|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the proportion of (a) male and (b) female cyclists aged (i) under 16 years and (ii) 16 years and over who wore helmets while cycling in each of the last 10 years. 
Dr. Ladyman: Surveys of cycle helmet wearing rates have been carried out for the Department in 1994, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2006. The findings from surveys from 1994 to 2004 are shown in the table. This shows that in 2004 cycle helmets were worn by:
10.8 per cent. of male cyclists under 16
28.7 per cent. of male cyclists 16 years and over
26.3 per cent. of female cyclists under 16
29.7 per cent. of female cyclists 16 years and over
|Table 1: cycle helmet wearing rates 1994-2004|
Dr. Ladyman: Most spending on cycle safety in England is undertaken by local highway authorities. It includes revenue spending on cycle training, other educational initiatives and local cycle safety publicity. Revenue spending on road safety is not recorded centrally.
The Department for Transport produces cycle safety publicity and resources at national level, which may include the promotion of helmet wearing. Figures for annual spending are only available as far back as 2002-03. Our road safety challenge grant scheme, which has been running since 2002-03, has funded a number of projects that are wholly or partly to improve cycle safety and may also include the promotion of helmet wearing. Figures for spending on cycle safety projects under previous grant schemes are not available.
|DfT spending on grants for cycle safety schemes and on cycle safety publicity|
|Amount (£ million)|
Gillian Merron: Schemes that have received an initial approval to proceed to the preferred option stage, which is equivalent to the Office of Government Commerces Gateway Review 1, are listed as follows, apart from the local authority schemes stated that are being assessed for this approval. Schemes that have passed the approvals stage equivalent to Gateway Review 3, which gives approval for contracts to be signed and construction to begin, are also omitted, as they are no longer under consideration.
The following projects have received initial funding approval, but have yet to start construction, and cost in excess of £100 million. They are in development or procurement, but are not all under active consideration by the Department at this stage. The first four are referred to in the 6 July 2006 letter from the Secretary of State to the relevant Regional Assembly and Regional Development Agency on regional funding allocations.
Mersey Gateway Bridge
Carlisle Northern Development Route
Manchester Metrolink Phase IIIA
Manchester Metrolink Renewals on Phases 1 and 2
Nottingham Light Rail Phase IIreferred to in a statement to the House of Commons by the Secretary of State on 25 October 2006.
Thames Gateway Bridgereferred to on the TfL website
Birmingham Highway Maintenancereferred to in the West Midlands Local Transport Plan 2006
South East Manchester Relief Road
Finningley and Rossington Relief Road (Doncaster)
Birmingham Gateway (New Street Station improvements)
Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway Upgrade
Heysham to M6 Link Road (Lancashire)
Tyne and Wear Metro Reinvigoration
All six of the schemes listed above are referred to in the 6 July 2006 letter from the Secretary of State to the relevant Regional Assembly and Regional Development Agency on regional funding allocations.
The Department is currently preparing the high level output specification for the safety, reliability and capacity it expects on the rail network for the years 2009-10 to 2013-14. This document will be published in July 2007, and is likely to contain many rail projects that cost in excess of £100 million. In particular, the Department continues to take forward the Thameslink programme, and has stated that it is considering when and how to proceed with it in conjunction with the high level output specification and the Spending Review. The Department is also continuing to take forward Crossrail, a Bill for which is currently being considered by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. In addition, the Department has given initial funding approval to proceed to the preferred option stage of the Intercity Express programme.
M25 J5-7 Widening
M1 J10-13 Widening
M1 J30 to J31
M1J32 to J34
M1J34 to J37
M1 J37 to J39
M1 J39 to J42
A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton Improvement
A505 Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5 to M1 link)
A1 Dishforth to Barton
A46 Newark to Widemerpool Improvement
M62 J25 to J27
National Road Telecommunication Services
A57/A628 Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle Bypass
A421 Bedford to M1 Junction 13
In addition to these, the Highways Agencys programme includes the A30 Garland Cross to Chiverton Cross scheme, which is not currently expected to be funded in the next ten years, following advice received from the South West region. The A303 Stonehenge scheme is under review.
A further project is being led by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which issued a press release in May on the Search and Rescue Helicopters scheme being undertaken jointly with the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Heath: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much revenue his Department received from advertisements on its (a) public information leaflets and (b) public websites in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. 
Department for Transports Executive Agencies do receive income for the services they provide, such as booking a driving test, selling vehicle registration numbers or promoting the UK ship register, and there are websites and literature that explain these services, but again, third party advertising is not permitted.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding his Department and its predecessors provided to (a) the IPPR and (b) IPPR Trading Ltd in each year since 1997; and for what purposes. 
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which advertising and marketing campaigns were run by (a) his Department and (b) its agencies in each of the last five years; which external agencies were involved; and what the cost was of each campaign. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|