---

27 Apr 2004 : Column 889W—continued

European Rail Directives

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost assessment has been carried out by his Department of the implementation of the European Rail Directives package proposed by the EU Commission; and what consultations he has had with (a) the rail industry, (b) the trade unions in the rail sector and (c) elected representatives on their implementation. [168094]

Mr. Darling: An initial assessment of the financial implications of the EC Third Railways Package was included with the Explanatory Memorandum submitted to Parliament on 30 March 2004. This assessment concluded that implementation of certain aspects of the package as proposed by the European Commission could have significant adverse financial implications for sections of the UK rail industry.

My Department has had a number of discussions with rail industry parties about this package both before, and after, its publication. In particular, around 30 industry and user representatives attended a seminar held on 2 April. These discussions are continuing. A formal consultation document is being prepared. Comments will be sought from a wide range of parties including trade unions in the rail sector.

The Government's negotiating position on this package is subject to scrutiny clearance by both Houses. The Scrutiny Committees are currently considering the    Department's Explanatory Memorandum. The Department has not received any other representations from elected members on this package.
 
27 Apr 2004 : Column 890W
 

M62 Widening

Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for widening the M62 between junctions 25 and 32 in West Yorkshire; what the planned timetable is for the work; and what the estimated total cost is. [167053]

Mr. Jamieson: In July 2003 the Secretary of State asked the Highways Agency to examine new ways of delivering additional capacity on suitable sections of the motorway network in South and West Yorkshire, which includes the M62. Their study is under way and is due to report to the Secretary of State in autumn 2004 with detailed proposals for levels of provision, timetables for delivery and estimated costs.

Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what alternatives to carriageway widening schemes are being considered to address congestion on the M62 in West Yorkshire. [167054]

Mr. Jamieson: In July 2003 the Secretary of State asked the Highways Agency to examine new ways of delivering additional capacity on suitable sections of the motorway network in South and West Yorkshire, including the M62. They are currently looking at a wide range of alternatives to widening. These include:

Use of narrower lanes

Use of the hard shoulder to provide an extra running lane

Provision of Emergency Refuges

Controlled access to the motorway

Better information for travellers.

The agency is due to report to the Secretary of State with the results of the study in autumn 2004.

National Rail Enquiries

Mr. Best: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the quality of service given by the National Rail Enquiries Service (a) before and (b) after part of the service was outsourced overseas; [167729]

(2) if he will make a statement on the decision of train operating companies to off-shore part of the National Rail Enquiries Service. [168661]

Mr. McNulty: The contracting of call centre suppliers to operate the National Rail Enquiry Service is a matter for National Rail Enquiry Services Ltd.

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he has held talks with the Strategic Rail Authority about the relocation of the National Rail Enquiry Bureau to India; how many jobs have been lost in the United Kingdom as a result; what the cost has been to the taxpayer of any benefits or grants to staff made redundant from the Bureau; and if he will make a statement; [168092]

(2) what calculations have been made of the sum of money to be returned to his Department by the train operating companies following the relocation of the National Train Enquiry Bureau to India. [168165]

Dr. Howells: The Government do not make subsidy payments to National Rail Enquiry Service Ltd., the company which contracts with call centre suppliers to operate the NRES service. NRES have said that any
 
27 Apr 2004 : Column 891W
 
cost savings would be ploughed back into improving passenger services. With the flexibility of the call centre industry, the Government hope that any redundancies brought about by the recent contract changes would be kept to a minimum. I have held no talks with the Strategic Rail Authority about this matter.

Offshore Wind Farms

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has been asked to fund navigational aids to prevent vessels colliding with wind turbines. [168265]

Mr. Darling: The costs of providing aids to navigation to prevent vessels colliding with offshore installations are to be met by the developers. The General Lighthouse Authorities set the standard for such marking and will monitor its provision. Developers may also expect to meet the reasonable costs of altering existing aids to navigation if required as a result of their installations.

Rail Services Review

Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Treasury's review of rail services to be complete; and if he will make a statement. [167514]

Mr. Darling: The current review of the railway industry being undertaken by the Department for Transport will publish its conclusions in the summer.

Railways

Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost per mile of railway line maintenance for each contractor. [168007]

Mr. McNulty: This is an operational matter for Network Rail. However, Network Rail advises that expenditure on the maintenance of any mile of track will depend on the type of track, its age, and the underlying ground conditions, the types of trains that that run on the route, their speed and frequency.

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the subsidy to train operators is used to finance the leasing of rolling stock. [168177]

Mr. McNulty [holding answer 26 April 2004]: Franchise agreements with train operating companies specify franchise payments, whether subsidy or premium, but do not break the figures down into individual components such as rolling stock costs.

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the average payment is per year to lease a unit of rolling stock; [168178]

(2) what the average cost is of a unit of rolling stock. [168180]

Mr. McNulty [holding answer 26 April 2004]: Rolling stock building and leasing costs vary widely. A two car Pacer, for example, will have cost about £500,000 to build at present prices and is likely to cost an operator in the region of £50,000 per year to lease. A more modern two car train, such as a Class 170, would command an annual rent of around £170,000 per year, reflecting substantially higher build costs.
 
27 Apr 2004 : Column 892W
 

Shipping (Security)

Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will meet the compliance deadline of 1 July for implementation of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code; what steps his Department is taking to meet this deadline; how many UK ships and ports have reached the required standard to date; and if he will make a statement. [167637]

Mr. Jamieson: The Department for Transport's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC) has the policy lead and is responsible for introducing the ISPS Code requirements to approximately 600 UK port facilities and over 600 UK flagged ships by the deadline of the 1 July 2004. Operationally TRANSEC is responsible for UK ports and passenger shipping, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has been delegated responsibility for non-passenger shipping, under a policy framework set by TRANSEC.

The UK has made excellent progress towards implementation and there is every expectation that all UK flagged ships and port facilities that submit acceptable security plans by the deadlines set by TRANSEC and MCA, will be ISPS compliant by the 1 July deadline.

TRANSEC have carried out port facility security assessments at facilities which fall within the scope of the Code and have categorised them by traffic type. Both TRANSEC and MCA have issued security instructions and standards for different categories of port and ship facilities, and have provided port and ship security plan   templates to assist industry with the preparation of their security plans. Liaison with the port and shipping industries has played a fundamental part in developing effective and proportionate policies and this communication is on-going.

It is not our policy to comment in detail on security measures. Therefore, I cannot set out in detail the number of ships or port facilities that already have approved Security Plans. However, all of the major UK ports including the passenger operations have been assessed and Port Facility Security Plans are currently being submitted for approval. Passenger and non-passenger ship security plans are currently being submitted to TRANSEC and MCA for approval and verification visits are being undertaken by inspectors to    ensure that the plans developed are operating effectively.

---