---

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Portcullis House (Jubilee Line Extension)

Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a statement about the progress of the Portcullis House project and the effect upon it of recent announcements concerning the delay to the Jubilee line extension. [21516]

Sir Raymond Powell: I am pleased to be able to report the progress which has been made with the design and procurement of the new parliamentary building, which Madam Speaker has agreed should be called Portcullis House. Contracts for the structure, the external envelope and all the main services have been awarded and off-site manufacture is well under way. The contractors and consultants are successfully overcoming problems which inevitably arise in such a complex building and, with good co-operation, will continue to be able to resolve them. The Committee had the opportunity recently to meet representatives of many of the firms involved. They can have no doubt of the importance that the House attaches to the building being completed on time and within budget. We were pleased to hear of the commitment and skills that they will bring to this demanding project.

As I advised my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) in my earlier reply, Official Report, 12 February 1997, columns 254-56, London Underground's work on the construction of the new Westminster station has not proceeded according to programme so it was not able to give possession of the site on 2 February 1997, the agreed date. Instead, there was to be a phased programme starting with the erection of the first tower crane at the beginning of May and increasing site possession from mid-May until the site was

20 Mar 1997 : Column: 687

to be transferred on 29 July. Although London Underground remains confident that it will achieve the July date, the early handover has been gradually eroded. Thus, our main construction work will start at a slower pace than we had planned and this will increase the pressure on the project team to complete construction of the building in the year 2000. It will require a concerted effort by all the contractors and consultants to achieve this objective.

ENVIRONMENT

Go-karts

Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to establish national guidelines in respect to the guarding of exposed rear drive shafts and disc in-running nips on go-karts; and if he will make a statement. [20538]

Sir Paul Beresford: There is no manufacturing standard or type approval for go-karts. A voluntary standard is being discussed by the European standard body CEN, committee TC 152, working group 1.

The Health and Safety Executive's national interest group for entertainment has met the go-kart manufacturers to discuss manufacturers' and suppliers' responsibilities. Further discussions are due to take place.

Cetaceans

Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received with regard to the protection of whales, dolphins and porpoises in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement. [20519]

Mr. Clappison: Concern about the conservation status of cetaceans continues to generate a steady stream of inquiries from the public. However, no significant representations concerning their protection in United Kingdom waters have recently been received.

The United Kingdom, as a member of the International Whaling Commission and the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas, continues to be committed to the conservation of all cetaceans.

Pollution Abatement Technology

Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate (a) the United Kingdom's current share of the world market for pollution abatement technology and (b) the size of that market share during (i) the next five years and (ii) the next 10 years. [20926]

Mr. Clappison: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business, Industry and Energy on 11 March 1997, Official Report, column 136.

Metropolitan Councils (Capital Receipts)

Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total current capital receipts for each of the metropolitan councils; and if he will make a statement. [20730]

20 Mar 1997 : Column: 688

Mr. Curry: The amounts of accumulated usable capital receipts at 31 March 1996 for each metropolitan council are listed in the table:

	£000
Barnsley	0
Birmingham	0
Bolton	45
Bradford	0
Bury	41
Calderdale	0
Coventry	0
Doncaster	0
Dudley	0
Gateshead	39
Kirklees	0
Knowsley	7,359
Leeds	0
Liverpool	4,104
Manchester	5,066
Newcastle upon Tyne	0
North Tyneside	1,932
Oldham	0
Rochdale	2,347
Rotherham	1,046
Salford	223
Sandwell	0
Sefton	6,043
Sheffield	0
Solihull	1,763
South Tyneside	0
St. Helens	13
Stockport	0
Sunderland	1,656
Tameside	0
Trafford	3,587
Wakefield	0
Walsall	0
Wigan	55
Wirral	86
Wolverhampton	159
Total	35,564

Source:

1995-96 capital outturn returns.

Note:

Figures for the amounts of set aside capital receipts are not available. These form part of the provision for credit liabilities, which also includes amounts set aside from revenue.

Nirex Ltd.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the advice the Nirex peer reviewers provided to Nirex in report S96-004 appendix 3 concerning the report title used in the document submitted to the review panel for initial review concerning the use of the word hydrogeological. [20996]

Mr. Clappison: I understand that the baseline report review group advised Nirex that the use of the word "hydrogeological" in the initial title proposed for the report was too general and therefore gave insufficient guidance as to the content of the report.

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his review of the application by UK Nirex Ltd. to build a rock characterisation facility at Longlands farm, Cumbria; and what has been the cost of this review to his Department. [21307]

20 Mar 1997 : Column: 689

Sir Paul Beresford: The Secretary of State's reasons for dismissing the planning appeal by UK Nirex Ltd. are set out fully in the decision letter which was issued on 17 March. A copy of the letter has been sent to the hon. Member. The specific cost of individual planning appeals is not available.

Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names and numbers of the reports prepared by the disposal safety assessment team co-ordinated by Nirex on scientific and technical issues on (a) the disposal of radioactive wastes and (b) the development of the safety analysis of the proposed repository evaluated by (i) his Department, (ii) Nirex and (iii) the UK Atomic Energy Authority. [20997]

Mr. Gummer: This information should be requested from UK Nirex Ltd. The report produced by Nirex's disposal safety assessment team on which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's review studies were based was Nirex report 337 "Deep Waste Repository: A Preliminary Assessment of Post-closure Performance", D. E. Billington (editor), 1992, four volumes. A number of research reports containing supporting information were also reviewed.

Local Government Finance (Devon)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money was provided to (a) Devon county council, (b) South Hams district council, (c) Teignbridge district council and (d) Torbay Borough Council in each of the past five years. [21346]

Mr. Curry: The local authorities have reported the following amounts of central Government grants in the past four years. In 1992-93, under the community charge system, revenue support grant was paid to the lower tier authorities to support the charge payer in respect of spending by all tiers, so comparable figures for the individual authorities are not available.

	£ thousands
	Devon County Council	South Hams District Council	Teignbridge District Council	Torbay Borough Council
Grants supporting revenue expenditure(3)
1993-94	(4)378,167	9,313	14,310	30,507
1994-95	(4)385,318	9,796	15,690	33,474
1995-96	324,796	10,550	16,556	34,691
1996-97(5)	324,495	10,257	16,806	35,260
Grants supporting capital expenditure(6)
1993-94	7,234	857	993	1,093
1994-95	5,101	1,058	645	766
1995-96	4,413	1,387	806	993
1996-97(7)	3,880	340	536	866

(3) Includes revenue support grant, specific and special grants inside and outside AEF and SSA Reduction Grant.

(4) Before the setting up of separate police authorities in 1995-96, county councils had responsibility for police services, therefore these figures include expenditure funded by police specific grant.

(5) Budget estimates.

(6) Includes grants from central Government and non-departmental public bodies.

(7) Forecasts.

20 Mar 1997 : Column: 690

---