| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
London Transport Prestige Project
Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a tender for the London Transport prestige project which is not fully compliant with the specification set by London Transport will be eligible for consideration as a preferred bid; and if he will make a statement. [10430]
Mr. Bowis: This is a matter for London Transport. I understand that it is conducting the prestige competition in accordance with both its normal procurement practices and the relevant European procurement legislation.
Rail Services (Financial Support)
Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what mechanisms he plans to deliver financial support for rail services in the English and Scottish passenger transport executive areas in (a) 1997-98, (b) 1998-99 and (c) 1999-2000; and what estimates he has made of the amounts to be provided. [10422]
Mr. Watts: We intend that, subject to the approval of the House of Commons, special grant should be paid in 1997-98 and beyond to all the English passenger transport authorities, for local railway services in their areas. Similarly, The Scottish Office intends, subject to the approval of the House of Commons, to pay special grant to Strathclyde PTA. The exact level of support for these rail services in future years will not be determined finally until the franchises have been signed, and the levels of services settled with the PTEs.
Road Maintenance Costs
Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average cost per mile of maintaining (a) motorways and (b) A roads in (i) 1990 and (ii) 1995. [10346]
Mr. Watts: I regret that data for 1990 are not readily available. However, in financial year 1991-92, roads maintenance expenditure--capital and current--was approximately £152,000 for each mile of motorway and £25,000 for each mile of A road. The equivalent figures for financial year 1994-95 were £166,000 and £34,000 respectively.
South Yorkshire Supertram Project
Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will carry out a review of the basis on which his Department took its initial decision to award a section 56 grant to the South Yorkshire supertram project; [10316]
- (2) what assessment he has made of his Department's role in sanctioning the total funding package for the South Yorkshire supertram. [10315]
Mr. Watts: As with all such cases, the Department's decision to award section 56 grant, and to sanction other elements of the funding package, was based on an appraisal put forward by the promoter of the project, in this instance South Yorkshire passenger transport executive, and was in accordance with the procedures and criteria published in circular 3/89, "Section 56 Grant for Public Transport." I will consider whether experience of South Yorkshire supertram has wider implications.
Mr Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will (a) publish and (b) place in the Library the
13 Jan 1997 : Column: 114
results of studies undertaken by his Department into the cost-effectiveness of his Department's support for the South Yorkshire supertram. [10317]
Mr. Watts: Work is still in progress on the supertram monitoring study, commissioned jointly by my Department and South Yorkshire PTE. The "before" surveys relating to this project have already been published. When the full study has been completed, my Department will be discussing arrangements for publication with South Yorkshire PTE.
Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the liabilities which will fall due to the South Yorkshire metropolitan borough councils after 31 March 1997, arising from the South Yorkshire supertram project; [10320]
- (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages of extending the period over which debts incurred by the South Yorkshire metropolitan borough councils arising out of the construction and operation of supertram may be repaid. [10319]
Mr. Watts: My Department and the South Yorkshire local authorities are currently discussing these issues.
Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the costs to public funds to date of the South Yorkshire supertram project, including all credit approvals, capitalised debts, revenue costs and other liabilities. [10318]
Mr. Watts: The funding authorised by my Department for the construction costs of South Yorkshire supertram is as follows:
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| Section 56 grant | 62.529 |
| Non-trading credit approvals | 62.529 |
| Trading credit approvals | 81.741 |
| Capitalised interest | 15.790 |
| ERDF grant | 6.526 |
| Pre-1991 spending | 12.759 |
| Total | 241.874 |
The figure for pre-1991 spending includes some items that were funded by South Yorkshire PTE. The total does not include administrative costs incurred by my Department, which could be quantified only at disproportionate cost. These figures do not include operating losses and other post-construction costs, which are a matter for South Yorkshire PTE.
Boeing 747 Fuel Tanks
Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the safety of Boeing 747 aircraft fuel tanks. [10322]
Mr. Bowis: The United States National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the accident to TWA flight TW800. The cause of the accident has not yet been established although it is the view of the NTSB that the centre wing fuel tank exploded as part of the accident sequence. The source of ignition for the explosion has yet to be identified and the three theories--bomb, missile and aircraft malfunction--remain open.
13 Jan 1997 : Column: 115
Under International Civil Aviation Organisation rules, primary responsibility for promulgating information necessary to maintain the continued airworthiness of an aircraft type rests with the state of design. In the case of the Boeing 747 the US Federal Aviation Administration is the body responsible. As a result of its investigation the NTSB has made some interim safety recommendations to the FAA. If, following consideration of the NTSB safety recommendations, the FAA determines that mandatory corrective action is necessary, it will issue an airworthiness directive. It is the policy of the Civil Aviation Authority automatically to endorse all such directives and to ensure that the operators of relevant UK registered aircraft undertake the prescribed action.
Motorway Service Stations
Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the franchisees of motorway service stations the measures they can take to show when services on one side of the motorway, other than petrol filling stations, are closed. [10324]
Mr. Watts: All motorway service areas are required to offer a range of basic facilities, including toilets, free short-term parking and fuel, 24 hours a day every day of the year. Operators are entitled to close parts of their MSAs during quiet periods but the specified minimum facilities must remain available at all times to all motorway users, including the disabled. If my hon. Friend has a particular problem in mind, perhaps he will let me know and I will arrange for it to be taken up with the operator concerned.
M1 (Lighting)
Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in lighting the remaining parts of the M1; what is the future timetable; and if he will make a statement. [10330]
Mr. Watts: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.
Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Irvine Patnick, dated 13 January 1997:
The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the M1 motorway and the possibilities for lighting provision along those remaining unlit sections.
The M1 is lit from Junctions 1 to 19, 20 to 21A, 23 to 26, and 40 to 42. The section between Junctions 42 and 43 will be lit as part of the M1-A1 Link Road Scheme which is currently under construction. In addition, the M1 between Junctions 31 and 32 is programmed to be lit as part of the motorway widening scheme which remains in the programme. There are currently no further lighting schemes programmed for the M1.
Greater Manchester Rail Services
Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what schemes are being provided, by what mechanism, for rail services in the Greater Manchester area in 1996-97 which in previous years were supported by the section 20 "bolt on" arrangement and metropolitan railway grant; and what arrangements he plans to introduce for future years. [10420]
Mr. Watts: From 1 April 1996 the franchising director assumed responsibility for the financial support of local rail services in the Greater Manchester area previously
13 Jan 1997 : Column: 116
supported by the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive. It is intended that from 1 April 1997 responsibility for those services will revert to GMPTE, supported by special grant. It is intended that the level of services to be so supported will broadly reflect that currently supported by the franchising director. Subject to approval by the House of Commons, the grant would be paid under section 88B of the Local Government Act 1988.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |