---

17 May 2004 : Column 715W—continued

Light Rail

Mr. Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps his Department is taking to encourage the building of light rail systems; and if he will make a statement; [171956]

(2) what assessment he has made of whether the target for 25 light rail systems set out in the 10-Year Transport Plan will be met. [171957]

Mr. McNulty: The Department recognises that light rail can bring significant benefits in some places, but has always been concerned with what works best locally and represents value for money, this may or not be light rail; it is not in the business of promoting one mode over another. The 10-Year Plan for Transport stated that up to 25 new light rail lines might be affordable with the 10-Year Plan provision subject to passing the Department's value for money criteria.

MOTs

John Thurso: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the MOT computerisation system to be fully operational. [172136]

Mr. Jamieson: The computerised MOT service is due   to go live on 29 November 2004. It will take approximately six months for Siemens Business Services to install computer terminals into all MOT testing stations and train station staff. Consequently, it will be June 2005 before all MOT testing is expected to be conducted using the new service. It will be a further year before there will be an electronic test record of every vehicle subject to test for re-licensing purposes.

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the monies raised from MOT garages as a result of increased MOT certificate fees have been used. [173891]

Mr. Jamieson: All monies raised from MOT certificate fees have been credited to the MOT Scheme account. The funds have been used to finance MOT administration and enforcement activities and the costs incurred on the MOT Computerisation Project.

Any surpluses on the MOT schemes are identified in our Annual Report and Accounts and it is the intention to balance the scheme on a year-by-year basis.

Nettleton Bottom/Brockworth

Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the
 
17 May 2004 : Column 716W
 
Highways Agency about the possibility of building a tunnel from Nettleton Bottom to the Brockworth Bypass, Gloucestershire; what advice he received from that body on this option; and if he will make a statement; [173791]

(2) what instructions he gave to the Highways Agency with regard to further investigations regarding improving the A417 between Nettleton Bottom and the Brockworth Bypass, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement; [173792]

(3) what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of (a) building a tunnel and (b) the current favoured option of the Highways Agency to improve the A417 between Nettleton Bottom and the Brockworth Bypass, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement; [173793]

(4) what estimate he has made of the cost of building a tunnel from Nettleton Bottom to the Brockworth Bypass, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [173794]

Mr. Jamieson: The interim findings of an environmental study, undertaken by the Highways Agency, to look at options for improving the length of A417 from Cowley to Brockworth were published in a pamphlet in March 2003. The tunnel option was discarded as a result of its high cost (at around £200 million), environmental impact and the implications for road safety. In the light of this the Highways Agency was asked to continue work on various surface options. This work is continuing in liaison with the statutory environmental bodies and other stakeholders. I expect to receive further advice on these options later this year. I will then consider the way forward and make an announcement.

Radioactive Materials

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether radioactive materials may be legally transported (a) on passenger ferries and (b) through the Channel Tunnel. [173476]

Mr. Jamieson: The information requested is as follows:

(a) Yes. The transport of radioactive material on passenger ferries is permissible subject to the safety requirements and restrictions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, Amendment 31–02, as required by The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 2367); Merchant Shipping Notice No. M 1772(M), "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Packaged Form—Amendment 31–02 to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code" and, where applicable, The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel etc.) (INF Code) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 3216).

(b) Yes. Transport through the Channel Tunnel of limited amounts of radioactive material complying with RID ¹ /ADR ² is permissible only as authorised through Eurotunnel Freight by prior agreement between the manufacturer/producer and Eurotunnel. Radioactive
 
17 May 2004 : Column 717W
 
material other than that in/as Excepted Packages is further restricted to new manufactured goods in their original packaging.

¹  Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) Appendix B. Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) Annex 1 Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID) 2001 Edition.

²  European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) 2001 Edition.

Road Schemes

Mr. Flook: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions on which his Department has asked regional assemblies to choose between alternative road schemes, broken down by region; and on what date assembly meetings were held to consider such alternatives. [173483]

Mr. Jamieson: The choice between alternative road scheme options is made by Ministers, not regional assemblies. However, through the regional planning process, the programme of multi-modal and road based studies, and the Highways Agency's consultation processes, we have obtained the views of regional assemblies on all trunk road and motorway schemes considered for entry to the Targeted Programme of Improvements, including, where relevant, their views on the choice between alternative scheme options. Given the number of schemes that have been subject to these processes since the establishment of the Targeted Programme of Improvements, it is not practicable to list all of the occasions on which the views of the regional assemblies have been sought or the dates of assembly meetings at which scheme proposals and alternative scheme options have been considered.

Port Security

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for vetting the histories of applicants to become (a) port facility security officers and (b) airport security officers; and what the vetting process is. [169960]

Mr. Jamieson: Both port facility security officers and airport security officers are required to undergo appropriate vetting procedures. This is carried out by the vetting section of my Department's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC) in conjunction with other Government Agencies.

No Government clearance will be issued until we are satisfied the person in question does not pose a security threat. The vetting process includes stringent reference checks over a number of years, and a verification process to ensure no inexplicable gaps.

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much time it takes to train (a) port facility security officers and (b) airport security officers. [169961]

(2) whether the level of training given to port facility security officers will have to be reviewed for the UK to be compliant with the International Ship and Port Facility Code to be implemented by the UK on 1 July. [170066]

 
17 May 2004 : Column 718W
 

Mr. Jamieson: My Department's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC) is responsible for developing the required training standards and course criteria for Port and Airport Security Officers.

In order to comply with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) Code, all Port Facility Security Officers (PFSOs) must have completed a TRANSEC approved PFSO course.

Under the UK National Aviation Security Programme all staff carrying out listed security activities at UK airports have to receive mandatory training modules applicable to their duties.

TRANSEC carries out regular audits of training providers to ensure high standards and compliance with legal requirements.

---