Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which division of his Department is leading engagement with EU authorities to establish a cross-border data sharing process for criminal and administrative matters. 
We agree with the European Commissions conclusion that legislation on car efficiency is necessary. The target should be challenging but achievable. A target for average new car tailpipe CO2 emissions of 130 g/km is, in principle, around the right level. But more work will be necessary to examine the feasibility and impacts of this target (including full impact assessments
and consultation) before making any final decisions. Similarly, there will need to be careful consideration of how the target should be structured. We will continue to engage actively in discussions at the EU level, and we will also be calling on the European Commission to develop longer term targets in order to give the car industry greater certainty.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate (a) the number of cars registered in a non-EU or non-EEA country being used on the roads in the United Kingdom and (b) the number of such vehicles which have been so used for more than 12 months. 
Dr. Ladyman: Foreign registered vehicles that are temporarily brought into the United Kingdom by overseas residents are usually exempt from UK registration and licensing. The exemptions state that a vehicle which is properly registered and taxed in its home country may be used by the visitor for up to six months in 12 without being subject to domestic registration and licensing requirements.
Dr. Tony Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to bring to a conclusion the review of policy for service areas and other roadside facilities on motorways and all purpose trunk roads in England; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) when he expects the Highways Agency to report to him on draft revised guidance following the consultation on policy for service areas and other roadside facilities on motorways and all purpose trunk roads in England; 
(3) how long he expects the consultation period to be for the revised proposals on policy for service areas and other roadside facilities on motorways and all purpose trunk roads in England; and when he expects to issue final policy guidance on these matters; 
(4) what the final timetable is for the completion of the remaining stages of the review of policy for service areas and other roadside facilities on motorways and all purpose trunk roads in England. 
Dr. Ladyman: A 12-week public consultation on The Review of Policy for Service Areas and other Roadside Facilities on Motorways and All Purpose Trunk Roads was launched on 16 November 2006 and ended on 8 February 2007.
The Highways Agency is now preparing a report of the responses to this initial consultation and expects to publish it by Easter. A draft policy will then be produced which will be subject to a further six-week public consultation in line with Cabinet Office guidelines.
Dr. Tony Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the reasons are for the time taken to undertake the Highways Agency's consultation on policy for service areas and other roadside facilities on motorways and all purpose trunk roads in England. 
Dr. Ladyman: In line with Cabinet Office guidance, the Highways Agency was obliged to consult fully with relevant stakeholders, collect sufficient evidence and to analyse this in order to produce a draft revised policy for further public consultation.
Gillian Merron: Local authorities have the power under the Road Traffic Act 1984 to make Traffic Regulation Orders that, among other things, put in place parking restrictions such as zig-zag markings outside schools. Where a local authority has Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) power it may enforce a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Otherwise it is for the police to enforce.
Gillian Merron: The Government welcome the development by Transport for London of London Works to assist London's highway authorities in the management of works in the highway across London. The Department for Transport has had no role in its development.
Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to improve security on (a) underground trains, (b) overland trains, (c) rail terminals and (d) bus terminals since 2005. 
Mr. Tom Harris: The Department is security regulator for transport industries including the rail network in Great Britain and the London underground. We maintain a risk-driven protective security regime based on assessments of the terrorist threat prepared by the Security Service.
The London attacks in July 2005 necessitated the raising of security measures to their highest level, with a package of supplementary measures deployed by rail and underground operators. In response to the London attacks we also developed, in consultation with industry and the police, specific best practice guidance for the bus and coach sector.
It is not appropriate to discuss the specific details of our current or any potential future counter-terrorist security measures on public transport to avoid potentially compromising their effectiveness. However, it is important to remember that our rail and underground networks, and bus services, are open systems and it is therefore impracticable to impose the sort of security regimes seen at our airports.
Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding his Department has made available to (a) Network Rail, (b) Transport for London and (c) British Transport Police to improve transport security since 2005. 
Mr. Tom Harris: The Strategic Rail Authority provided Network Rail with £16.5 million for the capital costs of the London major stations CCTV upgrade. The upgrade comprised the provision of digital recording systems and the replacement of analogue camera systems with digital ones.
Transport for London (TfL) is funded via a block grant and for 2006-07 this will be a total £2.38 billion, a rise of over £700 million from 2003-04. Within this grant it is an operational decision for TfL to determine funding for security.
Most of the funding BTP receives is from the rail industry; however, the DfT provides capital funding. The capital funding BTP received from DfT in 2005-06 and 2006-07 amounted to £12.5 million and £10 million respectively. In addition to this the Department provided £3.6 million as a contribution to the costs of dealing with the London bombings in July 2005. This money was used to fund a variety of capital developments and improvements such as communications and information systems, fleet replacement and modernisation and accommodation improvements. All of this expenditure improved the capacity of BTP to detect and prevent crime and to improve the security and safety of the railways.
David Maclean: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with his consideration of plans for a new railway line between Penrith and Keswick in Cumbria; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Tom Harris: The Department for Transport has not, to my knowledge, received a business case in relation to this proposal. Without a business case it is not possible to consider the proposal or make any kind of statement. The business case would need to detail the scheme and the proposed sources of funding and demonstrate that it offered value for money.
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the expected change in train passenger numbers over the next 10 years is; and what steps his Department plans to take to deal with increases in such estimates. 
Mr. Tom Harris: The Department for Transport is in the course of assessing the future volume of train passenger numbers as part of the analysis underpinning the forthcoming High Level Output Specification, which will specify the improvements that the Secretary of State wishes to secure over the period 2009-14.
Mr. Tom Harris: The Government will continue to take steps to increase the capacity of the railways through the franchising process, and through the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) and the longer term strategy framework, both of which will be published this summer 2007.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2007, Official Report, column 1455W, on Railways: Thames Valley, on what basis future likely passenger demand is being assessed; what methods are being used to derive these figures; and whether data for the work are being derived from passenger surveys. 
Mr. Tom Harris: Passenger demand forecasts for the railway are derived from industry standard forecasting tools which draw upon forecasts of population and employment changes, economic growth and other related factors. Demand data upon which future forecasts are based are derived from analysis of ticket sales and passenger counts and surveys, such as the London Area Travel Surveys (LATS).
40 Melton street,
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the development of ultra-light rail systems in new sustainable communities. 
Mr. Tom Harris: Department for Transport Ministers regularly meet with ministerial colleagues in the course of performing their ministerial duties. It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings.
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many representations have been received by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency requesting the recall of Renault Clio/Campus cars in relation to concerns about design of the bonnet catch mechanism; and what steps are being taken; 
VOSA has checked both the main catch and the safety catch of Renault Clio II vehicles and has found no evidence of a design or construction defect. The evidence indicates that any problems are most likely to be due to inadequate maintenance and incorrect closing of the bonnet.
We understand that Renault has nevertheless agreed to contact all Renault Clio II customers as soon as is practicable inviting them to have a free check carried out at their nearest Renault dealership. We also understand that where poor maintenance is detectedand the bonnet catch mechanism has suffered resulting damageRenault will replace the mechanism free of charge as a gesture of good will.