here - United Kingdom Parliament

815W
Written Answers
1 DECEMBER 2010
Written Answers
816W
Official Cars: Liquefied Natural Gas
Paul Maynard: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport whether he has made an estimate of the
potential cost savings likely to be made from converting
a Government Car Service vehicle to be fuelled by
liquefied petroleum gas autogas. [27204]
Mike Penning: The cost-effectiveness of a conversion
to liquid petroleum gas (LPG) can only be realised with
vehicles that cover high mileage using primarily LPG
and without incurring the associated reliability issues
that the conversion creates. The mileage profile and
replacement cycle of a Government Car Service vehicle
would not permit full recovery of the conversion costs.
Parking: Fines
Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport
how many local authorities (a) responsible for London
boroughs and (b) outside London have contacted his
Department to seek an increase in charges for parking
penalties. [27114]
Norman Baker [holding answer 29 November 2010]:
Penalty charges in London are the responsibility of the
London Mayor. The British Parking Association has
raised this matter with Ministers of behalf of their local
authority members. In addition six local authorities
have written to the Department for Transport.
Stourbridge to Walsall Freight Rail Line
Margot James: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what progress has been made on reinstating
the Stourbridge to Walsall freight rail line; and if he
will make a statement. [27799]
Mrs Villiers: There is no current project to reinstate
the Stourbridge to Walsall line. However, Network Rail
has published the West Midlands and Chilterns Route
Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation in November
2010. It has established that there may be a case for
re-opening the Stourbridge to Walsall line to accommodate
future freight growth.
Transport: Expenditure
George Eustice: To ask the Secretary of State for
Transport what changes his Department has made to
its formula for assessing benefit-to-cost ratios in
respect of transport schemes since May 2010. [27328]
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport has
not changed its definitive appraisal guidance since May
2010. The guidance, along with planned changes released
“in draft” in January 2010 (which included a new benefitcost
ratio formula), are available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/index.php
Spending review decisions were informed by a valuefor-money
measure which was consistent with two of
the proposed changes to the guidance: introducing the
latest monetary values of carbon and adopting the new
benefit-cost ratio formula.
The Department for Transport’s business plan for
2011-15 states it will reform the way transport projects
are assessed, and funding prioritisation decisions are
made, so that the benefits of low carbon proposals are
fully recognised. This includes reviewing and revising its
guidance on appraising transport projects, as well as its
processes for assessing schemes and supporting ministerial
decisions. We will announce the scope and timetable of
this review shortly.
DEFENCE
Afghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence whether the remit of the Defence Reform
Units review includes forces and operations in Afghanistan.
[26292]
Dr Fox: The remit of the Defence Reform Unit’s
review does not include our current forces or operations
in Afghanistan.
Armed Forces: Aircraft
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence what estimate his Department has made of the
likely effect of implementing his decision to procure
the non-STOVL variant of the joint strike fighter on
the number of jobs. [27614]
Peter Luff [holding answer 30 November 2010]: The
decision to purchase the carrier variant (CV) of the
joint strike fighter (JSF) was made on the basis of its
advantages offered in terms of interoperability with
allies, range, and pay load and through life costs over
the short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant.
The industrial implications of the key strategic defence
and security review choices were given careful consideration,
but we have not made a specific assessment of the
impact on the jobs in the UK of the decision to proceed
with the CV of the JSF. Many UK companies continue
to be heavily involved in the overall JSF programme.
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence which engines have been chosen to be fitted on
the joint strike fighter; and if he will make a statement.
[27615]
Peter Luff: Pending the US decision as to whether to
continue funding for the completion of development of
the alternative General Electric/Rolls Royce F136 engine,
it is too early to determine which engines will be fitted
to the joint strike fighter.
Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence with reference to the strategic defence and
security review, page 24, what estimate he has made of
the cost to his Department of introducing protected
support vehicles to replace unprotected versions that
are no longer suitable. [26794]
Peter Luff: There are a number of future planned
programmes for both protected and unprotected support
vehicles. The protection level of any given vehicle is very
much driven by the capability the vehicle is designed to
meet and the threat level it is expected to face. To