| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Road Spending
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001, Official Report, columns 386–87W, on roads (Surrey), if he will provide similar figures for each (a) county, (b) unitary authority and (c) metropolitan area in England and Wales. [19270]
Mr. Jamieson: The provision made for capital expenditure on local major road schemes and maintenance of local roads and bridges, and revenue funding for structural and routine maintenance of non-principal roads and routine maintenance of principal roads in each local authority in England in the period 1996–97 to 2001–02 is set out in the tables which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
Information on expenditure on roads in each local authority in England in 1995–96 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The tables exclude provision for expenditure in 2001–02 on roads and road related schemes in London, the responsibility for which has transferred to the Mayor for London. Expenditure on roads and road related schemes in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he is planning changes to the amount allocated to roads under the 10-year plan. [22900]
Mr. Jamieson: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 9W.
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 498W
London Underground
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many new carriages will be ordered by London Underground by 2006 under PPP; [21941]
- (2) how many new carriages were ordered by London Underground between (a) 1992 and 1997 and (b) 1997 and 2001. [21966]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU) who inform me that since 1992 carriages have been ordered and brought into service as follows.
| New carriages ordered | New carriages brought into service | |
|---|---|---|
| 1993 | 354 | — |
| 1995 | 636 | — |
| 1997 | — | First Jubilee line stock |
| 1998 | — | First Northern line stock |
| 2001 | — | Last Jubilee and Northern line stock |
(55) 59 Jubilee line trains
(56) 106 Northern line trains
Under the modernisation plans, three infrastructure companies will work under contract to London Underground and will be required to deliver a comprehensive programme of investment to improve track, signals and stations as well as trains. The infrastructure companies will be responsible for ordering new carriages required for them to achieve the standards set by London Underground. I understand that details of the infrastructure companies' plans will be made public once the competitions have been completed.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice his Department has received from the Treasury about the phasing of infrastructure projects on London Underground under PPP. [21948]
Mr. Jamieson: Treasury and DTLR officials are in regular contact about various aspects of the PPP. London Underground are responsible for negotiating the PPP contracts, including the phasing of infrastructure projects.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains are running per hour on the Jubilee line at peak times. [21848]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground, who inform me that, in peak hours, 24 trains per hour are running on the Jubilee line.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Jubilee Line is operating at the service levels originally envisaged; and if he will make a statement. [21967]
Mr. Jamieson: The original contract between London Underground and Westinghouse Signals Ltd. was to deliver a signalling system with a long term operating capacity of 36 trains per hour (tph) and a fallback capacity of 27 tph in the event that the development of the advanced signalling system failed to meet the contract programme. It was necessary to implement fallback arrangements utilising existing technology to deliver a system capable of supporting 24 tph.
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 499W
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cost of additional rail inspectors under the PPP arrangements for London Underground. [21960]
Mr. Jamieson: Under the underground modernisation plans, the infrastructure companies will be required to bring all assets up to a satisfactory standard, including rails. London Underground will be responsible for managing the contracts with the infrastructure companies. The Health and Safety Executive will be responsible for
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 500W
safety regulation and enforcement, through HM Railway Inspectorate. The Secretary of State has therefore made no assessment of the cost of rail inspectors.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001, Official Report, columns 37–38W, on London Underground, if he will publish line-by-line figures for London Underground (a) predicted average passenger journey time and (b) passenger excess journey time for (i) each year since 1998–99 and (ii) the whole of 2001–02 to date. [22750]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information in the table showing scheduled journey time and excess journey time for each full financial year from 1998–99, and for the period 1 April to 10 November 2001.
| 1998–99 | 1999–2000 | 2000–01 | (57)2001–02 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schedule | Excess | Schedule | Excess | Schedule | Excess | Schedule | Excess | |
| Bakerloo | 24.08 | 5.17 | 24.24 | 5.77 | 27.09 | 7.28 | 27.15 | 7.36 |
| Central | 33.58 | 6.98 | 33.50 | 6.35 | 32.56 | 5.53 | 32.55 | 4.42 |
| District | 27.88 | 3.74 | 27.60 | 4.58 | 27.73 | 5.67 | 27.72 | 5.35 |
| East London | 22.78 | 3.09 | 24.89 | 3.91 | 20.93 | 2.83 | 20.83 | 1.83 |
| Jubilee | 24.30 | 3.26 | 23.77 | 4.64 | 25.40 | 6.04 | 25.43 | 6.17 |
| Metropolitan, Circle and Hammersmith and City | 31.17 | 5.49 | 31.67 | 6.71 | 31.18 | 7.91 | 30.85 | 8.48 |
| Northern | 29.01 | 5.47 | 29.03 | 4.68 | 28.83 | 4.76 | 28.83 | 5.14 |
| Piccadilly | 30.72 | 6.50 | 30.47 | 5.89 | 30.54 | 6.22 | 30.89 | 6.51 |
| Victoria | 22.17 | 4.77 | 22.40 | 5.13 | 22.38 | 6.48 | 22.38 | 5.56 |
| Waterloo and City | 9.81 | 0.48 | 9.41 | 0.52 | 9.40 | 0.73 | 9.41 | 0.95 |
(57) From 1 April to 10 November
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 623W, on London Underground, for what reason his Department allowed London Underground to give a waiver to senior LU managers in regard to a legal challenge by infrastructure companies and bidders; and if the waiver will extend to such a challenge by a member of the public. [22740]
Mr. Jamieson: London Underground is responsible for managing the competitions for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure.
I understand that, as is common in such transactions, the legal documents for effecting the transfer of the infrastructure companies to the bidders contain various limitations on the bidders' ability to make claims against London Underground, including in relation to information disclosed by London Underground as part of the bid process. Although considered unlikely, it is possible that a bidder could seek to make a claim against an employee of London Underground rather than the company itself. Since employees are insured against such claims by London Underground, the effect would be to circumvent the intended cap on London Underground's liability. London Underground therefore intends to include a waiver in relation to claims by a bidder against employees of London Transport, London Underground or the infrastructure companies.
As stated in my answer of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 623W, the wavier will not prevent legal action by London Transport or London Underground against their own employees. Nor will it extend to potential claims by a member of the public.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 38W, on London Underground, if he will publish the average annual percentage of peak hour trains that ran on each line of the London Underground for the whole of 2001–02 to date. [22746]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the table, showing the percentage of trains in peak service for the period 1 April to 10 November 2001. The figures take account of all cancellations including those due to factors beyond LUL's control, such as security alerts and passenger action.
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 501W
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the merits of establishing a not- for-profit company to run London Underground. [22821]
Mr. Spellar: The Government considered all of the options for the future of the tube prior to the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of the way forward in March 1998—including the possibility of a not-for-profit private sector trust.
There is no need for a not-for-profit solution for the underground. Public sector London Underground will continue to be responsible for running the railway. The operation of track, signals, trains and stations will remain in public hands. The public sector will also be responsible for managing the contracts to maintain and improve the tube.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many potential bidders for the London Underground PPP (a) asked for documents to consider bidding and (b) sent in a bid. [22704]
Mr. Spellar: London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the Tube infrastructure. I understand that six applications to pre-qualify were received for the BCV and JNP contracts, and that four bidders submitted bids (two for both contracts). Four applications to pre-qualify were received for the SSL contract and three bids were submitted.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will be responsible for safety in the PPP plan for London Underground. [22818]
Mr. Spellar: London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. London Underground, in the public sector, will remain responsible for safety across the single unified system. As the operator of the trains and the infrastructure controller, London Underground is required to have a statutory safety case in accordance with the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 2000. In addition to general health and safety law, the infrastructure companies will be required to comply with a contractual safety case. The independent Health and Safety Executive will remain responsible for safety regulation and enforcement.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the costs incurred by the bidders for the London Underground PPP in preparing the bids. [22711]
Mr. Spellar: No such estimate has been made.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to build new underground lines. [22822]
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 502W
Mr. Spellar: This is a matter for the Mayor for London to consider in the context of his transport strategy. He will need to liaise closely with the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that plans for London Underground effectively complement the development of the national rail network.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what public money the Government are promising in each of the first three years to each of the planned infracos for London Underground. [22816]
Mr. Spellar: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 11 May 2001, Official Report, column 379W.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the costs of preparing bids for the London Underground PPP are an allowable cost against corporation tax. [22707]
Mr. Spellar: The costs of preparing bids are treated for taxation purposes in the same way as any other cost.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what alternative to a PPP the Government are evaluating for London Underground. [22824]
Mr. Spellar: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 33W.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many firms of consultants (a) the Government and (b) London Underground has used on London Underground matters in the last two years. [22703]
Mr. Spellar: As to part (a) of the question the Department has used Ove Arup (advice in respect of Jubilee Line extension project), Herbert Smith (legal advice), Maggie Leates (pensions advice) and Ernst & Young (currently reviewing London Underground's value for money evaluation of the tube modernisation plans).
As to part (b) this is an operational matter for London Underground.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who has overall responsibility for (a) policy, (b) performance and (c) funding of London Underground. [22694]
Mr. Spellar: The London Regional Transport Act 1984 sets out the framework for the current operation of London Regional Transport, the parent company of London Underground Ltd., and its subsidiaries.
Responsibility for London Underground Ltd. policy lies with the board of London Regional Transport, which is appointed by the Secretary of State. The board's policies must accord with principles from time-to-time approved by the Secretary of State.
Responsibility for performance also lies with the board of London Regional Transport, and is encapsulated in its general duty to provide a rail service for Greater London with due regard to transport needs, efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 503W
In respect of funding, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of Treasury, make grants to London Regional Transport (for any purpose and on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit). It is the duty of London Regional Transport to apply those sums to aid capital investment or operating costs in respect of the public passenger transport services it provides (including its subsidiary—London Underground Ltd.).
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is in the Public Expenditure budget for London Underground in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and how much of the total is provision for capital spending. [22823]
Mr. Spellar: Parliament has approved provision of £520 million for London Underground in 2001–02.
The financial requirements of London Underground in 2002–03 will not finally be known until negotiations with bidders for the Tube modernisation plans have been completed. The Government have made it clear that, as long as the final bids represent value for money, Transport for London will receive the appropriate level of central Government grant to allow for London Underground's need to make payments to the contractors.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirements the Government have requested of bidders for London Underground with respect to new capital investment. [22819]
Mr. Spellar: London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the Tube infrastructure. The contracts will require the infrastructure companies to deliver increased capacity, improved reliability and higher quality infrastructure.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Government will reimburse part of the costs of (a) unsuccessful and (b) successful bidders for the London Underground PPP. [22706]
Mr. Spellar: The Government will not reimburse the costs of either unsuccessful or successful bidders. However, the successful bidder on each competition will reimburse 90 per cent. of the eligible costs of unsuccessful bidders, up to a maximum of £7 million. In addition, London Underground has agreed to compensate bidders if the competition should be terminated for reasons other than bids not representing value for money. On the two deep Tube competitions, the preferred bidder will receive up to £12 million, with up to £7 million available for the reserve bidder. On the sub-surface line competition, where three bidders were short-listed, they will receive up to £7 million each.
In the event of the competitions being terminated because no bid is adjudged to represent value for money, then no compensation is payable.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much has been spent to date by the Government on advisory fees for the PPP for London Underground. [22696]
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 504W
Mr. Spellar: The Department has employed Ernst and Young to carry out a review of London Underground's value for money evaluation of the Tube modernisation plans. No payments have yet been made under the contract.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what are the respective roles of (a) the Secretary of State, (b) the Mayor's Office, (c) Transport for London, (d) the Government Office for London and (e) London Underground Ltd. in the creation of policy and management of the London Underground. [22695]
Mr. Spellar: Under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the role of the Secretary of State is to set principles from time to time, with which London Regional Transport's general duty—to provide rail services—must accord. In addition, the Secretary of State has other roles including specific purposes such as issuing approvals, consents, determinations and directions to London Regional Transport. The Secretary of State may also with the consent of Treasury, make grants to London Regional Transport, which in turn can be applied to aid capital investment and operating costs in respect of its subsidiary, London Underground Ltd. The Government Office for London is part of the Government.
Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, in the transitional period until London Underground Ltd. is transferred to Transport for London, the Mayor of London, Transport for London and London Underground Ltd. are required to consult and co-operate with each other.
The role of London Underground Ltd. is to provide such railway services as London Regional Transport requires in pursuance of its statutory duty under section 2(1) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984,
- "to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services for Greater London by railway".
Mr. Spellar: London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. I understand that the core contract for each of the three infrastructure companies is approximately 100 pages long. In addition there are a number of detailed supporting and related documents.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial guarantees the Government will seek from bidders for the London Underground infracos. [22817]
Mr. Spellar: London Underground has carried out a thorough evaluation of the bidding consortia to ensure that they are financially robust and capable of meeting their obligations under the tube modernisation contracts.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the deadline was for submitting bids for the London Underground PPP; and what the Government's estimate is of when a decision on the bids will be announced. [22710]
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 505W
Mr. Spellar: London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. Bidders are required to submit final pricing early in January and London Transport will take a decision in principle whether to proceed with the modernisation plans, subject to consultation with the Mayor and Transport for London, in February.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirements the Government have placed on bidders for London Underground with respect to safety. [22820]
Mr. Spellar: London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. In addition to general health and safety law, the infrastructure companies will be required to comply with a contractual safety case.
The independent Health and Safety Executive will be examining these contractual safety cases as part of the assessment process for the next revision to London Underground's statutory Railway Safety Case. The Government have always made it clear that the plans for modernising the tube will only go ahead if the Health and Safety Executive are satisfied that London Underground has made an acceptable case for safety.
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many criminal incidents were reported as occurring on the London Underground in the past 12 months; and how many arrests there have been. [22940]
Mr. Jamieson: The British Transport police (BTP) have provided the following information. During the period December 2000 to November 2001, 12,787 notifiable and 5,013 non-notifiable offences were recorded by the BTP area responsible for the London Underground. The term "notifiable" refers to those offences that police forces in England and Wales are required to report to the Home Office. The term "non-notifiable" refers to those offences that are not reportable, and are generally of a less serious nature. The number of arrests is not recorded by the BTP.
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library correspondence he has had with the (a) Health and Safety Commission and (b) Health and Safety Executive on the London Underground PPP. [14481]
Mr. Jamieson: The Secretary of State has not personally written to the Health and Safety Commission or Health and Safety Executive in relation to the plans for the modernisation of London Underground.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many trains per hour are timetabled to run on each section of each London Underground line during peak hours; and what the maximum number of trains per hour to have run on each equivalent section in peak hours was in the past. [22699]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the table showing scheduled trains per hour for
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 506W
the trunk sections of each line. Trunk sections are the busiest core sections of each individual line which carry the heaviest peak hour traffic.
| Line/section | 1980 | 1990 | 2001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bakerloo | |||
| Elephant and Castle to Queens Park | 18 | 21 | 22 |
| Queens Park to Elephant and Castle | 20 | 22 | 22 |
| Central | |||
| White City to Leytonstone | 24 | 24 | 22 |
| Leytonstone to White City | 29 | 29 | 29 |
| District and Circle | |||
| Gloucester Road to Tower Hill | 25 | 30 | 29.5 |
| Tower Hill to Gloucester Road | 26 | 29 | 29.5 |
| East London Line | |||
| Surrey Quays to Whitechapel | (58)— | (58)— | 10 |
| Whitechapel to Surrey Quays | (58)— | (58)— | 10 |
| Jubilee | |||
| West Hampstead to Charing Cross | 22 | 23 | (59)24 |
| Charing Cross to West Hampstead | 20 | 20 | (60)20 |
| Metropolitan | |||
| Baker Street to Harrow-on-the-Hill | 17 | 16 | 23 |
| Harrow-on-the-Hill to Baker Street | 23 | 23 | 25 |
| Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City and Circle | |||
| Liverpool Street to Baker Street | 22 | 25 | 29 |
| Baker Street to Liverpool Street | 29 | 30 | 30 |
| Northern | |||
| Kennington to Camden Town (via Charing Cross) | 18 | 20 | 19 |
| Kennington to Camden Town (via Bank) | 18 | 20 | 19 |
| Camden Town to Kennington (via Charing Cross) | 18 | 19 | 18 |
| Camden Town to Kennington (via Bank) | 18 | 19 | 18 |
| Piccadilly | |||
| Acton Town to Arnos Grove | 28 | 27 | 27 |
| Arnos Grove to Acton Town | 30 | 24 | 27 |
| Victoria | |||
| Brixton to Seven Sisters | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| Seven Sisters to Brixton | 27 | 29 | 28 |
| Waterloo & City | |||
| Waterloo to Bank | (58)— | (58)— | 18 |
| Bank to Waterloo | (58)— | (58)— | 18 |
(58) Data not available
(59) Figure for 2001 relates to Willesden Green to North Greenwich
(60) Figure for 2001 relates to North Greenwich to Willesden Green
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 623W, on London Underground, what discussions took place between his Department and London Underground about the (a) recent and (b) continuing advertising campaigns to promote the public-private partnership for the underground, giving details of which (i) Ministers and (ii) officials were involved. [22722]
Mr. Jamieson: DTLR officials have regular contract with London Underground on a wide range of issues. DTLR Ministers have occasional meetings with London Transport and London Underground directors, but have not specifically discussed London Underground's advertising campaign.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if (a) the companies and (b) their subsidiaries, including ones that have subsequently been taken over by other companies, that make up the consortia that are the preferred bidder
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 507W
infracos for London Underground, have at any time in the past 10 years provided London Underground with (i) trains, (ii) signalling equipment and (iii) other (A) infrastructure and (B) service that has failed to achieve the level of performance required by the contract originally signed. [22697]
Mr. Jamieson: London Underground is responsible for managing the competition for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. I understand that each of the bidders has previous experience of supplying goods or services to London Underground and that such experience was considered by London Underground. Detailed information on performance of its contractors is a matter for London Underground.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001, Official Report, columns 37–38W, on London Underground, if he will publish the (a) predicted average passenger journey time and (b) passenger excess journey time for the whole of 2001–02 to date. [22749]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU) who inform me that the weighted scheduled journey time and weighted excess journey time for the period 1 April to 10 November 2001 were 35.4 minutes and 7.30 minutes respectively.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish (a) in which year new escalators were most recently installed at Angel station, (b) on how many occasions since these new escalators were installed the station has had to be closed because of escalator problems, (c) the length of time of each closure and (d) the name of the manufacturer of the escalators. [22698]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground who inform me that:
- (a) new escalators were installed at Angel station in August and September 1992;
- (b) and (c) they do not collect information in the form requested;
- (d) the escalators at the Angel were manufactured by CNIM.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the private companies, consultancies and partnerships that have provided (a) his Department, (b) London Transport and (c) London Underground with consultancy advice concerning the public-private partnership for London Underground since the PPP negotiations began. [22752]
Mr. Jamieson: The principal firms employed by London Transport and London Underground are:
- PricewaterhouseCoopers (financial)
Freshfields (legal)
Ove Arup (engineering)
Arthur Anderson (restructuring)
PA Consulting (infraco structuring)
Marsh (insurance)
Pugh Roberts (modelling)
Bacon & Woodrow (pensions)
KPMG (review of public sector comparator).
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 508W
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will give details of the improvements that will occur for passengers using the Northern line between Morden and Kennington as a result of the public private partnership for London Underground in the first five years of the PPP, giving output targets to be achieved for (a) stations, (b) track and (c) trains; [22718]
- (2) if he will give details of the improvements that will occur for passengers using the Jubilee line between Wembley Park and Baker Street as a result of the public-private partnership for London Underground in the first five years of the PPP, giving output targets to be achieved for (a) stations, (b) track and (c) trains; [22716]
(3) if he will give details of the improvements that will occur for passengers using the Central line between Marble Arch and Liverpool Street as a result of the public-private partnership for London Underground in the first five years of the PPP, giving output targets to be achieved for (a) stations, (b) track and (c) trains. [22717]
Mr. Jamieson: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 622W.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 November 2001, Official Report, column 831W, on London Underground, if he will publish the annual change in the gross operating costs of London Underground for each year since 1997–98. [22742]
Mr. Jamieson: The gross operating costs of London Underground are set out in London Transport's annual report documents, which incorporate their audited annual accounts.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 622W, on London Underground, whether his Department has undertaken a consultation exercise specifically to discover what (a) outputs and (b) outcomes the London public wishes to see achieved as a result of the public-private partnership for London Underground; and if he will place the results in the Library. [22756]
Mr. Jamieson: London Underground is responsible for managing the competitions for the contracts to modernise the tube infrastructure. London Underground regularly undertakes consultation exercises and surveys of customers attitudes. I understand that the performance requirements in the modernisation contracts have been developed to deliver the improvements customers want, in particular increased capacity, improved reliability and higher quality (including safety and security).
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 622W, on London Underground, which year will be used as the base-line against which performance by PPP Infracos will be measured; and what penalties will be incurred if an Infraco achieves a performance 5 per cent. (a) above or (b) below this base-year starting-point. [22759]
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 509W
Mr. Jamieson: The reliability, capacity and quality of travelling environment delivered by the infrastructure companies will be measured against benchmarks that are based on performance in the current year.
On reliability, an infrastructure company that performs 5 per cent. better than current performance will be penalised at a rate of £3 per lost customer hour for any deterioration in that performance level. If it performs 5 per cent. worse than current performance, then the penalty rate doubles so that a further deterioration in performance is penalised at a rate of £6 per lost customer hour.
A similar mechanism is used to incentivise improvements in capacity and the quality of the travelling environment. On these measures, the payment rate varies according to the line in question, but in every case the benchmark is set so that the marginal payment rate doubles if performance deteriorates below the current level. I understand that London Underground intends to make details of the contracts available once they have been signed.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the annual service performance targets set for London Underground by his Department and its predecessors (a) for each year since 1996–97, showing the actual performance achieved in each and (b) for 2001–02, showing actual performance achieved so far. [22700]
Mr. Jamieson: The annual service performance targets set for London Underground, and their actual performance, are set out in London Transport's Annual Reports. The performance targets set at the start of 1999–2000 were, however, two-year targets to be achieved by the end of March 2001.
The Government targets for 2001–02 were announced to the House on 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 367W. London Underground's actual performance will be published as soon as possible after the end of March 2002.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 622W, on London Underground, if he will state, for each London Underground line, the last year in which it carried (a) 10 per cent. and (b) 25 per cent. fewer passengers than it does today. [22741]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground, who inform me that they do not hold the information requested in a readily available form and that it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001, Official Report, column 36W, on London Underground, in which months since they were introduced the trains on the (a) Central, (b) Jubilee and (c) Northern lines have failed to achieve their original contractual requirements; and what the mean distance between failure figure for the most recent month available was. [22754]
Mr. Jamieson: London Underground inform me that they do not hold readily available information on the months when contractual requirements were not met and
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 510W
that this could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Detailed in-year operational information such as monthly figures for mean distance between train failures is a matter for London Underground.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions Ministers have had with the Mayor of London and the Transport Commission for London about the London Underground in the last month. [22712]
Mr. Spellar: Ministers have frequent meetings with the Mayor and Commissioner of Transport for London. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions most recently met the Mayor on 12 December to discuss a range of issues, including London Underground, and I last met him on 13 December.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2001, Official Report, column 560W, on London Underground, (1) if he will provide comparable information on signal failure for the remaining underground lines; [23212]
- (2) if he will provide comparable information for the remaining parts of the lines. [23658]
Mr. Jamieson: This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information set out in the following table showing the number of signal failures causing delays to services for each underground line. The data relate to the period 1 January to 10 November 2001 unless otherwise stated.
| Underground line | Number |
|---|---|
| Bakerloo | 133 |
| Central | 402 |
| Circle | 125 |
| District | 343 |
| East London | 54 |
| Hammersmith and City | 106 |
| Jubilee(61) | 232 |
| Metropolitan | 372 |
| Northern(61) | 166 |
| Piccadilly(61) | 94 |
| Victoria | 256 |
| Waterloo and City | 9 |
(61) Data for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines relates to the period 9 December 2000 to 8 December 2001.
Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001, Official Report, column 443W, on the Underground environment, what are the relative weights ascribed to the passenger ambience factors by the PPP contracts for London Underground in respect of (a) graffiti, (b) litter, (c) scratched windows, (d) broken lights and (e) dirt; [24249]
- (2) pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001, Official Report, column 443W, if he will publish each weight applied to each attribute covered in the PPP contracts. [24251]
Mr. Jamieson: This is a matter for London Underground. I understand that London Underground intend to make details of the contracts available once they have been signed.
19 Dec 2001 : Column: 511W
Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001, Official Report, column 443W, how many mystery shoppers are employed on the London Underground; and how the findings are reported. [24250]
Mr. Jamieson: This is a matter for London Underground and for NOP who conduct the mystery shopper survey on their behalf.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish the Ernst & Young report into the value for money review of PPP. [23940]
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Ernst & Young's report will be published as part of the consultation process and before decisions are taken on whether to sign contracts for the Government's tube modernisation plans.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |