---

Atomic Weapons Establishment, Llanishen

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 April, Official Report, column 397, if he will give his current estimate of the time to be taken in thoroughly decommissioning the AWE Llanishen site; when the process is due to start; and if he will make a statement. [27827]

Mr. Arbuthnot: The process will start once current activities have ceased at the Llanishen site in 1997. The work will be undertaken in a careful and progressive manner and in conformity with all relevant guidelines and legislation and the requirements of the regulatory bodies. It is impossible to be precise as to duration, but the whole process will inevitably take some years.

Departmental Data

Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the police and security databases held by his Department have changed their procedures as a result of investigations by the Data Protection Registrar. [27656]

Mr. Soames: No changes have been made to procedures followed by the military police and security forces in the use of their databases as the result of investigations by the Data Protection Registrar. My Department will be glad to receive and comply with any advice proffered as the result of this or any other investigation.

Dr. Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has received from the Data Protection Registrar concerning his Department's handling of data under the Data Protection Act 1988. [27657]

Mr. Soames: The Office of the Data Protection Registrar has yet to advise MOD of the findings of its investigation which concluded in August 1995. As of 1 May 1996, no advice other than that which has been specifically requested by the MOD Data Protection Office to meet particular circumstances has been received from the Office of the Data Protection Registrar.

Joint Service Command and Staff College

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the consultation process regarding the interim arrangements for the Joint Service Command and Staff college; and if he will make a statement. [28292]

Mr. Soames: The consultation process on the interim arrangements for the Joint Service command and Staff college has been completed. A number of responses have been received, but none raised any new or major issues that might call the proposals into question. Those issues that were raised will be taken carefully into account in future work.

This work remains on schedule for the new Joint Service Command and Staff college to open at Bracknell in September 1997 and immediate next steps include formal planning consultation with the local authority. In the longer term it remains our intention to dispose of the Bracknell site by the end of 1999, by which time the new college should be well established at its permanent site.

2 May 1996 : Column: 580

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26609]

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 May. [26610]

The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

TRANSPORT

Railway Lands (London)

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the development value of the railway lands at King's Cross and Stratford which have been transferred to London and Continental and are not required for the channel tunnel rail link. [27860]

Mr. Watts: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 14 March, Official Report, columns 720 and 721.

Railtrack

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Railtrack shares left with the Government qualify for the special dividend payable from this year's profits. [27816]

Mr. Watts: Any Railtrack shares still held by the Government as at 4 September 1996 will qualify for the final dividend of 13.75p share in respect of the year ended 31 March 1996.

Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the bodies who have audited costs and liabilities for the route structure of Railtrack; and to what extent each of these bodies will be held responsible for errors in these figures; [27820]

(2) what assessment (a) he and (b) his officials have made of the reports on maintenance costs of Railtrack from the Civil Engineering Design Group; [27818]

(3) if the estimates of maintenance costs commissioned from CEDG and Atkins were commissioned for inclusion in the Pathfinder prospectus; [27815]

(4) on what maintenance estimates the Atkins Comfort letter in the Railtrack Pathfinder prospectus was based; who supplied these figures; and what adjustments were made to them before Atkins issued its endorsement; [27819]

(5) if he approved the maintenance estimate for the rail structure quoted in the pathfinder prospectus; [27793]

(6) what communication he has had with W. S. Atkins about its estimate of the cost of maintenance of the rail network; and if he will publish the figures they supplied to his Department; [27798]

2 May 1996 : Column: 581

(7) if the cost estimates of maintenance for the rail network submitted by W. S. Atkins are those used in the Pathfinder Prospectus; [27822]

(8) what were the maintenance estimates for the Railtrack route structure, submitted by (a) CEDG and (b) Atkins; how many reports on these figures were submitted by Atkins; whether all the Atkins reports were submitted to the regulator; and what the range of figures was in the different reports; [27787]

(9) what were the 10 year maintenance costs for the railways estimated by (a) the Civil Engineering Design Group and (b) W. S. Atkins; [27823]

(10) what steps he has taken to verify the maintenance figures for the route structure operated by Railtrack as given in the Pathfinder prospectus; [27788]

(11) if his Department commissioned S. B. C. Warburg to check the maintenance estimates in the Pathfinder prospectus for the sale of Railtrack; [27803]

(12) how many reports on maintenance costs for Railtrack were submitted to his Department by W. S. Atkins; for what reasons none of them were quoted in the Pathfinder prospectus; and how many were submitted to the regulator; [27801]

(13) on what basis his Department concluded that the study of maintenance costs by W. S. Atkins is a more detailed and extensive survey than that produced by CEDG of York; [27794]

(14) what assessment he has made of the maintenance estimates in respect of the rail network from (a) Civil Engineering Design Group and (b) W. S. Atkins; and what checking procedures were adopted by his Department. [27821]

Mr. Watts: I understand that CEDG was commissioned to inform directors of Railtrack as to expected future costs of maintaining and renewing certain of it assets. CEDG's report to Railtrack was produced over a short time scale; was based on an extrapolation of a small sample; used less sophisticated analytical techniques than those subsequently used by W. S. Atkins; and was based on assumptions about asset lives which were not in accordance with prudent management of the assets concerned. Its cost estimates were inconsistent with historical spend in this area. The report was rejected by Railtrack and, having regard to the matters above and the superseding work of W. S. Atkins, its contents were not regarded as material or appropriate information for inclusion in the Railtrack prospectus.

W. S. Atkins, a firm of independent consultants, was subsequently engaged by Railtrack with the approval of my Department to report jointly to the Secretary of State and the directors of Railtrack and our respective financial advisers, to assist in the development of its asset maintenance plan--AMP--for track and route structures. This included an assessment of the policies, targets, bases and assumptions, methods and procedures used by Railtrack in arriving at the estimate of expenditure related to the AMP which is described in the prospectus. My Department received one report from W. S. Atkins which was the basis of W. S. Atkins' expert certificate set out in the prospectus. The report was not submitted to the Rail Regulator although in his conclusions on the future level of access charges he allowed Railtrack sufficient income

2 May 1996 : Column: 582

form its charges to enable it to maintain the existing capability of the rail network having regard to projections of Railtrack's future expenditure,. My right hon. Friend is satisfied, on the basis of due and careful enquiries made by my Department and Railtrack and our respective advisers that the estimates set out in the prospectus were prepared on a proper basis.

Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors were taken into account in the estimate of the maintenance costs for the rail network in the Pathfinder prospectus. [27799]

Mr. Watts: All material factors were taken into account in the estimate of maintenance costs for the rail network and are described in the Railtrack prospectus.

Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work commissioned by his Department from Professor Tony O'Hagan of Nottingham university relating to research of W. S. Atkins on rail maintenance costs. [27802]

Mr. Watts: Professor O'Hagan was not commissioned by my Department. I understand that he was engaged as a consultant by W. S. Atkins to assist it in its work on Railtrack's asset maintenance plan for track and route structures.

---