|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Laws: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on (a) the (i) timing and (ii) structure of the proposed review of the new voting systems in the devolved administrations and (b) the report of the Jenkins Commission. 
Yvette Cooper: Magistrates' Courts have responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed through the courts, including not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out just fines from the total.
The fall in impositions over the period April 2001 to March 2002 was due to the fact that under the Human Rights Act introduced in October 2000 some of the accommodation at Liverpool was judged to be unsuitable and so work had to be transferred to other courts within Merseyside while remedial building work was completed at Liverpool.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for how long the Strategic Rail Authority has been in negotiation with South West Trains for its franchise renewal;  (2) when he intends to announce the South West Trains franchise renewal. 
Mr. Spellar: The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) signed heads of terms with Stagecoach in April 2001. Negotiation of a new franchise agreement is continuing. On 1 July the SRA announced that, while negotiations for a long-term franchise continue, the existing South West Trains franchise has been amended to provide a £29 million package of improvements for passengers including new Desiro trains.
12 Jul 2002 : Column 1230W
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason a tall fence is being erected adjacent to the hard shoulder on the southbound carriageway of the M1 motorway south of junction 25; what the total cost is of the works; who authorised the same; and who is bearing the cost.
Mr. Spellar: The Highways Agency has received numerous complaints from local residents living adjacent to the M1 south of junction 25 about the high level of traffic noise. As part of the Government's "New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", revised criteria and a ring fenced annual budget have been established to help the Agency to deal with some of the most serious and pressing cases of noise from the motorway and trunk road network.
Following an initial assessment of sites on the network, the M1 junction 25 was identified as an area with a particular noise problem and was subsequently included in the list of locations to be prioritised for treatment published in Hansard in November 1999. This was followed by a detailed Scheme Identification Study to determine the most appropriate and viable method of reducing the noise problems at this location. Environmental barriers were found to be the most cost effective solution. A local consultation exercise was carried out in October 2000.
The estimated final cost of the works is £1.2 million, but this includes an element for the upgrade of part of the motorway communications network (approximately £130,000), which is being carried out at the same time. The work was authorised and is being funded by the Highways Agency.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on application of the legislation on access to the ground-handling market at Community airports is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Jamieson: The mandate of the ground handling committee is to advise the Commission when member states apply for exemptions from the ground handling directive. There are no cases currently being considered by the committee and so there is no date set for its next meeting. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility on access to the groundhandling market is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.
Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels with hazardous cargoes have been allowed to transit a compulsory pilotage district since 12 December 2001 (a) in total and (b) without an authorised pilot on board. 
12 Jul 2002 : Column 1231W
Mr. Spellar: The Department does not hold this information nationally. The new arrangements for pilotage on the Humber began on 12 December 2001: it is understood that no vessels with bulk hazardous cargoes have been allowed to transit that pilotage district since that date without an authorised pilot on board.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the countries of origin of the pilots' certificates of the Humber Pilots employed by ABP; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those schemes supported by the Rural Bus Challenge competition identified by his Department as providing best practice examples. 
Mr. Jamieson: Research commissioned by my Department on the impact of the rural bus grant schemes introduced in 199899 is currently on-going. This work includes consideration of examples of good practice supported under the Rural Bus Challenge. The research report is expected by the end of this year and will be published.
Mr. Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) fatal motor vehicle accidents, (b) fatalities, (c) motor vehicle accidents resulting in serious injury and (d) motor vehicle accidents requiring the attendance of an ambulance there were on the (i) A47 between Uppingham and Leicester and (ii) A52 between Barrowby and Bingham in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Jamieson: The number of fatal accidents, fatalities and serious road accidents for the stretches of road requested are shown in the tables below. Information is not available on the number of accidents requiring the attendance of an ambulance.
|Year of Accident||Fatal accidents||Fatalities||Serious accidents|
(1) Uppingham is taken as OS reference .
(2) Leicester is taken as OS reference .
(P)> Figures for 2001 are provisional.
12 Jul 2002 : Column 1232W
Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) factors and (b) criteria were used by Defence Estates Organisation in their table-top evaluation of the likely sale value of Dean Hill Munitions Depot. 
The valuation was based on the estimated realisation price, assuming that the sites had been subject to a Phase 2 Land Quality Assessment. It had been proposed that the eventual value for the site would be abated by the cost of the remedial work once known. Site inspections were permitted. However, in view of the sensitivity of the issues and as the purpose was to inform an investment appraisal, no approach was made to the local planning authority at that stage.
Due to the absence of clear planning guidance, with the exception of the residential property and agricultural land, the possible future uses of the remainder of the site were limited, The value was established by assuming disposal of the residential and agricultural property, and based on the limited redevelopment and re-use of the remaining area for potential employment uses.
Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 Consultative Document (D/DM/72/46/1) dated 24 June were printed; and if he will list the locations to which they were distributed. 
Mr. Ingram: Director of Military Operations did not participate in the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2. The study drew its knowledge of anticipated Tri Service munitions requirements from both the current and
12 Jul 2002 : Column 1233W
future munitions equipment owners who were asked to take into account the latest output from the Ministry of Defence's Stockpile Planning Group.
Other MOD customers and internal stakeholders (particularly Strike Command given the nature of the RAF tasks currently undertaken at Defence Munitions Dean Hill) have been made aware of the proposal to close DM Dean Hill.
Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the recommendations of Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 will achieve a 20 per cent reduction in operating costs by March 2004. 
Mr. Ingram: Defence Munitions is part of the DG Defence Supply Chain (DG Def SC) that, in turn, is part of the Defence Logistics Organisation. Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 identified a number of potential efficiency initiatives pertinent to the Defence Munitions environment, including the proposal to close Defence Munitions Dean Hill. Taken together as a package these initiatives will, if implemented, contribute towards the DG Def SC Strategic Plan which is designed to deliver a 20 per cent reduction in operating costs by Financial Year 200506.
Mr. Ingram: The Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 presented their final report to the Defence Munitions Management Board in February 2002. There then followed an internal Departmental approvals procedure which culminated in a submission to Minister (Armed Forces) in June 2002.
12 Jul 2002 : Column 1234W
Mr. Ingram: In June 2001 Defence Estates South West were requested to provide an outline desktop valuation of the Dean Hill Munitions Site to inform the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 Investment Appraisal. Given the nature of the valuation requested no external advice was sought.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|