---

12 Mar 2003 : Column 256W—continued

Motorways

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the costs

12 Mar 2003 : Column 257W

of (a) congestion and (b) pollution relating to traffic on English motorways; and if he will make a statement. [101516]

Mr. Jamieson: My Department commissioned a study from the Institute for Transport Studies* at the University of Leeds. That study made the following estimates of congestion and pollution on motorways in Great Britain:

(a) Congestion costs: 12.8 pence per vehicle km


(b) Pollution costs: 0.35 to 1.83 pence per vehicle km


* Surface Transport Costs and Charges, Great Britain 1998, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds July 2001.

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefits of introducing congestion charging on motorways; and if he will make a statement. [101530]

Mr. Jamieson: No general assessment has been made.

Belfast International Airport

Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the reply by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) on 25 February 2003, Official Report, column 567W, on what occasions since 1994 Checkpoint 11 at Belfast International airport has been subject to a Department for Transport Cargo Inspection; and if he will make a statement. [102495]

Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 11 March 2003]: Checkpoint 11 is not subject to inspection by Department for Transport aviation security inspectors, as its presence is not a requirement under the National Aviation Security Programme. However, the cargo facility accessed via Checkpoint 11 is due to be visited by DfT inspectors shortly

Publicity Campaigns

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each publicity campaign of his Department and its predecessors over the period 1997–98 to 2002–03 that cost over £500,000, giving the cost in each case; and if he will make a statement. [101518]

Mr. Jamieson: The details of each advertising campaign for my department and its predecessors over the period 1997–98 to 2002–03 that cost over £500,000 are as follows:

1. Road safety campaign to promote safer road use behaviour, for example: not drinking and driving, speed reduction, child pedestrian and in car safety, fatigue and motorcycling. Advertising expenditure in each year was:

	£ million
1997–98	4.48
1998–99	4.63
1999–2000	5.18
2000–01	7.80
2001–02	9.85
2002–03	10

⁽²⁾ estimated outcome

2. In addition to road safety, three further campaigns were run by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.

(i) "Are You Doing Your Bit" campaign to promote awareness of actions which individuals could take to protect the local/global environment. Advertising began in March 1998 and continued until June 2001 when responsibility for the campaign transferred to DEFRA. Total advertising expenditure was £12.85 million.

(ii) Mayor and Assembly for London campaign to inform people about the voting process; explain responsibilities and encourage people to vote. It ran from February to May 2000. Advertising expenditure was £2.3 million. Prior to this campaign, £563k was committed over two years to raise awareness of the London Referendum and the consequences for the electorate.

(iii) A Foot and Mouth public information campaign aimed at publicising simple rules to be followed when visiting the countryside during the FMD outbreak and giving sources of further information.

It ran in March and April 2001. Advertising expenditure was £12 million.

3. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, also ran two further campaigns:

(i) Fire Kills—promoting fire safety messages, which in 2001–02 focused on smoke alarms and smoking materials. For details of expenditure on fire safety campaigns in 2001–02 and previous years I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 28 November 2002, Official Report, column 380W.

(ii) The Rough Sleepers Unit "Change a life" campaign encouraged the general public to volunteer their time, donate goods or give money to charities helping homeless people. It ran from November 2000 to January 2002 inclusive. Advertising expenditure was £500,000. Responsibility for fire safety and homelessness now rest with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

12 Mar 2003 : Column 258W

RailMail

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of RailMail on vehicle movements in London. [102420]

Mr. Jamieson: The Royal Mail Board has decided to review the future of the MailRail system for operational and commercial reasons. The company envisages only a handful of extra vehicles will be needed after MailRail is taken out of service, as a high proportion of the mail carried will be transported on existing vehicle routes.

Royal Mail is continually striving to reduce the impact of its vehicular traffic in London by contributing to reductions in congestion and CO2 emissions. The company has already seen a dramatic reduction in the number of miles and journeys undertaken by Royal Mail vehicles in the capital. For example, the switch of sorting NW postcode mail to Greenford from the London North Mail Centre, in Almeida Street, N1, cut the maximum journey time from 45 to just 25 minutes.

12 Mar 2003 : Column 259W

Railway Property (Birds)

Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent changes there have been or are planned to (a) legislation and (b) directions and guidance to the railway industry and local authorities, relating to the presence of birds on railway property. [99773]

Mr. Morley: I have been asked to reply.

All wild birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which implements the EC Wild Birds Directive. Licences can be issued under section 16 of the Act to derogate from this protection for specific reasons, such as public health and safety. There have not been any changes to the remit of this derogation power.

The Department does not issue directions or guidance to the railway industry or local authorities relating to the presence of wild birds on railway properties. However, where railway companies or local authorities propose to remove trees or scrub from railway properties, my Department would advise that such work is undertaken outside of the breeding and rearing season.

London Underground

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) train, (b) track and (c) signalling maintenance staff have left the employment of LUL in each year since 1997; and what the total number of each was in each year since 1997. [102394]

Mr. Jamieson: Detailed staff issues of this nature are a matter for London Underground management.

Railways

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the budget of his Department and its predecessors has been spent on railways in each year from 1983–84 to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [101531]

Mr. Jamieson: The percentage of the total Departmental Expenditure Limit spent, or planned to be spent, on railways in each year from 1998–99 to 2005–06 is shown in the table. (Figures for earlier years are not comparable, owing to the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting.)

	Percentage
1998–99	28.7
1999–2000	22.3
2000–01	20.7
2001–02	28.2
2002–03	30.3
2003–04	35.2
2004–05	33.9
2005–06	36.8

Airport Development

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003, Official Report, column 795W, on airport development, what rate of return was assessed in section 14.4 of the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report for each of the Cliffe

12 Mar 2003 : Column 260W

options; and how far the assessed rates of return for the Cliffe options fell below the target rate of return, measured as a percentage of the target rate. [102299]

Mr. Jamieson: The financial appraisal undertaken in the SERAS study indicates that, using airport charges current at the time the analysis was undertaken, the Internal Rate of Return generated by the four runway Cliffe option was some 7 per cent. against a target rate of return of 12.5 per cent.

The principal results of the financial appraisal of different airport options are presented in the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report (section 14.4). Chapter seven of the SERAS Financial Modelling and Analysis report sets out the detailed results of the financial analysis. Both reports are available in the House Libraries.

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the ranking of assessed rates of return for the development options listed in section 14.4 of the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report. [102300]

Mr. Jamieson: The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of different airport options is presented in Table 14.11 of the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report. The financial analysis applied airport charges current at the time the analysis was undertaken. Table 14.11 also gives some indication of the sensitivity of IRRs to other sources of additional revenue.

Chapter seven of the SERAS Financial Modelling and Analysis report sets out the detailed results of the financial analysis and is available in the House Libraries.

---