|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Justine Greening: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport with reference to the Project Heathrow project delivery and risk reports, what level of probability his Department assigns to (a) low, (b) medium and (c) high risk classifications in respect of (i) inherent and (ii) residual risk likelihood assessments; and if he will make a statement. 
Paul Clark: The probability of the risks, both inherent and residual, identified in the Heathrow Project risk registers was a matter of judgment for the project manager, subject to review by the Project Board. It does not relate to a specific, quantifiable probability.
listed the 35 local authorities who initially expressed an interest in using powers under the Transport Act 2000 to introduce road user charging or workplace parking levy. Since then, only one local authority, Nottingham city council, has approached the Department for Transport with proposals for a scheme.
Devon county council has expressed an interest in considering a workplace parking levy in the context of its Local Transport Plan and as part of a bid to the Department for funding to investigate the possibility of introducing demand management measures. They have not yet provided developed proposals.
Norman Baker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what change was made to the cost-benefit ratio for the M25 design, build, finance and operate widening project following each increase in the cost of the project. 
Chris Mole: A benefit cost ratio (BCR) of monetised impacts was determined for each of the two widening schemes (between Junctions 16 to 23, and Junctions 27 to 30) included within the M25 design, build, finance and operate contract.
The following table summarises the BCR figures at each ministerial approval stage. The method for calculating the BCR figures changed for scheme appraisals carried out since 2005-06 and the targeted programme of improvements figures are therefore not directly comparable with the later approvals.
|Benefit cost ratio|
|Junction 16 to 23||Junction 27 to 30|
Norman Baker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what estimate was made of the cost of the proposed M25 widening scheme when (a) the decision was made to let the contract for that scheme through a private finance initiative scheme and (b) the contract for the widening scheme was signed off. 
Chris Mole [holding answer 12 June 2009]: The approved estimate for widening the M25 between Junctions 16 and 23, and between Junctions 27 and 30 was £0.90 billion at the time these projects entered the Targeted Programme of Improvements in 2004.
The capital cost of these widening schemes was re-estimated and approved at £1.28 billion in July 2007. At this stage it had been agreed that the widening of the M25 between Junctions 16-23 and Junctions 27-30 schemes would be procured through the M25 design, build, finance and operate (DBFO) contract. The estimates did not include the cost of financing via the private finance initiative route.
The contract was awarded to Connect Plus on 20 May 2009 with total capital costs for the two widening sections of £1.02 billion. This represents the fixed price from Connect Plus for development and construction of the two sections being widened but excludes the cost of financing.
Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport how much capital funding the Government has allocated to rail travel in (a) the North East and (b) England in each year since 1997. 
Chris Mole: The information is not available in the form requested. A breakdown of annual expenditure by mode and region is available in the Department for Transport Annual Report. Details of total historic expenditure are available in National Rail Trends which is published by the Office of Rail Regulation. Copies of these documents are available in the Libraries of the House.
Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport how many road traffic accident fatalities there have been in (a) Tameside and (b) Stockport in each of the last 10 years. 
|Number of fatalities|
Norman Baker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport pursuant to the answer of 20 April 2009, Official Report, column 396W, on transport: Royal Family, if he will specify that (a) scheduled flights and (b) timetabled railway services should be used for journeys by members of the Royal Family funded from his Department's budget. 
Paul Clark [holding answer 12 June 2009]: Decisions on air and rail travel arrangements for Members of the Royal Family are taken by the Royal Travel Office and Royal Household on a case-by-case basis as they must be judged on consideration of safety and security requirements, obtaining the best value for money, time-efficiency, the visit requirements, the avoidance of disruption to the public, the environment, and the appropriateness for the visit in question.
Mr. Swire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport when he expects to announce his Department's decision on the cases of people wrongly notified of speeding offences as a result of the malfunctioning of the speed camera on the westbound A35 at Chideock, Dorset. 
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much the Audit Commission had on deposit in each Icelandic bank when each account was frozen; and how much of each deposit remains unrecovered. 
The Audit Commission had deposits with two Icelandic banks, £5m with Heritable and £5m with Landsbanki when each account was frozen. As at 11 June 2009, no monies have been recovered from either bank.
A copy of this letter will be placed in Hansard.
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether an impact assessment has been commissioned in respect of the proposed extension to property owners of the scope of business improvement districts. 
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Subject to the Business Rate Supplements (BRS) Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Government intend to conduct an impact assessment of the inclusion of property owners in Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in those areas where a BRS is introduced or already in place. It is envisaged that the assessment will be published alongside a consultation paper on the detailed arrangements needed for BRS-BIDs that will be set out in secondary legislation.
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what funding the Housing Corporation provided to the Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment in the last 24 months before the corporation's merger with English Partnerships; for what purposes; and at what cost. 
Mr. Ian Austin:
Following the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) on 6 March 2009, Official Report, columns 71-72WS, we have consulted on and issued an Amending Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination for 2009-10 on 20 May. This will provide
additional subsidy of around £175 million to compensate those councils in England that reduce their rent increases in accordance the Government's decision to offer local authorities a reduction in the 2009-10 national average guideline rent increase from 6.2 per cent. to 3.1 per cent. Local authorities are responsible for making decisions on the rent levels they apply to their social home tenancies.
Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many people are on a local authority housing waiting list in Stockport; and how many were on such a list in (a) 2004 and (b) 1999. 
Mr. Ian Austin: Information is available on numbers of households rather than people. The number of households registered on local authority housing waiting lists in each local authority, as at 1 April each year from 1997 to 2008, is published on the Communities and Local Government website in Table 600. The link for this table is as follows:
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 20 April 2009, Official Report, column 423-4W, on councillors, for what reasons the Audit Commission decided to collect data on all local councillors during its next scheduled exercise; and what assessment the Audit Commission made of the level of risk of fraud involving elected members prior to that decision. 
Your Parliamentary Question has been passed to me for reply.
Data on local councillors has been collected since 1998. During each cycle of the National Fraud Initiative, local authorities have been required to submit payroll data that includes salaries, wages and members allowances.
Prior to 1998 and based on known frauds reported by audited bodies, pilot exercises were run to determine the value of data matching payroll within NFI. The pilot data was used to provide anomalies to audited bodies and as a result of their investigations they detected significant numbers of payroll and housing benefit frauds by public sector employees and elected members. Consequently payroll became a core element of the data used in NFI. The long standing principle of running pilots to assess the fraud risk in a dataset is enshrined in the Commissions Code of Data Matching Practice laid before Parliament in July 2008.
Individual case studies and the total of frauds detected have been reported in the NFI national reports published at the end of each exercise and many have been covered by local and national media particularly where custodial sentences have resulted. Many local authorities have rightly adopted a zero tolerance approach to fraud and it is important that this is as robust with staff and elected members as it is with members of the public.
A copy of this letter will be placed in Hansard.
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many videos his Department has uploaded to YouTube since July 2007; and what policy his Department has on the use of (a) YouTube and (b) other online media. 
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Communities and Local Government has published 52 videos on its YouTube channel since July 2008, when the channel launched. The Department decides on a case-by-case basis whether YouTube or other online media channels are used for communications purposes.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|