UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Michael Fabricant – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Michael Fabricant – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Michael Fabricant on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of an extension to Crewe of the first phase of High Speed 2 on the (a) route through Lichfield constituency and (b) need for an additional railway line north of the City of Lichfield connecting the end of Phase one to the West Coast mainline.

    Robert Goodwill

    No decision has yet been made on Phase Two as we are still considering the responses to the public consultation. Sir David Higgins’s proposals would see the Government’s preferred route to Crewe, which formed part of the recent Phase Two consultation, constructed earlier. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Sir David’s proposal alone would affect the route through the Lichfield constituency. However, the route of Phase Two through the Lichfield constituency is clearly subject to the outcomes of the recent public consultation.

    The powers for Phase Two, including the section of line to Crewe, are proposed to be sought via a second hybrid Bill. As such the connection to the West Coast Main Line as part of the Phase One Bill is still required to allow Phase One to operate effectively and to enable destinations such as Stafford to benefit from high speed services.

  • Mr Andrew Smith – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Mr Andrew Smith – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr Andrew Smith on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what criteria his Department used in the decision to include the Garden Bridge in the Government’s National Infrastructure Plan.

    Stephen Hammond

    The National Infrastructure Plan 2013 sets out the government’s long-term plan to ensure that it can deliver the investment required to meet the UK’s infrastructure needs to 2020 and beyond. The Garden Bridge is not one of the Government’s ‘Top 40′ projects as set out in the Plan, but it is part of the ‘infrastructure pipeline’, which includes large capital programmes of investment worth £50 million or over.

  • John McDonnell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    John McDonnell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John McDonnell on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 16 May 2013, Official Report, column 335W, on the Merchant Shipping (Diving Safety) Regulations 2002, what discussions (a) Ministers in his Department and (b) officials from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have held with the Health and Safety Executive regarding the implications for diver safety or revoking the regulations; and what the outcomes were of those discussions.

    Stephen Hammond

    It is still our policy to revoke the Merchant Shipping (Diving Safety) Regulations 2002.

    There have been no specific discussions between Ministers or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regarding the implications for diver safety or revoking the regulations since May 2013. However, the proposal was raised by the MCA at a meeting with HSE’s Offshore Division in July 2013 to consider a range of regulatory issues affecting the offshore sector, and it was agreed to discuss in more detail as the proposals are developed, and prior to any changes to the regulations.

  • Grahame M. Morris – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Grahame M. Morris – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Grahame M. Morris on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the current level of (a) use and (b) availability is amongst offshore helicopter passengers in the oil and gas industry of emergency breathing systems that meet Category A of the Civil Aviation Authority’s relevant technical specifications.

    Robert Goodwill

    There are currently no Category ‘A’ emergency breathing systems (EBS) in use by, or available to, passengers on UK offshore helicopter flights. The EBS currently in use in the UK sector of the North Sea does not meet the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) higher Category ‘A’ specification contained in CAA Publication CAP 1034, primarily because it takes too long to deploy. The EBS used in the Norwegian sector also does not meet the Category ‘A’ requirement, primarily as it cannot be deployed underwater.

    EBS that would likely meet Category ‘A’ is commercially available. In particular the passenger short term air supply system (P-STASS) developed for the UK military, which the CAA understands is currently being considered by the industry, has previously been used for civilian operations (e.g. the Marine Incident Response Group).

  • John McDonnell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    John McDonnell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by John McDonnell on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 16 May 2013, Official Report, column 335W, on the Merchant Shipping (Diving Safety) Regulations 2002, whether it is still his policy to pursue revocation of the regulations.

    Stephen Hammond

    It is still our policy to revoke the Merchant Shipping (Diving Safety) Regulations 2002.

    There have been no specific discussions between Ministers or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regarding the implications for diver safety or revoking the regulations since May 2013. However, the proposal was raised by the MCA at a meeting with HSE’s Offshore Division in July 2013 to consider a range of regulatory issues affecting the offshore sector, and it was agreed to discuss in more detail as the proposals are developed, and prior to any changes to the regulations.

  • Grahame M. Morris – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Grahame M. Morris – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Grahame M. Morris on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of implementing the recommendations in the Civil Aviation Authority’s safety review of helicopter operations in the offshore oil and gas industry on the annual number of passenger-carrying helicopter flights in that industry.

    Robert Goodwill

    The primary concern of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the safety of the public, and the absolute focus of its recent Offshore Helicopter Review has been to make safety improvements in that sector. I am satisfied that implementing the recommendations in the CAA Review will lead to improvements in safety and that all the changes proposed are both realistic and achievable. The CAA is directly engaging with the oil and gas industry, helicopter operators and workforce representative groups through its new Safety Action Group. I do not see that recommendations contained in the Review will have any significant effect on the annual number of offshore helicopter operations.

  • Gordon Henderson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Gordon Henderson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gordon Henderson on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans the Government has to improve the rail infrastructure on the North Kent rail line.

    Stephen Hammond

    The Government is working with Network Rail, train operators and Kent County Council to progress the case for journey time reductions between Ashford and Ramsgate by 2019 through infrastructure improvements. Funding is available for this, subject to a satisfactory business case.

  • Richard Burden – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Richard Burden – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 27 February 2014, Official Report, column 456W, on motorways: repairs and maintenance, what the reasons are for the discrepancy between the figures of eight deaths in the preceding three years and 1,747 injuries in the preceding 12 months of people repairing motorways stated by the Highways Agency in a press release dated 21 October 2013.

    Robert Goodwill

    The figures quoted are based upon different data selection criteria and from different time periods. The answer of 27 February 2014, quoted from Official Report, column 456W (Motorways: Repairs and Maintenance), is the number of people repairing motorways killed or injured by vehicles in 2012 and 2013. The Highways Agency press release of 21 October 13, referred to the number of road workers killed and injured while improving and maintaining the strategic road network in England, irrespective of the causation or duties being undertaken. The 8 road workers killed occurred between 2009 and 2013 and the figure of 1,747 quoted in the same press release included a large volume of near misses, hazards and damage to plant and equipment where no injuries had been sustained.

  • Mary Creagh – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Mary Creagh – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mary Creagh on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how much of the joint investment between his Department and First Great Western to fund additional standard class capacity and a refresh of first class is provided by his Department.

    Stephen Hammond

    At this stage, the amounts involved are commercially confidential, as private sector contractors are involved in undertaking the work on behalf of First Great Western. However, the basis on which the allocations have been made is equitable and reflects among other things the need for the public sector contribution to achieve value for money and to secure the Rail Investment Strategy imperative of improved standard class capacity on the Great Western route. The information about the amount borne by the Department to fund the standard class reseating in this joint investment will be provided once the works are completed.

  • Mr Graham Stuart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Mr Graham Stuart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr Graham Stuart on 2014-03-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the level of cross-subsidy between fare paying passengers and those using the Concessionary Travel Scheme (a) generally and (b) in rural areas.

    Stephen Hammond

    Concessionary travel schemes are considered to be public service obligations.

    Legislation requires bus operators to accept statutory concessionary bus pass holders for free travel on off-peak journeys within England, and are reimbursed for doing so. Bus operators may not solicit or accept payment for such journeys.

    Reimbursement is provided on the basis that operators are “no better and no worse off” for carrying concessionary pass holders, and we therefore do not believe this to constitute a subsidy.

    The Department publishes guidance to help authorities calculate appropriate reimbursement rates. We are unaware of any cross-subsidy between fare paying and concessionary pass holding passengers occurring in rural areas or elsewhere.