| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
London Underground
Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000, Official Report, columns 322-23W, relating to the public-private partnership contracts for the London Underground, what arrangements were made for potential contractors or consortia of contractors not specifically asked to consider submitting a bid for the work to ascertain the details of the work to be bid for; how potential contractors in other European Union countries were able to ascertain the work to be bid for; if the arrangements complied with European Union requirements; and if he will make a statement. [116686]
Mr. Hill: The invitation to pre-qualify for the London Underground service contracts was published in the usual way, in the Official Journal of the Economic Communities (OJEC References 1999/S 118-87811EN and 1999/S 25408995). The invitation was open to all potential contractors and full details were supplied to those who responded to the OJEC notice and executed a confidentiality and tender process agreement.
Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total sum expended by London Underground Ltd. on the recent re-conditioning of Piccadilly line trains; what the further sum of £500 million for Piccadilly line trains referred to in his answer of 2 March 2000, Official Report, columns 331-32W relates to; what the estimated life of the proposed and current Piccadilly line stock is; and if he will make a statement. [117268]
Mr. Hill: London Underground are currently spending £136 million on re-conditioning the Piccadilly line rolling stock. They estimate that this will extend the effective working life of the rolling stock to 2014.
The £500 million referred to in the question was taken from a briefing document published by London Underground when the Public Private Partnership competition was launched in June 1999. They were LU's estimate of how much they then believed it would cost to implement the performance regime under development of the first 15 years of the PPP. The new rolling stock is anticipated to have a life expectancy of 40-50 years.
6 Apr 2000 : Column: 545W
Of course, under the terms of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) for LU, infrastructure companies will be required to implement a combination of specific projects and performance enhancements specified in output terms. The PPP will not specify particular amounts of money to be spent, nor particular works to be carried out. It will be for bidders to decide what they have to do to meet the performance specification for each infrastructure company.
Mr. Kidney:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce performance indicators for road safety in local authority transport plans; and how he intends to evaluate their effectiveness. [116704]
Mr. Hill:
The guidance on full local transport plans (LTPs), published on 27 March, advises local authorities that their LTPs must include a set of indicators and targets for measuring performance against objectives. The guidance describes the indicators for road safety. These will be used for monitoring progress towards the local casualty reduction target. Authorities are required to submit their LTPs for 2001-02 to 2005-06 by 31 July. In subsequent years, authorities will be required to submit annual progress reports. The first progress reports will be submitted in July 2001. Authorities will report on the indicators contained in the plan and progress towards achieving the targets set.
Mr. Kidney:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in rank order the figures for killed and seriously injured road casualties per 100,000 head of population by county and unitary authorities in England for the last five years. [116703]
Mr. Hill:
The rates requested are shown for 1998, the most recent year for which figures are available, based on area boundaries at the beginning of that year. However, there have been a number of changes in administrative areas during the preceding four years. This would make it difficult to produce a comparison over time and such analysis would involve disproportionate time to provide.
6 Apr 2000 : Column: 546W
Houses in Multiple Occupation
Mr. Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to introduce a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement. [117586]
Mr. Mullin:
We issued a consultation paper last year setting out detailed proposals. Key conclusions and a summary of responses will be published in due course.
6 Apr 2000 : Column: 547W
Jane Griffiths:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the avenues open to members of the public, whose accommodation has no rateable value and who therefore cannot have a water meter installed, when they cannot reach agreement with a water company on the level of their bill. [117314]
Mr. Mullin:
Any customer may have a water meter fitted for their home free from 1 April, unless this is impracticable or excessively costly, in which case the company should offer another alternative basis of charging. The answer that I gave to my hon. Friend's question on 3 April 2000, Official Report, column 322W, sets out the avenues open to customers who do not want to have a meter fitted but are not happy with the company's proposals for setting their water charges.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities are to be given to the (a) mayor and (b) Greater London Assembly with regard to matters relating to (i) Grade I, (ii) Grade I* and (iii) Grade II listed buildings, respectively. [117719]
Mr. Hill:
As part of the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS), the Mayor may frame policies for the conservation and protection of London's built environment, working closely with English Heritage (EH) and the boroughs. The Assembly will be consulted by the Mayor before formal public consultation on the draft strategy.
Primary responsibility for dealing with listed building consent applications remains with the boroughs, in consultation with EH. Neither the Mayor, nor the Assembly will have a role in deciding applications.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons he plans to amend the regulations in Greater London to permit consent for works to Grade II listed buildings to be handled by individual London boroughs. [117720]
Mr. Hill:
At present, most applications for listed building consent for all grades of listed building within Greater London must be made to the relevant London borough who must in turn notify English Heritage. Also, certain cases are referred by English Heritage to the Secretary of State. However, since the Greater London Council was abolished, English Heritage has been working with the London boroughs to build up their expertise in relation to such applications. We are satisfied that the London boroughs are now in a position to take on full responsibility for determining the majority of listed building consent applications on a similar basis to the arrangements outside London. We therefore issued proposals for consultation last year for changes that would lead to a significant reduction in the number of listed building cases that would need to be notified to English Heritage and the Secretary of State and thus enable decisions on applications to be made more quickly. Copies of the consultation paper 'London Heritage Notifications' were placed in the Libraries of both Houses at the time. English Heritage would, however, continue to be consulted on applications for works to Grade I and
6 Apr 2000 : Column: 548W
II* buildings and works to certain categories of Grade II buildings. We plan to announce shortly how we intend to proceed.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |