Previous Section Index Home Page


25 Mar 2004 : Column 981W—continued

London Transport (Grants)

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants were made available to (a) the Greater London Authority, (b) Transport for London, and (c) each London borough from his Department in each of the last four financial years. [163060]

Mr. McNulty: The Department for Transport has provided the following level of funding for Transport for London (TfL) through the GLA Transport Grant over the last four years:

£ million

GLA Transport Grant
2000–01(15)396.161
2001–02720.053
2002–031,024.118
2003–04(16)1,681.932

(15) ncludes funding for TfL's predecessor bodies in 2000–01 before the creation of TfL in July 2000. A further £95m of credit approvals were issued by the Government Office for London to London Boroughs for transport capital projects in 2000–01; such support was issued as grant to boroughs by TfL in subsequent years.

(16) nly includes funding for London Underground following its transfer to TfL in July 2003. Before then £872 million grant had been paid for 2003–04.


The Department has not provided any direct funding to London boroughs for transport improvements following the creation of TfL, which is now responsible for allocating borough capital funding. Boroughs, however, do use some of their Revenue Support Grant allocation from the Office of Deputy Prime Minister to fund routine highway maintenance works, concessionary fare provision, and other local transport planning and management activities.

25 Mar 2004 : Column 982W

M25

Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the hold-up of traffic flows on the M25 consequent on the accident in the vicinity of junctions 29 and 31 on 17 March, with particular reference to (a) the length in miles of the hold-up at its peak and (b) the duration of the hold-up; and what actions were taken by the (i) Highways Agency and (ii) Essex and Kent Police (A) to advise motorists of the hold-up and (B) to ameliorate the delay and congestion, broken down by time. [163256]

Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 23 March 2004]: There were severe delays and inconvenience caused to motorists as a result of the fatal accident that occurred on the M25 between Junctions 29 and 30 on Wednesday 17 March.

The Highways Agency and the emergency services are urgently carrying out a thorough investigation into this incident and accident management. As soon as the report's findings are known, the relevant information will be forwarded to my hon. Friend and copies placed in the Libraries of the House.

Motorised Scooters/Wheelchairs

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for what reasons electric-powered wheelchairs are restricted to a maximum speed of 8 mph when being used on a road; and if he will make a statement; [162916]

25 Mar 2004 : Column 983W

Dr. Howells: Powered wheelchairs and powered scooters are designed to provide independent mobility for people with a physical disability. Their use is governed by The Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988 (SI 1988 No.2268). There are two classes of powered vehicle: class 2 vehicles are restricted to 4 mph (6.4 kph) and are designed to be used on footways; class 3 vehicles are restricted to 4 mph (6.4 kph) on the footway and 8mph (12.8kph) on the carriageway.

The vehicles are treated for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act as not being motor vehicles and are, therefore, outside the scope of most requirements of road vehicle construction regulations. Users do not need a driving licence and are not subject to a test.

The speed of 8 mph (12.8 kph) was set following consultation with disability organisations, industry and road safety groups and was intended to provide a balance between the needs of the users for local outdoor mobility and road safety concerns both for the users and for others on the road. We are currently reviewing the regulations and we will be holding a wide-ranging consultation later this year on a range of issues including speed limits.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2004, Official Report, column 405W, on motorised scooters, what research his Department has commissioned on deaths and injuries involving Class 2 and Class 3 invalid carriages. [163843]

Mr. McNulty: The Department for Transport has commissioned research as part of a major review of the legislation governing the use of Class 2 and Class 3 invalid carriages on the highway. The first stage of the research is to estimate the numbers of these vehicles that are being used and to find out how many accidents or incidents there are involving them. This stage of the work should be completed shortly.

Press Officers

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many press officers were employed in his Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what the total cost was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [162847]

Mr. McNulty: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 9 March 2004, Official Report, column 1410W, that provided information for the financial year 2003–04.

In 2002–03 there was an average of 12.7 full time equivalent (fte) press officers employed with related salary costs of £0.51 million in DfT(C), covering the 10 month period from the creation of the Department in late May 2002.

Information for each of the financial years between 1997–2002, when transport policy formed part of the remit of the former Departments' of Environment, Transport and the Regions and Transport, Local Government and the Regions, is not available in a comparable format.

25 Mar 2004 : Column 984W

Detailed information on the numbers of permanent press officers employed in departmental press offices, including the former Department of Transport (DoT) for the financial year 1996–97, was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on the Government Information and Communication Service (HC 770) in July 1998 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmpubadm/770/77002.htm).

Comparable staffing figures for the former DoT (central) between 1993–94 to 1995–96 are:

Number
1995–9620
1994–9517
1993–9419

The salary costs of these staff can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Comparable information for earlier years is not available.

Rail Services/Stations

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of trains to Portsmouth Harbour from (a) London Waterloo, (b) London Victoria and (c) Southampton and the west (i) arrived within five minutes of their advertised arrival time and (ii) terminated before reaching Portsmouth Harbour in the last (A) month and (B) 12 month period for which information is available. [163539]

Mr. McNulty: The information requested is not collated centrally in the format required.

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the maintenance of the timetabled rail service between London Waterloo and Shanklin. [163540]

Mr. McNulty: Responsibility for the provision of train services, to timetable, is for the train operating companies.

Where more than one train operating company provide elements of a journey, as is the case between London Waterloo and Shanklin, it is the responsibility of each train operating company to ensure that their services run to the timetable for their element of the journey.

Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has with respect to the re-opening of railway stations in Scotland. [162945]

Mr. McNulty: The Strategic Rail Authority is responsible for the strategic development and funding of the national rail network, including the Scottish network. The Scottish Executive may facilitate the development and improvement of Scottish passenger rail services, including station re-openings and the provision of new stations.

25 Mar 2004 : Column 985W

Road Noise

Shona McIsaac: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which concrete trunk roads have been resurfaced with low noise materials, broken down by cost of each project; [162578]

Mr. Jamieson: In year funding is not specifically allocated for resurfacing of concrete trunk roads with low noise materials. The following concrete trunk roads have been resurfaced with low noise materials and broken down by the cost of each project and the year of completion.

Concrete sectionscompleted inM20Cost (£ million)
1999–2000J3-J57.5
2000–01J9-J106.0
2001–02No schemes completedNo schemes completed

Concrete sections completed in 2002–03Cost (£ million)
M1 80: Junction 2 to Beltoft2.3
A12 Brentwood Bypass Phase 212.8
M11 Junction 8 (Stansted Slip Road Contract)3.7
M20J11—Sellindge7.4
M20 Sellindge—Smeeth
M27 Junctions 2–319.1
M27 Junctions 3–4
M11 J7–6 Southbound3.2
M5 Junctions 26 to 27 Contract 11.6
Sub total50.1

Concrete sections completed in 2003–04Cost (£ million)
A1 Long Bennington4.4
M42 Junctions 2–3a7.4
M180 Sandtoft—Junction 24.0
M11 B1038 (Newport)—All10.9
M1 Junctions 1–26.9
M20 Junctions 11a-117.8
M20 Junctions 13–11a
M25 J26–2714.3
M5 Junctions 26 to 27 Contract 23.7
M5 J27 South to Willand4.9
A12 Witham-Kelvedon13.7
Sub total78.0

25 Mar 2004 : Column 986W

M20 J11 to Sellindge and M20 Sellindge to Smeeth schemes were delivered as one project. The same applies to M20 Junctions 11a to 11 and M20 Junctions 13 to 11a schemes and the M27 Junctions 2 to 3 and M27 Junctions 3 to 4.

The Highways Agency has reported the following allocated expenditure for concrete trunk roads resurfacing with low noise materials since 1999:

£ million
1999–20007.5
2000–016
2001–020.7
2002–0351.4
2003–0476


Next Section Index Home Page