Previous Section Index Home Page



Rail Safety

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what proportions of slam shut carriages have been converted to the cone and cup safety mechanism; [28660]

Mr. Spellar: This issue is dealt with by Railway Safety Regulations 1999.

Rail Passengers

Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 18W, on rail passengers, what is the frequency of the regular surveys and, in relation to the action plans (a) which train operating companies have been required to implement such a plan since 1995, (b) when these have taken place, (c) what these action plans have required from each train operating company, (d) what outcomes have resulted from any action plans and (e) how progress towards the action plans is

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1513W

measured and (f) what steps he plans to take to improve the co-ordination and standard of customer satisfaction surveys and national passenger surveys. [32696]

Mr. Spellar: Train Operating Companies (TOCs) have a contractual commitment to carry out customer satisfaction surveys at least every six months. Following the results of the surveys a number of TOCs have been required to undertake a variety of action plans. These action plans become contractual commitments and are monitored continuously by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to ensure they are fulfilled.

Details of improvement to services for passengers being implemented by each TOC, including those derived from surveys and action plans are listed in the regular SRA On Track publication, which also summarises National Passenger Survey results. It is the SRA's aim that all TOCs will be measured and monitored by the National Passenger Survey under the Franchise Agreement rather their own customer satisfaction surveys.


Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings (a) he and (b) his senior departmental officials have had with Enron and its subsidiaries in the last two years. [32433]

Dr. Whitehead: It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1514W

Accounting Contracts

Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many contracts were let by his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to (a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33848]

Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the (a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (iii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34994]

Dr. Whitehead : Individual Government Departments are responsible for taking decisions on the goods and services they acquire, whether through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or other procurement routes,taking into account the Government's policy of seeking value for money for the taxpayer. The public sector as a whole has signed hundreds of contracts, covering the delivery of a range of services.

Detail of contracts and payments made by my Department to the firms listed are set out in the tables. The information is based on that held in DTLR's central records and that held centrally by agencies.

Number of Contracts

PWCErnst & YoungDeloitte & ToucheKPMGAndersen

Value of Payments Made to Contractors

PWC˙Ernst & Young˙Deloitte & Touche˙KPMG˙Andersen˙

Note: The value of certain contracts is not divisible between years and so payments have been accorded to the first year of the contract.

Special Purpose Vehicles

Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will define a special purpose vehicle in the context of the railways. [34829]

Mr. Byers [holding answer 8 February 2002]: The concept of a special purpose vehicle is a separate joint venture company set up to finance and manage one or more rail infrastructure projects. Parties in the company might include any combination of the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack, train operators, construction and project management firms and third-party investors.

London Underground

Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which journalists, and from which publications, were invited to the briefing given on the future of the London Underground on 6 February. [35558]

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1515W

Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 12 February 2002]: There was no briefing given on 6 February. DTLR officials gave technical briefings on Monday 4 February and Tuesday 5 February to broadcast media and transport correspondents respectively.

These briefings were on the technical detail of the bidding process including value for money issues and the public sector comparator. Obviously, prior to the London Transport Board meeting on Thursday 7 February, these briefings did not cover London Transport's Xminded" decision on way ahead for the Tube PPP, which was not taken until that meeting.

10-Year Plan

Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 7 February 2002, Official Report, column 1108W, refs 33767 and 33769, on the transport 10-year financial envelope, if he will set out the changes to the planned expenditure envelope which result in the overall increase and the amount of the increase attributable to each change. [35741]

Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 28 February 2002]: The latest 10-Year Plan total of ˙181.9 billion announced by the Secretary of State in an oral and written answer on 29 January 2002, Official Report, columns 149-152 and 175W, took account of a number of changes to the 10-Year Plan expenditure numbers. The main changes were the following:

1. The fact that the public expenditure numbers for 2001/02 reflect actual spending between April and December 2001 (the first nine months of the Plan) and take account of the latest outturn projection for that year;

2. reductions of ˙38/118/183 million for the years 2001/02 to 2003/04 as a result of internal DETR reallocations immediately following SR2000.

3. a transfer of ˙2.3 billion from the 10 Year Plan Unallocated Fund to Railways;

4. ˙1.5 billion of additional provision for Railways;

5. ˙462 million of additional provision for Railways to cover a shortfall in Railtrack's freight income;

6. a transfer of ˙77 million from London to Railways to cover he SRA's contribution to CrossRail development costs;

7. the inclusion of ˙290 million of unused provision for Railways carried forward as end-year flexibility from 2000–01 to 2001–02;

8. no changes have been made to the private investment numbers.

The effect of these changes is summarised in the revised version of Table A3 from 'Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan' that I referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 785W, and which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1516W

Social Services Spending

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list for shire counties (1) the social services SSA for child protection, divided by the number of children under the age of 18, adjusted for inflation at current values, in the years 1990–91 to 2001–02 and projected for 2002-03.[36762]

Dr. Whitehead: A table has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The figures are quoted as they were announced each year. It has not been possible to construct a run of figures over the period that are adjusted for changes in function or financing arrangements. Some year on year changes shown in the table are, therefore, not on a like for like basis.

Next Section Index Home Page