Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors he took into consideration when authorising the budget increase for the A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass; what the main reasons were for agreeing to the increase; and upon what date he agreed to the increases. 
Dr. Ladyman: I took account of a number of factors in agreeing to an increase in the approved cost estimate for this scheme. In particular, I noted that important causes of the cost increase were, firstly, the decision, arising from the North Wests advice on priorities for major transport schemes, to slip the proposed start date of this scheme to 2012-13; secondly, the use of more realistic forecasts of construction inflation up to the schemes new start date; and thirdly, the inclusion of additional works to restrain the amount of traffic passing through the Peak District National Park following the construction of the scheme. I also took account of all the impacts, including the benefits that the scheme will provide. These include relieving the communities of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle of high volumes of through traffic and providing improved journey times for travellers. In the light of the overall balance of costs and benefits I decided that it was appropriate to agree the increase.
I took this decision on 30 January 2007. However, I recognise that at the higher cost estimate this scheme represents an additional pressure on the funding allocation for major schemes in the North West region. Officials will be discussing this with the North West region shortly and I will take account of any views that they may wish to offer on the provision of funding and timing of delivery of this scheme in the light of the higher cost.
Mr. Grogan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he paid £103,974.92 to the account of Brims and Company Ltd., mentioned at item 5 in the third interim award of 16 October 1998 in the Greenhead A69 diversion arbitration. 
Dr. Ladyman: Brims and Company Ltd. were contractors working on the A69 Greenhead diversion scheme. The company went into receivership in 1990. Receivers were appointed and an arbitration was brought against the Secretary of State. A settlement figure was agreed and ratified by the arbitrator in November 2002. This was a full and final settlement and explicitly included the payment of interest and costs. The agreed settlement figure was paid to Brims and Company Ltd. shortly thereafter. The settlement was enshrined in a consent award which attracts the confidentiality which is implicit in the arbitration process. The confidence is owed to the administrative receiver of Brims and Company Ltd.
Dr. Ladyman: The Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) is responsible for providing ministerial transport in line with the Ministerial Code and the Prime Ministers guidance Travel by Ministers.
(a) The Network Rails Annual Return to the Office of Rail Regulation published 1 August 2006 shows that there were 2,167 stations in England and Wales.
(b) There are 391 tram stops in England, although currently no light rail systems in Wales (excluding those, such as the Great Orme Tramway, which is operated primarily as a tourist attraction and not as a transit system). There is no distinction in this figure between a tram stop and a tram station. These figures do not include MerseyRail or the London Underground, which are considered heavy rail, but does include the Docklands Light Railway.
(c) Unfortunately, we are unable to provide the number of bus stations in England. We do not define bus stations in our data as there is no clear definition as to what a bus station is i.e. at what point are bus stops clustered close enough in order to call it a bus station. Therefore, we only recognise individual bus stops. The number of bus stops available relates to Great Britain only, as it is extremely hard to count bus stops for individual countries. There are currently 361,745 active bus/coach stops in Great Britain as a whole.
The effects of cable theft on the railways is an operational matter for Network Rail, as the owner and
operator of the national rail network. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Network Rails Chief Executive at the following address for a response to her question.
40 Melton Street
London NW1 2EE
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has undertaken any research on the impact of railfreight interchanges on reducing the number of heavy goods vehicles movements and carbon dioxide emissions. 
Mr. Tom Harris: Each railfreight interchange is unique to its specific location and the impact it has on heavy goods traffic is therefore particular to that individual site. Because of this it has not been possible to produce generic modelling on heavy goods vehicle movements at railfreight interchanges.
Gillian Merron: Figures for the Halifax constituency are not specifically available. The following table sets out how much capital spending on integrated transport improvements has been reported by Calderdale metropolitan borough council (which includes Halifax) to my Department from 1997-98 to 2005-06.
Integrated transport improvements are new road and local public transport related projects. The totals exclude investment made in the area by West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority, as this is primarily related to public transport.
Sir John Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the proposal by South West Trains to increase (a) off-peak, (b) super off-peak and (c) first class fares; and if he will make a statement. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Department does not hold this information, but does have the information for the area covered by the West Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership, analysed by local authority. The details are shown in the following table.
Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to arrange flexibility of implementation for a Europe-wide agreement on exhaust emissions to allow UK-based car manufacturers to respond fully and positively whilst maintaining their manufacturing operations; and if he will make a statement. 
Dr. Ladyman: Following the European Commissions announcement of its intention to legislate on new car fuel efficiency, the Government intend to hold a consultation with stakeholders to ensure that impacts are fully assessed, including issues of flexibility and cost-effectiveness, before a final legislative proposal is produced.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Departments total spending was on advertising and promotional campaigns in each year since 1997; and what the cost of each campaign was, broken down by costs relating to (a) television, (b) radio and (c) print media. 
David Cairns: The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. The Office does not record separate figures for campaigns by television, radio and print. Figures for 1999-2000 are not available; the Office spent the following on advertising:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on (a)
sponsoring newspaper and publication supplements and (b) funding advertorials in newspapers or publications in the last year for which figures are available; and what the topic of each was. 
David Cairns: Since 24 February, 43 devolution issues have been intimated to the Advocate-General. Of these 43 devolution issues, 14 related to civil proceedings and 29 related to criminal proceedings.
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2007, Official Report, column 2028W, on Orkney, how many visits were made by Scottish Office Ministers to (a) Orkney and (b) Shetland in each year from 1983 to 1999. 
Mr. Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent (a) representations he has received on and (b) assessment he has made of the reliability of .50 ammunition for the heavy machine gun used by UK troops in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. 
Reports of stoppages on the 0.5 calibre heavy machine gun were received from Afghanistan last year. Comprehensive technical investigations confirmed that the cause was a weapons system problem, not the ammunition, which was quickly resolved.
In an unrelated investigation, some ammunition was found to have substandard links, which were causing wear to feeding blocks. The decision was swiftly taken to withdraw all of this ammunition from theatre, and the stock was replaced.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|