|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Davies of Oldham: In the London 2012 sustainability plan, Towards a One Planet 2012, published in November 2007, the Olympic Board sets out how it intends to achieve a sustainable Games for each of the build, staging and legacy phases. For example, the design of the Olympic Park will minimise carbon emissions and the impact of climate change in a number of ways, including the building of a 120-metre turbine and an efficient combined cooling heating and power (CCHP) plant which will have the capacity to change from gas to other low carbon and renewable fuel sources as they become available.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): We regularly raise our concerns with the Chinese Government over media freedom, including during the visits of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to China earlier this year and at the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue in January 2008. We welcomed the media regulations implemented in China on 1 January 2007 for foreign correspondents that temporarily lift restrictions on travel and on the requirement to seek official permission for interviews up to and during the Olympics. We hope that they will remain in place after the Olympics and be extended to China's domestic journalists, and have urged China to consider this. We believe it is in China's interests for foreign media to have proper access to what is happening in China and we encourage the Chinese authorities to ensure adequate access for media during the Olympics.
Further to the Written Answer by the Minister for the Environment, Mr Phil Woolas, on 5 February (Official Report, Commons, 983W), why data on sulphur dioxide emissions take two years to process, verify and enter onto the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. [HL3012]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): Defra published the 2006 results from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) for UK air pollutants on 13 March 2008. Therefore, the time lag between the end of 2006 and publication of the results was a little over 14 months.
There is a vast amount of data that needs to be collected and compiled in order for the NAEI to be produced, and unfortunately this takes time. A number of important datasets are required, such as the Environment Agency's pollution inventory. This provides emissions from around 2,000 major point sources in England and Wales and, therefore, extensive compilation is required following the deadline of the end of April 2007 for operators to supply data. The NAEI also relies heavily on the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform's digest of UK energy statistics, which is normally only made available at the end of July. The digest contains a comprehensive picture of energy production and use over the past five years and, therefore, this dataset takes a significant time to compile. There are also many other datasets required, some of which are not available until the autumn. The aim is to have all the input data available by the end of September at the latest, so that compilation can commence.
It then takes approximately three months to compile the emissions inventory, as it is a complex task. The NAEI provides estimates of emissions to the atmosphere for 44 pollutant species and, in addition to the latest
22 Apr 2008 : Column WA288
What is the cost to them of all the procedures associated with a death in custody, including the investigation by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman, the inquest and any other follow-up action; and [HL3041]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The estimated costs by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman for investigating fatal incidents in prisons, young offender institutions and approved premises was £2.8 million in 2006-07. The costs of individual death in custody investigations vary widely.
Funding for coroners is provided by individual local authorities and there are no figures available centrally for the overall costs of inquests, which could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
Learning from deaths in custody is a key part of the Prison Service suicide prevention strategy, and includes consideration of prison and probation investigation reports, inquest verdicts and Coroners Rule 43 reports. The follow-up action taken in respect of every death in custody will vary from case to case, and it is not possible to allocate specific costs to this action. The independently chaired forum for deaths in custody was set up in 2005 to learn lessons and effect change to prevent deaths in custody. It is made up of senior representatives of all custody providers, their respective oversight and inspectorate bodies, and other government and non-government experts and practitioners in the field. The estimated costs of running the forum are £60,000 per year.
Inquests into deaths in custody are inquisitorial fact-finding processes, heard by a coroner with a jury. Currently available costs information is only in respect of the costs of Prison Service legal representation. HM Prison Service's legal costs since April 2004 are provided in the table below. They include the costs of the Treasury Solicitor, counsel's fees and other disbursements.
|Prison Service Inquest Costs|
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 1 April (WA 162) concerning appointments made by the Northern Ireland Office, which Ministers were involved in discussions with officials concerning appointments to the three non-statutory ad hoc advisory bodies in 2007. [HL3079]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Route utilisation strategies are produced by Network Rail on behalf of the railway industry. They make use of economic data and guidance published by HM Government such as TEMPRO (Trip End Model PROjections) and WEBTAG (Web Transport Analysis Guidance) which ensures consistent evaluation of all transport-related projects. The application of this data and guidance in the East Coast Main Line route utilisation strategy is a matter for Network Rail and consequently HM Government are not aware of the precise cost of oil that was used.
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 3 April (HL2703), when appraising a light rail scheme what values of time are ascribed to a car driver and a user of the prospective light rail scheme over a section of the journey. [HL3065]
For non-work purposes, everyone is assumed to have the same value of time on any mode. The following values are recommended: £5.04 per hour for commuting and £4.46 per hour for other journeys. The values for non-working time spent waiting for public transport is two and a half times the commuting and other values. Where walking and cycling is used as a means of interchange between modes of transport, the non-working values of time are doubled for that part of the journey. This reflects research suggesting people place a greater weight on these time savings.
For work purposes, the value of time varies by mode reflecting average differences in the income of relevant business travellers. For example, values of time of £36.96 per hour are applied to rail journeys and £26.43 per hour for journeys by car. There was insufficient data to produce a specific value of time for working journeys by light rail when these figures
22 Apr 2008 : Column WA290
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This information is not held by the Department for Transport. Local traffic authorities are responsible for setting local speed limits and have powers to introduce 20 mph speed limits and 20 mph zones without consent from the Secretary of State. They are not required to inform the department whenever they change a speed limit.
The department has recently commissioned a new research project on local road safety policy and practice, and some information about the implementation of 20 mph zones will be collected from local authorities as part of this study.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Transport Research Laboratory conducted two reviews of 20 mph zones in 1996 and again in 1998. The 1996 review found that 20 mph zones which incorporated traffic-calming measures achieved an average 9 mph reduction in vehicle speeds, annual accident frequency fell by 60 per cent and overall reduction in child accidents of 67 per cent.
The 1998 review looked at wider issues in terms of vehicle speeds and included 20 mph zones and 20 mph limits where there was lesser or no traffic calming. This found reductions in vehicle speeds were minimal in 20 mph speed limits as these only require repeater signs to be used.
The Department for Transport has however recently commissioned a new research project on local road safety policy and practice, and some information about the implementation of 20 mph zones will be collected from local authorities as part of this study.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): The UK, with a number of other EU member states, has successfully lobbied the European Commission to drop the proposals to require the packaging for subsidised school milk to carry the EU flag.
In the most recent draft of the proposal, discussed on 17 April, the requirement was dropped. However, the proposal requires that schools participating in the EU school milk scheme display a poster advertising the scheme and the EU subsidy. Defra will continue to liaise with interested parties and lobby the Commission ahead of the expected vote on the proposals on 22 May to ensure that any publicity requirements do not place a disproportionate burden on schools.
Lord Rooker: The joint statement by the Prime Minister and Taoiseach, on 6 April 2006, said that in the absence of restoration there would be a need for British-Irish partnerships to ensure that the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement was actively developed across its structures and functions.
On how many occasions since 1997 HM Revenue and Customs or the Inland Revenue have either compensated or come to a tax settlement with an individual taxpayer in relation to the unauthorised disclosure of personal or corporate tax information by an officer or former officer in breach of the Official Secrets Act and codes of conduct or practice for officers of HM Revenue and Customs or the Inland Revenue. [HL2841]
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|