|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications for mobile phone masts have been determined under delegated authority in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority. 
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has had with telecom operators on the shared use of mobile phone masts. 
Mr. Byers: The Government's policy is to encourage mast and site sharing where that is the optimum environmental solution in a particular case. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, "Telecommunications" provides guidance on this.
7 May 2002 : Column 25W
The Department is currently drawing up, in partnership with representatives of the mobile phone operators and local government, a revised Code of Best Practice, which will include advice and best practice on siting and design of mobile phone mast development. In drawing up the advice, mast sharing has been discussed. I expect the revised Code of Best Practice to include advice and best practice about mast sharing.
Miss Kirkbride: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reasons district councils are not directly involved in local public service agreements; and what plans he has to extend them to district councils. 
Mr. Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many houses (a) have been built in areas deemed as high risk of flooding in each year since 1997 and (b) are planned in such areas. 
Ms Keeble: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 7 November 2001, Official Report, columns 29495W. The most recent land-use change statistics will be published shortly.
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many assisted living units per local authority there were in England in each of the last five years. 
Ms Keeble: Prior to the introduction of the Supporting People programme most local authorities were not involved in the practice of mapping supply of assisted living units in their area. It is therefore not possible to provide the information you require. However following the 'supply mapping' deadline for the Supporting People programme, which is the end of May 2002, an accurate picture of the number of units per local authority should be available.
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to issue guidance to commissioning bodies under the Supporting People scheme on partnerships with social services. 
Ms Keeble: Commissioning Bodies are a partnership of housing, social services, probation and health who will together plan the Supporting People strategy for their local areas. Comprehensive guidance was published in October 2001. It can be found on the website www.spkweb.org.uk under Emerging Policy.
7 May 2002 : Column 26W
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial support his Department has given since 1 April 2000 to projects in the UK run by the British Red Cross. 
Dr. Whitehead: Since 1 April 2000 an examination of accounting records has revealed that DTLR(C) has made no contributions to the state funding of the British Red Cross or to projects run by the British Red Cross.
Mrs. Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that district authorities have the flexibility to fund and deliver high quality public services to local people. 
Dr. Whitehead: The Local Government White Paper "Strong Local LeadershipQuality Public Services", published December 2001, sets out our broad vision for local government. The White Paper contains our commitments to provide local authorities with wider powers and increased financial flexibility, and for Government to decrease unnecessary control over authorities to assist with the delivery of improved public services and better community leadership.
Ms Keeble: The Department is very concerned about the number of public transport workers who are assaulted at work. The Department is raising awareness and addressing the issue through research programmes and good practice guidance for public transport operators.
Work-related violence is a health and safety issue, and employers have a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to protect their staff from the risk of violence in the course of their work. The specific assistance given to public transport workers who are assaulted at work is a matter for the individual transport operator. For example, London Underground staff receive support from their managers in the form of sympathetic treatment, home visits, hospital visits (if applicable), gradual reintroduction to the work place (including move of location if appropriate), assistance in legal proceedings (support at court) and assistance with CICA claims. They may also receive support from in-house Employee Assistance.
Mr. Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the installation of a train protection system; if he will make a statement on the recent report from the Commission for Integrated Transport on this subject; and if he will make a statement. 
7 May 2002 : Column 27W
Mr. Jamieson: The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 require automatic train protection (ATP), where reasonably practical, or otherwise the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), to be fitted on all trains and throughout the network by the end of 2003. The rail industry estimates that TPWS should mitigate over 80 per cent. of ATP-preventable risk. Mandatory common technical specifications (TSIs) developed under the European rail interoperability directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC will mean that a European form of ATP, known as the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), should be fitted to all high speed and many conventional rail lines in Great Britain when they are constructed, upgraded or (conventional lines only) renewed.
The public inquiry report into train protection systems, chaired by Professor Uff and Lord Cullen, recommended that ERTMS be adopted as the standard form of train protection in this country. On 25 April the rail industry published a report setting out what it considered a feasible timetable for fitting ERTMS to Britain's railways. I have asked the Health and Safety Commission, as the independent rail safety regulator, to review the industry report. They will want to have a constructive debate on all the issues raised including costs and timing before they report back to me with formal recommendations. I look forward to receiving the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations and then deciding the best way forward.
The report from the Commission for Integrated Transport argued that level 1 of ERTMS would reduce capacity on high speed, high capacity lines, causing travellers to switch to roads, with a much worse safety record than rail, leading to more fatalities overall. The industry report on ERTMS makes a similar point. I would expect the HSC to consider these points when reviewing the report and making their recommendations.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when the contracts resulting from the SRA's freight innovation competition were signed with (a) Blue Circle industries, (b) Exel and (c) Minimodal; 
(3) what the results were of the mechanical engineering checks that were carried out as part of the SRA's freight innovation competition; 
(4) what the criteria were against which the entrants for the SRA's freight innovation competition were judged; 
(5) if he will place in the Library the Heads of Agreement for the contracts signed by (a) Blue Circle Industries, (b) Exel and (c) Minimodal, following the SRA's freight innovation competition; 
7 May 2002 : Column 28W
(7) how much has been spent by (a) the Department, (b) the SRA and (c) other Government bodies as part of the SRA's freight innovation competition. 
Mr. Byers: The winners of the Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) freight innovation competition were announced on 13 June 2000. The contracts were signed on 26 January 2001 in all three cases and none of these contracts have been renegotiated. The terms of the contracts are commercially confidential and could not be disclosed without the agreement of all parties to the contracts. The Authority selected projects submitted which scored highest against the published criteria and these were audited by a consultant to assess their deliverability in all areas including vehicle acceptance and operational issues prior to selection. The guidance notes for applicants, which include the criteria used to judge the competition, have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Up to the end of the year 200102 the SRA, which is wholly responsible for financing the competition, has spent £4.52 million as a result of it.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 April 2002, Official Report, column 569W, what contractual arrangements exist for access to the network by rail freight operators. 
Mr. Jamieson: Freight train operators need to hold access contracts with Railtrack. These are subject to approval by the Rail Regulator in accordance with the provisions in sections 17 to 22c of the Railways Act 1993 (as amended by the Transport Act 2000).
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|