| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Feb 2008 : Column 727W—continued
Unfair Practices: Sales
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform pursuant to the answer of 18 December 2007, Official Report, column 1480W, on unfair practices: sales, what guidance his Department has published on whether the Directive will apply to the purchase of a trade union membership subscription itself, where that trade union provides legal advice, or special deals for meals and training, as part of the substantive union product itself. [186186]
Mr. McFadden: The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is unlikely to apply to a person purchasing a trade union membership subscription itself. This is because such a person is unlikely to be acting as a consumer for the purposes of the directive.
The OFT will shortly be publishing Guidance on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 illustrating how the regulations may apply in practice. The guidance is principally intended to help traders to comply with the regulations. It will also be of use to enforcers and consumer advisers in understanding what conduct is prohibited.
Transport
A14
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the contract to Costain-Skanska JV for the A14 Ellington and Fen Ditton scheme was let for. [186495]
Mr. Tom Harris [holding answer 18 February 2008]: Costain-Skanska JV have been awarded an early contractor involvement (ECI) contract to design the whole of the proposed A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton improvement. Subject to statutory procedures and the meeting of performance levels stated in the contract, Costain-Skanska JV will construct the Fen Drayton to Histon section of the scheme. The contract value for this section is £314.5 million.
The construction of the Ellington to Fen Drayton and Histon to Fen Ditton sections of the scheme will be subject to separate tendering and contract award procedures upon completion of the statutory processes.
Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England
Mr. Boris Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of noise according to the findings of the most recent Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England (ANASE) report would create the same level of community annoyance as 57dBA was reported to have created in the 1986 ANASE report. [171803]
Jim Fitzpatrick: While the Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England (ANASE) study indicates that it is highly probable that annoyance with a particular level of aircraft noise is higher than found in the 1985 Aircraft Noise Index Study, the ANASE study shows no evidence of a threshold at which people become very much more annoyed.
In terms of making quantitative comparisons between the results from ANASE and the earlier ANIS study, expert peer reviewers of the ANASE study advised that
“reliance on the detailed outcome of ANASE would be misplaced”
“counsel against using the detailed results and conclusions from ANASE in the development of Government policy”.
Although the report does not provide evidence for increasing or reducing the figure of 57 dBA Leq (16 hours) as the onset of significant community annoyance we believe it is right that we retain this as a safeguard for those who are most affected by aircraft noise. In the ‘Future of Air’ Transport White Paper the Government gave a commitment that further development of Heathrow could only be considered if it resulted in no net increase in the total area of the 57 dBA noise contour compared with summer 2002, a contour area of 127 sq km. That commitment stands and the ability to meet it is a key consideration in the current consultation on adding capacity at Heathrow.
Additionally, as we announced when the ANASE study was released, pending the availability of a better alternative we will apply existing valuation for road and rail noise when assessing the economic impact of noise in the cost-benefit analysis of future aviation projects. We have taken this approach in the case of Heathrow consultation.
The findings from ANASE suggest that further work would be useful in a number of areas. As a first step the Department has recently chaired a meeting of the Air Noise Monitoring Committee (ANMAC) whose role is to advise the Department on policy relating to aircraft noise. The Department is working with the committee to prioritise further research and produce a programme or work.
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account she plans to take of her Department’s Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources study on aircraft noise in formulating policy. [170694]
Jim Fitzpatrick:
The Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England (ANASE) study provided a better understanding of the complex issues surrounding aircraft noise although as the peer
reviewers made clear it does not give sufficiently robust figures on which it would be safe to change policy. The Department for Transport is in the course of evaluating and considering the recommendations made for further research.
The study makes clear that there is no particular threshold of noise at which people become very much more annoyed. In addition, the report does not provide evidence for increasing or reducing the figure of 57 dBA Leq (16 hours) as the onset of significant community annoyance. However we believe it is right that we retain this as a safeguard for those who are most affected by aircraft noise. In the ‘Future of Air’ Transport White Paper the Government gave a commitment that further development of Heathrow could only be considered if it resulted in no net increase in the total area of the 57 dBA noise contour compared with summer 2002, a contour area of 127 sq km. That commitment stands and the ability to meet it is a key consideration in the current consultation on adding capacity at Heathrow.
