---

TRANSPORT

Air Traffic Control Centre

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of risk associated with the remedial measures proposed by the contractors on the new en-route centre; what contingency plans his Department has made in the event of the project failing; and what compensation will be payable to the Civil Aviation Authority by the NERC contractors as a result of the delays to the project. [32782]

Mr. Norris: Lockheed Martin has implemented a revised project plan that has reduced substantially the level of financial risk associated with the proposed remedial measures. National Air Traffic Services is monitoring the situation closely and is examining a range of options, in the event of further delay, to ensure services to customers are unaffected. In the remote eventuality that the project company fails to deliver the system, 125 per cent. of the total contract value could be claimed from the supplier.

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the costs of upgrading and keeping in service the London air traffic control centre, including its military cell, until the new en-route centre becomes operational; and to what extent these costs will be borne by the NERC contractors. [32783]

Mr. Norris: The additional cost to NATS of operating upgraded facilities at West Drayton during the run up to the introduction of the new en-route centre into operational service will be in the order of £15 million. The additional costs required to complete the new en-route centre will be borne entirely by the project contractor.

Foreign-registered Aircraft

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the measures employed by his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority for approving the operation of foreign-registered aircraft by United Kingdom airlines. [33019]

24 Jun 1996 : Column: 30

Mr. Norris: In my answer of 26 April I said that I had placed in the Library a copy of the procedures covering the dry leasing and wet-leasing of aircraft. In addition, I have now placed in the Library a copy of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995 covering procedures for aircraft leasing across national boundaries.

Trunk Roads (Noise Barriers)

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the provision of noise barriers or other mitigation measures for the trunk road network. [33266]

Mr. Watts: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 24 June 1996:

As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State about his policy in respect of the provision of noise barriers or other mitigation measures for the trunk road network.
The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 prescribe that residential properties which will be exposed to a level of traffic noise in excess of 68 dB(A) as the result of the construction of a new road or carriageway, and of which an increase of at least 1 dB(A) is attributable to the traffic on the new road, should be provided with noise insulation. Discretionary powers to provide insulation are given by the Noise Insulation Regulations in the case of the improvement of an existing road which significantly changes its line or level. The Highways Act 1980 gives powers for highway authorities to provide various features within a highway, ancillary to its main purpose, to mitigate impacts on the environment.
In accordance with EC Directive 337/85, the environmental effects of public works such as new roads, which include increased noise, are assessed and published as an environmental statement together with the legal orders for the scheme, in order to allow public comment.
Noise barriers or other measures to mitigate the impact of traffic noise are included in the design of trunk road improvement proposals where it is demonstrated that without them a significant number of properties would need to be insulated. The extent of any barriers may be increased in consideration of other environmental benefits such as visual screening which they may confer. In considering the merits of barriers, their cost effectiveness in comparison with other forms of mitigation, including the insulation of property, is taken into account.

Health and Safety

Mr. Ian McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33521]

Mr. Norris: The figures are as follows:

	Injuries	Fatal
1991-92	1,035	1
1992-93	959	0
1993-94	1,068	2
1994-95	1,579	0
1995-96	(16)589	(16)0

(16) Not yet fully available.

The fatality in 1991-92 was due to natural causes. The fatalities in 1993-94 were two Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement officers who were murdered while on duty.

24 Jun 1996 : Column: 31

The data held by the Department do not separately record accidents involving IT.

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost in each of the past five years of (a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33522]

Mr. Norris: The figures for compensation paid to employees of the Department of Transport and its agencies, or their families, as a result of work-related injuries, are as follows:

	Injuries	Fatal
	£	£
1991-92	17,490	0
1992-93	22,996	26,298
1993-94	23,766	0
1994-95	19,500	0
1995-96	173,194	0

There were 14 compensation cases of over £5,000.

The figures available do not distinguish between minor and major injuries, or those involving IT. Information relating to sick pay as a result of work-related injuries and compensation paid to members of the public is not readily available.

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional payments have been made to passenger transport executives under (a) the metropolitan railway grant and (b) the section 20 payments in respect of rail privatisation including the latest estimates for the current financial year. [33799]

Mr. Watts: Government support to PTEs through metropolitan railway grant and its Scottish equivalent has been as follows:

1994-95: £225.4 million
1995-96: £132.1 million
1996-97: --

Sums allocated under the section 20 "bolt-on" element of revenue support grant--and its Scottish equivalent--for rail support in metropolitan areas for the corresponding period are:

1994-95: £148.1 million
1995-96: £147.2 million
1996-97: £281.2 million

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to date of all bought-in services in connection with railway privatisation, with particular reference to costs and commissions in connection with the flotation of Railtrack. [33794]

24 Jun 1996 : Column: 32

Mr. Watts: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 4 June, Official Report, column 429, in respect of costs of the Railtrack share offer.

Costs to my Department of other bought-in services in connection with rail privatisation from 1991-92 to date are some £44 million.

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to date in departmental staff time of work on railway privatisation. [33793]

Mr. Watts: The Department does not have detailed information in the form requested. However, from 1991-92 to date, the costs of staff working on rail privatisation are approximately £10 million.

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to date to Railtrack of privatisation, with particular reference to associated redundancy and compensation payments made before flotation; and what is the estimated annual future cost to public funds. [33796]

Mr. Watts: Railtrack's accounts show that it accrued £46 million for the whole of its privatisation costs. All redundancy or compensation payments made by the company while it was being privatised were made to increase the company's efficiency. Any future costs arising from such payments will fall to Railtrack.

Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the total costs incurred so far by the British Railways Board in the privatisation process broken down by (a) external advice, (b) consultancies, (c) commission payments, (d) redundancy pension and (e) other expenses including the estimated costs for the current year. [33798]

Mr. Watts: Details of the costs incurred by the British Railways Board in the privatisation process are a matter for the board itself. However, the board's annual reports and accounts for 1993-94 and 1994-95 show that its total privatisation costs to the end of 1994-95 were £177 million. I understand from the board that it estimates that it incurred further costs of £101 million in 1995-96; it also estimates that it will incur further costs of £53 million in 1996-97. Any breakdown of those figures would be for the board to provide.

---