|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which five management consultancies received the highest value of contracts awarded by his Department in each of the last three years; and what the total value was of the contracts awarded to each. 
Ms Buck [pursuant to my reply, 22 September 2005, Official Report, c. 28567W]: A revised table for the 200203 financial year is shown as follows:
|Supplier||Value of contracts (£)|
|Salomon Brothers Int. Ltd.||12,842,062|
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's total spending on management consultants has been in each of the last three years. 
Ms Buck [pursuant to my reply, 11 August 2005, Official Report, c.2396W]: The revised figure for external consultants and advisers by the Department in the 200203 financial year is £227.5 million. A coding error led to a sum £65 million being erroneously included in my previous answer on this subject. The Department has now adjusted its systems to prevent this from happening again.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list management consultants employed by his Department in each of the last three years. 
[pursuant to my reply, 18 August 2005, Official Report, c.2852W]: A revised table has been placed in the Libraries of the House.
18 Oct 2005 : Column 866W
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cameras are (a) in place and (b) planned for (i) the M42 motorway, (ii) other motorways in, near or around Birmingham and (iii)other motorways elsewhere in England and Wales; and what the total expected cost is in each case. 
Dr. Ladyman: At the present time, there are 1,103 fixed cameras on the motorway network for operational management of traffic flow and incidents such as accidents, traffic and adverse weather conditions. These cameras have been deployed on the network over a 30year period and it is therefore not possible to provide detailed cost information. Cameras on the motorway in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.
Operational cameras on the network are used for traffic and incident management purposes such as comprehensive surveillance of accidents, traffic and weather conditions. They do not measure vehicle speed. The provision of surveillance cameras is controlled by Departmental Standards and they can only be used for the purposes described.
On the M42 Junction 3a to Junction 7, cameras have been installed as part of the Active Traffic Management (ATM) pilot scheme designed to manage flows of traffic in the West Midlands. The ATM project includes the provision of 211 fixed operational cameras at a total cost of £1.25 million, together with eight fixed enforcement cameras at a total cost of £0.360 million. A further eight fixed operational cameras are planned on the ATM project by December 2006, at a total cost of £0.320 million.
Current locations of fixed operational cameras on the network are as follows:
75 per cent. on Orbital MotorwaysBirmingham Box, M25, Manchester, Leeds and Dartford Crossing (comprehensive cover);
On the M25 there are currently four enforcement cameras with a further eight planned later this year, following the completion of the M25 Junction 12 to Junction 15 widening scheme near Heathrow. Detailed cost information for the installed cameras is not available, but is estimated to be £0.180 million. There is a further enforcement camera in place on the M20 motorway in Kent although detailed cost information is not available.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost of providing temporary camera surveillance on stretches of motorway in England which were undergoing maintenance or repair work was over the last three years for which figures are available. 
The total identifiable cost of providing temporary camera surveillance on these stretches of motorway over the last three years is about £6 million. This includes speed enforcement cameras and CCTV cameras to monitor traffic flows and incidents. The cost of some cameras may have been included in the main contract cost and it has not been possible to isolate those costs.
18 Oct 2005 : Column 867W
Mr. Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the Highways Agency and National Rail comply with the Ragwort Control Act 2003 Code of Practice. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Highway Agency issued guidance to its managing agents in June 2004, bringing to their attention the requirements of the Ragwort Control Act 2003 Code of Practice and reminding them of the need to control infestations of common ragwort especially where near to grazing land.
Network Rail is a private company and compliance with this code of practice is an operational matter for it alone. Network Rail's environmental policy includes ragwort control, and should the hon. Member have any particular concerns he should write directly to the company.
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the capacity of the Liverpool Street to Stansted rail line to cope with proposed additional runway capacity at Stansted airport. 
Ms Buck: I refer the hon. Member to the answer Ihave given today (UIN 17487).
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the proposed reductions in train services between Bexhill-on-Sea and London Victoria. 
Derek Twigg: The Department has received a number of representations from local organisations, Members of Parliament, local councils and members of the public since January 2004 on this issue. We have also received a petition from residents of the Bexhill area supporting the continuation of a direct service to Victoria. I also met the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to discuss the issues on 6 July 2005.
Mr. Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans Network Rail has to revisit its analysis of future capacity requirements for domestic train services at St. Pancras to take account of passenger growth. 
Derek Twigg: The Department will shortly begin developing a train specification for a replacement Midland Main Line franchise. The current franchise is due to expire in 2008. Capacity issues at St. Pancras will be discussed with Network Rail as the specification is developed.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy on ensuring the public accountability of road safety partnerships. 
Safety camera partnerships are locallyformed and are locally accountable to their partners' organisations, for example, local highway authorities and local police. Safety camera partnerships
18 Oct 2005 : Column 868W
undertake or discharge some of the duties and/or powers of the partners. The public accountability of these partnerships is the same as it is for the partners.
The Department sets the rules and guidance for the safety camera programme and ensures that partnerships adhere to these to enable them to remain within the programme. The rules and guidance do not affect the public accountability of partnerships.
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department have to improve (a) rail and (b) road connections to Stansted airport to take account of projected expansion of the airport's capacity. 
Ms Buck: The Future of Air Transport White Paper supported development of a second runway at Stansted and the provision of associated surface transport to support this growth.
BAA, the airport operator, is taking work forward to prepare a planning application for a new runway at Stansted. As part of this, the Government are working with BAA to identify surface access solutions that support both expansion at the airport and wider growth across the region.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|