|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Gillian Merron: The project costs for each of the employment measures listed in section 3.47 of the Department for Transports annual report for 2006 are outlined as follows. The costs are a mix of estimated internal staff costs and external costs such as programme management and consultancy.
|Figure 11b: Road safety expenditure 1999-2000 to 2007-08 consultancies for roads and local transport|
The programme covers research work on topics such as vulnerable road users, driver and rider behaviour, driver impairment, road engineering and speed management, statistical analysis, accident causation and medical and health-related impairment.
Dr. Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake not to approve any franchise agreement for the East Coast Main Line which would reduce services to Durham station. 
Mr. Tom Harris: A consultation document was issued on 15 December 2006 setting out the proposed specification for the new franchise. There is no intention to reduce the services to Durham in the new Intercity East Coast franchise.
Dr. Ladyman: Transport Council has agreed that the commercial and operational phase of the European Unions Galileo programme be taken forward as a public private partnership (PPP), on a 20 year concession with a public funding ratio of roughly one-third; the remainder to be provided by a private sector concessionaire. Negotiations with the prospective concessionaire are continuing and the eventual contract will be signed by the Galileo Supervisory Authority: the Agency that will regulate and manage the programme on behalf of the EU.
The UK is committed to the delivery of a robust and viable PPP for Galileo, with a strong commercial focus. Largely as a result of UK pressure an assessment of the contract will be submitted to Council for decision by member states before the PPP contract is signed.
Dr. Ladyman: Since 1997, the Government have awarded some £54 million to fund the transfer of freight from road to water under the Freight Facilities Grant scheme. These will have saved over 1 billion road miles worth of lorry journeys on our roads. In 2005 we also introduced a new Waterborne Freight Grant scheme to assist both inland waterways and shipping companies with their operating costs.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the liability to the public purse of public private partnerships relating to the London Underground is; what the buy-back cost is; and what the long-term cost differential in off-balance payments by the end of the contracts is compared with the cost of keeping the management of the assets under the original system. 
Gillian Merron: Responsibility for London Underground Limited (LUL), including the Public Private Partnership (PPP) deals, passed to Transport for London and the Mayor of London on 15 July 2003. In support of the PPP the Government has made an unprecedented funding commitment to London Underground, averaging more than £1 billion a year up to 2009-10. PPP funding for the period to 2018 is being considered as part of this years Comprehensive Spending Review.
Detailed financial analysis of the PPP has been undertaken in several published documents. Ernst and Young undertook an independent review into LULs value for money assessment for the then Secretary of State, which was published in February 2002. LUL also published their own Final Assessment Report into the PPPs in February 2002, and this was updated in May of that year. Copies of these three documents are available in the House Library. The National Audit Office report Were they good deals into the procurement of the PPPs was published in June 2004.
It is responsible for developing policy and commissioning research on the mobility of different social groups including older and disabled people. It is also responsible for co-ordinating transport issues relating to cross modal crime, reducing social exclusion, promoting the third sector and sponsoring the work of the Disabled Peoples Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).
Current initiatives include implementing the transport provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, responding to the statutory equality duties by developing and publishing DfT Equality Schemes and sponsoring the Secure Stations Scheme.
Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the carbon footprint of Nottingham East Midlands airport; and what carbon impact assessment has been made of the plans to extend the airport. 
Gillian Merron: The Governments policy on the development of airport capacity is set out in the 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper, supported by the progress report published in December 2006. East Midlands airports (EMA) master plan says that its current operations produce approximately 12,000 tonnes of carbon annually. EMA has set itself a target that by 2012 all of its primary energy needs will either be obtained from renewable sources or the carbon emissions off-set. If met, the airports energy consumption will become carbon neutral by 2012.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many written parliamentary questions to his Department in the 2005-06 session were not answered wholly or in part on grounds of disproportionate cost; 
(2) how many written parliamentary questions to his Department in the 2005-06 session were answered with a reply that it had not been possible to reply before prorogation, or similar wording. 
Gillian Merron: Of the 6,820 parliamentary questions tabled to the Department for Transport during the 2005-06 session, 2 per cent. were not answered wholly or in part, on grounds of disproportionate cost and the Department was unable to answer two parliamentary questions substantially, before Parliament prorogued.
Gillian Merron: The Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive co-hosted a public private partnership (PPP) Transport Summit as part of the 2005 UK EU Presidency. The summit programme comprised of five sessions:
(1) Europes Transport Investment Needs and the Role of PPPS.
(2) The Private Sector Perspective (including an address on Ensuring that PPPs Deliver Value for Money for Taxpayersa Finance Ministry Perspective).
(3) What makes a PPP Effective for Government?
(4) The Challenges and Riskshow do we make PPPs work?
(5) Concluding Panel and Recommendations.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the long-term liability of private finance initiative (PFI) credits for street lighting schemes is; what the buy back cost is; what the additional cost to the Department from using a PFI over the length of the contract is; and if he will make a statement. 
Gillian Merron: The remaining long-term liability of PFI credits for signed street lighting schemes, which is the outstanding revenue grant payable to local authorities as a result of the award of PFI credits, is £1.9 billion. Buy back costs are essentially the voluntary termination terms. It is not possible to calculate the departments total PFI termination liability. The amount would vary from contract to contract, when the event occurred and may be subject to negotiation with the PFI Contractor. The Government contributes partly to the costs of a PFI street lighting scheme. The contractual liability rests with the local authority who carry out a value for money (vfm) assessment of the overall costs to the public sector before signing a contract. This vfm assessment takes account of both the financial costs and the expected value of risk transferred to the private sector.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to seek reversals of railway timetable changes that may (a) breach commitments given in the franchise process and (b) be contrary to the interests of passengers. 
Mr. Tom Harris: Train operators must operate timetables which are consistent with the service specifications in their franchise agreements and the Secretary of State can take enforcement action to secure compliance if necessary. The Secretary of State has no powers to force changes to timetables which are compliant with the service specifications, but does encourage train operators to listen to their passengers and stakeholders and take account of their concerns.
Mr. Tom Harris: This is primarily a matter for station operators. The Department has not offered any advice on the subject but would not normally expect operators to object to photography at stations unless it was being carried on in such a way as to pose an unacceptable risk to the photographer or others.
|Substantive licence holders in Essex( 1)|
|(1) Includes all substantive licence holders resident in Essex at the time of the data extract, including motorcycle only licence holders.|
(2) Data were extracted from the DVLA central database at different points in each year; May 2002, November 2003, July 2005 and January 2006.
(3) Data not available
Dr. Ladyman: Speed cameras do not produce revenue. Drivers who break the law pay penalties, as other lawbreakers do. The audit certificates for the Essex Safety Camera Partnership for the financial years outlined in the following table shows the fines from conditional offer of fixed penalties for offences detected by speed and red light cameras operating under the National Safety Camera Programme for the last five years.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|