| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Fearn asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many tunnels in England (road and rail) are specifically fitted with fire precautions; and how many are not so fitted. [HL4041]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There is no central record of the fire precautions taken by each of the tunnel authorities. A range of safety measures are adopted as appropriate for the particular tunnel, its length, location and traffic.
Dissemination of good practice in relation to safety and operational management of road tunnels is provided through a twice-yearly UK Tunnel Operators' Forum for road tunnel operators in the UK and Ireland and through a published standard, BD 53/95, for tunnels records and inspections.
The department does not hold information on the number of rail tunnels fitted, or not fitted, with fire precautions. bern
National Air Traffic Services
Lord Bowness asked Her Majesty's Government:
- (a) What is the present financial position of National Air Traffic Services;
(b) for how long the Government short-term loan has been made available;
(c) what progress has been made in connection with securing additional equity; and
(d) what actions they propose to take, in the event of the discussions and negotiations with banks and other shareholders proving unsuccessful, to preserve the National Air Traffic Control Systems.[HL4062]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: NATS has experienced financial difficulties as a result of the downturn in traffic following the events of 11 September. To relieve NATS' cash flow position, its lending banks and the Government, as the largest shareholder, have agreed to make available a short-term bridging loan to a maximum of £60 million up to 30 September 2002. Normal commercial terms apply to the loan.
As part of the long-term solution for NATS finances, the company is currently conducting a search for a new equity investor on a competitive basis.
The Transport Act 2000 provides for the maintenance of safe services in the event of financial failure by a company providing services under the Act.
Freight Wharves
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What financial support is available to assist with (a) the creation and (b) the improvements of freight wharves and support facilities on inland waterways.[HL4093]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Financial support is available from my department in the form of freight facilities grant. Typically 50 per cent of the capital cost of creating or improving wharves and associated facilities may be paid. To qualify for grant, applicants must be able to demonstrate clear environmental benefits in the form of lorry journeys saved as a result of the investment. Under extended powers given by the Transport Act 2000, this grant may now also be paid for coastal or short sea shipping freight facilities.
Local Government Grant Distribution Formula
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What account they will take of the extra cost of providing public services in rural areas in the local government grant distribution formula in England for 2003–04.[HL4140]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are working with local government to develop options for fairer and more intelligible grant distribution formulae. This includes issues of concern to rural areas, such as the treatment of sparsity. We will consult on options for reform over the summer and will consider the responses when we come to take decisions.
London Underground
Baroness Thornton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What progress has been made with the plans for the modernisation of London Underground.[HL4213]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have been advised by the board of London Regional Transport that London Underground Limited has today signed public/private partnership contracts to modernise and maintain London Underground's infrastructure.
There are three contracts, which will each run for 30 years. Those for two of the infrastructure companies will go to Metronet, and the third to the Tube Lines Group.
In a statement to the House on 7 February we set out why the Government supported London Transport's decision that it was minded to proceed with the Tube modernisation plans. The Government have consistently set out three key tests that the plans must pass if they are to proceed: that they are not a privatisation; that they should offer value for money; and that they should be safe for both passengers and staff.
We are satisfied that the modernisation plans are not a privatisation. The ownership of the assets, and the operation of the public service, stay in the public sector. It is also likely that the assets will continue to be scored on London Underground's balance sheet, in the public sector.
We are also satisfied that the arrangements offer value for money, when judged against alternative proposals. At our request, Ernst & Young reviewed London Underground's original value for money assessment and confirmed that, overall, London Underground's methodology for assessing value for money was robust, and that London Underground's recommendation that the PPP proposals deliver value for money, while subjective, was supported by its analysis. Since then, Ernst & Young has reviewed the work done by London Underground to update the value for money assessment in respect of material changes to the contracts. It confirmed that London Underground's approach was consistent with that used for the previous report. We have placed a copy of its update in the Library of the House.
The Health and Safety Executive has still to reach a final judgment on London Underground's revised railway safety case. The position therefore remains that the Tube modernisation plans will only proceed if the independent regulator accepts the safety arrangements for both passengers and staff.
Subject to approval of the safety case, we share London Regional Transport's belief that the modernisation plans are the right solution and offer significant benefits for Londoners.
Fares will continue to be set by the Mayor of London. The modernisation plans do not require fares to rise faster than inflation.
The three contracts are intended to take effect by the summer. We notified Parliament on 20 March that we were considering issuing a comfort letter in support of each of the contracts. Our intention is that such comfort letters should be issued shortly before the transactions are completed.
London Regional Transport's decision has been taken in the light of an extensive consultation with Transport for London. London Regional Transport has accepted some of the points Transport for London has made, and made changes to the contracts accordingly.
We fully support the decision taken today by the board of London Regional Transport and look forward to the modernisation plans coming into operation.
It remains my intention that the ownership of London Underground will be transferred to Transport for London as soon as possible.
Countryside Access: Zoonoses
The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is the increased risk of zoonoses as a result of their granting greater access to the countryside; and what is the extra cost to farmers to insure against this.[HL3911]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): The new access rights granted by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act will apply only on
"access land" and generally not on improved or semi-improved grass land which is more intensively grazed and where the public is more likely to come into contact with animals and their faeces. The overall risk to the individual user of the countryside from zoonoses and to farmers' livestock from humans carrying such infections is therefore not expected to change significantly.Specified Risk Material Incinerators
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many specified risk material incinerators are more than 10 miles from a licensed landfill site; and where they are located.[HL4014]
Lord Whitty: This information is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Veterinary Science Research:DEFRA/MAFF Funding
Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What was the level of funding by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its predecessor to veterinary science research by category for each of the past 10 years.[HL4097]
Lord Whitty: The level of DEFRA/MAFF-funded research into veterinary science has increased from £20.7 million to £37.5 million per annum over the past 10 years, 1992–93 to 2001–02 inclusive.
