|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken into the (a) cost and (b) feasibility of providing a comprehensive network of segregated cycleways. 
The responsibility for the planning, design and construction of cycle facilities rest with individual local highway authorities and we encourage them to them develop a cycling strategy within their Local Transport Plans, the main mechanism of central government funding for local transport. Local cycling strategies will need to consider whether cycle networks need to be physically segregated from other traffic, depending on local conditions.
18 Jan 2006 : Column 1387W
|Airports and air traffic control|
A split by public and private funding is not available for rail and ports infrastructure. The Government made direct grants to Railtrack plc./Network Rail and London and Continental Railways relating to investment on infrastructure undertaken by those companies as follows:
|Railtrack plc./Network Rail||0||499||792||1,448|
|London and Continental Railways||0||185||374||222|
Investment in ports infrastructure is mainly from private investment. Further information on transport investment in infrastructure and rolling stock can be found in Tables 1.14 and 1.15 in Transport Statistics Great Britain on the DfT website.
Ms Buck: The Department's Urban Bus Challenge competitions were held each year for three years between 2001 and 2003. A total of 106 projects were awarded funding as a result of these competitions. Lists of the particular projects involved in each year were placed in the Library of the House. They are also available on the Department's website.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to offer individual motorists the rightto opt out from having their details passed on to third parties by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Data Protection Act exempts from its non-disclosure provisions the release of personal data where the law allows it. The provisions governing release of information from DVLA's vehicle register to persons who demonstrate reasonable cause have been in place and worked effectively for over 40 years. However, when these provisions were originally introduced they did not anticipate the introduction of electronic databases, the large number of vehicles on the roads, or the range of bodies now requesting access. Concerns have also recently been raised about the breadth of organisations that have access to the register.
Whilst it is not possible to allow motorists to opt out of having their details released, I have announced a review of the regulations governing the release of information. This review will take place shortly.
Dr. Ladyman [holding answer 16 January 2006]: The Department for Transport is represented on the technical committee which has responsibility in the EU for vehicle roadworthiness testing, and we are therefore aware of the nature of the testing regimes which operate in other member states. We have not made any recent specific studies of them.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as lead Government Department for the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, is determined that the 2012 Paralympic Games will be a showcase for Paralympic sport, strengthening the Paralympic movement and setting new standards for services, facilities and opportunities for disabled people.
The London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) which is responsible for organising, publicising and staging the 2012 Games, has announced that for the first time planning for the Paralympic Games will be fully integrated with the Olympic Games.
18 Jan 2006 : Column 1389W
LOCOG is committed to providing a compact and inclusive Paralympic Games, with high quality accessible venues and transport services and excellent village facilities for athletes, as well as team and technical officials.
Mr. Caborn: Under section 236 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Secretary of State is required to make regulations defining four classes of gaming machine for the purposes of the Act (to be known as categories A, B, C and D), and to divide category B into sub-categories.
The Government set out their intentions in this respect in the regulatory impact assessment that accompanied the 2005 Act, published on 21 April 2005, and this remains Government policy. The information requested is set out in the table.
|Category||Maximum stake (£)||Maximum prize (£)||Location(s)||Maximum number (per premises)|
|B1||2||4,000||All casinos||20 in existing casinos|
|80 in small casinos|
|150 in large casinos|
|B2||100 per game; 15 per chip||500||Premises licensed for betting||4|
|B3||1||500||Bingo clubs and adult gaming centres||4|
|B4||1||250||Clubs and miners' welfare institutes||3|
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance (a) she and (b) the Gambling Commission have produced on whether a licensing authority may (i) object to a casino premises licence and (ii) introduce a policy not to issue casino licences on (A) moral grounds and (B) on the grounds that it considers gambling to be indesirable. 
Mr. Caborn: It is the function of the Gambling Commission to issue guidance to licensing authorities, and draft guidance was published by the Commission on 10 December 2005. This includes guidance on the exercise of licensing authority functions with respect to casino premises licences.
Under section 166 of the 2005 Act, licensing authorities have the power to pass a resolution not to issue casino premises licences and, in passing such a resolution, they are allowed to have regard to any principle or matter. However, where a licensing authority has the power to issue casino premises licences, and it has not made a resolution under section 166, it must exercise its functions in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Section 153 sets out the principles to be applied by licensing authorities in considering premises licence applications. That section requires licensing authorities to aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as they think that accords with any relevant Commission code of practice or guidance and with their own policy statement, and in so far as they think that to do so would be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives of the Act.
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance (a) she and (b) the Gambling Commission have produced on the (i) minimum and (ii) maximum floor size of a betting section of a (A) small, (B) large and (C) regional casino. 
Mr. Caborn: Section 7(5) of the Gambling Act 2005 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations by reference to which any casino may be classified as a regional, large or small casino. Regulations under this subsection may make provision by reference to the floor area used or designated for a specified purpose. We set out our intentions in this respect in the Government's response to the first report of the Joint Committee on the draft Gambling Bill (Cm 6253). This information was also reproduced in my answer to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) of 17 October 2005, Official Report, column 711W.
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the timetable for the Casino Advisory Panel to receive expressions of interest is from (a) local authorities and (b) other interested parties in relation to the allocation of casino licences to different parts of the country. 
Mr. Caborn: The Casino Advisory Panel has published the broad timetable for its work on its website (www.culture.gov.uk/cap). The panel is still developing the detailed process it will follow in developing its recommendations. However, it expects that the closing date for proposals from local authorities will be by the end of March 2006. Other interested parties may write to the panel at any time.
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the Casino Advisory Panel will be designating (a) regions, (b) sub-regions and (c) specific local authority areas as locations for the new gambling licences. 
It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to specify which licensing authorities should be able to issue the one regional, eight large and eight small casino premises licences permitted by the Gambling Act 2005. The role of the Casino Advisory Panel is to make recommendations to the Secretary of State to assist her in this function, and it has been asked to recommend specific licensing authorities.
18 Jan 2006 : Column 1391W
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether (a) she and (b) the Gambling Commission are required to follow the advice of the Casino Advisory Panel in designating the locations for the new gambling licences. 
Mr. Caborn: The Casino Advisory Panel is a non-statutory body, and the Secretary of State is not formally bound by its recommendations. However, the panel has been established by the Secretary of State to assist her with her order making power under section 175 (4) of the Gambling Act 2005 to determine the geographical distribution of the new casino premises licences.
Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the timetable is for the designation of locations for new gambling licences; and (a) how and (b) when Parliament will be consulted. 
Mr. Caborn: The Casino Advisory Panel has been asked to make its recommendations by the end of 2006. The intention is that the Secretary of State will lay a draft order specifying the licensing authorities which are to have the power to issue casino premises licences before both Houses of Parliament during the spring of 2007. This order is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, requiring the approval of both before it can be made.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|