| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Manchester Metrolink
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) under what headings of expenditure the aid to be provided for the Manchester Metrolink will be spent; [116864]
- (2) what proportion of the aid to be provided for the Manchester Metrolink will be given as (a) grant and (b) credit approval. [116863]
Mr. Hill: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 22 March 2000, Official Report, column 549W, the final details of the funding package are still to be determined. However, it will include both grant and credit approvals. Public support will be towards the capital costs of the project which would typically include construction costs, rolling stock, utility diversion and land purchase.
Aircraft Noise
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what EU measures he supports to reduce noise from civil aircraft. [116846]
Mr. Mullin: The UK broadly supports the Commission's proposals in the recent communication on Air Transport and the environment, particularly the need to work through the International Civil Aviation Organisation for new standards. We shall consider the proposals as they come forward on their merits. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) will report the conclusions of the transport council today.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will adopt to reduce the noise of civil aircraft over the Stour Valley in Essex and Suffolk. [116845]
Mr. Mullin: Local concerns about an increase in overflight, following the introduction of a second stack for Stansted, have been addressed as far as possible, given the competing demands for airspace and the general build up of air traffic in the South East. We shall continue to press for international agreement on higher noise certification standards and the phasing out of noisier aircraft. This will benefit people there and elsewhere.
European Aviation Safety Authority
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to support the establishment of EASA as an international rather than an EU body; and if the rules of EASA are intended to have direct effect and direct applicability in the law of the member states. [116867]
Mr. Mullin:
The Government are committed to taking action with their Community partners on setting up a new aviation safety body which will raise aviation safety standards across Europe in an effective and efficient way.
30 Mar 2000 : Column: 233W
In June 1998, during the UK Presidency, the Council mandated the Commission to develop, on behalf of the European Community and the member states, a treaty for a new international organisation to be known as the European Aviation Safety Authority, involving both EU and non-EU member states, as well as the Community itself. The mandate required the Commission first to submit a draft outline text of the founding treaty to a Special Committee of member states representatives.
The draft treaty agreed by the Special Committee assumes that the most effective way of achieving uniformly applied, high safety standards was to provide that all EASA rules should be directly applicable in Contracting Parties' law. The draft also provides for extensive judicial control mechanisms. Member states and the Commission have been unable to agree this draft treaty in its entirety and the Commission has suggested an alternative option, based on a community agency. The Council on 28 March agreed that further analysis should be undertaken of the best legal form for EASA.
Mr. Jenkin:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what encouragement he gives to research into ways of reducing the hazards associated with the transport of air cargo. [116849]
Mr. Mullin:
Certain types of cargo are known to present specific hazards when transported by air and these are categorised as dangerous goods. The carriage of dangerous goods by air is governed by the Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 which implement the requirements of Annex 18 to the Chicago Convention. This requires that all dangerous goods transported by air must be carried in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. The Technical Instructions themselves are based upon the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
The Technical Instructions are reviewed regularly by an ICAO panel of experts on dangerous goods. The Department funds a dangerous goods specialist from the Civil Aviation Authority to participate in the panel, which she currently chairs. The ICAO panel does not consider that any research is necessary.
Mr. Jenkin:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the regulations governing the use of frozen carbon dioxide for packaging for chilled and frozen goods transported by air. [116848]
Mr. Mullin:
In accordance with Annex 18 to the Chicago Convention the transport of all dangerous goods by air in the UK is governed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. The Technical Instructions are regularly reviewed by an ICAO
30 Mar 2000 : Column: 234W
panel (which includes a UK member) and revised biennially. The hazards from frozen carbon dioxide are well known and the ICAO panel considers that the present requirements for its carriage are adequate.
Mr. Jenkin:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it remains his policy to oppose the EU Galileo project; and if he will make a statement. [116844]
Mr. Mullin:
The Government have not opposed the EU Galileo project. They have adopted a prudent approach to the project as they consider that key issues such as cost, funding (including arrangements for a public-private partnership), user benefits, security and management arrangements need to be properly evaluated. Such views are shared by other EU member states. Hence, the Transport Council, at its meeting in June 1999, adopted a Resolution that invited the European Commission to proceed only with the Definition Phase of Galileo in conjunction with member states and the European Space Agency. This phase has begun and includes detailed work on the issues of concern to the UK and other EU states. Based on the results of this work and negotiations with the US and the Russian Federation, the Commission is required, by the end of this year, to put forward proposals to the Council on the best way to proceed with the project either independently or in co-operation with international partners.
Mr. Brake:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the assumed scale of net regional population migration underlying the projected level of household formation proposed for the current round of draft regional planning guidance (a) in each of the eight English regions and (b) for the spatial development plan for London. [116653]
Miss Melanie Johnson:
I have been asked to reply.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tom Brake, dated 30 March 2000:
30 Mar 2000 : Column: 235W
As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the assumed scale of net regional population migration, underlying the projected level of household formation proposed for the current round of draft regional planning guidance.
You requested information for each of the eight English regions and for the spatial development plan for London. The 1996-based household projections are one factor taken into account in arriving at the level of housing and households provision in regional planning guidance and spatial development plans.
The latest household projections are consistent with the 1996-based subnational population projections at regional level. The attached table provides the assumed levels of migration in the subnational population projections for each government office region. Projections of migration are shown for five different years in the projection period and those for the intervening years are consistent with these figures.
| Mid year ending | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government office region | 2001 | 2006 | 2011 | 2016 | 2021 |
| North East | -3.2 | -2.6 | -1.8 | -1.1 | -0.1 |
| North West | -8.0 | -7.8 | -6.8 | -5.0 | -3.6 |
| Yorkshire and the Humber | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 2.2 |
| East Midlands | 13.1 | 12.5 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 12.0 |
| West Midlands | -2.9 | -2.3 | -1.7 | -0.9 | 0.0 |
| East | 19.8 | 19.6 | 19.4 | 19.6 | 19.7 |
| London | -18.2 | -17.4 | -17.9 | -21.8 | -26.4 |
| Sough East | 34.2 | 32.7 | 31.2 | 30.6 | 30.5 |
| South West | 29.5 | 29.7 | 30.1 | 30.9 | 31.6 |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |