Mr. Morley: Tamworth constituency is situated in the centre of the Glascote water supply zone of South Staffordshire Water plc. I am advised by the independent Drinking Water Inspectorate that all of the 1,384 tests carried out by the water company in this zone in 2005 have met the strict European drinking water standards.
Although unrelated to the quality of the drinking water supply, there has been recent local concern about the Glascote service reservoir which stores treated water. A nearby residential property is the subject of flooding and, as a consequence, the structural integrity of the reservoir was questioned. South Staffordshire
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1612W
Water plc have inspected and tested the reservoir and there is no evidence of leakage or damage. The flooding problem at the property is now being dealt with by Tamworth borough council.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with water companies on their ability to protect vulnerable individuals in the event of a breakdown in water supplies; and if she will publish (a) the protocol for identifying such individuals and (b) guidance on how support will be provided to them. 
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, issued a Security and Emergency Measures Direction in 1998 which sets requirements on water companies in relation to emergency planning and in dealing with water emergencies. In the event of a failure of the piped water supply, water companies are required to give priority to the domestic needs of the sick, the elderly, the disabled, hospitals, schools and other vulnerable sectors of the population. The minimum amount of water to be provided to all domestic customers when such a failure occurs is 10 litres per head per day. Those vulnerable customers who are housebound will be provided with supplies of bottled water. Water companies maintain a list of their vulnerable customers based on information provided by the customers, and in liaison with local authorities, health agencies and other support bodies.
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1613W
Mr. Newmark: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of constructing a new tunnel or bridge to cross the Braintree to Liverpool Street railway line for the proposed southern route of the A120. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Highways Agency has included an estimated cost of £2 million in the A120 scheme proposals for the crossing of the Braintree to Liverpool Street railway. That cost will be reviewed as the scheme develops.
Dr. Ladyman: The Highways Agency has included an estimated cost of £500,000 in the A120 scheme proposals for the bridge crossing the River Brain. That cost will be reviewed as the scheme design is developed.
Mr. Newmark: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether an assessment has been made of the likely impact on the A120 Proposed Southern Route of the additional heavy goods vehicle movements which are expected under plans to build a waste disposal plant on Rivenhall airfield. 
Dr. Ladyman: No information on the waste disposal plant was available at the time the public consultation took place on the A120 Braintree to Marks Tey Improvement scheme. A proposal was submitted by developers in August 2005 after the public consultation period had ended.
Mr. Newmark: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the public consultation on the expansion of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey complied with the Cabinet Office's code of practice on consultation in relation to the (a) necessary publicity within affected areas, (b) location of consultation exhibitions and (c) publication and distribution of consultation documents. 
Dr. Ladyman: The Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations applies to national consultations. The public consultation for the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey was local. However, the code of practice advises that the criteria should be applied wherever possible to local consultation.
The Highways Agency applied the principles of the code to its recent public consultation on route options for the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey in relation to publicity, location of exhibitions and publication and distribution of consultation documents.
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1614W
Mr. Newmark: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account was taken of the construction costs of the new crossings required by the A120 proposed southern route when judging whether the scheme achieved best value. 
Mr. Newmark: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the costs of the effect on railway services between Braintree and London Liverpool Street of the construction of a crossing for the proposed A120 southern route. 
Should a railway crossing be required, any work to provide a crossing of the railway line would be taken forward in discussion with Network Rail with the aim of minimising disruption to the railway and passengers.
Mr. Newmark: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the costs were of (a) stabilising and (b) rerouting electricity lines included in the total project budget for the A120 proposed southern route. 
Dr. Ladyman: A preliminary estimate of £180,000 including VAT at present day prices has been obtained from EDF for the cost of stabilising and rerouting of electricity lines for the proposed A120 southern route. Major national grid power lines are to be avoided.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he expects (a) Luton, (b) London City, (c) Liverpool and (d) East Midlands airport to be designated under section 25 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 in the next three years; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Buck: On 21 November the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the Government would shortly commence an independent review of policing at airports. It will be a wide ranging review that it is expected will make recommendations by spring 2006. Until the review has been completed, it would not be appropriate to consider e designation of any additional airports.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 30 November 2005, Official Report, column 558W, on airports (security costs), (1) how much each named airport has paid in policing costs for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; 
12 Dec 2005 : Column 1615W
Ms Buck: The costs of policing at non-designated airports such as those at Luton, Liverpool, London City and East Midlands is a matter for the local chief constable and the police authority, as the aerodrome manager is not obliged under section 25 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 to make a contribution. If the aerodrome manager has entered into a voluntary funding agreement with the chief constable, that is a commercial decision and not a matter to which the Secretary of State is a party.
The costs of policing at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick, all of which are designated airports, are a matter for agreement between the aerodrome manager and the relevant police authority. Only if the aerodrome manager or the police authority ask the Secretary of State to make a determination under s26(3) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 does the matter of costs become a matter for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State announced on 21 November 2005 that amendments to these provisions will be tabled in the Civil Aviation Bill which is currently being considered in another place.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the introduction of new security measures at North American airports for passengers travelling from the UK. 
Ms Buck [holding answer 8 December 2005]: Responsibility for security measures at US airports rests with the US Government. As at airports in the UK and elsewhere, such measures typically evolve over time, and changes sometimes prompt representations to the Department.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the transportation security administration regarding the screening of baggage for passengers travelling from theUK. 
Ms Buck [holding 8 December 2005]: Responsibility for security screening at airports in the USA rests withthe US Government, with whom we maintain a continuing dialogue across the full range of aviation security matters, including baggage screening.