|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to the answer of 19 March 2002, Official Report, column 232W, on airport security, which United Kingdom (a) airports and (b) airlines have signed up to the Voluntary Commitments on Air Passenger Rights; 
Mr. Jamieson: Twenty UK airports have signed up to the Airport Passenger Service Commitment. They are Aberdeen; Belfast International; Birmingham International; Bournemouth; Bristol International; Cardiff International; East Midlands; Edinburgh;
26 Mar 2002 : Column 944W
Exeter International; Glasgow; Humberside; Leeds Bradford; Liverpool; London Gatwick; London Heathrow; London Luton; London Stansted; Manchester; Norwich International; Southampton.
Ten UK airlines have signed up to the Airline Passenger Service Commitment. They are Air 2000; Airtours International (now MyTravel Airways); bmi British Midland; Britannia Airways; British Airways; British European Airways; JMC Airlines; KLM(UK); Monarch Airlines; Virgin Atlantic Airways.
The Airport Passenger Service Commitment covers 11 areas, with signatories agreeing to: provide assistance to persons with reduced mobility; display passenger information on legal rights; provide assistance during periods of significant delays or disruption; improve airport access and ground transportation; provide appropriate infrastructure for check-in, baggage and security; regularly maintain equipment; ensure that sufficient trolleys are available; provide clear way-finding and staffed information desks; keep all public areas clean at all times; ensure that customer comment and complaint procedures are clear and effectively managed; produce regular consumer reports on levels of passenger satisfaction.
The Airline Passenger Service Commitment covers 14 areas, with signatories agreeing to: offer the lowest fare available through each of their direct outlets; honour the agreed fare after payment; notify passengers of known delays, cancellations and diversions; assist passengers facing delays; deliver baggage as quickly as possible; allow telephone reservations to be held or cancelled without commitment or penalty within 24 hours; provide prompt refunds; provide assistance to passengers with reduced mobility and passengers with special needs; meet passengers essential needs during long on-aircraft delays; take measures to speed up check in; reduce the number of passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding; provide information to passengers regarding commercial and operational conditions; provide information on the operating carrier; and be responsive to passengers' complaints.
Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) of 5 March 2002, Official Report, column 177W, on air traffic control, if the estimate provided included (a) the direct internal costs referred to in his answer of 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 742W, (b) controller relocation and training costs and (c) interim costs of expanding the West Drayton Centre while Swanwick was non-operational; and if he will make a statement; 
Mr. Jamieson: The figure of #623 million quoted in my answer of 5 March, comprises the capital and revenue costs, together with costs associated with bringing the system into operation (which include costs
26 Mar 2002 : Column 945W
of operation, maintenance and support of the Swanwick site). The figure includes the direct internal costs and the controller relocation and training costs, but not the interim costs of expanding the West Drayton centre prior to Swanwick becoming operational.
Lawrie Quinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will announce his decisions on the applications to extend the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line to the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Byers: When I gave approval on 20 November last to the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, I said that I shared the inquiry Inspector's view on the importance of these two proposed railway extensions to the case for approving the new terminal. I therefore imposed conditions requiring two railway extensions to be provided before the core terminal building is opened. I also said that I was minded to make the necessary Orders under the Transport and Works Act (TWA) authorising the proposed railway extensions, and to grant planning permission for this development.
I was, however, unable at that stage to grant the necessary approvals for the railway works. This was because I wished to attach planning conditions giving satisfactory control over the railway development, but these conditions had not been discussed at the inquiry. I therefore set out in my November letter the conditions I was minded to impose and invited comments. I have subsequently received comments from interested parties which have shown a good measure of agreement for the conditions I proposed, and which have helped me to finalise their wording.
I have therefore now decided to make the TWA Orders and to give planning approval for the Heathrow Express and Piccadilly Line extensions. Copies of both decision letters, which include the full sets of conditions for these works, have been placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the (a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership projects which have been delayed. 
Dr. Whitehead: In this Department, the only PPP/PFI project where contract signature is likely to be reached later than originally planned is the Health and Safety Laboratory Estate Rationalisation project which I expect to be signed shortly.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role his Department played in the transfer of (a) real estate and property and (b) other assets to the shadow PPP infracos. 
26 Mar 2002 : Column 946W
Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes relating to reputational externalities were made in the Ernst & Young, London underground PPPs Value for Money Review, between the receipt of a copy from Ernst & Young and the presentation of the copy to the House on 5 February; and if he will make a statement. 
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he intends to appoint an interim arbiter for the London Underground PPP; and under what powers and specification he is able to make such an appointment. 
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the ability of London Underground rolling stock to operate on main lines beyond the terminal points of the tube network. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 25 March 2002]: This is a matter for London underground (LU). LU's rolling stock is purpose-designed and the Underground uses a four-rail system and operates to different rules from the main line. These differences make it difficult for LU rolling stock to operate beyond the existing network. However, there are short sections of the main line over which LU has long standing running rights and which have been specially adapted for this purpose.
LU has carried out an assessment of a section where they plan to extend the Metropolitan line to Watford Junction (the Croxley Link). This involves a short section of new line and then a connection to the Euston/Watford Junction main lines.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the safety case that will be required to be conducted by the Health and Safety Executive before the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London; and what implications this has for contracts between infracos and London Underground under the PPP. 
Mr. Jamieson: London Underground, as the operator of trains, stations and infrastructure, is responsible for preparing a safety case. The Health and Safety Executive considers whether the safety arrangements made out in the case, if implemented, are capable of delivering safety.
HSE is currently considering London Underground's revision of its existing case, which sets out safety arrangements with its infrastructure companies in the private sector. Acceptance of these arrangements by HSE is necessary before the Tube modernisation plans can proceed. Whether a further revision will be necessary to cover transfer of London Underground to
26 Mar 2002 : Column 947W
Transport for London depends on the extent of any further changes to safety arrangements that may be involved.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which aspects of the modernisation plans for the London Underground have been set as requirements by his Department; and what the mechanism is by which these requirements have been set in each case. 
Mr. Jamieson: The Government do not have powers to set specific requirements in relation to London Underground's plans for the modernisation of the Tube. London Underground shares the Government's objectives of improving the Tube and ensuring that there should be no privatisation, that safety be maintained or improved and that the contracts should only go ahead if they represent value for money.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 736W, on London Underground, who in Government have been involved in the discussions on increased public grants to support the tube modernisation programme with Transport for London; on what dates discussions have take place; and what reference has been made to the infraco contracts in discussions with Transport for London; 
Mr. Jamieson: Tripartite discussions have begun between officials of my department, London Underground and Transport for London on the overall level of grant provision over the first seven and a half years of the Tube modernisation contracts. It is envisaged that a number of further discussions will take place between the three parties before the grant determination process is concluded.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 737W, on PPP Infracos, who has statutory powers to take over work from the London Underground PPP Infracos; and under what legislation. 
Mr. Jamieson: Under the plans for the modernisation of the Underground, three infrastructure companies will carry out work to maintain and modernise the Tube's infrastructure under contract to London Underground. The contracts provide powers for London Underground to take over the work of the infrastructure companies if necessary for safety or other reasons.
As referred to in my answer of 4 March 2002, Official Report, column 85W, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provides statutory powers for an infrastructure company to be managed under a PPP administration order.
26 Mar 2002 : Column 948W
revisions of the draft PPP contracts were received by his Department; on which dates; and what the reasons were for the revisions in each case. 
Mr. Jamieson: As stated in my answer of 7 March 2002, Official Report, column 555W, London Underground has shared revisions to draft contracts with DTLR throughout the process of developing the proposals for the modernisation of the Underground. Details of the number and dates of changes could only be provided as disproportionate cost. The reasons for any changes are a matter for London Underground, but throughout the aim has been to ensure that the public sector gets the best value for money overall.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what correspondence was received from (a) Transport for London, (b) the London Mayor and (c) London Transport on the London Underground PPP in the week preceding 7 February; and if he will place the correspondence in the Library. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Consistent with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information exemption on internal discussion and advice, it would not be appropriate to place such correspondence in the Library.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|