Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


16 Oct 2000 : Column WA61

Written Answers

Monday, 16th October 2000.

London Underground Ltd

Baroness Howells of St Davids asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What impact the adoption of the accounting requirements of Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 15 have had on London Underground Ltd's Annual Accounts for 1999-2000. [HL4230]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): The accounts of London Underground Ltd are prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985, which requires compliance with all accounting standards. Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 15, issued by the Accounting Standards Board, became mandatory for accounting periods ending on or after 23 March 2000 and has consequently been adopted by London Underground in its accounts for the year ended 31 March 2000.

FRS15 sets out the principles of accounting for tangible fixed assets. As well as imposing stricter rules on the allocation of overheads to capital projects, the standard requires that expenditure previously treated as renewals must now either be charged to cost of operations, or capitalised as an addition to fixed assets.

The revised accounting policies have reduced London Underground Ltd's gross operating margin for 1999-2000 to £153.6 million (from £293.6m*), and increased its operating loss before grants to £145.2 million (from £101.2m*). These are, however, purely accounting changes. Neither affects the amount of cash available, or Government grant paid, to London Underground Ltd.


    * the amounts reported in the accounts of London Regional Transport, prepared in accordance with the LRT Act 1984, and published as part of the LT Annual Report 1999-2000, Improving London's transport, document on 28 June 2000.

Farm Attractions

Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:

    When they plan to review the impact of the revised Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (published in March) on the operation of farm attractions; and when they expect such a study to be completed.[HL4029]

Lord Whitty: I refer the noble Baroness to the Answers I gave her on 8 May (WA 209) and 27 June (WA 72). It is still too early to assess the impact of the revised Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, which came into effect on 3 April 2000.

16 Oct 2000 : Column WA62

East Sussex Trunk Roads

Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they are satisfied with the "A" road system in East Sussex.[HL4059]

Lord Whitty: This Government's 1998 roads review "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" recognised the problems on the trunk road network as a whole, including those in East Sussex. As a result of that comprehensive review, the Government are taking forward among others the A.27 Polegate Bypass scheme and two strategic multi-modal studies, one along the South Coast and one looking at access to Hastings. These studies will look at among other things the roles played by the A.21, A.27 and A.259.

Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many miles of dual carriageway there are in East Sussex.[HL4060]

Lord Whitty: In total there are 24.4 kilometres of dual carriageways in East Sussex.

Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many people were killed on the A.21 in East Sussex during 1999 and how many were (a) pedestrians; (b) cyclists; (c) passengers; and (d) drivers.[HL4061]

Lord Whitty: The number of people killed on the A.21 in 1999 in East Sussex in the four categories requested are listed below.

CategoryFatal
Pedestrian0
Cyclists0
Passengers0
Drivers1
Total1

Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many people were seriously injured on the A.21 in East Sussex, for the last convenient period for which figures are available; and how many were (a) pedestrians; (b) cyclists; (c) passengers; (d) drivers.[HL4062]

Lord Whitty: The number of people seriously injured on the A.21 in East Sussex between July 1997 to June 2000, the last convenient period for which figures are available in the categories requested, are listed below.

July 1997 to June 1990 CategorySerious
Pedestrian10
Cyclists1
Passengers13
Drivers37
Total61

16 Oct 2000 : Column WA63

UK Bathing Waters

Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:

    What is their response to the action taken by the European Commission in the European Court of Justice against the Government for their alleged failure to ensure compliance with the minimum pollution levels set down in the bathing water quality directive.[HL4027]

Lord Whitty: The Government are committed to improving the quality of UK bathing waters and have explained to the Commission the measures in hand to increase compliance against the bathing water directive standards. Progress is being made and in 1999 the UK had its best results ever, achieving 91 per cent compliance with the mandatory coliform standards. We have set a target to ensure at least 97 per cent of English bathing waters meet the mandatory coliform standards by the 2005 bathing season.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:

    How many British beaches have been named by the European Commission as failing to meet European Union bathing water standards in 1998, 1999 and 2000. [HL4026]

Lord Whitty: In its annual report on the quality of bathing waters the European Commission named 56 and 47 UK beaches as failing to meet the bathing water standards in the years 1998 and 1999 respectively. The report for the 2000-bathing season is not yet available, although reports detailing past results can be found in the Library. The annual European Commission report is based on monitoring undertaken by the national authorities.

European Council, Biarritz

Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they will report on the outcome of the informal European Council in Biarritz. [HL4202]

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): The Informal European Council in Biarritz on 13-14 October was attended by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State at the Foreign Office.

This informal European Council was asked to take stock of progress of the Inter-Governmental Conference on treaty change. It was inevitably overshadowed by the violence in the Middle East. The European Council issued an appeal to both sides to end the violence and return to the conference table. The Foreign Secretary, who had been in the Middle East, reported to his colleagues on his discussions in the region. Collectively, and individually, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary and other European leaders were actively engaged behind the scenes at the European Council in trying to create the conditions in

16 Oct 2000 : Column WA64

which the Sharm-el-Sheikh Summit could take place. The European Council asked Mr Solana to return to the region: he will be representing the European Union at Sharm-el-Sheikh.

Members of the European Council also held a meeting with President Kostunica of Serbia. The European Union played a prominent role in pressurising the Milosevic regime. Its defeat represents a significant victory for democracy, not only in Serbia but throughout the Balkans and for Europe as a whole. The purpose of Saturday's meeting between EU Heads of Government and President Kostunica was to reaffirm our support for Serbian democracy. The European Council decided to make available 200 million euros of emergency aid for Serbia on top of the measures which were announced at the General Affairs Council on 9 October.

As far as the Inter-Governmental Conference was concerned, this was not a summit at which decisions were to be taken. Political progress was, however, made towards the agreement which we want to see reached at the Nice summit in December. That summit will pave the way to the enlargement which has long been the objective of successive British Governments.

On the detail of these negotiations, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear our support for the extension of majority voting in the areas where this will benefit Britain--for example by enhancing the efficiency of the single market as well as the economic reform which we have, with others, consistently sought--while making clear that these areas did not include tax or social security.

The European Council agreed that there was a role for enhanced co-operation in an enlarged European Union. In other words, there is scope for some member states moving ahead on certain policies faster than others but these so-called enhanced co-operations must not lead to the creation of a hard core grouping, must be genuinely open to all and must not undermine the existing policies of the Union, especially the single market. If these conditions are satisfied, the Government believe that enhanced co-operation can be useful in advancing the British agenda, for example in co-operation in common foreign and security policy within the framework of agreed policies and in co-operation in the fight against international crime and terrorism.

In this negotiation, Britian has a significant interest in seeing a reweighting of votes so that the position of the larger member states, which has deteriorated in relative terms with successive enlargements, is improved. That is also a necessary outcome of the negotiation if we are to agree to a reduction in the size of the Commission. This issue is sometimes seen as one in which the larger member states and the small member states have opposing interests. We believe it should be possible to reach an agreement which meets the interests of all.

16 Oct 2000 : Column WA65

The Charter of Rights so ably negotiated by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith was discussed by Heads of Government, who agreed that it should be adopted at the Nice European Council as a purely political declaration. It creates no legal obligations. It also sets out in a clear way a range of rights, freedoms and principles recognised within the EU which the EU institutions--the primary addressees--should respect when going about their daily business. It applies to member states only to the limited extent that they are implementing Union-wide laws. It has no application where national governments are acting purely within their own areas of national competence.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page