Additionally, as we announced when the ANASE study was released, pending the availability of a better alternative we will apply existing valuation for road and rail noise when assessing the economic impact of noise in the cost-benefit analysis of future aviation projects. We have taken this approach in the case of Heathrow consultation.
The findings from ANASE suggest that further work would be useful in a number of areas. As a first step the Department has recently chaired a meeting of the Air Noise Monitoring Committee (ANMAC) whose role is to advise the Department on policy relating to aircraft noise. The Department is working with the committee to prioritise further research and produce a programme or work.
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether she has included the result of the Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England in the assumptions underlying data shown in the Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport public consultation document; and if she will make a statement. [173110]
Jim Fitzpatrick: While the Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England (ANASE) study indicates that it is highly probable that annoyance with a particular level of aircraft noise is higher than found in the 1985 Aircraft Noise Index Study, the ANASE study shows no evidence of a threshold at which people become very much more annoyed.
In addition, the report does not provide evidence for increasing or reducing the figure of 57 dBA Leq (16 hours) as the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. However we believe it is right that we retain this as a safeguard for those who are most affected by aircraft noise. In the ‘Future of Air Transport’ White Paper the Government gave a commitment that further development of Heathrow could only be considered if it resulted in no net increase in the total area of the 57 dBA noise contour compared with summer 2002, a contour area of 127 sq km. That commitment stands and the ability to meet it is a key consideration in the current consultation on adding capacity at Heathrow.
Additionally, as we announced when the ANASE study was released, pending the availability of a better alternative we will apply existing valuation for road and rail noise when assessing the economic impact of noise in the cost-benefit analysis of future aviation projects. We have taken this approach in the case of Heathrow consultation.
The findings from ANASE suggest that further work would be useful in a number of areas. As a first step the Department has recently chaired a meeting of the Air Noise Monitoring Committee (ANMAC) whose role is to advise the Department on policy relating to aircraft noise. The Department is working with the committee to prioritise further research and produce a programme of work.
Aviation: Emissions Trading
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what (a) research and (b) discussion has been conducted or is planned by her Department on the role of emissions trading within the aviation industry; and what representations have been received by her Department on this matter. [181616]
Jim Fitzpatrick: Government support for emissions trading for the aviation industry was outlined in the 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper. Since then, policy development has continued to be informed by further research and discussion. The Department has engaged with a broad range of stakeholders, including the aviation industry, on emissions trading and its evidence base, and we will continue to do so both in Europe and in our work in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
Aviation: Noise
Mr. Gummer: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which authorities are responsible for (a) measuring and (b) enforcing limits on aircraft noise. [185036]
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Department has overall responsibility for aircraft noise policy. The ‘Future of Air Transport’ White Paper set out our key aim to limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise.
Prior to entry into service, the noise levels generated by any aircraft design are measured by the applicant/manufacturer and then approved by a certificating authority. With regard to the UK, the approving authority is the European Aviation Safety Organisation (EASA), except for light propeller aircraft and microlights where the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) retains responsibility. Certification noise limits are set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the most recent ‘Chapter 4’ noise limits for large aircraft were introduced on the 1 January 2006.
The Department is responsible for specific noise mitigation measures at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. At other airports, noise restrictions may be imposed voluntarily by the airport operator or by local planning conditions/agreements. However the Civil Aviation Act 2006 introduced explicit statutory
powers for non-designated airports to make noise control schemes and to impose penalties for non-compliance.
In terms of measuring noise, aircraft noise contours for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted using the Leq metric are produced annually for the Department by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Under the European Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC, all major airports have been required to produce noise maps for 2006, based on the Lden metric. These maps were published on the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on 18 December 2007. Responsibility for implementation of the directive in England falls to DEFRA.
As far as aircraft noise is concerned away from the vicinity of airports, I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to his question of 18 February 2008, Official Report, columns 140-41W. This sets out the process for deciding on any airspace changes.
Bicycles: Safety Measures
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken following the review in 2001-02 of the regulations dealing with safety standards for pedal cycles; and if she will make a statement. [187017]
Jim Fitzpatrick: A public consultation on bicycle safety standards took place in 2001-02. Following this review the Department for Transport introduced The Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1101) and revoked the previous Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations.
