|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what reasons he based his decision that it would be inappropriate to widen the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b; for what additional external factors he took into account other than the recommendation of the Planning Inspector set out in paragraph 87 of the summary of the inspector's report on Heathrow Terminal 5; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Keeble [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The Secretary of State's decision to approve the development of Terminal 5 and the reasons for it are set out in full in his decision letter dated 20 November 2001. Paragraphs 56 and 57 of that decision letter deal with the inspector's conclusions and recommendation in respect of the M4 widening and the reasons for the Secretary of State's agreement that the draft scheme and orders relating to the M4 widening should not be made. I cannot add anything to what is said in the decision letter.
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether local authorities applying to run electoral pilot schemes in the May 2002 elections will be required to demonstrate how their schemes will be accessible to (a) visually impaired and (b) other disabled people before receiving approval. 
6 Dec 2001 : Column: 441W
selecting local authorities to pilot electoral innovations in the May 2002 local elections. Local authorities will be expected to demonstrate how their proposed pilot meet this criterion, including in the case of people with a visual impairment or other disability, as part of the selection process.
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether his Department intends to initiate discussions with disability organisations over the accessibility of electoral pilot schemes for the May 2002 local elections to (a) visually impaired and (b) other disabled people. 
Dr. Whitehead [holding answer 5 December 2001]: My officials, together with representatives of the Electoral Commission, are meeting RNIB and SCOPE early in the new year to discuss, among other things, progress with the 2002 local election pilots.
Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the e-voting equipment to be procured by his Department for the electoral pilots in the May 2002 local elections will include an (a) screen magnification software, (b) screen reader software, (c) Braille displays and (d) other adaptive technology for visually impaired people. 
Dr. Whitehead [holding answer 5 December 2001]: Enabling greater access for sections of the electorate less likely to vote is one of the criteria for selecting e-voting pilots for the May 2002 local elections. Local authorities and suppliers chosen as pilots will be expected to show how they meet this criterion. At this stage the Government do not want to anticipate the outcome of these pilots about the best technology to help people with a visual impairment, but technologies such as screen magnification software and Braille displays could well feature in proposals put forward by local authorities and suppliers.
Mr. Jamieson: Railtrack together with the electricity generating industry are responsible for the supply of electrical power to railways. The Strategic Rail Authority has a primary role in evaluating the case for new investment in railways which may include the choice of motive power.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the London Underground activities for which he is responsible; what responsibility he has for London Underground's advertising; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Jamieson: Responsibility for the activities of London Underground Ltd., as a subsidiary of London Regional Transport (LRT), lies with the board of LRT. London Underground's activities support those of LRT, whose general duty is to provide or secure the provision
6 Dec 2001 : Column: 442W
for Greater London of public passenger transport services by railway in accordance with principles approved by the Secretary of State.
The responsibilities of the Secretary of State under the LRT Act 1984 are limited. He has powers designed for specific purposes such as issuing approvals, consents, determinations and directions to LRT. He does not have power to direct LRT's day to day business.
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the Deloitte and Touche report on the PPP for the London Underground's commentary on the concept of reputational externalities; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Jamieson: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 10 May 2001, Official Report, column 255W. Deloitte and Touche's report is a matter for Deloitte and Touche.
Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what maintenance teams London Underground has dedicated to working around the clock to clean (a) buildings and (b) trains affected by graffiti; and how many staff are employed to perform these functions; 
(3) what conclusions he and his ministerial colleagues have drawn from the conference held last March with experts from New York and with officials from the Home Office on tackling graffiti on the London Underground; 
(4) what recent discussions he has had with Transport for London about graffiti on the underground; 
(5) whether he expects Mr. Bratton to pursue a zero tolerance policy on graffiti on the London Underground; 
(6) if it is possible to measure accurately changes in the level of recorded litter at London Underground's stations and to include the weighted results of surveys by mystery shoppers in the public-private partnership contracts; 
(7) how many representations he has received from the Greater London Assembly, from London boroughs and other organisations since June on the need to tackle graffiti on the London Underground; and if he will allow local authorities to remove graffiti from London Underground's buildings and then to recover the costs from London Underground; 
6 Dec 2001 : Column: 443W
(9) how those mystery shoppers appointed to undertake periodic surveys of graffiti at London Underground stations measure its level; 
(10) how many high-pressure (a) jet washers and (b) gritting devices London Underground possesses for cleaning graffiti from bridges and brick walls at its stations; and what use has been made of them in the last three years for which figures are available; 
(11) if he will list the criteria used by the mystery shoppers employed to survey the levels of graffiti and litter at London Underground stations; and how their findings are weighted in order to calculate the quarterly average score for ambience at particular stations; 
(12) how often London Underground's stations and trains are subjected to environmental surveys by mystery shoppers; and whether these surveys are checked simultaneously. 
Mr. Jamieson: The management of litter and graffiti and the conduct of the mystery shopper survey are operational matters for London Underground (LU). I understand from LU, that they have contracted NOP, an independent market research agency to conduct the mystery shopper survey on their behalf for the next couple of years. The results of the survey are collected and reported every three months. Under LU's tube modernisation plans, one of the factors which will determine the level of payments to the infrastructure companies will be their performance in keeping stations and trains clean.
Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2001, Official Report, column 750W, on the underground environment, if he will list the equipment used to measure the factors to make up the values of QUTAS j and QUTAS k; and which factors will be the product of human judgment. 
Mr. Jamieson: This is a matter for London Underground. I understand that QATAS j and QATAS k represent scores for different aspects of the passenger environment on the underground. The attributes included in QATAS j are measured by Mystery Shopper Surveys. The attributes included in QATAS k include public address audibility, ride quality, in-car noise, train lighting and in-car heating and ventilation. London Underground intends that these should be measured by physical tests, using the appropriate equipment for measuring these attributes. Initially, however, they too will be tested using mystery shopping techniques.
Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2001, Official Report, column 750W, on the underground environment, what are the (a) values and (b) limits of the letters applied to the weights which are in turn applied to London Underground to calculate a weighted average. 
Mr. Jamieson: This is a matter for London Underground. The letters referred to represent different attributes of the passenger environment of the underground. Where these attributes are measured by Mystery Shopper Surveys then they are scored out of 10. Where they are
6 Dec 2001 : Column: 444W
measured by physical tests, the attributes are given a score between 0 and 100. The weights applied to these attributes are calculated by London Underground according to the importance given by passengers to the attribute and the station or train on which the attribute is being measured. A higher weight is given to busier stations and trains on more heavily used lines.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|