|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|Table C: Qualitative research 2007-08|
|Division/agency||Projects||(i) Firm||Cost (£)||Number of participants|
|(1) Focus groups.|
(2) In-depth interviews.
(3) Focus groups, (approximately eight per group).
(4) Case studies.
(5) Including VAT.
Mr. Goodwill: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what average fine was imposed for the offence of use of a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks in the most recent year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 7 February 2008, Official Report, column 1417W, on the Fairtrade initiative, what Fairtrade products are (a) available for purchase at her Department's staff catering facilities and (b) offered at official departmental meetings and engagements. 
Green leaf juices;
Green and Blacks Chocolate;
Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 20 March 2008, Official Report, columns 1383-4W, on Heathrow airport, what the local environmental limits which the Government have set are; how these limits were determined; and what account was taken of them in (a) the technical studies conducted by her Department to assess the scope for developing Heathrow since 2003 and (b) the consultation document, Adding Capacity at Heathrow airport. 
Jim Fitzpatrick: The local environmental limits were set out clearly in our recent consultation document Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport (page 8). They flow from commitments made in the Air Transport White Paper 2003, which also explains their rationale. Both documents are available on the Department's website. These constraints have informed all of the Department's work on Heathrow development options.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the statement of 10 March 2008, Official Report, column 113, on London Underground, who undertook the work on comparative analysis of the public private partnership versus conventional public sector-led procurement referred to by the Minister of State in her Department at column 114; what (a) account was taken and (b) weight given to the potential for the private partner to go into administration by (i) those undertaking the work and (ii) each independent scrutineer of the work and methodology on which it was based; and if she will place in the Library copies of the reports of (1) KPMG, (2) Ernst and Young and (3) the National Audit Office on this matter. 
Ms Rosie Winterton: Work on the comparative analysis of the public-private partnership versus conventional public sector-led procurement was led by London Underground, with assistance from various organisations including KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ove Arup. Ernst and Young also undertook a separate, independent analysis on behalf of the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
The potential for a PPP company to enter administration was fully considered during the construction, analysis and procurement of the PPPs and was reflected in both the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the contracts themselves.
The Ernst and Young report, London Underground PPPs Value for money ReviewIndependent Review for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, was placed in the House Libraries when it was published on 7 February 2002. All National Audit Office reports, including their report, The Financial Analysis for the London Underground Public Private Partnerships, published on 15 December 2000, are placed in the
Libraries when they are published. On 31 March 2000, KPMG wrote to London Underground giving their Final Assessment Report into the PPPs and this included analysis of the public sector comparator and my officials are seeking London Underground's views as to whether or not this report can now be placed in the House Library.
Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many appeals relating to Traffic Commissioner decisions on (a) public service and (b) heavy goods vehicle licensing matters have been (i) submitted to, (ii) heard by, (iii) upheld by and (iv) rejected by the Transport Tribunal. 
|Public service||Heavy good vehicles|
The difference between those submitted and those heard (203 cases total) account for the proportion of cases that have been withdrawn and/or settled. In addition, 13 appeals relating to heavy goods vehicles licensing matters have been referred back to the Traffic Commissioner for further consideration.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|