British Transport Police: Expenditure
Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the British Transport police spent on border security and enforcement in each of the last three financial years. [186422]
Mr. Tom Harris: This information is not held by the Department for Transport but by the British Transport police who can be contacted at: British Transport Police, 25 Camden Road, London NW1 9LN, e-mail: parliament@btp.pnn.police.uk
Departmental Data Protection
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what audits her Department and its agencies carried out of their data and IT equipment in each of the last 10 years. [176648]
Jim Fitzpatrick: Audits are principally carried out independently of line management by Internal Audit functions at the Department for Transport (DfT) and its agencies. Line management also performs audits and other checks, including those performed as part of systems accreditation processes.
Since the DfT came into being in May 2002 its Internal Audit group has performed over 100 audits that have included evaluations and tests of
management’s systems of internal control over data and IT equipment. These internal audits form part of annual Internal Audit plans which are subject to the approval of the DfT and Agency Audit Committees. Internal audits typically focus on areas of greatest risk or on ensuring compliance with appropriate standards and controls. The results of internal audits are communicated to line management and reported to the DfT and agency Audit Committees.
Records of internal audits performed are not maintained centrally but are kept locally by each of the Department’s Internal Audit functions. Because of the decentralised nature of management responsibility for data and IT equipment within Agencies, specific record-keeping arrangements for management audits and checks vary between Agencies and are not maintained centrally.
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations which have been asked to protect sensitive data on behalf of her Department and its agencies, met the SAS 70 or equivalent standard prior to receiving the information. [176935]
Jim Fitzpatrick: Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 70 is an auditing standard issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. It contains the professional standards for auditors to report on the controls of a service organisation.
A SAS 70 report is primarily an auditor-to-auditor communication and is designed to provide information and assurance to the auditors of the financial statements of user organisations to enable those auditors to obtain an understanding of the service organisation's internal control.
Organisations do not, therefore, “meet” the standard, although reports issued under the standard contain the auditor's opinion on control objectives and activities. The standard is not specifically designed as a data privacy or security audit mechanism, although it has applicability in these areas. The standard is recognised in Europe.
Although SAS 70 audits may have been performed at the Department’s external contractors, the Standard does not specify a pre-determined set of control objectives and activities that service organisations must achieve. HMG has its own detailed manuals and guidelines for controlling data security, and the data exchanged with the Department’s contractors should have been subject to those control standards.
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who in her Department is responsible for ensuring that all issues which are categorised by data security audits as requiring attention are managed quickly and effectively. [176936]
Jim Fitzpatrick: The relevant Accounting Officer is ultimately responsible for addressing audit issues. Individual issues are typically assigned to a named individual or relevant manager who will be responsible for ensuring that issues are managed in accordance with appropriate action plans and due dates included in audit reports.
The Department’s Internal Audit group has follow-up procedures where appropriate to confirm that issues have been addressed. Audit Committees maintain oversight of Internal Audit follow-up procedures.
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether her Department and its agencies retain a list of issues arising out of each data security audit. [176937]
Jim Fitzpatrick: Issues identified during internal audits are reported to management responsible for the business area subject to the audit. Line managers are responsible for implementing actions to address recommendations arising from the audit, and should maintain lists of issues to enable them to do so. Because these responsibilities are decentralised across the Department and its Agencies, a standard management process for the retention of lists of audit issues centrally has not been adopted. Audit reports retained by management may, however, effectively fulfil this purpose.
The Department’s internal audit group maintains its own records of audit issues. Because the functions within the group are aligned to individual Agencies, standardised retention periods for lists of audit issues have not been adopted. Individual issues may be maintained on lists until the relevant issue has been cleared or may be retained longer dependent upon local custom and practice.
Lists of issues arising from audits and other checks performed by management, such as accreditations, may not be maintained if there is limited benefit to doing so once the issue has been resolved.
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which companies her Department and its agencies have engaged to conduct audits of data security processes. [176940]
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Department’s internal audit group has contractual arrangements with third party partners who are able to provide technical expertise to assist with data security audits. These partners are typically either recognised national or international auditing firms or smaller specialist auditing practices. Companies or firms who have provided resource in this capacity include Deloitte and Touche, Grant Thornton, Bentley Jennison, Insight Consulting, Hayes, and Square 1.
Other organisations employed by Department and agency line management to perform audits of data security processes include Fleet Support and Commissum.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |