| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Channel Tunnel Fire
Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 19 November, Official Report, column 837, on the channel tunnel fire, what response he has received to his representations to his French counterpart on the publication of the inquiry by the French authorities. [5746]
Mr. Watts: A response has not yet been received from the Secretary of State for Transport's French counterpart.
Mr. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his statement of 19 November, Official Report, column 837, on the channel tunnel fire, what is the procedure by which Eurotunnel must prove that operations can recommence safely; from which bodies advice will be taken; and if separate evaluation will be made of the position of passenger services, care shuttles, freight services and lorry shuttles. [5747]
Mr. Watts: Eurotunnel will be making a detailed submission to the Intergovernmental Commission, setting out proposals for restarting services carrying passengers. This is expected shortly. The Safety Authority will
26 Nov 1996 : Column: 159
examine and consider the submission, taking advice from experts as necessary. Permission for Eurotunnel to operate a limited freight service was granted on 20 November 1996. After examining Eurotunnel's submission, the Safety Authority will advise the Intergovernmental Commission. The Intergovernmental Commission will then decide whether to authorise a restart of operations.
Mr. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the estimates of the frequency and effects of fire on board a semi-open heavy goods vehicle shuttle train included in Eurotunnel's application for its operating certificate for this service. [5748]
Mr. Watts: Eurotunnel's proposals for the design and construction of the semi-open HGV shuttles gave estimates of the frequency of any fire occurring on board a semi-enclosed HGV shuttle in transit as about one in every 20 years.
The effects of a fire on board a shuttle which were considered included procedures for evacuation, heat and smoke and the ability of the ventilation system to control it, and the fire resistance of the amenity coach.
As part of the general safety submission in the Tunnel the fire resistance of the cross-passage doors was tested, as was the ability of the normal ventilation system to maintain the service tunnel as a "safe haven" while a cross-passage door might be open for evacuation or rescue.
Mr. Andrew Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each year since 1979, public sector investment in transport (a) overall, and (b) broken down for (i) roads, (ii) rail and (iii) other forms of transport, in real terms, cash terms and as a proportion of gross domestic product. [5752]
Mr. Watts:
Figures are not readily available in this form. But transport investment is reported annually in "Transport statistics Great Britain" and the Transport Report. Summary information for years prior to 1985-86 was published annually in the Government's expenditure plans. GDP figures for comparative purposes can be found in the annual "Financial Statement and Budget Report".
Mr. Andrew Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what (a) reorganisation and (b) set-up costs were incurred by (i) British Rail, (ii) Railtrack, (iii) the Office of the Rail Regulator, (iv) the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and (v) his Department during the privatisation of the railways, broken down to show the costs of (1) consultants and (2) others, for each year since 1993-94. [5758]
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 report and accounts show that it incurred costs of £85 million in 1994-95 and £101 million in 1995-96. I understand from the board that it 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.
26 Nov 1996 : Column: 160
| 1994-95 | 1995-96 | |
|---|---|---|
| Office of the Rail Regulator | ||
| Consultancy costs | 2.9 | 3.0 |
| Other costs | 6.1 | 6.0 |
| Office of Passenger Rail Franchising | ||
| Consultancy costs | 13.1 | 27.0 |
| Other costs | 3.5 | 7.4 |
Details of the costs incurred by my Department are as follows:
| 1994-95 | 1995-96 | |
|---|---|---|
| Consultancy costs | 11.8 | 20.9 |
| Other costs | 2.2 | 6.4 |
Railway Industry
Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of the outturn provision for the railway industry for 1996-97. [6417]
Sir George Young: The announcement of the public expenditure settlement for my Department, which I made today, included a forecast outturn of £1,760 million for Opraf passenger grant for 1996-97. For the railway industry as a whole, there have also been proceeds from the sale of businesses, which--other than those from the sale of Railtrack--have served to offset this grant. After taking account of the net revenues of the businesses sold, net forecast receipts for the railway industry are £980 million. Therefore, the latest forecast of financial provision for the railway industry in 1996-97 is £780 million--that is, Opraf grant of £1,760 million less net receipts of £980 million.
Port of Tyne Authority
Mr. Trotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the statutory period for representations about the proposed privatisation of the Port of Tyne authority ended; and if he will make copies of the responses available. [6637]
Sir George Young: The statutory period for representations ended on 31 October. Respondents were asked to confirm their agreement to publish their comments. Copies of the representations of all those who gave permission have been placed in the DOT information centre, Great Minster house, 76 Marsham street, London SW1P 3EB, where they will be available for inspection for six months from today.
26 Nov 1996 : Column: 161
Food Hygiene Regulations
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many infringements of food hygiene regulations which resulted in a prosecution have occurred on United Kingdom registered cruise liners in each year since 1990. [5246]
Mr. Horam: I have been asked to reply.
This information is not held centrally.
SCOTLAND
Business Rates
Mr. Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the costs and benefits of harmonising business rates in Scotland with those in England and Wales; [5134]
- (2) what is his present estimate of the cost of harmonising business rates in Scotland with those in England and Wales in (a) 1995-96 and (b) 1996-97. [5133]
Mr. Kynoch: The 1995 revaluation was the first to be carried out with the relevant law and practice in Scotland fully harmonised with that in England and Wales. Since 1990, the Secretary of State has taken responsibility for prescribing Scottish non-domestic rate levels. The Scottish national non-domestic rate was set at the level of the English rate for 1995-96 and subsequent years. As a result of this policy, Scottish businesses have paid £1.4 billion less in rates over the five-year period from 1990 and can now plan ahead with much greater confidence. If the rate poundage had risen in line with inflation since 1990, Scottish businesses would now be faced with more than double their current rate levels.
26 Nov 1996 : Column: 162
Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
Mr. Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning clause 45 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill; and what response he has given. [5495]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Law Society of Scotland has made representations about the provisions in clause 45 and has asked for a meeting with Ministers. It is hoped to arrange such a meeting shortly.
Mental Illness Specific Grant
Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to modify the regulations governing the distribution of funds from the mental illness specific grant; and if he will make a statement; [4848]
- (2) what was the (a) amount and (b) percentage of the mental illness specific grant (i) in total and (ii) given to head injury projects in each year since 1991-92 to the latest available date; what are his forecasts of the figures for (1) 1997-98 and (2) 1998-99; and if he will make a statement. [4811]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton [holding answer 25 November 1996]: The continuation of the mental illness specific grant--MISG--has been confirmed for 1997-98. The effectiveness of the grant and alternative funding arrangements are currently being evaluated.
| 1991-92(1) | 1992-93 | 1993-94 | 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total MISG allocation | £3 million | £6 million | £10 million | £14 million | £18 million | £18 million |
| (a) Allocation to head injury projects | £0 | £277,000 | £418,000 | £685,000 | £949,-000 | £1.0 million(2) |
| (b) Allocation to head injury projects as a percentage of Total | £0 | 4.6 per cent. | 4.2 per cent. | 4.9 per cent. | 5.3 per cent. | 5.6 per cent. |
(1) The eligibility criteria for the MISG was extended from 1992-93 to include head injury projects.
(2) Figures for 1996-97 allocation to head injury projects are provisional.
It is for local authorities to identify, and submit for approval, projects for MISG funding in future years.
26 Nov 1996 : Column: 161
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |