|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce a decision about Safeway's application for grant funding from the Powershift programme for assistance towards the acquisition of 40 gas powered trucks; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Meacher: Safeway's application for grant funding exceeds the £250,000 discretionary cap that may generally be offered by the Powershift programme to a single company. This cap was introduced to ensure that many organisations could benefit from Powershift grants rather than all of the programme's budget being used to support a large order for vehicles from a single company. The cap is discretionary, however, and there will be cases where larger grants can be justified because they will make a significant impact on the market for alternative fuels.
Powershift's advisory panel, comprising officials from my Department, DTI and the Energy Saving Trust, is meeting today to agree the level of grant funding to be offered to Safeway's. The Trust will announce the decision of the panel immediately following this meeting.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment was made by the consultants for the sSRA's recent rail freight competition of the viability of the mechanical engineering performance claims and their costs for the three projects that made the final of the competition; and if the consultants highlighted any limitations of use or cost-effectiveness of the winning products; 
Mr. Hill: The consultants appointed to review the proposals for the sSRA's railfreight competition were Ove Arup and Partners. Their remit was to review the five shortlisted proposals submitted by applicants for the competition and to provide an independent assessment of each proposal using the criteria published by the sSRA.
The consultant's remit did not include any requirement to make an assessment of the viability of the mechanical engineering performance claims for the five shortlisted entries. There was a requirement to review the costs proposed and whether they were realistic and robust for each project. There was also a requirement to examine the applicability of the proposed project to other supply chains. The sSRA subsequently made its own assessment and judged the proposals on value for money criteria.
3 Jul 2000 : Column: 90W
the funding made available in each year since 1984-85 to each local authority for spending on schemes to encourage cycling; 
As far as local authority schemes are concerned no separate funding is made available to encourage cycling. It is for individual authorities to decide the amount spent on cycling from their overall total allocation of funding.
Between 1991-92 and 1999-2000, local highway authorities received funding for integrated transport packages and minor works, including cycling, as part of the annual local transport capital settlement. From 2000-01 onwards, authorities will receive an integrated capital block allocation each year for all local transport and maintenance purposes except schemes costing more than £5 million, which are funded separately.
As to other expenditure the Department funds research into promoting cycling and making it safer. We issue guidance based on the results of research through our Local Transport Notes and Traffic Advisory Leaflets. In addition we are funding the marketing of the National Cycling Strategy and in 1996-97 around £2 million were provided by the Department to fund schemes in the Cycle Challenge project.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total cost of producing the video of the M4 bus lane entitled, "The First Three Months"; how many copies of the video were made; and how many have been distributed. 
Mr. Hill: The only publication entitled "The First Three Months" was a leaflet. 10,000 were printed at a cost of £1,419.40 (including VAT). About 9,600 have been distributed since it was first made available at the Earls Court Motor Show held in October 1999.
3 Jul 2000 : Column: 91W
data software that failed at West Drayton on Saturday 17 June is no longer in use; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hill: The software version that was withdrawn on 17 June was subjected to analysis and the fault identified. A suitable software remedy was devised and, following thorough testing, the version was restored to the Flight Data Processing System during the quiet hours overnight on 26 to 27 June.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the software failure at West Drayton air traffic control centre on 26 June. 
Mr. Hill: The software failure that occurred at 14.49 hours GMT at the London Area and Terminal Control Centre at West Drayton on 26 June was caused by a flight plan that could not be processed. The system was out of service for only three minutes. NATS has identified the software fault and is in the process of identifying and testing a suitable software remedy. This fault is totally unrelated to the failure on 17 June which was caused by a latent design fault in the flight strip printing system.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on recent incidents of signals passed at danger by trains on lines on the approaches to Paddington Station. 
Mr. Hill: The Health and Safety Executive independently investigates all serious incidents of signals passed at danger (SPADs). They are investigating a number of recent incidents in the Paddington area, and in particular an incident on 16 June when a Thames Trains Turbo passed a signal at danger at Royal Oak. HSE has ensured that the computer tapes from the signal box and from the train's on-board data recorders have been secured as evidence. HSE has also been seeking further assurances from Railtrack regarding the safe working of trains between Slough and Paddington. Following the completion of HSE's inquiries, the results of their investigations will be included in HSE's monthly "signals passed at danger" report to Ministers, copies of which are placed in the House of Commons Library.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans London Underground has developed to cope with the increase in traffic at King's Cross-St. Pancras underground station once Phase II of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is completed with King's Cross-St. Pancras as its terminus; and if he will place a copy of these plans in the Library. 
Mr. Hill: Improvements to King's Cross-St. Pancras underground station have always been envisaged as part of the works for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. In January 1999 my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), announced that these improvements were to go ahead and be financed by Government as part of their contribution to the link.
3 Jul 2000 : Column: 92W
The improvements include two new ticket halls and new passageways at the station which will double its existing capacity and allow it to cope with the expected influx of passengers using Eurostar when the high speed link to the Channel Tunnel opens. They will also meet the requirements of the Fennel report into the King's Cross underground station fire. Construction is due to start later this year and be completed in time for the opening of the full link (currently expected in 2007).
Mr. Hill: As from today (3 July), Transport for London is the highway and traffic authority for the A23 which is part of the GLA Road Network. The question of progressing schemes related to GLA roads is a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|