A summary of annual costs is attached, broken down by disease category.
| SE | FBZ | TB | Welfare | TSEs | Endemics | Vetmed | Total spend | |
| DEFRA/MAFF funded veterinary research | ||||||||
| 1992–93 | 2,534,312 | 1,314,202 | 922,200 | 5,047,372 | 5,700,000 | 4,238,000 | 1,011,000 | 20,767,086 |
| 1993–94 | 3,655,164 | 1,613,991 | 1,071,544 | 4,829,620 | 6,200,000 | 4,805,000 | 1,151,000 | 23,326,319 |
| 1994–95 | 4,426,804 | 1,712,476 | 1,286,560 | 4,228,202 | 5,800,000 | 3,960,771 | 1,689,424 | 23,104,237 |
| 1995–96 | 4,189,123 | 1,908,169 | 1,484,286 | 4,255,462 | 5,600,000 | 3,892,278 | 1,712,758 | 23,042,076 |
| 1996–97 | 3,997,814 | 1,920,323 | 1,692,981 | 4,200,706 | 6,800,000 | 3,995,019 | 1,837,397 | 24,444,240 |
| 1997–98 | 3,650,299 | 1,993,241 | 1,719,387 | 4,087,745 | 10,100,000 | 3,785,207 | 1,804,333 | 27,140,212 |
| 1998–99 | 3,549,670 | 1,743,123 | 2,541,005 | 3,654,758 | 12,651,000 | 3,760,415 | 1,809,258 | 29,709,229 |
| 1999–2000 | 3,803,981 | 3,023,709 | 4,114,066 | 3,361,174 | 15,068,000 | 3,315,959 | 1,439,685 | 34,126,574 |
| 2000–01 | 3,746,853 | 3,528,362 | 5,265,709 | 3,714,391 | 13,284,000 | 3,127,310 | 1,576,388 | 34,243,013 |
| 2001–02 | 3,864,687 | 3,348,476 | 6,112,005 | 3,208,878 | 16,243,407 | 2,967,958 | 1,831,383 | 37,576,794 |
| Universities | ||||||||
| 1992–93 | 0 | 111,202 | 96,004 | 1,203,014 | 227,711 | 0 | 0 | 1,637,931 |
| 1993–94 | 0 | 69,991 | 97,404 | 938,871 | 311,074 | 0 | 0 | 1,417,340 |
| 1994–95 | 0 | 71,480 | 21,560 | 746,610 | 312,800 | 0 | 81,736 | 1,234,186 |
| 1995–96 | 0 | 57,978 | 49,350 | 750,917 | 195,951 | 0 | 7,670 | 1,061,866 |
| 1996–97 | 0 | 0 | 48,414 | 980,143 | 240,727 | 117,377 | 42,612 | 1,428,818 |
| 1997–98 | 0 | 0 | 71,759 | 1,243,793 | 398,298 | 146,316 | 122,981 | 1,983,147 |
| 1998–99 | 0 | 0 | 92,933 | 1,020,863 | 342,331 | 136,069 | 62,629 | 1,654,825 |
| 1999–2000 | 0 | 402,245 | 843,914 | 821,287 | 608,004 | 49,923 | 34,469 | 2,759,842 |
| 2000–01 | 0 | 926,920 | 1,113,194 | 1,296,000 | 876,898 | 206,603 | 246,518 | 4,666,133 |
| 2001–02 | 0 | 1,033,110 | 1,277,677 | 1,427,790 | 1,122,086 | 389,745 | 389,745 | 5,640,153 |
| Other institutes | ||||||||
| 1992–93 | 2,534,312 | 1,203,000 | 826,196 | 3,844,358 | 5,472,289 | 4,238,000 | 1,011,000 | 19,129,155 |
| 1993–94 | 3,655,164 | 1,544,000 | 974,140 | 3,890,749 | 5,888,926 | 4,805,000 | 1,151,000 | 21,908,979 |
| 1994–95 | 4,426,804 | 1,640,996 | 1,265,000 | 3,481,592 | 5,487,200 | 3,960,771 | 1,607,688 | 21,870,051 |
| 1995–96 | 4,189,123 | 1,850,191 | 1,434,936 | 3,504,545 | 5,404,049 | 3,892,278 | 1,705,088 | 21,980,210 |
| 1996–97 | 3,997,814 | 1,920,323 | 1,644,567 | 3,220,663 | 6,559,728 | 3,877,642 | 1,794,785 | 23,015,522 |
| 1997–98 | 3,650,299 | 1,993,241 | 1,647,628 | 2,843,952 | 9,701,702 | 3,638,891 | 1,681,352 | 25,157,065 |
| 1998–99 | 3,549,670 | 1,743,123 | 2,448,072 | 2,631,895 | 12,308,669 | 3,624,346 | 1,746,629 | 28,052,404 |
| 1999–2000 | 3,803,981 | 2,621,464 | 3,270,152 | 2,539,887 | 14,459,996 | 3,266,036 | 1,405,216 | 31,366,732 |
| 2000–01 | 3,746,853 | 2,601,442 | 4,152,515 | 2,418,391 | 12,407,102 | 2,920,707 | 1,329,870 | 29,576,880 |
| 2001–02 | 3,864,687 | 2,315,366 | 4,834,328 | 1,781,088 | 15,121,321 | 2,578,213 | 1,441,638 | 31,936,641 |
Notes:
SE—Statutory and exotic diseases.
FBZ—Food borne zoonoses.
TB—Bovine tuberculosis.
Welfare—Animal welfare.
TSEs—Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.
Endemics—Alternatives to pharmaceutical control of disease.
Vetmed—Veterinary medicines.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page