1-6 of 6 results for subject:Standards
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.242 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Standards
- We searched for
- subject_t:Standards OR subject_t:Benchmarking OR subject_t:"Performance indicators" OR subject_t:"Performance measurement" OR subject_t:"Performance standards" OR subject_t:"Performance targets" OR subject_ses:93107
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Brake, Tom (6)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Greater London (6)
Publisher
Ten minute rule motion for leave to bring in a Bill. Agreed to on question. Presentation and first reading (Bill 168). To be read a second time on 13 May.
Ten minute rule motion for leave to bring in a Bill. Agreed to on question. Presentation and first reading (Bill 168). To be read a second time on 13 May.
Lead member
Tom Brake
Type
Debates on bills
Legislative stage
First reading
Procedure
Private members' bills proceedings; Ten minute rule motions
Legislation
Landlord and Tenant (Reform) Bill 2015-16
Subjects
Letting agents; Fees and charges; Greater London; Landlords; Private rented housing; Standards; Repairs and maintenance; Tenants' rights
Date
27 April 2016
Reference
608 cc1466-1470
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the (a) passengers in excess capacity and (b) total number of passengers was (i) for each London commuting service train operator and (ii) in total, broken down into (A) am peak and (B) pm peak figures measured in the most recent...
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the (a) passengers in excess capacity and (b) total number of passengers was (i) for each London commuting service train operator and (ii) in total, broken down into (A) am peak and (B) pm peak figures measured in the most recent...
Asked by
Tom Brake
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Derek Twigg
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 October 2005
For answer on
2 November 2005
Answered on
9 November 2005
The figures requested are in the following table:
| Passenger counts : Services to and from London Terminals | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | |||||||||
| TOCs | AM peak number of trains | Number of passengers | PIXC | PIXC (%) | PM peak number of trains | Number of passengers | PIXC | PIXC (%) | Overall |
| Chiltern | 36 | 9,518 | 157 | 1.6 | 34 | 8,451 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.9 |
| Southern | 140 | 75,228 | 5,833 | 7.8 | 134 | 58.174 | 1.040 | 1.8 | 5.2 |
| SET | 175 | 117.661 | 2,830 | 2.4 | 169 | 92,578 | 383 | 0.4 | 1.5 |
| One | 137 | 74,842 | 1,690 | 2.3 | 136 | 69,263 | 1,629 | 2.4 | 2.3 |
| LTS/c2c | 46 | 27,175 | 610 | 2.2 | 43 | 22,649 | 249 | 1.1 | 1.7 |
| Silverlink | 84 | 22,828 | 1,080 | 4.7 | 58 | 20.724 | 265 | 1.3 | 3.1 |
| South West Trains | 133 | 82,139 | 5,607 | 6.8 | 138 | 62,815 | 710 | 1.1 | 4.4 |
| FGWL | 41 | 10,874 | 275 | 2.5 | 39 | 9,627 | 147 | 1.5 | 2.1 |
| Thameslink | 50 | 26,995 | 651 | 2.4 | 55 | 23,736 | 650 | 2.7 | 2.6 |
| WAGN | 56 | 24,569 | 537 | 2.2 | 54 | 21,062 | 685 | 3.3 | 2.7 |
| Total | 898 | 471,829 | 19,270 | 4.1 | 860 | 389,079 | 5,758 | 1.5 | 2.9 |
| Note: Capacity measured at the point on the journey where the highest number of passengers is carried. |
Subjects
Greater London; Railways; Passengers; Overcrowding; Standards; Trains
Date
9 November 2005
Reference
24439; 439 c518W;439 c518W
House
House of Commons
If she will make a statement on the future of the ““Better Healthcare Closer to Home”” project in south-west London.
If she will make a statement on the future of the ““Better Healthcare Closer to Home”” project in south-west London.
Asked by
Tom Brake
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Jane Kennedy
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
19 October 2005
For answer on
25 October 2005
Answered on
25 October 2005
The intention is that the ““Better Healthcare Closer to Home”” project will modernise and improve local health services in Merton, Sutton and mid-Surrey, and the proposal is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision. This is a complex decision, and it is taking time to review all the documentation and information that have been supplied.
Subjects
Health services; Greater London; Standards
Date
25 October 2005
Reference
438 c160; 20910
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The Minister may be aware that under the ““Better Healthcare Closer to Home”” proposals, the primary care trusts were to run local care hospitals. Following Sir Nigel Crisp's announcement, clearly that is no longer the case. Can the Minister say who will run those local care hospitals—perhaps a private company, a consortium of general practitioners or even the local authority? Can she also say what extra action she can take to reassure PCT employees who are—
The Minister may be aware that under the ““Better Healthcare Closer to Home”” proposals, the primary care trusts were to run local care hospitals. Following Sir Nigel Crisp's announcement, clearly that is no longer the case. Can the Minister say who will run those local care hospitals—perhaps a private company, a consortium of general practitioners or even the local authority? Can she also say what extra action she can take to reassure PCT employees who are—
Asked by
Tom Brake
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Department of Health
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
25 October 2005
We are talking about a £350 million investment in new and refurbished hospitals that will benefit the constituents of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) with better, more modern health care services. His point about PCTs has already been answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There is nothing I can say to add to it. He must listen to the answers he is given.
It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman make this point, because decentralisation and the offer of additional charges to be levied for higher quality non-clinical services, paid by those willing to pay them, are precisely the policies on which his party fought the last election.
Subjects
Health services; Greater London; Standards
Date
25 October 2005
Reference
438 c160-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his Answer of 12th March, Official Report, columns 254-6, on London Underground, if he will provide figures for each (a) month and (b) week since March 2002 for which figures are available. - Inc ref to 12 March 2003, 401...
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his Answer of 12th March, Official Report, columns 254-6, on London Underground, if he will provide figures for each (a) month and (b) week since March 2002 for which figures are available. - Inc ref to 12 March 2003, 401...
Asked by
Tom Brake
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
David Jamieson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
14 March 2003
For answer on
25 March 2003
Answered on
25 March 2003
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003, Official Report,
columns 254-6, on London Underground, if he will provide figures for each (a) month and (b) week since March 2002 for which figures
are available. [103793]
Mr. Jamieson: The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.
Information is, however, available on an annual basis and was set out in my answer of 12 March 2003, Official Report,
columns 254-6W.
Subjects
Greater London; Railway track; London Underground; Railway signals; Standards; Underground railways; Rolling stock
Date
25 March 2003
Reference
103793; 402 c116W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list the (a) track, (b) signalling and (c) rolling stock failures which have occurred on each of the London Underground lines in each of the last six years. - Inc table.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list the (a) track, (b) signalling and (c) rolling stock failures which have occurred on each of the London Underground lines in each of the last six years. - Inc table.
Asked by
Tom Brake
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
David Jamieson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
5 March 2003
For answer on
12 March 2003
Answered on
12 March 2003
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the (a) track, (b) signalling and (c) rolling stock failures
which have occurred on each of the London Underground lines in each of the last six years. [102171]
Mr. Jamieson: These are operational matters for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the tables relating
to delays of at least two minutes resulting from problems with the relevant type of asset.
The number of delays is primarily a consequence of problems with ageing and life-expired assets following decades of under
investment in the underground. This emphasises the urgent need for the major investment and maintenance, some £16 billion over the
next 15 years, which our tube modernisation plans will deliver.
(a) London Underground--Number of delays (of at least two minutes) by line caused by track problems in each of the last six years
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Line 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02
Bakerloo 193 201 176 168 171 210
Central 203 92 65 50 62 133
District 74 51 69 83 179 190
East London -- -- -- -- 10 26
Jubilee 45 38 77 146 126 103
Circle and Hammersmith & 75 61 57 62 98 166
City
Metropolitan 105 73 83 82 136 136
Northern 141 165 109 105 208 143
Piccadilly 92 110 109 135 165 144
Victoria 54 80 66 66 56 56
Waterloo & City -- -- -- -- 5 5
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Note: 1. East London included with Jubilee to 1999-2000 2. Waterloo & City included with Central to 1999-2000
(b) London Underground--Number of delays (of at least two minutes) by line caused by signalling problems in each of the last six
years
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Line 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02
Bakerloo Central 264 292 249 355 248 357
Central 644 880 308 335 490 582
District 303 269 278 394 525 632
East London -- -- -- -- 46 68
Jubilee 79 110 197 338 398 415
Circle and Hammersmith & 129 131 125 238 407 396
City
Metropolitan 209 266 194 290 522 613
Northern 298 323 216 317 358 388
Piccadilly 261 241 213 202 326 289
Victoria 115 166 149 131 186 314
Waterloo & City -- -- -- -- 16 27
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Note: 1. East London included with Jubilee to 1999-2000. 2. Waterloo & City included with Central to 1999-2000.
(c) London Underground--Number of delays (of at least two minutes) by line caused by rolling stock problems in each of the last six
years
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Line 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02
Bakerloo 1,075 1,144 1,237 879 968 1,113
Central 2,605 2,423 2,165 2,304 2,864 2,957
District 1,160 1,082 995 981 834 1,149
East London -- -- -- -- 106 147
Jubilee 922 1,239 2,376 1,722 1,603 1,427
Circle and Hammersmith & 1,167 2,170 1,380 1,568 1,463 2,055
City
Metropolitan 1,363 1,238 1,065 1,047 1,247 1,034
Northern 3,505 4,229 5,942 3,727 1,674 1,518
Piccadilly 2,228 3,115 3,886 2,934 2,609 3,070
Victoria 757 994 821 920 1,053 1,022
Waterloo & City -- -- -- -- 27 36
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Note: 1. East London included with Jubilee to 1999-2000. 2. Waterloo & City included with Central to 1999-2000.
Subjects
Greater London; Railway track; London Underground; Railway signals; Standards; Underground railways; Rolling stock
Date
12 March 2003
Reference
102171; 401 c254-6W
House
House of Commons