| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Trunk Roads
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current actual levels of expenditure on maintenance of the trunk road network; to what extent these accord with present public expenditure plans; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current levels of maintenance to prevent longer-term deterioration of the network. [36742]
Mr. Watts: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 15 July 1996:
These figures are wholly consistent with the Government's expenditure plans set out in Transport Report 1996 (Cm 3206--March 1996).
This level of funding will not be sufficient to avoid some deterioration of the network. Some works are having to be postponed until 1997-98. However, by working hard and innovatively, the Agency expects to be able to maintain safety and to minimise the effect on serviceability and value for money.
15 Jul 1996 : Column: 355
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what are the current actual levels of expenditure on maintenance of the trunk road network; to what extent these accord with present public expenditure plans; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current levels of maintenance to prevent longer term deterioration of the network.
The Agency is planning to spend the following sums on trunk road maintenance in the current financial year:
£ million
Capital road maintenance 250.0
Capital bridge maintenance 130.0
Current maintenance (roads and bridges) 146.4
Congleton Station
Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reasons have been given to him by British Rail west coast for the recent withdrawal of stops at the Congleton station; what consultation was undertaken with the local business and residential community prior to implementing that decision; and what assessment he has made as to the extent to which withdrawal is consistent with his policy of improvements in passenger services. [35882]
Mr. Watts [holding answer 8 July 1996]: I understand that InterCity West Coast withdrew the 08.30 service from Manchester to Euston and the 19.00 Euston to Manchester service, which both called at Congleton, from the summer 1996 timetable due to low passenger usage. Rail users consultative committees, Cheshire county council, Congleton borough council and Crewe and Nantwich borough council were consulted about the proposal to withdraw the services.
The Government intend to improve passenger services by franchising them to the private sector. Franchise operators are contractually bound by the passenger service requirement--PSR--and the obligations set out in the franchise agreement. The PSR may not be changed without the franchising director's consent, and significant proposed changes are subject to consultation with rail users consultative committees and local authorities. The franchise agreement required franchise operators to consult RUCCs and local authorities about proposed significant timetable changes.
MV Derbyshire
Mr. Dixon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place in the Library copies of the terms of reference given to the admiralty salvage office of the Ministry of Defence in respect of its forthcoming investigation on site into the loss of the MV Derbyshire, together with the names of the independent technical assessors already appointed, stating which of the latter will be present on site; [37148]
- (2) pursuant to the oral statement by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) of 3 July, Official Report, columns 900-04, if he will list (a) the names of the bodies, persons, or organisations which will be on site for the projected investigation into the wreck of the MV Derbyshire, together with the details of those to whom they are responsible and their sources of finance and (b) the names of the bodies or organisations which have expressed a wish to send or nominate observers to be present on site during those investigations; and what are his reasons for treating the presence of any person representing a body named in (b) as prejudicial to the objectivity of the investigation, or the credibility of conclusions drawn by bodies concerned with that investigation. [37163]
15 Jul 1996 : Column: 356
Mr. Norris [holding answer 12 July 1996]: The terms of reference given to the officers of the admiralty salvage office appointed as project managers for the return expedition are as follows:
- "to be responsible to this Department and the European Commission, taking account of advice from the technical assessors, Professor Douglas Faulkner and Robin Williams, and of the European Commission's assessor, Remo Torchio, for the co-ordination and operational management of the project, which we envisage will include:
drafting the specification for the expedition;
inviting and evaluating the bids received from contractors, and recommending who should carry out the work;
any post-tender negotiations with the successful bidder;
placing the contract;
management and control of the contract on-site"
The UK assessors are paid for by my Department and Dr. Torchio by the European Commission. My Department and the European Commission are sharing the other costs of the project.
No specific request to have representatives on board has been made by an interested party, other than the Derbyshire Families Association. However, solicitors representing British Shipbuilders have said that, if the DFA were represented, they would also wish to be.
It is essential that the results of the evidence gathered is, impartial, objective and thorough. To have any party represented could lead to challenges that the return was partial, lacked objectivity and was undertaken with a specific purpose in mind. To have all interested parties represented would be impractical.
Mr. Cohen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's current policy in respect of entry into force arrangements for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [37130]
Mr. David Davis:
I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 27 June 1996, Official Report, columns 197-98.
Mr. Donald Anderson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kuwait in respect of Robert Hussein; and if he will urge the Government to issue him with a new passport and to guarantee his safe passage out of the country. [36867]
15 Jul 1996 : Column: 357
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
We continue to keep in close touch at a senior level with the Kuwaiti authorities about this case. They have assured us that there are no restrictions on Mr. Hussein's freedom of movement.
Mr. Anderson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a Kuwaiti citizen has formally taken the Ja'aferi judgment in respect of the apostasy of Mr. Robert Hussein to an imam for that judgment to be confirmed. [36868]
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
We are not aware of any such action.
Mr. Cousins:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the radioactive discharges into the atmosphere as a result of recent Chinese nuclear tests; and what measures he is taking to prevent the provision of technological assistance to China's nuclear weapons programme by firms in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) its allies. [37009]
Mr. David Davis:
No such estimate has been made. The UK and our allies maintain export controls on nuclear and nuclear-related dual use equipment, material and technology in order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The UK considers all exports to China on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Barry Field:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from the leader of the Isle of Wight council to represent the Isle of Wight internationally. [36915]
Mr. Dalyell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to this letter of 30 April, to the hon. Member of Linlithgow, what progress has been made on assistance to counter the contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe. [36643]
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
It is still too early to consider what concrete assistance might be made available to counteract contamination of Lake Kojanovskoe. Information on progress will be given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow as soon as consideration of the conclusions of the EU-financed study has been completed by the Government Departments concerned and considered with our EU partners prior to discussion with the European Commission.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |