11 Jun 1999 : Column: 397
Written Answers to Questions
Friday 11 June 1999
ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
Coastguard
Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in the period January to April 1999 staffing levels at the Coastguard stations at (i) Oban, (ii) Liverpool, (iii) Belfast and (iv) Stornoway were maintained by the use of unqualified or partly-qualified staff. [85838]
Ms Glenda Jackson [holding answer 8 June 1999]:
| Oban | Liverpool | Belfast | Stornoway | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unqualified | ||||
| 12 hour watch | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Partly Qualified | ||||
| 12 hour watch | 0 | 93 | 60 | 116 |
| 6 hour watch | 0 | 6 | 5 | 0 |
Recruits who have yet to qualify in their grade are able to perform certain tasks on watch almost immediately but under the supervision of a watch manager. Watch managers are encouraged to involve new recruits in watchkeeping tasks as much as possible.
Partly Qualified Officers are those who after their initial training have demonstrated their ability to their line management to undertake certain tasks appropriate to their grade, thus enabling them to become part of a Watch. Initial training is followed by further on the job training which take place at their parent station. This on the job training as part of the Watch, or as a supernumerary, is essential preparation for an officer's final proficiency examinations for qualification to their grade.
Mr. Jenkin:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the 17 municipally owned bus companies their (a) annual turnover, (b) passenger revenues, (c) pre-tax profit or loss, (d) numbers of staff and (e) numbers of vehicles operated. [86666]
Ms Glenda Jackson:
Under the Transport Act 1985 the local authority-owned bus companies were set up as Companies Act companies working at arms length from their owners. As the details required by the Companies Acts are lodged at Companies House, my Department does not collect the data requested.
11 Jun 1999 : Column: 398
Mr. Colman:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change his departmental expenditure limits and running costs limits for 1999-2000. [86984]
Mr. Prescott:
Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, my departmental expenditure limits will change as follows.
The voted Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £3,900,000, increasing the overall limit from £34,207,667,000 to £34,211,567,000. This increase reflects revised estimates of the costs of preparing for the Greater London Authority. The increase will be offset by a corresponding reduction in the Department's Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit from £9,696,757,000 to £9,692,857,000.
Mr. Colman:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to provide the Greater London Authority with accommodation and administrative support. [86985]
Mr. Raynsford:
I announced on 26 February plans for a new building for the headquarters of the Greater London Authority (GLA) at London Bridge City. Design and contractual issues are being finalised, and I anticipate the building being ready for occupation towards the end of 2001.
To house the GLA before the new building is ready, my Department is arranging temporary office accommodation at Romney House, Marsham Street, London SW1, which should be ready for occupation by staff preparing for the GLA by the end of 1999.
The GLA will assume its responsibilities on 3 July 2000, eight weeks after the elections, and work therefore needs to be put in hand now to establish finance and other systems and to ensure that appropriate administrative machinery is in place. I announced on 31 March that Dr. Bob Chilton would be seconded from the Audit Commission to be Head of Transition: he took up his duties on 19 April, and will work closely with my officials to take this work forward.
My Department has earmarked £30 million from within existing budgets over the four years 1998-99 to 2001-02 to meet GLA preparation costs. This will cover the anticipated cost of fitting out, furnishing and equipping the new building, including professional and other specialist advice; providing temporary accommodation for the GLA; accommodating and equipping the transition team; and setting up new financial, management and communication systems for the GLA. This compares to an initial provision of £20 million, which was largely to cover the cost of providing a new building. I will provide more detailed estimates when commercial negotiations have been completed, and will report actual expenditure totals periodically.
Separate provision is being made to cover the cost of the first elections to the GLA, including publicity, and establishing Transport for London and the London Development Agency. A separate announcement is being
11 Jun 1999 : Column: 399
made about a loan from the Contingencies Fund in relation to some of these costs. The arrangements for establishing the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority are matters for the Home Secretary.
Mr. Gardiner:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory authority exists for costs to be incurred by him in 1999-2000 in preparation for the establishment of the Greater London Authority and its functional and other associated bodies. [86986]
Mr. Raynsford:
Further to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) on 2 February 1999, Official Report, column 568, pending Parliamentary approval, urgent expenditure on new services for the bodies other than the Greater London Authority in 1999-2000 estimated at £4.7 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.
Mr. Eric Clarke:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his consideration of the draft decisions submitted to him by the Environment Agency on Sellafield MOX plant. [85629]
Mr. Prescott:
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have looked very carefully at the recommendations made by the Environment Agency about the justification for the MOX plant. We have also examined the representations made to us about the plant. Our provisional conclusion is that the balance of the argument so far is in favour of justification. However, we have also come to the conclusion that there should be further consultations on the economic case for the plant. We were concerned that the version of the report by PA Consulting on the economic case for the plant, which had been published by the Agency in January last year, did not contain as much information as the public could reasonably expect to see. We have therefore decided to publish a fuller version of the report. We accept, however, that some material contained in the report is commercially confidential and cannot be published without potentially harming BNFL's commercial interests. This information has been omitted from the version we are publishing.
In view of the time that has passed since PA Consulting completed their report, we decided to commission from BNFL an up-to-date assessment of the market for MOX fuel. This assessment is also being published. Comments are being invited on this material by 23 July after which we shall take a final decision on the full operation of the plant.
While this consultation is under way, and given our view that the balance of the argument currently favours justification we have concluded that it would be right for BNFL to be allowed to proceed with the uranium commissioning of the plant. We concluded that it would be right to allow this before final conclusions are reached about whether to give the go-ahead for the full operation of the plant. This would enable BNFL to begin testing the plant before the introduction of plutonium. In this way, if the plant is eventually given the go-ahead, the delays in running the plant commercially would be minimised. If, after the consultation exercise we decide that full
11 Jun 1999 : Column: 400
operation is not justified, the process would be halted and uranium removed from the plant. The costs of removal, estimated at £2 million, would be met by BNFL.
Mr. Brake:
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the conclusions of the Environment Agency on plutonium extraction from MOX fuel were assessed by his Department when determining the security measures necessary for the shipping of MOX fuel to Japan. [86740]
Mr. Battle:
The physical protection measures necessary for the shipping of MOX fuel to Japan are based on the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency concerned with the movement of all Category I nuclear materials.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |