| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ferry Subsidies
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money was spent on ferry subsidies in each of the last three years. [3335]
Mr. Jamieson: No ferry services in England and Wales are subsidised by Government. The devolved Administrations subsidise some ferry services in Scotland and Northern Ireland, for which they are, respectively,
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 362W
accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some local authorities in Scotland also subsidise local ferry services.
Local Government Funding
Tony Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when it is intended that the proposed changes to the general funding formula for local government will take effect. [4582]
Dr. Whitehead: I hope to make an announcement shortly.
Farm Diversification
Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when rate relief for new farm diversification enterprises will be available. [5970]
Mr. Raynsford: The Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001, which received Royal Assent on 11 May will be brought into effect in England on 15 August. From this date all new small scale non-agricultural businesses on farms with rateable values of up to £6,000, whether or not operated by the farmer, will receive up to 5 years' mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief. Also from this date most small village food shops will qualify for 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief under the existing village shop rate relief scheme.
The new relief will lower the start-up costs for small non-agricultural businesses located on what had been agricultural land and buildings. This will enable farmers to diversify either directly by starting new businesses themselves, or indirectly, through the sale or leasing of former agricultural premises.
By extending the existing village shop rate relief to most other food shops, vital support will be given to more village businesses that provide essential services to the community.
The introduction of these reliefs fulfils Government commitments made in the Action Plan for Farming, the Local Government Finance Green Paper and the Rural White Paper.
Planning Inspectorate Annual Report
Mr. Pound: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the Planning Inspectorate's annual report and accounts for 2000–01. [5980]
Ms Keeble: The Planning Inspectorate's annual report and accounts for 2000–01 are published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.
I am very pleased to report that the inspectorate has had another successful year, against a background of rising workloads, coupled with tighter targets for handling appeals. It has met all but one of the timeliness targets set for its work in England and Wales. The high standard of service to local authorities on development plan inquiries has been maintained with targets being exceeded. This has helped to create a greater certainty for all involved in the planning process as more of England and Wales is covered by up to date development plans.
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 363W
Financially, the inspectorate has continued to seek greater efficiency in working practices, with major investment in business systems and an ongoing commitment to electronic service delivery. Once again expenditure has been contained very closely within budget, reflecting achievement of demanding Treasury efficiency targets. The agreement of a second successive three-year funding deal with DTLR has also introduced greater certainty into the business planning process, enabling a more strategic approach to the challenging years ahead.
Customer surveys continue to show that the inspectorate's decisions are widely respected. In spite of rising workloads, the quality and efficiency targets were achieved.
Regional Air Services
Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the current status of work on the regional air services studies; and when he proposes to publish the regional consultation documents based upon them. [6176]
Mr. Spellar: Work on the six original regional air service studies proposed in the 1998 Transport White Paper was completed last year. Since then a second phase of work has been under way to co-ordinate these part 1 studies and audit them for consistency. This has involved reviewing air traffic forecasts for each airport under a range of national scenarios, examining catchments and route development in more detail, carrying out a more in-depth appraisal of options and integrating this work with the findings from a range of other UK-wide strategic studies. This part 2 work, known as the RASCO study, is nearing completion, but the emerging findings have highlighted a number of key strategic issues on which further work is needed. This is necessary to ensure that the regional air service consultation documents, which we hope to publish around the turn of the year, will provide a full and robust basis for public consultation.
Two part 3 studies, one covering the midlands of England and the other the lowlands of Scotland, have therefore been commissioned to examine important long-term runway capacity. This work is programmed for completion before the end of the year and will be published shortly thereafter, along with the part 1 and 2 studies to help inform the regional air service consultation process.
E-Government Local Authority Pathfinders
Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to provide funding for the 25 e-government local authority pathfinders in 2001–02. [6179]
Mr. Raynsford: The Government have made available £25 million of funding in 2001–02 to help achieve their target of ensuring that 100 per cent. of local authority services are capable of electronic delivery by 2005.
I have today laid before the House a Special Grant Report setting out my intention to provide some £24 million of this funding in grant to 25 local e-government pathfinders. This will support a co-ordinated programme of experiment, innovation and shared learning. At the same time, up to a further £1.7 million of funding is being made available to
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 364W
support the local government on-line project, which will disseminate best practice information from the pathfinders to all local authorities.
The Government originally proposed to make available the funding to pathfinder authorities in the form of supplementary credit approvals. However, following representations from pathfinders, we are now seeking the agreement of the House to provide the funding in the form of a special grant.
London Underground
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many work days were lost due to stress-induced illness in London Underground staff broken down by (a) station staff, (b) train drivers, (c) managerial staff and (d) signal/points operators in each financial year since 1994–95 for each line of the London Underground. [5002]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground, which informs me that it records staff absences and the reason for the absence if possible. Absence due to stress-induced illness could be declared as several different conditions. In addition, information on staff who have left the company is archived and not easily retrievable. Therefore a reply to this question could be obtained only at excessive cost.
London Underground is currently specifying a much improved enterprise resource planning IT system which should, once installed, be able to produce such information with much greater ease.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many driver working hours are needed to run the current level of trains on London Underground each week day, broken down by line. [5005]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has provided the following information which shows the total train operator hours required on any one week day to operate the current scheduled service:
| Underground line | Driver hours needed each weekday |
|---|---|
| Bakerloo | 811 hours 19 minutes |
| Central and Waterloo and City | 1,692 hours 27 minutes |
| Circle and Hammersmith and City | 943 hours 34 minutes |
| District | 1,879 hours 22 minutes |
| East London | 183 hours 17 minutes |
| Jubilee | 1,181 hours 05 minutes |
| Metropolitan | 1,094 hours 23 minutes |
| Northern | 1,930 hours 56 minutes |
| Piccadilly | 2,026 hours 14 minutes |
| Victoria | 904 hours 20 minutes |
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many London Underground trains were delayed more than 10 minutes in each year since 1994–95 broken down by line. [5012]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground. It measures train delays of 15 minutes or more, rather than 10 minutes—in line with
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 365W
the Customer Charter. London Underground work to 13 our-week periods in a year, and performance information is gathered on this basis. The following table
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 366W
shows London Underground's figures for the average number of trains delayed for 15 minutes or more in a period for the years requested:
| 1994–95 | 1995–96 | 1996–97 | 1997–98 | 1998–99 | 1999–2000 | 2000–01 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bakerloo | 22 | 25 | 14 | 17 | 20 | 25 | 23 |
| Central | 50 | 37 | 42 | 55 | 43 | 37 | 38 |
| Waterloo and City | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3 |
| District | 28 | 29 | 23 | 19 | 21 | 24 | 32 |
| Jubilee | 18 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 32 | 34 | 16 |
| East London | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8 |
| Metropolitan | 39 | 35 | 22 | 22 | 18 | 27 | 31 |
| Circle and Hammersmith | 16 | 17 | 8 | 15 | 15 | 16 | 22 |
| Northern | 30 | 33 | 23 | 26 | 24 | 23 | 17 |
| Piccadilly | 21 | 19 | 15 | 19 | 18 | 18 | 21 |
| Victoria | 13 | 8 | 8 | 14 | 10 | 11 | 7 |
| Total | 237 | 212 | 162 | 195 | 201 | 215 | 219 |
1. Waterloo and City included with Central to 1999–2000
2. East London closed 1995–96 to 1997–98; included with Jubilee 1994–95 and 1998/99 to 1999–2000
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the companies used by London Underground Limited to (a) install, (b) maintain and (c) replace London Underground signals, line by line, in the last five years. [5011]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has provided the following information on companies used as prime contractors for signalling in the last five years:
| Line | Install | Maintain | Replace |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jubilee | WSL | LUL/Infraco(9) | LUL/Infraco(9) |
| Northern | LUL/Infraco/Kvaerner | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco |
| Piccadilly | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco |
| Bakerloo | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco |
| Central | WSL/LUL | LUL/Infraco(9) | LUL/Infraco(9) |
| Victoria | LUL/Infraco(10) | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco |
| Waterloo and City | LUL/Infraco(10) | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco |
| District | LUL/Infraco(10) | LUL/Infraco and AMEC for Wimbledon branch | LUL/Infraco and AMEC for Wimbledon branch |
| Metropolitan | LUL/Infraco(10) | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco |
| Hammersmith and City | LUL/Infraco(10) | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco |
| Circle | LUL/Infraco(10) | LUL/Infraco | LUL/Infraco |
| East London | LUL/Infraco and Bombardier | LUL/Infraco(11) | LUL/Infraco(11) |
(9) Second line maintenance support provided by WSL
(10) Only minor works
(11) Second line maintenance support provided by Marconi
Notes:
WSL = Westinghouse Signals Ltd. (now known as Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd.)
AMEC = AMEC Rail Ltd. (subcontracted to Balfour Beatty BBRM)
In providing this information, London Underground have assumed that "replace" means like-for-like renewals. Where external companies are named, these are the prime contractors and no details of their subcontractors are given. LUL/Infracos also receive front-line support for some signalling control systems from:
| Line | |
|---|---|
| Central Line | WSL |
| Jubilee Line | Alcatel and Marconi |
| East London Line | Marconi |
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the average length of time London Underground staff stayed working for London Underground, broken down by (a) station staff, (b) train drivers, (c) managerial staff and (d) signals and points operators, for each line of the London Underground in each of the last five years. [5001]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has informed me that it does not hold data in a format which allows the question to be answered in precisely the form asked. However, it has been able to provide information on the average length of service of all those employees who left the company over each of the last five years. It has also provided information on the average number of years' service of staff currently still employed by London Underground.
| Station staff | Train operators | Managers | Signal operators | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 8.7 | 15.8 | 13 | 17.1 |
| 1997 | 7.8 | 13.6 | 21.7 | 15.1 |
| 1998 | 7.9 | 16.6 | 16.6 | 14.4 |
| 1999 | 6.5 | 16.2 | 8.9 | 12.9 |
| 2000 | 7.4 | 16.6 | 11.2 | 25.6 |
| Still employed | 9.3 | 13 | 17.1 | 17.2 |
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 367W
This information cannot be broken down by line without incurring disproportionate cost.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains ran per hour in (a) peak time and (b) other times in each year since 1994–95 broken down by line. [5009]
Mr. Jamieson: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on performance figures for the shadow running by the infraco companies in preparation for the partial privatisation of London Underground; [5015]
- (2) if he will list the performance targets set out for the shadow running by the infraco companies in preparation for the partial privatisation of London Underground. [5016]
Mr. Jamieson: The Government do not set specific targets for the performance of the individual infrastructure companies. Their performance is, however, reflected in the targets set for London Underground itself.
The table shows the performance targets that have been set for London Underground Ltd. in 2001–02, together with the corresponding actual performance at the end of March 2001:
| Actual performance at end March 2001 | Targeted performance by end March 2002 | |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity(12) | 63.8 | 65.6 |
| Reliability(13) | 3.69 | 3.63 |
| Customer satisfaction measures:(14) | ||
| Train service | 75 | 75 |
| Information | 76 | 77 |
| Customer safety and security | 80 | 80 |
| Staff helpfulness and availability | 68 | 69 |
| Cleanliness | 67 | 67 |
(12) Train kms run in millions
(13) Unweighted excess journey time in minutes
(14) Average scores out of 100
The Government will set stretching, longer-term performance targets for the London Underground as part of our proposals for a 21st century tube.
In addition to these performance targets, London Underground Ltd. has also been set the following specific investment targets for 2001–02:
- Total investment expenditure of at least £410 million.
- Specific investment to be completed:
- 19.5 km of track renewals
- five station upgrades
- five escalators replaced
- 15 escalators refurbished or repaired.
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 368W
The Government do not set specific safety related targets. London Underground operates services under the terms of the railways safety case approved by the Health and Safety Executive. The executive now has a double lock on safety. Before the tube modernisation plans can proceed, the executive must accept, firstly, London Underground's safety plans and, secondly, its revised safety plans to reflect the role of the private sector bidders.
The Government do not provide grant to London Transport for achieving individual targets, nor does London Underground Ltd. record actual expenditure on this basis. By the end of March 2002, a total of £2.781 billion of grant will have been provided to London Transport since April 1997, of which £2.399 billion will have been internally allocated to London Underground. The remainder has been utilised to provide other transport services, such as bus and river services, and Croydon Tramlink, before responsibility for these was transferred to Transport for London in July 2000.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the first year of public-private partnership funding of London Underground will be spent on (a) stations, (b) escalators, (c) signals and points and (d) track improvements. [5007]
Mr. Jamieson: The Government's plans for the London Underground will deliver £13 billion of investment over the first 15 years, giving London the 21st century underground that it deserves. The contracts to deliver this investment remain under negotiation. However, London Underground estimate that in the first year of the contracts, approximately 50 per cent. of investment spending will be on train systems including rolling stock and signalling. A further 25 per cent. of investment expenditure will be on infrastructure, including track and civil assets. The remaining 25 per cent. will be on stations, delivering the improvements that passengers consider important: making sure the lifts and escalators work; installing CCTV to improve passenger security; tackling congestion at the busiest stations; providing step-free access; and improving the quality and cleanliness of stations.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many violent incidents against London Underground staff by passengers there were in each financial year since 1994–95 broken down by each line of the London Underground. [5003]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground, which has provided the following information:
| Year | Physical assaults | Threats and abuse | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1994–95 | 419 | 233 | 652 |
| 1995–96 | 455 | 278 | 733 |
| 1996–97 | 399 | 236 | 635 |
| 1997–98 | 451 | 257 | 708 |
| 1998–99 | 460 | 286 | 746 |
| 1999–2000 | 518 | 427 | 945 |
| 2000–01 | 576 | 539 | 1,115 |
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 369W
The figures show the total number of assaults and threats of assault against London Underground staff by non-staff which have been reported internally. London Underground inform us that to provide a breakdown on a line-by-line basis would incur disproportionate costs as the data are not readily kept in this format.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains per hour in (a) peak time and (b) other times Westinghouse Signals were contracted to provide on the Jubilee Line of London Underground. [5010]
Mr. Jamieson: London Underground provides train services on the Jubilee Line. Westinghouse Signals do not provide trains but were contracted to provide signalling infrastructure enabling trains to be run.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many London Underground trains were delayed due to passenger illness in each month since 1994–95 broken down by line. [5006]
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 370W
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground. It operates to 13 four-week periods in a financial year and gathers its performance data to these timescales. It has provided the information in the tables as shown on train delays of over two minutes due to passenger illness, split by line and by period. London Underground does not hold data in this format prior to Period 7 (broadly September) in 1999. To collate previous information would incur disproportionate cost.
| 1999–2000 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P7 | P8 | P9 | P10 | P11 | P12 | P13 | |
| Bakerloo | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | — | 1 | — |
| Central | 12 | 16 | 15 | 5 | 12 | 7 | 15 |
| Circle | 1 | 2 | 1 | — | — | 2 | 1 |
| District | 4 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| East London | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Hammersmith and City | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Jubilee | 5 | — | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Metropolitan | 2 | 4 | — | — | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Northern | 11 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 16 | 12 | 10 |
| Piccadilly | 3 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 2 |
| Victoria | 3 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 4 |
| Waterloo and City | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total | 46 | 50 | 47 | 29 | 54 | 46 | 45 |
| 2000–01 | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | P9 | P10 | P11 | P12 | P13 | |
| Bakerloo | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | — | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Central | 10 | 7 | 7 | 14 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 15 | 2 | 12 | 11 | 8 |
| Circle | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | 2 | — | — | 3 | 2 |
| District | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| East London | — | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | — | — | 1 | — |
| Hammersmith and City | 1 | 2 | — | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | — | — | — | 1 |
| Jubilee | 6 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Metropolitan | — | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | — | — | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Northern | 8 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 10 | — | 2 | 8 | 8 | 7 |
| Piccadilly | 6 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 5 |
| Victoria | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Waterloo and City | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total | 41 | 33 | 37 | 50 | 52 | 34 | 27 | 39 | 40 | 27 | 47 | 52 | 39 |
| 2001–02 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | P2 | P3 | |
| Bakerloo | 2 | 1 | — |
| Central | 17 | 6 | 12 |
| Circle | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| District | 5 | 6 | 3 |
| East London | — | — | 1 |
| Hammersmith and City | — | — | 3 |
| Jubilee | 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Metropolitan | 2 | 1 | — |
| Northern | 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Piccadilly | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| Victoria | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| Waterloo and City | — | — | — |
| Total | 50 | 39 | 34 |
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many customers waited more than 10 minutes to purchase tickets for London Underground journeys broken down by station in each year since 1994–95. [5013]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground, which informs me that it does not gather information on ticket office performance in the format requested. It measures "the percentage of customers in a ticket queue for three minutes or more". This information is available by line, but it is not possible to break it down for the 253 stations operated by London Underground. The table sets out the average percentage of customers in a ticket queue for three minutes or more for each of the years requested.
(15) East London line formerly managed jointly with the Jubilee line and not separately surveyed before 1999–2000.
19 Jul 2001 : Column: 371W
It should be noted that over this period as a whole the pressures on the Underground network have risen substantially, with some 200 million extra passenger journeys undertaken last year compared to 1994–95.
Various measures are being taken as part of the Prestige PFI scheme to improve ticketing services. New multifare ticket machines have been installed across the network. These machines take credit and debit cards and are expected to help speed up ticket purchase time significantly. New ticket office machines and accounting systems are being installed which will help ticket office staff process transactions more swiftly. And by September 2001 50 new Queuebuster machines will be in place at key stations, selling a variety of tickets including weekly travelcards.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |