---

Departmental Parking

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many car parking spaces (a) were available at the Department of Transport's former premises at 2 Marsham street and (b) are available at the Department's current premises at Great Minster house. [1375]

Mr. Bowis: Approximately 64 car parking spaces within 2 Marsham street were allocated to the Department of Transport on a permanent basis in 1995. The number of car parking spaces available in Great Minster house is 23.

Mr. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost per annum of car parking spaces at the Department of Transport's current premises of Great Minster house. [1377]

Mr. Bowis: I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 28 October Official Report, column 44.

Mr. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of car parking spaces at the Department of Transport's former premises at 2 Marsham street, on the basis of central London charges, for each year since 1979, in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms. [1376]

Mr. Bowis: Prior to leaving 2 Marsham street in June 1996, the cost of car parking was £192,000 per annum based on central London commercial rates. Information for earlier years is not available.

National Bus Company Pension Scheme

Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the findings of the Pensions Ombudsman in respect of the National Bus Company employees: superannuation scheme; and what measures he proposes to return the £168 million plus interest received by his Department from the scheme prior to the sale of the Company. [1086]

Mr. Watts: The pensions ombudsman has issued his final determination on a complaint against the trustees of one of the pension funds--the bus employer superannuation trust--of the former National Bus Company. The trustees, to whom the determination is directed, are in touch with my Department about it. My Department is considering the determination and taking legal advice before replying to the trustees. It may be necessary and appropriate to ask the courts to make a ruling on the complex issues involved.

31 Oct 1996 : Column: 236

Rail Deregulation

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has to issue deregulation orders in respect of initiatives involving (a) level crossings, (b) the introduction of new railway stock, (c) tramways and (d) railway heritage. [1432]

Mr. Watts: There are no plans to use order-making powers to further initiatives in these areas.

Rail Franchising Director

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many official cars are operated by the office of the Rail Franchising Director; and if he will indicate the total expenditure for those vehicles since Opraf was established. [1467]

Mr. Watts: Opraf leases one car from the Government car service. The net costs are as follows:

	£
1993-94	16,510
1994-95	46,254
1995-96	45,527
1996-97(33)	23,793
Total	132,084

(33) To date.

Watford Junction Rail Incident

Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what action has been taken by the British Railways Board to investigate the reason for a London to Manchester train on 10 July overshooting Watford Junction station; [123]

(2) what failures in approved safety procedures have been identified by the British Railways Board to explain the reason for a London-Manchester train overshooting Watford Junction station on 10 July; [119]

(3) if all train staff specifically involved in the incident on 10 July when a London-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station have been asked to offer evidence to an internal inquiry under the auspices of the British Railways Board; [117]

(4) if he will instruct the British Railways Board to publish the fully details of the incident on 10 July when a Euston-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station; [113]

(5) if he has requested information from the British Railways Board about the incident on 10 July when a Euston-Manchester express train overshot Watford Junction station; [121]

(6) what defect reports on (a) the trainset and (b) the locomotive which overran Watford Junction station on 10 July were made on the previous day; and what action was taken; [116]

(7) what action has been taken by the British Railways Board following the incident on 10 July when a London-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction Station; [120]

31 Oct 1996 : Column: 237

(8) if the results of the British Railways Board internal inquiry into the incident on 10 July when a London-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station have been made available to the train staff involved; [118]

(9) what explanation has been provided to him by the British Railways Board for the failure of a London-Manchester train on 10 July to stop at Watford Junction station; [91]

(10) what instructions he has given to the British Railways Board about making known full details of the incident on 10 July when a Euston-Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station; [114]

(11) on what date the Health and Safety Executive was notified by his Department about the incident on 10 July when an express train overshot Watford Junction station by five miles; [662]

(12) what action has been taken by the Health and Safety Executive to investigate the reasons for a London to Manchester train on 10 July overshooting Watford Junction station; [101]

(13) what recommendations have been made by the Health and Safety Executive following the incident on 10 July when a London to Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station. [103]

Mr. Watts: The incident on 10 July was reported to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate by Railtrack within two hours of it occurring. HSE inspecting officers immediately started an independent investigation as to the cause. The train in question was operated by a British Railways Board subsidiary company, InterCity West Coast Ltd., which held an inquiry into technical aspects following an agreement with Railtrack.

As part of its investigation, the HSE has confirmed that the cause of the incident was the brake failure due to a hose blanking cap known as a "top hat" becoming trapped in a brake hose coupling. The "top hat" was able to spin on its axis causing an intermittent failure. The train's braking system was tested at the InterCity depot in Wembley, Middlesex before its journey to Euston, and was tested again immediately before the train's departure from Euston to Manchester. No defects were found. The blockage of the brake coupling hose which caused the brake failure must therefore have developed during the journey.

How the railways' internal inquiry is held, whom it chooses to interview, and to whom the results are made available, are matters for the railway companies involved. The Secretary of State for Transport has no statutory powers to request details of, or to instruct any railway company to make public, the findings of its internal inquiries into any incident. The HSE as the independent safety regulator does have power to require such details, and the Health and Safety Commission advises the Secretary of State for Transport. The HSE is continuing its discussions with the train operating company.

I understand from the HSE that:

(a) a check has been made of other rolling stock to see if any similar potential obstructions exist;


(b) suppliers of brake coupling hoses have now dispensed with the use of "top hat" blanking pieces and are using alternative means of preventing ingress of dirt during storage; and

31 Oct 1996 : Column: 238

(c) procedures in depots have been improved to ensure that brake hose couplings are properly checked for any potential obstruction on fitment.

The HSE will not conclude its investigation until it has reviewed the railway's internal report and satisfied itself that issues have been properly resolved.

Mr. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the implications of the Financial Services Act 1986 for the making of a full public statement by the British Railways Board to explain why on 10 July a London to Manchester train overshot Watford Junction station by five miles. [102]

Mr. Watts: The Financial Services Act 1986 requires that any public statement to be issued in the United Kingdom which might constitute an investment advertisement, as defined in the Act, should first be approved by a person authorised under the Act. Until the rail franchising process is completed, British Rail will require its staff to follow guidelines aimed at ensuring that any public statements they make comply with the terms of the Act.

Rail Privatisation

Ms Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of legal fees incurred by Her Majesty's Government in relation to the privatisation of Railtrack for legal advice and work provided by solicitors in private practice; and what was the average (a) daily and (b) hourly rate contracted for the advice. [852]

Mr. Watts: Government expenditure to date on legal fees in relation to the privatisation of Railtrack is £3.9 million, excluding VAT. Information about contracted daily and hourly rates is commercially confidential.

Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if all trains currently operated by privatised train operating companies have complied in full with the safety case required by the Health and Safety Executive. [661]

Mr. Watts: I am advised by the Health and Safety Executive that it has no evidence that trains operated by privatised train operating companies are not in compliance with safety case obligations.

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those companies on the pre-qualified bidders' list for railway franchises. [1471]

Mr. Watts: No. This information is commercially confidential.

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the hourly rates paid to (a) Samuel Montague, (b) Kleinwort Benson, (c) KPMG, (d) Coopers and Lybrand and (e) Linklaters and Paines by the office of the rail franchising director for work undertaken in relation to rail privatisation. [1511]

Mr. Watts: No. It is not the Government's policy to divulge the hourly fee rates for their advisers.

31 Oct 1996 : Column: 239

---