Previous Section Index Home Page


Pilots' Licences

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the Air Navigation Order to give effect to a national private pilot's licence; when he hopes to amend the ANO; and if he will permit flying hours undertaken by student pilots from 1 May to count towards the issue of an NPPL. [157962]

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Civil Aviation Authority advises that detailed negotiations with industry representatives over proposals for a national private pilots licence are moving towards a satisfactory conclusion. Once agreement has been reached, there will follow the normal period of consultation and, subject to general agreement on the proposals, it is hoped to amend the ANO in order to give effect to a NPPL from the beginning of next year.

As regards previously accumulated flying hours, the NPPL is envisaged as being a "stand alone" licence, with no read across or equivalence to the Joint Aviation Requirements--Private Pilot's Licence. It will, in effect, exist in isolation of other ICAO compliant licences. Therefore, training to the NPPL syllabus will not be permitted prior to its coming into effect, and no credit will be granted for flying hours acquired under other training syllabuses.

Railtrack

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much Government funding has been provided to Railtrack through other bodies in each year since 1997. [157752]

Mr. Hill: My answer dated 18 December 2000, Official Report, column 7W, provided details of Government funding to train operating companies (TOCs) in 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. In addition, the Government paid freight grants of £21 million, £19 million and £17 million respectively to freight operating companies (FOCs) in those years. That funding is not hypothecated to cover particular types of expenditure, so it cannot be directly identified as the source of payments made by TOCs and FOCs to Railtrack. For example, in addition to Government funding, TOCs receive income from Passenger Transport Executives, from fares paid for passenger services and from payments made for other services.

The table provides details, for 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000, of access charges paid to Railtrack by TOCs and FOCs, as stated in Railtrack's Annual Reports and Accounts 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

Access charges paid to Railtrack by Tocs and Focs

£ million cash prices
1997-981998-991999-2000
Passenger access charges paid by TOCs2,1492,1692,175
Freight access charges paid by FOCs164169158
Railtrack's passenger and freight income2,3132,3382,333

Note:

Railtrack's passenger and freight income makes up some 90 per cent. of its total income. The company's profitability is therefore contingent on Government funding.


10 Apr 2001 : Column: 501W

London Underground

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fires there have been on London Underground property in each of (a) the last 10 years (b) the past 12 months. [157473]

Mr. Hill [holding answer 9 April 2001]: London Underground have provided the following figures for fires on their property in recent years and by month in 2000-01.

YearTotal
1996-97378
1997-98407
1998-99360
1999-2000301
2000-01280

MonthTotal
2000
April19
May36
June35
July26
August18
September15
October27
November17
December12
2001
January25
February22
March28

Figures for years before 1996-97 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many services on the London Underground have been delayed for more than 30 minutes due to train or passenger accidents in each of (a) the last 10 years and (b) the past 12 months. [157471]

Mr. Hill [holding answer 9 April 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd. (LUL) who have provided the following information on delays to train services of 30 minutes and over as a result of train or passenger accidents, for recent years and in the last 12 months.

Total
1996-9764
1997-9851
1998-9948
1999-200057
2000-0152

Total
April 20001
May 200010
June 20005
July 20002
August 20004
September 20001
October 20007
November 20004
December 20003
January 20015
February 20017
March 20013

10 Apr 2001 : Column: 502W

Figures for years before 1996-97 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the projected cost is of the revised Channel Tunnel Rail Link II; how much of this will be (a) public and (b) private finance; how many extra train paths per hour it is estimated will be provided (i) between St. Pancras-Kings Cross and Fawkham Junction and (ii) between Fawkham Junction and the Channel Tunnel; when it is expected that tunnelling for CTRL II will be completed; and when work on the remodelled St. Pancras-Kings Cross International station will be completed. [157463]

Mr. Hill [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Following the collapse of the original 1996 agreement with London and Continental Railways and the re-structuring of the deal in 1998, the total cost of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is expected to be £5.2 billion in outturn (ie nominal) prices. Section 1 is expected to cost £1.9 billion and Section 2 £3.3 billion.

Government will provide grants of £2.3 billion for the construction of Section 2. Thus up to the completion of construction £2.3 billion of funding will be public and £1 billion private sector. Government will also receive land rental payments from leasing the land on which the CTRL is built to the Concession holder.

When complete the full length of the CTRL will allow for up to six Eurostar paths per hour, eight paths reserved for the Domestic Operator, two Open Access paths and paths for high speed freight.

The current Section 2 programme shows tunnelling to be completed in June 2005 and work at St. Pancras in March 2006. The Section 2 of the CTRL is expected to open and services to start running in 2007.

Foot and Mouth

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place Stafford borough council and Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council on the list of those areas in receipt of business rate relief in respect of foot and mouth disease. [157613]

Mr. Meacher: Stafford borough council and Newcastle- under-Lyme borough council are not authorities which meet the criteria or rurality used for the targeting of this scheme. However, I have agreed to keep the operation of the scheme under review.

10 Apr 2001 : Column: 503W

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the rural local authorities to which the emergency business rate relief scheme is applicable due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [157497]

Mr. Meacher [holding answer 9 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 26 March 2001, Official Report, columns 425-26W.

Mr. Burgon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure there is adequate landfill capacity to dispose of animal carcases from the foot and mouth disease outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158295]

Mr. Meacher: I issued yesterday the Waste (Foot and Mouth Disease) (England) Regulations 2001 for statutory consultation with appropriate bodies and a copy was placed in the Library of the House.

The main purpose of the proposed Regulations is to enable the Secretary of State to issue directions requiring the holders of waste management licences for specified landfill sites to accept and dispose of specified kinds of agricultural waste. These Regulations and the consequential directions are necessary to ensure that waste arising from the foot and mouth disease outbreak is disposed of effectively and in ways which ensure protection for the environment and human health.


Next Section Index Home Page