Tag: Lord Berkeley

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Kramer on 13 May (WA 493), what is the amount of the annual charge used to calculate the net presentvalue of the Thameslink rolling stock project and the number of diagrammed multiple units and diagrammed vehicles to be provided.

    Baroness Kramer

    The aggregate net present value for the supply and maintenance of the new Thameslink trains (including the provision of depots) is £2.8 billion in 2014 prices. Cross London Trains Ltd will lease 1140 vehicles as 115 trains, consisting of 55 12-car units and 60 8-car units, to the Thameslink operator to support an assumption of 109 diagrams. The final number of diagrams to be operated will be determined through the planning process for the December 2018 timetable.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-03-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, during the shortlisting of the bid from Keolis and Eurostar to operate the East Coast Main Line franchise, they made representations to the government of France in respect of allowing United Kingdom companies to bid for passenger franchises on the French rail network.

    Baroness Kramer

    The UK Government continues to support the opening of rail markets across the European Union.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why HS2 Ltd, in acknowledging petitions deposited against the High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill, requires petitioners to set up an account with a secure email service (the switch data encryption system) in order to receive electronically their Petition Response Document from the Bill’s promoter, the Secretary of State for Transport.

    Baroness Kramer

    Petitioners are not required to set up a new email account to receive their Petition Response Document (PRD) electronically. Ensuring that petitioners receive their PRD in a timely manner is an important part of the petitioning process. The use of the Egress email system ensures that the file size limits imposed by email service providers do not prevent petitioners receiving their PRD. It also avoids the delays and inconvenience that can arise if documents are posted in hard copy, and are delayed or delivery is attempted when the petitioner is not at home. These are issues that people have complained about before, so HS2 Ltd has listened and deployed a better solution. In addition, at the request of the Select Committee, petitioners will be offered alternative means of receiving their PRD other than Egress.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-03-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the penalties for driving a motor vehicle without insurance.

    Baroness Kramer

    If taken to court, an offender faces a maximum fine of up to £5,000 and up to 8 penalty points on his/her driving licence.

    There is a fixed penalty of £300 for this offence which also carries 6 penalty points.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-06-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the switch data encryption system proposed by HS2 Ltd for communication with petitioners against the High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill allows petitioners to copy, circulate and otherwise communicate as a normal email; and whether any tracking or monitoring of such communications will be available to HS2 through the system.

    Baroness Kramer

    Egress is an email system used by many government departments, NHS trusts and local authorities, including the London Borough of Camden, for communicating externally. It does not provide HS2 Ltd with any abilities to track or monitor emails sent by others. Petitioners will use Egress to download their petition response document; it will not be attached to an email. HS2 Ltd will only be able to confirm if and when the Petition Response Document (PRD) has been downloaded. Once downloaded, the PRD can be saved and copied, and circulated to others, subject to the constraints of email service providers on large files.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-04-09.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Attlee on 30 April 2012 (WA 420), what is their policy on grants and state aids for harbour dredging; under which United Kingdom Government and European Union funding programmes grants are permitted; what account they take of the effect of any grant on competition with other ports in the area or region; under what circumstances grants for dredging are available for a single beneficiary which will be the main commercial beneficiary; and whether, in any application for a grant for port development, any dredging element must be identified and justified separately.

    Lord Bates

    The Government’s policy, as confirmed in the National Policy Statement for Ports, is that the ports industry in England and Wales is generally successful in funding investment, including in capital dredging, on a commercial basis without need for support from public funds. Consequently there is a general presumption against such grants, which can displace and deter private sector investment and distort competition, whether for single or multiple beneficiaries. There may, however, be occasional exceptions, as in the case of the Regional Growth Fund grant awarded for dredging in Liverpool Bay and the Mersey Estuary. This was based on an exceptional regional economic regeneration justification. In any such case, the prospective impact on competition with other ports would be taken into account during consideration of the application.

    Dredging costs, along with other port costs, could potentially be eligible for grants from European funding schemes such as the Connecting Europe Facility and Trans-European Networks – Transport (CEF/TEN-T). The Government would normally expect any grant application for UK or EU funds to show disaggregated costings, including clear identification of any dredging element that may be present.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-05-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there is a requirement in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive to treat surface rainwater runoff.

    Lord De Mauley

    The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requires the collection and treatment of urban waste water. The Directive defines urban waste water as ‘domestic waste water or the mixture of domestic waste water with industrial waste water and/or run-off rain water’. Therefore, the treatment of surface rainwater runoff is required where it is mixed with domestic or industrial waste water and collected in a collecting system.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-05-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government for how many spills a year the Environment Agency has licensed the upgraded Mogden sewage works; and how many were achieved in the first year of operation.

    Lord De Mauley

    Mogden Sewage Treatment Works has an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency to discharge treated and storm effluent to the Thames Estuary at Isleworth. The discharge of storm effluent is permissible only when the capacity of onsite facilities for treatment and containment are exceeded. This includes a 77,000m³ storm tank.

    The permit does not specify a number of spills per year. It requires the works to provide secondary treatment for a specific flow rate of incoming sewage.

    The current version of the permit came into effect on 31 March 2013. During the subsequent 12 months, Thames Water reported 54 occasions when the works discharged storm sewage to the Thames. Thirty-four of these were during the wet weather in January and February.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-05-07.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what time period of asset use they have assumed in calculating the cost benefit of the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

    Lord De Mauley

    The Government has used 100 years, in line with the Treasury Green Book recommendation that the appraisal period should be taken as the useful life of the assets. Further detail can be found in the November 2011 Defra document “Costs and Benefits of the Thames Tunnel”.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Berkeley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2014-05-06.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the lack of planned rail connection between HS1 and HS2 would mean that HS2 could not be designated as part of the TEN-T network.

    Baroness Kramer

    Removal of the HS1 link proposal should not affect the designation of HS2. Commission Regulation EU No 1315/2013 includes the maps which define the TEN-T network. Phase 1 of HS2 is on the TEN-T Core Network as it is expected to be completed before 2030, the target date in the TEN-T Regulation for the Core Network. Phase 2, the ‘Y’ section, is on the Comprehensive Network as it will not be completed until after this date.