Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Highways Agency Framework Document

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport (Stephen Ladyman) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

The Highways Agency has an important role in delivering the successful management and operation of the strategic road network. It fulfils this role on behalf of the Secretary of State and the agency's relationship with the Department for Transport is covered by a framework document.

The framework document sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Highways Agency, its chief executive and how he will work with the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport. The previous framework document dated from 1999 and was due for revision.

The framework document has been revised in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines and has been approved by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Today I have placed copies of the new Highways Agency framework document in the Libraries of both Houses.

Learning and Skills Council: Annual Report and Accounts 2004–05

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): My honourable friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Bill Rammell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I would inform the House that the Learning and Skills Council for England has today published its annual report and accounts for the period to 31 March 2005. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

Merseytram

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Derek Twigg) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

On 13 June this year, I said that the £170 million government funding that had originally been approved for Merseytram remained available if the scheme could be delivered at that cost.

Since then we have had regular discussions to secure the necessary funding commitments from the Merseyside districts, over which Merseytravel has powers to levy funds, to give confidence that the scheme would be delivered without further requests
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column WS12
 
for government funding. Unfortunately the required assurances have not been forthcoming. I have therefore decided that this scheme cannot proceed.

Merseytram Line 1 was given provisional approval in December 2002, at a public sector cost of £225 million, and with a cap of £170 million on central government contributions. Costs subsequently increased, and Merseytravel advised the department in May 2005 that the total public sector cost was £315 million—an increase of 40 per cent. This was for a scheme that was smaller in scope than the one we had approved.

This led to my announcement on 13 June 2005 that the Government would not increase their contribution to the project. However, our position has remained clear that the previously committed £170 million was available if the scheme could be delivered at that cost.

Since June the department's key concern has been to ensure that there would be no further requests for government funding. To this end, the department needed assurance that the districts, as the ultimate funders of any shortfalls, had properly considered the risks and accepted the consequences of the Government's contribution being capped. This logically meant that there should be no cap on the contribution from local sources. We made clear in July 2005 that we would need written undertakings from the Merseyside districts to this effect.

Since then the department has tried to help the authorities find a way forward. In September 2005 it became clear that not all of the Merseyside districts would be prepared to give such undertakings. We agreed to consider a proposition that Liverpool and Knowsley, as the principal beneficiaries of the project, would provide assurances that they between them would meet any cost overruns or funding gaps. We have also agreed to requests to extend the deadline for a decision.

We have also said that our requirements would be satisfied by an arrangement under which the two districts would enter a back-to-back agreement committing Merseytravel to take the risk above a certain level, as long as the districts' commitments to the department were unconditional. This approach could address district concerns about the prudence or lawfulness of providing unconditional commitments to the department, provided that they satisfied themselves that they could rely on the agreement with Merseytravel.

The Merseyside authorities have now had four months to deliver these commitments, but they have not been prepared to do so. What the districts have offered is a capped commitment, whereby Liverpool and Knowsley would bear costs up to £24 million. Above that level, they have asked us to rely on assurances from Merseytravel.

However, Liverpool City Council has recently received written legal advice that it would not be prudent or lawful for Liverpool to rely on Merseytravel assurances about the risk of cost overruns without a proper independent due diligence exercise.
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column WS13
 

If Liverpool's own legal advice is that it cannot currently rely on Merseytravel assurances, then clearly it is not reasonable to expect the department to do so.

Liverpool's advice is consistent with our view that there is nothing inherently unlawful in an unconditional district undertaking. What is preventing the districts from providing the commitment letters we have requested is that they cannot be confident in Merseytravel's assurances.

Our requirements have been clear since July. We have now had months of discussion with Merseyside. It has had plenty of time to undertake the necessary due diligence work. However, it is unfortunately clear that the districts are not prepared to give us the assurances we need; so we cannot be confident that there will be no further requests for funding. I have therefore decided that the scheme cannot proceed.

I recognise that transport investment is needed in Merseyside to support future growth in the area. We have committed more than £200 million to transport improvements in Merseyside over the past five years, and we intend to continue to support good value schemes in the area. The department stands ready to work with Merseytravel and Merseyside authorities on a package of transport improvements for Merseyside, especially improved public transport in the areas that would have been served by Merseytram. Funding will be there for the right proposals.

New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport (Richard Caborn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am pleased to inform the House that on 24 November 2005 I formally issued the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) and the Community Fund—now operating jointly under the name of the Big Lottery Fund—with policy directions to enable the fund to launch its new programmes.

The policy directions and the programmes which will be launched as a result have been subject to an unprecedented level of public consultation and input from stakeholders. Underpinning all the programmes will be the fund's mission to improve communities and the lives of people most in need.

The planned programmes include up to £155 million to support voluntary and community sector infrastructure; £155 million for children's play; up to £354 million for environmental projects; and up to £165 million for well-being programmes. These initiatives will benefit communities the length and breadth of the UK.

I have placed a copy of the policy directions in the Libraries of both Houses.
 
29 Nov 2005 : Column WS14
 

Palliative Care: Children and Young People

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Liam Byrne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am pleased to announce that the department is publishing a guide today entitled Commissioning Children's and Young People's Palliative Care Services.

The provision of palliative care for children and young people has often been raised in both Houses of Parliament. We have made it clear that we want improvements in the choice and quality of services available to children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions and their families.

Children's palliative care needs are different from those of adults. Their conditions often entail much longer-term provision, often intermittently throughout their lives, and their needs can be complex.

The new guide provides important information about the key aspects of children's palliative care which will stimulate improvements in quality of provision and commissioning. It also aims to promote choice for children, young people and their families; for example, whether to receive palliative care at home, in hospital or in a hospice.

Standard 8 of the National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services (NSF) has set very high standards of services for disabled children and young people and those with complex health needs, including palliative care. The new guide will help primary care trusts and practice-based commissioners and their local authority and voluntary sector partners to implement the NSF standards as they develop and deliver children's palliative care, bringing together a range of providers to achieve a seamless service for children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions and their families. It promotes the choice to die at home that so many children, young people and their families want.

Copies of Commissioning Children's and Young People's Palliative Care Services will be placed in the Library.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page