, Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link. That is a sensible sequence of major new rail projects for London.
I have therefore asked the chairmen of London Transport, Railtrack and British Rail not to proceed for the time being with an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for powers to build crossrail. I have also invited the chairman of Railtrack to consider the project further with his board once Railtrack is in the private sector, in the light of the Government's continued firm policy that crossrail should proceed only as a joint venture with a substantial private sector contribution.
Mr. Spearing:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his proposals for legislation to permit London Regional Transport and its subsidiaries use of the private finance initiative include public notification of (a) tenders for any such scheme, (b) successful contracts and their financial details and (c) maximum period of their operation; [24440]
Mr. Norris:
The London Regional Transport Bill does not require London Transport or its subsidiaries to publish information about their projects under the private finance initiative. Invitations to tender will continue to be published where this is a legal requirement. I understand that London Transport will normally announce the award of such contracts, giving an indication of their value and duration where this information is not commercially sensitive.
When a contract ends, assets transferred from London Transport to the contractor at the beginning of the contract will generally be transferred to a new contractor, or will revert back to LT until a new contract can be let. Assets no longer needed by LT may remain with the contractor, and LT already has powers to make such disposals.
Mr. Steen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the 1,000 regulations identified for repeal or amendment by the Prime Minister are the responsibility of his Department; of those which (a) have been repealed or amended and (b) are planned to have been repealed or amended by the end of the 1995-96 parliamentary Session; and if he will list those whose repeal has saved business more than £1 million per annum. [23649]
Mr. Watts:
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
2 Apr 1996 : Column: 131
Mr. Ainger:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost, calculated to date of (a) the salvage operation and (b) the clean-up operation onshore and offshore following the Sea Empress grounding on 15 February. [24261]
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 2 April 1996:
Mr. Norris:
I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to my hon. Friend.
Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 2 April 1996:
Mr. Norris:
The marine accident investigation branch is conducting a detailed and independent investigation into the cause of the grounding of the Sea Empress and the conduct of the subsequent salvage operations. Assessments are also being undertaken into the environmental effects of the pollution caused by the Sea Empress and into the effectiveness of the clean-up techniques which were employed. Consideration of the need for any further examination of the incident or its effects will be given when the findings and recommendations of the MAIB investigation and the environmental assessment are available.
(2) if, in his proposals for legislation to permit London Regional Transport or its subsidiaries use of the private finance initiative, transfer of ownership to the successful bidders for any scheme or contract, of land, equipment or facilities will be permanent or for the period of the contract only; and if the period of that contract will be made public. [24441]
Mr. David Nicholson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what attempts were made to remove oil from the Sea Empress in the period after she had grounded; and if he will make a statement. [23579]
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about costs associated with the Sea Empress grounding on 15 February.
The details of the costs of the salvage operation are not being collated by the MPCU as the bills for the charges which the salvors incurred are being sent directly to them.
The cost of the at-sea clean up to date, which includes the charter of oil skimming and recovery vessels, surveillance and spraying aircraft, dispersant purchase, manpower and the hire of equipment, is £1,845,605. There are still a number of invoices yet to be received.
Beachcleaning operations are still ongoing in a number of locations. To date the MPCU have been invoiced for a total of £1,094,356.
Mr. Alan W. Williams:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask Lord Donaldson to conduct a detailed and independent inquiry into the Sea Empress disaster. [22060]
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the SEA EMPRESS incident.
Removal of the oil from the SEA EMPRESS while she was in the entrance to Milford Haven was an option which was under continual active consideration. During the incident conditions were rarely suitable for what would have been a difficult and potentially hazardous operation. When the conditions were suitable all effort went into refloating the vessel so that she could be lightened in a safer place.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |